Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July

< June 2008	Deletion review archives	August 2008 >

31 July 2008

Prem chand pandey – Deletion endorsed – Davewild (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Submitting on behalf of Ashok rp, no opinion yet from me GRBerry 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added links for deleted article Imtial -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I got proper time then I will try to write article Prof. Prem Chand Pandey, Founder Director, NCAOR, I asure you Dr. Prem C. Pandey, IIT Bombay is another person and Prof. Prem CHand Pandey, Emeritus Professor IIT Kharagpur is retired person from NCAOR, Goa as a Foundation time director when only official land was aquired and no single quarter was there in 1997. and in 1998 it is officially registered ans NCAOR, goa. He was HOD of MOG group SAC/ISRO, Ahmedabad upto 1996. I have not used single link of PC Pandey, IIT Bombay, but may be repeated link for Prem Chand Pandey it may be improve.

Prem chand pandey student of Allahabad-1972, belongs ISRO/DOD/IIT Kgp and [ http://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~pcpandey/Prem C. Pandey] belongs IIT B and was student of BHU and junior in edge some unexperienced person have used all refernces of Prem chand pandey in this article As Allahabad resident academic person having back ground in Purvanchal I am familiar with activities of Dr. Pandey

i thinks all references in case of Prem chand pandey is belong with Earth and planetary science discussion or environmental or oceanographic related centres discussion and much more related ecxactly refernces as NCAOR director as you will not get single references of NCAOR, Director Dr. PC pandeyProf. Prem Chand Pandey and Second and present Director Shri Rashik Ravindra on any google web page serch or you can take personally the history of Director ships at NCAOR. yes Bhaskar Rao was workink director for some time there after retirement of first director Dr. P.C. Pandey.

Then why you hesitate if pc pandey's iit bombay's reference I have not submitted to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok rp (talk • contribs)

That is hardly comprehensible, but I gather that we once had at Prem C. Pandey an article. Its lead pointed at Dr. Prem C. Pandey of the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay [3], but much of the rest at another scientist of the same name, Prem Chand Pandey, Emeritus Professor, Oceans, Rivers, Atmosphere and Land Sciences of the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur[4]. This rather incomprehensible article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prem C. Pandey and later protected. Now an article at Prem chand pandey about the professor from from IIT Kharagpur, has been deleted as repost, incidentally by the same editor who originally nominated the AfD, who in any case still needs to be notified of this thread. This speedy deletion is now being contested. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have parsed the request correctly. It was misfiled on the DRV/Active instead of the daily log, so I moved it here. Looking at the protection log, it was also in February recreated at Prem Chand Pandey, and deleted under WP:CSD#G4 there. Full set of links at the top now. GRBerry 14:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One part of the passage above reads I will try to write article Prof. Prem Chand Pandey, Founder Director, NCAOR. It seems that we're being told this is not the same person as another Prem C. Pandey. ¶ Prem C. Pandey was largely and I think exclusively about the person at NCAOR. (Hard to be sure, because it was in such idiosyncratic prose.) It was deleted as the result of an AfD. Prem Chand Pandey and Prem chand pandey were largely and I think exclusively about the person at NCAOR (same caveat); both were deleted as re-creations of the article deleted via AfD. ¶ Like Tikiwont and GRBerry, I don't understand the appeal above. However, if it is "The article titled Prem C. Pandey was about somebody who didn't work at NCAOR but I want to write about somebody who did work in NCAOR", then my response is no, the first half of that is factually untrue. -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. (Remind me - my only involvement has been to protect Prem C. Pandey and Prem Chand Pandey - yes?) Before we look at the article, could I have an explanation of the apparent sock puppetry: Ashok rp and Ekbal anuj seem to be very similar in their activities. But to latch on to one small point: do I take it that the article proposed for restoration is similar to that currently at user:Ekbal anuj? That article refers to the Pandey in question having won the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievment Medal. The AfD discussion also mentions it. It seems to my simple and confused mind that the article being proposed for undeletion is about the same person as was discussed at the AfD. The AfD was pretty unanimous, there is no claim that the person has become notable in the last six month, so - endorse deletion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion unless a more comprehensible rationale for restoration is advanced. Ideally such a rationale would include details of which of the criteria at WP:BIO this person/these people meet(s), and citations from reliable sources that verify that. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ashok has provided on his talk page a user draft that I moved to User:Ashok rp/Prem Chand Pandey and invited them to comment here further. Basically he says that the Emeritus Professor at IIT Kharagpur, former NCAOR director and NASA medal winner should be notable enough for an article. I agree with RHaworth that this is the person previously discussed at AfD, though, but I will abstain here from an opinion. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Assuming the article in question is User:Ashok rp/Prem Chand Pandey. This could possibly be a suitable article, justifying a move to mainspace, but not yet. Clean it up. Be sure that the best independent secondary sources covering the subject are cited in the lead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have given you the entry it may be from old resources or new but if there are many person's are in notable list or in emeritus professor list or SSB Award list or NASA award list of wikipedia, then why Dr. Pandey's names should not be any where. I accept that in his main time he refused offer of NASA people to work for NASA but is in this global world America is not getting any benefit from India Human Resources, which was produced by Dr. Pandey like people. I was doing research on psychology of general wiki commented people on Dr. Prem Chand Pandey, they not know Indian Culture is oldest in the world and he belongs an oldest historical family of Indian Brahmin and he don't give extra value to any country's people. It was his drawback in other peoples eyes who are like a bubble in the modern world having no knowledge of brain power of Indian people and alway not seeing back the American History and only treating which american supported people well tell that will be only true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok rp (talk • contribs) 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please another person about which page you have confusion he have nothing to do with earth snd environmental science and he is electrical department professr in IIT Bombay and BHU Product. Prof. Prem C Pandey's profile [5] PCpandey iitb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok rp (talk • contribs) 09:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see Professor Prem Chand Pandey(Dr. P.C. Pandey),Emeritus Professor IIT Kharagpur, retired (Founder Director) NCAOR,Goa and University of Allahabad and SAC/ISRO Polar Remote Sensing Scientist he have nothing to do with electrical department. [6]and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok rp (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Seems enough evidence here that a speedy wasn't appropriate, and should at least have been an AFD. And perhaps not even that if the publications are as valid as they seem. Nfitz (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was an AfD. Look, a series of usernames and IP numbers, all writing in a single, distinctive style, have repeatedly been writing long and only intermittently comprehensible articles on one Prem Chand Pandey of NCAOR. You can see one of these even now at User:Ekbal anuj. The AfD was closed (by User:Bongwarrior) with "allow for possible future re-creation" but I presume that this was hurried shorthand for "allow for possible creation of an article on this person that intelligibly describes achievements that are not discernible here". -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That AfD appears to be for a different individual. According to the archive.org cache the article the previous article was for a professor in Electrical Engineering at Indian Institute of Technology Bombay in Mumbai. That page references his bio and the previous page also notes that he is at National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research in Goa - but that seems erroneous, and is an odd place for an Electrical Engineer, and is not at all mentioned on his bio. This new article seems to be for a professor in Oceans, Rivers, Atmosphere and Land Sciences at Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur which is confirmed by his bio. They are clearly two different people, and the AfD was for a different person so the Speedy was not appropriate. That the original article had an error with the NCAOR information seems to be part of the problem. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good sleuthing! But in the state in which I found the article immediately before I slapped the AfD template on it -- this state (unfortunately only visible to admins, who should also see the article history) -- the bit about the electrical engineer was pretty much unchanged and the huge majority was instead about Ashok rp's favorite, as even now written up here. Don't take my word for it, ask another admin to check. (Unfortunately Pandey's deletion seems to have predated Deletopedia and Deletionpedia.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yet another example of why this should be an AfD instead of a speedy. Your asking us to debate whether the article is valid, without letting us see the evidence; it just doesn't work. We don't have to accept the article. All we have to do is reject the speedy, and then judge the article on it's own merit - possibly with an AfD. I don't disagree that something might be amiss here. Perhaps we should not be restricting deleted articles to only a few people. Nfitz (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Would you like "temporary review"? If so, just say which form you'd like it in, and I or somebody else hereabouts will oblige. -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Presumably starting point for restoration would be User:Ashok rp/Prem Chand Pandey? Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This is pretty typical of the other versions, yes. But again, if you want "temporary review" of any of the others, just say so. -- Hoary (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok rp (talk)Now it will be clear what I have mensioned about Dr. Pandey's special co-operation in CORALs Department of IIT Kharagpur please see his involvment in all sponsored project list taken by CORALs IIT Khargpur Project list of CORALs IIT Kharagpur —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion - The speedy deletion was appropriate because the new version does not adequately address the deficiencies of the original, although it is a slight improvement. When I stated "allow for possible future re-creation" in the original AfD, I had hoped for a more concise, understandable version. Both versions of the article are so muddled that whatever notability exists is completely obscured. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This is part of a walled garden of articles promoting this individual and a small closed circle of family members, largely the work of Dr. vivek Kumar Pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and associated accounts (read sockpuppets), of whom Ashok rp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would seem to be but the latest. Serial vanispamcruftisement, enough already. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rielle Hunter – Keep deleted, consensus did not agree with restoring the userspace version – Davewild (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have a draft available for the article. I would like the article to be unprotected so that I can edit it. I am submitting the request here following the suggestion of RHaworth. David.Kane (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wrong way round! First tell us why you think there should be an article on this title. You can edit your existinbg draft. Unprotection is "automatic" if the decision is "re-instate". Anticipating a proper nomination, my view is: no opinion. I am pretty apathetic about politics here in the UK and as for American politics - yawn. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There should be an article on this subject because she is notable. See WP:BIO. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Consider all the secondary sources that mention her. Now, it is true that the main reason for her notability (the alleged affair and child) should not (pending better/other sources) be included in the article. But that does not change the fact that the subject is, in fact, notable. David.Kane (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a high potential for BLP/coatrack problems here. I've taken the current second sentence out of the book article twice because the source used is inadequate (partisan blog, referring to internet archive for something deleted from web, yet the internet archive link in the blog is not (now?) working). The more significant claim to notability is related to a politician article protected or semi-protected for almost the entire last week due to allegations involving this individual - and the editorial consensus was not to mention this name in that article. Unless you can demonstrate an article that clearly passes BLP muster and has enough other material to handle discussion of the allegations without becoming a coatrack, I'm not going to support this. GRBerry 06:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely that there is a high potential for problems here. But such potential is not reason enough to prevent an article if the subject is notable. I would be happy to lock down this article immediately or if problems develop. I agree that the editorial consensus at John Edwards was not to mention Hunter's name, which is why there is nothing in my draft which connects Hunter to Edwards. I also agree that the second sentence is problematic for the reasons you give. I will work on better sourcing. I am happy to have that sentence removed in the initial version. If Hunter is notable (and she is) and there is an editor willing to write an article which meets Wikipedia guidelines (and I am), there I do not see a reason to not have an article. But I am also an inexperienced editor, so if there is some section of the guidelines that relates to this, please let me know. David.Kane (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The way to show that coatrack won't be a problem is to provide (well-sourced, of course) a significant body of unrelated content. She is only notable by Wikipedia standards if you can find significant coverage that is primarily about her. GRBerry 13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The notability standards do not require me to find "significant coverage that is primarily about her." I need only show "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have done that. It does not matter that these articles are not "primarily about her." David.Kane (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline restoration at this stage. The subject does not pass WP:BIO because the draft article does not provide references to reliable sources covering her in adequate depth. So far, she seems to be notable only through her alleged involvement in an alleged political affair. Per WP:BLP1E, she should be covered only in the context of our coverage (if any) of that affair. Sandstein 07:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that WP:BLP1E is problematic for my case. I guess it comes down to whether or not she is involved in "one event." Monica Lewinsky, Donna Rice and Ashley Alexandra Dupré (to pick the first three examples that came to mind) are only notable for their relationships with famous politicians. If those articles belong in Wikipedia, then surely one about Hunter does. What makes their cases different? Wikipedia is already providing "coverage (if any) of that affair." So, the lack of such coverage is not a reason to deny this article. David.Kane (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline restoration at present, as per WP:BLP1E. You may note that our coverage of the situation is quite limited at the moment, specifically because mainstream media hasn't really picked it up and the world would lurch to a halt if we were to use the National Enquirer as a reliable source. The sandboxed article, moreover, does not assert notability, to my view. Outside of the allegations, she's not notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline restoration, I guess. The sandbox version of the article doesn't show how she's notable. Corvus cornix_talk 20:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, possibly redirect to Story of My Life. Agree with Tony Fox. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline restoration as per above. As an answer to WP:BLP1E, try showing that you name should be mentioned in at least two other wikipedia articles. The claim is that she is notable because of her connection to John Edwards, yet her name doesn't appear on that page! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline restoration - As others note above, this is a coatrack/POV magnet that serves little useful purpose. Though she's been thrust into the spotlight by tabloid accusations, she has no true encyclopedic notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Favour restoration Like David Kane, i think that there should be a Rielle Hunter (Lisa Druck) article. In addition to her work as a film-maker, and the alleged current connection to John Edwards, we also have the notability of her connection to the 1988 roman a clef novel Story of My Life written by her then-lover Jay McInerney: This well-known author has gone on record that the book's main character, named Alison Poole, was based on the real-life Druck (now Hunter). Google has 171,000 web pages on the search term <"Rielle Hunter"> in quotes, plus 6,020 for <"Lisa Druck"> in quotes, as well as 4,650 for the combined <"Lisa Druck" "Rielle Hunter"> together with each in quotes. To put the 171,000 "Rielle Hunter" pages in context, "Elvira Mistress of the Dark" produces a comparable 166,000 hits and Cassandra Peterson / Elvira has a Wikipedia entry. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being the subject of a popular novel is generally enough for us to write an article on said person unless there is evidence that the person is well known because of it, which I don't see from current sourcing. The only reason why people seem to care about who she is is because of the JE controversy. I'm sure you'd find countless novels with real life people as an inspiration most of them without articles on the people because the people were never/are not notable Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The is a fast moving controversy, so let me provide some updates. First, I have fixed the sourcing on Hunter's role as inspiration for the Alison Poole character in Story of My Life. Thanks to GRBerry for pointing this out. Second, she now appears in that Wikipedia entry. (And was not added there by me.) So, she passes a baseline level of notability. Third, now that Hunter has been linked to Edwards by McClatchy, it may be appropriate to add that as well to the (draft) entry. Thoughts? David.Kane (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest redirecting to John Edwards love child allegations. Kelly ^hi! 04:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ..which has now been speedily deleted as an attack page, a deletion which could well spawn its own DRV discussion. --Stormie (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the consensus at ANI was that article was not an attack page, and the article has been restored as John Edwards paternity allegations - though that is currently at AfD. Consensus seems to be leaning toward "keep", though it's still early. Kelly ^hi! 03:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline restoration. The brevity of the proposed article should make it clear that she is a non-notable person; WP:BLP#1E applies here. Furthermore, as others have said, such an article would quickly become a WP:COATRACK and a magnet for vandalism. Ms. Hunter doesn't need this article, and neither do we. Terraxos (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 July 2008

Cardassian Ships – Deletion Review request withdrawn – Davewild (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cardassian Dreadnought.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache| | article)
File:Hideki class.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache| | article)
File:Cardassian freighter1.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache| | article)
File:Keldon class.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache| | article)

~~Images can be claimed under fair use and is somewhat necessary to help visualize this design concept. — OranL (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn — OranL (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been more efficient to contact me at my talkpage if you need some fair-use deletion resolved—or any deletion, for that matter. If you're going to fix some old fair use rationale, it would be best to do dump a list of images, and not flood my talkpage with DRV notices, as DRV notices carry the conotation of "zOMG the abusive admin did a bad deletion. If it's one, it's fine, but three in a few minutes, startles me, for lack of a better word. Maxim_(talk) 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've combined the images into one DRV because they more than likely stand or fall together. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images were deleted for lack of a fair use rationale. Can you provide a rationale that meets all the requirements at WP:NFCC? (You might also explain at some stage why you brought the DRV without first attempting to resolve the issue with the deleting admin, like the instructions here explicitly say.) Stifle (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Stifle, if you can provide a valid fair-use rationale for them I see no problem with them being restored or re-uploaded. If you do indeed have a valid rationale I doubt there would have been a problem in just informing the deleting admin of that fact, making this DRV irrelevant. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 10:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Lack of fair use rationale, at times of deletions, and now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 1 August 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 July 2008

Edward P. Felt – Deletion and redirect endorsed, history undeleted purely for merging purposes. – Daniel (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page for Flight 93 passenger Edward P. Felt [7] was recently deleted [8]. The nominator claimed that it violated WP:ONEEVENT. However, when I nominated Flight 93 terrorist Ahmed al-Nami for deletion for the same reason, the page was kept [9]. Any cursory internet search shows much more information about Edward P. Felt than about the terrorist. In fact, I could not find a single reliable source where the terrorist was the primary subject. Edward P. Felt, on the other hand, is the primary subject of many entries. Both these individuals are known for the same event, but the more notable one had his page deleted. This is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Therefore, the page for Edward P. Felt should be restored. Steve8675309 (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before someone goes and yells "OMG WP:OTHERCRAP", the nom here does make a good point. It would likely make for an interesting discussion to review what was different, if anything, between those two AfDs. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment That's a question more for a sociologist than for DRV. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it would help us when considering similar AfDs in the future. This deletion review, after all. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
suggestion Maybe some of this content should be merged with United Airlines Flight 93? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am neutral on the DRV, but I think if it is endorsed, there should be a redirect to United Airlines Flight 93 here. I have boldly done so (with a DRV tag explaining it) --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- while bold, it has removed the cached version from Google so we can no longer review it. Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, fiddlesticks. Sorry. Well, the history should probably be restored anyways if the redirect goes in place, if that's the result. Can it be done? --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment The victims are less notable for encyclopedic purposes than the hijackers. One group were incidental to the event, the other caused it. I have no objection to the redirect. DGG (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both AfDs were close, but there is no apparent procedural problem. I imagine that a good article could be written despite WP:BLP1E on the basis of good independent secondary sources covering the subject. Things appear in goodle. I'd guess that there are books covering all of the victims. Create the article in userspace. Restore the history and talk page, but maintain as a redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep in mind that there were 40 victims and only 4 highjackers. In the entire incident there were 3,000 murders, over 6,000 injuries, and only 19 highjackers. It's not unreasonable to see that there perhaps should be articles for those who perpetrated this. Also in cases of murder, it's customary to have an article for the murderer, but not the victim. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) (which isn't finalised) suggests that there should not be an article for the victim, unless they were otherwise notable, and that there shouldn't be an article for the Perpetrator, unless they are otherwise notable, they killed a famous figure, or the motivation or "execution of the crime is unusual". And the execution of this crime was indeed most unusual. Though I don't see any reason the 4, or even 19, highjackers wouldn't have a single article. Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note WP:NOT#PAPER. We can have 3000 pages for the victims, as long as there is different source-based encylopedic content (whatever that means) in each article. We could also easily have 3000 redirects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Al nami’s page was kept in spite of the facts that Felt is more notable and more is known about Felt’s actions during the incident both of them are known for. If wiki wants to claim it’s neutral, Felt’s page should be restored. Steve8675309 (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Normally there are not pages for victims of crime for which this is their only claim to fame. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse One event notability as a crime victim has been established by long-standing consensus as inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Westboro Baptist Church (Ottawa) – Deletion endorsed. Clearly there is disagreement over whether churches are buildings or organizations, and therefore microscopic surgery could be done to determine if A7 applies. But, alas, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and therefore we are able to consider these articles in a sensible context without worrying aboyt the global effect of our decision. There was certainly consensus that these articles lacked assertion of sufficient notability, and therefore their deletion is endorsed. No predudice against creation of new articles under these names which address the concerns. I would suggest making userfied versions first to avoid possible speedies. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'll just repost what I said on the deletor's talk page: I don't see how you can consider that church (which incidentally predates three provinces and two territories) as not notable. The article notes the role it had in the development of Westboro village and bringing in and supporting the Ottawa Baptist community, it has a larger congregation than the eponymous US church and its name has brought it much infamous attention. It and All Saint's Anglican are the two big main churches in the area and it's also has the only Montessori programme in the immediate area. I always planed to add more info (and noticed the deletion because I was going to) but I thought it already had enough info to allay any notability concerns. Moreover, churches with less history, less importance and less information remain here on the Wiki, but this one was deleted? You should have put in a notability tag on the article or contacted me with any concerns or at the very least put it up for a deletion vote, especially considering your unfamiliarity on the topic, instead of unilaterally deciding it didn't have importance and speedy deleting it. Regardless, it is an important church today and had an important impact on the development of Ottawa, please restore the article.

What I find really questionable is the capricious and spurious nature of the speedy deletion especially considering the nescience of the deletor in regards to the topic, the confusing explanation of "Doesn't indicate importance or significance" despite the historical section demonstrating its significance in the early development of the Ottawa region and the complete lack of anyone else having had issue with the content or quality of the article. And given his unfamiliarity on the topic, why didn't the deletor first attempt to either put a tag or post on the article's talk page or send me a note to inform me of his notability concerns or at the most, nominate it for deletion? D'Iberville (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There really wasn't anything there that asserted imporance much, I'd have to agree, but I still will argue to overturn because I'm loath to give A7 ground over churches. I'd much rather see an AfD for this, though I do believe it isn't likely it'll be kept. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The faux outrage here is irritating. I made perfectly clear that I was happy to reverse my deletion if a reliable source demonstrating importance could be presented. To take this as some sort of tyranny on my part and to go storming to DRV instead of the far simpler act of showing me a source makes me deeply unamused. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're just going to create a straw man with some ad hominems of "faux outrage" and "storming down here", "saying you have a tyrannical behaviour" and attempt to avoid the principal point that your deletion was overzealous and in error; you didn't attempt to warn someone or post on the page that you questioned the notability, you didn't even nominate it for deletion— you didn't do anything to allow me or anyone else to attempt to improve the article and allay any concerns, you just flat out deleted it. This is the problem I have and since I believe you were wrong in your original deletion, rather than attempt to appease you to restore the article, we should make it clear that you were wrong since it will not only restore this article but you'll probably think twice before speedy deleting other articles without prior warning or discussion.--D'Iberville (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm going to say "Look, you can get this undeleted easily and without drama. Please, by all means, do so." And yet instead of taking this easy out we're here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, you completely avoid the point. You shouldn't have unilaterally deleted it in the first place. If you had bothered to write a quick note "this article needs more X or it'll be deleted" or "I'm nominating for deletion because of Y", I or someone else could have listened to those concerns, attempt to mollify them and either succeed leading to a better article or failed leading to a community consensus of removal. But I am not going to attempt provide any incentive to convince you to reverse your action since that original action was wrong from the get go.--D'Iberville (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It had no assertion of notability, and was a valid speedy target. I'm happy to reverse the speedy if you provide even a modicum of a reason for me to do so, and find your pontificating to be convincing evidence that you don't have a case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I would have to question why, if it indeed had "no assertion of notability", why as I noted previously, other articles about churches with even less history and less information found within Wikipedia remain whole. To reiterate yet again, you were wrong in deleting it as evidenced by the fact that if only a "modicum of reason" was needed for it not to be deleted then implicitly the speedy deletion of the article was a dubious decision and it remains inexplicable why you simply did not ask for any modica before acting. As I already noted at the start, I discovered the deletion due to my wanting to add additional information to the article but I will not validate your erroneous action by providing you any reason to reverse your mistake which might give the perception that you were originally correct in deleting it and moreover, no one should be required to provide a reason to undelete something that shouldn't have been speedy deleted in the first place.--D'Iberville (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        They exist because nobody has gotten around to deleting them. Their existence is not evidence that they are in compliance with our rules. It is merely evidence that nobody has deleted them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Deja vu. If only you'd listen to me and find some reliable sources to support your claim. <Editor comes back with a source.> Phil: That's not a reliable source -- Allowing it is more than my job's worth. <Editor finds information supporting the reliability of the source.> Phil: Well, it might be reliable, but it isn't reliable enough.
        I've seen the Lucy and the football routine before from this admin. My dim view of that technique continues unabated. --SSBohio 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. After looking over the deleted article, the filer's complaints and assertions don't seem to hold. The article did nothing to explain the church's role in the development of Westboro village nor did it illustrate the church's role in Ottawa's Baptist community. There is no indication that the name has brought the church any sort of "infamous attention", except by self-reference to an archived old version of the church's website explaining the lack of affiliation. That information was also presented with commentary unsupported by the source. The "commentary" was also grossly inaccurate (characterizing the position as more progressive than the general Baptist community, while it is firmly in the center-conservative portion of the mainstream Baptist spectrum). The rationale provided for overturning the deletion by the nom misrepresents the article content and additionally relies on long discounted rationales (such as "other less noteworthy articles exist" and "it's important"). I'm also concerned by the first overturn comment, as there's no substantive reason to treat churches differently from other topics in relation to inclusion. Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors collectively are a bit divided on what a church is. Some think that it is a building, and thus we get all sorts of articles about the buildings that ignore the people who use(d) it. Under this interpretation, such an article is not eligible for A7 speedy deletion. Others think it is a congregation of believers, and we get articles on congregations that barely mention or don't mention the building. I'm in the second group, and since a congregation of believers is a group of people, I consider churches eligible for A7. In this case, I'd looked at this specific article last month when sorting all articles in Category:Unassessed-Class Christianity articles and decided it was a reasonable stub. Absent some evidence that independent and reliable sources have written about the church, it won't survive an AFD, so why should we list it there in the absence of such evidence. If you live in the same locality as the church, the local historical society would be a good place to look that many editors might not consider - though in a national capitol even that might not be very fruitful. GRBerry 03:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's the thing, I wanted to add some more information (including incidentally a line about the building itself) which should reduce a bit some notability concerns (and there is a book in the Ottawa Room of the Central Ottawa Library that has substantive information about it but it can't be taken out of that room and honestly I have a big list of other priorities I have to do before spending an afternoon reading it). Again, my beef is not with whether or not the article should be deleted, it has to do with the manner in which it was deleted. I, nor anyone else, was given the opportunity to try and fix the article as we weren't even told there were problems with the article. And a quick comment to Vassyana's comment. If you check the webpage right now, you'll see a large message stating that they aren't affiliated with Phelps and the article, from what I remember notes this so it isn't just "an archived old version of the church's website". It is a big problem for them since people still keep thinking they're somehow a Canadian chapter. Also, if the article stated that the Church was "slightly more progressive than mainstream Baptism" and in actuality it's "mainstream Baptism", I would not consider the whole of the commentary to be "grossly inaccurate". Ideally, I'd like the chance to improve the article and if nothing else, this whole conversation will help me to do so, but not I, nor anyone else was were told that there was a problem or even given the chance to improve it.--D'Iberville (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As GRBerry has well explained, there are different interpretations on how to deal with church articles, and depending on interpretation, this article may or may not have been a valid speedy deletion. However, looking at the deleted article, two things are clear: (1) There was no indication of why the subject is important or significant (2) without such an indication, sourced to reliable sources, it is exceedingly unlikely that this article would survive an AfD discussion. If D'Iberville or some other editor is confident that they can establish notability, I'd be willing to undelete the article for them to do so, but without some reference being provided, it just seems like it would be a waste of time. --Stormie (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely endorse deletion now that Tikiwont has found that an article on this church was deleted after an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citywide Church. --Stormie (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion. I concur with the assessments above. There was nothing in the deleted content which asserted the notability of this church. (The sole comment that included the phrase "well-known" referred to the Topeka church. Notability is not inherited. One does not gain independent notability merely by being named the same as a notable person or organization.) On the question of whether WP:CORP (and by extension, CSD A7) apply to churches, I think in this case it is clear. There is no assertion in the article or in this nomination that the church is at all notable for its architecture or for any of the other factors that sometimes distinguish churches from other organizations. (Neither did the picture of the church show any distinctive architecture.) Unless someone can come up with independently sourced evidence why this church is special, it should be subject to Westfield's generally accepted inclusion criteria as an organization. Rossami (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the logs, one can see a deleted redirect as a previous article was moved to Citywide Church and then deleted per AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citywide Church as it seems that the church itself was briefly named Citywide Church and then named back. So whether or not the latest version asserts enough importance to avoid a speedy deletion per A7, it would certainly fall short of providing grounds to overturn previous consensus, so endorse. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Because this was a speedy deletion, what we have to go on is one editor's view of the article -- a situation where there appears to be an assertion of notability, however poorly sourced. Relist at articles for deletion if necessary, but don't allow this speedy deletion to stand as long as there is a good-faith disagreement over whether it asserts notability. THat's not what CSD A7 is for. --SSBohio 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just wanted to highlight the following: Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. From the second link:A man tries to build a house. (...) Soon, a building inspector comes by. (...) "And look!" the inspector cries, "There is no ceiling! The owners of this house will be angry indeed when they get rained on." "They won't!" the builder retorts, "Because when it's done there will be a ceiling!" The inspector ignores him. "This house is no good, builder. It must be torn down." The next day he sends someone to demolish the house.

As you can see by the dates of my contributions, editing Wikipedia is not something I do on a regular basis. Though I do go to this site several times I day, I only edit when I see something that needs editing. When I created the article, I believed there was enough content in it to satisfy it's inclusion and planned to add more information at the usual leisurely pace to which I contribute. However I did put the article on my watch page and periodically verified it to see if any problems or concerns reared up. None did. Now one person came upon this article and didn't believe it merited inclusion. That's fine (and the comments here clearly demonstrated that the article does need a decent amount of improvement). But instead of voicing his concerns or giving advanced warning, he immediately removed it. And I only find out when I come to add additional information, proverbially improving on this unfinished house. But the difference in this case is that the building inspector did not tell me that there were problems with my house nor warned me that he was going to demolish it.--D'Iberville (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I understand where you coming from and am sorry for this being a frustrating experience. One suggestion we have in such cases is to let things grow as drafts in user pace. My own issue is mostly that there has already been a deletion discussion which I now have linked at the top as well, albeit under a different title and seemingly unknown both to you and the deleting admin. So there has already a house been built by another editor in the past and it was decided by community consensus to take it down. that doesn't mean that there should never ever be such a house but rather that it needs a better plan than what we've seen so far even if we restored it. It already had a chance and its potential has already be evaluated once. So if you really think there is sufficient potential to address also the previous concerns, building it calmly in userspace and reviewing it here, might be the way to move forward.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Westbury--not a speedy, and that's all there is to it. Makes a claim to being an historic church. Whether it is sufficiently historic to be notable is for an afd. Tota;lly wrong for admins to delete as A7 on theb asis of their opinion of whether or not something is notable. That's for the community if challenged. I cannot see further why any admin would turn down any reasonable request to undelete and send to afd . DGG (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Citywide Church, as there was a valid AFD. Overturn Westboro, as I don't think A7 applies there. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that Westboro had been moved to Citywide, but the article content seems to be different, so a G4 isn't valid. I stick with my original opinion, in so far as it makes sense. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD for the speedy. The nominator here is asserting notability. CSD#A7s should be listed without drama on the basis of a good faith request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Westboro, A7 doesn't cover buildings and churches are organisations but predominantly they are buildings. RMHED (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - there is more than enough evidence that this shouldn't be a speedy. There is no cache available, so we need to do an AfD on this, or else most people can't see the article. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. What on earth is the point of undeleting these and sending them to AfD just because you disagree that a church can be interpreted as an organisation per CSD A7? The articles gave absolutely no indication of notability, no independent sources and were generic directory entries at best. Sending to AfD is needless process wonkery. A church is an organisation (and that, friends, comes from the Bible itself) so these are legitimately covered by A7 even if the organisation has chosen to build a building around itself. That, plus the WP:COATRACK issues with the Citywide article in particular, makes for a problem that was rightly solved by nuking the articles. Feel free to try a sourced, neutral, non-coatrack rewrite in userspace. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what was in the Citywide article and didn't even know of its existence until someone mentioned it above and this deletion review has nothing to do with the Citywide article which was removed because it was really an attack piece (though I add, it was removed after an AfD so there was fair warning to those who did contribute to it) and there is no issue of an agenda with the creation of this one. Also, there is clearly there is a debate whether a church is a building or the people within the building as seen in this discussion. Regardless of your position on this particular topic, the purpose of the article was to give basic current information about the church and indicate the role that that particular church had in the past eight decades in the development of Westboro. There are a couple of rare books in the special Ottawa Room of the Central Library of the OPL which do the latter however, whenever I do have free time, reading those books is not the first thing I think of and as I noted earlier, editing Wikipedia is not something I do on a daily basis. As a corollary of this, I do not know the ins and outs of every requirement, bureaucratic rule or essay considered as policy but I do know that one of the cornerstones of this site is supposed to be that the community helps in the creation of an article by improving it themselves (which is admittedly somewhat difficult with this article unless you live around Ottawa) or indicating the problems and shortcomings of the article. I thought I had inserted enough information to give it enough credence to survive but I still checked every day the two weeks after I created it and a couple of times a week afterwards to make sure that there weren't any problems. Now I came back here of my own accord to improve the article by adding more info and it's gone. No template on the article, no warning on any talk page and no AfD. Now whether or not you believe this article should be deleted is not the issue at hand, the issue is that it was unilaterally removed by one person who did not attempt in any way to advise anyone that the article was wanting in anyway. Now, though I admit I am somewhat ignorant of the law of Wikipedia, this action, to me, seem to violate the spirit of Wikipedia.--D'Iberville (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you are in a position to judge for yourself that the articles gave absolutely no indication of notability, but the rest of us aren't. You have come to your conclusion, but your conclusion is not the only one reached in good faith regarding the article. Speedy deletion is not a justification for deleting an article when whether the article meets the criterion cited is a matter of dispute. If you are convinced of the absolute lack of assertion of notability in this article, then undelete it and AfD it; That way, we'll all see what you see. Until then, your arguments are being advanced without any factual foundation while you exercise a tremendous advantage through your access to the content in dispute. I call on you to level the playing field and allow the community to determine what should happen to this article. --SSBohio 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Whether or not A7 was properly applied in this case, the article should be deleted and will certainly be deleted inder whatever process the closer of the DRv adopts. under the principal of WP:SNOW, I suggest that it simply stay deleted rather than being undeleted for a pro forma five days just to chastise Phil. Send him a trout if you want but there is no good reason to overturn what is clearly the correct ultimate decision. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of going through the motions of listing for discussion and then deleting after five days is not to chastise Phil, but to respect the right of process for the newcomer DRV nominator. There is the chance that the AfD will be a valuable learning experiences, as opposed to the crushingly empty speedy deletion of a good faith attempt to contribute. There is even the chance that the article can be improved to the minimum threshold (suitable sources found) during the five day discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eluchil404, per your Snowball link: "If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause." This discussion clearly demonstrates that there is no unanimous decision. Moreover, again from your own source: "What the snowball clause is not: An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate." From the very start I stated that I created the article with what I thought was enough information to satisfy notability with the idea that I would add much more information at the unhurried pace that I usually edit. Since the editing of this article was never a priority with me and since no one brought forth any concerns, there was no reason to go to the library to get the information required to meet the notability standard. Now given the esoteric topic at hand, I have difficulty seeing how anyone here can assume with any certainty that notability can not be met, especially when considering that those of us who would be more familiar with the topic and have access to specific local information on the topic weren't given any warning: there wasn't an AfD, there wasn't a message on the talk page, there wasn't even a tag warning about notability. So given the topic at hand and given that we had no warnings nor chance to ameliorate the article, how can anyone here state with any certainty that the article is doomed from the get-go?--D'Iberville (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Simon Thomas (footballer) – Consensus seems to be that deletion endorsed for now without prejudice to when he plays. The moment that happens, come and ask me on my talk page and I'll undelete immediately (or suggest any fellow administrator does in my absence). – Daniel (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was deleted because it apparently didn't meet WP:ATHLETE however consensus did not appear to have been reached in the AfD and claims that it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE are weak as the player is clearly a successful part of the first team of a major professional sports team. This isn't a 17-year old youngster that is going to be sitting in the reserves. While claims of WP:CRYSTAL might be made, it's entirely expected that this player will be playing professionally in a fortnight, so there is little point deleting such articles. In addition the AfD failed to note that he meets WP:BIO already given the significant media coverage in the last month or so. Google shows 24 articles in the last 12 days alone. Nfitz (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Player fails WP:ATHLETE. Can be easily restored if and when he actually plays a game (I'm hhapy to do so if anyone leaves me a message). Until then, he isn't notable and to say that he's expected to play is a WP:CRYSTAL violation; there have been hundreds if not thousands of young players who have signed for professional teams and never played. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying he's likely to play in 2 years is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Saying he's likely to play within 2 weeks, expecially when all indication shows he -is- likely to do so, is not. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't a young player. This is a 24-year old striker who is playing regularily with the first squad in pre-season games, scoring goals, and has plenty of media coverage that passes WP:BIO. The WP:CRYSTAL arguement is moot as he meets WP:BIO but even if he didn't then surely WP:IAR comes into play. Common sense says we don't delete articles that we will be needing in a fortnight; WP:CRYSTAL can always be used to demonstrate that the Sun might explode before then but then the second practice of WP:WL comes into play - "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its principles". I failed to link the articles supporting WP:BIO - see here, though there are 25 - many are local, but some are national and significant; these are only from the last week or so, I didn't look back any further.Nfitz (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. If there are several sources to indicate notability (and I'm taking the nom's words at face value here when they say this), there's no reason he shouldn't have an article as he meets the general notability guideline. Besides, this idea that a player isn't notable until he actually goes out and kicks a soccer ball is absolutely silly. Apparently this player is very likely to play. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - This player does not currently meet WP:ATHLETE. When he does, I will support the undeletion of this article. – Pee Jay 20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I too feel that having to kick the ball in a game is a silly basis for inclusion if WP:N is otherwise met. But that seems to be the consensus. I'd !vote to keep in the AfD, but the close was fine and what I'd expect. Oh, and the nom right before he's likely to play verges on disruption. But, again, the close was reasonable. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I understand it "having to kick the ball in a game is a silly basis for inclusion if WP:N is otherwise met" isn't true. In fact Wikipedia:BIO#Additional criteria notes that "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under WP:N.". WP:ATHLETE is one of the additional criteria. Nfitz (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with that and would have !voted exactly that way in the AfD. That said, it appears that very reasonable view was in the minority in the AfD. Silly in my opinion, but just because I disagree with the result (fairly strongly in this case) doesn't mean it was closed incorrectly. IMO this never should have been sent to AfD, those !voting should have gone for keep based on WP:N, and the closer could have closed it as keep because the keep arguments were stronger. But, the delete close is the expected one in this case. Were I an admin and the closer, I'd have gone no consensus to delete on this one. But his close was reasonable. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You think the close was wrong, but since it was reasonable, the deletion should stand? Wow. Process is important, but not that important. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a difference between "wrong" and "different than I'd have done". The joy of all things subjective :-) Hobit (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think anyone even looked into WP:N during the AfD. It got overlooked by us all. Nfitz (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - I can't see much more than trivial coverage in most of the independent google news hits linked to above. So he moved from Boreham Wood to Crystal Palace. I can't see how that makes him notable until he at least makes a professional debut, and I'm beginning to think that even that is too easy a mark to hit. - fchd (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - we have jumped through these hoops more time than I can remember. The position is clear; once he kicks a ball in anger, i.e. takes the field for Palace, or another league club, in a competitive match, he gets a page. This applies to all footballers. Whilst it is an arbitrary standard it makes sense to have an unambiguous cut-off. Also, though the nominator may be correct in saying "it's entirely expected that this player will be playing professionally in a fortnight" we don't crystalball because, however unlikely it may be, he could have a career-ending injury in a pre-season friendly and we are stuck with a page on someone who didn't make the cut. Oh, and there was nothing wrong with the close which is actually what we are judging here ;-) TerriersFan (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is more than one way to meet the notability threshold than WP:ATHLETE. He has apprently received independent coverage in multiple sources. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've looked into this a bit more. It's not a WP:CRYSTAL violation - it says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."; we've established that a match between two professional teams in league play is notable - and that this player will almost certainly be playing in, what, 8 days; WP:CRYSTAL clearly isn't violated. Nfitz (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you reckon he's "almost certainly" going to be playing? He's just another squad player at the moment. As said above, if he DOES play, fine. Until then, I can't justify restoring the deleted article. - fchd (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah so there is - I used to know this, and it skipped my mind. It would help if this was number 1 in the intructions, rather than being a separate box on a very crowded page. Though I'm somewhat jaded on this. I've asked Admins before to expand their reasoning, and all I've ever recieved are comments that they don't have to, that it was clear, that the votes carried it. I've actually been following this procedure on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerardo bruna before doing a DRV, but after 3 weeks I can't even get a response from the Admin. Oh well too late now ... I did notify the Admin and he hasn't commented at all. Nfitz (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Lack of commentary in sources, failure to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Delete !votes were sound and policy based. A keep !vote mentioned news stories. Provide the stories, or quotes from them, as a basis to recreate as a better article. I'd have preferred a redirect to Crystal Palace F.C. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This deletion seems to come down to one thing:

He doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE yet, because he hasn't played a fully professional game. Yet he's only recently joined Crystal Palace F.C. which is between seasons, which starts in about a week. He's consistently been used during the first team games in the few days since he was signed - as opposed to other players who've been playing in seperate second team games. Every indication is that he is part of the first team and will inevitably be playing. This would lead to his notability and recreating the article in the next few weeks.
I think that if we all knew that he'd be playing within a few weeks, then WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply and the article should exist.
So what it really comes down to, is will he be playing? I've been looking for a definitive reference from someone, saying something like "he is clearly a critical part of the first team" but to be honest I've failed to find one. I can't find any good discussions of what the team will be - which seems odd to me - perhaps a reflection of just how many teams there are in London area compared to the number of media outlets.
When we look at the course of events, on July 23rd he was signed [10]. He immediately started playing with the first team in pre-season matches, scoring a goal in his first outing [11]. He played in the July 29th match, and presumably will be available for the final pre-season match on August 2.
Surely knowing the background of this player, his age, that he has been given a relatively high shirt number (17) with the first team [12] one can be confident he will play soon, and an article will be created.
Given all this, it just seems silly going to the trouble of deleting an existing article that will only have to be shortly recreated. Given the inevitability, and short time-frame WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply.
Does anyone out there really think that this player won't be playing soon?

Nfitz (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say on the issue is to remind you that I posted on your talk page on June 26 an offer to undelete any article on a footballer that was deleted for failing WP:ATHLETE, upon them taking the field in a game in a fully professional league. Is it worth all this argument to try and get the article undeleted a week early? --Stormie (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is worth all this argument. If this player plays, it's quite likely someone will be trying to recreate the article before either I or you have an opportunity to touch it. We've had a whole series of AfDs in the last few weeks for players that will have to be recreated shortly after the season begins next week. Is it worth all this argument to try and get these article deleted for a week or two? Deleting these articles and requiring a few select individuals to recreate the article violates the principle that Wikipedia violates 2 of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit" and "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". We need a more rational way to deal with this mass of deleting articles for players that are clearly going to be part of Tier 1 and Tier 2 first-teams, only to recreate days later. This DRV is intended to clean up the process and make it simpler for everyone. Nfitz (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, the subject failes the weakest criteria. The most important criteria is that there are independent secondary sources covering the subject. Bending the weakest criteria currently writen into some guideline, ignoring the lack of suitable encyclopedic sources is to create directories, which is not what we do as per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. This subject can be mentioned in other articles, such as Crystal Palace F.C.. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. My point is that we know he will very soon pass this criteria which will lead to article recreation, so there is little point expending a lot of effort AfDing dozens of similiar articles days before the beginning of the season. Nfitz (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, close reflects the debate correctly. Notability is about sources, there were no non-trivial independent sources provided, so that's it really. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This source appears non-trivial - BBC - [13] Nfitz (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Heaven Underground – Speedy overturn – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was deleted based on WP:CRYSTAL for the reasoning that the article was on a future album and had no sources. However, the album HAS been released and the article was edited to reflect thus before deletion (future album status was removed, etc.) Leopold Stotch (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a terribly obvious overturn, since the delete reasons weren't valid at the time of deletion. Also, while I can't get at the label's web page (Firefox can't connect?), AllMusicGuide lists the album as having been released yesterday. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Overturn. I'm shocked this got deleted. It's selling on Amazon. Nfitz (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin: I'll overturn my decision. I simply saw that all the !votes were for delete, and missed that fact about the release, sorry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Evolver (John Legend album) – Previous deletion is endorsed, most-recent deletion was restored by the deleting admin with suggestion that others may take the article to AfD if there are further crystal concerns. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

From what I understand this article was deleted because it did not have sources? >:[ The deleter person must have missed the VIBE.com source I added.

Anyway, here are many more sources: http://news.google.com/news?q=john%20legend%20evolver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubfan789 (talk • contribs) 13:29, July 29, 2008

Okay, the history here is a little confusing. First, endorse the closure of the AfD as the consensus in it is obvious and the version deleted had those failings (sorry, admin only link). Then, overturn the most recent deletion as the VIBE.com link is enough for me to want another discussion and recreation should have meant obviously disputing the PROD; so we rule out G4 on the former and more {{PROD}} on the latter. After restoration I believe another AfD is in order, nominated by anyone who thinks it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation still. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the article most recently, and have since restored the full history. The original AfD discussion raised WP:CRYSTAL concerns raised in addition to lack of sourcing, however I accept it would have been better to go through another AfD per lifebaka. PhilKnight (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now seems to meet WP:N. No objection to re-sending to AfD, but just a restore (as done by PhilKnight) is fine too as our long-term solution. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

2009 in Music – Overturn to keep. Allow relisting at AfD if desired. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted after a number of delete "votes" simply cited "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". All but two were of this form; of the remaining two, one alleged a problem with just one of the items and assumed that all were just as bad, and the last, though acknowledging that it was "not a case of WP:CRYSTAL," said that the "claims the article makes are un-comfirmed and mostly just speculation". However, all arguments to keep pointed out the existence of sources (each item in the article cited a source), and while there were allegations that certain sources were unreliable, one of those arguing to delete acknowledged that there were "2 or 3 possible reliable sources", and I personally added no less than 10 items from unquestionably reliable sources (MTV News, Billboard, and Rolling Stone) and found better sources for two more items before the article was deleted. The general consensus in Wikipedia is that articles about future events which cite reliable sources for the information are acceptable, and we have plenty of examples: 2009 in television, 2009 in film, 2009 in spaceflight, etc. The closing admin also cited WP:CRYSTAL, but did not respond when I tried to get an explanation as to what, if anything, distinguished this article from other articles which we generally allow under that same policy. I believe that since the arguments to delete insufficiently addressed the points made in the arguments to keep, and that since improvements were made to the article during the discussion, it should have at least either been relisted or closed as "no consensus". I ask that the article be restored, so that reliable sources can continue to be added and those sources cited which may be unreliable can be individually examined, and claims be individually removed if sources are insufficiently reliable. DHowell (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (keep deleted). An article with this title is, by definition, speculation and inappropriate for the encyclopedia. The opinions in defense of this page primarily hinged on comparisons with other articles of a similar nature. The sources alleged to defend the deleted content were reviewed by other participants of the discussion and found to be insufficient (with one person explicitly commenting on the nature of the sources). Additional sources were added later in the discussion but they did not overcome the core problems with verifiability - they remain speculation about future releases based primarily upon press releases of the entities themselves. As to the comparison with other 2009 in foo articles, the right answer when we find pages violating policy is to clean them up too, not to lower the project's standards. Rossami (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe articles like 2009 in television should also be deleted, I don't believe that opinion represents Wikipedia consensus (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 in television). But if you simply believe they should be "cleaned up", then I agree with you, but my efforts to clean this article up were cut short by its deletion. Also, the opinions in defense of this page were based on the existence of sources, not simply comparisons to other similar articles. There is no evidence that any of those arguing to delete reviewed any of the more than 80 sources cited by this article but one, and a hasty generalization based on one out of so many sources hardly constitutes a valid review of the sources. Futhermore, no one addressed the ten sources that I added, and the additional two that I added before the article was deleted, which should have been sufficient on their own to support the existence of this article. When independent reliable sources report on "future releases based primarily upon press releases of the entities themselves," this is not speculation, but reporting on facts. Otherwise we'd have to delete all articles about future events, such as 2016 Summer Olympics. Since an article on "2009 in music" will almost assuredly exist within the next six months, when exactly do you think it is appropriate for it to exist? DHowell (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I do not think that Wikipedia should be attempting to write an article titled "2009 in music" until at least 2010 when there is at least a chance to have some sense of historical perspective. But I know that interpretation does not currently have community consensus. What I think does have consensus is that 2009 in music can not reliably exist until 1 Jan 2009 when the things that we are reporting upon have actually happened. Plans for the Olympics are, by definition, significant to many, many people and require large, predicable lead time. The topics covered in the "year in music" series are largely product releases, subject to significant last-minute changes and even cancellations at the sole discretion of the producer. They do not have the stability that justifies the predictive articles about other topics. Rossami (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The outcomes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 in television (decided 29 Jun 2008) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 in music (decided 30 July 2007) contradict your thought that there is consensus "that 2009 in music can not reliably exist until 1 Jan 2009". DHowell (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. Sorry to the closer, but this is a case where the delete !votes were wrong. The article in question did not violate WP:CRYSTAL, which is for speculation. At least some of the albums listed make the requirements at WP:MUSIC#Albums, and the only issue is that the rest need to be removed. But that is an editorial issue and not a deletion one. So, after restoration someone will probably need to go through the article with a chainsaw and a belt sander to chop off the messy bits and clean up afterwards. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the sake of transparency, I'd like to note that I've nominated quite a few of the albums from that list for AfD. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically the article should have been deleted per WP:NOT rather than WP:CRYSTAL, as even with the sources for these upcoming albums, it is little more than a directory of items. IMHO, all of the XXXX in music are horrible articles, and really should contain commentary and discussion about important developments in the music industry in any given year rather than a laundry list of albums released, but that is neither here nor there. In any case, the contention that the !votes to delete were wrong is true (CRYSTAL does not really apply as most of the items were sourced) and there was no policy-grounded consensus to delete - therefore there is no alternative but to overturn. Shereth 16:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn DHowell's comment demolished WP:CRYSTAL concerns, his was the strongest policy-based argument. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn on grounds of common sense. We are now 5 months from 2009. Some events that will happen in t hat year are now reasonably certain enough to be listed. In at least some fields of music, major events are planned a number of years ahead. DGG (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, I find myself in agreement with Lifebaka and DGG. While this article certainly will require vigorous pruning to keep myriad WP:CRYSTAL violations out of it, 2009 is now close enough that there's bound to be verifiable reports of specific release dates and information about some of the releases, at least during the early part of the year. I'd expect the article, properly cleaned up, might be a little bare at the present time but I find it hard to believe the whole article was genuinely a WP:CRYSTAL violation as a whole as the delete !votes in the AfD suggest. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 08:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse based on the consensus of the users. DRV is not AFD2. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Three questions: 1. How are you determining "the consensus of the users"? 2. What exactly does "DRV is not AFD2" have to do with this DRV? 3. If DRV is not AFD2, and consensus can change, and we all know where to find AFD2 (and AFD3,4,5,...,14) for kept and recreated pages, where exactly do we find AFD2 for deleted pages? DHowell (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As to #3 - if consensus changes, it will be due to the presence of new information or new arguments. So show us a relevant policy/guideline change (I dread the day the notability guidelines change materially - this page will be overwhelmed), or give us new relevant sources, or show us that sockpuppetry was a problem, or ... but don't repeat arguments that were made in the XfD - they are not new. GRBerry 03:07, 2 August 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 July 2008

Jonty Haywood – "No Consensus/Keep" Closure was Endorsed. This discussion was very close to a no consensus, itself, which mimics the AfD. The deletion policy provides clear guidance to err toward keep in such situations. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The closer stated "The result was no consensus , leaning towards keep. For the most part, the delete arguments do not discuss the subject of this article ". Firstly, the basic vote vount is 4 deletes, to 2 keeps, with no invalid arguments made for my mind. Two of the delete votes refer to notability in general, with two others citing WP:BLP1E, so I don't see how the delete opinions do not refer to the article subject. I think with so few votes this was a candidate for relisting. MickMacNee (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closer: I opted to close as no consensus instead of relisting as I did not and do not feel that more discussion will lead to a consensus, though I don't really oppose an overturn and relist. I believe the same could be accomplished by re-nominating the article in a few weeks with no other action, however. And Stifle, before you chime in, it doesn't bother me that no discussion happened before this DRV was filed. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think being at Afd for a week is long enough for the necessary improvements to appear, especially as the creator and chief supporter of the article was highly motivated. I don't agree with short time periods between Afd nominations, and in my experience, a second nomination in such a short period would be speedied anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, something I wasn't aware of, the article was created in precisely one edit, (the first edit by Rabidfoxes (talk · contribs), a suspected sock of Jonty303 (talk · contribs)), and was not subsequently touched bar Afd process edits. Odd to say the least. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's unfortunate. While this is ongoing I think I'll ask Wiw8 to try to improve it, since he seemed interested and the state of the page shouldn't have any bearing on this process. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't have bothered me much since you dropped by here so soon, Lifebaka :) Stifle (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and ~~relist~~ delete would seem appropriate to me, with a 4-to-2 vote for "delete" being closed as "keep". Also, given the reports of alleged past sockpuppetry, can we check whether Wiw8 and Rabidfoxes are actually distinct users? -- The Anome (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this would have influenced the close then it is a valid grounds for checkuser: Code D. GRBerry 14:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead with your checkuser - I am nothing to do with User:Rabidfoxes. I do find it upsetting to be accused of duplicitous activities simply because I responded differently in an AFD, and I stand by the arguments I made in that AFD and by the neutrality of my editing history. Incidentally, I count 3 delete votes (Users OhnoitsJamie, The Anome, MickMacNee) and 2 keep votes (Users DGG, Wiw8) in the AFD. Apparently Rabidfoxes didn't actually cast a vote himself. Anyway, the vote count isn't particularly relevant because AFD isn't a ballot - it's the argument behind each vote that counts. Wiw8 (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as reasonable keep though no consensus might have been better. Hobit (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, it was closed as no consensus. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, opps. No clue how I did that. I read the AfD, but... Hobit (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete - the threshold for deletion for BLPs is lower tan needed than for other subjects. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of looking like an idiot twice in one AfD, BLPs look like the only "additional hurdle" is due to being "non-public persons" I don't think Jonty qualifies there. Of course, that policy means we need to be sure everything is sourced. But at first blush, it all looks like it is. Further, I'd assume those discussing it would take policy into account so any issues with BLP would be part of that discussion and folks would be assumed to have considered it. Could you explain exactly what you are getting at? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete Strong WP:BLP1E, created by likely sockpuppet of subject. See this incident report for further details. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure as no consensus within reasonable admin discretion. Disagree with closer that it was leaning towards keep but there was a disagreement over whether it was a WP:BLP1E or not making no consensus a reasonable decision. There has never been agreement that BLPs should have a lower threshold for deletion and is not supported by policy. Having said this however personally I think that the article should be moved to Porthemmet Beach and rewritten about that with Jonty Haywood covered as part of that article. The beach is notable enough to merit a seperate article rather than as a section on Emmet (Cornish) which it seems only loosely connected with. Jonty Haywood himself is marginal for notability and could be covered sufficiently on an article on the beach. Davewild (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It won't get merged if it is endorsed, so this is a moot vote. To vote for a merge it needs relisting. A 4-2 vote is a nothing result for a marginal BLP, especially one suspected of manipulation. MickMacNee (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge or move does not require an AFD, I would be quite prepared to join a talk page discussion to help bring a move about and would definitely help with creating such an article. Endorsing a no consensus does not prevent this from taking place. I strongly support AFD not being a vote and there was reasonable arguments for and against deletion. I think the best thing to happen would be a proposal on the talk page for a move/merge to the beach which I think we could get consensus for. Davewild (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would only sanction that if it is possible to protect the resultant redirect from Jonty Haywood and leave a link to the history of this person and his attemts to promote himself in all sorts of ways on this site for any future admins who may be asked to unprotect it in the future. It would be simpler to overturn and delete to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that but don't think we should bow to poor behaviour by deleting what would certainly be a legitimate redirect. I see no problem with protecting the redirect until/unless he gets more coverage to establish independent notability. Davewild (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per the request of the AFD's closing admin, I have rewritten the article. Wiw8 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see what the rewrite fixes. Creating a simple website about a topic with very little to write about hardly makes someone an expert or notable. It's still a clear WP:BLP1E created by a repeat self-promoter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment It's changed nothing except adding a 17 year old 'journalist' at wikinews as some sort of reliable source. This guy has still not responded to an FYI on his wikipedia talk page about the Afd, and the comments page on the interview are not exactly encouraging that this was a scoop of the century. And the beach/signs have been separated into two notable events. If anything, the article just reads now as a little more ... desperate? to be noticed than before. The presence of the Canadian press source alone still fails 1E. MickMacNee (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I attempted to make the article read more like an encyclopedia article, removing some of the unnecessary superlatives, as well as focusing more on the relevant facts in the sources. There may be room for expansion, but it's a start. The article doesn't say that creating the website is what made him an expert, it says that the media turned to him for his expertise on the subject and summarises what aspects in particular he is reported (in the cited sources) to have researched via his site. Jamie, it may be your opinion that The Game is a trivial topic, but that is your personal view, not consensus. I understand why you would want to oppose an article on Haywood, given that you and he have clashed in the past, but as I and others have already pointed out, his Wikipedia history is irrelevant to whether or not this article should exist, as per this section of WP:BIO. MickMacNee, I did deliberate before referencing the Wikinews article, and decided to go ahead and do so because a) of Wikinews's commitment to fact checking and accuracy and b) the reporter that you personally attack in your post is one of relatively few Accredited Wikinews Reporters, a status which as far as I can tell makes them recognised members of the press. Wiw8 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Check the interview pages, there was no fact checking, he basically covered himself by starting every sentence "Haywood said...". MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry, but you are missing the point entirely. This is not a DRV about The Game, so whether or not Haywood's statements about The Game in that article are factually correct is completely irrelevant. The point is that both the Canadian Press and Wikinews, both of which have strong journalistic reputations to uphold, turned to Haywood for their information on The Game, which serves as a good indicator of his status as a notable figure in this field.Wiw8 (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This is an argument that should have been going on in more detail on the AfD. However, I will note that the claim that he is notable because news sources have turned to him is not by itself compelling. The requirements of WP:BIO/WP:N are a bit stricter than news sources using someone as a sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh absolutely - I wasn't suggesting that this fact should be taken by itself to satisfy WP:BIO. It should be considered in combination with the fact that both articles discuss his site's popularity and beginnings, and talk about his research into The Game's origins and strategies - not enough to have a separate Wikipedia article all about his website, but enough that combined with the widespread media coverage over several months for the Porthemmet Beach hoax last year and the recent coverage for the roadsign hoax, WP:BLP1E arguments seem a little far fetched. Wiw8 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close No compelling reason to override the closing admins decision. Claims of BLP1E are hard to understand when none of the material is negative and he is listed as being notable for multiple things (the hoax and the material related to The Game). Moreover, the claim that it was likely created by the Haywood is irrelevant if our current version of the article is in fact well-written and NPOV which it is. Finally, it strikes me as a bit absurd that people can claim deletion due to BLP which is designed to protect the subject at the same time they argue it should be deleted since it was written by the subject. Just a small contradition there. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Protection isn't the sole pupose of BLP, be it 1E or whatever. It's a general standard for inclusion aswell. A person's persistence at being included, when they don't meet the minimum requirements for inclusion, should not be included, whether they really want to be or not. And we don't know for certain people's identities here, the sexing up of the article is being done by someone we currently have to assume is not him. The game website is completely non-notable, there's no other way to see that as far as I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, I'm not "sexing up" the article; I was asked by the closing admin to try to improve the article, and I have attempted to do so by writing it in a more encyclopedic manner, including more relevant information from the available media sources and making it read more NPOV. Secondly, regarding your persistent implications that I am Haywood or Rabidfoxes or some other affiliate - of course I cannot prove that I'm not some agent of the subject's, just as you cannot prove that you aren't someone who has a sworn mortal grudge against the subject. This is an unfortunate reality behind most internet based media, and it is the reason why we need fundamental principles such as Assume Good Faith and No Personal Attacks in order for Wikipedia to function. If you disagree with someone's reasoning, the correct response is to present valid evidence and argument to the contrary, not to resort to unfounded presumptions of bad faith in an attempt to get their reasoning discounted. Thirdly, once again, we aren't discussing whether the "lose the game" website satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for article inclusion - this is not an article about that website. We are discussing whether the subject of this article satisfies WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BIO. Wiw8 (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is an odd twisting of logic. Eactly how do you become a notable creator of a website by creating a non-notable website? If he is a non-notable creator of a website,(which the sources provided dealing with just that act), then he fails BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say that it is a "non-notable website", I said that we aren't discussing whether the website on its own satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for having its own article - an event or achievment doesn't have to have its own Wikipedia article in order to contribute to a subject's notability. Incidentally, the sources discuss his research into the origins of The Game and strategies as well as just the website. In any case, this DRV is meant for discussing whether the closing admin drew the correct consensus from the AFD, not for repeating the same argument that grew stale in the AFD, unless new information has arisen which would have supported a different closure, which apparently it has not. Wiw8 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's clearly a non-notable website through WP:WEB. If you can't even see that, then I don't know what else to tell you. And frankly, talking about research on 'strategies' for The Game is just pure nonsense, bordering on WP:MADEUP. Show me a single quote about this 'research' that didn't come from Haywood himself. You don't understand notability and you don't understand third party sourceing. The only person trying to repeat the Afd arguments that I can see, is you. I am perplexed by your repeated attempts to split the notability of events from the person, to try and dismiss the whole point of BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that protection is not the only point of that (but it is certainly the point behind arguments made by for example Sceptre above), but when we have a reasonably closed AfD you need a really compelling reason to overturn it. Not liking the result might make sense if there is a serious BLP issue, but if one is simply saying that one doesn't think he is notable it is hard to see why a DRV makes that much sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read the nomination, I'm not argueing Afd II here, I simply don't understand the closing rationale given the arguments made. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse closure - In my opinion the AFD was correctly closed; no consensus was reached in the AFD and subsequent arguments for deletion made thus far in this DRV have just echoed the WP:JNN arguments made in the AFD. Wiw8 (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as no consensus. On personal review of the evidence presented in the AfD I probably would have voted delete in it myself, but given that DRV is not here to act as "AfD 2.0" I certainly find myself agreeing with the closer that there was no consensus to delete it and further discussion was unlikely to change that. Relist if necessary, but this looks like a good no-consensus close in my view. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Further discussion was unlikely to change" seems a bold conclusion given the low number of contributors originally. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The AfD almost entirely relied on peoples' subjective opinions of WP:BLP1E. Nobody seemed inclined to change their viewpoint and there's no compelling reason to suggest an additional length of time would have turned up any further information that would massively change the situation. I don't think a relist would have caused any kind of problem, but I don't see any reason it would have helped. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. With two-thirds of the "votes" being for deletion, there were no real standout arguments by the keep side that warranted the closure made, especially keeping WP:BLP in mind. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While AFD is not a ballot, since vote tally is being referenced in this DRV, in the interests of accuracy it should be noted that the "4-2" vote count quoted by the DRV nominator is false. The actual tally was 3 delete votes (Users OhnoitsJamie, The Anome, MickMacNee) and 2 keep votes (Users DGG, Wiw8). Or, arguably, 3 deletes and 3 keeps if you count Rabidfoxes' arguments in favour of keeping the article as a keep vote, or 4 deletes to 3 keeps if you also count the nomination by Sceptre as a delete vote (I'm unsure as to the policy on this). In any case, it was a lot closer to 50:50 than the 4-2 quoted by nom. Wiw8 (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally people do count the nominator as a delete vote unless they've specifically said something to the contrary or provided no rationale. I've also been treating Rabidfoxes' arguments as a "keep", The fact that he doesn't prefix them with Keep doesn't change the fact that they're clearly in favour of the article's retention. So yeah, i'd call a raw tally 4-3 in this case. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 10:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the clarification there. Looks like for the purpose of tally-based arguments, 4-3 it is. Wiw8 (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rabid foxes is clearly a sock of a banned user, banned for preciesly trying to get non-notable information hosted on wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, to slam home this point, every single one of his entire 24 edit history on wikipedia, since his first edit to actually create Jonty Haywood (in one go), right up to yesterday, has been to promote haywood/the game all over the wiki, justifying those edits by the 'existence' of his notability through having an article on wikipedia! He is even passing himself off now as a notable resident of Truro[14], as the founding father of a hoax website. Seriously, if anyone takes his view in this Afd as a serious and impartial vote, then they clearly are in desperate need of a trout slapping. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, I probably should pay more attention to that. Remove his vote and it certainly does look like a 4-2 from a pure tally point of view. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe how far some of you are going to try to defame me purely because you dislike the subject of my posts, but that's a topic for my talk page, not this DRV. What I'd like to know is how any of the above is relevant to whether or not this article should exist? If the subject satisfies WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WPIO then the article should exist, regardless of who the article's original creator is, or what the subject of the article has done on Wikipedia in the past. I'd understand if the article was filled with non WP:NPOV stuff, but it wasn't and isn't. Almost all of the delete voters are basing their argument on accusations like this rather than addressing the Wikipedia policies that are actually relevant here. (P.S. I'm not a sockpuppet but as I have stated, and as far as this article is concerned, that's irrelevant to this discussion.) Rabidfoxes (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have commented on all the above policies. My pointing out of your activities here are relevant when the expression of those views is being undermined by attempting to include you in a vote count. You can exclude ONIJ if you want, but then we get back to the original issue, the number of views expressed in the Afd to achieve consensus becomes so small as to be meaningless, and definitely worthy of relisting. You may be entirely innocent, but examining your actions is a perfectly legitimate part of the wiki process. As for past actions of the subject, repeat attempts to overturn past decisions without cause can and does lead to censure, so sock puppet concerns are more than valid. Wikipedia is not a webhost, NPOV has nothing to do with that central policy. Wikipedia is not myspace, reliable sources on one event do not justify a biography. Your attempts at leverageing the profile of Haywood all across the pedia using the bio as justification given his clear BLP1E status are clearly odd actions for someone who is not connected to Haywood in any way. I've created bio's for people, I certainly wouldn't start entering them in 'notable persons from' lists as the 'founding father of...'. It's odd behaviour to say the least if you claim no connections at all. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't come here for a fight or to promote somebody... When I made the Haywood article I added what I thought were the relevant links to the Emmet and Truro articles. I also attempted to add one to The Game article for obvious reasons, but after discovering it was protected I commented on the discussion page instead. All of this I assumed was normal procedure for when a new article has been added. I created an article and made what I felt were appropriate minor edits to related articles. What you are expressing is an extremely biased and misleading account of my contributions, describing my edits to two articles and one talk page as "leverageing the profile of Haywood all across the pedia". Also you keep trying to make a big deal of the fact that I created the article in one edit - what's so odd about that? I used the preview function until I got it how I wanted it.

It's one thing to quietly "examine my actions" but it's another to outright call me "clearly a sock" and a "banned user". If anything, you appear to be working equally hard (if not harder) to have all trace of Haywood removed and permanently wiped clean from Wikipedia by your extremely persistent and fairly lengthy AFD and DRV comments, your immediate nomination for DRV (without discussion) just because you disagreed with the AFD outcome (which clearly was no consensus to delete), accusing everyone who disagrees with you of sockpuppetry, and making suggestions like applying protection to the page after deletion when there is clearly no reason to do so right now. By your logic are these not also "clearly odd actions for someone who is not connected to Haywood in any way" (i.e. having something personal against him)? Rabidfoxes (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Clearly was no consensus to delete". Well, we'll await the outcome of this shall we?. Question my motivations all you want, you won't find anything odd in what I've done. I first voted in an Afd, then listed it at Drv to legitimately dispute its closing interpretation, and then comment on what look like very weak points made to defend the original article and the Afd closure. As for your contributions, they are there for everyone to see, and quite clearly show an intent here, as do all your talk page contributions across your account history. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed the point of my comment entirely. I just used your own logic against you. I've been arguing for this article to be kept, and you accuse me of having a history with Haywood. You've been arguing for the article to be deleted, maybe you have a history with Haywood too... My point is that you are making unsupported accusations, not assuming good faith and generally attacking anyone with opposing views to your own. Rabidfoxes (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would love for you to find any evidence that shows that I am as linked to Haywood as you are on wiki. I came here from an Afd, simple as that. Even now as I deal with other things on wiki as well as this Drv, for some reason protecting Haywood's bio is still your exclusive interest on wiki. Not even a spelling correction edit to an unrelated article anywhere. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect to find any evidence linking you to Haywood, and I don't expect you to find any linking me to him. That's the whole point of what I'm saying, you are making accusations without evidence. Maybe I would have moved on to making more contributions to Wikipedia but my first contribution has been met with such hostility that I've been wasting all my time trying to argue why it is a valuable contribution. Rabidfoxes (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you brought this to DRV less than one hour after Lifebaka closed the AFD. Nothing had changed and you made no new points that hadn't been discussed in the AFD. You also did it "in precisely one edit" which according to you is "Odd to say the least." Rabidfoxes (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are now resorting to criticising the listing of the Drv in an attempt to deflect from the reasons for it, which nobody else has, then go ahead. It's fine. I am not supposed to make any 'new points' in nominating for Drv, apart from commenting on the closure, which I did. Read the instructions. 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Your "new points" regarding the closure refer solely to (miscounted) votes. Which, as I've stated below, are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I have read the instructions for opening a DRV but I'm beginning to think that you haven't. The very first instruction says "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." Further instructions say that "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.", "In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead." and most importantly "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." Rabidfoxes (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You want this review closed becuase I didn't contact the closer first, who had no problem with me raising a Drv. Well go right ahead and have this closed then, if that is your argument. The key line is "you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly" - which is what I have done. As for the votes issue, you don't understand the policy at all, I explicitly stated that all the arguments in the "vote count" were valid, hence the description of closure was innacurate, subsequently confirmed by others in this review. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"You want this review closed becuase I didn't contact the closer first, who had no problem with me raising a Drv." This is incredibly flawed logic. How could you have known that he wouldn't have a problem if you didn't contact him first? He only said this once you raised the DRV. Again, you're twisting my words, I'm not saying this is the reason the DRV should be closed. Just that you ignored the Wikipedia guidelines for starting a DRV, the guidelines you seem so keen to tell everyone else to read. Just because a vote is "valid", by which I assume you mean supported by policy, doesn't mean that all "valid" votes are equally weighted and that an AFD can be determined by a count of "valid" votes. You really seem to be missing the point. The vote count is irrelevant. AFD is a discussion in which users refer to relevant policies to reach a consensus on whether the article satisfies those policies. It doesn't matter how many users vote either way, just whether the article satisfies policy. I'm not sure how I can explain this point any further... Rabidfoxes (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention your scathing comments about a respected Wikinews journalist where you infer that he is not a proper journalist and that he is unreliable as well as mocking his age, his fact-checking, the article he wrote and accusing him of "blatant free self-promotion". Interestingly enough though, you also reveal that you "know little of their activities to be honest so can't judge if that is an acceptable piece". All this because he chose to report on a subject which you apparently hate so much. Rabidfoxes (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to dispute any comment I made about that, without any actual answers to the points, that's all it is (bar the misquote). What fact checking was done? Where is this journalist that was requested to comment at the Afd?. What are the policies regarding using wikinews as a reliable source? (I peersonally have never seen wikinews used as an RS). I am certain anyone but you can easily see it looks more like a press release than a journalistic interview. Explain the comments made over there in reaction to it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact-checking was done by interviewing somebody who the journalist felt was a reliable source of information about The Game. The fact he didn't get involved in the AFD is hardly a reason to insult him like you did. Maybe he's busy. This is a perfect example of your gross exaggerations, you say "Where is this journalist that was requested to comment at the Afd?" when all that was said on his talk page was "w:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 28 has a deletion review of the Wikipedia article on Jonty Haywood." What comments are you referring to "over there" exactly? One unregistered IP who doesn't like the website? By the way, what are you claiming that I misquoted? Would you like me to add links to your two comments I have quoted exactly? Rabidfoxes (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact-checking was done by interviewing somebody who the journalist felt was a reliable source of information about The Game." There is nothing else I can say about this that isn't already shown by this comment. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well why don't you say something about my examples of your massive exaggerations of both the contact with the journalist and the comments made about his article. Or the fact you accused me of misquoting you when I did no such thing. Rabidfoxes (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to discount my vote based on entirely circumstantial evidence, maybe you should discount OhNoitsJamie's too. He's admitted to having conflicts with Haywood since 2006, so surely his opinion is a clear WP:COI. AfD is not a ballot anyway, so I don't even know why we're even arguing about the vote count... Rabidfoxes (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Drv nomination rationale, the vote count is perfectly valid a topic unless it is deemed somebody made a vote wholly outside policy, which nobody did (barring sockpuppets). MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." The vote count is irrelevant, only the arguments supporting each vote are what matter. If one vote refers to many applicable policies it holds much more weight that many votes all referring to the same applicable policy. In fact, any additional votes that refer to arguments that have already been discussed are worthless as they bring nothing new to the discussion. Rabidfoxes (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the reviewer only considering the new contributors here, that is partly the reason for my nomination. Read it again. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you keep telling me to re-read your opening comment...
"Firstly, the basic vote vount is 4 deletes, to 2 keeps, with no invalid arguments made for my mind." Wikipedia is not a democracy. The vote count is irrelevant.

"Two of the delete votes refer to notability in general, with two others citing WP:BLP1E, so I don't see how the delete opinions do not refer to the article subject." They refer to it but they clearly didn't make good enough points for the closing Admin to reach a consensus.

"I think with so few votes this was a candidate for relisting." Wikipedia is not a democracy. The vote count is irrelevant.

Quite frankly I'm getting tired of responding to your gross exaggerations and you ignoring the points I am making. As far as this article is concerned, the vote count is irrelevant, who I am is irrelevant, Haywood's history with Wikipedia is irrelevant. You have brought no new information to this discussion, and you have ignore the Wikipedia guidelines for opening a DRV (most importantly you did not contact the closing Admin first). Yet you keep arguing, repeating yourself, misquoting the policies and accusing others of not knowing them (and of much worse things like sockpuppetry too). I just hope a sensible Admin is reading these discussions so that this DRV will be closed soon. Rabidfoxes (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully the things you seem to think are irrelevant are often considered quite rightly in these issues. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to summarise everything I have been trying to get across to you throughout this DRV: The only thing that is relevant here is whether the article satisfies Wikipedia's policies for inclusion. How you can think differently baffles me. Rabidfoxes (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we are going to base this debate on vote count, then I would suggest that either the AFD vote count was too close to establish consensus either way (4-3), or if you discount ONIJ and Rabidfoxes votes as suggested above, then the vote count was not only too close to establish consensus but possibly too low for a meaningful consensus to be reached, suggesting a relist may be appropriate. However, the closing admin gave reasons for not relisting, putting forward that further discussion was unlikely to lead to consensus either way (which would appear to be the case looking up at this DRV) and requesting improvements to the article itself (I have since attempted to improve it somewhat by making it read more WP:NPOV and improving the level of referencing and detail). Although - as per my DRV response above - I still believe that the closer's analysis of no consensus leaning towards keep was the correct analysis of the debate, given that there was very little that the closing admin could have misinterpreted about the debate, I can understand how some may feel that a re-list may be appropriate even if I disagree that it is now necessary. I would, however, strongly contest the suggestion that overturning and deleting would be at all appropriate in this case; as mazca commented above, DRV is not here to act as "AFD 2.0", and as the DRV instructions state, we are supposed to be discussing whether the closing administrator misinterpreted some aspect of the debate, not whether we disagree with their decision. Wiw8 (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, delete. Passing and trivial mentions, likely vanity page. Relist also acceptable, but the article is vanispamcruftisement and with only 156 unique Googles, many of them not even in English, I fail to see how this passes the sourcing guidelines which are essential for WP:BLP articles. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hiya Guy; I would argue that this article passes the sourcing guidelines by having multiple, reliable, published sources (see article and AFD for links to some) - I don't think "number of unique Google hits" is part of the sourcing guidelines, but correct me if I'm wrong there. In any case, please note that votes in this DRV should be based solely on whether or not you think the closing administrator misinterpreted some aspect of the AFD debate, not on the number of Google hits for the subject. Cheers.

Actually, since you mentioned Google hits, I thought I'd do an experiment to see how "low" 156 unique hits actually is. Some examples of notable people from Truro alongside their unique Google hit quantity:

Henry Louis Gibson — an expert in medical uses of infrared and pioneer of its use in detecting breast cancer - 39 hits
Richard Lemon Lander - explorer of West Africa - 261 hits
Barbara Joyce West - second to last survivor of the RMS Titanic - 177 hits
not from Truro, but even Monica Lewinsky (who, incidentally, I suppose one could argue is only notable for one event ;) ) only gets 624 hits. Note that all of the above are in a similar order of magnitude of unique hit count as the subject.

Looking through the first few pages of the hits for Jonty Haywood is interesting though; these are some that stand out: Daily Mail, Independent, BBC, Wikinews, Channel 4, Telegraph, NZ Herald, Best Western, Metro, Vox, Times, UPI, CTV, Yahoo News, DNA India, Sky News, Guardian, This Is Cornwall Network, etc. I think that with this level of coverage it is unfair to refer to this as mere vanispamcruftisement. Wiw8 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. A couple of points worth remembering: DRV is not AFD 2 (so arguing over the notability of the subject here is pretty silly), and AFD is not a vote count. There may have been slightly more users arguing for keeping the article, but their arguments weren't much stronger, and the margin was small enough that this falls within the grounds of 'admin discretion'. A different admin might have closed this AFD as 'delete', but I think a 'no consensus' close is entirely legitimate, and in fact probably more appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mario Barth – Request withdrawn, article was about a different person – Davewild (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly notable; see his German entry. Contesting prod. Chubbles (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are about different people. The German entry is about a German comedian (according to the google translation) while the deleted version describes him as a "Celebrity tattoo artist Mario Barth" who was born in Austria and as the "owner and chief tattoo artist at Starlight Tattoo". Davewild (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, then you can close this. I'll put in a translation request. Chubbles (talk) 18:26, 28 July 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 July 2008

Timo Heinze – Closed as have restored all four as contested prods, please update articles – Davewild (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has now played in the 3. Liga, a fully professional league [15]. Also applies to Georg Niedermeier, Holger Badstuber and Deniz Yilmaz. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

M.I.A. (band) – Closed as not the correct forum – Davewild (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

was kept after a weak Afd, based on it allegedly meeting two criteria of WP:Band, however the article in its current state does not establish notability with mostly primary sources used. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Simply appearing on a few compillations, and amg does not make a band notable. Even after clean up, external links (not satisfyling WP:RS) provided mention a member, not about the band or their achievements. It fails many criteria for WP:Band and I think a review needs more wide ranging editors' views. ShimShem (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the wrong forum. If you feel the article should be deleted then feel free to renominate it at AFD as the previous AFD was six months ago. Davewild (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks. ShimShem (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikinfo – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 05:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A notable wiki listed on Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, also studied by a scholar in comparison to Wikipedia (mainly on POV and OR policies) --RekishiEJ (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC) fix[reply]

Overturn and find a way of preventing further nominations. The first AfD closed as an "obvious keep" in 2006, the 2nd as "keep", the 3rd as "no consensus" , the 4th as "keep", the 5th as "keep" in Sept 2007 by Xoloz, whoproperly said also "Further nominations are discouraged, absent new information, or new arguments." (bold face as in original). Sure, consensus can change, but it looks like a poster child for the practice of nominating repeatedly until it happens to get deleted. If AfDs have, say , an 80% accuracy, 5 tries gives a 66% chance of deleting any article. Abusive nomination in the first place. See my comment there, and that by Nhprman, who called it "Trial until guilty". I note no new arguments were presented, only the old ones, with a different group of debaters, and a different evaluation by the closer, who preferred one argument to another. (He had not yet been notified, so I did so just now.) DGG (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, strictly speaking it'd only give an 80% chance, since in order for there to be 5 AfDs the first four would have to be either keep or no consensus (usually, at least), but the point stands that WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED is bad. (take this to be playful hole-poking in your argument :P) lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per DGG and previous AfDs.--ragesoss (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the AfD link above to the correct 6th nomination. --Bduke (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's Comment - any vote count is fraught with peril, as canvassing took place at Wikinfo. The discussion is pretty clear - Wikinfo fails every notability guideline or policy, as every mention of it is trivial (~1 sentence, in contexts not about Wikinfo) and this wasn't really denied, only "Abusive nomination" which was not evidenced (or really explained). Straightforward delete. Past naval gasing is not really an excuse, and six nominations is not near the historical maximums (GNAA was ~20, for instance, and eventually (and correctly) deleted). WilyD 03:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Checking the votecount anyhow, it's ~28-18 for delete, ignoring the problematic canvassing of keep votes. Wily D 14:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article isn't actually deleted, it was userfied to User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo, with the full history. -- Ned Scott 10:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted we have repeatedly ignored notability guidelines that we enforce rigorously elsewhere for topics that have some relation to Wikipedia. The number of AfDs is high, but for the early ones arguments included "it's a fork of a notable project" which don't pass the current notability guidelines. For several of the discussions people just said "keep per the previous AfDs" without discussing the merits of the article, and one of them wasn't even closed as Keep. Nobody has still addressed the problem that there is no non-trivial coverage in sources. Hut 8.5 12:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted policy was finally applied... no new evidence provided here. With the logic of some people in this thread we'd still be providing free webhosting to people like GNAA. Sometimes it takes multiple AFDs to get past the anti-policy lobbyists. --Rividian (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one could just as well say that "sometimes it takes multiple deletes" to get past the people with reasonable notions of interpreting the notability guidelinesDGG (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying we have reasonable notions of the notability guidelines? I'm flattered but think you probably meant "unreasonable notions". At any rate, it's not really true... an article that is deleted once at AFD for notability/sourcing reasons tends to stay deleted until sources are found. See ED which was undeleted once sources were found (and I argued for that undeletion) verses GNAA which stays deleted because no sources have been found. For WikInfo to be undeleted, better sources will need to be found. --Rividian (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously I do think that my interpretation of everything is the most reasonable one, and everyone ought to agree with it --as presumably everyone else her things about their own opinions. The people who either do not know what they think or do not care are probably not joining in the discussion. But more seriously, of course I recognize there is a disagreement about the notability of most types of things, and that my view is not always representative (that's why I never close disputed AfDs, by the way; I will argue for my views but not try to impose them.) The overall consensus at multiple AfDs is likely to be more correct than at any single one of them. If the 4 keeps had been followed by a non-consensus, followed by this delete, I would be arguing a little differently, because consensus might be changing. But the sequence is keep-keep-no c.-keep-keep before the delete, with the last keep a specific recommendation not to bring it to AfD again on the same evidence.DGG (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It seems this nomination is requesting AfD2, in that their argument is invalid for DRV; there is no argument for improper closure, and it certainly appears (although I grant I cannot read the article) that WilyD (talk · contribs) took all arguments and their weight into due consideration. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, article is avaible here: User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo with only extremely small modifications (mostly, removal of logo as unfree in userspace and delinking of categories). WilyD 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WilyD brought this same notification to my talk page; I saw it above, but neurons misfired and I didn't make that connection. Thanks. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How can one talk about "AfD2" in the circumstances. This was AfD 6, and the count was 4 keep to 1 no consensus to 1 delete. The delete happens to be the latest. The system is biased towards deletion. If you dont like AfD2s, support a proposal to require a deletion review before even trying an AfD2 after a keep as well as after a delete. I'll be glad to join. DGG (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Err, I believe that he means the point of the DRV is to conduct a new argument, not to examine my closure of AfD6 - i.e. this is AfD6.2 not DRV. Of course, if new information has come to light, it makes sense to examine it and see if the closure was based on incomplete information (but I see no evidence of this). Wily D 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I may, in my argument above "AfD2" = "the AfD process again". Sorry for that confusion.
    A DRV is for when procedural or administrative mistakes have been made (iirc), and this nomination reads like a request for an AfD argument again as opposed to an examination of procedure. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - DRVs are also appropriate if you believe new evidence has been uncovered (for instance, if you could dig up nontrivial sources, a DRV would be appropriate here) although its recommended you ask the closing admin first. Wily D 00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As much as I like reading the site, being a fork or somehow related to/of Wikipedia doesn't give any special homework credit for notability standards. All it needs is a handful of extra sources to be recreated. Shouldn't be hard with some research to track down, but its not ready yet. rootology (T) 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus for deletion in AFD6 is clear. Should significant coverage in independent and reliable sources ever be published (i.e. coverage about this subject, not merely mentioning it in passing) it will be time to revisit. GRBerry 14:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how I feel when it comes to the page being in the mainspace or not, but I should point out that we can still link to Wikinfo (both directly and to the non-article space page). It shouldn't be much of an issue in regards to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets (where I've already corrected the link), or even for an EL link in some articles, should a Wikinfo version be different and evaluated as a good EL. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The interwiki link for Wikinfo is [[Wikinfo:, in case anyone was wondering. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - closure was entirely competent. PhilKnight (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. No procedural issues within the purview of DRV are raised here. Systemic concerns about repeated AfDs resulting in unmerited deletions belong in a proposal to reform AfD, not here. If the AfD outcome was wrong, one can simply recreate the article with better sources. Moreover, the closure correctly assessed consensus, and no serious argument is made here that it did not. Sandstein 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, especially per the convincing argument made by Hut 8.5 and Sandstein. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 29 July 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 July 2008

Destructoid – Deletion endorsed. The respondents felt that a huge volume of self-referential and trivial sources does not equate to reliable sources for verifiability or notability. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article has gone through two AfD's, and was deleted a year ago in the second AfD. Since then, the blog's been mentioned on various notable media sources, ranging from minor references to substantial coverage:

The blog's mascot, Mr. Destrucoid, appeared as a playable character in Capcom's video game Bomberman Live
G4 (television show, an editor appeared as a commentator) [16]
Kotaku [17] [18] [19]
Wired.com [20] [21]
Joystiq [22] [23] [24]
Ars Technica [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]
GameStar [32] [33]
Gamasutra [34]
La Stampa [35]
The Jerusalem Post [36]
The Providence Journal [37]
Redding Record Searchlight [38]
The Daily Campus [39]
The Inquirer [40]
Miami Herald [41] (may need registration)
Shack News [42]
Red Herring (the website) [43].
Edge (the website) [44]

One of the rationales for the last RfD was concerning Google hits, which is clearly not a problem anymore. While the last few references on the above list may seem minor, the sheer number of references by notable media sources indicates the notability of the subject. Also, having the site mascot appear in a video game by one of the industry's largest companies (Capcom), clearly shows that this isn't your ordinary run-of-the-mill blog. T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been through a small set of the links you provide from the top half of the list (since you say the later maybe minor) and all those I saw would be trivial passing mentions. You couldn't write a source article based on the them since they just say "destructiod has an article on x", or "destructiod mascot to appear in a game" etc. i.e. they tell you nothing about destructoid itself. Are there any where the subject of the article is destructiod itself. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't trivial references since they do focus on Destructoid (just certain aspects of it, like the mascot or blogging practices) and references to the site aren't just made in passing. Also, as I've said, I believe that the sheer number of references, however minor, by other notable sources justifies the notability of the website.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 14:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I guess I've been unlucky in what I followed then. The wired links, the first link is a blog post telling us the mascot will be used in a game. The second covers nintendo, the destructoid connection is about the photo noting "but Nintendo's press conferences still bring out the crazy fans, like this Destructoid.com writer in a robot mask.". The joystiq links are of a similar ilk, "Destructoid defines five reasons why gamers should wait" is a report on an article on destructoid. "Destructoid made some adorable graphics comparing the prototype Revmote" again a report on an article. The others I read through were all similar. These tell you nothing factual about destructoid itself other than perhaps it get's reports on it's content elsewhere. This proves existance, doesn't get beyond the "non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources" required for notability, and would be of little use in an article, unless that article is going to be a list of trivia or mentions, i.e. not an encyclopedia article. The sheer numbers are unimportant, what is important is has someone wrote about destructoid itself, not has someone wrote about something destructoid has reported on etc. Notability question aside, if someone hasn't written about destructiod itself we'd fail verifiability anyway --82.7.39.174 (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the lower half of the list, and they are all of the "Destructoid website said this..." variety. Trivial mentions, that is to say, and nothing that satisfies the basic WP:Notability guideline. Marasmusine (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those are blogs in their own right, and notable for just pulling content and summarizing with "via" links, and doesn't really establish notability. The first wired source doesn't even appear to be valid. Check the author's email address. I think that is a user submitted blog. The second one is a caption for a photo. If you honestly have to stretch this far for notability, Endorse Deletion. I just looked through about a dozen links and these are the epitome of trivial coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alchemy_business_solutions – Speedy deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfair_Deletion KingSenna (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: was closed by Jerry with this comment:
Procedural close; no article by this title has ever existed, no deletion history in MySQL database. Please get the title right and resubmit the request. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I've reopened—after looking at the nom's deleted contribs—with the correct page title. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta' endorse. Marasmusine should have tagged the page instead of just deleting it, and it should have been deleted under A7 instead of G11, but the page in the end should have been deleted anyways. So a bit of a smack and we're done here, I think. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule stating that an admin cannot delete an untagged article if it qualifies for speedy deletion. Indeed, such a rule would drastically slow down new page patrol. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, deleted article looks like a textbook example of A7 and G11 both. --Stormie (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as has been mentioned before, this is deliberately not made required, because it tends to scare off some users, rightly or wrongly We should not set procedural blocks before people who wish to appeal--doing so would be, in my opinion, somewhat BITEy. (since the afd was carried out single handed, no surprise someone might have been reluctant. Yet another argument why such admin action should be prohibited, at least for matters requiring judgment like A7 and G11--they tend to arouse antagonism and lead to unnecessary deletion review). I however do NOT mean to imply that the admin was wrong in deleting the article: I certainly would have deleted it as either A7 or G11. I am therefore certainly not saying to overturn.) DGG (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question is this the same article as Alchemy Systems? I asked the editor on his talk page but didn't receive a response. I can't see the deleted article but the name seems similar. Protonk (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, totally different: Alchemy Systems is a Texan producer of training software, Alchemy_business_solutions, according to the deleted article, is an English accounting firm. --Stormie (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Just checking. Protonk (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mark McCafferty – Deletion endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfair_Deletion KingSenna (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as WP:CSD#G11, blatant avdertising. The article was entirely a bio of a non-notable professional that reads like a paid advert. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, deleted article looks like a textbook example of A7 and G11 both. --Stormie (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but Same comment as above, it would have been better to tag and let someone else carry out the deletion. But i think any admin would have readily deleted under either. DGG (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barrapunto – The speedy deletion was endorsed, and it was determined that the current improved version should be kept. All is good. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

not a CSD Anthony (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I ran into Barrapunto when researching Gnupedia. Barrapunto is the first place that Gnupedia was announced, which makes it important. Upon further research, I see this is a website already covered in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, which was indicated in the article, and also makes it significant, if you really want to get all boring and technical. And as a lark, I decided to check out Barrapunto in Google Trends. There are more people who search for Barrapunto than Wikinews! So therefore Barrapunto fits neither within the letter nor the spirit of A7. And you all need to get a life. Anthony (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, then. Did the article say why this subject was notable? If it didn't, the deletion was valid, regardless of how notable it actually is (note that inclusion in another Wikipedia doesn't mean much). If it didn't, it was a valid A7. If it did, it wasn't. Either way, there's nothing stopping you from recreating it, I say go ahead. Also, you may want to lay off the attitude. Doesn't make people want to help you. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow, that comment wasn't the slightest bit rude. Did you read the end of that essay, Usas, about how invoking it may be a good sign of being subject to it? The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd love to, but I don't have time. I apparently need to go get a life. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This was an article about web content that did not indicate why its subject is important or significant. A classic A7(web). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original deletion (EDIT: but keep current version now that problems have been corrected), perfectly fits both the letter and spirit of A7. --Stormie (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Barrapunto Effect
  "Because of the huge traffic generated by the site (position 86 in the ranking of sites according to Spanish Alexa), [6] way to cover a news produces a notable increase in visits by the linked websites." [45] Surely the spirit of A7 is not to delete articles about such popular sites simply because they aren't finished being written. The spirit of A7 is, I would think, to make it easy to delete spam, which I assure you this is not. I have no interest whatsoever in promoting Barrapunto. I came across it while researching Gnupedia, was disappointed that the best information I could get on it was a poorly translated version of the Spanish Wikipedia, and decided to do something about it. Anthony (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough (and I see that an improved version of the article has been created which does assert notability". But the version which was speedily deleted per A7 said, in full: "Barrapunto is a Spanish-language Slashdot-like website. The name is derived in the same manner as Slashdot, with the Spanish "http://" pronounced "hache-te-te-pe-dos puntos-barra-barra" and "http://barrapunto.com" pronounced "hache-te-te-pe-dos puntos-barra-barra-barra-punto-punto-com". Barrapunto runs Slash, the open source software used by Slashdot, and materials are published under CC-BY." It could hardly be clearer that this is "An article about .. web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." --Stormie (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion didn't indicate any importance or significance. Hut 8.5 12:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. It's obviously a notable subject (see the es-wiki version of the article), and expanding it to including an assertion of notability will be trivial.--ragesoss (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've undeleted it and expanded it a little bit, since it's clear from a quick search that there are plenty of available sources to put notability beyond doubt, even just in English.--ragesoss (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...certainly the version I see right now isn't indicating the notability of the subject. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And now?--ragesoss (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is. Keep current version, but the speedy was technically proper. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That wasn't appropriate. You should wait for the DRV to finish. I would urge you to redelete the page pending the conclusion here. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't simply redelete. I expanded it so that the reason for deletion is no longer a concern.--ragesoss (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Stifle, care to explain the sensible, good-for-the-encyclopedia reason to delete it again? It's clearly a "notable" subject and if it was speedied before simply because the article didn't say that, then undeleting or recreating and then editing it to explain "notability" is a good response. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think he meant that the page should not have been undeleted while the DRV discussion was going on. Normally I would agree, but he undeleted it to fix the problems that led to the original deletion. There's no problem with that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; a clearly notable subject, whether or not the deletion was valid at the time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn or keep current version - Subject passes WP:WEB in astronomical numbers. See [46]. (which includes nontrivial mentions in many notable media). Indicate the notability, however it's done, but this by no means doesn't pass the spirit of WP:WEB. If this is deleted and kept deleted, then Wikipedia is a farce, and WP:NOTAVOTE is ignored. As a side note: I would like to remark that it would be nice if administrators didn't take the lazy route before hitting the A7 button: if they would do a google search and check if it's notable, and do the tiny bit of legwork to make the article assert notability. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is how the article was written when it was deleted. This is A7 and was rightfully deleted. Administrators are not responsible for "[doing] the tiny bit of legwork to make the article assert notability". Finally, being speedily deleted is not prejudice against re-creation as an article that satisfies well-established policy. « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it behooves administrators not to delete an article an hour after it was created when notability is so easily seen, even if they don't want to do the legwork themselves. Deletion zeal is one of the greatest sources of ill-will by outsiders and new editors.--ragesoss (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has now established notability. « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 July 2008

Broad homeland hypothesis – Deletion endorsed. I'd be willing to userfy for somebody who wants to work on an alternative as discussed. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I closed this AfD but one of the people who contributed has asked me to list this here for further discussion. He said on my talkpage:

Before requesting a review, I ask you to reconsider the following:

Six votes in favor of keeping
Of the ones that voiced their concerns, FIVE (Merzow, Mathsci, DBachmann, PhilKnight aka Addoc and Doug Weller) have a history of escalated clashes with the main contributor of the article (me) involving severe current as well as reluctantly resolved (apparently) content disputes (4X), mediation disputes (2X) and personal attacks (4X).
Of the ones that voiced their concerns, only TWO are active on archeological articles. Only ONE is aware of the PIE homeland-related literature at issue. My kind explicit and long standing request to this most violent and influential attacker to supply the requested diffs to back up claims of WP:SYNTH and take things from there [47] has been ignored and thus should be seen as rhetoric and personal attack.
Two voters for keeping qualified the nomination as "content dispute"; additionally one voter for keeping criticized the obvious clash on what would be the "best" theory, and with me this makes four.
Seven against six is no indisputable headcount consensus for deletion: rough consensus?
The topic, describing the common linguistic ancestry theory that involves a "broader homeland", has been defined and described extensively in reliable sources. Nobody openly doubted the reliability of names like Lothar Kilian, Häusler and especially Mallory. Thus, there is no lack of sources that define this topic and comply to WP:V.
Sources have been compiled, not synthesised, within the scope and definition of the topic: the theory of common linguistic ancestry of archeological cultures delimited by the broader homeland according to Lothar Kilian. To contest this, is a matter of content dispute that can best be resolved by expert review and third party "neutral" verification of sources.

I suggest the article is deleted because of a content dispute and personal agony, using wrong arguments that compromise objectivity and fact, and that it should be restored. Any true doubt on the content should be resolved by expert review and constructive discussion on TALK. Thank you. Rokus01 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed for review. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Article has evidently had a lot of fair scrutiny, consensus to delete was reached after very carefuly checking of sources by some of our most competent editors, in whose judgment I have full trust. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Future Perfect at Sunrise. I consider several of those who voted for deletion to be Wikipedia's best experts in the field. They have my full trust, also.--Berig (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the counsil of Berig: he has been involved in personal attacks, stalking and alliances ever since I criticized his use of out of date books and maps that favor antics on a Germanic homeland in Scandinavia by proposing an obsolete deluge theory. His mentioning of "best experts on the field" (archeology) is in contradiction to my statement above and does not specify. Rokus01 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a court of law, you don't get to object to people. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). The debate was, in some ways, obscured by a content dispute but underneath that, the core issue raised by those arguing for deletion was never successfully addressed. No reliable, independent sources were ever produced demonstrating that the topic actually exists outside Wikipedia. This decision was well-within responsible admin discretion for closure. Rossami (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the obvious confusion between topic and title should be addressed. I addressed the validity of the topic, even to the extend that the theory was notably qualified as one widely accepted theory by a reliable source. The suggestion to discuss the title by one of the voters has not taken into consideration.Rokus01 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion (I was the AfD nom). I looked long and hard, and so did several respected editors active in science WikiProjects, and none of us could find any reference to the "broad homeland hypothesis" in any academic source. It is a creation of Rokus01, a synthesis spun together out of speculations by academics regarding alternatives to the Kurgan hypothesis. However, most of these alternatives are not yet named, it seems, and certainly none are named the "broad homeland hypothesis". This is original research at its most sneaky, particularly because on its face the article looks encyclopedic. - Merzbow (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sneaky", this is suggestive to the atmosphere created and fail to substantiate the main accusation: that the theory would lack any academic source. I really don't understand how people that uphold an outstanding reputation dare to put this at stake, unless they are confident that nobody would ever verify their insinuation. So why did I mention a respected and much cited book like "In Search of the Indo-Europeans - J.P.Mallory, Thames and Hudson 1989, ISBN 0-500-27616-1", where all can read about it? Or "The Oxford Companion to Archaeology - Edited by Brian M. Fagan, Oxford University Press, 1996, p348 - J.P. Mallory, ISBN 0-19-507618-4"? I can't accept that this contradiction is settled by the word of one against the other. The theory is mentioned there, extensively, and thus an existing topic. To make a false statement on this is a very serious offense. Rokus01 (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked many times to produce quotes from academics that define a theory called the "broad homeland hypothesis". Neither of those books above do so. - Merzbow (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well it was Lothar Kilian's theory, and also that it was the theory that tied together Corded Ware with Kurgan culture into one "common linguistic ancestry theory" that brought both cultures together into one single "broader homeland". Knowing this, you should come up with the proper question: "How the academic world refers to this theory?" Because it does, else it would not be "widely accepted". It was the "widely accepted" thing that triggered your nomination and now your offense is that you deny the existence of notable sources referring to this theory, even when they are explicitly quoted. You should have been honest and nominate this article for not complying to WP:NAME and nothing else. I could have proposed "Kilian's theory", but just like the actual Steppe theory doesn't "belong" anymore to Gimbutas (except for those too ignorant to be cited) due to countless contributions of others including partial refutals; just like this example, in my opinion the name Kilian is immaterial to the course this theory took afterwards and nowadays. Still, the theory rather deserves an unfit name than deletion. You should have proposed a better one, since you are the criticaster to the one I proposed. Rokus01 (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory says that some theory for which he provides a description but no name is widely accepted. He also describes several other theories with notable support. Again, the theory is not named - you gave it a name and decided on one definition. We do not know if other scholars who are talking about something that appears similar means they are talking about the same theory. I would suggest a new article called "Alternatives to the Kurgan Hypothesis" and have sections named after each notable scholar, listing their descriptions of the alternative theories. The Anatolian hypothesis seems to be the only such alternative that has a name and a definition, so that can be in its own section. But you cannot cite multiple scholars in support of an unnamed undefined theory, which is what you did in this article. - Merzbow (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an extremely sensible solution/compromise. Renata (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I nearly closed this debate with the same result, and obviously I agree with the close. I don't see any procedural issues with it. Shereth 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn since even its possible over-enthousiastic compiliation does not justify the complete obliteration of a topic that is sourced, valid and that treats an existing theory, even cited as widely accepted. Rokus01 (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I should have gone back to work on it, but among the possible sources are Colin Renfrew,Archeology and Language: the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins Cambridge Univ. P, 1987, which discusses the earlier history of the field. The discussion at the afd was based on a total misunderstanding--this is an older and now rejected theory, now being espoused again without any sound basis. The article was POV as if the theory was correct, but that needs editing, not rrfejection of the article, because as an older theory, it was still notable. DGG (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, debate was correctly interpreted, concerns of WP:NPOV and WP:SYN were not successfully addressed by keep advocates. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. AFD process was followed correctly; the article was pure OR. —An gr 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Only two homeland theories, the Steppeland theory of Mallory and the Anatolian theory of Renfrew, seem to have been presented extensively in the literature. Lothar Kilian's theory, which this article is about, has not attracted a following amongst other scholars and has been criticized in the academic literature for its lack of scholarship. The rejection of Mallory and Adams' 2006 book as a source was also problematic. Chapter 26 of that book was devoted to discussing the problem of determining a homeland from various points of view, but it took a completely different tack to the article under discussion, which was an extremely narrow synthesis with some misrepresentation of sources such as Mallory and Häusler. Note: I have absolutely no expertise in this area, but do have access to the academic literature. Mathsci (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion, but as a courtesy undelete and blank-protect so as to make the edit-history accessible. Even though the article topic was dubious, the article body did contain valid material. --dab (𒁳) 09:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Seems unchallenged that sources exist, and the subject is real. There were editorial concerns that are not reasons for deletion. AfD to me looked like "no concensus". At worst, I guess that editorial judgement would conclude with merge and redirect to Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there were no "editorial concerns", there were concerns that the topic of the article is a non-entity (as in, zero google hits). "The subject is real" isn't an argument, I don't get to write an article on my toenails, which I assure you are real too. That said, I would be satisfied with a "redirect" outcome instead of deletion per my note above. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were sources, but no ghits? Are you ignoring Wikipedia:GHITS? Agree that a redirect is a satisfactory outcome. It seems to be a verifiable theory, but verifiably wrong, and without special commentary, it should at best be a section. As a valid academic subject, a redirect hould exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no, I am not "ignoring GHITS". You clearly haven't been following the discussion. Rokus01 in the AfD was trying to argue that this was "an important theory", which somehow miraculously escaped being referred to by any single name, but rather leads a kind of ghost-like existence under "descriptive names" like "Maximum geographic extend theory", "Common linguistic ancestry theory" or "One widely accepted IE homeland theory". Of course, we will need to rely on Rokus' skills of synthesis to find out which "descriptive names" do in fact refer to this "important theory". dab (𒁳) 07:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - with no prejudice to work out another solution (like one that Merzbow proposed). Edit history might be needed for some other alternative. But I oppose right away recreation as the article needs to be re-written from scratch and it's better to have a clean and fresh start. Renata (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The most I see as viable is an additional note in Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses. That would require a good source for the existence of this hypothesis as a hypothesis, which was lacking in the AFD and article. If we had multiple such sources with significant coverage of the hypothesis then it would be time for the article. But it sure looks to me like original research at this time. GRBerry 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse seems to lack a real name, which makes it questionable for us to be writing an article about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - correctly closed, the central problem was WP:SYNTH, which can't be resolved by editing. PhilKnight (talk) 12:37, 29 July 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 Ratskeller in Bremen – Speedy deletion overturned, consensus is that significance was indeed asserted. – Stormie (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted 22:37, 22 July 2008 by User:Craigy144, though I started the translation of the German version. See the year 1405 in the List of oldest companies and the links Bremen, Town Hall of Bremen, Wilhelm Hauff etc.

House1630 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, bad A7. Article contains many assertions of importance, such as being the oldest wine cellar in Germany and housing the oldest wine barrel in Germany. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Clearly not a speedy deletion candidate with several assertions of significance such as "With its history over 600 years the Ratskeller of Bremen is the oldest wine cellar of Germany". Davewild (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Buildings do not qualify for A7 speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Misapplication of A7; the speedy deletion criteria are intentionally narrow in scope, and widening the net even slightly is inappropriate. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A7 does not apply to buildings and it asserted notability anyway. Hut 8.5 09:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Bad or contested CSD#A7. List at AfD if necessary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg – Keep closure endorsed. There are valid points as well as a significant amount of bluster on both sides. Individual images are judged on a case-by-case basis whether they fit the WP:NFCC and WP:NFC by community consensus. I see no compelling case that this is an egregious violation where the community consensus can be ignored (although it may be on some articles inappropriately). The nominator admits that there is at least one article where the image could be validly included. – IronGargoyle (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Misjudged "keep" closure of a non-free screenshot image. The closing admin failed to assess the validity of the keep arguments on the basis of policy. All keep votes (to the degree that they contained a tangible argument at all) argued essentially only that the a certain fact (Indiana Jones appearing as a scout in a movie) was important. None of these arguments, however, addressed the crucial issue of NFCC#8: in what way is the image important in order to understand this important but simple fact? According to NFCC8, the image itself (not simply the fact it illustrates) must make a crucial contribution to the understanding of the article. This in conjunction with NFCC#1, which explicitly states that facts that can be made understood with text alone cannot be used to justify an image for illustration. Some keep votes simply asserted that it made such a contribution; none of them explained how it did so.

The admin closed the debate with a blanket statement that it "[m]eets Wikipedia:NFC requirements" without explaining how such a finding resulted from the debate.

The closing admin also failed to address the issue of which articles the alleged keep consensus was valid for. The image has been claimed for as many as five articles: Scouting, Scouting in popular culture, Uniform and insignia of the Boy Scouts of America, River Phoenix, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. (Of these five, Scouting isn't covered even by a fair use rationale, but nevertheless the image was immediately restored to it after the close of the IfD; rationales for River Phoenix and "Uniform and insignia..." were removed during the IfD.) Even if one were to concede legitimacy of use in Scouting in popular culture, on which most keep arguments focussed, use in Scouting is blatantly unnecessary, as it merely replicates its use in the detail article (hence illegitimate under NFCC#3); while its use in the film article must be assessed totally separately. It's one thing to say that the image is necessary for a discussion of the role of scouting in popular culture; it's an entirely different thing to say it's necessary for understanding a certain plot element in the film (which, quite blatantly, it is not.)

Therefore: Overturn and delete from all three articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relist~~. There were serious challenges to the fair use rationale. Could use further debate. A proper close requires far more explanation. If there is no consensus that the various fair use rationales are solid, should the image be deleted, or does no consensus mean keep, even in these cases? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion below seems sufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no consensus to delete and so the correct process was followed. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- False. Non-free-content related IfDs have to be closed based on policy, not just on consensus. The closer needs to explain exactly how the image fulfills the requirements and how the challenges posed by the delete voters have been met. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close, but remove the image from the two articles it clearly does not belong in (the Scouting ones). This isn't IFD part 2, so there's no need to argue the details, but a valid argument exists on both sides and I can justify a keep, at least for the article on the film. In the other articles, though, it's just there to pretty it up, and there are already several other, better images used as examples. On a side note, the copyright is falsely attributed to the Boy Scouts, not to the filmmakers, and used under the idea that the BSA gave permission to depict their uniforms on Wikipedia. This permission wouldn't apply to this picture. This should be fixed. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This just goes to show how poor the result of that IfD was. I would argue to the contrary: If anything, the "Scouting in popular culture" article has a relatively stronger claim to legitimacy. In the context of that article, one could at least argue that the fact of Indiana Jones appearing as a scout had some significance. In the context of the film article, that fact plays absolutely no role at all. That he goes through some adventures as a boy is important for the film; that he does so in a scout uniform seems to be of no significance. The IfD failed to clarify even these basic issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and leave wherever a reasonable argument shows it relevant. If it is relevant to show him going through the adventures as a boy, it has to be shown with him wearing what he wore in the film- or it doesnt serve the purpose of providing context. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude in a close that all of the contexts listed made sense. DGG (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that the image shows nothing of the sort. It doesn't show the adventures. Whatever it is that it shows, it doesn't help me to understand the film. If the article had some analytical commentary about the acting or the casting, regarding the actor they chose to play the young Indiana, that might provide an angle for an NFCC case. Just him staring at that object is simply nothing of any significance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S.: Actually, looking at the article again, I now notice that it does discuss the casting: "Ford personally recommended Phoenix for the part, citing that of all the young actors working at the time, River Phoenix was the one who looked the most like him when he was around that age". Now, if the image could be linked to that bit, I guess I could actually support it here. But remove from the other articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The image does comply with the NFC policy but only on the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade article. IMO Its use on the other articles really is trying it on. RMHED (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep closure, but the image should really be used only in the one article, per RMHED. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and figure out exact limits of non-free use, and delete if no legal use is found. Certainly (and per above) no reason for use in Scouting articles has been given. Kusma (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This received due process and was discussed for one week. All sides articulated their views thoroughly and Dreadstar rightly concluded that the image's use satisfied NFCC for the two articles where it is presently used and where FUR are provided, namely Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Scouting in popular culture. Having said that, however, I have added additional content to the latter article and the associated image FUR to address Fut.Perf.'s concerns, to clarify that this is a notable example of Scouting in film, because the fictional Indiana Jones' career as an adventurer is depicted as having its beginnings as a Boy Scout, wearing an authentic early 20th century uniform. Mere prose alone cannot possibly convey this conceptualization and context adequately to the reader seeking to understand the imagery of Scouting in film. JGHowes ^talk - 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying so don't make it so. Just making that assertion over and over again won't help. Tell me exactly, what piece of visual information in the image is it that would render the article incomplete? (And no, your recent rewording doesn't help it either.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse - there's a rough consensus for the image to be kept, but I have reservations about the image - mostly, where the supposed cross is. I can't see it full-size. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own closure of this IfD. I was asked to provide more detail. This was an IfD, which are focused on whether or not to keep an image on Wikipedia, not which other articles it should be included in. Once the decision has been made to keep the image on Wikipedia for any article, then basing the decision to include in other articles should be on case-by-case talk page discussions, consensus, and policy. But I’ll be happy to address the other main article, because I did weigh both very carefully.
1. The two strongest articles to consider for appropriate fair use of the image are Scouting in popular culture and the article on the film itself, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
  1. There is no doubt in my mind that the image fully meets all criteria for inclusion in the film it is taken from. The image illustrates a key plot point, a significant event in the life of the title subject of the film. Clearly this is a significant image from the film, depicting major elements of the character’s history and makeup, showing us the beginnings of an iconic fictional film character.
  2. Indiana Jones is clearly an iconic pop culture figure, and the image of him as a Boy Scout during the formation of what later becomes the adventurer-archeologist is a notable and a true poster-child for Scouting in popular culture. In recent years, it’s very difficult to find a pop cult figure of such magnitude, and as pointed out by others, there seem to be very few images of Scouting in film; with virtually all of those copyrighted as well, so the choice is between one fair-use image and another, or having no image. I think the image adds a lot to the article, and is a clearly notable illustration of the Boy Scouts in pop culture.
2. The image meets all ten Wikipedia:NFC#Policy criteria for use of the non-free image. For the film article, as well as the Indiana Jones reference in the Scouting in popular culture article, there is no free equivalent. Indiana Jones is an iconic pop culture figure, and scouting was a major plot point of the film, this image cannot be replaced by a free one that carries the same effect. The film itself was the top grossing film of 1989, The image provides a visual context that text alone cannot convey, so textual representation cannot replace it. The image use is in no way likely to replace the market role of the original.
3. It also meets minimal usage, minimal extent of use, previous publication, and media-specific policy. It meets the one-article minimum, significance (addressed above), restrictions on location, and has an adequate image description page - containing proper attribution to the source and copyright holder.
4. Image use also meets Wikipedia:NFC#Images requirements, 8: Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. The mage is clearly used for “discussion of the cinema and television” in both the Indiana Jones film and Scouting in popular culture articles.
5. The image also does not fail under any of the WP:NFC Inappropriate use of images criteria.
Dreadstar † 01:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Showing a significant plot point is simply not enough. You claim that "textual representation cannot replace it". Saying so don't make it so. Of course it can. As long as the claimed justification is just the thing about scouting. As I said above, I can see a different angle of justification elsewhere, to support the commentary about casting. Now, that really is an analytical statement that needs visual support to be understood. That's the only reason why I'm prepared to let this DRV rest. But I can't let this misrepresentation of policy pass uncommented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the criteria used is often of interpretations, different interpretations does never mean misrepresentation of policy. The interpretations by Rlevse, JGHowes and closure rationale by Dreadstar above, convinced me that this image should be used on both Wikipedia articles. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 12:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While there remains a group of editors that feel that there should be no non-free content on the project, that is not even close to a consensus opinion. The close of this IfD was not controversial, nor was it out of process in any way. This is an easy call to endorse the "keep" closure. S. Dean Jameson 19:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I was trying to think of this word yesterday, that image represents a pivotal moment in the character's history; as he's holding the cross, with the realization that this important artifact of history belongs in a museum and that there are forces that would take it for personal gain. His Scouting background is obviously in play here, not only by giving him the positive moral view to rise above selfishness, but also the tools and training to actually do something about it. It's really a pivotal moment in an iconic character's life. And the point brought up by Fut Perf fits right in, that image is exactly what Spielberg wanted to convey, how he looked as a youth and what motivating forces he saw behind the iconic character of Indiana Jones. It's also a symbol of what drives him to seek the holy grail. The movie starts off with the cross and ends up with the grail. Dreadstar † 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And do you have reliable sources to back that up, or is it just your opinion? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a good point. There aren't any reliable sources to back up the claim that this is "the most famous instance of scouting in film" at all. In fact, Indy being a Boy Scout is almost completely irrelevant to the plot. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No clear error in IfD closing. Folks have to deal with the fact the some of the NFCC rules are subjective and opinions (headcount) does play a role. There are good arguments on both sides, but closing as keep seemed reasonable. Hobit (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I stand by my original position that this image meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The image clearly has an appropriate use. If it is inappropriately displayed in another article/user page, it needs to be removed from that page, not Wikipedia altogether. If other discussions erupt, they should be contained to that talk page and then work their way through WP:DR as needed; this page isn't the place. I also disagree with the assertion that anyone who nominates keep needs to explain how every other delete argument is wrong and they must state how it satisfies every criteria. That is not in accordance with policy and will only serve to significantly lengthen a discussion for every image which has a keep !vote. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Future Perfect has now removed it from Scouting, (and threatened a block in his edit summary if anyone restored it), erroneously claiming that it's an obvious violation of NFCC #3 in doing so. Not only is it not an "obvious violation", it's not even a technical violation of NFCC #3 to have it in Scouting, as I outlined at the talk page of the image. S. Dean Jameson 17:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would both of you please take a deep breath and work this out on the article's Talk page rather than via edit-warring? While there is room to reasonably debate whether the use of this image in the Scouting article would qualify under fair use, over-the-top allegations that it's "the most famous image of scouting in film" show problems with the fallacy of recency and don't materially advance the debate. It may be popular and it certainly is recent and that may or may not be sufficient to meet fair use for a section titled "In film and the arts", but it is nowhere close to "the most famous image of scouting". (If I had to guess, I'd suspect one of the Norman Rockwell paintings.) At the same time, it is inappropriate to threaten blocking while the question is worked out. I can't find any consensus to either add or remove the image from the page. In fact, I can't find any evidence of discussion at all on Talk:Scouting. Please make your respective cases and work out your differences there. This is not the place to work out a content dispute. Rossami (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was gonna say something, but you EC'd me right out of it because I agree with you 100%. In any event, I don't think anyone (even the nom) supports deletion of the image anymore, it's just a matter of where it's used. This is now a content dispute. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - On Scouting, there is no mention in the article even of the film, let alone of the specific scene, let alone analytical commentary involving it. Moreover, at the time I removed it, the image didn't even have a caption identifying what it was. Plus, it was supposedly doing the same thing there as in the detail article Scouting in popular culture. You don't get to use the same image twice in two articles for the same purpose. Non-free image use has to be "minimal". Doing the same thing twice is not minimal under any understanding of that word. There's no way the image can be tolerated on that article. No room even for debate here. As an administrator on this project, I will do what needs to be done to prevent this obvious case of abuse, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn I'm swayed by the arguments above that NFCC 8 was not met. the fact that river pheonix was cast as a boy scout and that he held the cross of coronado (a throwaway plot point, BTW) can be explained without loss by text. If, perhaps, we had some image of Harrison Ford at that age and listed the two side by side along with the sourced point that Phoenix was chosen specifically by ford because he bore some strong resemblance to him, I could see it meeting NFCC 8. the fact that some hypothetical non infringing use exists mean that I would only move weakly to overturn the keep closure. the image in current form and applied in the current articles does not convey any understanding that can't be conveyed textually. the cross of coronado is a gilded cross. Indy was a boy scout. he once held the cross. these are things expressed by the article but easily expressed by text as well. Even if removal of the image somehow prevented us from discussing the plot point at hand (assuming that the image conveyed some quality inexpressible in text), the plot point the image describes is vanishingly minor. On balance I don't see good arguments to keep this image. Protonk (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the IfD. It's a rather strange DRV regarding an IfD closed as "keep." The only question before us is whether the closing admin was wrong to close it as such. If the "keep" close is endorsed, then open a new IfD after a while and make your above argument there. It has nothing to do with whether or not the IfD was closed properly. S. Dean Jameson 20:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize my statements can be broadly taken as a rehashing of an IfD, but it seems appropriate to this DRV. In this case, consensus pointed to keep and the nominator's (of the DRV) interpretation of policy pointed to delete. Insofar as policy might trump consensus (and it ought to for FU images), making a clear interpretation of policy is important to endorsing or overturning the close. So, to clarify. In my opinion, application of WP:NFCC trumps anything but a resounding consensus and the proper application of NFCC is to treat the image as not meeting #8. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: a few people (are you one?) feel that NFCC is cut-and-dried, and that this image clearly fails #8. The fact that so MANY people disagree with that view of the policy means it's NOT cut-and-dried. Therefore, our opinions on the merits of the image itself have no place--none--in this discussion. The only thing up for debate is whether or not the closing admin made a mistake in determining consensus.S. Dean Jameson 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. NFCC 8 isn't cut and dry, but the application of it as it may be understood is. If the admin weighed consensus against a violated fair use criteria and determined that anything less than overwhelming consensus moved to keep the article, the close was wrong. Part of the review of the deletion comes from hashing out some definition of the policy at hand. IF this were an article and we were reviewing a deletion per WP:N and the closer misread WP:N, we would have cause to point that out. In this case there is more to be said at the DRV than "3 people moved to delete citing NFCC 8". Again, if the image violates policy, then the question becomes "did the admin make a mistake weighing policy against consensus", not just "weighing consensus". Protonk (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But significance is a matter of opinion, and so we look for consensus. There can't be an objective violation of #8 as it is currently described. It is a matter of opinion and degree. So the closing admin shouldn't be overriding consensus. At least that's my take.

Overturn and delete per every precedent set here at WP:DRV, this image in no way meets WP:NFCC#8. The use of the image in Scouting in popular culture is totally unnecessary to the understanding of the article as it is used to decorate a listing of films. The image is of no significance in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade either. There is no discussion of this particular scene so the omission of the image would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. -Nv8200p talk 03:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat what I said before: this isn't IfD. These type of arguments are appropriate at an IfD. They're not appropriate here. Your citing of "per every precedent set here at DRV" makes little sense, as DRVs don't overturn "keep" decisions simply because the deletes didn't get their way at IfD. We know you think you're right about NFCC #8. Many other people felt you were wrong in your interpretation. This is NOT the place to rehash the IfD. It's not a "do-over" for the deletes, it's a review of the procedural decision made by the closing admin, period. S. Dean Jameson 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision of the admin violates Wikipedia policy, then an error was made and the decision needs to be overturned. I contend that he did, based on precedents set in this forum for the way this image is used. -Nv8200p talk 03:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Your interpretation of NFCC#8 doesn't matter as to whether the close was procedurally correct or not. That's all DRV is really for. It doesn't matter whether or not you think his close violated your interpretation of WP policy or not. Again, this isn't IfD. S. Dean Jameson 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think his close violated the consensus established here at DRV for non-free images being used in this manner so his close cannot be procedurally correct. And it doesn't matter what you think DRV is really for. -Nv8200p talk 03:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This image is FU eligible, certainly for Scout pop culture and movie articles. This is one of the most iconic Boy Scout images from pop culture so its use in those two articles is precisely what FU is all about. To say it isn't is stretching the FUR to the limits. FUR is not as black and white as that. — Rlevse • Talk • 07:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. If this is such an iconic image, why is there no critical commentary of it anywhere on Wikipedia? The Scouting in popular culture article barely mentions the movie, and the article on the movie barely mentions this scene. The image is purely decorative in both articles. The image completely and utterly fails to comply with Wikipedia policy. The IFD never should have been closed as "keep" since there were (and are still) no coherent arguments from the "keep" voters. —An gr 09:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - decorative image. PhilKnight (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCritical commentary is not required, it is only one way to meet fair use. The keep closure at IFD was with consensus and policy.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image uses the {{Non-free film screenshot}} template, which requires "critical commentary on the film and its contents". PhilKnight (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is setting a guideline/policy? Where is that derived from? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more content to Scouting in popular culture and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, particularly elaborating on Steven Spielberg's use of lighting and adding critical commentary by Roger Ebert regarding this specific scene; see diffs here and here JGHowes ^talk - 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Turners Falls Road Bridge – Overturn all. – lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closing admin apparently did not check the state of the articles before deleting. While the original articles prior to the AFD were indeed lacking, significant improvements have been made during the AFD that satisfy the requirements of WP:N. --Polaron | Talk 03:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for all six articles. It seemed to me that the concensus of the discussion was to keep the articles. Agree with above statement that closing admin did not review articles for improvements made since nomination. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for all - The consensus was overwhelmingly to keep the articles and as pointed above, the closer didn't seem to notice improvements made to them. --Oakshade (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all Sources were added to the articles during AFD but unfortunatly nobody seems to have mentioned this on the AFD. Sources added addressed the policy grounds for deletion - WP:V - and provides an arguable case for notability which many of the contributors to the AFD accepted. Could see a reasonable no consensus close but considering the changes to the articles during the AFD, delete does not seem to be appropriate. Davewild (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all. Certainly improved by the time of closure. Ian¹³ /t 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was no consensus and the closer seemed to impose his own personal view rather than defaulting to keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I can't see a consensus to delete in that discussion (no consensus might have been better), and nobody discussed the improvements made to the articles. --Hut 8.5 13:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all - per previous comments - Denimadept (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I only notified the admin about the deletion review but have not discussed the matter prior to this review. Is that really an absolute necessity though? The deletion review is by nature a discussion in which the closing admin is specifically invited to participate and also reaches a few more people than a one-on-one discussion. --Polaron | Talk 19:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's customary, at least, to discuss the matter first with the admin as oftentimes they will realise that the deletion was in error and restore the page there and then, without having to go through a five-day listing here. It's also common courtesy, I think. Thanks for your quick reply. Overturn deletion per all above. No consensus to delete (or, for that matter, to do anything else) is discernible from that AFD, and the standard result in that case is a keep. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all; bad close. --NE2 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn ALL. Before the articles were nominated, they did not have many reference citations (which was apparently the reason for their nomination). During the course of the AFD debate, for the (3) road bridges in particular which were claimed to be less "notable" than the (3) railroad bridges, citations and references were added to the articles (books and publications about Connecticut and Massachusetts bridges). The "AFD Discussion rules" to keep from deleting should have been posted initially so that the significant majority who had voted to Keep could have posted accordingly. Instead the closing Admin ignored both the significant changes to the articles as well as the comments of the majority who had voted to Keep. Those who voted to Keep probably did not understand what the Admin required in terms of defending Wikipedia:Notability, accordingly one or more good notability examples should have prevented them from being deleted. Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to article content and not article existence, so Notability was the only criteria which needed to be defended against deletion.

For example, Notable features of Turners Falls Road Bridge:

Carries 3,944,700 vehicles per year (2003) National Bridge Inventory
$2,987,000.00 was the estimated cost to make standard bridge and highway improvements to it in 2006.
135.9 metres (446 ft) long over the Connecticut River composed of (5) piers in the water and (6) spans
survived several Connecticut River floodings, whereas the previous (White Lower Suspension) bridge was destroyed by flooding at the same location
documented in/on several Connecticut and Massachusetts bridge books, lists, publications and sites.

LeheckaG (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my interpretation of the consensus in the AfD. Consensus is not only a head-count. How the arguments are covered by policy is the most important factor. In this instance, there were no arguments that showed how the subjects in question were notable in Wikipedia context, and many arguments that can be disregarded out of hand. There were editors, however, who effectively argued that the articles lacked notability, which is policy- (in this instance, guideline) backed. Therefore, the consensus based on policy-backed arguments was that the articles should be deleted. There were improvements made during the AfD. However, none of the participants in the discussion addressed these as granting notability or not. Perhaps the sources added notability, perhaps they did not. It is not my place to decide, as that puts my own interpretation of the notability guideline above consensus in an AfD. Now, given the improvements, a relist to gather consensus as to whether the improvements addressed the previous concerns would have been a more acceptable course of action, but there no indication that additional sources had been added that could have granted notability was given. I stand by my assessment of consensus as correct. However, in light of the new sources, and therefore the complication it adds in closure, I'm fine with it being overturned. However, I do ask that the closure be overturned and the articles undeleted with no prejudice toward a future AfD should another editor find the sources lacking, and therefore a wider consensus can be gathered based on the new state of the articles. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that no one at the AFD mentioned that improvements were made to the articles during the discussion that may have satisfied notability for at least some of the articles. This is not meant in anyway to malign the closing admin as the action was completely proper based on the AFD discussion alone. The deletions, however, should be overturned and articles nominated separately (the bundling of bridges that have widely varying degrees of notability was a problem itself) if some people still think that one or more of the articles are not notable. --Polaron | Talk 01:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: As the nominator of the AfD, I was gratified to see one of the uncommon instances of a closing nom support policy over consensus. The WP:BRIDGE editors fighting to save these articles included a few factoids, at the eleventh hour, but in no wise explained what made these notable. Let's take the facts that LeheckaG summarizes above. What about a vehicle count of 3,944,700 annually - which breaks down to less than eight cars a minute - is notable? What is either noteworthy or unusual about it receiving $3,000,000 in repairs a few years back? What about its length, its number of spans or its number of piers is unusual or notable? Why is it notable that it's survived floods that weaker bridges built a century or more ago did not ... don't most United States bridges, in fact, not fall down? And so on. WP:V and WP:N require notable, non-trivial mention, and the only facts that anyone could dredge up are trivialities common to tens of thousands of nondescript road bridges; all bridges were built sometime, there's some government or highway department report somewhere that mentions them, they all cost a certain amount of money to build and repair, and they all have a certain length and were built in a particular fashion. It isn't even that the AfD was a hatchet job ... there are 47 crossings of the Connecticut listed, and only six articles AfDed. Finally, while some of the Overturn voters still seem to be stewing over notification issues, I just happened to find out about this Deletion Review by accident because I wanted to see if WP:BRIDGE did indeed have the consensus notability standards members claimed. No one seemed to feel I ought to be informed. RGTraynor 06:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you patently fail to understand is that these so-called "policies" you worship are totally non-prescriptive and non-binding. We don't have to obey them, ever, at all, for any reason. No so-called "policy" ever trumps consensus in a particular case, and no community servant has any legitimate business to act against consensus in a particular case because a so-called "policy" says otherwise. You've got Wikipedia backwards. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No 1500 foot long bridge is "nondescript", I'm afraid.... but more importantly, you've got things backwards I think. You say: "one of the uncommon instances of a closing nom support policy over consensus" ... Um, I think maybe you're not totally clear on how policy is formed here. Policy follows consensus. If consensus consistently comes out ("uncommon instances" notwithstanding) in contravention of apparent policy, the policy is what has been described wrong, not the consensus, because policy is descriptive of consensus, not prescriptively counter to it. ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if there has been a Wikipedia-wide consensus declaring that WP:N (for instance) was no longer applicable, or that its phrasing had changed, then obviously matters would be different. To quote from WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is the right course of action." RGTraynor 04:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of people adding notability to the subject articles during the AfD process and didn't consider it necessary to repeat the information in AfD discussion since more people were endorsing a keep than a delete. So I will give a sample of the information I found here for just one of the articles.

The Amtrak/Springfield Terminal Railroad Bridge was built by Alvah Crocker, a U.S. Representative. He operated the Fitchburg Railroad. This rail line would eventually extend to the Hoosac Tunnel, a civil engineering landmark. Mr. Crocker bought land and developed Turners Falls. Because he built the rail line and the bridge, a cutlery factory opened in Turners Falls. I found a biography on him (Life and Times of Alvah Crocker By William Bond Wheelwright) that stated that Turners Falls would not exist as it is today without Mr. Crocker building that "non-descript railroad bridge."

Those of us with a passion for bridges realize that a community will shape a bridge before it is built, but once constructed, a bridge (no matter how small) will shape a community for decades to come. This is often taken for granted as people do not see the effect a bridge has until it is gone. These articles were stubs and probably would have been better suited to be combined together and discussed in an article like Connecticut River Crossings in Franklin County, Massachusetts. That way the impact they have on the community (which I might consider to be their notability) can be discussed as a group. You are very much right that Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges needs to develop notability criteria.

I guess I must still be a newbie, because the deletion of the articles by the admin felt like a WP:BITE to me (very one-sided). - PennySpender1983 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a portmanteau article would be appropriate, but just in considering that sample paragraph above, the editor's mixing up his bridges. Turners has, in fact, three bridges crossing it; the one up for deletion is the least notable and least noticeable one of the lot, and I didn't touch the (relatively notable) Gill-Montague Bridge, the main route into Turners, or the (relatively notable) General Pierce Bridge. The Amtrak/Springfield Terminal Railroad Bridge is something like sixty miles south of Turners Falls, is in Connecticut, and nowhere near the Fitchburg Railroad or the Hoosac Tunnel routes. That aside, as stated before, every bridge was built by someone, most bridges involved economic development, and whether a bridge or not has a notable impact on the community after it is gone is speculation which I don't find in WP:V or WP:N. RGTraynor 23:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the railroad bridge being referred to as the Deerfield Springfield Terminal railroad bridge. --Polaron | Talk 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added information on three of the six bridges. The Suffield/Enfield railroad bridge was an example in an Engineering textbook that was listed as an external link in the article. It was also mentioned in one of the cited sources as being one of the earliest iron bridges in the United States that was built before the end of the U.S. Civil War. It was built overseas, disassembled, shipped to the U.S., then reassembled. The Northfield road bridge was prominently discussed in a book about the history of the town. It was also the first bridge in the U.S. not to use falsework during construction. The Turner Falls road bridge is also highlighted in one of the added sources as being crucial for the booming of the manufacturing industry in the village in the 19th century because it brought it in direct contact with the county seat. It is also notable for being bypassed by State Route 2 because of concerns of being washed away (the area apparently suffers from its bridges frquently being washed away). WP:N only something requires being discussed in secondary sources. Note that the added sources do discuss the social and economic effects of the bridges and offer some engineering novelty as well. The sources have more information but I only added what stood out to me. These three plus the Deerfield railroad bridge discussed above for sure meet the requirements of WP:N. The other two bridges I have begun searching for sources during the AFD but have not found any that discuss the bridges (rather than merely mention them) unlike the other four. --Polaron | Talk 00:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too Penny, me too. At this point, I'm more interested in starting a new Wiki for structures past, present, and future than I am in continuing here. I'm trying to determine interest atm. - Denimadept (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all - articles improved. Also the closing comments smacked me as "I don't like these articles thus I am going to ignore anything the opposers said." Renata (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all at the very least, they should have ben relisted individually. DGG (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all a shotgun nom seems not the way to go, individual discussions would be better. The closer should have closed no consensus based on the strength of the arguments in any case. I have merged the content of Joseph E. Muller Bridge, a 1500 foot long bridge, and thus likely notable in its own right anyway, into Joseph E. Muller (who is notable as a Medal of Honor winner), and was about to do the same for others when I realised there was a DRv underway. These articles should all be undeleted to allow for review by participants. That includes undeleteing ALL revisions. Turners Falls Road Bridge for example, has only a notice. The rest of the edits, which would allow non admin participants to judge whether there was substantial change in the article while the AfD was underway, are deleted. That seems incorrect to me. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which arguments supporting keeping had any basis in policy or guideline? seresin ( ¡? ) 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... how about the fact that multiple sources were added during the course of the nom satisfying notability: "It is one of the earliest iron bridges erected in the United States." with a five page writeup in an 1881 engineering text, for example... That was one of the articles you deleted. That you didn't catch that suggests that your review was not as careful as it could have been. There is no shame in a bad close or a bad delete, people get overturned all the time, it happens to me too. Where there is an issue is in not admitting your error but instead digging in. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I don't view it as a closing administrator's place to review modifications to the article and deem them as addressing the AfD concerns or not. In this instance, because of the presence of such modifications, a relist of the AfD would have been more appropriate, and I already admitted that. But, purely based on the AfD, there were no "keep" arguments put forth that were in-line with our policies and guidelines. Length of a bridge does not grant notability based on our notability guideline, and therefore none of those arguments were valid. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to process wank, be my guest. Relist the lot at AfD so they can be snowball speedy closed as keep by me, and we'll move on. Or just overturn them all now yourself and admit you erred. OR... dig in and look increasingly like you're more concerned with process than with improving the encyclopedia. How many people telling you this was a bad close do you need? ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is what we do. (Yes, that's circular, and rightly so.) If common practice and policy/guidelines do not match, one or the other must change. --NE2 09:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all. If the closer is correct to delete these articles because of our notability policy, then the policy is seriously flawed. Our policies are supposed to describe our practices, which are determined in forums like AFD. So the notability arguments can get extremely circular. Towards the end of the discussion, I asked what actual harm there is in having articles like these. That should be the focus of our discussion. Nobody is questioning the existence of these bridges, or any of the facts in the articles. There is no problem in maintaining the articles. They are not a target of vandalism. All the information is verifiable.
I strongly believe that there are good reasons for having a policy about notability. Notability standards help us judge the sources used to verify an article and weigh their reliability and accuracy. That is not an issue here. Notability standards help us keep Wikipedia being unmanageable. This is the only issue that seems relevant to this discussion. I can understand why we might want to put some limitations on the notability of music groups to control the exploitation of Wikipedia for reasons of self-promotion. In cases when there is a problem with contributors exploiting Wikipedia by some means, a notability standard is a useful way to reign in the behavior. The Bridge Wikiproject is a pretty sleepy backwater. We don't have many issues or controversies. We are not being overrun with articles about every overpass every constructed. We have never had a need to create strict notability standards. Again, I ask for someone to explain how articles like these are harmful to Wikipedia. The only harm that I see is from the deletion discussions like this one that may scare away newbies while wasting the efforts of numerous editors on both side of the debate. I think we would all be better off looking for more important problems to solve. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not being overrun? :) (just kidding; that's on the National Register of Historic Places, which probably does confer "inherent notability" because of the existence of nominations that cover the history in detail) --NE2 09:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Improved during afd. Sourced. Part of a set best completely documented rather than half-documented. Subject of much officially held data. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Seriously? Just looking at the AfD, how was it closed as delete? Avruch^T 13:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - ridiculous to apply notability guidelines in this manner, and there's a notable gap between the arguments and the claimed result. Terrible decision - David Gerard (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all — misfeasance by closing admin ➥the Epopt (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia "POLICY" see Wikipedia:List of policies); Wikipedia:Consensus says "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." When the majority voted to "Keep" in the AFD discussion, I had thought that the "Consensus" was to "Keep", but apparently the Nominator and the Closing Admin felt differently - repeatedly citing Wikipedia:Notability (which is a Wikipedia "Guideline" and NOT a policy see: Wikipedia:List of guidelines). The "Notability guideline" is primarily intended to curtail "self-publishing" and spamming, and to consolidate some brief articles into fewer articles about the general subject area or topic when there are not enough verifiable details for each one to stand on its own merits. The Notability guideline is meant to be a tool to direct editors to merge non-spam "orphan" content (and administrators to delete content which is CLEARLY "self-promotional spam") which was wrongly applied in the case of historic/older sizable bridges over a significant river. Hopefully this review will more clearly show the difference between: "consensus", "guideline", and "policy" than the original AFD outcome. What SHOULD have happened originally (BEFORE any AFD nomination), was FIRST "flagging/tagging" the articles with regard to being "Stubs" or not having enough citations/references so that the contributors/editors in the relevant projects could have remedied them rather than "fighting" an AFD debate and then this subsequent review of the AFD closure which went against Consensus. Initially, the nominated articles did not have the appropriate WP Bridges and WP Trains project templates on the talk pages - so they were "off the radar" of the relevant projects. Unfortunately some Wikipedians spend more time deleting than contributing or editing (I agree that spam and clearly "erroneous" content should be deleted, but I have seen accurate content get deleted for lack of a reference - which probably goes against a guideline or policy?). I have gotten in the habit of separating "References" into (3) sections: "Notes" for Cnote/Cref elaborations which do not fit in the main text, References for ref/Cite tags/templates, and General references for research materials not yet or not otherwise cited in the text. First adding General references when I can, and then starting to add the content to the article. But sometimes uncited/unreferenced details need to be flushed out first to get some generalities down before one can really find "authoritative/primary" reference citations, in the case of most bridges they are known by several different names and tying the "common" name together with the published ones takes some effort which results in stub articles being there for a while until someone can tie the details together. The "chicken and egg" issue I see is that while some people write entire articles themselves, I am guessing the majority of contributors work on certain aspects of articles - so that collaboration is generally beneficial. What is needed are "collaborative sandboxes" for such articles perhaps in "Project" or "Portal" namespace? so that such stubs can be created and collaboratively drafted without facing the wrath of those who would delete "unfinished/unreferenced articles" rather than actually contributing to them. LeheckaG (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "collaborative sandbox" you ask for is called a "wiki". Unsourced stubs are an essential part of wikis. Unsourced material is only a problem if is unverifiable. That is not the case here. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 18:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Open Web Foundation – New version of the article has been created (and survived speedy request) so deletion review no longer needed, but consensus is that the original version was an appropriate speedy deletion – Davewild (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This can not be considered advertising, the article describes a non-profit non-commercial organization. Similar rational was used at Talk:DataPortability. Significance and notability were asserted, let this article live so it will begin to see improvement. riffic (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Nonprofits advertise, too. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should contested speedies be assumed to be entitled to be listed at AfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The new (recreated?) version Looks like advertising of "The Open Web Foundation". Needs third party references to demostrate otherwise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that this is a normal process... Looks like it's on the way to a speedy but has been hung on. As it is, I would say Delete as it seems to fail WP:RS and is not notable. --Pmedema (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse previous speedy, and it looks like the current one needs deleting as well. Not everything is important, I'm afraid. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Please elaborate on your comment "Not everything is important." I am failing to understand what you mean by that. This topic is notable in multiple recent references, and is made up of significant member organizations. They are also going to be leading the development of leading open protocols such as OpenID and OAuth, which are significant enough to warrant their own wiki entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 14:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was announced yesterday, my gut reaction is that it isn't notable yet. Still, I could be wrong and it could be made into a good article. My opinion isn't likely to change on this for at least a few weeks, though it's fine if consensus doesn't swing that way. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion of the page at time of deletion. The deleted version was far too promotional in tone and speculative in content. It was an appropriate application of criterion G11. The recreated version is at least somewhat more neutral and better sourced. I'm still not sure that it meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for organizations but at this point it's a question for AfD to sort out. As a side note, comments like "going to be" are real red-flags. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for press releases. We document and synopsize things that have happened and have been written about by others; we are not supposed to speculate about the future. Rossami (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but allow re-creation I too would have speedied the article at the time of deletion, in large part because I fully share Rossami's views about "going to be" and its many equivalents. Once it a while it happens that they are left in from a previous wording or press release and whatever it is has since become important, but almost always it's reasonably conclusive evidence otherwise. I think that all admins closing speedy do similarly. DGG (talk) 15:26, 25 July 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 July 2008

Category:Jewish anti-Zionists – Deletion endorsed. No consensus to overturn, and WP:BLP arguments are compelling. – IronGargoyle (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionists is a category that exists. It's not a POV magnet yet this one was deleted because it is? Also, more votes requested a keep than delete.Comradesandalio (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

CfD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_2#Category:Jewish_anti-Zionists

Comment. Part of the closer's rationale "There is nothing to stop editors from creating cited lists with this material, and that is, by far, a much more appropriate way to include this information in Wikipedia" is contrary to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, specifically "These methods should notbe considered to be in conflict with each other". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Closing admin was correct in his explanation. Consensus is not and never will be a vote count. --Kbdank71 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Consensus is not a vote count, but the closing admin, if he does not agree with the general balance of rational arguments, must join in the discussion and let someone else close. Consensus foes not mean whatever the closer happens to think is the right arguments. The closer is not to evaluate according to his statement: "the arguments made during the discussion must be weighed against any relevant policies and guidelines", but just to discard the arguments not based on policy. We are qualified individually to decide what is or is not policy, but balancing them is not an individual matter. The community, not the admin, decides which policy is controlling and when to make exceptions. Incidentally, the reason I did not participate in the CfD was that i thought the matter was too obviously a keep to need my arguements also. DGG (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying 50 people saying something like "Keep, because it's been verified that Joe Politician humps dogs in his off-hours" trumps WP:BLP? After all, both are policy. The closing admin can and should weigh the arguments made, and should not be pigeonholed into "is it policy or not?". Because then we're just back to counting. --Kbdank71 16:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn there was no consensus to delete. Admins closing rationale is fundamentally flawed. RMHED (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Kbdank71. Because there is no way (that I am aware of) of providing a citation to justify someone's membership in a category, it is not possible for this category to comply with WP:BLP. Not opposed to recreating as a list, which can provide citations. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closer's reasoning is compelling. This is too contentious and too nuanced to be handled by a category. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - discussion did not show any consensus --T-rex 00:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (Note: As the closer, it would have been nice if issues with my closing were discussed with me before bringing it here. It also would have been nice to be informed about this review. I just happened to stumble on it by accident.)
Over the years we have discussed categories very similar to this one and in numerous decisions have decided to delete categories that label people this way. Consensus does not mean counting up votes every time the same issues come up. Closing an argument does not mean just taking into account the opinions of the few people who made comments. We must consider the entire community, and take into the account the precedents of other decisions. To do otherwise would mean that we'd be recreating all our guidelines constantly. Our guidelines may be wrong. If they are, we need to discuss the ways in which they are wrong. The nominator cited the precedents and history that led to nominating this category. The arguments and reasoning that led to those decisions of the past were left essentially unchallenged by those wishing to keep the category. To close the discussion as a "keep" would mean that I was going to ignore the past without good reason. I believe that consensus can change. In fact, there are many established practices that I wish would change. However, I think anyone who is advocating a change needs to present convincing arguments. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kelli Martin – restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 15:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article subject has been the subject of multiple independent reliable articles, interviews, and other sources. User:Orangemike speedy deleted while initial article version was being drafted. Other editor had nommed for speedy deletion earlier, but seemed amenable to waiting for initial draft to be completed with reliable sources, etc. I recreated the article after Orangemike's deletion, left him a talk page message, and left a note on the article talk page asking for community discussion on subject's notability. He summarily deleted article again and protected it. I have asked him to undelete and submit to AfD for proper sense of community consensus. The sources were in notable newspapers and one was published by a major cable television network. DickClarkMises (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following sources appear (from a cursory google search) to be independent of the article subject, suitable under WP:RS, and readily verifiable:

(1) Pre-PR sources: newspaper article, newspaper article

(2) Post-PR sources: newspaper article, newspaper article, and TV network bio

(3) Self-published (suitable for establishing non-controversial biographical details like birthday, etc.): auto-bio

Overturn There was enough coverage in reliable sources provided in the article to make at least an arguable case for notability and thus not a good candidate for A7 speedy deletion. Could see an AFD going either way but is not the clear cut case required for speedy deletion. Davewild (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn This is the point where it should go to AfD. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or List at AfD. Either needs more time, or deserves nore consideration and explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Regardless of whether it will survive AfD, it passes speedy, and that's all we need discuss here. DGG (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD, which is, I guess, the same as saying Overturn. I am the editor who "seemed amenable to waiting for initial draft to be completed with reliable sources, etc."; I was planning on re-examining the article today and submitting it to AfD if it seemed appropriate. I don't believe this article can meet the guidelines of WP:REALITY and I believe that the AfD will determine the outcome of this in a fairly permanent way, which is what I would like to see happen -- regardless of the outcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:REALITY does not have consensus support in the community, and the subject of this article clearly meets the WP:BIO standard for notability, which is as follows: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." DickClarkMises (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone could've saved themselves a lot of trouble (still could) by just redirecting to Project Runway (season 5), and expanding her listing there. All of her notability thus far has been in connection with her participation on that show. Postdlf (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This assertion, that the article subject's notability is entirely related to the television show, is clearly incorrect, as the sources linked above demonstrate. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-PR, all you have is local coverage of the local boutique she opened. Whatev, if that is enough for you. Postdlf (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf: True or false?: Multiple sources independent of the article subject and otherwise meeting WP:RS requirements existed prior to the article subject's role in Project Runway. The answer is "true." Surely you aren't suggesting that participation in a reality series makes one less notable?!? I was under the impression that our community-created guideline on the topic said Notability is not temporary. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and send to AFD. Enough assertions of notability there to avoid an A7 speedy. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Even if it fails speedy, I can't see any justification for over-ruling a {{hangon}}, as I understand happened here. That's for the bad stuff, not mere judgement calls over notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per consensus, I've restored the article and removed the protection; I still feel that this is just another NN reality show contestant, and will fail AfD. (At least the number of Pokemon is finite; the number of non-notable reality show contestants is much larger, and apparently infinite.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Think About Life – Deletion overturned per new evidence. – IronGargoyle (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am bringing this here at the suggestion of the admin who closed the AfD, as I have found multiple sources that were not mentioned in the discussion; see below. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting overturn as per the following, copied from User talk:Waggers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waggers. Would be be open to restoring this article you deleted? In the deletion discussion no one actually said they had made attempts to search for sources to establish notability. Yet sources exist as follows:

"Think About Life's Van Pelt Builds Miracle Fortress", Pitchfork Media
"Miracle Fortress and Think About Life Tour Eastern Canada", Exclaim! magazine
"Dream team: The pop-culture pick-up games of Think About Life", Montreal Mirror
"Accidental plan: Things go wrong the right way for Miracle Fortress", Montreal Mirror (it's about Miracle Fortress but has verifiable relevant content to add to Think About Life)
"Fortress of solitude, Montreal Gazette (ditto)
"Triple threat, Hour
"Think About Life: L'Urgence de la Pop", Voir
"Think About Life: L'harmonie du chaos", Voir

(All of those were found with Google.) There's also (found in my library):

Dunlevy, T'Cha. "Raw, corny and somehow compelling. Let's Think About Life", Montreal Gazette, p. D3, 2006-06-08. (A 700-word article entirely about the band, with the most relevant content to add)
Wenzel, John, "15 buzz bands at small to midsized venues", Denver Post, p. F4, 2006-04-30.

Thanks! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore based on new evidence (original closure was correct one based on the AFD). New sources providing significant coverage, which were not found during the AFD, which now appear to establish notability. Concern of the AFD was the lack of sources which has now been addressed. Davewild (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore looks like good sources to me. I'm actually a little sad that I could find a number of reasonable sources by going to Google and typing '"Think About Life" band' in both news and web. While AfD close was fine based on comments, folks probably should have spent a few more moments before !voting. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion These sources are more than enough to establish notability and make a half-decent article. Paragon12321 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - these sources appear to meet WP:RS, and establish WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore based on new sources, notability established. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I wouldn't have deleted the article if the above sources were included in the AfD discussion. Waggers (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the admin's closure based on the information available at the time, but now overturn and relist to get a view of the community consensus based on the new sources. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Looking over others' comments here, I may be in the minority with this viewpoint, but I think it is improper for an administrator to close a discussion as "delete" (per lack of sources to establish WP:N) when none of the AfD comments explicitly said, "I attempted to search for sources and could not find any." As Hobit pointed out above, sources were easy to find in this case. I don't like encouraging !votes that are akin to WP:JNN ("just not notable"). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commando Krav Maga – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reliable references were added and advert content was deleted per original reason for deletion. All logos have been removed and only factual information remain in the latest article that was submitted Combatsurvival (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (nb: I conducted one of 3 speedy deletions post-AfD, not at the original article location, but at Commando krav maga) - I don't think much has changed since the AfD (i.e. addressing notability). The new article was certainly bigger, but contained a huge amount of content but with little referencing (bar the introduction) or indicators as to why it was important, and still seemed rather biased to me. I think any encyclopedic notability can quite easily be covered by a small section in the main Krav Maga article. Ian¹³ /t 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I, also, was one of the admins who speedy deleted the article at the original location. Non-notable, mostly unreferenced/OR. Tan ǀ 39 14:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. DRV is a place to indicate how deletion process was not followed, not to advance new (or repeat the same) arguments in an effort to have the deletion decision reversed. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV is also the place to resurrect articles that were AfDed and now get speeded on sight despite new claims of notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blockdot – Speedy deletion endorsed. Suggest userspace draft. – IronGargoyle (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

G11 I have revised the article and would like to re-submit, how do I do that? Marcopollo (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page isn't salted, so you can just do it. However, I suggest creating your suggested version in your userspace first (at, say User:Marcopollo/Blockdot) so that other editors can take a look at it and make sure it won't be speedily deleted again. Cheers! --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just redeleted the article as it was an advert. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA plus commercial entity equals spam, sadly, as on so many occasions. Endorsing both deletions. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 26 July 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 July 2008

Classic City Championship – Restored as contested PROD: recommend you find some reliable sources establishing notability as soon as possible, the article in its current state looks unlikely to be kept if it is listed on AfD. – Stormie (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contesting WP:PROD l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 23:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be restored. I think you'd best start looking for sources right away; the old article on a high school foorball rivalry in Georgia was unsourced and would not survive AFD. GRBerry 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abubakar Bello-Osagie – Has been recreated by Carioca, no need for more review. Am willing to restore old history upon request. – --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request this article to be restored, as the subject of the article, Abubakar Bello-Osagie, now passes WP:ATHLETE, as he has played a fully professional league match (he played on July 20, 2008 the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A match between Vasco and Atlético, check this link). The administrator who closed the deletion discussion doesn't seem to be active anymore. Carioca (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page doesn't seem to be protected from recreation. Since he now passes WP:Athlete, you can just go ahead and recreate it, no DRV necessary. Just cite your sources and it shouldn't be a problem. Vickser (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User talk archives – No consensus regarding whether process was correctly followed or not. Treat deletion as defacto category WP:PROD. In other words, no prejudice against speedy recreation, relisting or whatever if someone can think of a good reason to keep this around (I certainly can't). – IronGargoyle (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't know where the nom got the idea that user talk categories were somehow out of the scope of WP:UCFD, but this certainly was a misplaced discussion. There's no consensus here, because only one user (the nom) supported anything. -- Ned Scott 10:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:CFD defaults to delete in the absence of any contributions to the discussion. However, while the CFD discussion was closed as delete, the category has not actually been deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only because it isn't emptied yet. I think the presumption was that it was a template-based category and that we were waiting on the job queue, but it seems that it's not. Anyway, what's the problem here? I'm not seeing what Ned Scott's problem with this close is, apart from the appeal to Wikipedia:Quora in deletion discussions, and that's a rather weak reed I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a lot of out of process deletions, but that alone doesn't drive me to list something on DRV. I do have reasons for wanting the category kept, and believe others would too. See my reply to jc37 below. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer. Direct from WP:UCFD: The deletion, merging, or renaming of user categories is discussed on this page. Note the link there is to Category:Wikipedians. UCFD is for categories such as "Foo wikipedians", "Wikipedians who like whatever", etc. Category:User talk archives is not a user category. It even states that This category is used for administration of the Wikipedia project. So when closing, I agreed with the nom that CFD, not UCFD, was the correct venue for the discussion. As for the lack of other participants, it was listed for the required amount of time with no opposition. Finally, it hasn't been deleted yet because while the vast majority of users were using a template, there were a small percentage who had subst'ed it. --Kbdank71 13:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must not visit WP:UCFD very often. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? --Kbdank71 19:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

relist There's a difference between someone claiming there was no quorum and having no consensus. If absolutely no one took part in a discussion and then someone else comes along and says that they object to the result that's an indication we don't have a real consensus for the action. Just because process allows us to delete it this way doesn't mean we should. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (as nominator) - I'd like to note that I had no problem with the nom being moved to WP:UCFD, if others decided that that should be the venue. (And I noted that in the nomination.) As noone suggested that, it stayed where it was. And I think it's somewhat difficult to support lack of "quorum", considering that the nomination directly below this one on the page (Categories:Mexicans of Booian descent) had quite a few unique commenters (and there were also several other unique commenters in other discussions on the page). This is another case of where Wikipedians may choose whether they wish to join in a discussion or not. And so, in the absense of opposition, the nomination was endorsed. - All that aside, I'm also curious as to what the nominator here's argument is for wishing to keep this category. If there is none, and this is just a question of procedure (which I think I, and others above, have addressed), then I think we're probably done here. - jc37 21:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This is another case of where Wikipedians may choose whether they wish to join in a discussion or not." I disagree. This is a case where Wikipedians did want to join the discussion, but because it was placed in the general CFD, they did not think to look there. Even if I'm the only one who feels that way, that still would have resulted in no consensus to delete. Deletion discussion placement is very important, due to the large amount of XfDs the site deals with. On a daily bases I check MfD, RfD, uCfD, and sometimes TfD. Like most people, I don't browse daily listings of AfDs, but use delsort categories and delsort listings to find deletion discussions I'm interested in. I know I'm not the only one who checks some XfD listings and not others.

I'm not mad at you for taking this category for deletion, or even using CfD (it's not like it was an unreasonable conclusion), but this shouldn't be deleted, and other users should get the chance to make an argument for that.

As for the category itself, yes, I would have supported keeping it, even if only for being able to use recentchangeslinked and do occasional RC patrolling of archives, (which normally should go unchanged). I'm sure there's other good reasons to keep this category as well, including ones that both you or I haven't considered (one reason why XfD discussions are important). -- Ned Scott 06:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, and if people are arguing about whether it should be on CFD or UCFD, ferchrissake just put it on one of them and put a note on the other pointing people towards it. "X for discussion" means for discussion, Wikipedia is not an exercise in bureaucracy. --Stormie (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse~~ Relist at CFD, there was no opposition so process was followed. With regards to it being in the wrong location in the first place, CFD seems the better choice to me, given it is an administrate category rather than one where thyself is relevant. Ian¹³ /t 22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fault the closing admin, but deletion review is used for more than just closing errors, it is also used to determine if the discussion represents an accurate consensus. To endorse simply because there were no errors is process wonkery. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it was probably in the right place, so there was chance for people to object to it. I guess the fact this is here means there might be some people who would have made a comment, but missed it. I think I'll switch to relist, but I'm not sure what will make it more prominent this time around. Ian¹³ /t 10:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"To endorse simply because there were no errors is process wonkery." - Can I have a penny/pence for everytime I have been accused of "process wonkery" for suggesting something be relisted? : ) - jc37 11:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bernard_Edlington – Restored and relisted at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Edlington (2nd nomination) – Davewild (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article significantly changed since last year No reason was given this time for deletion, I assume the quick deletion was based on a comment a year ago that only the only supporting article was from IMDb. Since then newspaper, magazine and research articles have been quoted properly. If needed I can add some recent articles. Nexusb (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Substantially different than the AfD'ed version, which means it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. -- Ned Scott 08:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- remains optional, of course, though I would support making it obligatory if we also made notification of speedy and prod and and obligatory. Same principle. DGG (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to agree with DGG here. There is not and never has been a requirement to petition the deleting admin before bringing a case here for review. It is courteous to do so and can solve many problems more efficiently and with less rancor than a formal review but it is not mandatory. Proposals to make it mandatory have failed (and, I suspect, will continue to fail because of the chilling effect they have on discussions). If you want to make it policy, let's take it to Talk and stop harassing every new nominator over what is really a fairly minor civility infraction. Rossami (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did try to open a discussion with the admin, I made a mistake (there seemed to be 2 people who deleted it) and was told to directly open discussion here. You can see the conversation in section5 of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nexusb Nexusb (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second AfD had no !votes other than nom, could be relisted without harm but I don't see notability myself. I note that the same user who requested review, created both deleted versions and has few other contributions to the project, which always raises red flags for me. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears well written and sourced, but it's notability is questionable. It was also previously deleted in 2007, and while the article may have undergone a rewrite since then, it fails WP:BIO as it's notability is still negligible. However, I would support a relist to gain more consensus, as on both AfD's it received little discussion, and it's deletion was perhaps a little hasty. Jезка (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I make no comment on the subject's notability, but the second AfD was closed with indecent haste, no opinions other than the nominator's, and no vague suggestion of consensus. The outcome of an AfD 8 months earlier, with changes since, isn't an excuse. On that basis alone, the article should be restored and the AfD re-opened. If it's notable or not, let's look at that issue and act afterwards, not pre-emptively.
I have great concerns about this admin's (user:Orangemike's) judgement and their repeated over-hasty actions re: deletion. 8-( This is a regular occurence for this admin (User_talk:Orangemike#Portishead Town Band and User_talk:Orangemike#Lanner and District Silver Band to name but two this week).
Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked down the last 500 deletions in his log, most are still redlinks and rightly so. Feel free to do the same and consider an RfC if you think the delete finger is a bit trigger happy, but this looks like a fairly routine pattern for someone who works the CSD queues - newpages and RC patrollers are sometimes a bit quick off the mark, and the bluelinks I reviewed in his deletion log look to be at the margins at best. Do please try to assume good faith and believe that he may not be an evil deletionist tyrant after all. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm happy to AGF, but there are too many articles getting hit through speedy when it's not CSD (an assertion of notability is sufficient) and also (and most importantly) a repeated pattern of WP:BITE when new editors are saving an early incomplete draft of an article and having the whole lot speedied as a result. There are better ways to handle this, particularly around new editors. AGF works both ways. No-one has a problem over chasing trolls out with a mop, but my concern is over the repeated slapping of new editors and the loss of talent this represents. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The assertion has to be at least vaguely credible, mind. One does become slightly cynical over time. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, closed too early. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure and relist. I concur with Stifle. The deleted article had been sufficiently changed that the page did not qualify under CSD G4 (reposted content) and a second AfD was required. The premature closure of the second AfD was unjustified. Rossami (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Too different to quality under G4 and second AFD was not given any chance. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have boldly undeleted this and sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Edlington (2nd nomination). During my Googling I noted that Bernard Edlington's company is called Nexus, and the WP:SPA who has been trying for a year or more to get an article on Edlington is Nexusb, which rather strongly implies a conflict of interest. I have noted this. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

US Battlefield UAVs (2) – Swiftly undeleted and redirected by JzG. Everybody's happy. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Housekeeping request. Content was moved into other articles, then article was deleted, which would make this a WP:Merge and delete, which breaks compliance with GFDL. Requesting that it be undeleted and turned into a redirect to History of unmanned aerial vehicles. Father Goose (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history at History of unmanned aerial vehicles doesn't seem to indicate that it was merged there (edits around September 28, 2006 are about where to look) but elsewhere. So, I'm rather confused about this. Happily will !vote undelete and redirect, however. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and redirect seems pretty straight forward. -- Ned Scott 08:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 23 July 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 July 2008

Khorne – Original deletion endorsed, undeletion on 24 July for licensing reasons also endorsed/supported, consensus is to maintain the redirect with the history behind it. – Daniel (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly no decisive consensus to delete this article, which was nominated by a block evading sock account, and given that the article has been redirected, request undeleting the edit history, but keeping the redirect as a compromise. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse deletion~~ We've already established at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 21 (twice) that this is not sufficient reason to overturn. Pagra shtak 20:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Restore history due to merge. While the stated nomination is still not a sufficient reason to overturn, GFDL compliance is. Pagra shtak 20:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just that the block evading User:Killerofcruft nominated the article, but also if you look at the discussion that considerable amount of editors in good standing argued to keep. It may not be a vote, but such strong support does suggest a lack of adequate consensus. Plus, I'm not asking for a "keep" closer, merely undeleting the history and keeping the redirect in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why do you continually bring that up? The editor's former username has no impact here. It was already made clear that the block evasion has no impact here, yet you felt the need to bring that up as well. The "good standing" of editors has no impact here. A long-time editor can make a bad argument, and a new editor can make an excellent argument. The closing admin made it very clear in the closing statement that almost all keep opinions "did not address the policy-based issues raised". Please stick to the pertinent facts and quit trying to distract us with these irrelevant issues. Pagra shtak 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It matters, because it suggests that the account's purpose in nominating the article is highly suspect. And the facts are that the keep arguments presented valid reasons for at least causing a no consensus closure and again if the article is good enough to redirect than undeleting the edit history and maintaining the redirect is a fair compromise. After all, the "delete" arguments included such comments as "Consolidation to a single article" (a merge and redirect rationale) or claims of being "unnecessary" (an argument to avoid as it is mere opinion what is and is not "necessary"). The word does it at least a couple Google news hits, as well as mentions on Google books and Google scholar. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm curious. What do you suspect the nom's ulterior motive was? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse Deletion~~ Complete merger. Consensus was judged by appeal to policy and guidelines. The status of the nominator ex post facto has little to do with the community decision. I can't comment on the propriety of a history recovery and subsequent redirect. Protonk (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Updated to note evidence of an attempted merger by ~~Snidely Whiplash~~...errr, I mean Allemantando. Unless of course we are going to revert that because he's horrible and evil and awful. ;) Protonk (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, per the discussions of July 21. As for the history-only deletion, a huge chunk of it is the same as what can be found at [48], plus there's some more content from [49]. --Stormie (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We should then redirect to those articles. It has to be technologically possible to redirect to other wikis, no? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe it's possible to do a redirect to another Wiki that behaves the same as an internal Wikipedia redirect (i.e. smoothly takes you to the page on the other wiki). You can do a "soft redirect" which gives you a page like French proverbs, and a while ago I tried to get some discussion going about more widespread use of them - one thread can be seen here. I never encountered much enthusiasm, though, and there was definite resistance on the grounds that Wikia is a for-profit company (a fact which I couldn't care less about, given that the contents of Wikia wikis is GFDL-licensed). --Stormie (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm just found this RFD discussion on such a redirect. --Stormie (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Restore history per the merger (maintain the redirect). The closing admin's argument is cogently given, i.e. none of the "keep" arguments (barring one of them) addressed the issue of notability of the article, but appealed to "usefulness", gave "other stuff exists" arguments, or vague generalities asserting notability without evidence to support this claim. (Of course, one editor also voted "keep" twice.) As stated above, the previous DRV's of July 21 concluded there were no compelling reasons to reverse or relist those nominations based on the status of the nominator, as the reasons for nominating those articles weren't addressed in the AFD or fixed in the articles. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to reiterate, I am only asking for an undeletion of the edit history and keeping the redirect in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; obviously valid closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was "obvious", it wouldn't be up for review. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obvious means different things to different people. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Given the lack of consensus in the AfD, I think that restoring the history, but keeping it a redirect for the time being, is an excellent suggestion. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, obvious consensus to delete. With respect, LGRdC's repeated listings here when deletion discussions on fictional topics don't go his way are beginning to be disruptive. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not opposed to undeleting the history for the purpose of merging. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm finding these closes disruptive, especially when there is no obvious consensus to delete and when the nominations are made by block evading socks originally named User:Killerofcruft of all things, which is why I am listing them here. Are you opposed to those who repeatedly nominate articles for deletion when earlier discussions closed as keep or no consensus? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorese a relist I agree that this was nomination by a clear SPA, intended to delete as many articles as possible, probably as a good hand/bad hand account. The work done by such a disruptive account should be undone, and discussions started over free from the consequent prejudice. DGG (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a discussion was prejudiced by the nominator being an SPA. If the SPA had nominated an article on a truly notable subject for deletion, it would have been kept by consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the keep opinions did not address the problems of the article. The fact that the nominator is a block-evading SPA isn't relevant given that there was consensus to delete without them. Hut 8.5 12:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Even though the nominator of the article was a sock/banned user/whatever and discounting his opinions, the consensus of the AfD was still to delete. I don't think that these sorts of nominations need to be necessarily overturned or relisted, but only reviewed in case the information causes the consensus of the discussion to change ('course, if it was that borderline it probably shoulda' been no consensus anyways...). I'm completely willing to userfy this article for anyone interested, however, and I think it might be useful to merge slightly more of it to Chaos (Warhammer). Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AfDs may not be a vote, but for sake of argument, we had two arguing to redirect, ten arguing to keep, and only seven arguing to delete. Two of those arguing to keep produced some sources and even the nominator and some others saying to delete actually indicated merge/redirect locations/possibilities. In no way can that possibly be so decisive of a consensus to delete that we can't undelete the edit history, but maintain a redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So now it's not about the nom, you just don't like the close. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You just don't like the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I don't. But where do you see my "endorse deletion" here?
      You've shifted your reasoning (and stated goal!) a number of times. The close was against the nose count but we don't count noses. The close was against your argument because the closer didn't think it held any water. The nom was a blocked user but we don't overturn AFDs because the nom was blocked for unrelated reasons. And above all else, you came to DRV for a userfy when you could have left a note on pretty much any admin's talk page (and even if they said no you could have asked someone else). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I am not asking that this article be userfied, but that since it's redirected that the contribution history also be undeleted, but that the redirect stay in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You say it's not a vote, but then you treat it as such—"only seven" for delete. It only takes one. Do we need to go down the keep arguments? First: "Keep I personally find having seperate articles is fine, because I hate having to look at somthing that I don't want to..." WP:USEFUL. Second: "Keep - It's a good article." WP:ILIKEIT. Third: "Keep - What's wrong with having fictional content on Wikipedia?" WP:HARMLESS. Fourth: "Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience..." WP:VAGUEWAVE in combo with WP:JNN. I could just as easily say "Delete per Wikipedia:Five pillars (no notability to a real-world audience..." with equal effect. Fifth: "Keep - Are there any independent sources for the Hobbit entry?" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Need I go on? Pagra shtak 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, to be strict, there's "only" nine 'keep's since once editor voted twice. I mean no disrespect to said editor, but should both those votes should be discounted as (s)he couldn't "be bothered" to check that (s)he had commented already? I mean we can keep going back and forth like this for ages. Could this be closed yet? --Craw-daddy | T | 20:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see no reason why this shouldn't be closed as undelete edit history, but keep redirect at this time. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can do the same for the deletes that are merely the reverse of the above, which is why they are challenged enough to allow for a redirect with undeletion of the article history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not all of the delete comments were compelling, no, but as I said—it only takes one. Here is my own comment from the AFD in question: "Delete—The article has no reliable secondary sources to assert notability. I have not been able to find such independent sources. Thus, I must conclude that this article does not satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability. Many of the keep statements are assertions of usefulness, but do nothing to address the concerns of the nominator and are not grounded in Wikipedia policy." Go ahead, tear it apart. Pagra shtak 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not saying the close should be "keep", but that we should respect the redirect and merely undelete the edit history leaving the possibility for a merge available should anyone wish to do so and allowing for the public who argue in RfAs to see the edit history that as far as I remember was not libelous content that must be hidden from public view. Given all the keeps and varied nature of them, I see no real reason why undeleting the edit history and keeping the already in place redirect could be a problem. And as one hopefully final comment about the whole blocked editor thing, why in some instances, such as say here in an article I nominated for deletion, a blocked editor's comment is removed from the discussion, and yet we're not willing to discount blocked editors elsewhere. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We are. Even if you discount his opinion, there are still other delete opinions. You can't throw them all out. It looks like this whole thing is moot due to the merge now in any event. Pagra shtak 13:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse closure~~ ~~(keep deleted)~~. The decision to discount the anonymous and non-policy-based opinions was well-within accepted practice and standards for closers. This left a majority of opinions for straight "delete" and a minority recommending "keep as redirect". The final call was within reasonable admin discretion. I find no process problems in the discussion nor any new evidence here that would justify overturning the decision. (To address one of the comments above, DGG is a solid editor. I'm willing to give him/her the benefit of doubt that the double-vote was an oversight. That factor does not change the conclusion, however.) Rossami (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I am not asking for an outright overturn of the close, merely, undeletion of the edit history for the sake of possible future merges, but maintaining the redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I read that. You really don't need to tell me again. It didn't affect my opinion the first time. Repeating the same argument over and over won't change it either. Rossami (talk)
    - That's unfortuante. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Lifebaka's evidence about the merger presented below, overturn to redirect in order to preserve GFDL attribution history unless someone want to go through the trouble of a history-merger. Rossami (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. While I might have !voted to 'keep' this one myself (not being able to see the article, I can't be sure), the closure looks valid to me - the 'keep' arguments presented were mostly pretty weak, while the 'delete' ones mostly conformed to Wikipedia policy. If you want access to the history of the article in order to merge it (or rewrite it into a version that would pass AFD), that can be done by making a request to any administrator, but it's not necessary to undelete the article to do so. Terraxos (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is necessary per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if there is useful content that could be used to flesh out the entry on the redirect's target page (ie conduct what is basically a merge) then undeleting the history sounds reasonable. This is particularly the case because the GFDL requires the history of contributions to be available, so performing what is effectively a merge of the content from that article without undeleting the contributions would probably violate that. I did not take part in the original AfD so I'm not sure how much worthwhile content was there; it's quite possible that little or none of it is worth saving anyway. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 09:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aw hell, I shoulda' looked at the history sooner. There was a merge, by the nom of the AfD. Looking at the current article, some of the content is still around. So, while it may make some people kinda' mad, I gotta' go restore the history for GFDL reasons. This doesn't change my !vote above, but I think Le Grand Roi has gotten his wish on this one anyways. Cheers, everyone. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, looks like he went to AFD (improperly) because the redirect kept getting reverted. Pagra shtak 13:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I cannot agree with the nominator's reasons for seeking an overturn, Lifebaka's quite right that we need at least to restore the history per GFDL. Eusebeus (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - close was correct, that the nominator is a sock is again, irrelevant. I have no opposition against a restoration of the history for GFDL concerns. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pokémon types – Endorse deletion and userfy per request. User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Pokémon types. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination) closed just as additional sources were found and therefore I at least request userfying the article in question to add these sources. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the closing admin: To be more precise, the AfD closed before a number of links were posted on my talk page by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Accordingly, I can't see which procedural error in my closure we are supposed to review here. Sandstein 19:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The discovery of new sources is why I am asking it either be relisted or userfied. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Sounds fine to me. I looked at the first four sources provided, and they look pretty good to me. The second and third (the first two Google books hits) are kinda' trivial, and the fourth (third Google books hit) is a false positive (uses the word type to mean the different Pokemon themselves) though. The first looks good from the abstract, but it's a private system so I can't see it. Hope you don't have too much on your place, Le Grand Roi, though, considering I just userfied two other for you. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, if we're gonna' do that I suggest only userfying part of the history; over 2700 edits worth of undeleting and moving twice will be kinda' annoying, it'd be easier to hist-merge later I think. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, as I have been helped in my other userfied ones, and have had success (see here, here, here, and here, for example) with others. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was a sentiment that the scope of the article was too detailed. Why can't these sources be used at Pokémon game mechanics#Pokémon types instead? Pagra shtak 19:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion There is no reason an admin cannot provide the deleted material since its not copyvio/BLP/private. LGRDC can work on it in his userspace or offline, and bring it back here when he is confident it should be an article. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion Unless the first source (from the ACM) is all about pokemon types (it might be, I'll read it in a bit), the rest comprise coverage far too trivial to base an article on. Either way, the deletion review nomination does not present sufficient cause for overturning the decision. Presumably any admin can userify the material. Protonk (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All three of the sources are referring to species of Pokémon, not Pokémon types (which are broader element-based groups of species). None of the sources actually address elemental types of Pokémon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok. I downloaded the ACM source. Eh. The author confuses individual pokemon for pokemon types (in other words, Charizard is a "type" to that author) and it is a 3 page laffer (two f's) about IT support staff. Certainly interesting and unique enough to be mentioned in the main pokemon article (or--for example--in an article on Slowpoke, if one exists), but doesn't relate to pokemon types in the fashion that the deleted article did. Protonk (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I don't always agree with Le Grand on what is notable, but he has surprised me in the past. I would have no problem with at least allowing a draft to be worked on. -- Ned Scott 08:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userify until we can properly decide without the stress of an afd how to handle this material. I think for those non-expert in the game covering the material to the level in that deleted article--if done accurately--is relevant content for a general encyclopedia , appropriate for knowing what others are talking about. DGG (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion the additional sources are generally superficial and wouldn't have made any difference to the AfD result. I don't see how Userfying text in order to attempt to improve it is anything to do with the actual result of the AFD. FatherJack92 (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could support a userfy here. The article's a bit of a mess, so restoration isn't really a runner. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
userfy It does no harm, and this would be a fine article if good sourcing can really be managed. Hobit (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment I am not at all opposed to userifying this, but couldn't we do that without a DRV? Protonk (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article; it's a notable topic and sources have been provided. Failing that, userify. Everyking (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point us to the sources that address the article's topic (rather than text searches that happen to use the article title as two consecutive words)? Because I'm not seeing any. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion No real potential established and the AfD closure was in order. Eusebeus (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - closing decision was mainly based on WP:NOTGUIDE which the additional of new sources has nothing to do with --T-rex 00:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The additional sources made it no longer a guide, which is why it should have been kept. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep mentioning those "additional sources", when they're nothing but works that use the word "type" and "Pokemon" in proximity, rather than anything that actually refers to this topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - When they appear as "Pokemon types", i.e. as the same phrase, then that is more than simply close proximity. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Those sources are not about the subject of this article. What part of that don't you understand? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sources that cover Pokemon types can be used on article titled "Pokemon types." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Unless they're using the word "type" in the general English sense and not the specific meaning of this article. I find it difficult to believe that you read and understood the article you're defending, because you're showing a willful disregard for what it said. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, you can disagree all you want, but the fact remains that you're wrong, that you have either not read and understood the sources you cited or not read and understood the article you're trying to save. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And of course, I think that you are wrong and I am beginning to see these inaccurate comments as being not really productive and thus you can have the last word here and elsewhere if you really want, but I am not going to entertain some of this further. Have a pleasant night and weekend! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        However you think or feel or whatever your opinion is, the fact remains that those sources are referring to species of Pokémon (Pikachu, Bulbasaur, etc.) as "types", whereas the article was talking about elemental categories of Pokémon (grass, fire, electric, etc.) which include many species. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the subject of the article is never adequately addressed in the sources that have been provided. Types of Pokémon are distinct from the individual species of Pokémon. I've played most of the Pokémon games, and there is a big distinction between the two. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would be willing to accept as a compromise undeletion of the edit history, but keeping the redirect for the time being. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am all for keeping this a redirect --T-rex 00:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

George Colbran – Deletion endorsed, will userfy on request – Davewild (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request a review of the deletion of the George Colbran article. There was no decisive consensus for deletion, with a number of editors voting to keep. Some editors had expressed a desire to change their votes from "delete" to "keep" if new and relevant information could be added to the article. Seconds after new info was added, the article was deleted. There is still more work that could be done on the article.--Lester 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure There was a rather strong consensus to delete, and the closing admin correctly read the consensus (the AfD had actually expired two days before it was closed). Orderinchaos 05:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closure seems in line with the debate. Chillum 05:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Closer's actions and comments seem to be as per the consensus. Moondyne 06:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Close seems to reflect consensus; if you think you can improve it, there's nothing that keeps you from userfying it and bringing it back for a restoration once you've made significant improvements. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Celarnor. As it stands, the deletion was accurate. Request userfication and continue your work. Synergy 06:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse...I can't see how there's a lack of consensus here, unless you're operating under the theory that the votes in capital letters count more or something like that. Deletion Review isn't AFD part 2. User:Synergy had a good idea: ask for a copy in your userspace so you can work on it so it can be included later on when notability can be demonstrated. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The debate was in favour of deletion, but Colbran does hold a Medal of the Order of Australia, which the debate didn't really discuss. Does that rank as a 'notable award'? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was by a few - OAM isn't terribly notable. Look at the example they give on the page (some guy who helped young mothers at a high school). The higher orders such as AO or AC are genuinely notable (see for example Anthony Mason (judge)). Orderinchaos 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No-one is claiming that OAM is in the same league as AO or AC. But that isn't the question. The question is, is it notable? According to Australian Honours Order of Precedence it clocks in at number 50. And it's not like the OAM is his only claim to fame. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a list of Order of Australia awards in the Queen's Birthday 2008 honours - the OAM starts a bit less than halfway down the page. It's a pretty long list, and there are lists like that twice a year. I couldn't support the idea that an OAM provides encyclopedic notability in and of itself. --Stormie (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There was plenty of support for deleting the article and plenty of time for the proof of notability to be improved during the AFD's run. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure/deletion per nom, consensus of the AfD, and Orderinchaos' OAM/AO/AC mention above. This is yesterday's news. Timeshift (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Consider userfying. The cached version contains several references that look like they might only be passing mentions, not reaching the level of "significant coverage in secondary sources", but an interested editor might be able to demonstrate notability in the lead far better than was attempted in the deleted article. Be wary though of non-independent editors and non-independent sources, noting that the subject is a businessmanan and aspiring politician. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The debate was conducted and closed fairly and appropriately with most arguments citing lack of notability. WWGB (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - clear cut. Eusebeus (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Public Information Research – If you're not requesting undeletion then there's no need for a deletion review (I see one person is, but DRV is not a "second chance saloon", and they raise no new information that wasn't covered in the debate, which would be the only reason to revisit the debate's substance). --bainer (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Before anyone freaks out: This is not a request for undeletion

How can we have four articles, Google Watch, Wikipedia Watch, NameBase, and Scroogle, which are all products/projects/whatever of PIR, but claim PIR itself isn't notable? From an organizational standpoint, the information that was on PIR was.. well.. crap. I don't think we should undelete that article. However, if you were to merge content from those other articles, or at least give them some form of summary that would lead into their full articles, you'd clearly have good content with the necessary sources.

I can't stress enough that this isn't about Brandt or causing drama, or anything like that, but this AfD leaves a lot of lose ends. In any other situation, say a company with multiple notable products that had articles, I doubt we would have even considered deleting the company article. Even if there wasn't really anything to actually say about the company itself, it wouldn't make sense from an organizational standpoint. I really believe that the participants in the AfD were too focused on how to steamroll the AfD for fear of drama to consider these very basic concepts. I don't mean that to insult anyone, but it's true. None of us want this to be a headache, the content sucked, so you keep your eyes forward and run for it. It's pretty clear that is what happened from the AfD discussion.

We don't want drama, and we don't want the crappy article that PIR was. Some of those four articles I mentioned probably shouldn't even be full articles, but we don't even have a logical merge point. So here's my proposal: Allow a brand new draft for the PIR article in userspace, most likely with merged content. Given the nature of the PIR/DB situation, I figured it would be best to make a formal request for a draft. I'm not sure if DRV has been used this way in the past, but I couldn't think of a better discussion venue. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more willing to nominate most if not all of them (have to look at them on a case by case basis) for AfD rather then encourage yet another article on this. The AfD was clear that PIR is NOT notable under WP's core policies. I don't think at least a couple of the articles mentioned above qualify either. SirFozzie (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced the AfD showed that PIR was a topic isn't notable. I think the AfD showed that we had a crappy PIR article. PIR actually passes WP:CORP, but like I said, the version that went up for AfD was.. crap.

In any case, my logic here is in anticipation of those four articles getting AfD in some point in the future. Individually, PIR and at least some of those four don't have much in the ways of valuable content, but collectively I think we would have something reasonable. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, allow recreation if it deals with the issues in the AfD, ~~WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Seriously,~~ If you think you can recreate the article up to standards, addressing the concerns brought up in the AfD then all the power to you. I however agree more with SirFozze that the other articles are probably in need of scrutiny. This deletion was just fine. Chillum 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently you didn't even read what I wrote, especially the bold letters at the top. I am not challenging the close of the AfD. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, no need for big bold words. You did mention other articles existing, I responded to that. You also mentioned a brand new draft of PIR, I responded to that. Despite your lack of challenge to the close, other people are challenging it so I am endorsing it. Chillum 05:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the point of bolding "Endorse" and citing OTHERCRAPEXISTS? I even point out that some of them probably should not be articles, because they are "crap". My argument is that collectively they might make a much better article, not that they justify each other's existence. Making these kinds of comments gives the wrong impression of where this discussion should be going. It needs to be very clear that this is not an undeletion request. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, while I am the first to agree you are not requesting deletion, another editor is in this very same debate. I am responding to that. Sometimes a debate goes beyond the scope intended by the initiator. My response is not an attack on your nomination, in fact I support your idea of creating it in the userspace in a manner that deals with the concerns in the AfD, no prejudice against recreation. I bolded Endorse because it is traditional to do so, I chose that word because someone was supporting overturning it. Chillum 05:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Sorry for snapping at you. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no problem, it is all good. Chillum 06:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore article -- Public Information Research was the subject of an extensive article in Online magazine [50], as described in the comment by Squidfryerchef at the end of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Information Research (2nd nomination), but not considered by editors supporting deletion, since the source was provided after all comments supporting deletion had been made. When this article is considered in conjunction with the sources provided in Google Watch, Wikipedia Watch, NameBase, and Scroogle -- also not extensively reviewed at the second AFD -- it is clear that there is sufficient coverage of Public Information Research in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. While the nomination may "not [be] a request for undeletion", this is. Please feel free to freak out :) John254 04:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That citation you gave is an excellent example of a "trivial mention". It in no way makes it clear who the author is, and by reading the content I am led to believe it was written by the group being described. It reads "pamphlet" or "press release" style, it does not seem to be an independent or reliable source when it needs to be both. This was precisely the issues regarding the sources that led to the deletion in the first place. Chillum 05:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the Online article "was written by the group being described" is conjectural and proof-by-assertion. Attribution to an individual author is not required to establish reliability when an article appears in a reliable source. Furthermore, favorable, yea, even laudatory material is not unreliable per se. John254 05:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you saying that you don't need to know who the source is to determine if it is a reliable source?? Of course you need to know that to know if it is a reliable source. Just because it was published in a magazine does not mean it is not an editorial, or a paid piece, or a press release, or even reliable. A publisher is not an author, it may be in a magazine, but who wrote it? I am saying it seems like it is written in a self-aggrandizing fashion, I can't prove it, but I don't see any proof it was by an independent party either. Chillum 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just shows a preview of the article on that page. What the heck, I'll risk the spam of the free trail and see if there is anything more to it. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the portion in the preview seems like it was written by a marketer, not a journalist. If the rest is different, or at least makes clear who wrote it I can reconsider. Chillum 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there's nothing more to it. The free-trail of HighBeam.com doesn't show anything more, nor can I even find PIR being mentioned in Online's past issues [51]. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 22 July 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 July 2008

Twing – Userfied by deleting admin. – --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like the article restored to my userspace so I can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion. Or, simply restored so that I can work on it in the usual space.

The main issue for original deletion was for notability in term of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) At the time, I wasn't familiar with AfD nominations and how to quickly fix problems. So I didn't deal with the issues fast enough and the article was zapped.

There are, however, a variety of independent sources that can now be referenced and I'd like a chance to put them into the article to comply with notability issues. Scottwrites (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin response: Since the AFD was so unsuccessful in finding indepdendent sources to address the notability issue, I've elected to userfy the deleted copy to a subpage in the user's space, here: User:Scottwrites/Twing, and have given him instructions to work on it there and thereafter ask an admin to review it there. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 01:54, 22 July 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 Squeaky Cheese is the Mouse's Wheel – endorse deletion, speedy closure of this nomination as pointless and disruptive. The nominator/author has already been blocked for disruptive vandalism. – Shereth 22:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been deleted via speedy deletion twice, not sure why, it is a legitimate article with no uncoherent or innapropriate content. Thank you Phantomphr34k (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor didn't contact me first about this, but it's easy to tell why. This is the article's first paragraph: The aphorism '''The Squeaky Cheese is the Mouse's Wheel''' is the wise original thought, spoken in context, by the widely unknown however noted aphorist James Hazel.<ref>First hand quotation and citation of coinage-of-term by first hand accounts and testimony.</ref> While held highly for its wisdom and insight, little is known of its true meaning. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 18:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion as G3 (vandalism through creating nonsense articles). Nominator indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. No objection to an unblock once he or she states how he or she would like to contribute productively. Sandstein 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion as vandalism. (I find it interesting and very concerning that the vandal included a fraudulent source citation at the bottom of the article. This reinforces some of the concerns that were raised the last time we talked about the unintended consequences of an enforced sourcing standard.) That said, the vandal has only made three edits including the nomination above. Indef-blocking seems perhaps premature. Rossami (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion - vandalism. And worse, not even amusing vandalism - come on, if you're going to waste everyone's time with nonsense at least give us a giggle in the process. nancy ^(talk) 20:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion -- The citation of "oral transmission" is akin to WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnamed page, then modified to Joseph Armitage Robinson – Administrative closure of an incomplete and then partially-overwritten nomination. Notes have been left with both users requesting a clean nomination request. – Rossami (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this Page in Wikisource:

9/11 Commission Report/Chapter 10

I have a request for a "History only undeletion"

In Wikisource, someone deleted the part of the 9/11 Commission Report/Chapter 10

which contains page 334 and the following quote:

“The memo found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks.”

See this history comparision links:

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=9%2F11_Commission_Report%2FChapter_10&diff=161856&oldid=88462

See the document in its original state at page 334 at this US government link:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch10.pdf

Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please make it clear what page you want undeleted. Hut 8.5 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry but I do not understand this deletion review. The deleted article was about Joseph Armitage Robinson, "...successively Dean of Westminster (1902-1911) and of Wells (1911- )" Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first nomination request was made by user:Boyd Reimer who did not specify the page that had been deleted. The change to the page was made by user:Clive sweeting who only changed the header but did not provide a rationale for undeletion. I'm not seeing a connection between the two editors or the two pages. I suspect these are two independent and both malformed nominations. Unfortunately, I don't see how to fix it. I recommend that we adminstratively close this discussion and leave a note on each user's page with a link to the instructions. Rossami (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, to tidy this up, I think Roassami and I agree the most helpful thing to do is restore the article and send it to AfD. Please close this DRV when the link turns blue, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Federal elections in Missouri – See Category:United States elections in Massachusetts: next discussion, below.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

Category:United States elections in Massachusetts – Deletion endorsed. The arguments for deletion (strong, but not overwhelming) in a limited-participation CfD have been echoed coherently in this DRV, reinforcing the trend of the consensus in the CfD. The primary argument for overturning is a lack of consensus in the CfD. But, at 2:1, I do not see a strong case that this didn't fall within the range of administrative discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus was reached. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 6#Category:Federal elections in Missouri. I prosposed renaming it. Someone else suggested deleting. The result was delete. Why? —Markles 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer. The nomination of "'United States elections…' is better and possibly more consistent with other states' elections." falls flat when the supercat of Category:United States elections by state is examined. There are only two categoies in it, Category:Federal elections in Missouri and Category:United States elections in Massachusetts. So I determined the "rename per consistency" argument rather weak. The other two users involved in the discussion brought forth compelling arguments for deletion, namely, that there are other categories already in place to deal with federal elections, and that the {{MissouriFederalElections}} template does a better job of navigation. --Kbdank71 14:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose deletion~~ (if that's the opposite of endorse) as original nominator. There was no nomination to delete in the first place. The problem was merely the name. So I suggested renaming it. Why did that end up as a "delete"? Does that become a warning to future nominations for renaming: "If you suggest a little change you might end up with an entire deletion." When someone else then cam along and voted for "Delete, else Rename" I voted against deletion, but a third voter crossed out my "new" vote saying I was voting twice. Then, that third party added another category to the nomination, proposing to delete it. In the end, there was no consensus for deletion of either category. —Markles 15:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Your opinion that the deletion should be overturned is clear from your nomination. Please continue to participate in the discussion here and reply to comments or add new evidence as you feel appropriate but please don't use the bolded, bulleted format when commenting. Using that format at the front of a comment gives the impression that you are trying to have your opinion counted twice and creates potential confusion for the admin who eventually has to sort out all our opinions and close out this discussion. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. My mistake.—Markles 20:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion -- I am an Englishman, but I see no reason why there should not be a category for the Federal elections of each of the 50 states + US territories. In UK, there is a project producing articles on every Parliamentary constituency, I do not see why there should not be the equivalent for USA. On the other hand, the format should be consistent, so that the question is whether the format should be as for the Missouri or Massachusetts case. My preference (for what it is worth) would be for Federal, not US.
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why? Stifle (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User error. I thought that this venue was a better place to halt the process temporarily and to broaden the discussion to more people. Not only did the nomination have no consensus, it also had few people involved.—Markles 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep saying there was no consensus. Do you realize that consensus does not mean vote counting? --Kbdank71 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes.—Markles 18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. Overturn and relist because there was so much chopping and changing that no sensible consensus could be derived from the CFD. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn no consensus at CfD. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Had I closed this I would have read Vegaswikian's comment as the most relevant to the question with the result that I'd have also closed it as delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~No offense, but maybe you shouldn't close CfDs if that is the case. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

My apologies, that was a bit harsh for me to say, nor was it a fair comment to make since I'm not familiar with your XfD closures. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Kbdank71. Daniel (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Kbdank71. - I asked him about this on his talk page. And taking his responses there, and his comments here together, I think it's fair to say that this falls within administrative discernment. (Also noting/reaffirming: XfD is not about counting "votes".) - jc37 12:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Look What You Made Me – Unprotected to allow recreation – Stifle (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The debut album of rapper Yung Berg, it was deleted and protected this past May due to a lack of reliable sources. However, since its protection, it has been confirmed by various sources such as MTV.com [52], Rap-Up.com [53] (the past to of which covered a listening session held by Epic Records with several confirmed tracks revealed for the album), an interview on DJBooth.net [54] (I know you might not see it as a reliable source, but there are plenty of tracks confirmed straight from the horse's mouth there) and on Amazon.com [55] (where an album cover was released) as having a release date of August 12. There are plenty more I could name, but I just wanted to give you some basic sources to recreate the article. Also, three of the confirmed tracks (Sexy Lady, Sexy Can I, and The Business) have charted on the Billboard Hot 100, with the first two placing in the Top 20 and the second one in the Top 10 there. Unprotect at the very least, then as soon as you unprotect, I hope to gather up all the sources so I can Recreate the page. Tom Danson (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now that a release date appears to have been confirmed I have unprotected the page (which I protected on 25th May) as the terms of the protection were to prevent recreation until the album was released. nancy ^(talk) 09:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) – Deletion endorsed. Consensus here says that even though the editor turned out to be a sock, this did not change consensus. Over at WT:AFD a suggestion that noms by banned editors be automatically overturned or closed never reached consensus either, because of times when other users have made delete !votes before it came to light that the editor was banned at the AfD. – --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfD lacked consensus, potential value as a merge to page on Dark Angels, and nominated by an account previously pointedly named User:Killerofcruft that was blocked as a sock of a banned editor following checkuser. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (I'll be copy/pasting this reply to the other DRV, the two are similar enough to be judged on the same merits) The comment of the deleting admin on the Armageddon AfD should be the rule to determine whether or not the process failed. "Closure is based on strength of arguments presented, not vote counting". All 11 of these articles were nominated as having failed the WP:GNG. The nominator noted in both AfD's that no independent, reliable source covered the subjects in sufficient detail to meet WP:N. Several respondents felt the same way. The closing admin weighed those arguments against the keep arguments and came to the same decision in each situation. In this case we should judge arguments on the basis of their appeal to guidelines or policies and weigh them accordingly. This was done properly in both cases. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WH40K project has a relevant discussion. tl;dr version: Day isn't banned, he's blocked for unrepentant harassment and is more or less welcome back when he is willing to put a stop to it. Unless someone's willing to come up with some way that this is harassment, it's a good-faith deletion effort backed by a number of editors in good standing. Endorse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the nominator was a sockpuppet should have absolutely no bearing on the result of this AfD. Consensus, regardless of the legitimacy of the person who requested it, was that the article should be deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It should have every bearing on it as we should not make it okay for such accounts to return with single purposes and disrupt Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except that he's not disrupting anything, he's simply taking actions you don't like, and which you're trying overturn by means other than the actual merits. Making editors jump through legalistic hoops to overturn an obvious decision -- now THAT might be considered disruptive. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - that the nominator was a sockpuppet has no bearing on the overall consensus of the AfD. The concerns of the delete !votes concerning the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic were never adequately addressed. Aside from that, the administrator correctly determined the result based on the weight of the arguments put forward. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The the nominator was a sockpuppet means that AfD should have never been allowed to proceed. We don't delete redirectable articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is that a point we need to make so badly that we have to go through multiple layers of bureaucracy to reimplement actions that had consensus in the first place? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The AfDs had no consensus, which is part of the reason for suggesting it be overturned, relisted, or userfied. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are clearly outlined reasons for deletion and a supermajority moving for deletion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not a vote and there were clealry outlined reasons for keeping as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The closing admin clearly disagreed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which was the wrong call. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So you're here because you don't like the closer's call, then, because you haven't mentioned any procedural (guideline or policy) reasons that this close was in error. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closure seems based on legitimate interpretation of policy and arguments given. --Craw-daddy | T | 08:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse. More than twice as many people suggested deletion than any other alternative and in the absence of extremely strong arguments the closer acted correctly. Listing of DRVs in such circumstances is heading for the territory of disruption. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the weak arguments for deletion and that AfD is not a vote and that it was nominated by a disruptive account previously called "Killerofcruft" we absolutely must relist, void, overturn, userfy or something to discourage block evading accounts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, there is no need to invoke problems with a user to restore an article. Your side lost the debate, and yours is as weak an argument as many of those you refer to. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for the same reason we delete articles started by banned editors. It seems likely, though, that there would be the same result. But listing it here is not disruption, considering the rather extensive nature of the sockpuppetry and that there is no specific policy about what to do in these cases. 14:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. While the nominator may have been improperly evading a block, the arguments presented for deletion and the decision of the closing admin were in good faith and would not have changed, had the nominator been another user. Pagra shtak 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, correct closure based on clear consensus and policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, This would have been the correct decision based upon either strength of policy based argument or upon a simple numbers calculation. A combination of both makes this a no-brainer. --Allen3 ^talk 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not about whether some simply don't like these kinds of articles and want them deleted, but rather are we really going to be okay with nominations made by a blatantly single-purpose account originally named "Killerofcruft" who was evading an idefinite block? I really hope for better from members of our community than to allow that to slide. Also, in both this and the Armageddon one there is information that I worst I can use if userfied. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the analogy that we used the last time this came up was that "even a broken clock is right twice a day." The proposal to add a section about bad-faith nominations being a reason to invalidate a discussion has been rejected at WP:ATA. The blocked user's opinion gets ignored in the nose-counting but verifiable evidence and logical, policy-based arguments are welcome from anyone. Rossami (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the discussion appears to have had sufficient consensus to support this closure. Shereth 22:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure as supported by policy and discussion consensus. I certainly appreciate LGRdC's concern that we do not allow banned editors to contribute whatsoever, but invalidating an AfD on that issue is not productive. If the AfD nomination had been closed immediately based on WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits, I would have supported that. But now that the outcome has been properly determined, a little WP:IAR is in order. — Satori Son 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. No actual flaws I can see, DRV nominator's shifting rationales notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Armageddon (Warhammer 40,000) – Deletion endorsed. Consensus here says that even though the editor turned out to be a sock, this did not change consensus. Over at WT:AFD a suggestion that noms by banned editors be automatically overturned or closed never reached consensus either, because of times when other users have made delete !votes before it came to light that the editor was banned at the AfD. – --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfD lacked consensus, potential value as a merge to page on Armageddon, and nominated by an account previously pointedly named User:Killerofcruft that was blocked as a sock of a banned editor following checkuser. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (I'll be copy/pasting this reply to the other DRV, the two are similar enough to be judged on the same merits) The comment of the deleting admin on the Armageddon AfD should be the rule to determine whether or not the process failed. "Closure is based on strength of arguments presented, not vote counting". All 11 of these articles were nominated as having failed the WP:GNG. The nominator noted in both AfD's that no independent, reliable source covered the subjects in sufficient detail to meet WP:N. Several respondents felt the same way. The closing admin weighed those arguments against the keep arguments and came to the same decision in each situation. In this case we should judge arguments on the basis of their appeal to guidelines or policies and weigh them accordingly. This was done properly in both cases. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WH40K project has a relevant discussion. tl;dr version: Day isn't banned, he's blocked for unrepentant harassment and is more or less welcome back when he is willing to put a stop to it. Unless someone's willing to come up with some way that this is harassment, it's a good-faith deletion effort backed by a number of editors in good standing. Endorse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the nominator was a sockpuppet should have absolutely no bearing on the result of this AfD. Consensus, regardless of the legitimacy of the person who requested it, was that the article should be deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It should have every bearing on it as we should not make it okay for such accounts to return with single purposes and disrupt Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - that the nominator was a sockpuppet has no bearing on the overall consensus of the AfD. The concerns of the delete !votes concerning the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic were never adequately addressed. Aside from that, the administrator correctly determined the result based on the weight of the arguments put forward. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The the nominator was a sockpuppet means that AfD should have never been allowed to proceed. We don't delete redirectable articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We judge arguments, not who said them. If the nominator isn't using additional accounts as meatpuppets, then there is not a problem. The closing administrator weighed the arguments and made the correct decision based on the strength of those arguments. Trying to discount consensus by attacking a single user is petty wikilawyering. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a borderline AFD but I think the closer judged it correctly, bearing in mind the common practice of discounting the recommendations of unregistered users. Endorse deletion. Whether the nominator was blocked, banned or otherwise is immaterial once there is a consensus to delete. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the weak arguments for deletion and that AfD is not a vote and that it was nominated by a disruptive account previously called "Killerofcruft" we absolutely must relist, void, overturn, userfy or something to discourage block evading accounts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for the same reason we delete articles started by banned editors. Govenn the close, it is quite possible that there might not be the same result. 14:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. While the nominator may have been improperly evading a block, the arguments presented for deletion and the decision of the closing admin were in good faith and would not have changed, had the nominator been another user. Pagra shtak 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closure was correctly done on the basis of strength of arguments, not on head count; for the same reason, the identity of the (banned) nominator plays no role in the assessment. A stronger policy-based argument is still a stronger policy-based argument if it is brought forward by a banned sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closing admin was correct to use the stronger policy based argument as the basis of closure instead of a simple headcount. --Allen3 ^talk 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not about whether some simply don't like these kinds of articles and want them deleted, but rather are we really going to be okay with nominations made by a blatantly single-purpose account originally named "Killerofcruft" who was evading an idefinite block? I really hope for better from members of our community than to allow that to slide. Also, in both this and the Dark Angels one there is information that I worst I can use if userfied. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Single-purpose accounts are fine, as long as you're not trying to create an illusion of a groundswell of support/opposition where there is none and if willing to accept that the only weight your words will carry are the merits of your arguments. The former isn't the case, and in the latter case the force of the arguments carried the day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we went with the arguments we'd have honestly a merge/redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The closing admin clearly disagreed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which was clearly wrong. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So you're just here because you don't like the decision made, not because of any procedural problems, huh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        While I have no idea why you're here, the procedural problems are that an AfD started by an account initially called Killerofcruft wanted to delete an article that ultimately had no consensus for deletion, that very easily could be merged, redirected, etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you ask the closing admin if his decision would have been different had he known that Day was making the nom before rushing to DRV? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I always discuss with admins before starting DRVs and another user also appeared in that discussion to say, "I think the nature of the nominator was relevant". --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So where did you discuss this with the closer? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Making editors jump through legalistic hoops to overturn an obvious decision is plain silly and petty Wikilawyering to boot. --Calton | Talk 14:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law – Deletion endorsed. – --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am the author of the article. An Admin posted a +Speedy, I countered with a +Hangon and it was deleted anyway. I have no affiliation with the book in question. Therefore, the article should be put back and an +afd posted i.e. try to build a consensus if you can, I will abide by the outcome. If you feel the article needs to be modified, that is fine too, but definitely not +Speedy. I wrote this article to support the another article I have written called Surrogatum. Thank you! Green Squares (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this article as promotional in nature and recommended its immediate deletion. Lines like this troubled me:

"There is a reason for everything, and we always try to explain what that reason is."
"We hope as well that it will be useful to courts, especially when they have to deal with fundamental issues, and we have been delighted that it has been cited in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada."
"We have tried to avoid the complex abstractions with which the Income Tax Act is replete. Our language is as simple, concrete and non-technical as our capability and the nature of the subject permitted."

It seemed the author was either associated with the book himself -- a clear conflict of interest -- or else he'd copied it from somewhere -- a copyright violation. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this book might be notable based on citations in Google Scholar

I'm certainly open to an article about this book that meets our requirements; in the meantime, if the deleted article is not a copyright violation, I suggest "userfying" it.

I have left notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taxation about this discussion.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no ISBN in the article, no sign of notability other than by assertion... this certainly reads like promo blurbage to me. The authors dedicated their contributions to this book to their spouses and children. ... mmmhmm... probably not encyclopedic prose there. Endorse Deletion, without prejudice to userification if there is any chance the book actually is notable. (the book does exist, and can be found in Amazon ... it has a rank somewhere in the 6M range.) For ref: ISBN 9780459576530 ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not totally clear on why this article is "in support of Surrogatum"... a book doesn't have to be notable to be citeable. If this book has relevant material to the Surrogatum article, (which by the way seems off to a good start) go ahead and cite from it. That will not be affected by whether this article stays or is removed. Based on the Google Scholar cites, though, perhaps this book is notable... the article just needs some work to wikify it, in that case. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin here. Please see conversation at User talk:Kylu (permalink) regarding my position. Thanks. :) Kylu (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone not aware, one of the authors of Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law, Peter Hogg, clearly is notable. He is generally thought of as one of the top legal academics in Canada. His most notable books are Liability of the Crown and Constitutional Law of Canada, neither of which has its own article. --Mathew5000 (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The version of the article that was deleted qualified for speedy deletion as spam. However, it should not be protected from creation. The book may well be notable enough to have an article, but this wasn't it. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - there was nothing to salvage in the article as deleted which looked like a publisher's puff piece. Given the tone of the content there is no merit in userfication, nevertheless I cannot see the justification for it remaining a protected title. nancy ^(talk) 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite true, when I added the protection, it was short-term and intended only to defer creation until after the DRV. See rationale at as noted in the protection log. I had no desire to see the article protected forever, merely to allow the discussion to take place first. I'm still wary of the wording used in the article: Perhaps, does anyone have access to this book? Perhaps check the dustjacket for similar phrasing. Kylu (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I tend to be flexible about partially promotional articles for speedy, but there was nothing here to use. If the book is adopted widely & gets good reviews, and these can be cited from indpendent sources (not the book jacket , the publishers promotional literature, or Amazon), then an article can be resubmitted. DGG (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - in accordance with DGG's sound reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 21 July 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 July 2008

Historical pederastic couples – Nominator was disapproving of the numerical split of the closing and wanted a wider community input; this certainly ocurred. 65% of those who responded here were in support of endorsing the previous closure. 35% wanted to overturn and delete. The reasonable course of action therefore seems to be Endorse keep closure. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article closer finds delete more persuasive, but can't fault keepers. This is a highly charged and contentious article and I strongly feel that this debate needs more voices than the 24 who voted (or !voted or whatever) with 11 deletes and 13 keeps. It needs a higher percentage of the 1500 admins and 000s of editors please. This is serious. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete - my reasoning is that pederasty is a historical and not currently used term, thus is not for use in a contemporary dictionary for interpreting couples outside the areas (Classical and pre-20th cent. England). Furthermore, pederasty itself is a subject with some grave issues attached to it. The derivative article by its very existence presents a false impression of non-controversial nature. And is inherently misleading. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure Closure was correct interpretation of the discussion and deletion review is not a second chance to reargue the AFD. If we start allowing deletion reviews where we just disagree with the outcome Deletion Review will become impossible. Instead just wait a couple of months and if the issues with the article have not been addressed then put it back on AFD. Davewild (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, it is pretty obvious I didn't agree, but it wasn't closed as keep and I can't see logically how this article can be improved...and I am usually an arch-inclusionist much to the annoyance of many. I will stand corrected if numbers go one way big-time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The recent history of this article is the subject of a rather spirited discussion currently taking place here (at ANI). Given that DRV is a procedural review, this strikes me as relevant. Townlake (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seemed to be going off on a formless tangent, and there is no inherent structure to gain consensus about the article. I did note I was opening this here on both AN and AN/I. I'll get to Sandstein, article talk page etc. etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Formless tangent or not, it does discuss the recent history of the article and background of how this wound up at DRV. The AfD currently linked here takes me to something from 2006 - that's not a swipe at you, I'm just trying to fully understand what's going on here. Townlake (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK granted that. I do see where you're coming from, but I worry that reams of text tends to turn off those who are not intimately involved. I can't see how the debate there is going to establish anything (and seemed to be petering out anyway. I am trying to refocus the debate on the article). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have added link to 2nd (more recent) AFD. Davewild (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, delete. Consensus cannot trump policy, this article violates WP:NOR and WP:NOPV#Undue weight. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny.. at the ANI thread you were arguing the article as a BLP violation and when that didn't work, you're over here arguing the article as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Funny. I'm just saying.

71.195.144.222 (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is both. Peter Damian (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure per Davewild. This discussion is meant to address process, not merits. The closing admin correctly weighed the arguments and decided there was no clear consensus for deletion. That should be an end of it. However, I do not think it was advisable to tie the hands of editors as to how editing the article should proceed. That's outside the remit of an Afd and more properly addressed by an article RfC. The article needs work, and it should have the chance for reliable sourcing. --Rodhull andemu 15:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure Article should be improved and sourcing made more clear so these concerns, or more accurately some concerns and some accusations, can be more readily addressed. Agree with closer that keep was the correct default. Banjeboi 15:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. This article is being discussed and worked out on the talk page, and Haiduc, the main editor, is not even aware that this has occurred (he has apparently been offline since the 18th). To delete this after it made it through the AFD, without giving the editors a chance to improve it, seems motivated more by vendetta than any form of quality assurance from what is ostensibly an encyclopedia. Jeffpw (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with large amounts of work to be done. An effort has been initiated to improve the article on its talk page due to the last AfD process. The elements that are to be fixed are ones that respond to the primary objections, which include:

1. Renaming the article, if warranted, to something other than "pederastic couples" as what is being illustrated in the article does not seem to have a simple English term to describe it.
2. Sourcing all claims stringently.
3. Rewriting portions, specifically the lead and introductory paragraphs for each section to describe the types of relationships and how "normal" they were considered in each location and era discussed.
4. Removing POV by rewriting portions to say what each researcher or author has claimed.

Deletion implies there is no historical or intellectual merit to the claims in the article, that the article is by nature and construct irredeemable; this is simply untrue. I admit some of it makes editors uncomfortable, and this discomfort is easier dispatched, I fear, with deletion that creative problem solving. If this article is still locked, and I am unsure if that is the case, the problems are unable to be addressed by its editors with any speed, which I imagine is the order under this Deletion review. Furthermore, its primary editor, Haiduc has not appeared since two days ago and I have to point out that it is a weekend, and we should give him a few days to read and respond to the large amount of discussion that has taken place in many locations. --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure per Davewild and --Rodhull andemu. We cannot argue on any other grounds than procedural grounds here, otherwise we would really need to have a "deletion review review". It is pretty straightforward to decide on whether or not the procedures were followed correctly, but you can have major disagreements with whether the wiki rules are compatible with having this article. The AFD discussion should not continue on appeal here because then it would be unfair that there isn't any further appeal possible. Count Iblis (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Where the subject is notable, the way to deal with WP:OR problems is to remove the OR portion of the article, not to delete the article itself. Same goes for NPOV: the issues of NPOV, balance and undue weight can and should be addressed within the article itself. Nsk92 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, based in part on WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, and in part on WP:IAR. To start, I want to say two things.

First, I nominated the article for deletion because it seemed to me to be original research by synthesis, which is to say the collection of unrelated persons in the list for the purpose of sustaining an argument. In the service of that novel argument, the primary author collected together individuals who were only tangentially related or not related at all (men and younger men who were sexual lovers, men and younger men who were patron and student, men and younger men who were platonic friends, men and young teenagers, men and post-teenagers, and so on) and then slapped the name "pederastic couple" -- itself a nearly completely novel term -- on both of them. The response to this criticism has been numerous people in numerous places stating or implying that I am conservative, that I hate sex, that I hate gays, that I am trying to oppress love, and so on. I hope that sort of nonsense will stop. What I hate is original research on Wikipedia.

Second, I believe that the closing admin was trying to close this AfD in good faith. I also believe that his close was a terrible mistake, and that he gave equal weight to delete voters arguing from Wikipedia policy and to keep voters arguing that any attempt to edit Wikipedia is an attempt to censor it. I believe that in this case our policy mandate is clear, and that this AfD should have been closed as delete for solid policy reasons.

Lastly, I think it's clear from the incredibly weak sourcing of the article, from the history of the editors involved, and from the irresponsible reaction to subsequent attempts to edit this article that its raison d'etre is, in fact, to promote a specific political viewpoint, and -- now that enough people are aware of it -- its continued existence is likely to bring Wikipedia into disrepute, much as similar articles have in the past. Therefore, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I believe this article should be deleted regardless of whether the close was procedurally flawed. Nandesuka (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's problematic about Nandesuka's last point is that the specific political viewpoint is not readily apparent. I see the article as illustrating that older-younger male-male relationships happened. Others see the article as attempting to promote or normalize the relationships. Again, if this is a concern, then clarity of language is in order for the article. If there are editors who consider the article only capable of promoting this political viewpoint regardless of what language is currently in it, this is an indication not of the article's writing, but a bias of the reader that the article is not able to overcome. From that view, deletion is censorship. There are too many grey areas here to make such a drastic decision as deletion. --Moni3 (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH inherent in the subject of the article: a list of historic instances of what Wikipedia already defines as pederasty: an erotic relationship, sexually expressed or not, between an adolescent boy and an adult male outside his immediate family. Unless I'm missing something, every concern of Nandesuka's can be met with editing out the flaws in the article. There is nothing inherently POV about readers wanting to study historical pederasty by looking at specific cases, which this list helpfully provides (since there is much more information available about the lives of notable people, it's a logical step to look to the lives of those notable people for more information on the subject). If Pederasty itself isn't in violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, then neither is a list of pederastic relationships as they are defined in that "Pederasty" article. If certain items don't belong on this article's list, that's an editing decision, not an AfD/DRV decision. Personally, I think changing the name (and subject matter) List of notable pederasts or something along those lines, would be preferable, since there may be something about the idea of "pederastic couples" that does tend to skew the subject toward a possible POV (stable, romantic relationships being generally viewed as more acceptable than other forms of sexual contact or yearnings), but that's a name change issue, not a deletion issue. Since there's no inherent policy/guideline problem in the subject, the close was within policy. Incidentally, I am conservative and I do hate pederasty. But in considering the Wikipedia treatment of a legitimate subject, I try to be neutral, including on questions about whether or not WP should cover a subject. Noroton (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE" It is amazing how much activity goes on here in just one day! As much as I enjoy voting on things, this feels like it's merely a repetition of the earlier vote with mostly the same participants. I feel this is not what Casliber intended. Most of the votes so far are from people with LGBT interests. While these are very legitimate, it's likely to skew the results soemwhat which is why I agree on having a more representative vote if possible with fresh input.

I think this article should be deleted and any important and verifiable info should be on the relevant subject pages. The main problems I have with this page is that it uses a fuzzy and broadest possible definition of pederasty. It is also plagued by lax interpretative use of references based on my brief sampling. So just because there's many references, not all are from mainstream sources or used properly. There are other related articles like "Pederasty in classical antiquity" that have the same flaws. See the section on Aristotle and Hermias of Atarneus as a clear example of free interpretation. Not only that, it is strongly contradicted by his writings (which I can provide). Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE" per George, Nocturnal Sleeper & others. Pure OR, WP:POINT and so on. Peter Damian (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure, but... This article would obviously raises some hackles, but controversial or not, this is an Encyclopedia. This article should first be renamed - we have 2 other articles on similar topics that being with "Pederastric couples in ...", and the format and provisos on this article should match those. Any unsourced/improperly sourced entries must be delete ASAP - nothing like "outing" someone's ancestors either rightly or wrongly. Wikipedia's role is not to rewrite history, but to create a place of encylopedic knowledge based on referenced sources. BMW(drive) 16:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the definition of the subject should be clear (I am by no means clear what Haiduc means by 'pederasty'), and all references should support any claim using that definition. Everything Haiduc writes is plagued by fallacy of equivocation and similar logical deficiencies. Peter Damian (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wow. "Everything Haiduc writes is plagued by fallacy of equivocation and similar logical deficiencies." Isn't this a personal attack of some sort? I also see this as possibly violating assuming good faith policy. Banjeboi 23:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closure and keep No new issues are being raised here. Why not give the article some time to address the concerns raised from the AFD? Queerudite (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait The article's primary author, Haiduc, knows his stuff and has not yet responded to many of the criticisms of the article. A good-faith attempt to fix the POV/OR problems may be the best way to demonstrate whether they are fixable or whether, as it seems to me, the "pederast" label is too inherently subjective for any clear criteria for inclusion to be found. I also don't think WP:BLP is really a concern for any of the people listed -- most of the 20th-century items are in fact quite early in the 20th century -- so there is no immediate hurry-up in getting potential libel off WP. Dybryd (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn, but turn into a (protected) redirect (to pederasty), as a courtesy in order to keep the substantial edit history accessible. Compare the redirect Pederastic couples in classical antiquity. --dab (𒁳) 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and keep Moni3 clearly explains the difficulties with the article, but I think fails to see that thy are just editing problems. DGG (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close/keep. Sandstein's closing remarks for the AfD more or less reflect what I would have done, and he very carefully picked through a contentious discussion to find the sense of the community and weighed policy vs. discussion. (Reading it myself, I found the consensus leaning toward keep.) As for the article itself, it needs a fair amount of work; anything failing WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:BLP needs to go, but I don't think the article as a whole is OR by synthesis. And a better title would be helpful. --MCB (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete or redirect as per dab. It's common knowledge that there is a strongly motivated group of editors on Wikipedia who have a clear agenda in maximizing this kind of content for POV reasons. A significant portion of the keep votes in the AfD came from just these editors, who had a vested interest in the article. I've long been convinced that in cases of group POV pushing, the resulting POV cruft can only be countered if closing admins have the guts to systematically discount votes from POV-involved editors. The spectrum of opinions among the other, independent, people who commented on the AfD was such that a delete outcome would have been legitimate on the strength of arguments. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are strong words. I participated in the AfD discussion, evidenced by my comments above. Please be clear what POV you think is being promoted here: if it's the inclusion of all information, or the promotion of pedophilia as normal (I'm assuming this is the POV construed from the article). At this point, "POV pusher" is not clear and substantially applicable to multiple participants of this argument, including yourself. --Moni3 (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree Moni3. The use of "agenda" and "POV pushing" in this context are negative terms, and do not reflect historical accuracy. They merely add gas to the flames, and are in fact "POV pushing" from the other perspective. BMW(drive) 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: After the closure, a person attempted to do the things that the "keep" proponents suggested. His work was reverted, to reinsert uncited examples. The article is a POV fork without any doubt, and I can prove it. 1. What is the difference between this article and the list of gay couples? 2. What is the difference between this and the list of pedophiles? This tries to split things yet another way, and in service of a single term: "pederast." 3. Are any figures put here who are not, in their biographical articles, discussed as "pederasts?" (Answer: Yes, all.) So, an article that, in its ideal form, violates the deletion guideline and which in its real form gets patrolled and mangled to include unsourced allegations, and that means that we're better off with a category. Geogre (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Correction, after the closure an admin deleted the entire article then after being called on it deleted major chunks of it, including, by my count, at least 16 sourced items and protected their version. They were later compelled to unprotect the article. None of those actions were called for by the keep proponents in the AfD. As has been stated numerous times the article needs to have the sourcing fixed as "general sources" are simply not going to be acceptable for this content. And editors have already started the process to address the rest of the concerns which falls under the category of ... regular editing. Banjeboi 23:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure While I would probably fall in the delete camp, I can see nothing wrong with the closer's rationale. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - we don't delete articles because they need maintenance. If we do, tell me where that decision was made and I'll start deleting the ones with a POV tag, see how far that gets me. This has references for a lot of the copy, and the editors involved have said they're intending to improve the sourcing. I'm disappointed with Fut.Perf's comment above that perceived POV from editors opining on an AFD should be a cause for their opinions to be discounted. If we're changing the way we do things with regards to potentially contentious articles, someone should probably let the rest of us know. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close There was not the consensus to delete, so it was closed properly. Yes, there are problems with the article (otherwise deletion would not have been requested) but the process was properly concluded. So... let's fix the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - the closure as no-consensus looks entirely reasonable to me. Aleta ^Sing 19:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Wikipedia is not censored. this article is not meant to make a normative stance about relationships between boys and older men. insofar as it does, that is a tone problem. If editors feel that the existence of this article represents a normative stance about relationships between boys and older men, I submit that might not be a problem with the article. This article had a pretty rocky road after the AfD. Let's give it a while to stabilize before we claim that it is irredeemably POV. the closing statement was clear, precise and reasonable. If, in a few weeks, someone can come up with a comprehensive critique of this article as SYN due to the problems in defining the term, there should be no prejudice against relisting. To me, WP:SYN and WP:OR are vital and need to be strictly enforced. This article should be no exception but I agree with the closer here, the article doesn't travel too far down that road. Protonk (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why? Stifle (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I noted Sandstein's closure (which was good and approximated what I would have said) but this is a far bigger issue than the usual AfD nonnotability-type article. This needs a bigger consensus that 24 editors (have you read some of the background material and arguments). I will stand by the result here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. More than 24 people see AfD every day, especially contentious AfD's--the fact that only 24 people commented does not mean that only the views of 24 people were represented, we need to assume that silence implies consent sometimes. What are you appealing to, presuming you felt the close was legitimate, to address a broader audience? Your nomination declares this to be a "charged" and "contentious" subject, which it probably is. SCO is a highly contentious subject, as is Kashmir. How does this subject differ from a subject like that (I'm not trying to make an OSE argument, I'm just noting that contentiousness is hardly rare and asking what, if anything, distinguishes this article)? Presumably the remedy you seek is deletion of the content, is that correct (I also realize I'm firing off s series of questions, feel free to ignore some at will for the sake of clarity in response)? Would another remedy be suitable (RFC?)? Thanks for answering. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. DRV is a place to argue how the deletion process has not been followed, or, exceptionally, to provide new information that has not been taken into account by (most of) the editors in the AFD. Most AFDs attract 6 or fewer editors. Therefore, this listing appears to be forum shopping. Endorse closure. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily - the issue is whether the article itself (rather than content of part of the article) is a POV fork and OR, and it is clearly contentious. And yes I have had problems figuring whether DRV or RFC or whatever is appropriate, and I will ignore the forum shopping remark. I have added some notes on why such a subject is contentious here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - violates WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. The article is being used by a group of editors to push a particular POV, and make something seem what it is not. Better to rid ourselves of this and confine mention of the phenomenon, such as it is, to individual biographies. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; yes, let's censor all systematic
- Comment. Please show evidence of this cabal you refer to or consider striking incendiary comments. Banjeboi 08:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure The closure reasonably interpreted the no-consensus result and was done according to policy. If there were something inherent in the topic that prevented it from meeting Wikipedia policies, then the closure would have been out of policy. But it seems to me an encyclopedic article can be written as a list of relationships as defined by Pederasty involving at least one person who meets WP:N. It can be written with reliable sources and in conformance with WP:BLP. There is nothing inherent in the subject that means its existence needs to be in violation of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH or WP:UNDUE. Whether or not we like the article subject is irrelevant. Follow policy. Noroton (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the closing admin: If I understand the DRV nominator correctly, he wants to get more eyeballs on the issue of whether or not the article is OR. That's probably a good idea, and we're better off as a project if as a result of such review the article is either much better sourced (if its approach is determined to be not OR) or deleted (if it is). But DRV is the wrong forum for that. We review matters of process here, not of substance, and as far as I can tell no real process issues have even been raised. The OR issue belongs on the article talk page. That's where I suggest the sources of the article be examined rigorously and individually: do they really support the claim that such and such were a "pederastic couple", and does that term have an accepted definition? If necessary, we can then discuss the issue in another AfD, which is not precluded by the "no consensus" outcome. Sandstein 22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- *::Yeah, partly that, and partly that the article's mere existence violates NPOV as well. I was tired when I wrote this. I figured given the issue it needed a broader consensus, and wasn't sure whether AfD3, RfC, DRV or what was the correct venue. it is a highly unusual situation. I can't fault your close at all, it's just the situation doesn't neatly fit in the process slots. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. Consensus cannot trump policy, this was and is a WP:NOR violation which fails to confirm with WP:BLP policy. JBsupreme (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few of the people mentioned in the article are still alive and the great majority of those discussed there are long dead. If there are BLP issues with the few living persons mentioned in the article, the solution is to either document the relevant info by proper reliable sources or to remove poorly referenced material from the article. That certainly does not imply that the entire article has to be deleted. Similarly, if there are WP:OR violations, the solution is to rectify them (again, either by providing good sources or by removing the WP:OR material from the text). Given the fact that the subject is notable and that there are in fact lots of reliable sources dealing with this issue (many of which are mentioned in the article), this article requires clean-up, not deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure and a strong keep Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone one can edit, Policy does not and should not be allowed to trump consensus. Jimbo can delete it if he wants to but I doubt that he will do that. I urge everyone from both sides of the argument to stay cool no matter what happens and let consensus decide what happens to that article....... Albion moonlight (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure and Keep, of course. I have just returned from a much needed weekend out of town and am in no condition to respond to all who have weighed in with an opinion here. I would like to thank all of you, the cons as well as the pros, for your concern for this article. In case it is kept I would like to think that you will lend a hand to improve it in whatever way you think best.
At the same time I would like to respond to Casliber, who proposed this review, so as not to waste your time and mine. First of all the sexological definitions of pederasty which are referenced in the article by that name do not support any limitation of the term to pre-modern instances, so the statement that "pederasty is a historical and not currently used term, thus is not for use in a contemporary dictionary for interpreting couples outside the areas (Classical and pre-20th cent. England)" is itself an original idea without any support in the literature. Secondly, the claim that "pederasty itself is a subject with some grave issues attached to it" is nothing but the application of a vernacular slur to an academic debate. "Pederasty" is a general term that embraces a host of manifestations, some chaste and some sexual, some legal and others not. It also happens to make up the bulk of male homosexual history. I am sure that if you consider matters in that light you will withdraw your accusation. Let me hasten to add that I absolutely agree that some aspects of pederasty certainly (and well-deservedly) are grave issues. But are not certain aspects of all human endeavors grave issues? Would you not agree that female genital mutilation (or male genital mutilation, in the opinion of this writer) are grave aspects of child rearing? But who would presume to indict all child rearing because of that? And is not spouse abuse an important and ugly aspect of marriage? A recent statistic claimed that 25% (!) of American marriages were infected by physical violence between the partners. Does that make marriage "a subject with some grave issues attached to it" and thus to be closely monitored in Wikipedia?
NUff said, I do not mean to make light of your very realistic concerns, and I will be the first one to speak up against anyone trying to use this article (or any others) as a justification for child abuse. If you look closely at the entries contributed by me, you will find among them a good number documenting some incidents that are ugly, unethical, offensive and disturbing. Far be it from me to paint a rosy picture of pederasty. But far be it from us to lend our joint authority to a knee-jerk besmirching (or censoring) of a complex human relationship that has seen admirable examples as well as execrable ones. Haiduc (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped you would respond to some of the questions raised about OR and POV in the article, rather than just giving an emotional speech about moral values.

What are the objective, verifiable criteria for labeling all these disparate couples as "pederastic"? If I wanted to add a couple to the article, how would I be able to decide whether their relationship was a pederastic one or not?

Dybryd (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dybrid, why are you asking me to define pederasty here? Can we adjourn this to the article on pederasty and deal with it there? I really fail to see where you expect to end up on this tack. Is it not clear that if you have no pederastic relationships you have no pederasty?! I'm turning in for the night, so will not respond further till tomorrow. Haiduc (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that the problem of subjective definition I see with this article is also a problem with your pederasty articles in general. However, the problem is most clear in this list of examples -- and while the problem can be fixed in the main articles, I don't think it can be fixed here except by deletion.

A subjective, culturally variable definition may be fine for discussion of something as a cultural phenomenon. For example, an article called virtue or vice will be able to offer only subjective, culture-bound definitions of what those words mean. If the articles don't endorse any of those definitions, there's no problem.

However, it's a very different case if an editor takes it upon himself to draw up a list of virtuous people in history. By his own active application of the label, that editor is inevitably endorsing a particular subjective definition of virtue, and so the article can never be made appropriate for Wikipedia.

Dybryd (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure DRV is not AfD round two, and there were 13 out of 24 editors calling for keep, with reasonably strong arguments. Stop arguing about WP:NPOV; that's what the AfD was for. Sometimes it feels like WP:NOTCENSOR means that we enjoy pictures of titty fucks, but any adult studies of serious subjects must be controlled; smut's okay, culture isn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure - This was a straightforward closure from a policy perspective, so there is no objection there. I maintain that the article itself is a sound, dispassionate list of historical facts relating to a valid subject. It is unfortunate that some people (due to their own discomfort, one imagines) would see this as inherently POV - substituting objectivity with unoffensive centrism. Only some sourcing problems here - and the eds should be given time to sort them out as most are not BLP issues. forestPIG ^(grunt) 02:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not acceptable in its current form. For an example, look no further than the photo. The historical data on the relationship between Whitman and Duckett is complex and ambiguous. It would take a couple of paragraphs to do it justice. Instead this article simply claims that their relationship can be described as pederasty, without citation, giving no evidence, ignoring dissenting voices... and then it makes Whitman a poster boy for historical pederasty! WTF!? If stubbifying this won't stick, then it should be deleted. Hesperian 05:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete. Numerous editors here and at the AN/I thread related to this have noted the dearth of actual sourcing for the SYNTH violation this is. Further, I note that startlingly few of the listed relationships have citations to demonstrate they were pederastic in nature, as opposed to being relationships which were socially acceptable at the time, or of age differences not important to those societies. Attaching some sort of modern view that those relationships listed were either 'pederasty good' or 'pederasty bad' is SYNTH and OR either way. Further, the writing on that page is so ridiculously skewed towards the 'aww, sweet love should not be ruined by criminalizing their true and deep love' type crap. Half or more of those read like the back of a Harlequin novel, and the rest range between neutral fact and subtle cheering on. But attaching a modern interpretation to historical characters for diverse cultures and such seems like an exercise in SOAPBOXing, like trying ot vote-stack social thinking about the issue. Burn and scorch the earth it's on, unless all of those can be substantiated as being seen as pederastic at the time through WP:RS. ThuranX (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And numerous editors have countered that the article has general sourcing which needs to be converted to in-line citations. The rest of the issues can and are being address through regular editing. Banjeboi 08:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I've filled out the pink slip at the State Library for several of the dead-tree references, those entires I'm even passably familiar with fail the hurdle for inclusion. No consensus definition of the term, no definition of what contitutes "notable," and little if any evidence of any serious scholarly intent. I'd prefer not to ascribe motivation to editors unless it is unavoidable, but If we take the Bill Ducket example and run with it...
* No mention of Bill in the main Whitman article,
* The first google hit for "Walt Whitman and Bill Duckett" is www.nambla.org/whitman.htm, and
* The first G Scholar hit is Shively's "Calamus Lovers: Walt Whitman's Working-class Camerados."
So, even on the laziest sort of "click on the series of tubes" research reveals serious problems with the highest profile entry. Moving beyond that to the deletion debate itself, while I cannot condemn the close, I find it deeply unsatifying.
* The delete arguments were clearly and concisely presented, and well grounded in policy.
* The keep arguments are either a la "a huge number of R[eliable] S[ources]" appear to have failed absorb the gestalt
* Or else make accusations about "the language of repression" and "covering up homosexual relationships."
As it stands, this article consists of a laundry list of claims that would not last forty seconds in their respective articles, about something that the primary advocate gives the impression of being more passionate about than objective. That there cannot be a neutral well-cited article of this title is open to debate, but this venue is ill suited to that debate. That this article is not neutral well-cited is unquestionable. The solution that lends itself most to ensuring high-quality content in the long term is that this article is moved into user-space so that interested parties can attempt to improve it, with the caveat that if in six months it cannot pass deletion review and the Geogre test it will be deleted. - brenneman 07:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In your research on William Duckett, perhaps you ran into Gregory Eiselein, "Romantic Whitman," American Quarterly 50.3 (1998) 670-678, which says "Whitman enjoyed romantic relationships with a number of young working-class men such as Fred Vaughan, Peter Doyle, Harry Stafford, and Bill Duckett." That's an WP:RS, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete. As per Thuran's comments. In addition, someone dismissed BLP as only a few mentioned would still be alive; well, 1 person libelled is 1 person libelled too many. BLP concerns thus apply until you can guarantee ALL people mentioned have passed on to the great WP in the sky. Minkythecat (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have you put AfD and DR for deletion yet? Especially AfD is an ongoing source of BLP violations. Or is the one person libeled standard only apply to pages you don't like?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure. I refuse to allow WP:BLP to cover dead people. WP:BLP is a brain-dead policy that is being gamed to delete and remove things people don't like. I suggest people work on improving it or bringing it up to desired standards rather then sneakily trying to take a second bite at the apple after ensuing AN/I drama. That's not how AfD works. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As much as I would have been in favor of deleting this article, I have to endorse as there was nothing procedurally wrong with the close. Shereth 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse. I would have gone a bit further and said there was a consensus to keep; many of the problems with the articles are editing problems and can be dealt with outside of our deletion mechanisms. I don't even think we should have BLP at all, and this is one of the reasons; it is used as a deletion rationale by people who can't apply any of the "real" policies like notability or verifiability and who depend on the strength behind it and the people who will come from all over the wiki to outcry "OH NOEZ TEH BLP VIOLATIONZ"; in any case, there's nothing wrong procedurally with this close, so DRV isn't the appropriate place for it. This is not AfD, part 2. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I can't see anything procedurely incorrect with the close, which is supposedly what DRV is supposed to evaluate. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Per Geogre, Guy and Nandesuka - the article appears to constitute original synthesis of varying sources, and while it may be interesting as an example of academic inquiry it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia - particularly given the subject matter. Avruch^T 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as to the issue of whether my argument above (and those I referenced) is appropriate for DRV... Perhaps not. I don't think the closure was particularly out of order, even if I believe it was incorrect. Avruch^T 19:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So in a DRV, argue on DRV policy and consensus. In an AfD, argue on policy & merits. Basic if you want to be an Admin. --Rodhull andemu 00:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

really, it's not that proscriptive. Deletion review's auspice also includes "significant new information" which can cover merit. As well as the fact that a good discussion is a good discussion wherever it takes place. Basic if you want to be an admin is that we don't do beaurocracy, that process is just a tool, and that good sense knows no borders. - brenneman 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no new evidence here; just rehashing what's at AfD. Good sense knows many borders, a big part of good sense being knowing when and how to work with in the system as is. As you'll note, despite the lack of bureaucracy, no one has speedy deleted this. Process is a tool, and part of the process here is to avoid dragging arguments like this out for extended periods. If you want an another AfD, you take another AfD and get smacked down there for wasting people's time repeatedly AfDing the same article over a short period of time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. There is new evidence. See User:Arkhilleus at timestamp 15:24 21 July, above. You want new evidence? I think anyone who knows anything about Lord Byron is aware that the man who was famously "mad, bad and dangerous to know" had a sexual interest in underage boys, a simple fact that every modern biography of him must mention. One of the many sources for Whitman's predelictions are mentioned by Arkhilleus above. When it comes to Byron's pederasty, Ezra Pound's fascist sympathies or T.S. Eliot's anti-semitism, an uncensored encyclopedia needs to be uncensored. If the subject is clearly notable and the sources address just exactly that subject (such as Byron's true sexual yearnings were for boys), then there is no inherent WP:NPOV, WP:OR or WP:SYNTH violations in the subject and any violations in the article are editing disputes, not AfD material, and therefore not DRV material. If biographer Fiona McCarthy and The Independent newspaper can discourse on this subject like adults, then we can too. If there are reliable sources for Whitman and Byron, how likely is it that there are no reliable sources for other items on that list? Here's more new evidence, taken from following the relevant footnote (7) in the Lord Byron article:

In the 1950s, the eminent Byron scholar Leslie Marchand, writing at a time when homosexuality was still a criminal offence in Britain, was expressly forbidden by the head of the Murray firm, which holds the richest archive of Byron material (everything from manuscripts to a lock of Lady Caroline Lamb's pubic hair), from writing explicitly in his pioneering biography about Byron's recurring loves for adolescent boys. MacCarthy is now able to dispel much of the mystery and doubt. She suggests that Byron's often sadistic relationships with women were a reaction to the sexually abusive behaviour that he had suffered from his nurse when he was nine. She also argues plausibly that Byron's true sexual yearnings were for boys, beginning with Edleston, the 15-year-old chorister whom Byron loved (probably chastely) at Cambridge, and ending with Lukas Chalandritsanos, the page whom he pursued (unrequitedly) in his last months in Greece. -- "On the trail of the real Lord Byron", no byline, a review of Byron: Life and Legend by Fiona MacCarthy (Publisher: John Murray) in The Independent, November 4, 2002, retrieved July 22, 2008 -- Noroton (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure — No valid reason for it to be deleted. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I haven't made up my mind yet, but I have one question/point I think may be relevant: in regards to the problem that "pederastic couple" is a neologism we could reasonably title the article something like "Historical couples in which one member was prepubescence". It is more awkward but eliminates that concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not reasonably. Not at all. Nothing to do with prepubescence. You're confused. --Rodhull andemu 06:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure that it does represent "confusion" to use the common-usage definition represented in dictionaries in preference to the idiosyncratic redefinition advanced by a small number of ideologically-invested writers. Dybryd (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith here instead of alleging that editors are "ideologically-invested" and "redefining" things. Banjeboi 01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that statement with great vigor. Even if you believe there is an agenda, even if there actually is an agenda, the best way to approach it is by being careful with sourcing. Anything else simply muddies the waters. - brenneman 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete Yet another POV fork depending on original synthesis to try and prove a point. Closures need to account for both consensus and policy, the latter can trump the former if evidence of a general (i.e. Wikipedia-wide) consensus. Orderinchaos 05:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the AfD was closed correctly. Naerii 06:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete Synthesis. Categorisation of otherwise unrelated peoples whose only tenuous connection is that they shared a sexual preference. Like organising the phone book by whether someone likes corn flakes for breakfast. Viridae^Talk 07:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a tenuous connection? You think if this was like liking cornflakes for breakfast, this would have passed AfD? And isn't AfD's job to say whether liking cornflakes for breakfast is a reasonable thing to build an article around?--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare lump me in with those Corn Flakes people! That's wrong! If you don't prefer Raisin Bran for breakfast, then you're just sick. Don't go spreading that Corn Flakes POV/agenda around here! </sarcasm> BMW(drive) 17:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When academics publish papers and books on the subject of The desire to eat Corn Flakes and when it becomes a part of the biographies of Corn Flakes eaters, and when the holders of the papers of a prominent Corn Flakes eater are found to have forbiden a 20th century biographer from mentioning Corn Flakes eating (as happened with Lord Byron and pederasty, see my comment on that above, or go directly to a source, here), and when Corn Flakes eating becomes forbidden by law, then your analogy would hold up. And in that case, there should be an article on Corn Flakes lust and a list of Historical Corn Flakes lusters, because both subjects will be encyclopedic. Noroton (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete, per Geogre, JzG, and Nandesuka. The arguments offered up at the AFD weren't even close to convincing, and I can't see how the closer made his decision. --Calton | Talk 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and keep. The original AfD already showed that consensus for deletion would be unlikely, so I see no problem with the closure. I agree a lot of work has to be done to make this a good article, that is clear. But then again there are many thousands of start class articles around, often of lower quality than this one, that are never nominated for deletion. For many posters here the topic of the article plays a large role in the rational for deletion; which it should not as Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED. Arnoutf (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per others. Consensus or lack thereof at one AFD does not trump the greater consensus and precedence which builds policy. --Kbdank71 20:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure and Keep It needs serious work, having actual and potential WP:POINT and WP:OR and etymological and drama problems all over the shop. And no valid reasons for deletion. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, the rationale for contesting this closure is invalid. 24 commenters is way higher than average for an AFD, and there is not a minimum amount of editors for a AFD to be closed, as the closures should be based on arguments an not on head count. AFDs can technically be closed after 5 days with only one commenter who happens to make a very good argument addressing all the concerns raised by the nominator. (I have no comment on whether the admin interpreted correctly the arguments presented). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - There was no consensus to delete this article and there was no "trumping" of consensus outside of this AfD. Ironically, the article is even more cited now than it was during the latest AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (no consensus). The close was good. This DRV looks like AFD3, which it shouldn't be, and as such was relisted far too soon, and still looks like no consensus. Give it a few months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed. Quoting from the top of this page (the rules): 'This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate.' Nothing new has come to light, and the decision to close the AFD and keep the article was well reasoned. This misuse of process here is just another attempt to remove an article because some editors are uncomfortable with it. That's not a reason to delete, or review the AFD. Jeffpw (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure -- I'm not sure I would have come to the same conclusion as the closer, but I can't see his decision as an error.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete echoing the arguments made above, viz. policy should trump a blind numbers game in matters where the material is blatantly inappropriate. Eusebeus (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the editors at the AFD didn't agree on all the material being blatanly inappropiate (and neither do at this DRV, apparently), which means that the article can be fixed by removing the offending material and doesn't qualify for outright deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, MY problem can't be fixed by removing "offending material" because from an editorial point of view I don't think there ought to be any such thing as offending material.

But, however offensive or tame it may be, I think giving ANY material the definitionally-ambiguous, value-laden label of "pederasty" is POV (and incoherent and meaningless). So you can "clean up" the article as much as you like, and I'll still think it makes no sense as a list.

Dybryd (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry, I didn't mean a moral offence. I wanted to mean "material that violates wikipedia policies and guidelines", as that's the material causing ofence to the editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this objection. Any concept outside of pure mathematics is going to be ambiguous to some extent. However you look at it, a comprehensive list that includes notable persons who have had a relation with someone aged less than 16 when they were much older does have a useful value. Such relations are exceptional and people may be interested to learn that someone was involved in such a relation and want to read more about it. Count Iblis (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* "a relation with someone aged less than 16 when they were much older" is NOT the definition of "pederasty" used in this article. Is that what you think "pederasty" means? Why do you think so? I don't mean to be snarky toward you -- the definition you are using is in fact more objective and a little closer to the mainstream than the one Haiduc uses. Dybryd (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the point. I don't care what the precise definition is. Suppose I'm interested in famous persons who have had relations with young boys. So, I search for that in the internet. Then since a wiki editor named "Haiduc" has compiled a list based in certain criteria that includes the items I'm looking for (but it may contain items I'm not looking for), I can use that list. So, this is useful as long as some broad criteria are used that should be defined in the lead section of the article. If the definition of the word "pederastry" conflicts with the used criterium, then one can discuss renaming the list.

Similarly, you can make a list of long lived particles. But what exactly is "long lived"? 10^(-14) s, 10^(-10) s? It doesn't really matter that much. As long as you define the criterium in the lead section, then the list is bound to be useful. Count Iblis (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's incorrect. Wikipedia editors are not free to set up their own independent definitions of an idea in their articles -- or to choose a particular subdefinition and treat it as the main one.

In any case, Haiduc does not define his criteria in the lead -- or rather, he defines them in terms which are themselves subjectively defined and culture-bound.

Dybryd (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that problem is trivial to fix. You have to fix the problem of finding an appropriate definition. But to delete the whole article would only be justified if the list was full of nonsense. If some wiki rules are violated then that should be fixed. If the article is of such a nature that some core wiki rules can never be fixed, then the article should also be deleted. But that's not the case here.

I don't see a lot of constructive efforts to solve the problem. I also think that the disagreement about the defintion here is quite minor and you can agree to disagree. So, to delete the article on these very flimsy grounds would be wrong. This is not the correct attitude wiki editors should have. When I saw the completely flawed articles Helmholtz free energy, Fundamental thermodynamic relation and a few other thermodynamics articles, I could have nominated them for AFD, because they were so flawed that it was actually damaging for students to read those articles, never mind how many wiki rules were violated. But it never even crossed my mind to do that (I guess that it would have caused a huge turmoil as these are core thermodynamics articles). I simply rewrote these articles as you can see from the history of these articles. Count Iblis (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a thermodynamics article. It is an article about a value-laden cultural term.

As a more apt parallel, you can discuss various different conceptions of virtue in an article on that topic and maintain NPOV. However, you cannot draw up a list of virtuous people in hisotry while maintaining POV. If a little group of Wikipedia editors get together and agree on their own definition of "virtue" which they will use as a criteria for the list they have not made the article less POV -- quite the reverse!

Dybryd (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - The article may need much work, more citations, renaming, and more balance. However, an AFD has been determined, and there is no discernible reason that the AFD should be overuled. Atom (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure -- With some work that should be done, it will be an important article for those, who are interested in the history of pederasty. Fulcher (talk) 01:04, 25 July 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 Mana World – Deletion endorsed. – --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above article was deleted after long discussion where WP:CONSENSUS to delete was certainly not met. The deleting editor closed it and deleted by quoting WP:WEB. WP:WEB is for websites. The Mana World is a software application that is installed on hundreds of thousands of Linux computers around the world, much the same as InkBall is installed on Windows Vista. The flavours of Linux that the game comes with are more prevalent than Windows Vista, making its notability much higher. Some argument has gone on around references: a quick visit to InkBall shows that its only references are directly from Microsoft, which means it should be deleted right? Additional argument centred around this being an "alpha" release: Linux is an interactive operating system - users are asked to modify and share their modifications to the kernel. The Mana World is an unfinished game with the same proviso - let the users have a say in the development. In the end, the deleting reason WP:WEB was not valid for this SOFTWARE as WP:WEB is only for websites, and the AfD had no consensus to delete. I recommend a SPEEDY UNDELETE of the article on this software BMW(drive) 10:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion WP:WEB doesn't apply solely to websites, it applies to any content which is distributed solely via the internet. Anyway WP:N also demands sources in a similar way to WP:WEB but it applies everywhere. The sourcing of other articles is irrelevant - they can always be nominated for deletion as well. The central problem is the lack of third-party reliable sources giving substantial coverage of the subject and they were not provided, and it was appropriate to close the discussion as delete on that basis. Hut 8.5 11:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Editor requesting a review apparently misunderstands the AfD process and his posts here and on the deleting Administrator's talk page suggest that he believes it was some sort of vote (eg his mention of 'creative accounting'). Additionally he persists on arguing in effect that the existence of other dubious articles means that this one should not have been deleted. Doug Weller (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Regardless of the choice of guideline (which is curious), the subject (from the sources linked in the AfD, can't see the article) fails WP:N. The deletion review nomination seems to rehash some of the 'keep' arguments which the closing admin discounted. If other articles have the same faults as this one, then improve upon them or delete them. This particular article does not get some special dispensation for being a game or OSS. Consensus seemed to be properly judged. Protonk (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I chose to cite WEB because, as Hut 8.5 notes, this game is "content which is distributed solely on the Internet"; but at any rate, as you say, the application of WP:N would result in the same outcome. Sandstein 14:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - contributor to AFD I contributed to the AFD with the opinion delete, and that has not changed. WP:WEB was not cited even once until the closing admin did so. Numerous references were made to Wikipedia making up its own definitions of notability that were unfounded. The AFD was subject to canvassing by the project's developers and a warning had to be placed on the AFD against this - many of those voting keep had a conflict of interest that they chose not to justify when questioned on it. Consensus clearly indicated that the article failed WP:N and WP:V Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Look, I had never heard of this game before I stumbled upon the AfD. If by following the third party references and links I was able to readily and easily find notability (and therefore be this willing to argue it), I'm not sure why anyone else has issues doing the same. With respect to "voting", that's exactly what Wikipedia isn't ... it's Consensus (I'm pretty sure that was what I Wikilinked to earlier?) and the AfD certainly did not find consensus to delete. 99% of updates to any PC-based game are "distributed solely on the internet", so that's a moot argument as well. The majority of Linux distributions are downloads from the internet (because it's free), unlike Microsoft products that like to charge you to purchase, so again, the "distributed solely on the internet" statement fails again. Honestly, I don't believe that any one is asking for any form of dispensation - nobability by breadth of distribution is considered appropriate under Wikipedia's standards - very much like my suspension part example in the AfD. As a user of Wikipedia, I found this article illuminating - although I run Win XP, Vista, 2000 server and ME at home, I have downloaded a Ubuntu release of Linux to try this out: this is the kind of use that Wikipedia aims to put forward to the world. BMW(drive) 15:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIGAD, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:DEMOLISH (just a few add-ons) BMW(drive) 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- All essays which could have been written by you. They weren't, but it makes the same amount of difference - none. This is compared to the guidelines which I and others have cited in favour of the deletion. Guidelines are given preference to essays, always. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, WP:WEB is subordinate to WP:N (requiring significant nontrivial coverage in nontrivial sources) and WP:V ("If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.") No reliable independent sources, no article, no exceptions, no matter what else. As to the rest, AfD is not a vote, comments which do not follow policy can and should be ignored regardless of their number. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Principles always get a higher rate than mere votes. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, consensus of those who actually discussed the article rather than the timing of the deletion nomination was unambiguously in favour of deletion; no policy-based reason to overturn has been presented. --Stormie (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - arguments for retention were a mix of quibbles and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; arguments for deletion were policy-based. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

OdinMs – No real consensus here, but there's some feeling that the issues regarding the article are complex enough to require further discussion. Thus, AFD seems appropriate; listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OdinMs. – Chick Bowen 02:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

OdinMs is not a web content related article. It is a past maplestory private server source also known as a Server Emulator. Let me elaborate more on the point why I say so. Yes there was links to the official web of OdinMs and even forums in my article, but that was definitely not an article description of the forum/web. The reason why I leave those link was because I'm trying to explain, developers are currently continuing on the project at these webs/forums The links may be hundreds but I named 2,

Ragezone

Ragezone Forum and its official web http://www.odinms.de as an example. The person behind the deletion claim that I had written a (A7 (web):Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance.) which it not true. There was no web content being indicate here. The article was about a big server emulator project that was closed down due to court. Thats all.

Forums Links

Why I posted the link was because this internet communities places out there are still active on the edit of the project, in both forums and mIRC channels. It is not only webs that are related to the article. It is suppose to be a project written in Javascript Language being released worldwide and continuously being edited daily. There are links everywhere worldwide on various different repacks based on the official OdinMs source available for downloads. I hope any staff can continue review on the deletion in a manner of looking into what the source is like. Here is a sample of the source here written in Java, custom edited by someone I found in http://www.dev-odinms.com/forum/

Download Link: http://www.mediafire.com/?iyi12nptgmt There are hundreds and thousands of source repacked out there here is merely 1 from a web I found. I only intended to post 2 examples, Ragezone and Unofficial OdinMs and expect others to further edit it.

Once again, I hope the staff can see this article as a server emulator's history more like a web content article now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GwNTG (talk • contribs)

Even so, general articles (web or not) can still get deleted for not asserting some level of notability. There's no google cache of the article, but a listing still pops up that shows the first line is "...OdinMs, is the first MapleStory private server source/a testing private server hosted on dedicated server. It was known by many as properly ..." That might be enough to assert notability and push this over to AfD, but I'm not sure. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OdinMs is famous enough or so to had 70 thousands of search result in google. I do think that it is famous enough to be posted up here, even though I'm not even a staff of it but someone active in it as it growth till what its now, if your figuring about notability. Unless you are telling what I had in the articles was false Information which it minority of its content maybe thats why I intended to left it there for further edits. But the Introduction was real throughout definitely(Google your way out) for proof. -- GwNTG —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment perhaps it should have its chance at AfD. DGG (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore this seems to me like a case where speedy deletion is not the best tool. There is apparently at least some potential for valuable dialog and collaboration among editors, so I think this should be restored, and then at editors' discretion put up for AfD for wider consideration. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why? Stifle (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- that does remain an optional step. I'll support requiring it if we also require notice of deletion requests (tho a notification was in fact properly made in this instance) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  You might point out to me:
  1. Where it says that the notification is optional
  2. Where the deleting admin was notified
  as I can't seem to find either. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - where some procedural step is specifically required in order for it to be valid, the policy says so explicitly, since new editors cannot be expected to understand the conventions fully. I furthermore think that not doing so is reasonable as a considerable number of admins routinely ignore or reject such requests, and an editor might reasonably prefer not to take the chance. (I do not imply that the deleting admin was one of them, but a new editor can not be expected to know. ) And that's another reason to accept an appeal regardless of procedural defects from a new editor, such as the one here:, avoiding BITE. DGG (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I agree that "where some procedural step is specifically required in order for it to be valid, the policy says so explicitly". I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that. Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion. An article about a server emulator would certainly appear to be web-content as intended under WP:CSD case A7. Once past a very short introduction, the main focus of the article seemed not to be a discussion of the server but a one-sided discussion of a minor legal dispute, complete with an attempt to post a copy of what appears to have been a cease-and-desist letter. Other than an unsourced and unsupported claim in the first line that is was "famous", there was nothing asserting any external significance. A google search turns up almost all blogs. Google News returns nothing. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD or Userfy. Contested speedy of a weak article by a newcomer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC) had accidentently put this in wrong place [reply]
Userfy As far as Understand, OdinMS was originally a specific server emulator which seems indeed to be a website, but then developed and released source code to set up such servers, which caused them legal problems. But it isn't obvious that this source code part would move the article out of the realm of CSD A7 which also applies to groups of people nor is being the first MapleStory emulator a real claim of importance. Apart from not being a clear procedural error, feeding it to AfD in its current state might not be helpful either. Maybe it can be considered for now as part of the MapleStory story and be mentioned there and be split off and rediscussed later?--Tikiwont (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matt Bissonette – Close (as keep) endorsed. – --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion should be relisted to gain more of a consensus. 2 'keep' comments and 'abstain' doesn't really establish a consensus. Rtphokie (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't (establish a consensus), but the closing admin does note that it was less consensus and more of a "default to keep" situation. I'd give it a few months and renominate it, if there are still notability issues. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure There is no minimum number of contributions required for a closure to be made and it was the consensus of the contributors. If you still feel it needs deleting then you can renominate the article in a few months. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure agree with Ned - 3 months is a good stretch that I think about these days in vague 'no consensus/weak keeps' - folks are busy sometimes...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (As closing admin) Although I was approached by the requester, I was not subsequently informed of this DRV. Upon the request to reconsider the closure and relist the AfD, I reviewed the article talk page, and found more evidence of a general consensus against deletion of this article. I informed the requester of this finding in my reply. I agree that three to six months would be a reasonable period of time to allow for further article development and to re-review the notability of the subject. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure (Keep) Although the article needs a little work, person appears notable - someone who probably should be on Wikipedia BMW(drive) 23:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure (Keep) Person is notable, article needs a lot of improvement. Minkythecat (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - there's no minimum contribution for an AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

J. Dean McClain – Article restored as a contested PROD. No reason to do deletion review on such types of deleted articles. – Rjd0060 (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Am requesting full AfD process; Article, though unsourced, makes claims for notability. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:05, 20 July 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 July 2008

John Bambenek – Hello John, good to see you're still obsessed with getting yourself a page on Wikipedia. See you next month as usual. – Guy (Help!) 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Last review was years ago, since then besides his work in information security, he has written a book "Illinois Deserves Better" (check amazon). He cofounded a prominent PAC in Illinos to convene a constitutional convention in Illinois, which will be on ballot in Nov. He has done debates and invited talks throughout the state as well as appeared on tv and radio. Much has changed since last review. 216.9.250.98 (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In situations like this, the best thing is to create an account on Wikipedia and write a new article yourself, with full citations to show A) that he's notable and B) that there is enough to satisfy our Biographies of Living Persons policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is protected against recreation, so can't do in this case. 216.9.250.99 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, create as a subpage of the user account so that we can review it before allowing it into article space. This page was salted due to repeated recreation of unacceptable articles. GRBerry 20:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 2#Image:Last of the Time Lords.jpg – Previous DRV close endorsed, as there is no consensus here to overturn. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, this is actually a review of a deletion review; DRV actually allows reviewing any closure believed to be closed incorrectly. In this case, the outcome of this review had an overwhelming consensus to overturn deletion, but was endorsed by the closing admin instead. At the heart of the matter is interpretation of NFCC, particularly #8, which some admins consider a justification to have all screenshots removed, while opposing views are often discredited because they "seemingly do not understand policy" (an argument most defenitely to be avoided), and when that does not work, having "policy trump consensus". The issue has been raised at WP:AN (now archived), but with no clear outcome. Therefor, another review is all I can think of. — Edokter • Talk • 06:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close, or, failing that, relist at IfD. On the merits I agree with Edokter; as I said in the ANI, I think that the DRV was improperly closed based on the closer's application of WP:NFCC, rather than on the outcome of the DRV discussion itself. However, Edokter is probably wrong to bring this here: per the box in WP:DRV, DRV is the process to be used to challenge "the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion", and not "any closure". This implies that the only proper forum for discussing an improper DRV would be community discussion (which was apparently inconclusive in this case) or arbitration. – However, I could see us making an exception here, as the closing admin has apparently left us and won't be able to participate in these other processes. In that case, I think a new IfD is in order. Sandstein 11:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural overturn and relist. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close - If we DRV the DRV closings, we're going to start creating infinite loops. The proper venue here is to first clarify the NFCC policy. If that then changes to allow this image, then a new DRV can be filed on the image itself to have it undeleted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. DRV is not DRV part 2...or something. Particularly very recent discussions. In any event, the last thing this dispute you guys have needs is more deletion discussions. Like the above user said, discuss things first. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn or reclose by another admin. The closer's logic was bad. The closer claimed that the image did not meet criteria 1 and 8 and thus he could ignore the consensus on the page. However, this is exactly what was at issue and the people calling for overturning were doing so because they argued that it did meet those criteria. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse well-reasoned close per WP:NFCC, who cares who did it. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn simply an incorrect close, without going into the issues. We can review any deletion discussion here. Where better? And there's nothing that Wikipedia decides that cannot be subsequently changed, so there must be a mechanism for doing so. If there';s no statement specificially lettingus, this is oneof the few clear cases for IAR--where procedure doesnt take account of something that needs to be done.DGG (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and put this finally to rest. It's ridiculous to have this routine case dragged out for two months. Interpretation of NFCC with regard to episode screenshots has been considerably stabilised through a series precedents over the last half year; the clear and unambiguous result is that images need significantly more connection to explicit analytical commentary that they serve to support than this one has. A renewed IfD could not possibly come to a different result, as long as the article is written the way it is. Why don't people invest their time in actually writing that analytical commentary instead of engaging in vain procedural arguments? I'd be the first to support reintroduction of the image once that commentary in the text is there – Has really nobody found some reference to a discussion in the relevant critical reception literature about the acting in this scene? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With screenshot discussions rising on a logarithmic scale, interpretation has anything but stabilised, let alone unambiguous. Those demanding strict adherence to NFCC, or to be more precise, their interpretation of NFCC, are developing a dangerous habit of discarding other viewpoints as "misplaced", "uninformed" and generally doing them away as if they were uttered by leppers. This DRV was closed so bad, it was hard not to see the contempt for those seeking to overturn the IfD. Consensus to overturn at the DRV was overwhelmingly clear, and should not have been ignored; in fact, any reference here to NFCC is also misplaced, as IfD is the only proper venue for that. — Edokter • Talk • 14:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, DRV is supposed to be a final point of appeal, but in this case I would say WP:IAR and overturn (i.e. keep the image). Stifle (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm confused. Why are there two simultaneous discussions going on about the same image? One appears to be about the image deletion and this one appears to be a direct appeal to a different afd? Are they two different images? Ok. THIS DRV seems to be of the IfD from June 2. The OTHER DRV seems to be of ~~a similar image~~. Scratch that. It is the same image. Different name, same image. So why are we having two independent DRV's about that? Should we merge one into the other, or are they different in some way I am missing. Because this DRV is seeking to reverse the deletion of the last DRV while the OTHER DRV is seeking to reverse the keep (read: delete) of a similar image. If they are fundamentally talking about the same concept, we should take care not to generate conflicting results from the processes. This is already confusing. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are about different images. This one is about the image showing the doctor cradling his dying opponent in his arms, as discussed originally here. The other one (DRV, IfD) is about the image showing fields of rocket launching sites. It was inserted in the article as a second or third choice after the other image had been deleted. The ironic thing is that the image that had a - relatively speaking - better claim to usefulness and much stronger support among the article's editors got deleted, while the overall much weaker image was closed as keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. Thank you very much. As I couldn't see one (and the history of the page implied they were similar), I was very confused. Protonk (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Normally I would be loathe to see a DRV on a DRV, but in this case I am forced to agree that the closure of the original DRV is very difficult to justify. I understand that consensus is about more than simply counting heads, but I also understand DRV to be about the closure of a discussion and not the subject of the discussion itself. The overwhelming majority of the participants in the discussion felt that the original IfD was closed incorrectly, and these were not drive-by votes but rather well considered arguments. Shereth 15:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Endorse. One community-appointed administrator deleted an image, another community-appointed administrator affirmed said deletion. Is the plan here to run the gamut until an administrator favourable to this particular image's retention is found? This image's time has come and gone, its 15 minutes of fame are over regardless of any fears of precedence-setting. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist As DGG says, there must be someplace for this to go, and here seems like the best place. Closer closed based on his own opinion, not based on arguments/!votes in DRV. Relist at IfD. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, because consensus existed to overturn at the previous DRV. — PyTom (talk) 21:02, 24 July 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 July 2008

Image:LastoftheTimeLords.jpg – Close overturned, image deleted. Rossami's question was a good one, so it's unfortunate that nobody endorsing the closure addressed it. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

(restore|cache|IfD)

Misjudged "keep" closure against a fairly clear (4:1) consensus to delete. This was a routine case of a TV episode screenshot nominated for NFCC#8-related reasons. There were two delete votes based on the usual NFCC arguments, pointing to the lack of a crucial function of the image in supporting analytical commentary, and to its replaceability with mere text. There was a single "keep" vote, arguing in effect merely that the image showed a plot element that is important within the plot; this argument, however, failed to address the core issue of NFCC#8, namely, in how far the image is crucial for improving the reader's understanding of that element (when the plot can just as well be described in words and there is no analytical discussion in the text going beyond that mere renarration.) There was a third delete vote based not on NFCC, but conditional on the fact that the image had been orphaned since the beginning of the IfD and that it lacked an explicit FU rationale. While the lack of the FUR had in fact been remedied by the time of closure, the fact of being orphaned had changed only in a superficial, technical sense. The image had been removed from the article at the start of the IfD and remained uncontestedly orphaned for several days, with none of the regular maintainers of the article and its wikiproject either making any attempt at reinstating it, or coming to the IfD to vote keep. It was then provisionally reinstated on purely procedural grounds by a neutral outsider – but that outsider did not also vote keep, so this was not substantial editorial decision in favour of its use.

We are talking about an article maintained by a large, highly active and well-organised wikiproject, with many members who are acutely aware of image debates. The fact that not a single one of the regulars stood up to keep the image in fact constituted silent assent to its deletion. This, in turn, ties in with the fourth and final explicit "delete" vote, which came from one of the most active members of that wikiproject, who has otherwise frequently argued for keeping images, and who argued in this instance that the image had not been thoughtfully chosen, clearly implying that it was not an image of crucial importance for the article and that there was no strong editorial consensus for using it.

I therefore feel that the closing admin was wrong in discounting these two last "delete" votes, because they either expressed, or were based on, the silent consensus of the article maintainers that this was in effect not an important image. While not in itself a compelling deletion criterion under NFCC, this consensus is a valid deletion argument at IfD. There was therefore a solid consensus (4:1) to delete. The closing admin was also wrong in discounting the original NFCC-based argumentation of the other two delete votes. In his rationale, the closer brings forward the old "it's only a single frame of so many in the episode" meme; but the precedent of hundreds of previous image deletions has firmly established that that is not a valid interpretation of the minimality rule imposed by the Foundation, since it would entail that any such article could always have at least one arbitrary image, a practice that by now has been resoundingly rejected in practice. The closer also asserts that the remaining deletion argument was that "there's no critical commentary" and that this argument is "patently false". This, however, blatantly misrepresents the argument. The deletion argument is not that there's no critical commentary in the article at all; the argument is that there is no critical commentary involving this image: i.e., no analytical statements that need the support of this image to be understood. On this ground, the image still does fail NFCC#8, and must be deleted.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Admin. The "count" cannot reasonably be construed as 4:1. User:BQZip01 set explicit conditions for deletion which were no longer met (there was no fair use rationale at the time, one was later added). So 2:1 or 2:2 ... User:Fasach Nua's vote has no justification. User:Sceptre's vote doesn't discuss the image at all.
Beyond this, policy and precedent very clearly support the general principle that small pieces of copyrighted works can be used where articles contain significant discussion of the copyrighted work (which this does) and the use is minimal (which this is). Album covers are used as pieces of the whole album, movie posters as pieces of the whole movie, book covers as pieces of the whole book, song samples as pieces of the whole song, and stills or short clips from movies and TV shows as pieces of the whole work. Fut.Perf. might reasonably argue that it's closer to "no consensus" than "keep", but the strength of policy argument on the side of keep here was overwhelming, and makes the difference. Cheers, WilyD 17:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The claim that Fasach Nua's vote had no justification is patently false. And BQZip01's condition (no longer orphaned) had been met perhaps by the letter but not in spirit, as I've just argued, because the article's maintainers had in fact not made an editorial choice of using it again. And your claim that a screenshot image can be used as arbitrarily representing the article content irrespective of whether it's actually used for critical analysis is maybe your personal interpretation of the NFCC, but it's most certainly not in line with wider precedent and also not based on the outcome of the actual discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Most comparable IfDs end this way. BQZip01's talks also about the need for a rationale, which now exists. Perhaps its easiest to ask him, of course. I've made no claim about arbitrariness - perhaps you should review the usage and the discussion and my statements before misrepresenting them. It is used for critical commentary upon the copyright work used - would you suggest that a videoclip would be more in line with policy? Articles don't have owners, someone has made the choice to restore the image - if it's a seperate person from the original uploader, it only speaks to the value that multiple editors see in how the image complements the critical commentary in the article. Again, it would behoove you to examine the situation better, you're simply not representing it correctly. WilyD 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do. The person who reinstated the image very explicitly did not do so because he personally felt the image should be used and kept, but only because he felt it was more correct in terms of process. And the image is quite patently not "used for critical commentary". Where is that critical commentary you are speaking of, and how does it relate to the image? Saying so don't make it so. – The whole thing is particularly ironic, of course, because just previously another image on this same article (Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 2) which had relatively a much stronger claim to legitimacy than this one was deleted after much stronger resistance of the article's editors, by an admin who did in fact employ the stringent criteria that this project has come to adopt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And by the way, if you feel you can discount Sceptre's vote, then you have to discount BQZip01's too, because apart from stating his formal condition, his vote lacked a rationale just as much. He didn't address the substantial deletion argument of NFCC#8 at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Neither bring much of value to the discussion, just numbers. Beyond the nom and Pawnkingthree's statement no new arguments really appear. Wily D 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - consensus works both ways. FutPerf did interpret my vote correctly. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So the last Dr. Who picture was deleted (and endorsed), but this one was -not- deleted with a similar debate? I think the people involved need to have a discussion over just what kind of images are appropriate in these articles so we don't have more arbitrary results like this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How are the facts surrounding this image different from the last version which was discussed here at DRV on 3 July and closed on the 10th as "deletion endorsed"? Rossami (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: the only difference is that this was the second or third choice. It has, if anything, a much weaker claim to usefulness and much less consensus among the editors of the article to back it up than the previous one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, or relist. The reading of the debate as "keep" was highly dubious. Even "no consensus" would have been a stretch. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - the requirement isn't the image is mentioned in the text, but adds significantly to reader's understanding, so the only keep 'vote' was flawed. PhilKnight (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Admins closing image deletion discussions, in particular, are obligated to understand Wikipedia's fair use policy and give greater weight to arguments that are supported by it. Nandesuka (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Admin took a valid action in taking information into account to which delete "voters" may not have had access. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? What privileged information would that be? Can you be less cryptic please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mind. I got the history mixed up and thought that a rationale had been added after some people had "vote"d. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 21 July 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 Days (band) – Userfied by Tony Fox. – — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This band asserts notability in the fact that it is both signed and published, and has material available to download or purchase. Product is available on the internet via CDBaby anmd ITunes. Also, the person who created the article had contested, stating that they were working on the page. I was posting a disagreement with the deletion on the talk page, when it got deleted while I was doing so. This article could be rewritten to be encyclopedic and I would welcome the opportunity to assist with this. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re - Label: I have been informed that the band are signed to an Indie label - Quoted label shows 126 hits on google. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I speedied this: being signed and published do not fulfil the Wikipedia:notability (music) criteria, nor does the music being available for purchase. The record label itself seems to be nn, and the sources given as references seem to be the usual ratbag of myspace, youtube etc references. I decline to restore (although I wasn't actually approached before this DR to consider doing so). If the deletion is upheld, I'm happy to sandbox the text for you to work on, if you think its salvageable. jimfbleak (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is in no way a spam and it about a published band, albeit not a big one, but is popular in Chicago and its videos of the bands performance can be seen in youtube at the bottom links of the article... have a good day. Canadian (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The version Jimfbleak deleted did not assert importance. At all. Neither did the one I just deleted, which was nearly identical. This was a proper A7 deletion. Also, as a note to Canadian, when you copy-paste recreate a page like that, you might want to take the {{db-spam}} tag off of it. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BAND. Being available for download isn't a notability criterion. Corvus cornix_talk 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - no indication that the band meets WP:MUSIC, which suggests multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources, national tours, two albums on notable labels, etc. The article as it was when deleted asserts none of this. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request - Can an admin please Sandbox this for me then? I will keep a hold of it and try and make something coherent out of it after communicating with Canadian. My personal sandbox is here. Thanks - Thor Malmjursson (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as requested. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Burning Up Tour – Closure endorsed, no prejudice against recreating a new and better article. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted along with a number of other tour articles for the Jonas Brothers: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Brothers Fall 2005 Promo Tour. I was appalled when I noticed this deletion: just look at the Google News results! This is a major, hugely popular tour. I suspect the other tour articles should be undeleted as well, but this one is without question. The importance of this tour may not have been realized by the AfD participants partially because the AfD was titled after a promo tour. Everyking (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question to the closer: Why was this discussion closed early? Other than that one point, I don't see any process problems in the discussion. Rossami (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When there is no chance whatsoever that the article(s) (like in this case where there was a wide consensus to delete) can be saved or when there is snowball effect/vote, it often closes earlier then usual.--JForget 15:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In hindsight, that was a mistake. We have the AfD process because history has taught us that even the best individual editors are not very good at determining what pages have "no chance whatsoever" of being recovered/repaired. The five day period was fairly carefully chosen as the appropriate balance between the need for expediency and the need to allow users to find, review and comment upon a particular topic. Premature closures end up here at a far higher ratio than discussions which are allowed to run the normal course. That adds significantly more bureaucracy and process burden to our already-overloaded review processes. Unless a page is a clearcut speedy-deletion candidate, please to not "snowball close" any more delete decisions. Rossami (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus here was overwhelmingly to delete, but it was plain wrong, as anyone can see by a cursory examination of the Google News results. Everyking (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the google news results are utterly unconvincing to me. The only grounds I see for a potential reversal is the premature closure of the discussion. That's why I asked for an explanation of the timing. Rossami (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unconvincing? At present there are nearly 400 articles on Google News concerning the tour, from a wide variety of sources, including major newspapers. Everyking (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will not pretend to have reviewed every one of those articles but I've spot-checked a fair number by now. They were either press releases or incidental coverage. They proved the existence of the subject but little else. Based on this further review, please update my opinion to endorse closure - the new evidence is, in my opinion, insufficient to overturn the prior community consensus. The premature closure is a problem and should not be repeated. (If this has become normal practice, it should be immediately stopped.) However, the premature closure alone is not (quite) enough of a problem to justify rerunning the AfD. Rossami (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That simply does not reflect the sources at all. Just on the first page: A Los Angeles Times review of one of the shows on this tour and this report from the Canadian Press. Everyking (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The consensus there was pretty clear. I'm guessing it was closed early as a WP:SNOWball, since the only keep comment was kinda'... Bad. That said, if you'd like to create a new article about the tour with more than just a setlist and tour locations, feel free. It wouldn't make G4. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - clearcut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)
Would it make more sense if it would be merged with the band's and/or related album's article? At least half of the article looks promotional. Wikipedia is not Pollstar.com or a concert promotional guide. A merge of the essential content could be a good idea but forget the promotional/advertisement stuff though. --JForget 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the very high notability of this tour, that wouldn't make more sense. Everyking (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A possibility would be to put again Burning Up Tour on AFD even though given the state of the article it was before deletion, it might possibly be another snowball vote unless major changes are done, to make it sound less promotional as I've stated above. I've noticed also that several similar-like articles for several acts last week (i.e Carrie Underwood, Sugarland (duo), too name a few) were posted for deletion in the majority were resulted in Snowball Delete. Considering that the tour might be notable does can deserve possibly an article, the best idea if the article needs to be reinstated is probably is to ask me for a copy of the article so to make the necessary changes then get a review. Otherwise, if the tour needs coverage then the related articles can do so. --JForget 15:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another AfD would be a good compromise. I'm almost certain this article would survive if the Google News results were presented. Everyking (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore or relist per sources pointed out by Everyking. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created the tour articles, and I don't think the articles should be deleted. The people who deleted it said that there was nothing important about the tour, which is VERY NOT TRUE, because it is Jonas Brothers' biggest tour yet, that was sold out in minutes, and they also said that there was no car accident and the band didn't fall off a freeway or whatever, so it's not importatn. ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Calliegal[reply]
- I can userfy the old content for you, but it was just a show listing. You're free to write a better article on the subject. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Fraternities and Sororities at Southern Miss – overturn deletion and list at AfD – Shereth 18:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was organized the in exact manner as the article from The University of Texas at Austin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fraternities_and_sororities_at_University_of_Texas_at_Austin. If the article on the Fraternities and Sororities at The University of Southern Mississippi is deleted, then you must delete the same article from the University of Texas as it serves the same purpose. The deletion is for Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc. This is being improperly deleted by someone that has no knowledge of the given subject. I have no problem with it being deleted, but there is a fairness issue. This article should not be allowed to be deleted while exact carbon copies of the same article for different schools are allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byxeagle (talk • contribs)

I have to say, it doesn't look like any sort of A7 to me. And it is indeed alomost identical in form to List of fraternities and sororities at University of Texas at Austin. --Stormie (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AFD, with the other article as well for good measure. This doesn't fall under the specific A7 criteria, but I highly doubt it would survive an AFD. For the record, "there's another article like it" is a very poor argument to make in these discussions, and this is a good example why: that "other article" should probably be deleted too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? There is no evidence of notability whatever in the article, and worse still, there is no context. United States readers may be able to figure out what it's about, but there's not much hope for the rest of the world (and this is leaving aside the fact that the article title uses slang). If someone were to create an article called "List of sports teams at University of Nottingham" or "List of subjects taught at University of Hong Kong", I doubt it would last long. But not to worry, if it's recreated I will nominate it for deletion and I have no doubt the nomination will succeed. Deb (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD There is no WP:CSD criteria saying "this ought to be deleted", and non-notable group does not apply to lists of groups, because a list can be proper content even if the items in it are not individually worth articles. Nor is "incomprehensible outside the USA" a reason, nor is "slang". I would not be at all sure it will fail Afd, but that's the place to find out. Though individual fraternity chapters at colleges aren't individually notable, content in a list just has to be relevant. We include university departments in a list, though they are not individually notable either. ~~Admins who invent their own reason for Speedy, are deliberately acting against policy.~~ DGG (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. While A7 applies to articles about groups/companies/etc., I would be extremely hesitant to allow it to apply to lists of those same things. It would require a bit more time to make sure that the list should be deleted, rather than the ammount speedies usually take. If Deb would like to list at AfD or PROD, be my guest, but I suggest at least a Gsearch first, just to be sure. Also, if anyone wants to expand A7 to hit lists as well, the proper place to discuss that would be WT:CSD. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This DRV is a classic example of how Wikipedia is bigger than the old rules made for a small WP. WP's "other crap exists" is a standard and commonly used phrase. However, as WP gets bigger, there has to be some consistency. Just having the other article up for AFD because the one you have interest in is pointy and not fair either. Creating it again after the AFD is not right. Perhaps, trying to improve it and then (if it can't be improved) re-creating it and then immediately nominating it along with the other similar article might be a solution but it hasn't been subjected to the real life process. Chergles (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, I have no problem with it being deleted but not when other articles that are EXACTLY the same just different schools exist. I feel that it should be restored and undeleted and if there is a question of its notability than it along with all listings that are "Fraternites and Sororites at X University" should AFD with it. I do not feel that the proper protocol was followed and this was a judgment of personal bias by the deleterByxeagle (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close - No rationale presented to show a procedural problem with the close. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid Keep rationale, much less a reason to overturn a deletion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are you aware we are reviewing a speedy deletion, not an AfD? DGG (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Lack of an assertion of notability is one of the Speedy criteria. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only for certain types of articles. This isn't one of them. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify why this does not qualify. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list. A7 does not refer to lists. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Cannot see this falling under the A7 speedy criteria. Davewild (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse acceptable interpretation of A7. List of non-notable groups is no different to individual non-notable groups, rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools. There really is no point undeleting this for five days' worth of people pointing out that it violates policy and guidelines. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fraternities are "non-notable groups"? I'm not American so I honestly don't know, but we seem to have a lot of very long articles on them, many of them quite extensively referenced. --Stormie (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Specific fraternities may be notable, but fraternities are not inherently notable simply for being fraternities.
Endorse per Guy. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From WP:CSD:Criteria for speedy deletion specify the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion.... These criteria are worded narrowly Thus, an expansive interpretation of the criteria is specifically contrary to deletion policy. And that's the procedural error: the failure to follow the clear statement of policy. Furthermore, from WP:CSD, Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead. Thus, the policy is that any reasonable doubt is enough to invalidate a speedy. I would personally define reasonable doubt in this context as any doubt supported by more than a single established editor, but it certainly extends to any doubt supported by any administrator, as they are selected by supermajority consensus of the community for their understanding of policy. When administrators in good standing disagree about a speedy, the speedy was not beyond a reasonable doubt. DGG (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion. As I stated earlier today, I'm new to Wikipedia, but... I read through the A7 criteria, and it does not seem to apply. As has been mentioned in this list, requiring notability of every line item of a list does not seem to apply to "groups." Also, while "other lists exists" is not a good argument, it does stand to reason that there would be VAST deletions required for many other lists (which I feel would be counterproductive). Wikiwikikid (talk) 18:33, 24 July 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 July 2008

The George Nethercutt Foundation – Restored and AfD'd by deleting admin. – --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This organization meets notability requirements and secondary sources were provided on the talk page. George Nethercutt is a well known politician who many have seen as a candidate who is "waiting in the wings" for a future run at high office. The foundation is active and is recruiting students at multiple universities. The likelihood that people will look for it here are high.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridan (talk • contribs) 17:58, July 17, 2008

Comment This DRV is not signed. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and take to AfD. Borderline notability, creator seems to have some sense of what is required on Wikipedia to establish notability. Taking it to AfD will give him a chance to develop and generate discussion/consensus on the topic. Tan ǀ 39 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. While it was written badly enough that it didn't assert its importance, the link at the bottom suggests there may be some notability. And A7 is meant to delete non-notable things, not possibly-notable things. Anyone can feel free to take it to AfD. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe so. A7 isn't meant to delete non-notable things, it is meant to delete things that do not indicate why they are notable. There's a difference. An article about a clearly notable subject would be A7-eligible if the assertation of notability wasn't included. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It was deleted under CSD G11, not A7. Tan ǀ 39 20:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was deleted as A7, no assertion of importance, with G11 listed as an additional reason. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Sorry. At any rate, will anyone involved here terribly mind if this went to AfD? Tan ǀ 39 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Training ground – Restored as contested PROD - but it certainly needs some reliable sources added – Stormie (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was deleted under PROD, even though there only appeared to be content issues. I think it could be developed into a good article, particularly if you bring in the qualities of various facilities of different clubs in different sports. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as expired prod. This should be automatic (and all you needed to do was notify the deleting admin. Which you should have done anyways.) --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:26, 17 July 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:Support – Deletion endorsed – Davewild (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This, and Template:Oppose were deleted, it seems, on the basis that loading a little green tick annoyed someone, and that voting goes against consensus. However, I feel there are places where voting is appropriate - for instance when deciding on an image to use from several possibles, in an RfA, etc - and that these templates provided a useful tool to help people pick out the votes on proposals. Yes there are situations where they are not appropriate, but they should be available for those situations where voting IS appropriate. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that they can really be restored without a pretty good reason. The TfD discussion here is pretty clear. If you'd really like, you could create some substitutes in your userspace (it's not like the templates were complicated, I could write them in ten seconds each) for your own use, but I think any recreation would be G4'd. So, endorse. I think I'll go write a User:Lifebaka/+ and User:Lifebaka/- now, though, in case anyone wants them. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There, done. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, forgot 'bout User:Lifebaka/=, for neutral or other. Fixin' now. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think these things are kind of tacky, personally. Is it really that much to ask that people actually read a comment and not expect it to be boiled down to a shiny button (or even a bolded word)? --Rividian (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not in theory, but we can't stop people from using them if they want to. Unless we make it a blockable offense, but that'd just be crazy. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just think that in some cases, they have a use. Wikipedia is about consensus I agree, but consensus generally requires compromise, and there are some issues on which there is no middle ground, simply a question of yes or no and in the end tallying up the results. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - keep them deleted and burn them with fire. The templates had the subtle but undeniable effect of misleading new users into believing that we make decisions here at Wikipedia through voting. We have far too many people who make the mistake even without the templates. We don't need to encourage people to make that mistake even more easily. The very few times when such a template might be appropriate are vastly outweighed by the times when they were demonstrably harmful to the discussions. Rossami (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I quite like these, a taste inherited perhaps from the French wiki which uses them as a matter of course at Pages a Supprimer (their VfD). But consensus on enwiki was indisputable that these should go. Eusebeus (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure - Clear delete consensus for the two templates from template space. As for the practice of using a sytem of and in consensus discussion, I think ending such a practice would require policy adoption, partcularly since the images are in commons. I'm all for ending the practice, but find the irony in presently using the image humorous. GregManninLB (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. having these in userspace is perfectly fine. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
. Endorse, although I have done what Lifebaka did, and whisked copies away to User:Neil/s and User:Neil/o. Neıl ☄ 08:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you stole mine, which is fine, but you might also want a User:Neil/n for the "neutral"-ish things. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hay, there is one! --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Really not necessary, especially when you can use a script to do it automatically for any bolded !votes. Just put:

importScript('User:Ais523/votesymbols.js');

... into your monobook.js and that does it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse-Closer measured consensus properly. DRV is not XfD round two.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Correct close, and I'm glad we're rid of them. Personally, I would regard any use of the suggestion above for inserting the symbol in the context of an AfD as POINTy. The argument was that they impeded rational discussion, and that holds for any substitute also. DGG (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome --NE2 06:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether that means you like or dislike the close/deletion/etc. Could you clairify? --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - Please, not another icon splattered everywhere on Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 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 July 2008

Fail Whale – Judging from the discussion, it looks like it will either be endorsed or sent to AfD for an inevitable merge/delete. I'm being bold and merging the content into Twitter. Further editorial decisions can be made there. – Wafulz (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dispute lack of notability. I'd appreciate a clarification of whether a source is a person, or a particular forum in which that person expresses themselves. We've had two people delete Fail Whale because the sources – notable people with Wikipedia entries of their own — happened to use Twitter or their blog to mention the Fail Whale rather than, say, a printed local newspaper. If George Bush had a Twitter account, and typed his own tweets, would we be able to point to his “tweets” to certify he said something? I'm trying to distinguish between the source and the medium. If a reliable source — a person — chooses to use a blog, Twitter, or any other web site with permanent URLs to say something, I hope we'd be able to cite them directly without having to wait for someone to re-print them in a different medium. Garthrk (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I deleted a very early form of this article because it had no reliable sources and asserted no notability; my examination of the latest versions reveals that, although more verbiage has been added, little has changed. I believe the nominator has squarely put his/her finger on what caused the deletion; the sources cited don't qualify as reliable. However, this is not the correct forum to advocate a change in the governing policy about reliable sources. Perhaps in five, ten or twenty years this meme will have attained the widespread awareness and recognition that it does not currently contain; if so, we can revisit it then. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn there are enough assertions of significance/importance in the cached version, for it to be an invalid A7. RMHED (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone brought up an NPR source on my talk page. I wouldn't mind sending this to AfD at this point, though personally I think a merge or redirect would work better.-Wafulz (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. not like it will make it out of there, but if it had some sources then it had some mere shred of assertion of notability. Protonk (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a start - Another issue resulting from its growing user base has been how often Twitter goes down. Twitter crashes frequently from an overload of traffic due to its popularity.^[1] When Twitter crashes, users see "fail whale."^[1] Beluga whales are known as 'canaries of the sea' due to their high-pitched twitter^[2] and fail whale is a whimsical illustration of red birds hoisting a whale from the ocean with nets.^[3] "Too many tweets!" it reads. "Please wait a moment and try again."^[3] Fail whale has appeared often enough to be featured on NPR,^[1] a national syndicator to public radio stations in the United States.

^ ^a ^b ^c The Bryant Park Project (July 3, 2008) NPR Twitter, What Are You Doing? Co-Founder Tells All.
^ Harris, Patricia; Lyon, David; (April 8, 2007) Boston Globe Enter close quarters: colonial to nuclear subs. Section: Travel; Page 8M.
^ ^a ^b Whyte, Murray. (June 1, 2008) Toronto Star Tweet, tweet there's been an earthquake; How an online social network chirpily called Twitter is becoming anything but trivial. Section: Ideas; Page 1.

-- GregManninLB (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I adore Twitter, but it's a micro-blog. Citing Twitter directly is no different than citing a blog directly. We should only do it on rare occasions, and always prefer a secondary source for such news. Addendum: GregManninLB's bit above would be great for inclusion in Twitter. But I don't see enough to be worth a separate article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. From WP:CSD#A7: "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". This article passes that test so should be restored. The article may not survive an AfD but it should at least be discussed there rather than be speedily deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn. Eh, I suppose there was enough of an assertion of notability to pass A7, although I am reluctant to overturn if only because this looks likely to meet the same fate at AfD. Shereth 15:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twitter. This clearly has no independent significance and we really don't need separate articles on the whisical fault pages of every web service, but a short para in the Twitter article is perfectly acceptable. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg – Nothing more to do here the logos are being discussed elsewhere. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images have precedent for existing. As seen by Image:2008OpenLogo.gif or Image:2000USOpenLogo.jpg. I now realize that my images also need the fair use rationale which I'm prepared to get working on but they take time. When I initially uploaded them I didn't realize they needed that. I was informed by another user that they needed them after he tagged them for deletion but I was out of town this last week and couldn't get to them. He hence tagged the images retroactively and they were deleted. But we're dealing with apples and apples here. If the two image examples I provided should exist, then all my images have precedent for existing. I ask that they be reinstated and if you want place a deletion tag for today that will give me 7 days to get the work done or they'll be re-deleted due to lack of proper paper work. Thanks! See the chart below for a full list of deleted articles. Also see Image:1994OpenLogo.jpg or Image:1997OpenLogo.jpg. Those are one that did not get deleted and I just now properly tagged them, so I know what to do. BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These below are the images in question

Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg
Image:1987OpenLogo.jpg
Image:1988OpenLogo.jpg
Image:1989OpenLogo.jpg
Image:1990OpenLogo.jpg
Image:1991OpenLogo.jpg
Image:1992OpenLogo.jpg
Image:1993OpenLogo.jpg
Image:1995OpenLogo.jpg
Image:1996OpenLogo.jpg
Image:1998OpenLogo.jpg
Image:1999OpenLogo.jpg
Image:2001OpenLogo.jpg
Image:2002OpenLogo.jpg
Image:2003OpenLogo.jpg
Image:2005OpenLogo.jpg
Image:2006OpenLogo.jpg
Image:2005PGALogo.gif
Image:2004PGALogo.jpg
Image:2003PGALogo.jpg
Image:2002PGALogo.jpg
Image:2001PGALogo.jpg
Image:2000PGALogo.jpg
Image:1999PGALogo.jpg
Image:1998PGALogo.jpg
Image:1997PGALogo.jpg
Image:1996PGALogo.jpg
Image:1995PGALogo.jpg
Image:1994PGALogo.jpg
Image:1993PGALogo.jpg
Image:1991PGALogo.jpg
Image:1989PGALogo.jpg

Is there a reason they can't just be uploaded again with the proper attribution? --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have them on my hard drive. It really would be much easier this way. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now found out that the images I deleted were from this site, cropped down to just the logo from photographs of the tour flags. While an argument could be made for fair use of the logo itself, these copyrighted photographs cannot be used as fair use. Kevin (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm using the logo. They cannot be found anywhere else. And it isn't the photographs which the owner of the flags is selling. He's selling the flags themselves. The photos have absolutely no value to the owner. But in any event, I have E-mailed the owner of the pictures to see if I can crop out the logos. I didn't think this was an issue, however, as the owner of the pictures does not own the logos themselves. And selling them would be illegal. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photographs have an obvious value to the owner, they are using them to sell a product. And it is the copyright that is at issue here, not the value. Kevin (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of the logo, there doesn't seem to be too much creativity in the cropped portion of the photos. Creative works have in common a degree of arbitrariness, such that it is improbable that two people would independently create the same work. Without the logo, I don't think there would be anything to copyright in the portion cropped out by Burp. GregManninLB (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting question comes to mind: Isn't a small piece cut out of a bigger picture no different that quoting a small piece of text out of a larger copyrighted work of text? If the latter is clearly fair use, why not the former? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can only use verbatim sections of text to discuss that text, ie quoting a section of a book to discuss writing style etc. In this case there is no discussion of the photograph, and so it is clearly not fair use. See Wikipedia:Non-free content - the relevant part is "A rose, cropped from a record album, to illustrate an article on roses" which is listed as an example of unnacceptable use. In this case we have a logo, cropped from a copyrighted photograph, used to illustrate that logo. Kevin (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, he does not own the logos themselves. That's what I'm using. I sent him an E-mail though to get permission so we don't have to go through a prolonged fight. I do find this similar to if I were to try and sell a taped copy of a Monday Night Football broadcast. That's illegal and if his intent was to sell the logos that would be illegal too. But in any event its the flags he's trying to sell, not the pictures. Pictures of these flags are also on ebay, what's the policy on ebay photos to the open public? --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both these arguments are not relevant here. The photographs are copyrighted, regardless of their content, and so we cannot use them as fair use. See WP:COPYREQ for info on what he needs to provide in the way of permission. Kevin (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photos seem more like derivative works. It seems unlikely that the person pushing the camera button also owns the copyright in the logo or even in the items shown in the photos. The photographs more likely are fair use. Anyway, if burp uploads a solid matter logo into Wikipedia rather than a photograph of a logo, I'll serve him lunch for a week! GregManninLB (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being visible on ebay to the general public doesn't change any copyright status. As an example say a poster is being used to advertise something, it's been put up on every street corner. A competitor couldn't decide because of the broad public transmission that they'd given up any of their rights under copyright law, and then use the same artwork within their own advertising campaign. We can't tell if the original image is a copyright violation, the author may have permission or may have a claim under fair use (which doesn't necessarily transmit a fair use claim to us), or he may not have permission. In all cases (short of having had a very broad copyright license enabling onward permission to be granted, I think we can safely assume that doesn't exist) multiple copyright claims would be held on the image we'd need appropriate permissioning from all "interested" parties. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, Greg, gonna take you up on that. I wish I could find better images. Frankly, the ones on the flag stink for the most part. Some of the images from my list aren't from tourflags. Just about everything in this decade. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. After seeing the discussion above, I recommend restoring the deleted images, provided that BB gains permission to use them and publishes that permission on the talk pages of each image (I have seen precedent for this on other images). A photograph of a logo is owned by the photographer, not the logo owner, therefore the photographer needs to give permission. The best solution would be for the photographer to post a notice on his web site that he places the photos in public domain. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is incorrect. The photographer may have a copyright interest in the work if it is greater than just a photo of just the logo, however there is still a copyright ownership for the logo itself. As above this would form a derivative and both the photographer and the copyright holder of the log would have an interest, not just the photographer. No more than I can photograph the text of a book and claim that as it's a photo that I can now redistribute that. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And yet, a sufficiently low-resolution image, with the appropriate copyright / fair use notices, is still permissible here. This deletion discussion would have never arisen if BB had tagged his images properly. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope as already mentioned above one of our explicitly listed examples of what does not consistute valid fair use - "A rose, cropped from a record album, to illustrate an article on roses". It would be the same here. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Permission has been granted. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Has that permission been emailed to WP:OTRS? Kevin (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~What for?~~Yes, that would result in a ticket number that can be used for future reference. Also, I have seen in the past, reproduction of the permission letter on the image's talk page (with full server headers) was deemed sufficient (can't recall where I saw it, though). Even better is if the image owner states that the images are public domain on his web site. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I forwarded you the email via whatever email you have linked up to your wiki page. Can you send it? You seem to know what needs to be done. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For info, the emailed permission stated Feel free to use the photos., and was from the website owner. I have replied asking for a more specific copyright release. Kevin (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time can you bring back a couple of the images Baby did not get from TourFlags? Articles from 2001 or 2002-Present or there abouts should be just straight up logos. I re-added a couple that I could find on my own like the 2005 U.S. Open for example. But I'm having difficulty finding others. I'll add the fair use rationale tags immediately after you reinstate them. --FourteenClowns (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored:

These will need source info plus a fair use rationale. The remainder look like cropped photos, so I have left them deleted. Kevin (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in the process of tracking down where he found these. Found 2003 and 2004 PGA already. Also, you can probably delete the 2006OpenLogo, as its a duplicate. That was one I re-added yesterday, but it was a .gif image. --FourteenClowns (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nice. Thanks Clowns. Let me know if you have trouble finding any. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have them all tracked down and placed with a fair rationale tag except for the last two. Any key words you used in your google/yahoo/whatever search engine would help. If you find them put the links here or my talk page, unless you feel ambitious and want to fill out the fair use templates. --FourteenClowns (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we close this and discuss among ourselves if required? I think we all understand where we are trying to go now. Kevin (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. Are you going to talk to Ryan? Also, Clowns, I honestly don't remember, but I'll try relocating the last two as well. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 01:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Los Alamitos Curve – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There has to be enough references in order to prevent it from getting AFD deletion notices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.129.198 (talk) [56]

Endorse Unanimous AFD and I find zero reliable sources, just mirrors of the former article here. GRBerry 15:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems in the deletion discussion. Neither the deleted article, the AfD discussion nor the nomination here provided any sources demonstrating that a subject by this name even exists, much less that this topic met any of Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, obviously. No new information presented here to make me reconsider the unanimous AfD. Shereth 16:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, AfD is massively clear. A page having a lot of references doesn't always preclude deletion (though most often a lot of references = a lot of sources = notability), and this one had none. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Korean war crimes – Deletion as copyright violation endorsed. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admin enacted speedy delete on the basis of their claim copyvio that the article was "ripped out of the same three or four documents on the web" referring to specific quotations.

The AfD had 11 keeps and only 2 deletes, yet the article was heavily referenced and still being developed, the AfD still being discussed.

I know this accusation not to be true, merely because my desktop is currently covered with the sources. I have read most of the main references and chose others according to specific quotes.

The subject topic is contention but the contents are well referenced in academia. If the only problem is the matter of inline citation, then I want to continue resolving that matter as I had flagged up before it was deleted. I also believe the discussion and history are valuable enough to restore.

The topic approximate last work in progress is here; Korean war crimes2 Ex-oneatf (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note from deleting admin: This was a speedy deletion for copyvio/plagiarism reasons, and as such entirely independent of the ongoing AfD. Some samples documenting the extent of plagiarism can be found on my talk page: User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Korean War Crimes. Based on samples I googled for, my estimate is that at least half of the article as originally written by Ex-oneatf, possibly a lot more, was near literally plagiarised in chunks of between one sentence and entire sections, from a variety of sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I voted "keep" at the AfD for very different reasons, however I have read the rationale provide by Fut.Perf. at his talk page, and am satisfied that there were sufficient copyvio issues to speedy delete the article. I see that Ex-oneatf now has a copy of the article in his user space; if he insists on persisting with the article I suggest he works on it there, rewriting it to use his own words and properly citing his sources, before any attempt to return it to the main space. PC78 (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, wait, wait. Is the version in his userspace the copyvio version? We cannot have copyvio in userspace either. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The nominator plagiarised many contents according to the closing admin's investigation. That is not only a violation of Wikipedia policy but also violation of Law. Much of them are also web sources, so it is so weird that he did not link the website. The article actually are filled with unrelated topics and heavy POV and many participants pointed out on the problems as well. AFD weights in good arguments, not voting count. It is also very unfortunate that the nominator is acting beyond what other Wikipedians do. Besides, some of them are proved to be bogus citations and come from unreliable personal websites. Unlike his claim as a newbie, he is clearly gaming the system as making this request here.-- 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspian blue (talk • contribs) [57]
Comment - This article is interesting--is it all true? However, so many of the instances represent Koreans impressed into service by an outside force that absorbed it as part of its "empire." Thus, should we create a "War crimes of European Jewry" article showing the sadism of the Kapos, who were themselves Jewish, in the Nazi concentration camps? I'm not sure it makes sense and would like to see comments from parties who are not constantly trying to make each other look bad (i.e., Korean and Japanese nationalist editors), but from uninvolved editors with expertise in East Asian history. Badagnani (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted as copyvio). Compliance with copyright law trumps the concerns that were being raised in the AfD discusion. Any new version should be created from a clean slate to avoid future taint of copyvio. Kudos to the closer for researching and documenting the copyright violations. Rossami (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the original author has recreated the article Korean war crimes, but it still contains plagiarized material. From spot checks of a few sections, I find some sentences that are lifted outright from other sources, and some that are slightly rearranged or altered. That looks like an attempt to evade detection. Examples:

[58] - "During his visit to Hanoi in 1998, President Kim Dae-jung expressed “regret,” but he did not acknowledge or apologize ..."
[59] - "A Korean government commission cleared 83 of 148 Koreans convicted by the Allies of war crimes ..."
same source - "High-ranking officers suspected of voluntarily collaborating with the Japanese were excluded." (altered from original)
[60] - "...published the names of hundreds of groups and businesses it says collaborated with the Japanese..." (rearranged from original)
[61] - "...200,000 men, women and children out of a population of 22 million..." (combines two phrases from different paragraphs of the original)
[62] - "The commission last year excavated sites at four of an estimated 150 mass graves around the country"

The article remains tainted by plagiarism. --Amble (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has been recreated during this deletion review. I speedied it to allow DRV to complete and because of copyvio concerns. I express no opinion as to whether the AfD closure was correct. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone point out to Amble above that facts in new arrangement ca therfore NOT be copyright violation precisely because they are NOT copies. One cannot make up new facts and remain factual!!!

I a sorry but I can see this already being used as an excuse for deleting or reverting my addition even when supported by citation. Thank you

I have accepted the deletion of the old article and made a new one. This review is therefore redundant and can be closed. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-oneatf, what you're doing here is not only a personal attack to Amble but also an implausible excuse for your repeated wrongdoings. He or she is not even a Korean (s/he seems to read Korean but can't write the language). Your repeated introduction of plagiarism to other articles is harmful to Wikipedia.[63]. Like the link, do not resort to racist attacks. Regards --Caspian blue (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't see any personal attack here. --Amble (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Ex-oneatf's comments do not meet personal attack, that is fine for you since you're the one getting the comment. However, this is a combined comment toward his edit summaries[64] pointing to you and Korean editors at Comfort women. However I do think his such comments are based on his assumption that you're Korean.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:18, 19 July 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_Young_Werewolves – Deletion overturned. – Stifle (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was rewritten and then I checked with the deleting admin to review revised article and if I should resubmit and he agreed. Article was substantially overhauled with third party sources providing notability per criteria Psychobotox (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reluctantly redeleted the thing as a repost. I saw no substantial difference between the deleted and the new versions, and I was really surprised the thing had been deleted in the first place. I did not want to unilaterally overturn that decision, but I wonder if we could do another AFD. I thought the thing looked adequately sourced to establish verifiability and notability. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 12:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if I saw an article tagged as a repost that looked fine to me, I probably would have removed the tag. The new version looked okay to me (and note I closed the initial AFD as "delete"); I don't see the point of going through AFD - I would say just restore it. Neıl ☄ 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considered that, but I saw no real difference between the pre/post deletion versions. Dloh cierekim 21: 37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Overturn, as I'm not sure enough if the page still has the same problems. "When in doubt, don't delete" sorta' thing. I'd favor another AfD, but I hate procedural noms so I won't be !voting for it. As a side note, I've taken Pledge Your Allegiance... To Satan! to AfD. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - The repost was a procedural error, so let's just imagine we are here for a request to review the original AfD. I don't perceive any flaws in the AfD, and the debate made clear how thin the sources are, albeit numerous. Looking at the article, the peak of the referencing seems to be some brief mentions in alternative weekly papers. The album "The Young Werewolves" seems to be self-published. This is well short of the requirements of WP:MUSIC for two or more albums on a major label. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The deleting administrator, Neil, says the article is ok so overturning is just endorsing that admins new decision. Chergles (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Considering the difference between the versions which was nominated for deletion (and which most delete opinions were based on) and the newer versions which do seem to establish notability I think overturning and restoring the article with full history makes sense. Davewild (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:C.m.jones/Wikipedia:I bid you adieu – closure amended to keep by closing admin – GRBerry 19:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Debate is about a personal essay/parable about our fair use policy located in user space. Interesting point is made on page, might be helpful for discussions, MFD discussion included reasonable discussion about this versus concerns that is was created by someone since banned as a sockpuppet. Closer made a bizarre close that he will delete article in one week (not yet up) unless it is "cleaned up" by supporters, based apparently on his personal opinion that it should have more structure, links, etc. In subsequent discussion on the MFD talk page, has reaffirmed he is looking for a cosmetic cleanup as a measure of whether people "care enough" and if that doesn't happen, he will delete it and figures he has a 50/50 chance of prevailing at DRV based on the DRV closer.

I feel this is a bad close that should be discussed, independent of whether the closer decides "cosmetic cleanup" has been performed to his satisfaction in a week's time. We want MFD closes to happen according to policy and interpretation of the MFD discussion, not by imposing a new point of view -- "cosmetic cleanup needed" -- and making a conditional close based on whether this personal point of view is addressed by "supporters". We also do not want closings where the response of the closer to discussion after the fact is "do as I say, I have a 50/50 chance of prevailing at DRV".

Basically, either the Keep or Delete arguments in the MFD discussion should prevail (or maybe there is no consensus). But let's decide and not have a red herring drawn into a conditional close.

Convenience link to the MFD. See also related talk page. Martinp (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, per arguments that I've already made on the MfD's talk page. When the closer offered that a "cosmetic facelift" might be enough for him not to delete the article, I decided to take him up on that, rather than continue a debate that might only lead us to harden our positions. I don't yet know whether he considers my changes adequate, but since this has ended up at DRV anyway, I will extend my rationale. If the closer would truly be satisfied with changes that are cosmetic, not substantive, the essay isn't defective enough to be deleted to begin with. Also, the closer's comment that unless the vaguely described changes he wants are made, he is "just going to assume that that they don't care that much," is illogical. People are willing to debate his close with him and take the issue to DRV, but unless they make changes that they don't think needed to be made in the first place, they will have proven that they "don't care that much?!" --Groggy Dice T | C 13:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn No consensus to delete, so the right close includes keeping, even if no facelift is given. GRBerry 13:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete - preferably immediately - as a contribution from a banned editor, contributed while they were abusing an alternate account. Why are we giving a sockpuppet of a banned user a forum for bitching about something that may or may not have occurred as written? Yeah, there's a need to better explain the free vs. fair use content, but one would think that it might be better done by, say, someone who hasn't been indef-blocked repeatedly. Providing banned editors with a platform to bitch from is a bad idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it definitely didn't occur as written. I tracked down the original version on the Citizendium forum, where it is baldly posed as a hypothetical: "Let's say at some point that CZ attracts a retired sports reporter..." Apparently Ewen/Jones/CyberAnth has left us for Citizendium, so he's their problem now. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn closure to "no consensus". I might have given deference if the closer had simply chosen keep or delete and articulated the reasons for the decision. But complicated conditional closures like this one are not supported by Wikipedia policy or precedent. If the issue really is messy enough to require additional action, the right answer was to close as "no consensus" with a comment that a renomination would be appropriate if the problems are not repaired. Rossami (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At any event, I have already kept the page, and no, we don't go after subpages of banned users, unless there's an inherent problem with them. I guess some editors, such as Martinp, have abundant energy for longwinded process-talk, and very limited desire for personal, non-templatized discussion with actual human beings. That is to his discredit. I will not respond to his distorted, sophomoric attempt to speak for me. Xfd/drv culture is often rigid and Martinip's baiting will not deter me from continuing to close xfds as creatively as I feel the moment inspires. El_C 18:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sean Ellis – CSD A7 deletion was invalid, but copyright violations are present, so article should be re-written from scratch. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was speedy deleted on 12 August 2007 by User:Jaranda, now an inactive admin. The reason given was: "CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance". I asked another admin to copy the text of the article to my user page to see if I could improve it before putting it back in mainspace (see User:GDallimore/Sean Ellis). However, I believe that the article as deleted did assert significance by mentioning that he was named as a top photographer by the Independent on Sunday and as the director of an award-winning and Oscar-nominated short film. The article needs work to include third party refs for this (at the moment it relies heavily on Ellis' personal website) but I believe the reasons for the speedy deletion were clearly wrong. I think this page should be restored so that the history is not lost and I will then work on introducing refs and improving the article. GDallimore (Talk) 10:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - Deleted version asserted sufficient importance.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ayuh. Specifically the first sentence of the second section and the second sentence of the third section. GRBerry 13:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a copyright issue regarding the last version of the deleted article. This press release (search for "Sean Ellis started taking pictures when he was eleven") was created in 2003, before the Wikipedia article, as confirmed by archive.org. Thus, I recommend to re-create the article from scratch, without overturning the deletion (even though the reasons provided for the speedy deletion are debatable indeed). GDallimore, for now, I have blanked the sub-page in your user space, but the history is still available if needed. Please let me know when you no longer need the page, and I will delete it, per WP:CP. --Edcolins (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a different source for a copyvio concern.[65] GregManninLB (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sigh... knew it borrowed heavily from his own biog. Didn't realise it borrowed THAT heavily. OK, please delete the subpage and I'll re-create the article from scratch when I have a moment. GDallimore (Talk) 09:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done (sub-page in user space deleted). --Edcolins (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:BobHeadshot.jpg – Deletion endorsed. Consensus supports this, and moreover, we have to take a cautious approach to potential copyright violations and there is clear reason to suspect the image is a violation. – Mango juice^talk 18:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image was listed as a possibly unfree image using the rationale "Professional photograph, most likely non-free". No proof that the image was not free was ever presented but the image was deleted yesterday anyway. The license for this image seemed valid with the uploader claiming that he was the copyright holder. The image itself appears only twice on the internet[66][67] and both of those are smaller, lower quality versions than was uploaded here, lending weight to the uploader's claim. (Obviously, had the uploader stolen the image from another website it would not have been better quality than was available on those websites.) Out of curiosity I asked Bob Baldwin's staff last week about the image and they said they didn't know who the uploader was and there were no restrictions on its use. Given the lack of any proof that the image was not as the uploader claimed, there seems no justification in deleting this image. AussieLegend (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this file before deletion, so I can only judge by the uploader's sole other upload Image:HMAS_SYD_Wiki.jpg, which also seems suspicious. The primary red flags are that the image is of web resolution and is missing any camera metadata, which frequently indicates an image stolen from the web somewhere. The uploader of these images (Peterpan15 (talk · contribs)) has not established any kind of a track record here, and frankly fits the profile of a casual copyvio uploader - anyone who frequents WP:PUI would recognize that. If Image:BobHeadshot.jpg had similar red flags to the uploader's other image, then I think the deleting admin made the right call. Kelly ^hi! 03:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I've seen it I think that it's even more likely to be unfree. It appears to be a government-produced portrait. In Australia, such images are not in the public domain, they are under Crown Copyright for 50 years after publication. Should be deleted unless some kind of evidence (other than a {{self}} template) can be produced that the uploader is the copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 03:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A good comparison point in this image is the lapel badge. Clearly it wasn't stolen from one of those two websites as the image is obviously of better quality. Lack of camera metadata is really no indication that the image has been stolen. I regularly crop images before uploading if there is irrelevant information in the image. That usually removes the EXIF data and I'm pretty sure that I've established a track record. Using lack of EXIF data as an argument is not assuming good faith. As for being a government portrait, that's not necessarily true. Many pollies supply their own images and the background is then photoshopped to provide some consistency although the consistency is usually somewhat lacking.[68][69][70] (just to pick 3 at random) --AussieLegend (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand where you're coming from. I typically extend good faith as far as I can, but the uploader's limited history here doesn't give much basis for judgment. I've done a lot of work on copyrights (not just here on Wikipedia) - just because the original doesn't turn up in a search engine doesn't mean it's not a copyvio. I've seen cases, for instance, where government employees or other staffers have released photos under free licenses when they had no legal right to do so. If the photo was a private one, and not a government photo, then Mr. Baldwin still is probably not the copyright holder - that copyright still lies with the photographer, unless it was explicitly a work for hire. I think the best path forward on this, if you're in touch with Mr. Baldwin's office, would be to request a photo under a free license and forward that permission to OTRS. Regards - Kelly ^hi! 04:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Undeleted pending outcome. BJ^Talk 03:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - The image was clearly created by "Auspic Government Photographic Service" and it is copyright per this govt statement. The other image is from this event and, while copyrighted, you could claim fair use iff it where used in an article on the ceremony. The claim on the image page that the uploader owns the copyright is not plausible - Peripitus (Talk) 04:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The reason given for the deletion is listed on PUI for over two weeks (more than 14 days). However, on the front page of Possibly unfree images, it says PUI "is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of an image." There was no discussion, so the PUI closer could not draw any PUI conclusion other than no consensus. If the consensus was that the tag "copyright holder of this work" was not valid, then more would be needed to delete the image. CSD I9 is only invoked for obvious situations. However, if there is a PUI discussion and it lasts 14 days, the copyright violation would not seem obvious. CSD I9 reads "Blatant copyright infringement - Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case." Absent, new editor uploads professional image with free license and makes only eleven edits, all to the same topic, over a span of only four hours.[71] Obviously, the free license is not valid for the image. While deletion review is to review the PUI discussion (the deletion outcome of which I would overturn due to lack of discussion), speedy delete applies at any time. Validly speedy deleted under CSD I9. GregManninLB (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some flawed arguments here:

The image was clearly created by "Auspic Government Photographic Service" - No, it isn't clear that it was created by the AGPS. There's nothing on the APH website that actually says where the image came from other than "Images courtesy of AUSPIC". That doesn't say whether the image was created by AUSPIC or whether AUSPIC sourced it from somewhere else. The image in question certainly wasn't stolen from the APH website. There are 3 main arguments supporting that:
1. Quality - The uploaded image is obviously of far better quality than displayed on the APH website. Blowing it up results in a much degraded image, as you'd expect.[72]
2. Shape - The image on the APH website is 170x130. Blowing that up to the same width as the image here (501px) results in a height of only 655px, vs 750px for the uploaded image. The reason for that is obvious. Image:BobHeadshot.jpg shows more above the head and more of the lapels and tie. While these two points clearly prove that the image wasn't copied from the APH website there's also:
3. Background - The APH image has a green background while the uploaded image has a blue background. Yes, it's possible to change the colour of a background (I was the one who pointed that out) and I suppose that the uploader could have gone to that trouble after magically improving the image quality (despite what they show on TV soaps it just doesn't work) and synthesising the extra lapels and tie but would he have? The image on the APH website is obviously a lower resolution, cropped and edited version of what was uploaded here.
The claim that the uploader owns the copyright is not plausible because the other image is from this event. - This was a very widely covered event in the printed media as well as on TV. There wasn't just one photographer and photography wasn't limited to military personnel. I searched the media archive from that event and couldn't find the other image. In fact there were no images other than what is on the page. While this doesn't prove that Peterpan15 did take the photo it also doesn't prove that he didn't.
Validly speedy deleted under CSD I9 - As stated, "CSD I9 reads "Blatant copyright infringement - Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case."" I've already shown that the image obviously wasn't taken from the APH website but the image also appears on this page. This image is a lot closer to Image:BobHeadshot.jpg but it suffers the same critical issue as the image on the APH website. It's clearly of lower quality so it must be a copy of Image:BobHeadshot.jpg and not the other way round. The image is obviously not taken from either of the only two places on the internet that it seems to exist so it is not "obviously not the case" and therefore CSD I9 does NOT apply.
"Absent, new editor uploads professional image with free license and makes only eleven edits, all to the same topic, over a span of only four hours." - This is still not assuming good faith and is bordering on biting the newcomer. The editor's actions in no way prove that the license isn't appropriate and it certainly isn't obvious. Lots of long-term editors appear, make a few edits to one or two articles, or even a single article, and then disappear for long periods. They are really no different to new editors but that doesn't matter. The length of time somebody has been here, the number of edits they've made and the number of articles they've edited is really irrelevant to the issue.

It may well be that the uploader doesn't own the copyright but so far nothing presented here has proven that he doesn't. Suspicions are just that, they're suspicions and nothing else. Except maybe original research or not maintaining a neutral point of view. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion - Given the failure to provide any actual evidence (unsubstantiated suspicions don't constitute evidence) after 3 weeks (including the PUI listing) that the uploader's licence is invalid I find my opinion hasn't changed. There is evidence that he hasn't copied the image from other websites and there is no obvious copyvio. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I didn't explicitly say this above, but endorse deletion as a likely copyvio. Kelly ^hi! 22:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion. Seems to me the recommendation to delete is based purely on speculation; and therefore isn't grounds for deletion. I'm disappointed by this "guilty until proven innocent" approach to making decisions here. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from looking at the photograph, it is indeed an official photograph. However, on Wikipedia, we have to be certain about image copyright in order for images to be on here. The image page has no source, and even if we have the source, we have no permission to use the image under the creative commons license. My suggestion is someone in his district, or his country, should begin to play email tag with his office and figure out what can be done. Until then, remove the image from Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've already explained, I've spoken to his staff, in person, and they claim there are no restrictions on it's use. His website, which uses a lower resolution copy of the image, asserts no copyright over the image. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand, but copyright has to be verifiable. As I asked above, can you get an e-mail from his staff and forward it to OTRS? That will solve the problem. Kelly ^hi! 12:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Christian Vincenz – Speedy deletion endorsed. CSD A7 and WP:BLP are both valid reasons for deletion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

it was speedy delete with the db-bio tag, and I looked up this page again as I wanted to edit it again with a reference from November 2007 issue of Bicycling (page 79, convicted of extortion for attempts to blackmail Phonak). Bicycling is a highly reputable source, and this was certainly notable. Mathmo ^Talk 02:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively may somebody restore this page in my userspace? Thanks. Mathmo ^Talk 05:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire content was "Christian Vincenz was in a Swiss jail for attempting to extort money from the Phonak cycling team. [73]" That link is a 404 error, by the way. --Stormie (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are multiple references demonstrating that this is a particularly notable crime, endorse speedy deletion per criterion A7 and under the one-event clause of WP:BLP. Being convicted of a single crime is not, in and of itself, evidence of notability. Rossami (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#A7 works. WP:CSD#G10 also works. GRBerry 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, as Rossami said, CSD A7 and WP:BLP1E. If the event was actually notable, I'd suggest starting with a mention in Phonak (cycling team) (with your Bicycling magazine reference, of course) --Stormie (talk) 23:54, 17 July 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 July 2008

My_Tank_Is_Fight! – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 00:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Put on proposed deletion while I was away and couldn't object. The deleting administrator said that it had been deleted before and no info had been added since the first time it was deleted, but this is not true. The page had been expanded upon greatly over the time that it existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJS77 (talk • contribs) 23:55, July 15, 2008

Comment I think PROD deletions get restored merely by asking. Restore and list at AfD to get better resolution rather than speedy deletions. GregManninLB (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While they do, it's a bit more complicated than that... See more history at My Tank is Fight! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 00:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I guess if the speedy deletion was proper, then that is valid even if the speedy deletion reason given would result in a PROD restore. I'm going to have to endorse the deletion as well. GregManninLB (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a case of big "I" and little "i". GregManninLB (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here I'm going to have to endorse the deletion, as it was a recreation of deleted material that didn't fix the issues laid out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Tank is Fight! (2nd nomination). Technically, the addition of the {{prod}} was incorrect, but the article could merely have been deleted with a {{db-repost}}. It still had the sourcing issues that it had previously, and I haven't seen any evidence that a good article can be written about it using sources other than Something Awful. I'd be willing to userfy for you if you wanna' have a go at working on it, though. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 00:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of deleted material, thus it will have to go through a full deletion review. Which I would support, as I supported the AfDs (a few of the reasons for deletion where very flimsy such as an editor claiming it was a hoax!) Mathmo ^Talk 02:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flight Training Europe – Speedy closed. No process or interpretation issues raised with close. DRV is not AFD round 2. – --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

For reasons which have already been stated before when this article was previously deleted (and subsequently successfully restored), this article should be restored again due to the company's importance in european civil aviation training. Those that insist on deleting this article obviously are not employed in the world of civil aviation and therefore do not appreciate the gravity of this company's role within the training sphere. Granted, this article has not been updated of late, but this is not grounds for deletion. There are articles also on other flight training organisations such as Oxford Aviation Academy (which together with Flight Training Europe form two of only three Integrated schools approved by the Civil Aviation Authority), which do not suffer this same treatment. Please restore once again, and lets hope we don't keep going around in this circle. Surely there must be some moderators on here which understand something about civil aviation! 82.5.46.104 (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and close. This is not Afd X 2. If you can provide reliable sources, which the linked AfD showed was the problem with the article, then write it in User space and bring it back here. Corvus cornix_talk 20:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no process problems in the AfD discussion nor has any new evidence been presented here which would justify reopening the decision. Unsupported appeals to authority get little weight here at Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Those that insist on deleting this article obviously are not employed in the world of civil aviation..' and rightly so, the standard here is not that wikipedia editors in general understand this stuff, it is that they like the rest of the world can look to the reliable sources to understand the claim and give context. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:40, 15 July 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 July 2008

Cowsay –

 ___________
< Overturn. >
 -----------
        \   ^__^
         \  (oo)\_______
            (__)\       )\/\
                ||----w |
                ||     ||

– krimpet ✽ 04:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AfD2 was closed as "delete" by the nominator himself just an hour after listing it, with only two individuals having commented. About two and a half years before, the article had survived an AfD with at best a clear consensus to keep, and at worst a deadlock defaulting to keep--given that history, the ultra-quick closure was totally improper Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got more info on this? The AFD linked is many years old, and apparently this was deleted 8 months ago. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kmweber (talk · contribs) is apparently referring to this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowsay (2nd nomination). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, I don't think there's anything wrong with the AfD closure. The nom "closed" it because the article had been deleted; User:Mercury was not an admin at the time and is not currently an admin, so it would have been very difficult for him to have deleted it. Having an old VfD at no consensus doesn't preclude later AfDs, so there's nothing wrong with the nom either. And contesting a year-old speedy probably won't go far; though the cited criteria was a little off, I very highly doubt that we need it as a redirect to Moo. Overall, endorse. If anyone would like to write an article there, it's not salted. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the logs show that Mercury did speedy delete it at that time under WP:CSD#A7, and then a redirect was deleted later the same day by a different admin. GRBerry 03:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ech, my bad. In that case, I highly doubt the program is notable, but the close was certainly incorrect. I'll stick with endorsing the speedy of the redirect, but overturn the A7 deletion and relist it. I doubt it'll survive, but that's not the issue here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice little program but there's not a lot to say about it. I suggest that the nominator might try writing an article about the subject in his userspace, then come back when it contains something that might be more use than the program's manual. --Jenny 03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Valid WP:CSD#A7 deletion, as all the links/sourcing in the article were for web content containing the program code, making it web content. The deleted article contained no indication of significance or importance. GRBerry 03:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And what was I thinking? That is right, A7 is not available after a prior AFD/VFD. Relist. Who knows, there might be a useful source out there if someone wants to look. GRBerry 13:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn A7 after a kept AfD is not acceptable. Given that multiple editors thought that this was worth keeping last time it should at very minimum be given the standard 5 days for people to find sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen the AfD, I have to agree that A7 speedying an article which has previously been discussed at AfD and kept is inappropriate. However, I will certainly be arguing for deletion at the reopened AfD. --Stormie (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn due to first AfD. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I do not think the deleting admin acted improperly, but I'm kind of leery about speedily-deleting an article that's been live that long. The admin should also not have speedily-deleted an article they nominated themselves for deletion (even if they felt it was a speedy, an admin should tag the article per normal procedure and have another admin delete it, to ensure a second set of eyes on it). ~~I would like to point out, though, that a previous AFD does -not- preclude a speedy delete per se.~~ Things can change over time, articles we thought were fine 2 years ago my not even meet minimum standards today (pika pika?) --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement or "normal procedure" that I am aware of requiring an admin wanting to speedy an article to tag the page and have another admin delete it. I suspect such a procedure would bring speedy deletion to a standstill. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hence "should". I swear I've seen it before (I know it's official procedure in prod-land), but regardless, admins shouldn't be deleting things based upon solely their own opinion. It leads to situations like...well, this one. Admins can make bad calls just like the rest of us, and it's much harder to do so when two people are making the call. I also don't see how it slows things down that much. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The criteria for speedy deletion page clearly says "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." Davewild (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...didn't see that. Well, my point above still (mostly) stands. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree strongly with the policy, as things currently stand an article that has been through AFD and not deleted is not then eligible for speedy deletion. As such, overturn and relist at AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes, I know I tagged the page for speedying. That was before I discovered the aforementioned line of the policy. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a caes for overturn. —Giggy 10:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Invalid CSD due to previous AfD. "CSD:Common sense" should not be uttered by a respectable wikipedian. Speedy deletions must be beyond reproach. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move to user space, otherwise it'll just get nominated and deleted again. PhilKnight (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The existence of a prior deletion discussion (no matter how old) precludes the application of the CSD criterion. That has been the rule ever since the CSD process was first proposed. Rossami (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The result of the first AfD was keep. User:Mercury shouldn't have closed the second AfD because he was the nominator. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paul Diamond (lawyer) – deletion endorsed. – Shereth 01:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was no consensus for the deletion, and I was not told about it. I think that, since I wrote the page, I should have been. It falls far below the standards for deleting a page - whether or not there was a complaint about it - and the comments pasted in the discussion show a rather severe lack of understanding of the page's content. The man is notable because of that big list of leading cases that were on the page. If anyone picks up a civil liberties,or labour law text book they could see this. Clearly, the nominator had not done so. WP:BIO's first line is that, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" That would seem to indicate - let alone textbooks - any court case report. In other words, the nomination was completely ridiculous in the first place, utterly failed to justify itself, and that is why more people argued against deletion than supported it. That makes the eventual decision to delete even more weird. It should be reviewed and reversed. Wik idea 19:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seemed a clear close by any normal standard at an AfD. Four delete, two keep, one comment. That, combined with the fact that the page did seem to me to have balance, focus, and notability problems made this straightforward. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This seems a clear misinterpretation by the closer. AfD is not a vote. There were abundant sources whose relevance was not denied to show him clearly notable. No additional argument was relevant. Personally, I'm not sure thatthe general notability criterion makes much sense, but while we have it, we should follow it. DGG (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course AfD is not a vote. However the arguments presented by those arguing for deletion were compelling - the references do not substantially establish notability. The numbers are significant in that they suggest that this argument was viewed as persuasive by the participants. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the arguments were not compelling; you just preferred them. If they were compelling, then people would not have objected. Wik idea 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I voted to keep based on a semi-notable version I made, however, I recognize that it was a border case and the AfD consensus was clearly to delete. Also, all proper procedure for closing, etc was followed, DRV is not AfD2. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - competently closed. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment below on procedure for deletion. Wik idea 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn There is clearly good sourcing. Claims that the sourcing was insufficient is inaccurate. There were many non-trivial sources such as this one. Diamond is a willing public figure and thus subjecting an article to him to courtesy deletion is inappropriate. During the AfD editors had already taken steps to handle the actual BLP problems which should be dealt with by careful editing and keeping a watch on the article, not a rush to delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did close it without predjudice - I am not opposed to an article on this topic. Just... not that article. Which was not even the start of a good article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are we talking about this cached version- [74]? Most of it looks well-sourced. There's a lack of detailed sourcing about the Bar matter but that's easily sourceable. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only the Church Times source seems substantively about him, as opposed to about something else where he's mentioned. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, but we have other sources directly about him and nothing in that version is BLP problematic, yes? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a badly selective set of cases that seem to be stitched together to suggest that he loses most of his cases. The entire "cases" section would have to go, at which point you have very little. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This point is a good example separating those who know what they are talking about (me) and those who don't (you). If you look in the history, a previous version listed every case that he was in. If you are able to access a case law database like LexisNexis or Westlaw, you can search for counsel. This is what I did. The cases there are not selective, they include every case. And that is why I wrote on the page he has lost "virtually every" case he's been involved in. I don't write things because I'd like them to be true, I write them because they are. You on the other hand are just making baseless assertions from a position of ignorance. You are protecting your pride and concealing you're misjudgment. I'm sure you're a lovely person, but you're wrong. Wik idea 13:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - As far as I can tell it is all the notable cases he has been in. They all have separate Wikipedia articles and are thus notable and noteworthy given his interaction. If it gives a negative impression, that's not a BLP problem. BLP doesn't mean we can't have negative material (FWIW I didn't get a negative impression at all but that my just be because my most notable close relative is to a large extent notable for cases he has lost. But the basic issue is simple: a lawyer losing many prominent cases isn't a negative thing by itself. ) If there are other cases that Diamond has been involved in that are notable he can presumably point us to the sources since he sent in an OTRS ticket. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per my nomination statement. The recreations by the DRV nominator aren't doing him any favours, either. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The DRV nominator's behavior isn't helpful but it isn't actively germane to whether or not the deletion was correct. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I know; I was merely commenting in passing. One could certainly apply a similar comment to your behaviour in past DRV's, but again, that wouldn't be directly relevant as well. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse my recreation; that was a mistake, but I thoguht it would save the hassle, because then there could be objections about the content, not the existence. As Phil has suggested, he does not mind the page existing either. That makes the deletion in the first place even more weird. Wik idea 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion: Per the AFD result. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - The article was BLP coatrack. Paraphrasing the article, "Diamond is a lawyer, he was disciplined, and he has contempt." Great. Good job. Most of the article was about the topic "Cases of Paul Diamond (lawyer)", a non-notable topic. The legal case information was set in his "biography" to tie the views presented in the legal cases as personal views of Paul Diamond. I don't need an OTRS ticket to see a hit piece. The AfD delete view had it right - "Simply representing groups in court is hardly sufficient to establish notability." Consensus about BLP at the AfD was enough to delete the article and consensus about the lack of Wikipedia notability at the AfD was enought to delete the article and keep the topic off Wikipedia. GregManninLB (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not read the guidelines my friend, which is why you are not quoting from them. It is not a "hit piece" - it is a good accurate account of the work he has been involved in, all notable, all national news. You can't say what is not neutral about it either, and if you do, that just goes to show, this is not a deletion debate! Wik idea 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Good AFD close. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not impossible that a valid article could be written about Paul Diamond. This was not that article. Start from scratch. DS (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this page was protected in its latter form precisely because it was deemed to be neutral, or valid as you say. I'm happy to have that discussion, but not from the starting position of an illegitimate deletion. Wik idea 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn too much weight put on the BLP concerns even though User:MBisanz made a version that fixed those issues. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From some of the above discussion, it sounds that recreation from scratch would be OK. Is this true? -- Ned Scott 06:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that it'd need to go via DRV or, at the very least, run past those who were involved in the deletion of it to ensure the issues relating to the OTRS ticket have been resolved. Daniel (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even Phil seems to suggest with his comments in this DRV that it was less about notability of the topic, and more about the condition of the page. [75] If people are following the guidelines and policies for living people, etc, then the OTRS ticket should be a non issue. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, Phil rightly judged that the main purpose of the article was to disparage the subject or further an agenda. This does not mean we can't have an article, but this article was biased and violated core policies on neutrality and biography. This was identified in the AfD, and the closure rightly reflected that fact. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is it? Is it notability or neutrality? It can't be both. If it's neutrality, then the way to go about that is a neutrality tag. The fact that the man does create controversy shows that he is notable. Wik idea 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both. The subject is of marginal notability at best, and the article was sufficiently far from neutral that the subject felt the need to complain top the foundation (OTRS ticket 2008052010024191 for anyone who has access and wants to look it up). So that's actually three reasons to delete: notability, non-neutral BLP and the presumption for deletion where the subject requests it in marginally notable BLPs. I have no objection to a serious attempt to write an article which makes a more compelling case for notability but does not stray into the service of those who pursue an agenda against the subject. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you'll agree that the fact of a complaint doesn't necessitate deletion. I'm really flattered that it made the man send in a complaint, but I contest that there is anything innacurate in that article. As I said on the talk page, you shouldn't be so timid about vapid threats from someone who sounds legal. If you deleted everything when there was a complaint you'd have no articles on Israel, Mohammed, George W. Bush, Conservapedia... Wik idea 17:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and you also say that the article existing is okay. Then the procedure seems to me to be that there should be an arbitration on the page's neutrality. I ask you again, which is it? Notability or neutrality, because you can't seem to decide. Wik idea 17:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally there is no deadline. With problem BLPs, immediate action is required. We don't sit around for months gazing at our navels while the article sits there offending the subject. We don't have to be flattering, but we do have to be fair, and in this case I don't think we were. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are, I'm afraid, like everyone else endorsing deletion, being taken for a fool by a man who specialises in complaining about stuff until it gets judicial pronouncement. Of course this man takes offence at being described in a neutral way, because he's someone that actively seeks publicity in all forms of media to get a rather narrow theological-political agenda across (again, he's notable, look at all the newspaper reports). It's embarrassing that there are so many of you - like bleating sheep - giving in to intimidation and idle threats. I haven't seen the complaint, but frankly there is nothing in there that could scare me, because the page is accurate and it is impartial. Those to things are the essence of being fair to Mr Diamond. If you go ahead supporting that this page be deleted you are being grossly unfair on everyone who comes to Wikipedia to get information about stuff. It's a really big shame. Wik idea 13:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion of this article. There could be an article about this person, but that wasn't it. WP:BLP applies. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Passing mentions don't demonstrate notability, "seems notable" is not good enough, and keep votes were appropriately discounted. Closer should have given a better explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On notability or neutrality: to be perfectly clear, this could either have been deleted because the man is not notable, or it was in some way not neutral. For those of you who think that it was not notable, you are clearly wrong. Those cases that are listed range from the European Court of Human Rights - you know, the big one that deals with disputes for over half a billion people; to the House of Lords, the highest court in the UK, to the normal tribunals. The very first case in the list, Eweida, was national news. So were all the others. Paul Diamond is an extremely high profile litigant, and frankly I am baffled at how ignorant those of you are for even disputing it. The man has been interviewed by papers all the time, he was the first barrister to try suing the bar council, his cases make news on a regular basis. If you do not believe he is notable, then you are not competent enough to have an opinion.
Now, if the article is in some way not neutral, there is no reason for deletion. It would be a neutrality debate (which there was already before, and the resolution was to protect the article as it stood; which is why I stopped watching the page). There is nothing there that is counterfactual. And I challenge anyone to say otherwise, on the talk page, when this article is restored.
I know those of you who have written most are only trying to do the right thing after a complaint, but you need to swallow your pride and admit you were wrong. As for proper procedure, it says on the deletion policy page,
"3. Although not required, it is considered courteous to notify the article's creator and other significant contributors that you have proposed an article for deletion."
If I had been notified, I would have said all this to begin with, and with your 4 for deletion and 3 (not 2) against as it stood, this never would have happened. Clearly you have failed to follow proper guidelines, clearly you were wrong to nominate, clearly it was wrong to delete because there was no consensus, and clearly you are digging yourself an even bigger hole of shame by continuing to argue. Wik idea 14:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a vote. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you need consensus for deletion. Sure administrators have discretion. They should also have humility. Wik idea 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And humanity. I saw the email ticket form the subject, I guess Phil did too. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (keep deleted). While this was a somewhat close decision, it was within reasonable administrator discretion. It would also be appropriate to delete this regardless of the discussion under the conditions of WP:BLP which require us to consider the privacy concerns and requests of non-public or semi-public figures. I find no compelling evidence that this person has thrust himself into public light in such a way that would make him irrevocably a public figure. (The failure to notify the creator of the article is a minor wikiettiquette breach, explicitly not a reason to overturn a deletion discussion.) Rossami (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure Essentially the same reasoning as Rossami. I don't see any clear procedural errors here; in combination, the motivators for the close are rational. Townlake (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure; I don't see anything out of process with the deletion and given the content of the article, I'd likely have considered speedying it for being a blatant coatrack on which to roast a living person. I'm not certain that Wikipedia needs to have an article on this gentleman and I would strongly suggest that any further attempts at creation be very careful they are following WP:BLP. A suggestion about recreation: Given that this gentleman doesn't appear to be a public person and only notable in the light of particular court cases, it would seem that if he needs to be covered, it could be done in articles on the cases themselves (assuming they are sufficiently notable for an article). Shell ^babelfish 20:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Seeing as I appear to be losing this argument, can I enquire what the article would need to not have to be acceptable? Am I right in thinking that what most people object to is the descriptions of the cases in the article? So it would be okay to simply have a list of the cases below whatever description of Mr Diamond himself? When I was writing it to begin with, it was literally all from the many google.co.uk sources, and what they show up is all the stuff that's there; personally I'm only really interested in the law. I really don't mind what description of him there is: being "Times Lawyer of the Week" and his fight with the bar council was the prominent material. Contrary to some of the above comments, I contribute what I think is interesting, important, public information.

I have to say, once again, though, that the man is prominent. If you aren't from the UK, and not in the legal field I can see why you might take a different view. But can I refer everyone to "Category:British lawyers" (or any of the similar categories) - quite a lot of them should be deleted as well if this guy gets the Wikichop. Wik idea 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 coppers: unless the cases themselves are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, there's really no reason to list them in an article about the lawyer. Your point "[i]f you aren't from the UK, and not in the legal field..." shows that this is a very narrow-interest subject. We are very careful about biographies, especially if the main reason the person is known is for negative reports about them. "Lawyer of the Week" is interesting, but considering that's 52 people a year, I'm not sure that really qualifies as notable at that point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, many of these cases which are listed in the article have Wikipedia articles. For example, McClintock v. Department of Constitutional Affairs, R. (on the application of Playfoot) v. Millais School Governing Body, Connolly v. DPP, Copsey v. WWB Devon Clays Ltd as well as others. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it's contrary, since I said "unless" they have articles. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion I think Phil Sandifer did a right thing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Good close. Eusebeus (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Richard Fawkes – No DRV-related admin action needed at this time. – Kurykh 19:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It keeps telling me I am copy righting from my own website!! Hfaux (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot get at the cache and so cannot judge the value of the article. There is a procedure for uploading files (which like your website are your copyright), whereby you as copyright owner grant WP a licence to use your material (see Toolbox - upload file in the left margin. The alternative is to alter the text slightly so that it does not quite match your website. I had this problem when I wrote something offline for WP and put it in by copy and paste. I was not helped by having saved the first line already, which some interfering Admin deleted while I was still writing the rest. I would suggest that initially you delete the "copy-vio" template when it appears and place your explanation on the talk page. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "alter the text slightly so that it does not quite match your website." - if you've done that with anything other than work you own the copyright to, I suggest you go back and remove it or rewrite it. Altering something in the way described makes it no less a copyvio, if it's your own work as the poster below you should send a release to WMF it'll then be on file and the article tagged accordingly. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that you are the copyright holder. If you want to release your material under the ~~Creative Commons~~ license on Wikipedia, you need to email ~~info-en-c@wikimedia.org~~ and they will work with you to substantiate you as the author of the work. Keep in mind that by placing the article on Wikipedia, it will be edited, and people are allowed to re-use your work freely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eep. Two problems. Text contributions here need to be released under the GFDL, and the correct email to send to is permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops. That's what I get for posting when I'm busy! Thanks for the correction, Stifle. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The easier way to solve this is to go back to your own website and release the work under GFDL. Just add a GFDL comment in place of your existing copyright on the page. Once others can verify that you've released the work, the page can be restored. (I'll echo the comment above that minor rewording of the text does not absolve a copier of copyright concerns.) Rossami (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Glendora Curve – restored because the article is back – GRBerry 19:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting talkpage restore. --75.47.138.12 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

William Curry (Oceanographer) – Restored by deleting administrator – Stifle (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I re-created this article based on the original, but with additional wikilinks and references - I originally moved it from it's poorly-named original page. I also added a project stamp to the discussion page. The person is OBVIOUSLY a key player in the investigation of global warming, etc based on even the small amount I have read about him. I have attempted to contact the original admin, but they seem to have disappeared quite quickly after deleting all of my work. Other users (see Writersblockt and 75.44.13.146) are also trying to improve this article. He then reverted my disambiguation page, and placed page protection on a few of these pages. BMW(drive) 18:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proper amount of time to have waited for a response before filing this DRV would have been at least ten hours, not fifty minutes. We're all volunteers here, administrators included. Stifle also uses a wizard for messages instead of his talk page. That said, I believe that the version most recently deleted (older versions are at William curry phd) did not make CSD A7, and therefore the deletion should be overturned. Assertions of importance were clearly present. After restoration it could use quite a bit of copyediting, however. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Enough indication of importance to escape speedy deletion. Might not yet be enough to escape AFD, but with 5 days who can tell. GRBerry 18:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion, the only things that vaguely might be considered assertions of notability are that he holds various degrees, including a PhD, and that he is a member of the scientific staff at WHOI. Neither seems to hold him out as different. I also echo what Lifebaka said — I deleted the page at 16:13, left work fifteen minutes later to get home, and have signed on now. It's not my job to be online 24/7 :( Stifle (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is very difficult to comment on a deletion, when the article had so little life that it does not appear in the Google Cache. This makes it impossibleto determine where the article did or did not hve merit. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article was:

William Curry, Ph.D., Director, Ocean and Climate Change Institute at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Geology and Geophysics Department. He holds a Bachelor of Science, University of Delaware, 1974, with specialization in Geology, and a Ph.D from Brown University, 1980, also with a specialization in Geology. Dr. Curry studies the history of earth's climate and carbon cycle using geological records of ocean chemistry and physical properties. He is actively involved with sea going expeditions to collect deep sea sediments and uses the chemistry of fossils in the sediments to determine how climate has changed on decadal to millennial time scales. He has been a member of the Scientific Staff at WHOI since 1981.[76][77][78]

PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong overturn The article asserts him to be "Director, Ocean and Climate Change Institute at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute." Given that this is the premier oceanographic Institute in the world, that is an absolutely unmistakable and obvious claim of distinction. The article will need some expansion to show his publications and their citations, but a person in such a position is exceedingly likely to be notable. I therefore recommend a refresher in the WP:CSD criteria for the deleting administrator) DGG (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you be a bit nicer :| Stifle (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - the google scholar results indicate the subject may possibly be notable. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - very likely notable. Risker (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If overturned, should be moved to "oceanographer" (ie. lowercase 'o'). Daniel (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wasp Factory Recordings – deletion endorsed – Shereth 01:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus/Insufficient time to improve article Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as closer Personally I thought there was sufficient consensus based on policy (lack of reliable sources) for deletion and could not see any of those who argued for keeping countered this - I will let others judge if that was correct or not. However if you would like the article userfied to improve the article in your own time then I am quite happy to do so. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please userfy. I intend to massively improve / totally rewrite this article, as it is severely lacking good sources. This may take many, many weeks as I (probably like most minor editors) have a proper job, a family and not much free time. As a relatively inexperienced editor, I would also like pointers on how other editors can collaboratively assist (ie. can we userfy this article for more than one editor? Can we place a notice on the talk page / AfD notes to indicate that such collaboration is being actively sought?) Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As requested I have userfied the article to User:Evilandi/Wasp Factory Recordings and answered your questions as I see them on you talk page. Davewild (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The closing admin's comments above are entirely correct. And yes, userfication is an option if you want to improve it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD was interrupted, but it did run for more than the standard length of time, so the time argument is false. Consensus to delete seems clear based on the strength of the arguments. GRBerry 18:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - close was entirely competent. Some of the keep 'votes' provided little justification and were abusive, so they should have been discounted. PhilKnight (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse There's nothing wrong with finding additional sourcing that was not presented in the AfD. But until we have such sourcing the AfD should stand. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why? Stifle (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm inexperienced and made a mistake, confusing the AfD discussion itself with direct discussion with the admin. Sorry. Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Endorse deletion per GRBerry. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of drum corps – no consensus endorsed – Shereth 01:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is an objection to my closure of this AfD. Because I am not as available as I would like to be to pick this up, I bring it here for review. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally have !voted delete, but in the absence of any good reason not to I'll have to endorse the no consensus closure. What I'd really like to see is a ton of pruning on the list to remove most of the redlinks, especially those which really can't have articles written about them. This seems like the best comprombetween delete and keep in this case. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - agree with Lifebaka, under the circumstances a no consensus close was reasonable. In due course, the article can be renominated. PhilKnight (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers of opinions were more split, but robustness of arguments much less so. The first two keep votes only said that although the list could never be completed, (therefore it is indiscriminate, as there is no end) it should stay, without any reason why. The next two stated that the the article is indeed notable, but provided no reasoning whatsoever (except WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). The next one doesn't even matter, no argument whatsoever is put forth. The next one doesn't really address the nomination, and the next one is another unsupported OTHERCRAPEXISTS "it's notable" statement. The last one only addresses the verifiability of the list, which was never in question. So basically, no arguments successfully disputed the claim of the nominator, that the list was indiscriminate and not notable. Their arguments were unsupported assertions of notability, and arguments that actually supported the argument that it was an indiscriminate list. I support overturning as delete. (I was the one who disputed the close, for the copy/paste reason above) seresin ( ¡? ) 21:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to be that indiscriminate lists can be pruned instead of deleted most of the time. At least, most of the time I've seen it being an issue. Supposing it limits itself to bluelinked drum corps, would that be fine? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no reason to limit it like that. There have only been a finite number of drum & bugle corps in the approximately 80-year history of the activity; they are all worthy of a place on the list, and eventually (when enough information can be found) an article. Having an article is not, has never been, and should never be a prerequisite for being on a list. The list has value in and of itself, and should be kept for that reason alone. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!)

Endorse I !voted to delete at the AfD. But apparently there was not enough consensus for t hat. a reasonable close. If the article doesn't get improved a little in the next few months, it can be considered again. DGG (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it need to be improved to avoid deletion? Sure, it's incomplete--but that's a reason to leave it alone so people can keep working on it; it's most certainly not a reason to delete it. As it stands, there is no valid reason to delete it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus as the correct outcome. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kington Town F.C. – restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 13:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article on an English football (soccer) club was deleted on the grounds that the club had never played at Step 6 or above in the National League System, having dropped out of the West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division in May 2006, the month before it was regraded up from Step 7 to Step 6. However, the "Step" system was not introduced until 2004, seven years after Kington entered the WMRL Premier, so it's debatable what Step the club played at in that period. Also, the club has competed in the national FA Vase competition three times (see The Football Club History Database) and is the subject of news articles here and here and a major aspect of this one. And finally, from a purely aesthetic point of view, this club's name is the only redlink in the WMRL's 116 year roll call of champions...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Belal Hajeid – Deleted articles mailed to lister as requested. – Stifle (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also seeking undeletions of Mahmoud Sanoussi, Mahmoud Chami and Tayyab Sheikh. These articles were deleted as proposed deletions, and are being mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Sanoussi, where there is the possibility that the articles may be salted. I wish to examine these articles to see if they mention anything encyclopedic that has not been included in Sydney gang rapes, while keeping in mind GFDL and BLP issues. Andjam (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, prods are supposed to be overturned on any reasonable request. In this case, I decline to undelete because this really is a request for a copy of the article. This request could be satisfied by emailing the contents to the user, and I have no objection to an admin doing so. I will say that there were no inline citations in any of these articles, so if they are emailed the editor will have to go to the references, figure out what if any parts of the article each supports, et cetera. GRBerry 13:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email is fine. Andjam (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 July 2008

Jemima's Witnesses – Deletion snowball endorsed. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted on the basis of not having any notoriety and that is somewhat understandable. However, I believe that the same reasoning that Jemima's Witnesses is a "group" could be applied to any other religion such as Christianity or Islam. Dentalicious (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Perhaps create-protect it as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The fact that it is a group has nothing to do with the deletion. The fact that the "religion" is not a notable group is why it was deleted. Christianity has billions of followers, and thus is notable. The same cannot be said for Jemima's Witnesses. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. WP:CSD#A7 works. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day isn't a speedy deletion criteria, but does apply. WP:CSD#G3 would be a debatable call, but if it is recreated might be justifiable. GRBerry 22:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, and stop trolling, Dentalicious. --Stormie (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Gonzofan2007. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Wikipedia is not a random collection of stuff you just made up. When you get a decent number of followers you can have an article here. Hut 8.5 09:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and recommend speedy close of this DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rookie of the Year (band) – Overturned by deleting admin. – JDoorjam JDiscourse 05:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Illegitimate A7 deletion. The group has two albums out on One Eleven Records, a wing of EastWest Records, which qualifies it under WP:MUSIC; their third album for the label is out in less than a month. Here's their Allmusic profile, which also substantiates their having done a national concert tour (the Warped Tour); they're currently touring nationwide with The Graduate, PlayRadioPlay!, and Secondhand Serenade. Would also like the talk page restored and The Goodnight Moon, their second album, which was ineligible for A7 deletion anyway. Chubbles (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, having an album is probably enough to qualify as an assertion of notability on its own, and this band would probably survive an AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I'm not sure if it's enough for WP:MUSIC (meaning I don't like the look of the label's page), but not being sure means it shouldn't have been speedied. It's always good to favor very conservative interpretations of the CSD. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The article lists record releases and rereleases, and also says "Following this [their second album's] release, they toured through North America with ...". Multiple assertions of importance or significance, not speedyable. The claims don't look adequately well sourced for me to predict an AFD outcome, but with Chubbles working on it the odds are pretty good for survival. GRBerry 22:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowballing Overturn. The band might wind up at AfD, however, as noted in the prior two comments. Warped tour to me makes notability not an issue.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 01:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

J.W. Childs Associates – Article restored by deleting admin – Davewild (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not violate WP: CSD#G12 |► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article: J.W. Childs Associates was recently deleted due to alleged "Blatant copyright infringement".

First the article was created as part of Private Equity Task Force, which works to improve the quality of content related to private equity in Wikipedia. I and the other members have been working (i) to create verifiable, neutral, verifiable articles on the topic, (ii) to remove spam and (iii) generally improve the quality of content in articles relating to private equity concepts, private equity firms and historical individuals associated with the industry

The deleting admin cited the first paragraph as being the offending material, however the first paragraph was a very generic paragraph the pattern of which had been used in several recent articles I have contributed and relates to the PE Firm Article Template developed as part of the PE Task Force. I did include a listing of industries which the firm focuses on. Apparently this list appears on the website and caused the alleged offense, however that list appears in many other places and in any event this is factual content rather than an expression of ideas and as such would likely not violate copyright in this context. This sentence can very easily be reworded if necessary and should certainly not be the basis for deletion of the entire article

The article was based on several well referenced sources and uses referenced material from these various sources. As such, it is difficult to claim that the "article was copied"

In respect to this article, the Admin failed to adhere to the following steps and conditions proposed by WP:CSD#G12
- There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving – there in fact is significant non-infringing content in the page worth saving
- Notify the page's creator when tagging a page for deletion under this criterion – this was not done
- After deleting, administrators should recreate the page from earlier noninfringing page content if available – I suppose this is the purpose of this request

I attempted to propose several solutions to the deleting admin, however it was her idea that time would be "well-spent in straightforward community processes" and was not willing to "resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question" as suggested by WP:Deletion review.

In summary, I believe my track record on copyright on Wikipedia is very strong, I believe the material in question is an extremely limited part of the article and can be easily remedied if in fact there is a copyright violation (which I am not even convinced is true). The article overall, I believe relates to a notable company (both on the basis of the firm's founder, who is an early innovator in the industry, as well as the various major companies and brands it has acquired over the last decade or so) and the article was constructed as a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article that referenced any content from third party sources.

Please let me know if you have any questions

|► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion per nomination. I doubt that the small amount of text copied from the firm website is copyrightable as such, and the problem could have been remedied by marking the text as a citation. The article was also not written as an advertisement, it was not created by a single purpose account, and it would likely have survived an AfD. Sandstein 13:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, the page was not, for the most part, a copyvio. Trim out the text that's copyrighted at most. m:Avoid copyright paranoia. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Salvageable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The single sentence from the site that was paraphrased does not make it a copyvio; It had been nominated as G11, promotional, but it seems a descriptive article about a major company and would not qualify for that either. DGG (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done (and eight redirect pages as well) as per above. — Athaenara ✉ 18:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Wikimediafoundationheadquarters.jpg – According to communication from Cary, this is an OFFICE matter. Cary and many others are in Alexandria, so their responses will be slower than normal right now. – Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC) (Not intended as an office action, according to Cary on Talk:Wikimedia Foundation --Tango (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC) )[reply]

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

There is no evidence that the WMF considers its headquarters' location to be confidential (Jay Walsh, the head of communications, has publicly stated the name of the street, which is only two blocks long), and it is a matter of public record as it is a non-profit organization. Nobody's privacy is at stake since it is not someone's home address. If it is determined this is an issue, the image could be re-uploaded with any identifying information (such as street signs, address number, etc) airbrushed out and the address omitted from the image description page. --Random832 (contribs) 06:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The deletion was not based on a valid speedy deletion criterium. I can't see the problem with this image either, but if the Foundation does not want its a picture of its headquarters hosted here, it can delete it per WP:OFFICE. If someone else has a problem with this image, it needs to go to WP:IfD. Sandstein 11:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be good to have an image of the office, as it would improve the article – however, the WMF do not publish their address, instead providing a P.O. Box address. If they want privacy and safety for employees, they should be granted it. Perhaps the image could be reuploaded without any identifiable information? I'd prefer to make a decision once Cary, Jay or someone from the office comments. They have been contacted (off-wiki). Al Tally ^talk 14:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, no valid reason provided for deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abdus Ibrahim – Restored the version deleted in February as a contested PROD; it seems that Ibrahim passes WP:BIO standards for athletes now, see [79]. The later version deleted in June was a copyvio, so I have not undeleleted that. – Stormie (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has played in professional match. Toronto FC vs Chicago Fire July 12 2008 - he even scored a goal 208.54.95.14 (talk) 01:59, 13 July 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 July 2008

Shwayze – Unsalted to allow recreation. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted (correctly and fairly) in December 2007 because the rapper in question did not have any notability. However, he recently released a single "Buzzin'" that entered the national charts in the US (a source is provided in the article if needed). This automatically grants him notability under the current guidelines for music. The admin who requested the deletion has since retired from Wikipedia, so I bring it before you guys. Thanks. Teemu08 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article and Update with news of the charting single. Clear-cut case. Chubbles (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt and allow rewrite. There were a couple of deletions of this article in June 2008 because the text had been taken directly from the subject's record company's website at [80]; the versions from June 2008 should not be restored. The December 2007 versions of the article don't appear to be copyright violations as far as I can tell and can be restored if desired. However, the article would need a rewrite in any case, because since December, Shwayze has hit the Billboard Hot 100 for the first time, albeit not very high on the chart. More distinctively, he is the focus of an MTV reality television series which will debut later this month in both the U.S. and Canada. [81] [82] He has also received more news coverage. [83] [84] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect to allow rewrite. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

West Parish Elementary School – deletion overturned (relist). However, as an article has been created about the park in the interim, and much of the discussion focused on whether or not it was actually the park (not the school) that was notable, I'll go ahead and redirect the undeleted article, which I will relist at AfD. Should it survive, any decision on whether to actually merge or remove the redirect (making this a standalone article) is an editorial decision, not a deletion debate. – Shereth 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Concensus was to keep but it was deleated! It has been noted in the boston globe and had proper sources. What Gives? CelesJalee (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist I voted to !delete, and was disappointed to find that deletion did not have consensus; I am therefore puzzled why it was concluded that it did. The key question, not adequately discussed, is whether the Science Park made it notable. The only extended comment on that gave the reason " I am asking that evidence be presented that the school or the district owns the park" -- but that the park was located there would probably be enough. Notability of elementary schools is so rare that this discussion did not attract the necessary interest. DGG (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, if there was a consensus to move, it should have been closed as move not delete. --Rividian (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There was no consensus to move. There was also no consensus to delete, so I don't think the AfD was closed properly. There apparently was doubt about the ownership of the science park, but it is certainly affiliated with the school. See this Boston Globe article and this PTO Today article. If the science park is the school's playground, it would be best to have an article about the school including its playground rather than just the playground alone. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than willing to work on furrthing the artice but this month I am realy busy with work so I wanted to just make sure that the article got atlest reinsated as there was more KEEP then MOVE or DELEATE and it meet's the notibility requirments. Is there something that I am missing here? I know I am new but the concept seams relitivly simple. Correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CelesJalee (talk • contribs) 03:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so simple, no. AfD is not a vote, though some people treat it as such. The closing admin is supposed to weigh the arguments given, with more weight given to those whose arguments are based on Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. The closing admin did not believe the school met the notability guideline. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why? Stifle (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's a recommended option, not a requirement. Sometimes it can be better to list things here and get visibility and a diversity of suggestions--and that seems to be in fact the case for this article. Good choice, I think. DGG (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also recommended and not a requirement that you have some experience in Wikipedia before making an RFA, but you don't see very many people taking that into account. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why is if you go to deleaters talk page he says that he wiil not negotiate. nice question though CelesJalee (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that. Thanks. Overturn and close as no consensus, as there was none. I'm not opposed to a relist. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School articles are useful when consulting info about a celebrity, so we'd better recover this article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? That makes no sense. No celebrity has been linked to this school, and that would probably not confer notability anyway. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closer - TerriersFan had already asked me about this on my talk page - my response was "show me a reference that confirms the science park is a part of the school and I'll undelete the article" Note this picture shows it's a community science park, something which shows everyone commenting here has either ignored the AFD discussion, or not done their research. Neıl ☄ 11:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak Overturn Was built by the PTO of the school (per article) and lots of indications that it is the school's park in the article cited by Neil. I expected it to close as defaulting to keep, but agree how to close it wasn't clear. Hobit (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. If the reason for deletion was that the science park in the grounds fo the school, and mentioned in the article, was worth an article but the school wasn't, then the encyclopedia is better served by simply moving the article and refocussing the content. Deletion of the article for this reason was questionable and ignores our deletion policy, which states: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." . --Jenny 22:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The AfD included nothing that uncovered notability. The park is not enough. The AfD was properly handled. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coment The following Link Clears Up all issues surounding the school owning the park. CelesJalee (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Created a New Article Just about the park so I guess Were done here. CelesJalee (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Murder of Joseph Didier – Deletion endorsed. After closely inspecting the DRV, AfD, and article, I can find no consensus to overturn the closure, nor any particularly damning evidence that the closure failed the deletion guidelines for administrators. – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Before coming here, I did ask the deleting administrator to reconsider but the person would not change his/her mind.

I must preface these comments by noting that I do not accuse the deleting administrator of being discourteous or unprofessional. In fact, I only reluctantly ask for this review because I don't want to make the deleting administrator mad. I will also limit comments only to procedural error and not re-argue points for keep. Likewise, those who follow me and who voted for deletion (some of whom admit it was because they were following me) should refrain from re-arguing their ideas.
With these disclaimers mentioned, I ask for deletion review because of procedural errors.
1. The major procedural error is that there was no concensus. With no consensus, the default is to keep. This is settled and standard Wikipedia procedure.
2. ~~The second procedure error is that the deleting administrator is a self-avowed deletionist. Therefore, it is highly questionable to whether the deletionist starts from a neutral standpoint.~~ See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shereth "I call myself a deletionist" and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shereth/Deletionism "devotion to the philosophy of deletion" The AFD was doomed to be a delete from the start because of this administrator.
3. The cries of non-notability were simply cries often with no justification. The explanations about notability, in contrast, were rooted in fact. Fact that the murder is still covered in the news 35 years after it happened, that there are multiple sources of initial coverage, that even the deletion debate was covered in the news (because the event is so notable - THIS IS NEW INFORMATION), and because in a city of 150,000, there were 54,000 written protests and petitions against the murders release - something that has never been seen, thus making it without question the kidnapping/murder of the century for the region.
4. Even after the AFD ended, a staff member of the state Attorney's Office wrote a comment on my user page supporting the article. This non-anonymous writing speaks for itself in a wikipedia world where everyone else hides behind anonymity.
Please review this request and undelete the article because when there is no consensus, the default is to keep. About 1/3 of the vote was keep and many of the rest did not say anything other than to wrongly say it's not notable. Most murders are not notable but this one is. Presumptive (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC) fixed typo in article name GRBerry 02:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a "deletionist" isn't a procedural error. Points ~~three~~ and four have absolutely zero bearing on this debate. Protonk (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Edit: the second half of point three. Protonk (talk)[reply]
Endorse Consensus to delete or not delete something comes when there isn't a clear policy or guideline problem with the article. If something is borderline but consensus is that it should be deleted, then we delete it. If something violates a policy or guideline and there isn't an otherwise compelling reason to keep it, it gets deleted. If a "no consensus" result could impact the outcome of a process appealing to policy then we would rarely delete anything that failed to comply with policy. The expectation is that the policy be enforced and occasionally the threat of deletion is the stick used to enforce it. The admin clearly explain his (her?) reasoning and CLEARLY delineated that the decision stemmed from the guidelines. I don't see the problem? I can't see the article but I have a hard time visualising an admin deleting an article with perfectly good sources in good faith. Protonk (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can say in good faith that there were good sources and sources that ranged from 1975, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, etc. So "I have a hard time visualising an admin deleting an article with perfectly good sources in good faith" is a problem for DRV because there are good sources and the article was deleted. Presumptive (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I read the article. Sourcing seems to all be rockford news articles about a murder and subsequent capture of the murderer. Although the time difference is unusual, it is neither unprecedented nor exceedingly rare. Seems to be to be a case of Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS as well. Protonk (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse -- though there were reasonable points on either side, rough consensus favored deletion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closing administrator (naturally), for the reasons outlined in the close. I would also like to express that I am rather peeved that the nominator is failing to assume good faith in my closure (assumption that it was doomed from the get-go), peeved that the nominator is mischaracterizing statements on my user page/subpages, and finally, that the nominator failed to notify me of this DRV filing contesting my closure. Shereth 08:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've gone ahead and performed a history-only undeletion for the sake of transparency. Shereth 08:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not notifying you. I never did a DRV before. Since you are voting so am I.Presumptive (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Biggest reason is that a lack of consensus is a default to keep. Also because many of the deletionists in the AFD claimed non-notability without giving evidence that it wasn't N. Notability is not being "well known" otherwise 80% of WP articles would be deleted (press "random article" on the left). Basically, lack of consensus is default to keep / which will result in article improvement over time, a plus for WPPresumptive (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The appeal grounds broadly restate the original keep arguments, the only exception being the claim that there was no consensus, however this disregards that AFD is not a vote. The keep arguments were generally weak, and in several cases likely the result of fairly blatant canvassing, something which almost certainly solicited nom.'s item #4 (see here nb. the ad has been slightly amended since being first posted, presumably in response to concerns in the original AFD). Note that prior to this AFD a similar article by the same editor had already been deleted twice, once under a slightly different title by AFD and again under this one via speedy as a copyvio, resulting in the early termination of that AFD discussion. Debate 木 08:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inaccurate description, for example "Once under a slightly different title" - article was about person, not murder, which is often not allowed and text of article was different. Presumptive (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as "no consensus" to delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The additional sources given in the AfD were either mistaken (an article about a programmer with the same last name as the deceased), or about the protesters wanting to keep the perpetrator in jail. That's only tangential to the murder article, and does not show notability for the murder itself. As to the statements: 1) Consensus does not mean a unanimous opinion. None of the Keep comments stood up against the point that the murder did not meet WP:N. 2) is irrelevant; 3) is not germane to notability, as the articles given are about the protesters, not the murder; 4) somebody commenting on your Talk page is no more relevant than a blogpost. In all, there's no procedural issue here for DRV to overturn. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those who want delete simply say "not notable" but do not explain why. Just saying it is not notable does not make it not notable. WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." then defines the terms. The topic has received significant coverage over many years, it has been covered in reliable sources, the sources are independent of the Didier family, so it is notable. Even more are the unusual coverage decades after the fact and the huge public interest (over 50,000 writing protest letters or petitions in a city of about 75,000 adults) Presumptive (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking us to prove a negative. How do we prove it is not notable? Rather, there is not enough substantial coverage to show that it is a notable event. As I pointed out, most of the coverage given is about the protesting families, tangential to the murder itself. Protest letters aren't any more relevant than Google hits, as people will sign petitions for damn near anything. Finally, this is not AfD 2. It's not the place to rehash your previous argument. If you can show a substantial procedural problem with the close, please do so. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? OK, I'm really lost here. There are a number (10?) of articles in two newspapers about the murder. That there are more letters about the murder than news articles doesn't magically make this not notable. And it's not proving a negative. WP:N is really really clear about what constitutes notability. This plainly has multiple independent reliable sources. Can you provide a policy or guideline that indicates this article should not be here? The procedural error was that nearly all !votes for delete cited WP:N or generic notability without explanation as to how the independent RS that exist aren't enough. Those !votes should have been discounted by the closer. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think there is real consensus about articles of this sort. At the AfD, I did not !vote, but asked if there was information that it was considered notable outside the immediate area, and this was not supplied--the few links given showed noting of the sort. Personally, I think that murders with any degree of significance otherwise--including community outrage, or rape-murder of children, or more than on victim be considered notable enough for WP. There is understandable general interest in such crimes, as Dr. Johnson said two centuries ago, "murder is a mighty strong fact". Popularity is not the same as notability-- not-popular things can be notable also, but anything of great popular interest is worth covering in a comprehensive non-paper encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn is the result from DGG's "comment"? Presumptive (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've unbolded the "overturn" as DGG did not "vote" to overturn (nor to endorse) and he is well aware of the structure of discussions here — if he intended to "vote" overturn, he would have done so, and Presumptive's listing of the article here implies he disagrees with the deletion, so he doesn't get a second "vote". Stifle (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Firstly, there seemed to be a lack of consensus in the AfD and should have been kept on that basis. Secondly, WP:N and WP:V are met. That this is "local" in some sense is quite an odd reading, and IMO, not relevant. The NOTNEWS is the one delete argument that I think makes sense. However, given the long-term coverage of the murders shown in the article I think this is more "history" than "news". Finally, I've personally heard people outside of the area talk about this murder in the last 5 years. While my experience doesn't mean much, it was the case that I was the only one there who didn't know about it. (Everyone of us grew up in the suburbs of Chicago). Hobit (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I think the implicit point is that, were it historical, a historian would have written about it. If we take a collection of newspaper articles on an event and call it historical, aren't we making a claim that isn't supported by the published material? Protonk (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that collection runs over, say 100 years, I'd hope you agree it is clearly historical. I'd say very few news stories see play after 20 years and only those that are significant and notable. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC

I assume Protonk would say that us deciding that would constitute original research, the numbers are ones you've apparently plucked out of the air and that you believe are correct. The question is do reliable sources consider this historical, not do wikipedia editors consider it so. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local festivals are covered in local press, as are local businesses. I can't really assume that a business that gets a piece every few years in the local rag is historical. the whole basis for the WP:N/WP:OR policies (ok, N is a guideline) is that we let someone else make that assertion in a published work before we do. This means that we lose a lot of things we would otherwise like to have. Our coverage gets focused on things that media and scholar have studied (even the pokemon test doesn't work here, pokemon gets HUGE coverage from editors but has alos received some coverage in the press. Compare pokemon to warhammer 40k and you'll see the difference in press coverage). But the policies and guidelines that constrain us represent a "second best" solution. We can't solve the problem of deciding what to include in a neutral and accurate fashion without restricting the ability to include items and hiring trained editors for review. So, in order to maintain the basic idea of wikipedia (free, anyone can edit), we make hard compromises on inclusion of content. Sometimes that compromise seems like a kick in the teeth. But until we come up with a better compromise that lets us maintain the 5 pillars, we have to work with it. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I get your point here at all. First of all, choosing what to cover isn't going to run afoul of WP:NOR. That's part of the editorial decision we always make when inclusion is questionable. As this plainly meets WP:N (plenty of secondary sources) a plain reading of the notability guidelines mean we keep it. But then we add NOTNEWS. That says "Articles should not be about events that have strictly passing significance and interest. Events which only garner transitory attention do not merit encyclopedic articles,...". I'm fairly certain that a news story spanning decades isn't transitory. Now it may not meet the "clear keep" criteria spelled out in NOTNEWS, but it also doesn't meet the "clear delete" case. WP:LOCAL doesn't even vaguely apply as it is about places (and it's an essay anyways). Hobit (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. The "big three" policies are NPOV/V/NOR. enforcing these at the line-by-line level (individual items within an article) requires no more than consistent application of those three policies. For example, I can see a contentious claim and demand a reliable source for it. Likewise I can see a claim not made by the sourcing and remove it. Enforcing these policies at the article level is more difficult. Let's pretend we wanted 100% enforcement of these policies without adding another policy or guideline (so an alternate universe without WP:N). We would have to vet individual articles at the point of creation to ensure that the article itself did not constitute undue weight, original research or an unverfiable claim. Let's take something like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cellular_learning_automaton as an example. How do we know, as amateurs, whether or not the topic is getting the coverage it deserves? Should we wait until the CS project comes by and makes sense of it? The answer, should we return to the "big three" and the "five pillars" (free, anyone can edit), is no. We can't rely on specialist interpretation or special knowledge to decide whether or not to keep articles and what length to make them. In order to apply that idea universally we would need to hire hundreds of "expert" editors whose credentials have been vetted and who (presumably) would wield greater sway in arguments.

WP:N was created as a "second best" solution (that article is a mess, but the idea is clear) to this problem. We create a "somewhat" arbitrary standard for inclusion that offloads that problem to third parties. This allows us to include articles based on this guideline and remain inside the "big three". I know WP:N isn't the only argument I made, but I hopes this helps to explain why I defended it as I did.

In this case, declaring an event "historical" without a history to back that up seems to be skirting the WP:OR line. As for WP:NOTNEWS, we aren't making the "clear delete" case. In this DRV, we are arguing that that keep votes made a persuasive case on the basis of policy and guidelines. The DRV itself isn't AFD2, so the issue is about the process, not the basic arguments. Protonk (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments about this are below. The basic argument is that WP:N is clearly met because there are multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage. The NOTNEWS arguments are valid arguments (if wrong IMO), but those were not the main arguments at the AfD. Instead it was WP:JNN. Again, see below for my detailed comments about the AFD. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response. I was mostly trying to articulate a response to the question above. As for WP:AADD, I take it or leave it. Some of the sections there are really useful, but WP:JNN isn't all that helpful. It sounds like it should be compelling, but it runs into problems quickly. Most methods of arguing for/against notability (or any other guideline/policy without its own bright line) can be just as tautological even if they have more words. In other words, if I said "it isn't notable because it doesn't---insert verbiage from WP:N---", that isn't any different from "delete, not notable". Same with a keep argument. I still think that the closure was more or less correct, but you guys have shown that you have a much better case than I originally thought you had. Protonk (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The closing admin correctly interpreted consensus here. Nsk92 (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD is not a vote. There was a clear policy-based consensus to delete which was correctly interpreted by closing admin. Detailed closing rationale demonstrates that this was not a drive-by closure. nancy ^(talk) 06:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Protonk. I also criticise Presumptive's poisoning of the well by point 2 of the argument above, which is very poor form. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There wasn't a clear consensus, and it seems alright to have this article hosted here. We are trying to meet the 3 million articles mark some day soon, right? In our lifetime. Anyways... there wasn't a consensus. Try again.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I can't see a single valid keep argument anywhere in that AfD, let alone any kind of consensus. – iride scent 16:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, default to keep. I agree, there is no consensus for keep. There is a lack of consensus, which is supposed to be a default to keep. This also helps Wikipedia because you can bet that I will and others probably will work on the article to make it better. After about 1-2 days after the AFD, I stopped all work to prevent wasted effort. Presumptive (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have once again unbolded Presumptive's first few words. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse DRV is not a forum for a second AfD. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus I wanted to see other arguments first before !voting, but on balance i think that at present there is not a real consensus for the deletion of this and similar articles. DGG (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - closing admin correctly applied policy and gave a thoughtful and detailed rationale. There were practically no policy-based keep arguments presented. Nandesuka (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what part of WP:N the closer is claiming isn't met? I can't figure it out from what was written. I've no doubt the closer spent serious time thinking about the close and writing the closing remarks, but I'm not seeing a policy-based reason for deletion other than not meeting WP:N, which seems to be contradicted by the existence of a large number of reliable sources. Hobit (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly endorse deletion. Not only did the AfD have the proper outcome, as there was plenty of consensus to delete, but User:Presumptive repeatedly tried to "game the system" in many ways, foremost among them posting an ad on another site to try to get non-Wikipedians to vote on the AfD (violating WP:CANVASS). He also copied and pasted selected comments from the first AfD (the one that resulted in speedy deletion for copyvio), only those which supported his position. Not only do I endorse deletion, I also believe Pesumptive should be blocked for his repeated flaunting of Wikipedia policy. He is obviously on a mission to make sure this murder somehow gets on Wikipedia, as part of an apparent campaign ot make sure the murderer never gets parole. As wel-meaning as that might be, it has absolutely no place at Wikipedia. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: Once again, Presumptive is showing tendencies to strong-arm this process into a defualt to keep the article. This action again shows his repeated tendency to manipulate Wikipedia policies to fit his agenda, usethe DRV process as yet another AfD procedure, and generally act in bad faith. He complaians about those who "don't like me and follow me around," but his disruptive actions bring attention to him that merits a watchful eye on everything he does. Please ignore his requests to force this into default-to-keep, maintain that article's status as deleted, and temporary block Presumptive for his disruptive and bad-faith actions. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't know what debate people were looking at when they say there was no real consensus here -- in the one I looked at, those favoring keep were vocal but significantly outnumbered. Furthermore, the arguments for deletion are perfectly acceptable under policy. The arguments to keep were also reasonable... and in a situation like that, we have to go with the majority when there's a sizable one. This is consensus. That doesn't mean everyone agrees: it means the outcome is clearly the best one and we should abide by it. Mango juice^talk 14:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the delete !votes were basically A) "not notable" or B) "local". As it meets WP:N, it is notable for purposes of this discussion. And I'm unaware of a policy or guideline that limits inclusion due to the local nature of an event. So (assuming I'm right about those two facts) the majority of the !votes for deletion weren't grounded in policy, putting this (in my reading) closer to keep than delete. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be crystal clear, WP:N states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.. I don't see how this one doesn't qualify. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is not significant coverage of the murder itself. There is significant coverage of the protests to keep the convicted murderer in jail. That's the difference here. And protests on this level are a dime-a-dozen. There's really nothing here that shows any difference from any murder or protest that goes on every day in the US. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the protests about the murder are, about the murder and goes to the notability of the murder. But even if that isn't so, I don't buy that the protests are not notable because they are a dime-a-dozen. I'm unaware of anything in the notability guidelines that reflects that. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It seems the protests at least have received significant coverage. And if you don't think the murder did back in 75 you'd be wrong. I can't imaging that the Chicago papers didn't have something at that time: it entered the realm of urban lore for many of my peers. Do their on-line archives go back that far?Hobit (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is claimed that the following headlines existed at the time:

Chicago Tribune — Fear missing youth victim of ‘ritual'
Chicago Tribune — A muffled shriek then he was gone
Chicago Tribune — Footprints, muffled cry clues in search for Rockford boy
Chicago Daily News — Frantic plea for Rockford boy

These from http://www.comportone.com/cpo/crime/articles/didier.htm. Those seem to establish notability if accurate. Hobit (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As awful as it sounds, enough murders happen to probably not be notable. Case in point: The Homicide Report is a blog from the LA Times cataloguing every murder in LA county. there are 1-3 every day. Most will go unsolved. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most are also not reported on 35 years later like this one. Most do not get such public outcry that is reported every year or so. Most murders are not as notable as the Didier kidnapping/murder. Presumptive (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted at the AfD, there were 16 stories in the Chicago Tribune on this murder from March 5 to October 28, 1975. So, my guess is that this was one of if not the most notorious murders in the Chicago area at the time.John Z (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Protonk, can you provide a reason grounded in policy or guidelines which indicate this is not notable? If it means WP:N, it's notable per our guidelines unless something else says otherwise. I've yet to hear a policy argument for delete. I find that a bit frustrating as it makes it impossible to actually have a discussion if one side just says "not notable" without reference to what makes it not notable (lots of something occurring doesn't make something not-notable by policy, look at WP:ATHLETE for example). Hobit (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This DRV is far longer than most. Unlike many DRV's there is even a lack of consensus on the alleged lack of conensus of the AFD. So I believe it is a default to keep. Presumptive (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a DRV that fails to reach consensus within 2 days is unheard of. Look back a few days. the Cheshire Cat DRV? The Nucular DRV? This is longer than most DRV's because most aren't controversial (prods, speedies, etc). But the story isn't in the average length, which will be low. The story is in the average length of strongly contested DRV's. Just as a word of advice, it was a party foul to accuse the closing admin of being a deletionist. If you get into this kind of situation again, it is better to leave that unsaid. Contributors who feel strongly about the inclusionist/deletionist split will make their own conclusions. those who don't won't assume that you are making conclusions. No one will get angry. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right that I should not have called the deleting administrator a deletionist. If anything was said (which even that is debatable), it might have been better to merely link the deleting administrator's own edit which he/she calls him/herself a deletionist and that they claim devotion to the philosophy of deletion. Presumptive (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get my point. For one, we have given the admin the tools for a reason. If we presume that he will misuse them in order to further an editorial agenda, then we should not have granted them the tools. to accuse an admin of misusing his tools in order to advance an editorial agenda is a pretty big thing. THAT is the problem. not that you were too blunt about it. We aren't stupid. Linking the diffs to the admin saying "RAWR, I hate articles" in your DRV to have his decision overturned is the same thing as saying "Admin X is a deletionist and used that philosophy to adjudicate a debate". Am I clear? Protonk (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention if you'd bothered actually reading my essay rather than just taking comments out of context, you'd realize that I do not claim "devotion to the philosophy of deletion", I was merely quoting a definition of the word. The whole point of my essay was to show that being a self-avowed "deletionist" does not mean the same thing for different people, a point which seems to have completely evaded you. Shereth 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Essentially the commentary in this DRV to date appears to have largely centred on whether consensus in the original AFD was achieved, with some additional commentary rehashing the AFD debate, particularly concerning whether the article meets the criteria for notability. Personally, I don't want to rehash the notability arguments from the AFD, which were well covered in that forum. In terms of consensus, however, I would strongly suggest that the consensus argument should be wholly discounted here because the well has been poisoned by blatant canvassing by the nom. To do otherwise would essentially be to endorse canvassing, and thereby undermine Wikipedia's guidelines against the practice, which while not policy, nonetheless have formal status. We'll never know exactly how many editors making the keep argument were attracted to the debate precisely because of the nom's canvassing. Nor will we know how many more delete arguments might have been attracted if those arguing to delete had agressively engaged in canvassing as well. Had those arguing to delete engaged in active canvassing the apparent 'lack of consensus' may well have evaporated very quickly. Consequently, it is in my view important for this DRV to consider whether upholding this appeal based on lack of consensus in effect rewards canvassing, and if so, whether that is a precedent we're comfortable endorsing. Debate 木 04:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were no canvassing votes. There were no SPA, which would be a sign of an outside person coming to WP. On the other hand, there are people who dislike me and followed me around, thus inflating the delete/endorse count. What we really need is for comparison consideration. WPedians will bring up "other crap exists" but that is the key to consistency. Multiple articles should be considered together. This should be the new policy of WP. Presumptive (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no-consensus - The close stated that the article was deleted because there was agreement that it was "not inclusion worthy". That is not a valid basis to delete an article and the close claim that Wikipedia's existing notability guidelines are inadequate to handle such a topic is odd statement since the deletion debate should have been decided on policy, not guidelines. The use of subjective opinions and the failure to discuss policy shows that there was not a real consensus for the deletion of this article. GregManninLB (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, I assume your final statement that there was real consensus for the deletion of this article is a typo? Otherwise it seems to contradict your opinion to overturn. Shereth 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Fixed and added the "to no consensus" to my !vote. GregManninLB (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Nothing has come to light through the two (or was is three) AfDs and incarnations of this article that in anyway show that this was the incorrect outcome. There was no press about this crime outside of the region, and if we decide that every murder that receives significant local coverage is valid for this encyclopedia then we need to rewrite WP:NOTABILITY to express that. As to there being "no consensus", administrators are tasked with not just counting !votes but with weighing the substance of the arguments that went along with the votes. The closing administrator judged the arguments for deletion as more substantive and sound. A ni Mate 21:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you need to rewrite WP:N to express that this isn't notable. I'd like to hear what part of WP:N you think isn't met. People seem to think that being local (if half a state covering 8-10 million people can be considered local) is someplace in WP:N. In fact if this delete gets upheld, I'm going to propose that change in WP:N. Right now there is no policy or guideline this article is in violation of (at least that I can find). I think we either need to keep articles like this OR change the guidelines. Hobit (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Close, but ultimately I think a good call by the closing admin, who lays out the rationale well. This is not AfD pt.2 Eusebeus (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD in detail

I'm probably taking this DRV a little too seriously, but I'm really frustrated by the "endorse" !votes here. The basic reason for the DRV (in my opinion) is that the subject clearly meets the letter of WP:N "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." As there are a number of articles on-line from 1975 about the murder ([85], [86], [87], [88]), a large number in the Chicago Tribune from the same time period (~~not on-line~~ not free [89]: "Fear missing youth victim of ‘ritual', "A muffled shriek then he was gone", "Footprints, muffled cry clues in search for Rockford boy", "Frantic plea for Rockford boy"), one on-line from 2001 about how the murder changed Rockford (city of >100,000) [90], and another 8 or so on-line about the recent protests involving the murders (for example: [91], [92]) the subject meets WP:N beyond any shadow of a doubt. The coverage is significant, from RSS, and are independent.

So if people want to argue that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia they need to cite something other than WP:N or Just not notable. Or at least explain what part of WP:N isn't met. Let's walk the delete votes:

WP:JNN -- Realkyhick, AniMate, DCEdwards, ukexpat, Helmsb
Fails WP:N with no explanation -- Masterpiece2000
WP:JNN, WP:SOMETHINGELSE -- Nyttend,
WP:NOT#NEWS (mistakenly thought all articles from the same time period, didn't change !vote, apparently thought still had NOTNEWS problems) -- Nsk92
Referred to previous discussion on the notablity of murders -- iridescent
Invoked local as a reason for non-notability -- nancy, Seattlehawk94
WP:JNN and NOTNEWS -- Ave Ceasar
LOCAL and NOTNEWS -- LonelyBeacon, SesquipedalianVerbiage

The first three sets should be tossed out. They give no valid reason for deletion. Next, the "local" problem isn't a part of any policy or guideline that I know of (other than WP:LOCAL which is about places). NOTNEWS is however a policy/guideline based reason to delete (if mistaken in its application here IMO). And finally that something else doesn't exist isn't a valid reason for deletion. That leaves 5 !votes for deletion (7 if you think "local" has defacto power).

Even the NOT#NEWS arguments don't specify what part of NOT#NEWS they violate. With very significant coverage over 30 years, I'm just not seeing it. iridescent's cite to a previous discussion was interesting, but at least some of those murders are still in Wikipedia and there didn't seem to be consensus to delete them all.

To sum-up, there were 5 delete !votes that gave valid reasons for deletion. Those 5 didn't express what part of the policy/guideline they cited was a problem, and it isn't clear from reading those policies/guidelines. So the 5 !votes were weakly justified. That in the face of dozens of reliable sources. The AfD seems to have been closed incorrectly and should be overturned.

Hobit (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! The only reason for this DRV is only another attempt at an an AfD, which DRV's should not be. It's just one last futile attempt by Presumptive to get this article into Wikipedia. The AfD was closed properly, with the correct outcome. Do not reduce my opinion to a mere JNN. Hobit, you are twisting my words and opinion, and I do not appreciate that one bit. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the AfD should be overturned is that the deletion arguments were weak in the face of the dozens of RSs over 30 years. When something clearly meets WP:N, as this does, just saying "this murder isn't notable because most aren't" is really just WP:JNN as I read it. When the requirements of WP:N so wildly surpassed, you need some reason other than WP:N or your opinion of "this isn't notable" to delete. AfD shouldn't just be a nose count. It also should be about what's right per policy/guidelines. Hobit (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed analysis. My analysis is completely different. It is that there were a number of well supported/documented editors for keep in several of the AFD's. As a result, there was a lack of consensus, which is default to keep. Let's look at the larger picture. Is there harm in letting an article grow, an article that is more notable than many of the random articles when clicking that link, an article of the most notable murder/kidnapping of the area and more notable than the vast majority of murders, one that draws attention and reliable sources nearly every one of the last 5 years even though it's a 35 year old murder? No harm, indeed. And lack of consensus is suppose to be a default to keep. Presumptive (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per GregManninLB. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC) _{Unbolded and indented as user has already !voted above nancy ^(talk) 07:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Overturn There is sufficient lack of consensus. This means that the article should be kept unless and until Wikipedia policy changes where a lack of consensus means a deletion. Chergles (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hear, hear! Another sensible Wikipedian with sound judgment. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Samuarai, there is enough heat in this DRV already without you making it personal. Please think what your comment implies about the endorsers and consider striking it. Thanks, nancy ^(talk) 07:44, 20 July 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 July 2008

Gabriel Murphy – deletion endorsed – Shereth 18:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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|AfD1|AfD2|DRV1|DRV2|DRV3|DRV4|AfD3)

The article "Gabriel Murphy" has been nominated for deletion on 3 occassions. The links and results are listed below:

1st Nomination on September 25, 2007 - Result was keep

2nd Nomination on February 12, 2008 - Result was delete

3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 - Result was delete, though I believe the closing administrator errored in the closure of this AfD, as there were as many keeps as deletes.

Every time the article is nominated for deletion, it is revised and improved- hence the time delay between the three nominations. The latest version of the article that caused the 3rd nomination was actually completely re-written in a userfied space with the assistance of several administrators during the deletion review process. The very same "Gabriel Murphy" article went through Deletion Review on June 28 and it was voted 3-0 to move into mainspace, but just 1 day after it was moved into the mainspace, on July 5, the same user (Wolfkeeper) who had nominated the article for deletion the first time re-nominated it for speedy deletion. If you review the 3rd nomination deletion log, you will see about an equal number of keeps versus deletes. The main argument put forth by the deletes was non-notability. Per Wikipedia, notability is defined as "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". I think anyone objectively reading the article will find:

1. Significant Coverage - there are 30+ references to news stores about the subject, hence the coverage is significant;

2. Reliable Sources - the sources include Cornell University, The Kansas City Business Journal, The Kansas City Star, and The Web Hosting Industry Review, which is the largest trade magazine within the web hosting sector.

3. Independent of the Subject - all of the sources above have no ties to the subject, none of the references are blogs or other sources that have anything to do with the subject.

I believe, as did many others in the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008, that even though there are 30+ references within the article, the following 5 references alone establish notablity:

Reference #1: http://whirmagazine.texterity.com/whirmagazine/200710/?pg=24

Reference #3: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10520700_ITM

Reference #5: http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2002/04/08/focus1.html?t=printable

Reference #35: http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2001/06/25/daily31.html?t=printable

Reference #38: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_July_2/ai_76137330

I strongly believe the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 should have resulted in a neutral closure, or even perhaps keep as there were equal votes to keep and delete, and my understanding of consensus policy is that if no concensus is reached, the article remains and is not deleted. Additionally, consensus says that "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons". I think if you review the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 log, you will see sound arguments put forth to keep. While a few editors who voted delete argue that it is a resume, most of the arguments are that:

1. The sources are not reliable;

2. That the Kansas City Business Journal is not reliable (though it "is the largest publisher of metropolitan business newsweeklies in the United States, with 41 papers across the country reaching more than 500,000 subscribers each week", according to their website).

3. It is an advertisement (no one would specifically point-out what part of it is an advertisement);

4. It is an orphan article so it is not notable;

5. It does not have many page views so it is not notable;

6. There is a conflict of interest by my account and so it should be deleted.

What I am asking for is first, for an administrator to review the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 dialogue to determine if the closing administrator did error in closing it with the concensus to delete. If this was an error, then I ask that the article be restored and no other action would be required. Otherwise, I am asking for the community to review the latest version of the article via Google cache (since it was wrongfully deleted today) and vote keep and protect as it will undoubatly be re-nominated for deletion by Wolfkeeper again when it is restored. Alternatively, I would ask to have the article userfied yet again so I may improve it based on logical feedback from the community. I think this article clearly meets the notability threashold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you. LakeBoater (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Administrators How can people comment/vote or otherwise provide feedback on this article without any way to see the article? Can an administrator please restore the last version of the "Gabriel Murphy" article to some userfied space on my account and post the link so everyone has the benefit of reviewing the article please? Thanks. LakeBoater (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article presented a laundry list of verifiable facts, but if I remember correctly failed to say why any of them were notable. There are millions of small businesses and awards. Multiple non-notable facts do add up to notability. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks much Caerwine for your input and your comments on my talk page. I really appreciate you sharing with me your perspective. Regarding what facts are notable in the article, I would contend that this individual winning the Ernst & Young "Entrepreneur of the Year" award is notable as this award is a very prestigous award as far as entrepreneurship goes. Details of the award are covered in Wikipedia under Ernst & Young. I would also contend that his business winning the KC Chamber's Small Business of the Year is also notable. There are other, smaller awards (Deloitte & Touche Fast 50, KC Star Tech 50, Ingram's 40 Under 40). I would think the E&Y award or the sum of all of these would establish notability. My understanding of the notability threashold as defined by Wikipedia is "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". I argue above that these 3 criteria have been meet and therefore the subject is notable. Thus, notability = significant coverage + reliable sources + independent sources from subject. I do not see where the coverage has to be of notable events or such. Again, just trying to help each of us better understand where the disconnect lies on the article. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree about the importance of that "Entrepreneur of the Year" award as he was only a regional winner and even for the national winners, it does not appear to be a significant enough award to be mentioned in their articles. It's worth mentioning in the Ernst & Young article as it is one of their major publicity efforts. Focus on what was noteworthy enough for him to win the award, and then the award could be used to show that others have recognized that noteworthiness. Simply stating he won some promotional awards given out by business services companies doesn't really convey anything by itself. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on the "cache" link above takes you to an article on Aplus.net. Presumably the most recent version of the Gabriel Murphy article was a redirect? Corvus cornix_talk 23:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An older version of the Murphy article was redir'ed to Aplus.net (which was also deleted), because the Murphy article was indistinguishable from Aplus.net. I !voted in the last AFD, so I'm obviously biased towards endorse deletion. You may be able to find a google cache of LakeBoater's userspace, which was when the article overturned at the last DRV (this is the second DRV). The Murphy article is also now creation-protected (on my own request, seeing seven creation and deletions in a fairly short period of time). If overturned, it'll need to be userfied and brought up for discussion either here or at WP:RPP Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The latest version of "Gabriel Murphy" was not a redirect but was its own article. At some point in the past it was a redirect to aplus. Can an administrator userfy the last version of "Gabriel Murphy" on my account so everyone can see the article? Yngvarr, if you can give me some feedback on what would need to improve in the article I would appreciate it. I want to work with you (and everyone else) who has concerns about the article not being worthy of Wikipedia. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. First, LakeBoater has omitted a major contention that I had brought up - Wikipedia is not a resume service, but that is really neither here nor there at deletion review as DRV's purpose is not to continue the argument that was (at times) belabored at AfD, but a review of the process that led to the deletion. The discussion went six days, longer than the customary five for an AfD; the admin made a hard call after weighing all the points made from both sides (one would have liked a bit more about the decision, but in light of what's given in the discussion, discounting all not dealing with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's understandable). Conflict of interest must be considered when there appears to be a direct connection between an editor who wrote the bulk of the article (that, I repeat, looked much more like a resume than an actual encyclopedic article), one of the two editors who together tried to own the discussion (in my viewpoint, more is less: one who tries to bury the "opposition" in AfD and DRV tends to have less heard than one who makes surgically precise, persuasive points). The deletion of the companion article Aplus.net, on which much of Mr. Murphy's ability to meet WP:BIO hinged, made it harder to clear that bar. But the admin made the hard call that was needed - AfD is not an election or a vote - and deletion decisions are made based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. B.Wind (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When an administrator gets a chance, can they please userfy the latest version of the article so I may improve it based on some of the feedback given? There is additional information that can be added to the article. This will also be needed to help others vote and provide feedback on the article. Thanks. LakeBoater (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to All CLICK HERE for the "Gabriel Murphy" article that is subject to the deletion review discussion. I found it via Google cache. Thanks. LakeBoater (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my odd bulleting, I'm at a loss for formatting. I know that DRV is not supposed to be a discussion beyond the actual deletion, but this issue is getting bigger than it needs to be. More than seven deletions under multiple names, two DRVs, three AFDs. The primary contributor is accused of COI, since the majority of contribs are from that user, and these disputes are coming from that same user. The user has been accused (and contribs will back this) of forum-shopping. There is something wrong here. This is not a controversial issue in the usual sense of that term, but a user who's pushing an agenda. The time and effort involved in attempting to reinstate this article is bringing serious question as to the neutrality of it all. I'm not the first, and probably not the last, to note this. I'm not wearing kid-gloves anymore, and AGF is shortly going out the window. The community has decided, multiple times, to delete this.
I've suggested in the last AFD that the creator of this article compare this to two other successful and notable persons, namely Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I chose those two as deliberate examples of people who are highly notable for their respective companies, but who are also notable of themselves. While there is company information on those articles, there is no real mistaking that the articles are talking about people, not the company which that person (founded / co-founded / works for / etc).
The google cache is now posted above, and the user can place that into userspace; there is nothing preventing that. Then it'll be up to the user to find an appropriate place to post for even wider scrutiny, since the AFDs are apparently not enough. As for which notice board, I don't know, because I'm not the one who has a stake in the article. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Yngvarr for your input. This article has only been subject to an AfD 3 times, as I have posted the links to all 3 AfDs. First was keep, second was delete, and third was delete- though I believe the third delete was an error based on the dialogue of the AfD. Each time the article has been substantially re-written. The article went to Deletion Review once, and it was voted to keep (move into mainspace). I really do appreciate your feedback on how to improve the article- this will help me out and I do intend on incorporating your suggestions into a userfied version. I do not agree that I have been forum-shopping. I believe I have actually followed the proper protocol all along, starting with the userfied article in June. This article was voted to move to mainspace, then it was AfDed and voted delete, now I have been told by the Administrators' noticeboard/incidents that this issue does belong here. So I am not forum shopping, I am following the advice on the administrators who told me to post my issue here.

I want to work with you on your suggestions. I will userfy the article and post it for your feedback. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the consensus may have been to delete, but that is because of the Wikipedia bias that does not recognize the notability of businesspeople to the same extent as athletes and entertainers-- not a wholly irrational bias, for the indications of distinctions for businesspeople are less distinct, and the sources less obvious for most of us. DGG (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The deletion had it correct in observing that the 44 (!) references largely were press releases ("purely advertising"). There seem to be some Wikipedia reliable sources listed in this DRV, but until someone demonstrates an ability to use sufficient Wikipedia reliable sources for this topic, there is no reason to allow recreation. GregManninLB (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Watchlist-details – request withdrawn – GRBerry 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion was closed as snow keep, even though only 54 minutes had elapsed, and there were a variety of different views expressed. Had the discussion continued, it very well might not have ended in "no action". Jehochman ^Talk 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stick with the decision - seems reasonable; the majority said "keep" or "limit" and I don't believe another consensus could possibly have developed. A lot of nastiness could, though. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer - textbook example. I doubt it would've been deleted (even if it can). MFD can't really force limits either. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stick with the decision - No need to split the discussion across another page. In addition there is zero chance of the page actually being deleted. It is better to take the time to discuss it and come up with some guidelines. Mikemill (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse It's a MediaWiki system message. Disabling this feature does not require deletion; this is basically a content dispute. — Edokter • Talk • 19:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Closed It's possible that it could be argued that it was closed a little quick, but there was never going to be consensus to delete. As to other options, there's already a discussion on the talk page. All that re-opening would do is mean that now there was a separate fork of that discussion. Let the discussion continue in the proper place.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close From a DRV perspective, there are two possible outcomes to an XfD: 1) somebody uses the "Delete" button and 2) nobody uses the "Delete" button. No feasible outcome of that discussion would involve someone using the "Delete" button. Since this is DRV, we shouldn't snow close this, but there really is no chance of an overturn to use the delete button. I suggest the nominator withdraws his proposal. GRBerry 20:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I am satisfied with that explanation. It would have been nice for that to have been clarified in the first place. Feel free to close this. Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Heath Town Rangers F.C. – Speedy restore. Club clearly meets generally accepted criteria. – пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article on an English football (soccer) club was deleted via PROD on the grounds that the team did not play in the top 10 levels of the English football league system, which the WP:FOOTBALL project recognises as the general cut-off point for notability. However the club has now been promoted into a level 10 league for the coming season, namely the West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division, and will play its first match at this level on 9 August 2008 (see the Football Association website) ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Al Jolson – Closing this. The article has not been deleted, all that's here is a miscellaneous discussion of non-free content criteria. If Wikiwatcher1 wants to list individual images for review then he's welcome to. – Stifle (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

See my Talk; 16 images marked for deletion without any reason beyond admin's unexplained discretion even after asking for reasons; there are countless hours invested in obtaining, uploading, describing and placing images on an article and, even assuming good faith, it seems improper to see those hours casually erased in this manner Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So all you have to do to get an image deleted is say it "fails some part of the non-free content criteria"? That's like being able to delete articles by saying "fails some part of deletion policy". If nothing else it should be explained what criteria exactly these images fail... and that template should never have been created if it's really used the way I'm thinking. --Rividian (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read you talk page again, specifically User talk:Wikiwatcher1#Re: Requesting valid reasons for your tagging 16 images for deletion where the tagging editor already explained the problem to you. The problem is with WP:NFCC#1. alternatively, read the even earlier explanation you were given at User talk:Wikiwatcher1#Images. Wikipedia uses non-free material under very limited circumstances. If you attempt to use them too much, your fingers will get burned. Learn the rules before you put in more effort that is just going to end up on the cutting room floor. GRBerry 13:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional details - this is a portion of the information that was posted for each image tagged:

"If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the "non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in" tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
"If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding "hangon" tag to the top ..."

So I get 16 images of all types tagged with no specific details of what's wrong, even after repeated requests. I went through and added both and "hangon" tag and further fair-use information to all 16. Then, without warning, and apparently in violation of a grace period, they were deleted that same day! (some have been replaced for various reasons) Aren't admins required to act in a reasonable manner and not in what seems like wild abandon of protocol and a wreckless use of tagging scripts? (In this case the original tagger admitted her "mistake.")Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last few minutes, it's also come to my attention that other admins had deleted the images that the original admin had tagged. For instance: File:With Calloway.jpg. I came across another one also. Therefore, even after getting involved in a disussion with the original admin, other admins begin permanently deleting the images tagged. And all had a "hangon" notice and added copyright details. And all likewise ignored any 48-hour grace period.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another unique deletion - this one came from out of the blue with no tag or any warning at all. It was simply an instantaneous deletion.

"12:54, 11 July 2008 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Jazz Singer premier.jpg" ‎ (no license tag)

Whatsmore, it says there was "no license tag" which is untrue, as this image has been posted to this article for many months with a fully descriptive fair use license.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you discuss this with Stifle before bringing this here? Corvus cornix_talk 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are 3 separate issues that I sent to User_talk:Stifle#Re: deleted Image:Salute scroll.jpg, one with visual proof of the erroneous deletion. And a few minutes ago I got this from the original tagger: "I didn't delete the images I tagged, someone else did, take the 48-hour thing up with them. user_talk:Melesse 22:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC) BTW, nice to get some feedback - was starting to feel like I was writing a diary. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that the top of Stifle's page says he's away until Sunday. That might explain why he hasn't responded - but it wouldn't explain how he deleted 3 (or more) images over the last few hours.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to communicate with the original tagger with this: "People watch TV and go to movies instead of reading books because they need and prefer images. This article is descriptive and benefits from images." So are you saying they're for variety and decoration? That's not a valid reason to keep them. Melesse (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I add this comment in case anyone still thinks I was a bit hasty in calling her "discourteous." Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not quite understand what this discussion is about. If it is about the article, then it must be a Keep. If it is about the images, I assume that the question is whether their use is a copyright violation. WP cannot safely engage in that, so that deletion is inevitable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the images only and what seems like improper mass deletions. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mojosurf and Snow Australia – Deletion endorsed. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deemed insignificant. I cannot understand why. This business is rapidly growing in Australia, and has had over 10,000 customers. People love the trips and recommend it to their friends. Please review this page, and undelete it! Thanks, from Mojosurf Mojosurfaustralia (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it shouldn't have been deleted under WP:CSD#A7, as the article claimed that the company is "one of Australia's premier surf lesson, surf trip, and snow trip companies". It should have been deleted under WP:CSD#G11 as clear advertising. It would appear from your username that you have a relationship to the company, hence you need to read our guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. If the article is ever to be recreated it should be written solely from independent and reliable sources (advertising and reprints of press releases are not independent sources). Good guidance on doing so is at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. If that produces an article, then a few small holes in it could be filled from company published sources, but such sources can never become the primary source for the article. GRBerry 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - classic corporate vanity, hence a valid speedy deletion as spam. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. MER-C 05:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Can the nominator please explain why he neither attempted to discuss the deletion with the deleting administrator nor notified him of the discussion here? Stifle (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)~~ Never mind, NawlinWiki's talk page is semi-protected and Mojosurfaustralia isn't autoconfirmed. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse deletion. While it should have been db-spammed, and not db-nocontexted, the deletion is still valid. And from the nominator's username, perhaps there are some problems with conflict-of-interest as well. S. Dean Jameson 09:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Not (necessarily) an A7 but definitely a G11 spam. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for help with creating articles about businesses. Corvus cornix_talk 20:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Sorry my bad, I just saw the page did a quick google which didn’t come up with much, looked like the same old spam that comes up once in a while. Even though I wrongly tagged it I still think it should be deleted. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 06:19, 12 July 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 July 2008

TronixCountry – Speedy deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

CSD misapplied. -IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse A7 deletion; the article as it stood was a one-liner that had nothing resembling a claim of notability in it. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability? CSD#A7 states that it is for:

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.

It's certainly controversial; if it wasn't obvious enough from the page, the talk page made it more so, as does BlueHippo. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had < 9 hours to object to the CSD. That's a reasonable time frame? --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more time than usual, unfortunately. It might have been 9 minutes. But there is no objection to reinserting an article that more clearly explains the notability; to keep it from regular deletion as well, there are probably some articles in the relevant trade or consumer press. Though I tend to be very reluctant to use A7 on companies, the information presented did not my opinion amount to an indication or claim of notability or importance or significance. DGG (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I won't argue about what's usual. I'm arguing that it wasn't reasonable, IMO. Nor was the deleter's refusal to restore upon my reasonable request. I jumped through hoops instead; fortunately google had a partial cache. I've created a draft in Userspace.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the "original deletor", I won't comment on the merits of this article but leave it for others to decide. I should like to point out that Speedy deletion is the entire point of the Speedy deletion procedure. Objections to it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Also there is no right to instant undeletion upon a reasonable request; that is what this undeletion discussion page is for. Although I would have moved a copy of the deleted page to the user's page had they asked for one. Rmhermen (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hereby requested. Reasonableness is not predicated upon rights. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't request it to be restored, you left him an irrelevant, borderline offensive template message that's normally left for new users who remove bad language or offensive photos from articles. There's a difference. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False. I believe I wrote: "If you could please restore, thanks." The record shows I did. Or are you just trying to bait me? I changed your indentation to follow convention, BTW.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not false at all. Here's the diff. You tagged on a message at the end asking him to restore the article, but the main body of the message was a newbie warning. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False. I wrote: "If you could please restore, thanks." The record shows I did. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did. You also left him a newbie warning. The "if you could please restore" was fine, the newbie warning was not. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial" in a CSD is to be read as "the deletion is controversial", not "the subject is controversial". The snippet on the talk page merely indicates that one aspect of the subject's business practice might be controversial in an internet forum somewhere. That isn't relevant to the deletion being controversial. Google's cache isn't partial; that is all that was ever put in the article. I also see no claim of importance or significance here, so I endorse the deletion. If an article is going to be viable in the long run, it will be because independent and reliable sources exist on the subject. Don't look for forums; look for media coverage that is not just a press release reprint or business directory data. Then write the article according to the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't know what you're talking about. Google's cache is partial. s/<ref/ in it should turn up a match. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google's cached version of the article is all that you ever put in it. I just compared it to your deleted contribs. That's all there was, there was never more. Can I suggest that you keep working on this userfied version and ensure that it includes substantial reliable sources, then either post it again or (a better choice) ask someone for input before it's reposted? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... and pigs can fly. Again, Google's cache is partial. s/<ref/ in it should turn up a match but it does not. In other words, the reference(s) are missing. Can you suggest I do what I demonstrated - and said - I'm doing? Again, I've created a draft in Userspace, where it will stay (hopefully) 'till I can make it strongly defensible against an AfD. How 'bout you do what I suggested you do? (s/<ref/) Sheesh.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yeah, the thing that you say is missing in the google cache is in the edit source, just not in the visible version of the article, which is what I review. It was a <ref> tag citing a non-reliable source (some yahoo group page) that you shouldn't be using anyway. Don't worry about it. GRBerry 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this GSB meeting announcement? "I can almost guarantee an interesting discussion next week, as our speaker will be Bruce Mattare, the founder and CEO of Tronix Country (www.tronixcountry.com). Tronix Country is a fast-growing direct response company. They run radio and (I think) television ads, and they take inbound calls to sell computers and other electronics. Most of their clients fall into the “subprime” category, so the company will take a couple of payments, ship out the computer, and then continue to take payments, all while reporting the good news to the credit bureaus so that the clients’ damaged credit reports will get a little better. Bruce is a veteran of a similar company that did everything wrong, so he has lots of war stories, and even while he now tries to do everything right he has issues that many business will never have to deal with. Come out and help him think through a couple of them next week." Removing "Founder and CEO" from his list of titles seems ... pedantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IReceivedDeathThreats (talk • contribs) 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something posted on a Yahoo group is not a reliable source, as noted above. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the ref is not showing up in Google because the deleted version did not contain a {{reflist}} section to actually display the footnotes. The content was: "Speaker Invitation. URL:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UofC-DC/message/419. Accessed: 2008-07-08. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5ZAtEPu8b)". btw I'm not sure that a posting to a Yahoo group is really what Wikipedia would regard as a Reliable Source. --Stormie (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, spammy single-line article with no viable assertion of notability, references, or sources. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources [93] might be usable though not sufficient--though a press release, its one from a third party listing this company among some very notable companies whose ads they handle. But given that, it should be possible to find better. There certainly should be stories in local newspapers where they operate. The way to make progress is to find them, not argue here. DGG (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken however the article did "give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable", and yet it was still marked for speedy and speedied. Seems y'all continue to say that notability is the bar for speedying. Doesn't make it so. Whoever marked for speedy and speedied, screwed up. Other discussion might be helpful, but it's also OT. I'm not claiming the article was great as it was. I'm saying whoever marked for speedy and speedied, screwed up. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nucular – Deletion overturned per fairly clear consensus in the DRV. On a side note, if you think there is a good chance that the XfD you are closing will be overturned on appeal to DRV, and not just appealed. That seems to be a pretty strong indication that you are violating the deletion guidelines for administrators' imperative to: "when it doubt, don't delete". – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Try to keep the discussion WP:CIVIL and don't escalate this into a "nucular" war.

Deleting administrator correctly pointed out that "this is not a vote," but seems to have glossed over the specific state of consensus in this AfD. There was consensus that the article meets WP:N, but consensus had not been reached as to whether it also meets WP:NAD and WP:NOT. Deleting administrator also correctly pointed out that some "keep" arguments--one of my own included--were not astoundingly strong, but seems to have neglected ones that seemed stronger, such as the argument that, due to demonstrable notability, this article is better-suited for expansion per WP:ATD than for deletion per WP:AFD. Sources demonstrate that "nucular" is more than a word, and that it is instead a lexical phenomenon that has garnered significant academic and public attention. Evidence of this is both qualitative, as demonstrated by this source, and quantitative, as shown here. Indeed, the latter source states that "[nucular] was the crime against English mentioned by the greatest number of respondents" in a newspaper-conducted poll. Although one editor took issue with enthusiasm over the first source, no one voiced any objection whatsoever to the latter. The deleting administrator's overall conclusion that the "keep" arguments were relatively ungrounded in policy is therefore questionable, because a strong case exists here for WP:ATD. Additionally, the reason does not take account of the direct quotation that was cited from the WP:NOT policy: "Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness." Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the alternatives to deletion listed is to cover the matter at one of our sister projects and this has been done in this case: see nucular. We also have at least one article which covers this material: see Epenthesis. This deletion therefore does not do much more than tidy up some redundancy. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Am am absolutely baffled by this claim. The article DID have a very full history of the word, many sources, I could go on. But yet somehow you're pointing to this Wikitionary with three partial sentences saying that somehow the subject is covered with that?!?! No, simply no. The article has not been transwikied, the information is not repeated anywhere that I can find, and I can't make any sense of this claim. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The complaint above rambles all over the place but its main point seems to be that WP:ATD was not considered. My point is that it was and that the essential content is adequately covered both in Wiktionary and here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you give me a link to where this is covered or was transwikied? I don't see it. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: "Essential content"--i.e., the basic phonetics/syntax/semantics--is what Wiktionary is for. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to go beyond these "essentials" and to explain where a concept exists amidst human knowledge as a whole (rather than to show where a word exists within the English lexicon). In other words, WP:NAD was misapplied in the AfD, and WP:ATD was not adequately considered. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's certainly no consensus there to keep, and I'm waffling over there is one to delete. I think I'll have to say overturn to no consensus just to be on the safe side. What I am seeing clearly is that the delete !voters don't believe we should have an article on the subject and the keep !voters are saying that the content is fine. This would tend to lead me to believe a merge would be the best option, but I have no idea where to. If anyone has any suggestions as to a target, I believe this would be a workable compromise. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Reading the deletion discussion, I do not see how the conclusion was delete. To say why it shouldn't have been deleted would be to just repeat things from that page. Furthermore, accusing the keep side of ILIKEIT and "Pokemon argument" seemed out of line, when at the same time the delete side can say "delete per nom". WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary itself outlines the exceptions to the rule. None of the delete arguments sufficiently explained why this did not fit in those exceptions while the keep arguments did expound on this. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic - that is in Wikipedia policy. This fits that criteria because it has had sufficient second party and academic attention, as well as being a bit of cultural institution. There is plenty of precedent on Wikipedia for this, the rules say clearly enough that we should keep it, and the deletion discussion did not have a consensus. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). The majority of the opinions expressed to keep this page were based on obvious misinterpretations of standing Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The notability of a word is not relevant to the decision. Neither are sources or the etymology (read "history") of the word. The only pertinent question in this discussion was whether the content had the potential to expand past mere dicdef status. The closer's weighting of the opinions based on their closeness to policy seems to me to have been within reasonable admin discretion.
I further note that Wiktionary already has an entry for nucular (which means that the standard transwiki process does not apply). The deleted version had additional etymological and usage content that could have been used to improve the wiktionary entry, though. No objection to a temporary undeletion in order to allow the additional material to be moved over to Wiktionary. (In fact, give me a few minutes and I'll do that myself.) Rossami (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article was previously transwikied to wikt:Transwiki:Nucular but it has not yet been integrated into the main entry. Powers ^T 15:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You state, "The only pertinent question in this discussion was whether the content had the potential to expand past mere dicdef status." Exactly. I provided sources in the AfD (and re-cited them in my nomination for review here) to demonstrate that it can be expanded past dicdef status, if it isn't already past that status to begin with. No one took serious issue with any of these sources. In fact, shortly after I cited them in the AfD, one user stated, "Keep - notability established by sources." There was absolutely no consensus that the article violated WP:NAD, could not be expanded beyond a dicdef, or even was a dicdef to begin with. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The nominator did not "choose to ignore" anything; the nominator simply did not see it, and was tired, rushed, etc. My apologies. Do note, however, that A) the admin stated that he anticipated an appeal; and B) I did notify the admin per the instructions. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that you are expected to discuss the matter with the deleting admin before coming to DRV, in an attempt to resolve the situation, unless the deleting admin has already waived that discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Yep, I know. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from deleting admin - As I said in my deletion statement, I expected an immediate review. However, this seems to be turning into AFD Part 2, with the same characters and plot as the original, and I'm not going to participate in that. But I do want to elaborate on why I said the "deletes" were more policy-based. Aside from the ILIKEITS and the "we have X article so this should be okay too" arguments (which made up the majority of "keeps"), the main argument to keep seems to be that "in some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic". Nucular, however, is not a word.[94] It's a mispronunciation of "nuclear", for which we do have an article. So that policy does not apply here. The policies that do apply—such as WP:NOT—were cited by those in favor of deletion. Excluding the irrelevant "keep" arguments, there appears to be consensus to delete. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, ILIKEIT is not an argument for delete, I point this out because in several places, it seems like you give it as such. Weather or not you think that people are arguing for something because they like it is just as irrelevant as a vote that makes an ILIKEIT argument itself. You paint a picture of the discussion that I don't agree with - refer to the examples of old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness. You've painted a picture of the mention of these as "we have X article so this should be okay too", which is a gross misinterpretation. These were listed in the policy! Arguing about the phrasing of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary is not relevant to this discussion, which is what you're doing there. There were keep arguments on the basis of notability, just as there were lackluster delete arguments. These were not the majority as you say. Your justification for deletion here is a strawman.
- And yes, this shouldn't be made into an AfD #2. So why are you arguing this "isn't a word" now? Where did that come up in the deletion discussion? I don't see it. Did that have anything to do with the deletion? I could address this claim, but we're not supposed to do that here. The thing up for contention is the result of the discussion, which I strongly feel did not result in a consensus after the "Completely idiotic", "per nom", and "notability established" votes. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing anything here - I'm explaining my rationale for the deletion. As I said, I don't intend to participate in your arguments here any more than I did in the AFD. Everything I've said above was part of my reason for closing as delete. With (in my view, as the closer) no valid reasons to keep it, and plenty of well-stated reasons to delete, the relevant consensus was to delete (again, without giving undue weight to invalid arguments and comparisons to other articles). That's really all I have to say about it. Whether the deletion is overturned or not is really none of my concern. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, insofar as it is AfD2 we would expect the closing admin here to focus on only process issues rather than new evidence, strident recitation of claims, etc. As I note below, this seems to come down to one narrow, thorny question (IMO). I also don't think that answering that question should have been easy, so I really respect your openness toward further review. Protonk (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I voted keep on this article on the basis that the article did, and had the potential to, contain more information than just a dictionary definition - which satisfies WP:NAD. Hence, I object to the closing admin's statement that the keep votes were not based on policy - the problem here is that the most relevant policy, WP:NAD, is vague and open to subjective interpretation on a topic such as this. The only consensus that I can see that developed from this AfD are that the article does satisfy other important Wikipedia policies such as WP:N and WP:V, with there being no consensus around whether it satisfies WP:NAD. Essentially, I feel this article was deleted based on one specific interpretation of an overly vague policy, and should at least be overturned as 'no consensus to delete'. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as the closer very sensibly seems to anticipate. When one is unsure how to close, usually that is a recognition that there is no consensus. DGG (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no uncertainty as far as I'm concerned. It was pretty easy to see which arguments held water and which didn't. I just know that whenever an AFD discussion is that long, some people are always going to pule if it gets deleted. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In line with what Theanphibian has been saying here, your assertion that "It was pretty easy to see which arguments held water and which didn't" seems pretty much like the deletion-review equivalent of WP:ILIKEIT. We all know the policies; we've read them; we weren't Wikiborn yesterday. Speaking of policy, one that seems especially relevant here is WP:CONSENSUS, and the bottom line is that there was no conensus in that AfD. Stalemate, deadlock, tie, hung jury. Whatever you want to call it, the people who voted Keep on the AfD--and the people who have voted Overturn right here--surely have some degree of intelligence that doesn't deserve to be insulted with such a blanket dimissal. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Voted" being the operative word. To say "we all know the policies" is patently absurd, particularly in conjunction with most AFDs - lots of people, as shown in this AFD, show up and say "keep per X". Worthless. It was easy for me to see who did understand policy, and how that policy related to the article, and it had nothing to do with what I like or dislike (other than that I don't like the excessive wikilawyering that always comes during and after long deletion discussions). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, by that reasoning, votes such as "delete per nom" would be equally "worthless." But I don't see how concurring with someone amounts to "voting," anyway. If I believe that Person X has a sound argument, my opinion isn't devalued simply because it's in deference to Person X. Also it strikes me as a tad prejudgmental to assume that those who leave succinct or deferential comments are ignorant of various policies. (Of course, it's a different matter entirely when sock puppetry or meat puppetry is suspected, but there haven't been any accusations like that here.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, votes such as "delete per nom" are equally worthless and did not enter into the decision. If you believe that person X has a sound argument, your opinion is not only devalued - it's completely superfluous. Further input is only needed if you think the statement you agree with is lacking something. It's fine to say "keep per X" if you want, but all you're really doing is putting your name to one argument; if 100 people endorse it, it's still just one argument. If that one argument is invalid, 100 people who chose to endorse it have basically said nothing at all. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It makes sense to pay special attention to the more thorough and well-thought entries, but calling editors' contributions "worthless" raises some serious WP:AGF issues. Additionally, I fail to see the word "worthless" or any of its synonyms in WP:CONSENSUS. Then again, I suppose it would be a bit of a challenge to use such words after statements such as this: "Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said this "I originally voted keep and made some small, followon comments. I'm not a linguist or a lexicographer, so I found that further contribution to the debate would be repetitive." below. I didn't say much more in the original debate. I guess I should have said more, eh? Protonk (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to nuclear - POV problems, not a dictionary, but may be a plausible search term. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sceptre, keep in mind that we're commenting on the AfD itself now, and not (directly) on the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as rationale was inadequate, and likely censorship. (Add'l comment: Makes as much sense as deleting abortion, which is a word with a definition, but is also much more than that.)--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article abortion is about the process, and includes a short, basic definition only as introduction to the material. The article is not about the word "abortion". This is illustrated by the fact that the interwiki links are to articles titled with the proper name of the process in those languages. An article about the English word "abortion" would be titled "Abortion" in every language's Wikipedia. If the nucular article satisfied those criteria, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Powers ^T 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you say "definition only as introduction to the material?" Yes, you did.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - There were passionate and compelling arguments made on both sides of this discussion and a quick read-through of the discussion clearly shows no consensus. The closer's rationale for ignoring the "keep" arguments is too judgmental; "keep" arguments should only be disregarded this blatantly when there is obvious misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy, attempts at vote-stacking, or overwhelming WP:ILIKEIT-style arguments, none of which are the case here. The AfD should be overturned to no consensus. --Hnsampat (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus I originally voted keep and made some small, followon comments. I'm not a linguist or a lexicographer, so I found that further contribution to the debate would be repetitive. As I see it, this debate fell onto two things and two things only, WP:NOT and WP:DICDEF (As a subset of WP:NOT. Specifically, "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic..." in WP:NOT versus the very clear language in WP:DICDEF. If the dicdef section was the only wording on the subject, this debate would be over. As far as I see it, it was the admin's job to compare the consensus and arguments about those two topics and how the letter of one may have suggested an action against the letter of another and if we could either keep or delete and still be in line with the spirit of the policy. That isn't an easy decision. As far as I'm concerned the other policy/guideline issues don't matter (and were dropped early on in the debate). It is clear the content of the article isn't simply a dicdef but not clear that the added information is enough to qualify as what ought to be a rare exception to WP:NOT. The closing admin for this review ought to look at keep/delete comments in light of what the controlling policy was (NOT and DICDEF) when looking for which votes were grounded in policy. Then we can get a good idea of how consensus ought to be read. Of course, my opinion on that reading is slanted, but I think that no consensus is the right answer. Also, we should look at either softening the DICDEF language or clarifying the 'exception' that appears to exist in WP:NOT. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been trying to kick start such a conversation at WT:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to little avail. Powers ^T 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wander on over there sometime this weekend. Protonk (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Concurring comment - I have to say, what Protonk spelled out above is the most clear and rational explanation for why this deletion ought to be overturned. --Hnsampat (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Protonk (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I think what Protonk spelled out above is the most clear and rational explanation for why I deleted the article. Since DICDEF does not apply at all (because "nucular" is not a word) I could only consider the opinions that were grounded in policy. That left NOT (which was used by both sides in the AfD). Again, since nucular isn't a word—that's a fact, not my opinion—the exception noted in WP:NOTDICDEF did not apply here. All that was left was to delete it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is unusual at all. I feel that a decision to delete the entry could have looked at the dilemma I proposed and come out with a 'delete' result. However, if you presume that nucular isn't a word and exclude the "main" DICDEF policy then you are left with WP:NOT which provides the exception for articles which branch 'words' and concepts. But either way, it was a hard decision, and I hope that sentiment came across. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for a number of reasons. First, the admin's statement, "Most keeps are a take on ILIKEIT or the Pokemon argument", is an incorrect summarization. It's true that a single editor, Ten Pound Hammer, jokingly began his comment with, "Keep because I say "nucular" too", but immediately followed with, "No, seriously ..." and made his "real" argument. LegoTech characterized this as an ILIKEIT comment, and the admin seized upon this word to characterize the entire discussion. The admin's comments have the appearance of gravitating toward the most inflammatory language without evaluating the merits. Second, the admin's statement that the "Delete" votes were "more grounded in policy" oversimplifies both the policy and the conversation. For example, "Delete" votes consistently cited WP:NOTDICDEF and its title, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". In contrast, "Keep" votes drilled down into the content of WP:NOTDICDEF to point out that the policy as a whole is not as simplistic as "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Among other things, WP:NOTDICDEF says, "Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible." If anything, the instructions in WP:NOTDICDEF advocate expansion, not deletion, of articles. As a side note, "Delete" arguments include the irrelevant claim that the article was biased when it originated (five years ago), and the incorrect claim that George W. Bush is singled out for individual criticism in this article (arguments made, by the way, by Colonel Warden, whom the admin specifies as making the most meritorious arguments for deletion). In fact, now that I see that the admin is specifically saying Colonel Warden's arguments are "more grounded in policy" than the "Keep" arguments, I'm a little concerned about the admin's impartiality. Third, the "Keep" comments did a thorough job pointing out the content already in the article that is encyclopedic. Nucular clearly meets WP:NOTDICDEF, notability, WP:V, and other criteria for inclusion. My personal favorite: Cosmic Latte saying to Colonel Warden: "Ironically, this source that you provided (via Google) just confirms what I've been saying all along: "Noo-kyuh-lur was the crime against English mentioned by the greatest number of respondents," it says. (!!!!) Thanks! We should add that to the article. This sort of expansion is the sort of thing that WP:NOT and WP:ATD have in mind." My point: Are the "Keep" arguments more complex than just citing titles? Yes. Does complexity and a more complete reading of Wikipedia policy make the "Keep" arguments invalid? Absolutely not. Fourth, the original discussion resulted in 13 "Keep" votes and 10 "delete" votes including the nominator's. I realize that numbers are not the sole determiner, but Wikipedia:Deletion_policy explicity recognizes consensus as one consideration: "If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." The admin's comment "since this is not a vote, the article is deleted" suggests, again, an oversimplified interpretation of Wikipedia policy. To back up his decision, it appears he's using false criteria to invalidate one side's arguments, and an authoritarian distortion of policy to override consensus. Fifth, every article in Wikipedia is evolving. Deletion decisions should consider an article's potential, not just its current state. Even if it were true that the article currently had no encyclopedic content (which, as pointed out, it already does), the deletion decision should partly consider whether it could in the future. In summary, this deletion decision appears to lack due diligence. It results from an oversimplified interpretation of Wikipedia policy and an incorrect characterization of the deletion discussion. Thirdbeach (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, deletion discussions should consider an article's potential, but at some point we have to say "this just isn't a topic appropriate to an encyclopedia." Seriously, is there any word in the English language for which we couldn't write an article containing information comparable to what was in Nucular? Powers ^T 01:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly, but that's not the question before us. Thirdbeach (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not directly, but if the answer to the question is "no", then WP:DICDEF means something very different from what it appears to, and that does indeed have an impact upon the decision made here. Powers ^T 01:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No matter what the answer to your question is, Nucular is in the process of being judged (hopefully) on its own merits, a discussion which is bigger than just WP:DICDEF, and certainly doesn't require (and wouldn't benefit from) a review of every word in the English language. It would be an injustice to this discussion and the many excellent points raised, to oversimplify and divert it into a single question about whether there are other words that are edge cases in one facet of one consideration. Thirdbeach (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Actually, there is no word in the English language for which we could make a comparable article, for the repeatedly-reiterated, completely sourced reason that this word "was the crime against English mentioned by the greatest number of respondents." ("Greatest" is a superlative. When it comes to superlatives, there's only one!) I'm baffled by the pro-deletion folks' unwillingness to challenge the relevance of this finding. The finding does not apply to any other word, and it certainly makes this "word" unique among mispronunciations. Again, what we have here is expansion beyond dicdef; again, what we have is a WP:ATD; and again--and most to the point in a deletion review--what we do not have, and never did have, was consensus to delete the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So what was the "greatest" crime against English before "nucular" was coined? And is there any guarantee it will always be the "greatest"? Powers ^T 12:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know what the previous "greatest crime against English" was before this poll was conducted. So what? I don't know what the results of any poll would have been, had it been conducted in the past, and I don't know what they'll be if the poll is conducted in the future. Well then, I guess we should ignore all research findings on the grounds that they haven't been discovered by time-travelers?! Come on. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. My point was that the finding you mention doesn't make the pronunciation "unique" because other pronunciations could have had a similar designation in the past and may in the future. That's all; nothing more. Powers ^T 13:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I am concerned that Powers' argument, which is compelling even though I disagree with it, is drifting towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (On a totally unrelated note, whoever had the idea of putting the image of the "nucular" explosion above to keep things WP:CIVIL around here...BRILLIANT! :) ) --Hnsampat (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps to some extent, although it's less "I don't like it" and more "I don't think this is an encyclopedic topic." A fine distinction? Perhaps, but I think it's a valid one. Powers ^T 12:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn~~ Endorse deletion Easy mistake to make. This word has a place in our lexicon and the information contained in nucular could be worth keeping, or at least be merged into nucular as a subtopic. The material is worth saving and wiktionary is insufficient. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with this comment. A useful measuring stick for me is "if I saw full article on Wikitionary, would I believe it's the right place?" And the answer would be no. [95] is objectively what it should have, to the extent of what I understand about Wikitionary. Since notability was established and value was generally seen in the material existent, and a delete decision basically translates into "transwiki", then the (valid) discussion was weather this was encyclopedic or dictionaric (I know that's not a word). The question at hand is: which of these did the discussion yield? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Exactly. WP:NAD was thrown around a lot in the AfD, perhaps because the article contained the word "dictionary" or perhaps because the unusual spelling focused people in on the "word" per se. But the sources provided, both in the article and in the AfD, suggested that the article can be expanded to (or was even already at) a length and depth beyond that which would be appropriate for Wiktionary. In any case, there was never anything even remotely close to consensus that A) the article failed WP:NAD, or B) the article failed WP:ATD, especially in light of the sources provided. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand what you're saying, but there's no requirement that Wiktionary articles be short and brief. There is no length or depth that is inappropriate for Wiktionary. Lots of dictionaries include extensive usage notes, etymology, and history. Wiktionary, as a not-paper dictionary, is especially well-suited to such things. That's why WP:DICDEF doesn't say "well if it gets too long, you can leave it here in Wikipedia." The distinguishing characteristic is not the quantity or comprehensiveness of the information, but the nature of the topics themselves. Powers ^T 12:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: A fair point. And I don't know Wiktionary policy, but...sticking with local policy, because WP:NAD doesn't specify in any absolute sense where the fine line between dictionary and encyclopedia must be drawn, then it might be good to think in relativistic terms about articles that seem to straddle the line. Was the WP Nucular article significantly longer than the average dictionary/Wiktionary entry? Well, yes, it was. Did it cite significantly more varied and independent sources than the average dicdef? Again, absolutely. We could get into all sorts of philosophical debate about what constitutes a given category, such as "dictionary definition" or "encyclopedia article" (family resemblance, anyone?); but when the distinctions get this fuzzy, and when the interpretation of policy gets this outrageous, it might be best to look for a more expedient solution. And such a solution, I believe, exists in the sort of inclusionism inherent in WP:ATD. In short, did the article violate WP:NAD? Well, three answers come to mind. First, I, personally, don't think so. Second--more objectively speaking--maybe, maybe not. Third, and most importantly for current purposes, there was no WP:CONSENSUS either way. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, correctly belongs at Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On what grounds? Or, more to the point, on which grounds explicitly discussed in the AfD? Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What LegoTech said there. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ooo, I just hate it when incorrect information takes on a life of its own through repetition. So, for the record, LegoTech's comment, in total, was, "delete the "this is how I say it too" !votes are little more than WP:ILIKEIT It's a dicdef with refs. Wiktionary has entries that are detailed and contain references as well, this doesn't need to be here." As pointed out before, LegoTech's first sentence represents a complete misreading/mischaracterization of Ten Pound Hammer's comment. LegoTech's second sentence has been robustly and repeatedly refuted throughout the subsequent discussion. Thirdbeach (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- clear WP:CONSENSUS to keep. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. I've been agonizing over this case since yesterday, trying to decide what should happen here. I think, now, that fact itself is indicative that there really was no consensus one way or another what to do with this article. Shereth 15:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. There was ample argumentation from the "keep"ers that the article was far more than a dicdef. wikt:Tanswiki:Nucular has no hope of being kept at Wiktionary for precisely that reason: it's an encyclopedia entry, not a dicdef, and so has no business in a dictionary. —An gr 16:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Special:Contributions/Kafziel indicates that the admin spent at most 10 minutes reviewing nucular and the AfD, and arriving at the delete decision. Most of his AfD reviews that day took 1 or 2 minutes, but I don't think even 10 minutes constitutes due diligence given the length and depth of the commentary. I'm also troubled by the admin's 13 subsequent "contributions" removing wikilinks in other articles to nucular. Smacks to me of 1984 Ministry of Truth-style rewriting of history, especially since his "close" comment clearly anticipated that it would be appealed. Thirdbeach (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, spare me. Is there ever a deletion review where someone doesn't mention Big Brother? And what does it even mean? Did the Ministry of Truth make close comments that anticipated an appeal? Give it a rest.

I deleted the redirects because that's what you're supposed to do to unused redirects. I deleted the links because most of them were "see also" links, which should not be red. It was housekeeping to clean up after the mess I made by deleting it. If I hadn't done that stuff, someone would have complained about that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, neither of the other appeals on this page mention Big Brother .... My point is that a lot of people put a lot of time into Wikipedia. An admin who acts too hastily does harm to Wikipedia and undoes a lot of work by a lot of contributors. The wikilinks you removed should have been your second indicator that nucular was more than just a word (your first should have been an impartial and careful reading of the article and AfD). Thirdbeach (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment "Smacks to me of 1984 Ministry of Truth-style rewriting of history" is pretty blatantly meant to evoke the image of Big Brother. Second, the wikilinks are not an indication that this is "more than just a word," as there are often pages wikilinked that don't need to be. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Kafziel's question was immediately beneath and in response to mine, it was clear that he was responding directly to my 1984 comment. There's no question my words evoked Big Brother and indeed that's part of Kafziel's point. The other part -- the part I disagreed with -- is the implication that every deletion review invokes Big Brother. That assertion is not supported even by the other deletion reviews on this page (TronixCountry above, and Image:The Family of Blood.jpg below, the discussion of Nucular). In terms of "pages wikilinked that don't need to be", I don't doubt that's true, but the sheer quantity of links and brief time over which they were removed (13 links in 12 minutes) doesn't suggest that there was much care given, and given that the admin's deletion comments clearly anticipated appeal, doesn't show great judgment. I'm happy to back off the Big Brother language, but still have concerns that the admin's actions throughout have indicated a lack of due diligence, a tendency to oversimplify policy and the discussion, and raise doubts about impartiality. Thirdbeach (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Wikilinks don't make an article notable. They don't even hint at an article's notability. If I had a nickel for every garage band, spammer, and wannabe that showed up, created an article, and then added Wikilinks to it in other articles (usually in "See also" sections, as this was) I'd be a very rich man. But aside from that, notability was not at issue here anyway.

I spent more than enough time reviewing it. I'm not sure how long it takes most people to read two web pages, but I don't need to sound out the big words so it goes by pretty quickly for me. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I favor overturning the AfD, I believe that Kafziel was acting in good faith. Thirdbeach, I think you need to WP:AGF. --Hnsampat (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by closing admin - For what it's worth, I've uploaded an annotated AFD screenprint to point out how my decision was made. It's not subject to debate - I think I've said all that needs to be said at this point and I won't be commenting further at this DRV - but if you're interested, it's here. I'm going back to writing the encyclopedia. Love and kisses, Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I certainly appreciate the effort, and I don't doubt that you put considerable thought into the decision. Still, I don't see how the highlighted points demonstrate any misconstrual of policy or guidelines. The "ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT" points (yellow) are not, admittedly, the strongest statements in the AfD. But they were never meant to be. We weren't saying, "Keep, because it's well-written and, besides, my brother says 'nucular' too." The yellow-highlighted sentiments are simply the byproducts of human beings expressing their views with minimal revision. On to the "notable vs. non-notable" arguments (green). The fact that a page is a guideline rather than a policy shouldn't amount to it being "not considered"; rather, it should be considered to the fullest extent possible, unless a policy overrides a specific instance of it. So, on to the policy-related points we go. As for the "more than a DICDEF" arguments--these were some of the strongest "Keep" arguments, but they were "not considered because 'nucular' is not a word." I fail to see the reasoning here. If dicdefs are about words, and if nucular is not a word, then Nucular was not a dicdef--so why bother invoking WP:NAD at all? If it wasn't a dicdef, then what was it? Patent nonsense? Vandalism? Clearly not, as there was consensus that it met that little guideline called WP:N, and there's no evidence that any of the article was created in bad faith. Then again, are dicdefs strictly about words? I've seen plenty of dictionary entries that don't jive with my intuitive sense of what a "word" is. And that brings up the question of what a "word" really is, anyway. Who decides when a little group of phonemes suddenly qualifies as a "word"? Regardless, the nature of words is not brought up in WP:NAD, and it most certainly wasn't brought up in the AfD. Maybe we should have said that the article is more than a dictionary-esque definition. Whatever. The point is that there is neither solid evidence nor consensus that the article violated WP:NAD, and there was a formidable case that the article is encyclopedic, regardless of what sense in which it may or may not be "dictionaric." Now, the "only a mispronunciation/dicdef" arguments (in the fourth colour..."strawberry milk," shall we say?). Once again, it's clear that WP:NAD was thrown around a lot in the AfD. What's not clear--and what's downright opaque in light of what I just said about the pink-highlighted comments--is just how the article qualified as a dicdef in the first place. Still, I see neither evidence nor consensus that it did. Finally, as for the "Pokemon arguments"...WP:Pokémon test is not policy. It's not even a guideline. It's an essay. I'd be the first to point out a bona fide argumentum ad populum, but I was pointing to the fact that articles comparable to Nucular were, not simply large-scale WP:ILIKEITs, but rather survivors of prior AfD discussions. In other words, comparable WP:CONSENSUS had been reached before! It wasn't reached with regard to Nucular, but it would seem wholly reasonable tentatively to retain the article per that prior, comparable consensus, even if WP:ATD didn't already encourage inclusionism in these instances. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The screenshot appears to illustrate that the delete decision was based on overgeneralizing fragments of comments, shoe-horning those overgeneralizations into categories they don't necessarily fit, and dismissing the entire comment if any part of it could be overgeneralized. It appears to me to be as strong an argument as any other we have, to overturn the deletion. Thirdbeach (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Many of the comments above show that the policy WP:DICTIONARY is not comprehended by the objectors. The test is not the length of the entry but its nature. If the article concerns a topic then it belongs here but if it concerns a word then it belongs in Wiktionary. Wiktionary makes it clear that it aims to provide comprehensive coverage of words like this: "We aim to include not only the definition of a word, but also enough information to really understand it. Thus etymologies, pronunciations, sample quotations, synonyms, antonyms and translations are included.". It is not sensible for the projects to duplicate each other's work and this segregation is well-establihsed by policy here. The closer seems to understand this line of policy-based argument better than the objectors and so his judgement was reasonable. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "[D]uplicate each other's work"? How much of the article was devoted to definition, pronounciation, translations and so forth? The intent of WP:DICT has always been to increase project focus by decreasing redundancy with other information sources, not to arbitrarily exclude articles because they have one-word titles. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one's suggesting that; the thing is, there was nothing of importance in this article that wouldn't fit just fine at Wiktionary. Having identical articles in both places makes no sense. Powers ^T 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only content that could be transwikied is a modified/reformatted version of the two sentences in the lead, and a highly abridged version of the lexical commentary; the rest would have to go. You may not consider the rest of the content important, but of course that's not how inclusion is decided... I don't really consider it important myself, nor do I consider Teletubbies important. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In lieu of all my rambling, I suppose that I could've simply pointed to comments, like the one above, from xDanielx. Well-said. And consistent, I think, with my own view (quite contrary to accusations of WP:ILIKEIT) that, although "nucular" might not be of earth-shattering importance, it is still encyclopedic enough to merit inclusion in a "compendium of knowledge," especially of a digital nature. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, virtually the entire article was perfectly suited for Wiktionary, given some formatting changes. The actual content, though, is precisely within Wiktionary's scope. I'm amazed that you don't think a discussion of the usage and history of the word is suitable for a dictionary. Powers ^T 13:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm WP:AGF-ing to the best of my ability here, but I can't help but wonder if there is some WP:POINT that User:Colonel Warden is trying to make. For one thing, it is obvious that Nucular included far more than "etymologies, pronunciations, sample quotations, synonyms, antonyms and translations." It included scholarly debate and, as has been reiterated about a thousand times, it can include the results of at least one poll that showed "nucular" to be the highest-ranked "crime against English." Now here's the real kicker. User:Colonel Warden created the articles Singe and Eyesore, both of which are, by far, considerably less informative and more dictionary-like than Nucular was. So why create those articles, and allow them to remain in their current form, even while supporting deletion of Nucular? I don't know. But I find it awfully interesting that User:Colonel Warden's initial objection on the AfD was that the article seemed to be some subtle attack on George Bush; that he ambitiously packed two policies (WP:SOAP and WP:ATTACK) and an essay (WP:COATRACK) into some rhetorical snowball to throw at the Keepers; and that, only two days later, apparently upon realizing that this snowball failed to hit the WP:CONSENSUS mark, did he mention WP:DICT. Again, I'm really AGF-ing as much as possible, and I'm sure that User:Colonel Warden is a fine human being. But something was seriously screwy in that AfD; consensus was never reached, policies were not misconstrued by Keepers, and the deletion was entirely unwarranted. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't bring up WP:POINT unless you really mean to imply that someone is disrupting Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with simply making a point; that page says "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point." Powers ^T 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I meant to bring up WP:POINT, and might as well have brought up WP:WL too, because it seems to me that policies are being referenced here in haphazard, selective, and otherwise questionable ways. True, POINT and WL are considerably more accusatory than I'm being. That's why I made sure to emphasize that I'm assuming good faith. It's my nature to assume good faith unelss I have an obvious reason not to do so; I don't expect anyone to be perfect, and I'd hope that people would AGF with me when I mess up. But, although I'm not trying to assign undue blame or to assume any negative intentions, I do find the contradiction-rich bombardment with policies/guidelines/essays to be counterproductive--even disruptive, one might say--to the consensus-building process. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for Singe and Eyesore, both appear to me to be about the concepts the words describe, rather than about the words themselves. Neither one talks about the development of the word, or its pronunciation, or its part of speech, or its usage by famous people. The "eyesore" article would work just as well at unpleasant view or ugly sight, while the "singe" article would work just as well at slight scorch or superficial burn. The Nucular article, on the other hand, would have completely different content if it was at a different title, because it's about the "word" itself. Powers ^T 01:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: This "the-word-itself" vs. "the-concept" dichotomy appears to be ~~the invention of the AfD disccuants for this article~~ a false one. WP:NAD and WP:NOT ~~make no claim whatsoever that a word is not encyclopedic if it simply happens to be understocked in the semantics department~~ provide us with some family resemblances for dictionaries and encyclopedias, and they do not assert that the categories are mutually exclusive. Indeed, WP:NOT admits that they are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why a heavily lexical encyclopedia entry and a heavily cultural dictionary entry cannot overlap to a reasonable extent on some fundamental content. WP:NOT does, ~~however~~ once again, state that, "in some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness"--a line that was cited in the AfD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the key principle here comes from WP:NAD which makes the point in exhaustive detail at WP:NAD#The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles. If you consult that table, it is quite clear that Nucular belongs in the Wiktionary column because it is about the actual words or idioms in their title, variant spelling, usage and etymology while it has no content about nuclear science, weapons, power or the like. It could hardly be clearer. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in implying that my previous comment conflicted with WP:NAD, and I've ~~struck~~ revised it ~~through~~ accordingly. Still (and this is a point that should probably be implied just as well in WP:NAD itself as it already is in WP:NOT's summary of WP:NAD), I think that the solidity of the line between the Wikipedia and Wiktionary columns on that page is more a matter of HTML convention than of WP policy. In other words, the boundary gets fuzzy. And I still think that Nucular is happily diffusing back and forth across that fuzzy membrane. (I am not the first person to observe the problems with trying to dichotomize dictionaries and encyclopedias as if their aims and natures were entirely distinct.) And still, I think Nucular is largely consistent with the WP:NAD criterion that "articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote." As for people, we have three U.S. presidents, several academics, and even a polled sample of the public. Concepts? We've got metathesis and all of the other technical terms that were mentioned in the AfD. Well, okay, these are still lexical concepts, but Geoffrey Nunberg offers anecdotal evidence that "nucular" does denote "nuclear," as in "nuclear warfare," but not as in "nuclear family." Perhaps a more transparently encyclopedic article could be made about Nunberg's book, or about "thinkos" (Nunberg's term for a thought typo), and the old content of the Nucular article could be merged with it. But first, we'd need to figure out which article along these lines could be independently and reliably sourced. But in the mean time, the article topic definitely denotes enough people and ideas and cultural sentiments that, however suited for Wiktionary it might be, it is also suited, to some non-negligible degree, for Wikipedia. So, although I think your point here was entirely reasonable, Colonel Warden, I still come back to where I first began: There was no unequivocal misconstrual of policy by Keepers in the AfD, and there was no consensus either way in the AfD. Because it is the AfD we are reviewing here, I still maintain that deletion was unwarranted (or at least wholly premature, in the event that there's a good potential article into which the bulk of Nucular's content could be merged), and that Overturn is the best vote here, given what we had there. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what "denote" means in that context. The article Octopus is about the eight-armed mollusk; the article is about the animal which the title "Octopus" denotes. This article was about "Nucular", not about the concept(s) that "Nucular" denotes (that being the same as the concept(s) that Nuclear denotes). And I'm still interested in why you chose two articles that are clearly not about words to compare to this one. Powers ^T 13:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was drawing from both WP:NAD, which implies "denote" in the way you mention, and WP:NOT, whose summary of WP:NAD explains that words/numbers of extra cultural significance may qualify as encyclopedic. Perhaps I treated the article and summary in a more unified way than that in which they're currently presented (which might be an interesting issue to bring up on the policy talk pages, if there really is a meaningful contradiction between WP:NAD and the WP:NOT summary of it); but in the sense that WP:NAD clearly uses "denote," it's quite possible to cite Nunberg in opening the article with something to the effect of "Nucular is a common mispronunciation of 'nuclear,' but may denote 'nuclear' only in reference to nuclear weaponry and not in reference to other uses of the word, such as 'nuclear family.'" I agree that the content might jive a bit better with WP:NAD if it were merged into a more transparently "conceptual" article, such as one about Nunberg's book or about his concept of "thinkos"--the actual article name would depend on which concepts, if any, encompass "nucular" and meet other WP inclusion criteria. In any event, there are certainly ways to tag the article for improvement. But wait, why are we going on about this here? This should be a talk page discussion on the restored article, because this review is of the AfD itself, and the AfD produced zero consensus. Anyway, in the earlier entry I chose those two articles for comparison because, as of now, they tell us little more than what a dictionary might tell us about the concepts, and I was a bit perplexed by what appeared to be the haphazard use of WP:NAD here, which could have been used in an equally haphazard way on those two articles. But, as I mention above, Colonel Warden has a good point in his comparison between specific cells in the WP:NAD columns--although I still think that nucular straddles a fuzzy boundary between the concepts. And, most importantly here, it left us with "fuzzy" consensus in the AfD. So, once again, this should be a talk page discussion about how to improve/merge the article. Passionate and thoughtful arguments from both sides failed to reach consensus in the AfD--the end. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, I just found another article which, like epenthesis, covers the issue of nucular. It is List of words of disputed pronunciation. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as "no consensus". --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I understand the rationale for its deletion, the phrase from the deleting admin "It's not subject to debate" smacks of arrogance. It certainly is subject to debate. If your reason, or any other admin, is out of line, this can be one venue for remediation. I see no reason that this article couldn't be moved to wiktionary, but the problem of its usage goes beyond the general scope of wiktionary, IMHO. I can see both sides on this and neither side is "right" or "wrong". Either solution is fine as long as the information is retained somewhere in the wiki-project, but that can't be accomplished by anyone outside of an admin until it is undeleted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was already transwikied to wikt:Transwiki:Nucular; no undeletion is necessary for that purpose. Powers ^T 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the information was not available to do so, then it would be needed. As it is already there, it doesn't need to be here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wearing my Wiktionarian hat, I have nominated wikt:Transwiki:Nucular for deletion at Wiktionary because it is an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary entry. Wiktionary already has an entry for nucular, but encyclopedia articles don't belong there. —Angr 11:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Isn't that what the Transwiki namespace is for, though? For stuff from other wikis that needs to be wiktionarified? Regardless, I notice you reverted your addition of the deletion discussion to the main deletion page but not the deletion notice on the article; you may want to fix one or the other. Powers ^T 13:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There's nothing dictionary-worthy in the Transwiki: article that isn't already at wikt:nucular. The rest of the content is encyclopedic and has no place at Wiktionary. I reverted my addition to the main deletion page because it belongs at wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (the main deletion page is for main namespace only, /Others is for other namespaces). —An gr 13:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Not just a mispronounced word, but a culturally significant one. Articles about words, like this one, should only be exiled to wiktionary if wiktionary is willing to cover them in as much detail. Every entry I've seen on wiktionary is pretty bare-bones. Wkdewey (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why we should keep articles outside of our scope just because wiktionary is incomplete. Powers ^T 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're not. We're keeping an article that is within our scope and outside Wiktionary's. Colonel Warden writes above, "If the article concerns a topic then it belongs here but if it concerns a word then it belongs in Wiktionary." However, this is a false dichotomy, as a word itself can also be a topic of encyclopedic interest. It is not Wiktionary's job to discuss the cultural impact of a word's pronunciation; it's Wikipedia's job. —Angr 06:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "False dichotomy" is a great way to describe it, Angr. In that vein, I'd like to respond to Colonel Warden's statement earlier in the discussion, regarding WP:DICTIONARY, that "The closer seems to understand this line of policy-based argument better than the objectors". I'd caution against the confident assumption that having a different interpretation from one's self constitutes a worse interpretation. As others have said so well, the criteria for Wikipedia vs. Wiktionary have significant overlap, the boundaries are fluid, and in this case, "both/and" is a more appropriate paradigm than "either/or".Thirdbeach (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:The Family of Blood.jpg – Deletion endorsed – Shereth 18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was no consensus to delete. The closer incorrectly stated that "the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." and incorrectly dismissed opinions to the contraray as original research (!) Jenny 05:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by original review nominator: I myself have withdrawn from this discussion because I don't think it's in the interests of Wikipedia. In principle I'm in favor of a more aggressive application of the non-free images policy and don't regard the loss of material to which we have no intrinsic rights to be a great one, whereas the shift of emphasis to free content is in line with our aims. --Jenny 09:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The image is a depiction of the episode the article in question discusses, and therefore is significant in that way. I didn't see a consensus otherwise, either. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An episode will have tens of thousands of individual images in it. Why is this one image significant and who says it is? -Nv8200p talk 04:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~ per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 3#Image:Last of the Time Lords.jpg. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The linked review resulted in an endorsement of the deletion; how does that support your "Overturn" recommendation? Powers ^T 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note discussion at WP:AN#This I cannot believe. I do think Sceptre could be more clear about his specific reasoning for this case; is he making the same argument as he did there or relying on someone else's opinion there? GRBerry 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was supposed to be the former. However, re-reading the IFD (I didn't see Fut.Perf as I was browsing the non-indented bullet points), I'm going to go for endorse deletion but remove the reason - the outcome was correct, but the closing admin has had three DRVs against him for using his boilerplate close reasoning. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The same mistake was made on all three images, why wouldn't I use the same reasoning for close? -Nv8200p talk 04:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn incorrect interpretation of consensus and/or non-free usage policy. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold statement but no discussion to back it up. I could just as easily say perfectly correct interpretation of consensus and/or non-free usage policy. -Nv8200p talk 04:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn NFCC is policy, and the community decides how to interpret it. The closer used his own reasoning, more strict than the general consensus. The community cannot overturn the foundation policy, but it certainly can decide within its limits what should be acceptable. DGG (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, if you go by strictly by head count, which we don't, but if we did, the decision was this image was not acceptable. -Nv8200p talk 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. RegenerateThis (talk · contribs) argues for overturning the deletion as it went against consensus, but by my evil counting, I find four arguments to delete and two to keep. Not an overwhelming number of participants, but 2:1 nonetheless. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only three arguments to delete. The fourth "Delete" recommendation isn't an argument, it's a concurrency. Powers ^T 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you saying BQZip01 (talk · contribs)'s input is discounted because he made an identical argument (and ergo, had the same to say) as another editor? Does he need to have specifically repeated the same for his words to have constituted legitimate, constructive input? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I'm saying "I agree with her" isn't an argument, it's a concurrency. See the discussion immediately above this one, where Kafziel says "... if 100 people endorse it, it's still just one argument. If that one argument is invalid, 100 people who chose to endorse it have basically said nothing at all." Powers ^T 12:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (no problem with relisting to getting a larger consensus one way or the other)
(FULL DISCLOSURE: I WAS CONTACTED BY THOR WITH REGARDS TO THIS DISCUSSION SINCE I WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL PARTIES TO THE DELETION)

Uh, respectfully, anyone's opinion is just as valid as the next person's. I don't need to copy verbatim an argument if someone else has so eloquently already stated what I believe. Concurrence is still a support !vote for whatever position a person takes. It only makes the counter argument simpler as the person can kill two birds with one stone if someone is in error.

This image didn't seem to add anything to the article and as it was copyrighted, it needed to go. That's my opinion, but perhaps more clear guidelines could be written to help clarify this. Why don't we see where this discussion leads and then go make some changes to make things clearer! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn. The application of WP:OR is plainly inappropriate; original research applies no more to the keep rationales in the IfD than to the closure, or this DRV, or just about any other discussion. There's a tendency to confuse original research with discretionary judgement in general (which is inherent to any editorial decision); this closure exemplifies that mismatching quite plainly. Weak overturn because there wasn't a clear consensus in either direction, with some reasonable points on either side. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Needs more discussion. As Daniel pointed out, both sides had decent points, and WP:OR isn't relevant to editorial decisions. Powers ^T 12:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IFD is not an editorial decision, it is a janitorial action based on policy and consensus. Consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments. I am going to be swayed by arguments that are linked to relevant policy, laws, precedents, court decisions, etc. then I am arguments presenting the User's original thought. -Nv8200p talk 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the difference between the "keeps" and the "deletes" in that respect. Both sets of arguments referenced relevant policy (although only the "deletes" actually linked them; surely that isn't your criterion?), and both sets were based on the opinions of the authors (namely, "this contributes significantly"/"this doesn't contribute significantly"). No one referenced laws, precedents, or court decisions. So what was the operative difference you saw? Powers ^T 13:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC 8 states use of a non-free image must significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Those arguing to keep the image need to provide some objective information that this is so. All that was provided was personal opinion. Without any supported critical commentary specific to the image, the standing community consensus embodied in the non-free content criteria has to be enforced. -Nv8200p talk 17:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why must the keeps provide that information, but the deletes don't? Powers ^T 02:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason a fair use rationale has to be provided for non-free images. Justification for going against Wikipedia policy has to be provided by those wanting to use the image. -Nv8200p talk 15:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I simply disagree with your interpretation of the policy requirements in this case. Powers ^T 02:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the assessment of whether the image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" is entirely an editorial decision, to be taken on the strength of the arguments and rationales presented. If there are elements of this image which support material in the article -- viz. the presentation of the aliens' personas, the realisation of their scarecrow-like hench-creatures, and the general sense of sinisterness and creepiness brought to the episode as a whole -- then those elements, and the value to the reader of illustrating them, must be assessed; whether or not any external source has singled out this image as exhibiting them. If you disagree, please join the policy discussion at WT:NFC. Jheald (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion (from closing admin). Sorry I'm late to the party but the nominator did not follow DRV process and inform the administrator who deleted the page of the deletion review. WP:NFCC#8 is a valid reason for deletion as it is a policy that embodies Foundation guidance and a community consensus. There were no valid arguments presented that the image contributed significantly to the understanding of the article. Jenny argues that "The use of "horror film" lighting for such scenes is characteristic of this series, as is the employment of skilled actors and makeup technicians who can portray the dark themes of this story well" and "I'm referring above to the cinematography (in the broadest sense) of the episode, which is really rather unique and very good." Who says so? Jenny says so and that is all. There is no professional critic or film history expert cited to support these grand claims. Wolf of Fenric made similar unsupported POV statements. -Nv8200p talk 04:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that I didn't inform you (which would have been a polite thing to do--and I apologise). I don't think it would be grounds to strike the review, but that's a policy matter and (as I say above) I have withdrawn from participation in the review. --Jenny 13:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is courtesy and convention to notify the admin of the nomination. It isn't "grounds to strike the review" but it could certainly provoke the closing admin to endorse deletion. It seems that his (her?) major point was more the interpretation of NFCC 8 rather than the notification trouble, but I could be putting words in the admin's mouth. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, the deletion was within consensus. As to the closer's rationale, that is a different matter. Whether or not the image fails WP:NFCC#8 is purely down to one's interpretation of said criterion. The closer should not attempt to impose their interpretation, of this ridiculously vague policy, on the IfD discussion. RMHED (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Image violated policy; IFD closure didn't. —An gr 06:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion It's hard to overcome seraphimblade's succinct argument - "I see no discussion of this image or its elements in the article. It is a pretty for the infobox, and that does not pass the nonfree content requirements. If there is sourced commentary regarding this specific scene, an image illustrating it may be appropriate." NFCC8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." It's not about a Wikipedian's personal opinion of whether the image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. If a valid source mentioned or even used the image in connection with their discussion of "The Family of Blood" topic, that would be evidence of a third party opinion that the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. The keep reasoning only included Wikipedian's personal opinions ("importance of the image presented is strictly opinion or original research"), not reliable source evidence of understanding increase. GregManninLB (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The test of whether or not an image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic is an editorial judgement. Such an editorial judgement must weigh the arguments and rationales presented, whether or not they cite any external commentary specifically on this image. It cannot simply dismiss them. An image may well be able to help readers' understanding of elements of the article, whether or not a valid external source has ever mentioned or used the image. If you disagree, please join the policy discussion at WT:NFC. Jheald (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. While the wording of the closing admin's deletion decision ("The importance of the image presented is strictly opinion or original research") is less than satisfactory (of course, editorial decisions about what is "important" are by necessity a matter of opinion, and are not subject to NOR), the debate as such had formed a sufficient consensus for deletion: 4:2 votes, the deletion arguments clearly based in policy and in line with multiple precedent on IfD, demonstrating that the stringent interpretation of NFCC#8 as expressed in, e.g., Seraphimblade's vote is in fact valid project-wide consensus; no legitimate closure could have led to a different result here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the image does improve the reader's understanding of elements discussed in the article -- viz. illustrating the presentation of the aliens' personas, and the realisation of their scarecrow-like hench-creatures. Since Seraphimblade's comment does not take that into account, it must be ignored. Jheald (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-list. This image was the article's only visual reference for a television episode up for the Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form Hugo Award. An image which illustrates the two most prominent alien characters, and the realisation of their scarecrow-like hench-creatures. And which rather well captures the sense of sinisterness and creepiness they brought to the roles, and to the episode as a whole. Removing the image clearly impoverishes the understanding of the topic we bring to readers. Jheald (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The quality of the episode has nothing to do with the justification for the image. Neither has the prominence of the characters in it. As to the discussion of its function in the article (which really doesn't belong here, but since you started it – ) "captures the sense of sinisterness and creepiness they brought to the role"? I can assure you, it does no such thing. It may remind you, as somebody who presumably has watched the episode, of the creepiness you maybe experienced when watching it, but to me who hasn't watched it, it transports nothing. I see two average people in funny clothes making rather silly grimaces, with a guy in a misplaced Halloween costume standing between them, and lit by the most hackneyed of stereotypical cheap-horror-movie-lights from the back. If the creepiness and sinisterness supposedly characteristic of this scene is something representative and noteworthy about the whole episode, by all means, explain it. Analyse it. If there's anything notable to be said about it and you can have a well-integrated, sourced paragraph about these things in the text, then by all means, put the image in to support the analysis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But even your determined-to-be-unimpressed comment reveals that your understanding of the episode has been improved by seeing the image. Sure, your assessment of the scarecrows is that they look like "misplaced Halloween costumes", of the two aliens is that they look like "people in funny clothes making rather silly grimaces", and that the expressionistic lighting is "the most hackneyed of stereotypical cheap-horror-movie-lights". But at least you can now make that assessment (which wouldn't be my assessment): you now have the datum to do so. But without the image, a typical reader now has not got that datum, and cannot assess whether they agree with you or not. Jheald (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except that this impression of mine is irrelevant because it is only based on this one image. It isn't my assessment of the episode. I don't take for granted that the image is representative of what I would have seen had I watched the episode. I don't doubt that the episode may have been great. It's just that the image fails to transport that, without analytical text explaining what it's supposed to transport. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nevertheless, the question is whether your understanding of the episode is better than it otherwise would have been. And it is, because you now have some idea of the realisation of the scarecrow creatures, the alien personas, and the lighting effects used. Jheald (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not enough, as long as the article doesn't reliably tell me why those particular things are important and notable. Otherwise it's a slippery slope thing. We can't put the bar this low. Because that would be essentially incompatible with the minimality-of-use criterion imposed by the foundation and overarching consensus about the project's mission. If this (marginal) amount of usefulness was sufficient, we could then by the same argument justify a hundred images or more for each article. Each of them would help me understand something. But that's clearly out of the question. Therefore, we must tighten our understanding of #8 to such a level where it really only allows some few images that are exceptionally useful. And I still maintain, the only way to demonstrate that special degree of usefulness is through it being handled in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see any consensus at WT:NFC that non-free images impact the project's mission. Such rhetoric is hotly pushed by some (a vociferous few?), but seems equally to be broadly disputed. Personally, I think it's misguided. If anything, removing images takes us further away from the Foundation's vision of people being able to share in knowledge. Sure, our legitimate use of non-free material is not something that makes Wikipedia distinctive, so it's not core to our mission; but it's not something that takes away from it either. (As argued here) As for "minimal use", that is simply something inherited from U.S. fair-use law. We're not trying to push the legal envelope. Our use must be no more than justified to achieve the purposes identified. But use of an image like this, for the purposes described, is well within U.S. legal fair-use norms. The rationale for our policy is that any image must be legal; it must be useful; and it must in no way inhibit any possible alternative free images. This image passes on all three counts. Jheald (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Plus, note that NFCC #8 does not require images to be "exceptionally" useful, whatever you might personally want it to say. It requires them to be "significantly" useful. Again, I submit that showing how the "monsters" in a DW episode have been realised is significantly useful. Jheald (talk) 18:23, 15 July 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 July 2008

Draugiem.lv – Apparantly we already discussed this. There is no reason that a sourced article cannot be introduced into article space and the location is not protected. All the user needs to do is write a new article based on sources. The old page can be userfied at their request. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reasons given for the original deletion has no basis, the reason being a claim that the article is an advertisement (or rather, the claim that it is an advertisement has just as much force as a claim that it is not advertisement, i.e., none, if you really like Law), however the subject of the article is the most visited site in Latvia (NE Europe). Also I would like to point out that I nominate the article for undeletion not for eligibility to write it anew, that is, to say, I'm not planning to write it completely from scratch, I think it was fine, although I haven't seen it since it's always being deleted, if it really has no references I can add a sentence about popularity and a link to alexa.com rankings. Lysis rationale (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Lysis rationale (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My, we don't often get old VFD discussions anymore. Since the VFD was unanimous, and the article at the time truly terrible, obviously endorse that close. The February 2007 version was somewhat better, but still speedy deletable - though I'd have chosen A7 over G4. It has been more than a year since then, so you ought to be able to write a new article making the claim made above. However, alexa.com rankings aren't really relevant. What we really want is for you to use reliable sources that are independent of the site for the new article, and to reference them. So, endorse deletions, encourage a new article. GRBerry 15:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be a problem getting a copy of the article in your userspace to work on (say, at User:Lysis rationale/Draugiem.lv), if you want that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No !vote here, but this was discussed already on May 10th. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the exact same userfication advice was given. And ignored. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:32, 10 July 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 cult of psychedelic murder – Speedy deletion endorsed. No prejudice against recreation if appropriate sources can be provided. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good evening, morning or afternoon - wherever you may be.. I have come to contest a deletion (as you may have guessed). pardon the lack of punctuation but it is past 2am for me and I have never joined wikipedia until tonight, let alone made a deletion review request.

i received an email a few hours ago asking for my help. it was from somebody who was making a page for a band that happen to be a part of my record label - California group "The Cult of Psychedelic Murder". Having read through the notability guidlines I began to create my comment on the talk page, however - before I could complete my comment the page had been deleted. unsure what to do i followed a few links and found 'deletion review'. So below this line I'm going to paste in what would have been my case on the article's 'talk' page, following the initial discussion (for context) - my comment is the very last:

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Scary dragon atop the hill (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scary dragon atop the hill (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)==New Album in 2009== from what i hear the band has takin a break and is not working on any other projects....[reply]

Can you prove that the band is notable? So far, it doesn't seem like they meet the guidelines for WP:MUSIC. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok well, this band may not be a major main stream act. but they still are a musical group with 2 albums released through green leaf records. i happen to see this group live before as well. in fresno califorina. and this happens to be a real 2 man band. after there last album battle of the harvest im not sure if they are working on any new stuff until 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scary dragon atop the hill (talk • contribs) 22:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is link has more info on the group [96] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scary dragon atop the hill (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the group is real, but I doubt that they are notable enough to qualify for a wikipedia page. A google search only brings up 73 hits. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you have a point on the google search, let me remind you how i found out about this band. they mainly release there musical free via soulseek. bit torrent. i found alot of there music being traded. i made this page not because im a fan, but because their works should be noticed.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place to promote a non-notable entity. For more information, check out WP:SOAPS. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who says this band is not notable? it sounds like that is your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scary dragon atop the hill (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a fairly standard means of determining notability can be found at WP:BAND. Please try not to get so defensive, I'm just trying to help. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you are not a fan or have never heard of this band does not mean you should delete it. yes, this group is underground, and the reason for the is in all the words if you listen to battle of the harvest. as far as i know alot of people listen to this group. battle of the harvest was released in a CD form in Califorina in most smoke shops. there is actually a strong following in the "real world" compared to the world wide web. i strongly feel this article should stay. Scary dragon atop the hill (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Understand that, but if there isn't any substantive content to prove the band's notability, then they do not belong on Wikipedia. Again, please stop being so defensive. The guidelines for deletion and notability can be found on WP:BAND if you have any more questions. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think this really comes down to semantics and what you define as 'notable' - media attention or actual public awareness?

From Wikipedia's notability guide:

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

Well this is true so far. My own site (certainly an independent source, we're on a different continent) has published numerous records, lyrics and images from the band in question. In fact they gave me some more tracks tonight, so there's even more to come.

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Well GLR certainly isn't one of THE more important labels - but bear in mind there are a lot of them out there. However, our first release was four years ago and we have just over 20 records from over 8 different artists featured at our site (http://greenleafrecords.com). Again, this ambiguous word 'notable' comes into play - well for a lot of people Psychedelic Murder ARE notable. I don't have my figures here with me but our site (though not long established) averages well over 100 hits a day - and Psychedelic Murder are arguably one of our best acts, so thats a lot of potential notability there, even if just in-passing.

You must also bear in mind that we distribute free cd's almost everywhere we go - so thats already a fairly good demographic, at least a few hundred people in the south-west UK will own a P-Murder CD (consider that their first CD offering only came in November of last year). Even more people will own the mp3s - not just in the UK, but globally - as they're more easily attained via the website.

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

Have you heard this music? Its not like anything anyone's done before - for a start its self-produced (ok, no biggie) but its a lucid blend of hip-hop, psychedelic rock, folk-rock, surf-blues and general experimentism - they prominently represent this sound because there is no one else (to my knowledge) actually succeeding in doing what they do as well as they do. GLR itself is a completely fresh approach to making music in general, and P-Murder are at the forefront of that, so.. I suppose it comes down to that ambiguity again; it is quite undeground - we dont send press releases to tv stations or the radio because we dont want our music played there. So it is somewhat of an anomole as far as Wiki rules go (IMO).

Have I helped make the case for these guys so far?

Alex@GLRuk Green Leaf Records (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. To answer the above, there are a few issues here: first, we need reliable, independent references in notable publications - newspapers, magazines, radio, etc. - that are specifically about the band to indicate that it is in fact going to pass our WP:MUSIC guidelines. With 73 Google hits, that doesn't seem to exist. Stuff posted on your website does not count as a reliable source, as you and yout site have a conflict of interest in this regard. Unless more people than you folks are talking about the band in notable sources, it is not yet notable. Sorry. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The user above is asserting notability and so speedy deletion is inappropriate. These new editors should be allowed reasonable time to prepare the article which can go to AFD in th usual way if it still seems inadequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The article, as it was written, made A7. Whether or not an article can be written about the subject is irrelevant to this and doesn't need to be discussed at all here, the page isn't salted. If you have reliable sources to verify the notability of the band, then have it. However, I do highly suggest you take a look at our guidelines on conflicts of interest. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion—First off, WP:CSD says "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead", so to answer Colonel Warden, the fact that this discussion is happening doesn't mean the deletion needs to be overturned soley based on policy. In fact, even adding the {{hangon}} tag does not ensure the page won't be speedied; the hangon tag states "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria…"" So, does the page meet the CSD criteria? IMHO yes. There is a total lack of third-party sources on this band, and therefore they fail the notability test. A note to Green Leaf, using your own website as a source is not a reliable source, as it is self published. I understand that you like it, and indeed many may like it, but that's not a substitute for outside proof of notability. Livitup (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the nominator did ask me to return the page and I declined, for approximately the reasons you read here; you can read the entire lengthy exchange on my talk page. I wasn't aware that the page had been submitted to deletion review, but I'm not surprised. I'm going to let this process run without my further input; I've already had my say about this page. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I only saw the notice that the page had been submitted to DRV rather than any discussion, but I'll trust that the discussion exists if you say it does. Endorse deletion per Livitup. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse...it never ceases to amaze me how many bands don't want publicity from other sources, yet think they justify an article. Even the most obscure of notable acts get covered in the local indy papers or the "What's around town" of the large papers. Unfortunately, if you're "underground", you don't exist as far as Wikipedia is concerned, see the verifiability guidelines. No prejudice to recreation if sources can be found. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice. There's no reason that the article shouldn't be recreated when and if it can be properly sourced, but deletion was appropriate. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 July 2008

the defenestrator – Speedy deletion endorsed. Although there is some debate hair-splitting its status between an organization and a published object, there is clear consensus that the process was either correct (valid A7), or was so insignificantly violated that the result should stand. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

In another shining example of putting vandalism before encyclopedic value, the article on the defenestrator was deleted out of process, apparently because it had been created by an editor who ran afoul of the administration. The article, on a anarchist zine published by the well-known Philadelphia A-Space collective, was being maintained by the Anarchism Task Force. It was speedied under A7, the purpose of which is basically to hold back the tide of promotional articles on bands/people/organisations (not publications) at WP:NEWPAGES. Given that the offending editor has presumably been banished, the risk of inappropriate promotion is mitigated, which the Task Force will ensure. I understand that deleting the contributions of misbehaving editors is conventional; but I also put it to you that losing valuable articles on notable topics is not in the interests of the encyclopedia. I ask that the article be restored, concerns raised and if necessary, put through PROD/Afd. Deleting admin Athaenara has been notified of this discussion. Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion I can't see anything in the article that constitutes a claim of importance or significance. (Why the deleting admin mentioned the creator is beyond me; they have a clean block log, no talk page history, and no userpage history - so I conclude the user is irrelevant.) If the "newspaper" really (the article was completely lacking references beyond a link to the paper's website) only had 39 issues in 10 years, I have a hard time believing that any recreation will be viable. But certainly there is no prejudice against an attempt. I recommend the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the deleting admin mentioned the creator: my deletion summaries have evolved during the past six months or so. In addition to the reason(s), they often include the user who created the article, the user who tagged it, and occasional additional information. — Athaenara ✉ 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You have me at a disadvantage as I cannot view the deleted article to verify what you say, but I still find your rationale...confusing. As administrator you are surely familiar with the criteria for speedy deletion, and specifically, you are well aware that publications cannot be deleted on grounds of failure to assert notability? You'll understand if I don't exactly grasp your argument. Regards, Skomorokh 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not much of one; the link to the google cache is in the list of links above for a reason. Try it... GRBerry 01:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I saw the article for the first time when it turned up in the CSD category. It was basically a self-description based on the publication's proprietary website. The article was created by user Defcollective (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in February 2007; I have no idea to what "deleted out of process" and "editor who ran afoul of the administration" may refer. WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising) also applied: "does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." My investigation found no reliable sources which supported its notability as per the verifiability policy. The article was tagged by L0b0t for deletion per WP:CSD#A7: "an article about a club or group that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." The rationale for deletion was sound and I followed through by deleting the article. — Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I'm not sure of the etiquette here—I just want to make it clear that I won't oppose other administrators' actions (cf. wheel war). — Athaenara ✉ 22:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn A7 doesn't cover printed newspapers. RMHED (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it does, what with a newspaper being an organization whose product is printed material. It's essentially the difference between, say, a book publisher and a book it publishes, and between a software company and the software it issues. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper is a product of an organization, it isn't an organization in and of itself. Therfore it isn't covered by an A7 speedy. RMHED (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the deleted content and spot-checked the versions in history, I also failed to find an assertion of importance or significance in the article. The only source provided was a link to the newspaper's own website (which provided no evidence either). A quick google search returned little of relevance and nothing to provide a basis for expansion. Skomorokh asserts above that CSD criterion A7 does not apply to publications. In this case, I disagree. This article is about a newspaper. Newspapers are, with few exceptions, organizations covered under WP:CORP. I believe this was an allowable application of A7. If there is any evidence of notability, I have no objection to a listing to AfD but I haven't found any evidence yet. Rossami (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:CORP isn't a speedy deletion criterion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - One that doesn't indicate notability is. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said that WP:CORP was a speedy-criterion. What I said was that a newspaper is generally covered by WP:CORP, therefore, it is an organization and that, as an organization, I believe it can legitimately fall within the scope of the wording of A7. Rossami (talk)
Endorse deletion. I agree with Rossami - a newspaper is a group or organization covered under A7. Regardless, the nom hasn't indicated the article -does- indicate it's significance, so even if it's not covered under A7, I'm seeing very little point in restoring an article that clearly won't survive any other deletion process, expecially after more than a year of "being worked on". --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically an improper A7 deletion, but there is no way the deleted article would survive an AfD nomination. I'd be happy with it being userfied if someone is confident that they can establish notability, but it really would just be bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake to restore it in place. --Stormie (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The user has the choice of coming here directly, and while we suggest he contact the admin first, we do not require that he do so and I doubt that any such requirement would be accepted as policy. As for the deletion itself., media except web content can be not be deleted under A7, no matter how unimportant the subject is thought to be. A company publishing a newspaper of a book qualifies under WP:CORP, a newspaper or a book does not. I continue to be astounded that people here will defend deletions such as this that are flagrantly in opposition to deletion policy. DGG (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my opinion remains above. DGG is correct that failure to contact the deleting admin first is not reason to endorse deletion - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I'm not certain that there is a distinction to be drawn here between the periodical and the group or person publishing it. Certainly they don't go so far on the website as to identify a publishing individual or organization, as I've checked that. The concern that this may be beyond the drawn boundaries of A7 is reasonable; but again - Wikipeia is not a bureaucracy. I'd be happy to see this userfied if anyone produced evidence of even one independent and reliable source, but such are not to be found in the article. And for what looks to be a local interest and minority point of view zine publishing only once every three months, I'm not assuming that such sources exist. GRBerry 17:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Hair-splitting aside, it's textbook. If someone comes up with the evidence of notability (i.e; has multiple, reliable, and independent sources that have enough material to talk about it), go to town. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that, per a rather stupid loophole in our CSD criteria, the article should not have been deleted. However, I have no confidence that it would even have a chance at an AfD. For that reason, I endorse the deletion, because undeleting and running it through an AfD just for process is bad. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

In Popular Culture – Deletion endorsed. While there are some understandable complaints about the extreme speed with which this debate was closed, there are no actual explanations of why the decision might have been the wrong one, except that the community didn't have the chance to comment. However, Luna's point that he was ignoring the rules deliberately has not been well countered: the proper way to counter such an argument is to argue that the decision itself is not the right thing for the encyclopedia. But instead, the only argument against using WP:IAR is that Luna Santin wasn't doing things in the normal way. In other words: the arguments against deletion are empty, but the arguments for the deletion are reasonable and substantial. I do hope Luna recognizes that in the future it may be better to just let the debate happen.

I would be completely convinced otherwise if someone had at least presented one reliable source about the proposed topic (that is, the use of "In popular culture" sections in Wikipedia articles). There is no reason to have this debate unless someone actually wants to have a real go at writing a serious article on this topic. If so, finding a reliable source would be a necessary first step anyway. So, if we do need to have further debate, someone needs prove it by providing a source. If you do that I will reverse my decision and allow an AfD to happen. – Mango juice^talk 18:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prematurely deleted as WP:SNOW when there were more Keeps than Deletes. FYI, there is some discussion at the admin's talk page and another article of the same name seems to have been created now as a redirect. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist, sorry, but that was a really bad call. The rationale might have been colourable if the debate was over, but the early closure on top of that just isn't on. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the premature closure. Regardless of the nose-counts, this did not meet the required criteria for an early close. Given the subsequent edits to the page, though, a relisting is probably better than just reopening the current debate. Rossami (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. "Required criteria" to ignore all rules? Do you actually disagree with the decision for any substantive reason? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please go read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means and in particular the section titled What "Ignore all rules" does not mean. IAR is not a license to ignore rules that help us make better decisions or rules that help us to work together with less friction. That discussion had substantive discussion both for and against. And while I probably would have argued for deletion myself, that was for the AFD process to sort out. The participants who thought that there might be an appropriate topic here deserved their chance to make their case as best they could. Your premature closure did nothing but create controversy where none existed before. Rossami (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you're upset that I made a decision to implement what you profess was the appropriate outcome? There was a lot of text on the page, yes, but I would hardly call the debate "substantive," as I've already explained two or three times, including on this page (without retort, I might add). While I generally agree that leaving AfD pages open is the way to go, there are times when doing so only prolongs dramatic disruption, encourages false hopes, and wastes a lot of time for a lot of people to achieve a result that is clear from the outset -- this was one of those times. You say I've caused controversy and friction, but I rather believe I've seen a net reduction in both, since making the close. I've asked before, and will ask again: is there any concrete, specific reason to expect a longer discussion would ever return a different result? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're ignoring the controversy and friction that you've created here. We are now essentially running the AfD on this page, wasting far more time and effort that if you'd just allowed the AfD to run its course. Could there have been a different result? Certainly. Reading the same discussion, I could have seen a credible argument to merge-and-redirect (or redirect without merger) instead of to delete. This could have preserved the pagehistory for those who saw potentially useful content. No one had yet proposed that solution but if the discussion had been allowed to continue, that might have an outcome with no controversy. I don't know if that would have been the right outcome but shutting down the discussion prematurely was definitely the wrong outcome. Rossami (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ignoring the controversy? Demonstrably a false statement, since I'm actively participating in the discussion here and was quite responsive on my own talk page. Far more time and effort? Hardly, unless you think your own time is somehow exponentially more valuable than that of the many editors, new and old, who would continue to be drawn into a discussion rendered pointless by the fact it was essentially a done deal from the start. You mentioned redirect history; I'd be fine with restoring the redirect's history at this point, that hardly strikes me as worth quibbling over. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn & relist an inappropriate use of WP:SNOW. RMHED (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Honestly I think that while WP:SNOW is questionable for the deletion debate, it should still apply here. The most appropriate handling of the popular XKCD link would be to reference the link in the popular culture article, as is done by a redirect, or as a notable mention of wikipedia in an external source on the wikipedia article. Since a separate article including the word 'In' is not sufficient as separate from the main popular culture article to merit its own article. Adding it would violate WP:UNDUE with respect to XKCD. Finally, this article is a wikipedia-reference, which means that creating a self-referential article of this type, based only on the XKCD article, violates the first principle of the WP:SELF guideline. In short, while I agree that invoking SNOW as early as it was is questionable from the deletion process, SNOW still holds for the ultimate fate of the article. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oveturn as more arguments to keep than delete can't possibly result in a snow closure. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would tend to disagree. Since the discussion is not a vote, the the issue is one of the arguments presented by either side. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Beg pardon? Since when has AfD been a matter of sheer numbers? Especially when the discussion is being flooded with fans from xkcd, from reddit, from forums, and so forth, and most of those fans are either brand new or returning from looong vacations to make obvious "Keep because it's funny!" votes that are, if anything, best discounted. I do see that several people have stated "it's notable," but only one of them bothered even trying to justify that claim with evidence, in spite of repeated requests... gee, it's almost as if they just know the right buzzwords to cover up a WP:ILIKEIT argument. Absent demonstrable notability, this is an obvious case of WP:SELFREF and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY/WP:NEO. Absent independent sourcing, this is an obvious case of WP:NOR that fails WP:V inherently. Absent sourcing that is not Randall Munroe of xkcd, the article seems to portray RPOV rather than that coveted WP:NPOV. Any admin can look at the deleted edits; the article was lifted almost verbatim from a recent xkcd comic; the article was a circus for xkcd fans, and nothing more. The experienced users aware of this fact seem to favor the deletion, as they've redirected the article, kept it redirected, and even semi- and then fully protected it in a redirected state.
  It is true that this closure was out of strictly interpreted process, but is there any serious reason to believe a longer debate would turn out any differently? Not the possibility of a reason, an actual one, mind you. If there is no such reason, continuing the AfD will only result in more flooding with no appreciable change in result.
  I encourage users commenting here to re-examine the AfD, with a particular eye for distinguishing between comments from active users knowledgeable in Wikipedia practice and policy, and those from drive-by users mostly prompted here from off-site. That done, I suspect you may see an entirely different discussion than you had previously. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer was correct in their statement that there was no way this would have been kept by any reasonable read of the debate - even if we leave aside the fact that this article was nothing more than blatant navel gazing, it had multiple policy violations as stated. This was reflected in the debate, in which pretty much every argument to keep could be outright discounted as having no basis in policy. While this is likely to be overturned due to a love of procedure over product, I will eat my hat if a relisted nomination results in anything other than a delete, rendering the overturn of the previous closure as little more than an exercise in futility and an application of procedure for it's own sake. That said, the closer deserves the thorough application of trout for a close that is so out of procedure that it was beyond inevitable to see it on DRV (and probably be overturned and re-listed and re-deleted). It'd have been far less of a headache to just let it run until it could be closed sans-snow. Shereth 18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - do you want to implode the blogosphere or something? In any case, the article was totally non-serious and self-referential. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn. Oh my, How many times do I need to say this? avoid self-reference is a style guide. It in no way says we can't have articlres about Wikipedia related topics. And the notion of snow deleting when there is a clear majority favoring keeping is at best drama-enducing. Given how much Wikipedia's handling of pop culture has been discussed I would not be at all surprised if one could write a decent separate article on Wikipedia's pop culture. (The short little bit here definitely would work though)JoshuaZ (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC) weak endorse per observation by Hatless below. I still don't like Snowing things where the majority of people are favoring keeping. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is such an article, it can be found here. The fact that this is such an obvious place to include the XKCD reference is exactly why SNOW is being invoked so much here. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I didn't know about that, although it seems that Sceptre is now trying to make that into a redirect even though is has over 20 sources... Sigh. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ITHASSOURCES is not a reason for keeping. None of the sources discuss Wikipedia's effect on culture. It's a glorified trivia list. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - First of all there is nothing inherently wrong with well-sourced' trivia. Second of all, one can easily supply additonal secondary sources. See you at the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - we have a serious articles regarding this subject - wikipedia in popular culture and popular culture studies, and the deleted article was a self referential joke. PhilKnight (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, correct application of Wikipedia policies. Suggest you go and work on Bureaucracy in popular culture, a sadly absent article. --Stormie (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At the risk of WP:BEANS... here's a place to start: Hermes Conrad. Haha... IronGargoyle (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse That closure was kind of ballsy with the !votes as they were, but if we think the article doesn't have a chance, if doesn't have a chance. This DRV nomination (correct word?) only references the comments at the AfD, not the article's probable outcome, which is the operative decision rule. I see the objections raised on the talk page and their subsequent refutation and they don't convince me that this page (IPCIPC) was anything more than a lark based on the xkcd comic. SNOW doesn't apply to the number of comments on a nomination but that nomination itself, so in judging it we have to access whether the article has a chance in hell of avoiding deletion. Does anyone think so? (Also, filibuster doesn't mean Mr. Smith. More than one person can mount a filibuster) Protonk (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. These "battles between online communities" (in this case, Wikipedia vs. the xkcd fandom) are never helpful. Partisanship, partial knowledge of policies, and a vague, shared objective (to disseminate an inside joke) all set the stage for a schadenfreude-encouraging wikidrama that does not serve the interests of anyone involved. I am a huge fan of xkcd, and the reaction of its fanbase at large to this situation is distressing. This isn't something cool; it's not mailing Richard Stallman a katana and then attacking him with ninjas; it's not fusing sand into a glass necklace using lightning; it's not even geohashing: it's vandalizing an Internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The policies in this case are clear. Let's end this silly war by shutting down this last remaining battlefield. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I commend Luna Santin for bravely weathering this inevitable storm. Feezo (Talk) 05:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn - I would oppose the premature closing but I think the AfD would result in 'delete' anyway. For anyone who cares, let me explain a little of my logic. First of all, this does not violate Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. Please read that guideline more closely and pay special attention to the heading Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid#Writing about Wikipedia itself, which specifically allows for "Articles about Wikipedia." (Of course, such articles still must be notable and supportable with sources.) Moreover, the phrase "in popular culture" is not just a Wikipedia thing, it is common in titles of articles across various mediums, as I have shown here on Luna Santin's talk page. I personally believe a good article could be written on the phrase and how it has become a genre of article, not just on Wikipedia. As Luna pointed out, however, the sources I gave discuss various topics in popular culture, not "In popular culture" articles themselves. As I admitted, I doubt there is currently an article out there about "In popular culture" articles themselves, the one I propose writing would probably be the first. At which you may cue the cries of "WP:N!" and "WP:NOR!" and I can't really disagree. Still, believe it or not there were some of us who supported the article who were not simply xkcd fanboys, and I think it was not an appropriate use of WP:SNOW. ~ FerralMoonrender (T • C) 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have such an article as you describe, and it already treats the XKCD comic with exactly the treatment it should have, a mention as a notable joke, but not an article in its own right as a joke. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, of course. Process or not, there was never a wood chip's chance in hell this little piece of self-referential trivia would have become a legitimate article. In fact, it could legitimately have been speedied from the start. Nice joke though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional~~ Endorse. The original article should be undeleted so we can see just what it is we're discussing. However, even without seeing it, I'd be surprised if it were the kind of topic one could make an even remotely Wikipedia-worthy article out of. If it was indeed a joke-in-serious-clothing article with no future on Wikipedia, it should have been speedied, and Luna was right to have closed the AfD per the "snowball's chance in hell" rationale. No amount of "keep" !votes can justify keeping a total dog. Still, was it a total dog? I can't see it. Would someone please undelete its history?--Father Goose (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can view the cached version here Feezo (Talk) 19:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yep, endorse. Half navel-gazing, half xkcd in-joke. Not an article. Would have been a legitimate speedy.--Father Goose (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion this was only created as a result of xkcd and there is no hope in hell that the article would have survived AfD or that it would have ever conformed to policies and guidelines. Hut 8.5 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now I'm waiting for an admin to snow close this debate. That would be awesome. Protonk (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn deletion being the subject of that particular comic is possibly acceptable as reason for an article-- I am not sure of my own views on the article itself. If there were valid bona fide objections raised, snow was inappropriate at afd and equally inappropriate here. How can one close an afd on a rather unprecedented topic in 2 hours as snow in the presence of opposition from established editors. Truly awesome disregard for deletion policy and for letting other editors speak for themselves. Perhaps after being restored and relisted for 5 days the consensus may be quite otherwise. Consensus does not mean consensus of the first few people to respond at 6 AM UK time. The nominator for the afd understood the situation quite properly when he listed it, saying "I really don't know if this article should be kept or not, but I did want to make sure that there were as many eyes on it as possible to make a decision." He reasonably wanted full exposure, not hiding in the snow. DGG (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I think the article is questionable personally, but clearly there was no basis for speedy close. Per DGG, essentially. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Snow is to be used when there is no chance of any outcome other than the one chosen, which this obviously was not. This clearly isn't that situation. We currently have a redirect in place, I think a disambiguation page (Popular Culture, Popular culture studies, Wikipedia in culture) would be better. GRBerry 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD seems an odd forum to discuss turning a redirect into a dab page, if that's what you're after... – Luna Santin (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and commend the closing user for correct application of policy. WP:SNOW does not require that one solution is supported by a supermajority of users: it requires that there is no plausible possibility ('a snowball's chance in hell') that anything other than that solution will be reached, and that was the case here. I strongly believe that if this article was relisted at AFD, or had been given the full five days' discussion in the first place, the result would have been exactly the same. It quite clearly fails Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, having been essentially created as an in-joke - not in such a way that speedy deletion could have been applied, perhaps, but nonetheless it was not an encyclopaedic article. While there are some grounds for relisting here, when the outcome of such a discussion is not in serious doubt, I just don't see the point. Terraxos (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW is not a policy with "requirements;" it's an idea that encourages people to be bold and close discussions early when they think it will save time because there is no possibility of a serious alternative option being supported. Since we are still debating this five days later, and some might say that other options have at least been proposed (whether you consider them serious is entirely your opinion,) no time has been saved, so the use of SNOW was clearly not helpful, and as it has created controversy, not appropriate. Put another way, "[Be bold...] but do not be reckless." ~ FerralMoonrender (T • C) 08:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the use of WP:SNOW has generated discussion (actually intelligent discussion compared to the "keep it because it's funny" comments that filled up most (not all) of the AfD) and thats is one of the plus sides to being bold (similar to a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.) ~ FerralMoonrender (T • C) 08:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Even if it was technically factual, does anyone doubt that the article was created as a joke? One mention by xkcd does not make something notable. If In Popular Culture had more than a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, something is wrong with Wikipedia. 67.187.76.80 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

IMAGETEC – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

blatent advertising 12.107.120.242 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reason to delete the page, not restore it. Can you please clarify whether you want the page deleted (which it is) or restored, and in the latter case, please explain why? Stifle (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the conversation at User talk:Kylu#Imagetec, I'd assume restored. Or at least unsalted. I am curious why it was salted so quickly, but I might be missing similar articles at other titles. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this and [97] might indicate why salting was found reasonable; an alternative capitalization was deleted 4 times in one day, then salted - causing the page to be created at a new title by a new username. GRBerry 21:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that'd do it. I guess I've got nothing to do except endorse the salting, then. Perhaps unsalt in a week or month, since 2009 is a little excessive, but nothing wrong with it for now. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Overturn Delete and Salt I have reviewed the Google cached version of the article and I do not see how this company is not notable. The article is well referenced, and the fact that it was named to the Inc. 500 should be enough notability alone (I would think). Clearly the article needs improvement (removal of non-neutral language that is unsupported). I am assuming that the nominator indeed is seeking restoration of the article even though the user is not clear on such. Perhaps I am missing something here? If so, someone inform me and I might reverse my vote. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- inc.com profile for imagetec #4,628 - It's in the top 5000 privately-owned companies by profit percentage, not top 500, according to inc.com. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This note is intended as a possible correction to the quoted facts, not as an opinion of notability. Kylu (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the deleted versions of IMAGETEC and Imagetec, I'd say that they both have the unfortunate appearance of advertising articles for a company that is on the edge of being notable. IMAGETEC claims a few references, but almost all of them are just links to the main pages of various websites. The Inc. reference is for "500 fastest growing private companies", and has no prose. It may be that there actually some newspaper or other reliable sources on the company, but I can't see that the industry websites for Toshiba, Konica, etc. count as reliable third-party sources. So I think the deletion was OK, but if someone can dig up some somewhat independent, reliable sources then recreation would be appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The INC 5000 used to be the INC 500 and when it was the 500 Imagetec was in the top 500 (#219) http://www.inc.com/magazine/19971015/1487_pagen_2.html. ALso it is hard to find sources when dealing with small to middle size companies...the article was modeled off a smaller similar company,impact networking look at that article becuase if that company is notable Imagetec is for sure seeing that it is older and larger. 12.107.120.242 (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Restore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.120.242 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cached version is a copyvio of [98] Endorse deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 21:06, 10 July 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 July 2008

Smack (library) – No issue with deletion, page unprotected to allow valid article to be created. – Stormie (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This appears to have been deleted with little explanation. riffic (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion very easily. You really should have discussed this with the deleting admin before bring it here. It is a very clear case of why we need G3 vandalism speedy deletions. The entire article read "LIBRARYS ARE FOR PEOPLE ON SMACK". Davewild (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note from deleting admin: It was vandalism, and G3; I could have given whatever clarification was needed. I'm recreating the top edit as I saw it; perhaps then it can be speedily closed. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Oh, I didn't realize this was the case, as the history was zapped as well. I thought the original page might have been related to the Openfire xmpp library 'smack' as indicated on the disambig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Would it be possible to unprotect this, so I can update the article and have it describe the xmpp library instead? http://www.google.com/search?q=smack+xmpp&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official 33,400 google hits riffic (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redelete but unprotect. This was clearly vandalism and appropriate to speedy-delete but it had only been created once. Protection that early was overzealous. Any legitimate article can best be created from a clean edit history. Rossami (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nintendo Ultra 64 Sound Format – AfD Closure is substantively changed to no consensus. No prejudice against relisting at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A previous AfD for this article was closed by a non-admin whose closure and decision to Keep did not reflect consensus. At the time of closure, Keep had more bolded terms, but bolded terms alone do not reflect consensus according to Wikipedia guidelines. Several keep proponents supported an approach which would merge this article into Nintendo 64. Most opinions did not follow Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:N and WP:RS, and also failed to demonstrate a need for WP:Ignore all rules. The muramasa (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few issues here. First, you are correct that Oo7565 shouldn't have closed it, since it is way not obvious enough for the accepted times for non-admin closures. Second, the close doesn't accurately reflect consensus, as the nom stated. A no consensus would have been more accurate, but in this case I'd prefer to overturn to relist, reopen and relist the discussion. Also, you really should have brought this up to Oo7565 before listing this request here, since it is highly recomended that you do so in the DRV procedures. This is not itself grounds to remove a DRV, it is very rude. I'd like to remind Oo7565 not to close any deletion discussion except when guidelines say it is acceptable to do so, since they very often end up here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh, I apologize for not bringing the issue up with Oo7565 first. I will be sure to read over the rules more thoroughly in the future before posting here again. Thank you for your time. The muramasa (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment if i should have not closed it i am very sorry about that i look it it it look like i could closed it i will look closer at what people say on the afd next time i am very sorry againOo7565 (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i guess as an non admin i did not know i could close it with no consensus i thought i could only close it with a keep again sorryOo7565 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I think that on an immediate "vote"-count a keep seems near enough to the obvious result. After review I would endorse the closure, although perhaps make it a no-consensus rather than a keep outcome. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, but... As a process issue, I would overturn the closure (I've horked up a NAC before and I felt really bad when realizing it), but reclose as keep or no-consensus (or relist). The delete !votes didn't really mount an affirmative case aside from the nominator, just responded to comment from keep votes. I know we aren't counting heads, but in measuring arguments it would be hard for me to judge a half dozen 'defensive' arguments (questions and rejoinders) against what appear to be novice keep !votes. I believe strongly that arguments should be kept even when the person making the argument doesn't know what to appeal to. The inclusion of the IEEE reference (which when read, suggests a merge to PSF is appropriate, as only one line is devoted to USF) should be taken as an attempt to appeal to policy--if the user does not cite the policy specifically we shouldn't diminish his opinion on that basis. Protonk (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can also email or post an excerpt of the ieee source to someone if the contents of that source would sway their close of this discussion. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chicago_Engineering_Design_Team – Overturn speedy deletion and list on AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for deletion reason Engineer4life (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log cites WP:CSD#A7, failing to make a claim of importance or significance. I doubt this would survive AFD, but I believe the section "Notable achivements" as a whole certainly rises to the level of a claim. It seems likely at AFD the decision would be to merge the material elsewhere. GRBerry 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD and show the contributors a little more respect. The cached version contains three references supporting notability. This lifts the article to well over the standard that can be considered speediable (not even worth a seconda look). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
presumably because it is not required that he do so. On the one hand choosing to go there offers the hope of a quick solution, but if someone has doubts that there will be a favorable response, why waste time waiting for one? If we wish to change the policy, we can do so. We should simultaneously for consistency forbid listing for afd or speedy or prod without notify all significant authors DGG (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything saying it's optional. Indeed, the page also says "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. Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an invalid argument, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. GRBerry 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I agree with the bureaucracy comment. The purpose of DRV is to challenge deletion decisions where discussions with the deleting administrator have proven unfruitful. Listing a discussion here and going through a five-day process when a five-minute discussion with the admin could have cleared up the problem seems like needless bureaucracy if anything. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the closing admin is notified of this discussion, they can review it and reverse themselves immediately. No requirement for a five day process. If they aren't willing to do so, then we just end up back here again after making the nominator drop through two extra hoops. Opine on the substance of the matter instead of trying to introduce extra paperwork. And if you can't find notice on the acting admin's page, drop them the notice yourself ... which is why the DRV notice template is worded without assuming it will be left by the person opening the DRV. GRBerry 13:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Santa Fe River Trail – no useful history, just a redirection error, so deletion endorsed – GRBerry 12:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete to expand Una Smith (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear anything to undelete. The delete reason was for a redirect and the cache appears to show a redirect to itself. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does a history exist? If so, that needs to be undeleted, right? --Una Smith (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion but allow re-creation with actual content. 82.7.39.174 is correct; there was never anything on this page but a redirect to itself (and a category, Category:Trails in New Mexico). If this is a notable trail, please feel free to go ahead and write an actual article about it. In fact, you can start doing that now, without even waiting for this deletion review to close. Since no actual content existed in the earlier version, there's no need to undelete the history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intent was to redirect pro tem to an article where this topic was a section, while showing the topic in the category page. Is there a better way? --Una Smith (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirect it to the article where there is such a section, instead of redirecting to itself, which is merely an error. There was no history. GRBerry 12:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bridget Mary Nolan – Deletion endorsed. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page and a number of other similiar pages were deleted as being against WP:BLP1E. The articles are referenced and mainly written in a neutral manner. They are part of enduring commentary in Australia, especially major newspapers. WP:BLP1E doesn't directly apply as there is no main article on the person in the biography. The discussion made no real attempt to address this concern other than stating that keeping the article is a breach of privacy. At the very least, the article should have been renamed to the event. Assize (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (deletion) - Admin picked the consensus correctly (FYI I opined to delete it). Every interesting crime attracts commentary in major Australian newspapers - Wikipedia is not a news recording source - Peripitus (Talk) 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But doesn't that fact make the topic notable under WP:N, which is what notability is all about, ie. what secondary sources have found interesting to write about. A lot of Australian history is based on newspaper reports. Assize (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion looking at the AFD the closer made the only possible closure based on the discussion in the AFD and this argument was raised in the AFD where consensus disagreed with it. Davewild (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Consensus of the discussion was clearly to delete, and that consensus was based on valid reasons that are reasonably well supported by community consensus. GRBerry 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). The consensus in this discussion seems clear. The nominator made his/her case during the discussion and was unable to persuade the community of those arguments. I see no new evidence nor any process problems in the second AfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, if you look at the AfD from a consensus perspective, the consensus to delete is clear. And if you look at it from a policy perspective, per WP:BLP1E it is even clearer that the articles should not exist. I have no idea what you mean by "WP:BLP1E doesn't directly apply as there is no main article on the person in the biography," it most certainly does. While it may sometimes be appropriate to merge an BLP1E "biography" into another article, it is by no means mandatory. --Stormie (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should have said "event" instead of "person". My understanding of WP:BLP1E is it is to prevent redundant biographies on people, when the person's background should be covered in an article on the main event. Hence the wording in bold "Cover the event, not the person". Since there is no article on the main event, the article could have been renamed or merged. I accept that just about everybody voted to delete, but the discussion revolved around about having negative biographies or that criminal events aren't notable, which arent' against WP policies, as long as they are neutral. In fact one editor agreed that WP:BLP1E wasn't an exact fit. If you can't engage editors in a debate on these issues in an AfD, then AfD just becomes a vote rather than working out how to fix an article, which is what this Afd became. Assize (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - BLP1E is to prevent unjustified "biographies" on people who are only notable for one event, and thus are unlikely to ever contain any genuine biographical information. If the event is notable, a merge & redirect is appropriate, but it would take quite a bit to convince me that an instance of statuatory rape was an event which was notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we're not exactly talking about The Great Train Robbery, are we? --Stormie (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, but the Great Train Robbery was only one event as well, and only notable because newspapers picked it up. Assize (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Surely you jest. It wasn't "only notable because newspapers picked it up", it was notable because for 43 years it was the largest robbery in British history. --Stormie (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it was said with a twinkle in my eye. Thanks for a proper debate, I don't agree, but at least this time I felt it got a hearing. Assize (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close I'm not at all convinced that these should have been deleted due to BLP1E (and was thinking about these AfDs but they were closed before I had made up my mind enough to comment. A depressingly common occurrence). In any event, the consensus for deletion was clear and as I've discussed on prior occasions, we need to go with community consensus when dealing with BLP-penumbra issues. The consensus here was to delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Got a fair heairng at AfD, consensus was clear. Comment: We have a higher standard of minimum notability for negative WP:BLP cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. As I had done a deletion review once before, I went straight to the Steps to List for Deletion Review. In hindsight, I should have read the whole thing first. Assize (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. Endorse closure. There was a consensus for deletion, and if anything, we should be more careful than less careful when dealing with this kind of article. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Area of Critical Environmental Concern – Expired PROD automatically overturned. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

To be expanded; multiple redlinks Una Smith (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was prod'd, not AfD'd, so as far as I can see, there's no need to go through DRV. If not, well, it strikes me as notable enough for an article. Guettarda (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 July 2008

Gafurov, Said – Overturn and list at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is translation from Russian article in the Wiki. I know personally Dr.Gafurob and though he disagrees with article in the Russian Wiki he does not object the current version. Above all it is widespread in the Russian internet including duch sites as vipperson.ru K1973 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC) K1973 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied it for including such passages as "Gafurov held a position of Director of Department of management of property of [Finance], [Credit], [Insurance] and [Foreign Trade] organizations of the Ministry of State Property of Russia. <ref>Since then he believes that he understands these branches of economy. He is wrong. </ref>".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. While that stuff is a Bad Thing to include, not the entire article was like that. Those parts could've been removed and the article might have been able to stand on its own. I'd favor an overturn here, followed by going over the article with a fine-toothed comb to remove BLP violations and such (and a few MOS fixes...). Anything that can be salvaged shouldn't be speedied, as a general rule. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I can't see that the article was 'entirely negative in tone and unsourced' from a look at the deleted version so don't believe it meets the speedy deletion criteria. Also the speedy criteria say to check for a 'neutral version in the history to revert to' and the original first version does not seem too bad. Davewild (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't have a big objection to that, but note that the same user contributed both versions. That's what made me think it wasn't savable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
presumably because it is not required, for the excellent reason that we do not place barriers in the path of new contributors trying to rescue articles. DGG (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this discussion elsewhere and I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scarlett McAlister – Userfied as requested – Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting userfication. The article was created by her publicist, and the PR-speak didn't fly at AfD. I myself participated as a "weak delete," but I've never been enthusiastic about the outcome, and I'd like to see if a stronger article could be written. Groggy Dice T | C 17:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roadfan – Relist at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was browsing through my project contributions and found this AFD which I had closed was reopened and then closed again two days later. I'm not going to revert the second closure but I'd like some comments on which decision to hold valid or what to do. Nakon 04:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your close was overturned by someone else because they thought it was wrong. It was later closed as no-consensus, then apparently made a redirect. Have you brought it up with User:NE2? Also, I have a question: exactly what are you contesting here? --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't the normally accepted standard be that NE2 bought it up with Nakon in the first place? Did that happen? It doesn't appear to have been "overturned" (Not that I was aware that admins could just decide to "overturn" another admin) but as having been "not closed properly", wahtever that might mean --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know the undercurrents of what's going on, I just read the edit summaries, i.e., "this appears to have been closed improperly". And no, NE2 doesn't appear to have contacted Nakon either. ~~In any event, I still don't see why the discussion is here.~~ --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait. is User:NE2 even an admin? And he participated in the discussion, too. I'm not too sure if this is the venue, but there's something improper about that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Nakon's original close (transwiki). Unclear why that close was undone exactly... it better reflected the discussion and the state of the article/potential for improvement. A lot of people who identify as (term) want to keep the article on (term)... well that's not shocking, but it doesn't mean we actually keep it if the article is a dictionary definition. --Rividian (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did bring it up with Nakon: User talk:Nakon#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadfan. I realize now that "not...closed properly" has multiple meanings, but I meant that the article still had the AFD template. --NE2 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I "voted" to transwiki, so I couldn't have been doing it because I disagreed with his close... --NE2 04:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I think if an admin makes a clerical error in closing the AFD, such as not deleting the article or forgetting to put the old afd template on the talk page, the close is still supposed to stand... the error is just supposed to be fixed (if caught in a reasonable amount of time, which wasn't the case here). This is probably not something that's spelled out anywhere, but it's just been standard practice as far as I know. --Rividian (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Nakon, why didn't you contact me before bringing it here? I realize that the directions say to discuss it with "the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)", but here it's clear that my actions are those being questioned. --NE2 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Neil's closure back to Nakon's and transwiki. The proper course of action by NE2 would have just been to remove the AfD template from the article, rather than reverting the close. The template on the article is just a notification, not a binding thing, whereas the AfD itself is. Also, even after it had been reopened and reclosed, the proper closure should have remained the same. A transwiki seems appropriate here. Cheers, everyone. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Had I just removed the template, it would not have been transwikied. I was expecting someone else to come along to the AFD and close it the same way, but follow through on the transwikiing. --NE2 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So things seem to be cleared up (Neil might want to chime in, though). --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem to be cleared up...the question is whether it should be kept or transwikied. It would probably be best to leave it for now and start a new discussion in a bit. --NE2 08:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was really confused by this. I didn't even realise the article had been previously closed (note when I closed it, it looked like this: [99]). I still think "no consensus" was the right close based on what was there when I saw the AFD (note a lot of non-dictionary content was added to the article over the course of the AFD), but if people would like to go with "Transwiki", then fine - I have a feeling Wiktionary will just delete it, though. Also note "Roadfan" wasn't turned into a redirect; the article was moved from Roadfan to Roadgeek. Neıl 龱 09:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm somewhat familiar with Wiktionary's inclusion policies and I think [100] is enough. (This is, however, probably best for discussion in a new AFD rather than here.) --NE2 09:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - With that search, I just noticed [101], a crosscut.com article that links to our "roadfan" article. Heh. --NE2 09:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the level of mutual confusion, re-listing would probably be best. I really doubt Wiktionary would delete a term with this much currency, but this is not relevant to whether we should have an article describing roadgeekery in greater detail, which we probably should if more sources can be added. Is there no less slangy term for the amateur study of highways? — CharlotteWebb 17:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could support a Relist. Seems like the right thing to do, and it doesn't really contradict either close (OK, "transwiki" implies delete, but still). --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reveals fallibility in readings of consensus. The AfD need not produce a consensus and "No consensus" was the better close. The status quo is good (redirect to Roadgeek. I do not agree that "transwiki" implies delete, as one moves information, the other deletes. Anyone can proceed with contributing to wikt:Roadfan. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Charlotte. These sorts of XfDs could really use the extra discussion anyway; WP:DICT and transwikification issues are always rather murky. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:15, 11 July 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 July 2008

Critical Intervention Services – Deletion endorsed, but allow recreation with given sources. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Significant news coverage, e.g. http://www.cisworldservices.org/videos/jennings.mpg, http://www.cisworldservices.org/NewAV/foxnewsreport.mpg, http://www.cisworldservices.org/Videos/44NEWS.MPG, http://www.cisworldservices.org/Videos/10NEWS_3.MPG, http://www.cisworldservices.org/NewAV/fox-cimarron-edit-mpg1-qif-jra.mpg Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure why this DRV is needed as the article was userfied to User:Aldrich Hanssen/Sandbox on 29th June on request (since blanked by the user) and advice as to how to improve it to pass A7 (& beyond) was also given. nancy ^(talk) 21:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, its deletion should have been decided at AfD, if anywhere, since the media/book coverage cited in the article automatically created enough presumption of notability to survive CSD. I notice from the videos above that they have arrest powers within their jurisdiction, making them essentially a private police force, a rarity in modern America; which to me would also tend to increase their notability. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh.... Having take a look at the userfied version, that did make A7. I'll have to endorse that. However, it looks like you've found some things that could be used to establish notability, so it is perfectly fine if you go a create the article. You still have the userfied version as at least a starting point, but disputing an A7 on the basis of newly found sources usually doesn't net an overturn. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and start the article. Move the old userfied article, if you use it, or just start again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spoilertv – Deletion endorsed – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am here to discuss that the spoiler Tv page have been delete not only when I and underexperince wikipedia editor made it but also when a experienced wikipedia editor made it. It seems people think of it as advertising but it is not .I have 2625 people who can all stand up and say they would like this to be put up on wikiedia . Mabey you should stop and think whether movie pages aren't advertising the movies they talk about.. but they are ! but are also give out infomation, we only want to give out information not advertise it , if we wanted to waste out time advertising it we would have done.

So I urge you to take into consideration letting me and my felo forum members to allow us to have A page for Spoiler TV - Daryl McAllister --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed DRV, created corretly for User:Desmond Hume99. Neutral opinion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - as the AfD nom said "non-notable website with literally no external coverage". Disclosure: I am the most recent deleting admin per A7 nancy ^(talk) 12:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every website is non-notable to someone people and is it saying only the biggest and the best are allowd on wikipedia ? that frankly is not the way out world works!! its an ourtage , please reconsider --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a notability inclusion guideline which websites need to meet in order to be included, it can be found here - Wikipedia:Notability (web). Basically for a website to be included on wikipedia it should have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which it has : 1. It has its brother site www.darkufo.blogspot.com which was too big to be included on the actual site ( all about lost) 2.has its own forums ( http://www.spoilertv.co.uk/forum/index.php ) 3: several mentions on the infamous site lostpedia 4.Has had mentions from actual Tv show producers and cast ( ie.damon lindonloft or hendry ian cussic ) 5.has other sister and brother sites to deal with shows and was in the news once

their for it has lots of coverage and no reason to be discarded and would mean alot to people Also the page we created fetured a list of our servises as your notoblity web page says it should have --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs, wikis and forums are generally not WP:Reliable sources for wikipedia and significant coverage means more than just mentions. The sort of thing needed to establish notability would be newspaper articles about the website. Davewild (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having received a message from you saying that no one else has tryied to cover it is a strange truth , in fact 2 other people tried incuding the board leader. --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - no referenced sources in the article and after reading the content of the article this is clearly a non-notable website. LakeBoater (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO not read my artical read one sumbitted by another person since mine ws just to get it up and running so other people could fine tun it , thank you --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

( in bealhf of another board member i say this ) We intended to make this wikpeida with no margin of error so I do not see the point also to conflict with what you said about 2 people haveing to write about it then how did the first pages get made when only 1 man had the idea of wikiepdia ? --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"PROOF

Here is proof:

serveral mentions for its brother site from THIS site :

^ DarkUFO Blogspot - Lost Mobisode, Episode 4 - Juliet Burke artical

1. ^ DarkUFO Blogspot - Lost Mobisode Episode 2 - Hugo "Hurley" Reyes artical + lots more coverage on differnt pages :D

http: //www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Dark_ufo - a hole page deicated to dark ufo and spoiler tv

begavet - know about it since they host the forum

unfortunately no recored media coverage from the producers and cast. but was mentioned on varoius snippets I hope this helps your reconsider --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, though not as an uninvolved editor. I brought this to AFD, and there is still no evidence that the website is notable. There is literally no reliable third-party coverage of this site. A Google search produces an astounding number of forums where this website is being advertised, but there is nothing substantive. Google News produces one result, and that is from a website called BuddyTV. The "proof" that Desmond gives above is solely blogs and unrefereced wikis, which are not reliable sources. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you argument is colpasing in on its self.
1. A google search of Spoiler Tv actualy shows this :
Spoiler TV
A collection of spoilers and show information for the most popular shows on TV.
spoilertv.blogspot.com/ - 137k - Cached - Similar pages [
SpoilerFix.com] SpoilerFix.com messages to the visitors!
SpoilerFix.com is chock full of TV Spoiler Goodness. For those of us who just can't wait to see for ourselves...
www.spoilerfix.com/ - 10k - Cached - Similar pages H
ardiscoRadio! HardiscoRadio. Current Song: the zutroyans / selection by fu - subsurfer 7 Current Listeners: 1 Broadcast Bitrate: 128 ...
www.sptv.org/ - 3k - Cached - Similar pages
Heroes Television - Season 3 News and Spoilers
HEROES SEASON 3 cast news, screencaps and spoilers by Heroes Television.
www.heroestelevision.com/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

It is only the two ( the actual site and its forum ) one that has any relavence to our debate so their is no so called "an astounding number of forums where this website is being advertised" especily no advertisement.

2. If my proof is so unreferenced and reliable sources why are they on your site as notable references ? why even list them at all ?

3.Buddy Tv has no relavence to our dispute .

4. Proof also shows that is notable for a HUGE! dateabase of thousand of spoilers and media coverage , it is like a online version of Radio Times yet selects sertion shows bu Radio Times still gets a page ?

if you can pick holes in arguments so can I . I hope you reconsider

--Desmond Hume99 (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion The editor would do well to read WP:RS there are no reliable sources that mention this blog. Just because it exists, does not mean it should have an article here at WP. When a major, respected, news organization notices the blog, then it can try again. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Delete No reliable sources, fails wp:web. As per above, User:Desmond Hume99 might want to spend some time at wp:rs, wp:v, and wp:not. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The day A major news organization noises it is like you stikeing gold in your back garden ! I think it looks good ,everyone thinks it look good! why not stop and think , insted of seeing whats wrong, see whats right and you will RECONSIDER!! this :D

1.I WILL GET MAJOR PEOPLE TO MENTION THIS 2. YOU WILL POST IT!! 3.IT WILL HAPPEN SOON!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmond Hume99 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Desmond Hume99 is bragging abut being a sockpuppet of a banned user in the Spoiler TV forums [102]. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indef-blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion I was unable to find any non-trivial reliable sources discussing it. There are one or two mentions on borderline reliable sources, but none of them are non-trivial. The fact that the creator of this is a banned user who can't seem to spell doesn't help matters. Among other things he apparently wants to make a "penition" to have the article kept. I presume he means a "petition." Unless a penition is some new type of legal threat. Maybe his word is some sort of variant of "penitent" and he is trying to penance to make up for wasting our time? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 11:35, 8 July 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 Arrogant Sons of Bitches – Deletion endorsed. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The band does meet the criteria for musicians and ensembles. "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band...) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria... 6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply." The members of The Arrogant Sons of Bitches who are a part of a notable band is Jeff Rosenstock (foreman of both bands), Mike Costa, John Dedominici, Sean Qualls, Sean McCabe.^[1] The notable band in question is Bomb the Music Industry. In addition to the BtMI members, Dave McWane of Big D and the Kids Table had guest vocals on their final album. ^[2] Punching Kittens (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Arrogant Sons of Bitches MySpace [1]
^ Interpunk Records album description. [2]

Got proof? --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I do! See the revised reason and my references. Punching Kittens (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per the AfD. I note the new claim of notability above but, even if reliable sources were produced I am not convinced that this alone justifies the article although if verified I would consider recreation as a (protected) redirect to Bomb the Music Industry, which incidently is a large and apparently fluid, collective. Disclosure: I previously deleted the article under WP:CSD#G4. nancy ^(talk) 06:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is not AfD2. The closer interpreted consensus correctly. seresin ( ¡? ) 09:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my own speedy, as I said on my talk page, I see no evidence they pass WP:MUSIC. Note this has also been discussed multiple times on the creator's talk page about what would need to be done to avoid a G4, s/he hasn't taken this under consideration yet. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Ignore that, I missed the request. Endorse deletion, no reason given to ignore the AFD consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 8 July 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 July 2008

Rod Underhill – Article restored, speedy removed, but prod left. Deleting admin notes that he can't be right all the time..._GB^T/C 08:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON

I am confused about why this page was deleted so swiftly. First off, the admin who deleted the page concluded I was Rod Underhill. I am not Rod Underhill. Secondly, there were many cititations/references listed, including links to books, web articles, interviews and the like. I find this removal to be a personal attack (no offense) on a noted jurist and person of historical importance regarding the Internet. I would like an independent third party to let me know if I am out of line in my reasoning here. Thanks

~~FYI, deleted as expired PROD, see that page for details. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)~~ Just shoot me. Deleted under WP:CSD#A7. Deleting admin notified. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I may not properly understand all the proceedures, but I was actively rewritting the page and adding citations when the page was swiftly removed. Leah. 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamUnderhill (talk • contribs)

"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 perplexes me. At least two books published by QUE list Underhill's background as a founder of MP3.com. References to the back covers of one of these books, available on Amazon for review, were cited. Also several other sources as to that. 22:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamUnderhill (talk • contribs)

Overturn and restore. I think we should give this article a chance as it is fairly likely this individual is notable (based on the content of the deleted article). We should restore the article in the mainspace and allow users to improve the article (which is needed from its cached version) to include independent sources to support the notability of this individual. TeamUnderhill says he was rewriting the page and adding citations (which is a step in the right direction) so we should allow this user and others a little time to improve the article. If the claims made within the artice are infact supportable with reliable sources, then I would think this person would meet the threashold notability bar. At a bare minimum, we should userfy the article and give TeamUnderhill a chance to improve it. LakeBoater (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lakeboater. Will you restore the page or does there have to be further discussion from others? leah...22:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment As important as I would like to think I am :), I think further discussion is warranted/appropriate rather than a single overturn vote. Let's see what others think. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the clarification, this is my first time through this process. Leah 22:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamUnderhill (talk • contribs)

Comment For the record, it has been pointed out to me that CSD A7 is quite narrow. It covers articles which do not "indicate why its subject is important or significant". Not "does not have references". I respectfully argue that my article on Underhill passes that bar quite easily, despite any reasonable request for me to otherwise improve the quality of the article. 22:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamUnderhill (talk • contribs)

Overturn and restore as per LakeBoater. — Athaenara ✉ 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn being awarded a Webby award is a clear assertion of importance so A7 deletion was incorrect. Davewild (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Athletes from Omaha, Nebraska – Closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus reached in discussion. The nomination for the discussion was on a weak premise, and the only respondents were myself and the nominator. • Freechild'sup? 20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 26#Category:Athletes/Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska. But see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 26#Category:Athletes by city and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 12#Occupation by city. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse merge decision. There is simply no compelling case to not upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Vegaswikian. --Kbdank71 16:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because that is only a suggestion, not a requirement. WP not bureaucracy, and we do not place bureaucratic barriers or extra steps in the way of people trying to rescue articles. will the above commentator explain why he thinks that we should place such barriers?

It's not a barrier, it's common courtesy. You may not care if others are talking about you or something you did, but not everyone feels that way. --Kbdank71 15:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Vegaswikian. Postdlf (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Omaha sportspeople – Closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus reached in discussion. The nomination for the discussion was on a weak premise, and the only respondents were myself and the nominator. • Freechild'sup? 20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 26#Category:Athletes/Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska. But see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 26#Category:Athletes by city and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 12#Occupation by city. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse merge decision. There is simply no compelling case to not upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Vegaswikian. --Kbdank71 16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't any unmerge discussion seek consensus at Category talk:Omaha sportspeople? Why is the category empty? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Vegaswikian. Postdlf (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mydolls – Nomination has failed to address a substantive reason for deletion: WP:CSD#G11 (advertisement). Will userfy for improvement if requested. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have written to http://burningflameblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/mydolls.html, the person who used Mydolls bio on his blog, taken from our personal website. His name is Borivoj Badrljica and he has agreed to take Mydolls bio off of his blog. I have written to Wikipedia and they have given me a ticket number Ticket#2008070410004443. Please undelete Mydolls page. We only want to state facts about our band Mydolls on our page. Trish Herrera 17:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Trish Herrera 17:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Ok, it seems your article got flagged as a possible copyright violation. Did you follow the instructions as set forth by CorenSearchBot by noting the error on the discussion page? A review of the cached version of the article appears to have no references and no sources and therefore, no notability. Assuming the copyright issue is addressed, the other issue with the article is it does not meet, in its latest form, Wikipedia's notability guidelines and therefore, I ~~endorse deletion~~ of the article. If interested, we could userfy the article so you could improve it with references and independent sources. LakeBoater (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LakeBoater, Here are some links that will endorse the information I have given you is true. http://www.theskyline.net/?p=557 Where do I post the content that you will approve? The page Mydolls is blocked for protection. If any one can give true history of this band it would be the surviving band members and that would be me. Here is a link that lists our band as the rehearsing band in the movie Paris Texas. http://www.answers.com/topic/paris-texas-film?cat=entertainment Here we are on another page listed under Paris Texas http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2207297/ This site is called Internet movie database. Here is another article about us in the NY times http://movies.nytimes.com/person/51602/The-Mydolls and here is another one http://movies.msn.com/celebrities/celebrity-worked-with/the-mydolls/ I am not sure what you want from me to verify that I am the author owner creator of the text. Please help me understand. Would you like me to post here the text for the Mydolls page? Thank you Trish Herrera 13:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hello Trish. Thanks for the info. I am removing my endorse deletion vote as it seems these links may establish notability for the band. I suggest we either restore the article or at least userfy it where you can have a sandbox to improve the article. These references you provided above were not in the original article and would be a step in the right direction to show notability of this band. Let's see what others think about either restoring the article or userfying it. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of what is listed above wouldn't help establish notability, and certainly wouldn't create any verifiable information about the band. theskyline.net is a blog, the answers.com article is a copy of a wikipedia article, imdb has much use submitted content and similarly is not considered reliable. The remaining two are essentially nothing but trivial mentions --82.7.39.174 (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Imposter Mydolls Trish I tried to write the administrator who deleted the item and he is no longer on Wikipedia so I have tried every possible way to contact some one who can help me other than calling or writing to the Wiki office with a legal statement that I am an original member of Mydolls. I have two notable sites that list us as the rehearsing band in the NY Times and on the Amazon site where the movie Paris Texas is sold as a dvd. We are also listed on Fandango and www.imdb.com and Msn movies and hollywood.com as the rehearsing band in Paris Texas.

I have 3 lines in the movie in the bar scene and I am listed in the script as Chanteause..Thank you all so much for helping me get the page back on. However I am not sure how to do that. Do I just rewrite our Bio and create a new page? I can keep it very short if that helps and leave out any reference to the other famous people that helped us if that will pass your guidelines? BUT How do I do that? so far it is not back on. Here are the NY times links http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401E5DF1139F93AA35752C1A962948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=alllinkson. and http://movies.nytimes.com/person/51602/The-Mydolls Many thanks for your attention Trish Trish Herrera 18:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The admin who deleted the article (User:RHaworth) has not left Wikipedia. Try again. Stifle (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out to me Stifle/wizard You are so nice to help me with contacting Rhaworth. Here is the note I left on his page. Maybe this will help. Again Thanks Dear RHaworth, The Mydolls page was deleted because a fan in Serbia copied our bio from a personal page and put it on his blog. This person is http://burningflameblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/mydolls.html and I do not know this person. This person has taken a biography we had posted off of a site and pasted onto his site. I have emailed this person and he has removed our bio from his website, but I need your cooperation to correct this problem. Please help me unblock and unprotect mydolls page.I was the guitarist and creator of the band Mydolls. We are a legitimate part of Texas Music History. I have spoken to the man at Burning Flame given him a personal interview for his blog and he has removed the bio he copied from us from his blog. The Burning Flame site is what flagged the Mydolls page. I have also rewritten the bio and removed any references other than researched facts from the NY time about the movie Paris Texas that Mydolls performed in. I have two notable sites that list us Mydolls the rehearsing band in the NY Times and on the Amazon site where the movie Paris Texas is sold as a dvd. Mydolls are also listed on Fandango and www.imdb.com and Msn movies and hollywood.com as the rehearsing band in Paris Texas. I personally have 3 lines in the movie in the bar scene and I am listed in the script as Chanteause. Please help me get the page back on. Here are the NY times links http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401E5DF1139F93AA35752C1A962948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=alllinkson. and http://movies.nytimes.com/person/51602/The-Mydolls also here is my GNU statement. I grant permission to Wikipedia [Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.]Trish Herrera 14:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Mydolls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights Please understand I am only trying to release information about Mydolls. Trish Herrera Trish Herrera 14:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Trish Herrera 14:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

David Bale – Article restored and relisted at AFD here – Davewild (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Although I made improvements to this article (including providing additional sources) during the AfD period, all of the "delete" recommendations had already been submitted before that. There were no additional comments or recommendations submitted to the AfD after the improvements were made. The discussion closed as "delete" with only four people having participated including the nominator and myself. I would like the AfD to be re-opened so that we can get a better view of the consensus on this article as revised. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist Significant new sources added to the article after all delete opinions had been made. A new AFD to see if they are judged sufficient to establish notability seems sensible. Davewild (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & relist To see if the new sources stand up to scrutiny. RMHED (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & relist As the deleter, I can see that I made the mistake, and agree with the relist. Soxred 93 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there any way to see the new article with the improvements Metropolitan90 made to the article before it was AfDed? That would be helpful. Perhaps we should userfy the article for Metropolitan90 so the user can have a sandbox for the article for our review? LakeBoater (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that. What do others think? Soxred 93 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you (as deleting admin) are fine with a relist then the article can just be restored to the mainspace and a new AFD opened right away. This will enable all users to decide on the article. Davewild (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am agreeable to overturn and relist per Davewild's suggestion. LakeBoater (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing now. Soxred 93 19:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist, with kudos to Soxred for his comments above. Townlake (talk) 18:30, 4 July 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:Uw-joke4im – Template restored by deleting admin – Davewild (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting it to be restored. --75.47.205.32 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but would you mind giving a reason? It is difficult to judge the case without one. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, Uw-joke1 2,3, and 4 were not deleted. I notified the admin of this discussion- I wonder how this anon. knew to come here at all. But this obviously warrants a discussion at TfD. It might be useful to check. DGG (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Completely agree with lifebaka- you need to make a case for restoration, otherwise, it is an obvious keep deleted. LakeBoater (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

23:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC) {{uw-vandalism3}} notice posted on User talk:75.47.198.113 (hist)[reply]
23:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC) removed (rm - ridiculous message) by 75.47.198.113.[reply]
02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC) {{Uw-joke4im}} tagged with {{old template}} by 75.47.198.113.
18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC) template deleted by me.

I restored the template and removed the old deletion notice. — Athaenara ✉ 17:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andrew Schlafly – G4 speedy deletion overturned and article relisted at AFD. The article is not substantially the same as the article deleted at AFD and there has been some attempt to address the problems raised there. However many concerns over notability remain so am relisting at AFD – Davewild (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was last deleted through the deletion process 14 months ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (2nd nomination)). I recently created an entirely new article on the man which addressed many of the problems brought up in the last AFD and included new claims of notability. However the article was quickly deleted and while the admin did not cite it exactly this would have been done under CSD G4 which allows articles which have already been deleted to be speedily deleted if reposted.

However, In this case G4 does not apply.

Articles can be deleted under CSD G4 if

The article is consists primarily of text deleted through the Articles for Deletion process.
The article does not in any significant way address the concerns for which the article was deleted.

My article meets neither of these criteria.

The new text is entirely original to me, I did not use the old deleted text in any way.
My new article goes a long way towards addressing the problems brought up in the AFD that brought to its deletion. I have gathered many new citations that allow for his bio to be expanded out side of Conservapedia related areas and have included his newest claim to fame (the Lenski affair which gained fame in the blogosphere).

My version of the article can be found at User:Icewedge/AS temp. It is a bit messy (I am still working on it) but the subject is clearly notable and as I said before it meets neither of the G4 criteria. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 02:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Most recent deleting admin) Keep deleted. Not enough sources written about him. There's a lot of information out there primarily about Conservapedia, but only bits and pieces about Schlafly. Any information not already in Conservapedia is pretty minor and I doubt this article would ever get past stub status without venturing into original research, unreliable sources, or overlapping with Conservapedia's article.-Wafulz (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has three claims of notability.

Founder of well known website (Conservapedia)

That's why the redirect exists. Any relevant information is already in that article

Senior official of well known group(Association of American Physicians and Surgeons)

This isn't criteria for notability as far as I'm aware. It also really depends on your definitions of "senior" and "well-known"

Previous candidate for high political office. (House of representatives)

Not relevant - candidates are not automatically notable (especially for candidates who fared very poorly very early)

And I think what I have now is quite a bit more than a stub. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 02:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lenski dialog is completely redundant with information in Conservapedia's article, and it makes up about half the article's meaningful text. A lot of the other details are already given in the article as well. Ultimately, there just aren't enough non-trivial independent sources about Schlafly himself to justify the article. Aside from trivial details (his job/education), there isn't enough reliable information.-Wafulz (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Conservapedia. No evidence of reliable independent secondary sources describing the subject. Without suitable sources, he does not deserve a stand alone article. The existing coverage within Conservapedia is appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, the above would be my !vote at the AfD that the new article didn't get. Weak overturn and relist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak overturn It shouldn't really have been deleted under G4 as the text was different to that of the deleted article, and there was a reasonable attempt to address the issues raised in the last AfD. However, I agree with Wafulz about the lack of real notability; additionally the fact that nearly half the text is devoted to an extremely entertaining but ultimately unimportant exchange of letters which is currently attracting comment in the blogosphere gives the article a flavour of WP:NOT#NEWS, and there are several negative statements sourced to blogs, raising some BLP worries. I would vote to delete this at an AfD unless it could be substantially improved. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 13:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion. I have reviewed the references and I beleive all of them are either trivial mentions of Andrew Schlafly or would not qualify as independend sources. If the author can convince me otherwise with examples, I might reconsider my vote. However, it seems that there is not enough substance to this article. LakeBoater (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overturn, list new article at AfD This is not G4 and clearly has more sources than the previous AfD. I'm undecided on whether or not he merits an article at this time, but a new AfD for the new article seems appropriate. If that doesn't occur I presume we can consider merging more of the personal material about Andrew to the Conservapedia article. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article that was deleted per G4 differs enough from the article deleted due to the AfD that it did not meet the G4 criterion. Therefore, the article should be restored. The article asserts notability, and therefore cannot be again speedy deleted under A7. The subject, however, may not be sufficiently notable to merit an article; these concerns are under the purview of AfD. So the article should be restored, and editorial discretion can handle the article further. seresin ( ¡? ) 09:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn, list at Afd while I do not think there are enough sources to write an article about Schlafly (I have tried it several times) the article that was deleted did not meet the criteria for a speedy deletion. I think the new article should be restored and the issues of notability and sourcing addressed in another AfD. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, does not meet the criteria to endorse the decision (G4). MrPrada (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The recreated article wasn't a valid G4 deletion, questions of notability should be left to an AfD to determine. RMHED (talk) 01:33, 8 July 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 July 2008

Image:Last of the Time Lords.jpg – Consensus is measured against policy not headcount and enforcing the NFCC criteria is difficult because there is not overwhealing consent for our FU policies in all areas of the project. Ordinarily this should result in the policy being set aside but since this is one that has been handed down by the foundation and reflects our core ethos of being a free project we simply get left with the akward position where numerically there is support to keep an image but judging consensus against policy is clear. The close accuratly reflected a policy based consensus as this image did not meet our NFCC - specifically points 1 & 8. I can clearly see a majority of users who believe this image was incorrectly deleted but the state of our NFCC and tension between foundation led policy and what the community wants makes it crucial that we consider this under policy not headcount. The deletion is therefore Endorsed. Needless to say we need better ways of resolving issues like this then the crude clubs of IFD and DRV but since we do not have them we have to make the best of a bad job. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The closing admin enforced his personal opinion of WP:NFCC#8 to delete the image despite no consensus in the debate. Additionally, the nominator, Fasach Nua (talk · contribs), has a history for anti-fairuse disruption (remember, being right =/= being disruptive) and stifling discussion by not following IfD rules. See also, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_27#Image:FotD 007x.jpg, which is the same dispute, different image. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, please, leave the discussion on whether the image did pass NFCC or not out of it. DRV, especially this one, is supposed to review whether the correct procedure was followed. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this is a pattern of DW episode image deletion. While this image discussion indicated a clear 7:5 consensus to keep, the image was deleted. I should know; I was one of the ones voting to delete. That the image was deleted - again, against consensus or precedent - displays a disturbing trend that should be discussed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

This is pretty much the same dispute and pretty much the same misunderstanding that consensus equal headcount, which it does not. -Nv8200p talk 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn.
I think Sceptre has a point. The closer's statement was "Fair use images in infoboxes are merely decorative. Cited commentary about the image needs to exist in the article and the image placed in context with that commentary in order to justify using the image under fair use." Whilst that is a defensible opinion, it is not an accurate expression of our current policy. Moreover the use was far from decorative. I will quote from my argument to keep, which demonstrates the significance of the picture (which is amply treated in the article):
A striking image of the Doctor's desperation to save the only other living Time Lord, whom he has known since childhood. The Tenth Doctor's extraordinary capacity for forgiveness towards The Master contrasts with his normally unforgiving, uncompromising nature ("No second chances, I'm that kind of man" -The Christmas Invasion, "You get one warning. That was it." -School Reunion). Despite all the evil things The Master has done, the Doctor forgives him and urges him to regenerate.

One might legitimately argue that text could be used instead of the picture; that is not our policy. One might say that the use was purely decorative, but my description shows this to be incorrect. If the closer's feeling was that the image was not close enough to the text it was associated with, that was not a deletion matter at all: anyone could move the image to the relevant part of the plot summary. --Jenny 07:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your text was unsupported original research. "A striking image" is strictly opinion as is "The Tenth Doctor's extraordinary capacity for forgiveness." The arguments to keep were all of a similar nature. -Nv8200p talk 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - consensus was to keep the image, and there is no overriding policy violation that would require deletion. (The debate was whether the image satisfied the NFCC, and the consensus was that it did. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the subjective, uncited text and equally unsupported arguments in the IFD, the image violated NFCC#8 and required deletion. -Nv8200p talk 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FP has a point - should be a "no consensus" closure. However, to Nv8200p: that's your opinion, which I don't personally share and I don't think was shared by a majority at the debate. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. To Stifle: No, whatever this IfD was, it was most definitely not a "consensus for keep". I count five carefully argued delete votes (Fasach Nua, pd_Thor, PhilKnight, Arcane, myself; one equally serious conditional delete vote (JohnABerring27A, worded as "keep" but essentially saying "delete unless improved"); five argued keep votes; one "as per" keep vote with no new arguments, and one keep vote (Sceptre) given for blatantly disruptive WP:POINT reasons ("keep" because he doesn't like the nominator.) That's a "no consensus" at best, but in fact it's within the domain where a deletion decision on a non-free-content related IfD falls into admin discretion, as in many similar cases. - As a general note, I notice that User:Sceptre has made it a habit of systematically opposing IfD nominations made by Fasach Nua regardless of the merits of the case, just because he finds him "disruptive", and he is even using that as an argument for this DRV nomination. This is blatantly disruptive behaviour in itself, and in fact constitutes blockable harassment. Fair warning given. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - He actually got blocked for being disruptive three weeks ago, and a RFC was opened on him six months ago. It isn't a huge logical jump to assume he is being disruptive (which is different from being right - people have been banned for disruptive improvement). Speedy keeping for disruption is allowed (WP:SK 2, especially iii) and is not harassment because I'm not wikistalking his nominations, I'm keeping an eye on the Doctor Who IFDs. If someone like Arcayne had nominated the image, I would've elected for a "weak delete". Sceptre ^(talk) 11:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, attacking the motives of Sceptre? Unless you have picked up mind-reading at some point, maybe making such bad faith remarks is something to avoid since, as an admin, you know how false statements and inferences can poison the well of good faith in a discussion. Maybe you can stop doing that, as it is beneath that character which I tend to believe you posess.

Secondly, you are allowed to interpret the votes however you wish. Discounting votes simply because they are "as per" or the like is foolish, especially when the "as per" in question makes solid enough arguments. Often enough, I've voted as per when I had nothing new to add to an argument already made, or could not phrase it better than it already had. Perhaps you are confusing as per votes with folk who come into WP IfD's with a certain agenda - like a preconception as to how NFC#1 or #8 should be interpreted (and not how it actually is by the community). As per votes use the same argument as the ones they are giving the nod to. The vote was'; a clear consensus, 8:6 (including the nominator) to keep. Spinning the result is better left to politics. It doesn't belong here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Taking this to Sceptre's user talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus). Closer's rationale was a non-overriding new argument that he should have introduced as a new !vote. Also, the closer seemed to even suggest an editorial solution that would justfy keep. Closer is therefore just as unclear as the final consensus of the debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - for the reasons I noted above. The only serves to punctuate the problem I pointed out in another DRV over another Doctor Who image from yet another episodic article. Houston, I think we have a problem here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was endorsed in the other DRV, so there was not a problem there. -Nv8200p talk 02:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - image clearly met the requirements, as the consensus seemed to establish. ╟─Treasury Tag╬contribs─╢ 10:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closer was placing their own interpretation on policy. There clearly was no consensus to delete. Sweeping statememnts like " Fair use images in infoboxes are merely decorative" show that the closer has an agenda of their own and maybe they should stay clear of IfD closes in future. RMHED (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (from closing admin) There is nothing in the article to support that the image significantly increased the reader's understanding on the topic. The text relating to the image "Just before dying in his opponent's arms, the Master muses on the constant drumming in his head, wondering if it will finally stop, and with a smile says, "I win" before he dies, leaving the Doctor to weep uncontrollably for both his lost adversary and the last remaining member of his species, leaving him once again the last of the Time Lords" is understandable without the image. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at the strength of the arguments versus Wikipedia policy. The arguments put forward such as "clearly describes the emotions and setting of the episode," "key element of narrative," etc. were original research or personal opinion, as there is no cited commentary to support those claims. Without cited commentary as to why the image itself is notable, use of the image fails WP:NFCC#8 and as a violation of policy must be deleted. -Nv8200p talk 14:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out to you elsewhere, in the cases of a clear consensus, the image stays. Your opinion does not outweigh those opinions have the temerity of dissenting with your deletion. Frankly, you voting to sustain your own decision seems a bit self-serving. You are entitled to voice your opinion in the actual discussion, not by closing the discussion that you have already voiced a preference in policy interpretation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small majority of keep votes in an IFD discussion does not make a clear consensus for an image to stay. In this case, weighing the arguments in the IFD against applicable policy (which has been dictated by the Wikimedia Foundation and shaped through consensus) determined the outcome. -Nv8200p talk 02:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are looking to the small majority of Keep votes there and are deciding it doesn't matter - that you are going to do what you prefer, perhaps this DRV is helping to correct that misperception on your part. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because reaching consensus in DRV is not about headcount either. -Nv8200p talk 01:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are someone who has been keen to delete episodic content in Doctor Who articles, I am rather unconvinced of your impartiality. It begs the question - why even have people weigh as delete or keep in IfD's if someone like you - with a preconceived notion as to any episodic content - is simply going to disregard any opinion that differs from your own? Du to your admitted lack of neutrality regarding these images, you should maybe listen to opinions other than your own, or simply recuse yourself from images of episodic content. Frankly, I am incredibly disappointed at to your stubborn defiance to follow a consensus that contradicts your personal interpretation, and am starting to wonder if further action is called for. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC

What you call preconceived notions, I call precedents set down by previous DRVs concerning non-free content. -Nv8200p talk 01:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Closer's comment was basically a !vote in disguise, instead of addressing compliance to NFCC, then cites placement of the images as a reason for failing NFCC, which is not a creterion. Since NFCC is a matter of interpretation, closer should have focussed on consensus instead, which leaned toward Keep, and should have closed it as no consensus at best. — Edokter • Talk • 15:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My statement in the closing "Cited commentary about the image needs to exist in the article and the image placed in context with that commentary in order to justify using the image under fair use" addresses the lack of compliance to NFCC. The theme that many have seemed to latched on to is the admin action of closing a discussion is a "vote in disguise." This logic could be applied to any closing at AFD or IFD as well to the closing of a DRV. Everytime an admin takes action it is a "vote in disguise". -Nv8200p talk 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Most admins, because they are taking a neutral stance when closing, almost never delete in cases of a clear consensus to keep, unless the image is so egregious as to demand immediate action. This image doesn't provoke such a response, and I suspect it is beginning to dawn on you that there wasn't a need to impose your own pet interpretation of the image. As you had already expressed an opinion in two closings of episodic image articles, you should have abstained from voting. Period. You made another mistake. How many of these have to pile up before you start to consider that we aren't "out to get you" or wreck the 'pedia?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mistake has been made yet. The last closing was endorsed. Deleting the image was not an expression of my opinion but was the community consensus against using non-free images in this manner. -Nv8200p talk 00:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair use images in infoboxes are merely decorative" Is what i was refering to, which looks very much opinionated. I also cannot find anything regarding 'placed in context' in WP:NFCC. — Edokter • Talk • 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My statement "Fair use images in infoboxes are merely decorative" is applicable to this IFD discussion as a symptom of the problem. It is not a generic statement about my opinion of fair use image in all infoboxes. There are infoboxes that have fair use images in them, such as a movie poster in the infobox in the article about the movie, because it was decided by community consensus that movie posters are inherently significant to the article about the movie. -Nv8200p talk 19:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that if you see these images as symptoms of a larger problem, I would offer you the same advice you have offered others: take the battle to the appropriate forum, like NFCC or the Village Pump. Trying to forge a new interpretation in the crucible of IfD is malformed at best and malfeasance at worst. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say this image was part of a larger problem. I said it's use in the infobox was a symptom of the problem concerning this IFD and not infoboxes in general. -Nv8200p talk 00:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that isn't what your comment indicated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn closure and relist - In what I've read so far, both in this discussion and elsewhere (contributions histories and page histories are often revealing), I think I have enough "evidence" (per WP:AGF) to personally satisfy myself that this apparently wasn't a neutral closure. That means "improper procedure" in the closing, which is one of the things we're to determine in a DRV discussion. The new IfD can determine the question of licensing and such. (And I'd like to see a notice of the IfD discussion dropped at such WikiProjects who might be fluent in image legalese.) - jc37 07:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Licensing and copyright legalise never was the issue with this one, its legal status was never in doubt. The issue is non-free content policies, and Nv8200p is perfectly competent to make a well-founded judgement call on the basis of project-wide policy consensus, with which he is intimately familiar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Noting that IANAL) Licensing, as per "usage". And the image's "usage", would seem to indeed be what's under discussion. And while I typically don't take a person's past actions under consideration regarding closures. That is, I tend to think most can be neutral, despite their biases. However, there is a clause to WP:AGF that I feel applies here: It is not required to AGF when presented with evidence to the contrary. And as I noted above, I felt I found enough evdence to convince me personally. And I am thinking of the recent ARBCOM case which involved episodes, which had some similar situations. (I can look for the links, if requested.) So no, I don't think that we should blindly continue to AGF concerning this closure if we don't feel that it's appropriate. (Incidentally, this is in no way a personal attack upon the editor, just a personal observation of patterns seemingly indicated by my own reading/research.) Now I've presented my perspective. It'll be up to the closer of the DRV to determine how to weigh my, and others' perspectives in this closure. - jc37 08:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Clearly, it is not, FutPerf; he is unwilling to concede even the possibility that he made an error; an extraordinarily bad personality trait in an administrator. We trust them (perhaps unfairly) to make the right decisions, but when they don't, we certainly expect them to step up and ask for some independent oversight and admit they could have been mistaken. Additionally, "project-wide policy consensus" doesn't agree with his rather narrow interpretation of NFC#8 in this matter, so I feel that fairly invalidates your argument. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. An admin doesn't get to make the subjective decision on what "significantly enhances". That's a decision the community makes by consensus in a discussion, just like in the one this admin chose to close. According to guidelines, this admin should have closed, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. I think impartiality was not reached. If Nv8200p wants to make a judgement call on the basis of policy, they should participate in the discussion. When closing a debate they are allowed no judgement call. Hiding T 11:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins do not participate in the discussion. They close the IFD based on the arguments presented by others. The "Keep" arguments presented either contradicted policy or were based on opinion rather than fact. -Nv8200p talk 15:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, incorrect. The reason that admins "generally" do not participate in discussion is that, in the case of a tie, they cannot close without it appearing to be a closure of preference, not neutrality. It is your opinion (and clearly, pretty much only your opinion) that the arguments for keep were based upon less than solid arguments. You weighed those arguments against your predisposition of those arguments and were unconvinced, You were supposed to look at the larger consensus regarding the interpretation of the arguments they were making and act accordingly, You failed to do so here. In the future, you might wish to recuse yourself from closing those discussions regarding eitehr Doctor Who episode images or episodic images in general, as your neutrality in such instances is admittedly compromised. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case of a tie, it would not have mattered if the admin participated in the discussion or not because by your position on consensus the close would have to be "no action". -Nv8200p talk 03:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the point is that you don't think that tie should be decided by the closing admin, which is actually incorrect. Your personal preference doesn't get to enter into it. You can say you are following policy as much as you wish, but the fact remains that you are adding a personal interpretation of our image policy that is not shared by the larger community consensus. If you wish to change that, then you should seek out the proper venue for that. IfD is not the place for you to use the buttons to create a consensus out of thin air. Recognize that a significant number of people are telling you that you are mistaken, and be wise enough to accept the criticism, note that you were wrong and grow from it. Remaining stubborn isn't going to serve either you or the Project. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your problem. It is an opinion, not a fact, whether something "significantly enhances". You are proving my point by insisting that such a subjective decision is a fact. The closing admin cannot discount opinion which forms a consensus on a subjective field. Let me put this one to you: If an article were listed for deletion as being a POV fork, but the consensus in the debate was that it wasn't, how would you close the debate? Would your opinion that it was indeed a POV fork influence your decision? Closing admins are impartial. You breached that impartiality in your close. If you want to make your opinion count, participate. If you want to act as a closing admin, act impartial. You don't get to do both. Hiding T 08:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Robert Eibl – There is a clear consensus among established users that this individual might well be notable given some reliable sourcing but that these sources appear to be absent at this time. I'm closing this a little early to save the ip editor the indignity of continuing to argue with himself. Everyone else seems to have moved on. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

reason for deletion is absolutely not clear - and the administrator admits to be a "deletionist" - but sure not a scientist in this rather new field of nanobiotechnology Robert Eibl pioniered. The whole discussion was too short and almost nobody really discussed on this page, mainly , one former Stanford computer scientist and no real scientist from the field was able to really judge "notability" of someone who may have ennemies in the field of biophysics who have good contacts to Wikipedia deletionists, but Robert Eibl demonstrated remarkable findings and approaches already acknowledged by a Crafoord prize winner (Eugene Butcher/Stanford University) and by a Nobel candidate (Irving Weissman, California scientist of the Year 2001, and Robert-Koch prize winner 2008), as everybody can see on the homepage www.robert-eibl.de . Therefore the reason for deletion should be discussed and the discussion for deletion should remain for at least one month to give real experts in the field a chance to confirm notability - Why does the administrator feels to be above Who's Who in Medicine and above Who's Who in the World? I would like to suggest that Wikipedia should take care of deletionists 62.104.72.16 (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (keep deleted). The AfD participants already appear to have considered the evidence presented here and concluded that this person does not meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for academics. The verifiable facts presented in the discussion by the anonymous participant(s?) appear to have been duly considered (though the opinion portion of the of the anon comments appropriately discounted in accordance with established standards given the risk of sockpuppetry). A person's own website can be a supporting source for some incidental information about the subject but is not considered an independent or reliable source for the purposes of determining notability. I see no process problems in the AfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uncertain I originally voted keep at that AfD, & changed it to a weak delete on the basis that only the early work was cited significantly, and is was not independent. Reading the Afd, it becomes clear that there is a good deal hidden beneath the surface here DGG (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uncertain The problem is that there is no real substantial evidence. I need to rely on the publicly available sources and facts like citations etc. From these, notability is not obvious. As DGG points out, the early work seems to be really established, but not independent. The newer work might be independent, notable and influential, but at the moment, it is not well documented by independent sources. Working together with truly influential people like Butcher or Weissman does not make a person influential himself. Furthermore, even this alleged cooperation is hardly verifiable. As it is, this independent newer work is only represented in non peer-reviewed books as chapters. Everyone who is slightly involved in the field can read the peer reviewed, original literature and write such a chapter, without being influential himself. The personal website is not very informative. Some accusations about not being cited, no CV, no publication record, no affiliation. Therefore, the website - beyond was Rossami was already pointing out - is not a good source for establishing notability. Perhaps one should wait until the newer work is well documented, and then include the article again. --Sisyphos happy man (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion, and would the IP please explain why he ignored the instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Fair reading of the AfD. No evidence of independent secondary sources. Keep arguments focused on the subjects work, not the subject. Of the two wikipedia articles linked in the cached version (medulloblastomas and PNETs), on which a notability claim seems to be based, neither article contains Eibl's name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SmokeyJoe (reminds me of Sloppy Joe's bars I and II) mentioned PNET and medulloblastoma didn't contain Eibl as a source. This might be the case, but the english version of wikipedia is far behind the german version - and, sorry, but the english versions aren't good for an encyclopedia at all - this should be considered when using wikipedia and more energy should be used to make wikipedia more reliable than it is after so many years - so many mistakes in almost every article, but administrators appear wasting their time as deletionists rather than accepting the facts: Eibl is listed in "the original" Who's who, twice (in Medicine and, surprisingly, included in the next issue of Who'sWho in the World, then, 8 U.S. patents cite Eibl et al. as a source - not the wrong paper on CD44 which excluded CD44v in brain tumors a year earlier. Maybe the librarian of the administrators could easily check the world ranking list of neurosurgeons (and neuropathologists) which keep Robert Eibl listed (although he is not a neurosurgeon and didn't want to become a neuropathologist), but this list is not anymore open to public access (I think for good reasons). Maybe this could be verified with the Brain tumor center (Harvard Medical School). Although Eibl never reached the top 10 or top 100 his mentioning on a world wide list within the top 1000 (I remember about ranking 700 two years ago) of neurosurgeons/ neuropathologists is indeed notable. The reason why wikipedia exists, but sure will fail in the long range, is to provide reliable knowledge NOT easily found everywhere. Wikipedia could just use only those biopgraphies listed in the Brockhaus - so why bothering with early information? For Harvard University, the Who's Who is used but sure not Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.76.213 (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you improve Medulloblastoma and PNETs or other serious articles, and with consensus on those pages establish that Eibl is important enough for at least a blue-link mention (not "source") on other articles, then I would be inclined to support an independent article, on the basis that it is good for navigation. Finding Eibl in a primary source list, but without any actual commentary about him, doesn't do it for me. To have an article about a subject, there should be independent secondary sources with coverage (not just data) of the subject. You have to show that someone else has already written about him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion All the facts were discussed well at AfD and the IP hasn't brought up any new facts or arguments.Cst17 (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eibl is "subject" of the 2006/7 Marquis' Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare, so it is written about him in an encyclopedia. Anybody who can read could check this in any good library (e.g. Harvard University and many others), or buy the book for probably more than 100 USD. Eibl is also selected for the soon to appear Marquis' Who's Who in the World. This is notability - no matter what his scientific ennemies or copycats in Munich may think. Eibl co-authored so many papers, often as second author, that it is clearly unimportant what exactly was his independent finding. It is more than likely that he is indeed the first to detect and to sequence p53 mutations in low-grade astrocytomas in 1991, and he at that time also found the high frequency of 50%. Since Andreas von Deimling who came from Harvard Medical School to visit Eibl in Zurich and to learn the technique from him could reproduce the findings from Eibl - and to combine it with less important chromosomal data, Andreas von Deimling became the first author, especially since Paul Kleihues and Otmar D. Wiestler didn't support Eibl to publish his findings on astrocytomas as first author (Eibl didn't want to become full professor of neuropathology). This is not against Andreas von Deimling since he had suggested to publish two papers in the same issue of Cancer Research, one first authored by Eibl. There is no doubt that Eibl in one way or the other contributed to many papers, including first authored papers, but many of his second-author papers were incedibly often cited by other scientists and MDs. This is sure "notable" but also shows that he was able to support a team, although the full independency of his work and research idea (especially being the first with the crazy idea to check and even find a surprising high frequency of p53 mutations in low-grade astrocytomas/benign tumors at a time when such mutations were categorically supposed to appear only in late stages of tumor progression, i.e. metastatic colon carcinomas, but never in benign tumors) can not easily be selected and proven nowadays. In addition, it is completely wrong to beleive, that "any Nobody" could publish alone a 50 page manuscript as book chapter and receiving money for this in a well established book series by Springer in biophysics, which includes a German Nobel winner as series editor ! How self-disqualifying is Wikipedia ? The article is very young, and there sure is room for improvement, but that's true (and unfortunately necessary for most Wikipages) but alltogether there is no doubt of notability, although sources should be improved soon and continuously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.77.44 (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the Marquis Who Is Who Website:If you are interested in submitting your biographical details for editorial review and possible inclusion in a Marquis Who's Who publication, please complete this biographical data form. Doesn't seem that someone wrote about him, and as stated in the AfD discussion Marquis Who Is Who is not a very critical publication. Again the IP doesn't bring any facts or arguments that weren't discussed in the AfD. Cst17 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it was that easy to get into the original Who's Who, then Cst17 should really submit her/his biographical data. If she/he gets included, maybe all Wikipedia writers should get included. It is well documented (surprisingly even in Wikipedia) that Harvard University uses the original Who's Who as a source. Isn't it funny that Cst17 is above editorial decisions of an independent source. If Eibl was on the first page of Times or Forbes, then one could argue, well that was just one editorial decision, - as it is for the Who's Who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.72.99 (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the last few years Eibl was on several newspapers, Bavarian and Germany-wide radio interviews on the field of nanotechnology/biotechnology and Elite universities (together with a minister or state secretary). At least one of the newspaper editions was much more than a half page about his winning of Germany's largest local bussiness plan competitions in 2001, but despite some support he didn't get the millions for his planned startup, nor did he get a specific, but recommended support from a Munich professor of Bussiness Administration (who is affiliated with the "Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes", but Eibl was nominated later again with his bussiness plan, but also didn't to get the 20 million USD for his nanobiotech company - but was on several newspapers, not only in Bavaria (southern Germany), and many of the startup-magazines. Surprisingly, some of his "competitors" in Munich (I don't know why this word sounds similar as copycats) appear to have better connections (both, to the "Studienstiftung", which promotes mainly Germany's Elite (why does this remind me to Hitler?), i.e. "sons of big professors/influential people", and to the Munich-Mafia of biophysics/Organic Chemistry). Here is just one small link which still exists, but most of all the other newspapers are not online, and also written in German language http://www.munichnetwork.com/SITE/UPLOAD/DOCUMENT/041104Aussteller.pdf In a current newsletter from 2008 the German Cancer Research Center also used a pic with Eibl receiving a prize from the director of the institution. And this is not notable ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.77.120 (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cst17 appears to beleive that anybody could submit whatever it needs to Who's Who. This might be the case, but Cst17 clearly speculates on this with absolutely no evidence - isn't there a rule for "living persons" of NOT damaging someones personal rights? Eibl states himself (e.g on his webpage) that he never applied or did anything else to get into the Who's Who - and he doesn't know who he nominated. Even if Cst17 is right that anybody could submit any biographical data or whatever to Who's Who, it appears to be ridiculous to beleive anybody then gets into Who's Who. I suggest all Wikipedia administrators submit whatever they think is necessary and we'll see how many of them (if at all) get included. If Cst17 then really gets included then one really should keep Eibl out of Wikipedia. Isn't there any rule that rules should not harm Wikipedia? Maybe Eibl is in many cases the exception of the rule: Eibl is an MD, finished his thesis in molecular cell biology (this is already strange for a German MD to clone a gene), but later pioniered even nanotechnology to create a new discipline: pharmacological nanotechnology (somewhere between all disciplines of physics, biology, immunology, cancer genetics and cancer pharmacology). He received a first prize of more than 750 competitors at a Munich bussiness plan competition, but then didn't get the millions he aimed for (and probably still needs to get his potential cancer therapy further established with the field of nanotechnology). Considering "notability" as proven with being cited about 1000 times by (international) scientific journals and at least hundreds of times in english textbooks of medicine and physics makes it unimportant if cited as first, second, last or co-author. If only the first or last author contributed intellectually to a paper, then one wouldn't need any co-authors. With such an extraordinary number of citations as second author, but also some first authored papers being cited, there is good evidence of notability and an argument for inclusion - especially if the rule of exception which should applied in this case is considered as a Wikipedia-rule. One should consider: many extremely good research has been re-invented 30 years later (Gregor Mendel: his genetics laws were not recognized for 30 years). Eibl opened a new research discipline - that's the fact and the reason why he is not cited so many times yet with his nanobiotech research - but this appears to be the reason why he really got nominated for not only the Who's Who... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.72.22 (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eibl was not only the first to detect p53 mutations in low-grade astrocytomas and at a high frequency (von Deimling, Eibl et al.), but also the first to detect p53 mutations in human medulloblastomas and at a surprisingly low frequency of about 10% (Ohgaki, Eibl et al.). The low frequency of p53 mutations was unexpected from his rat tumor model using SV40 Large T- antigen which was known to bind to and inactivate the p53 gene product, but also other proteins. Therefore his model became very interesting to Germany which invested millions to support a so-called "Sonderforschungsbereich" in Bonn to further elucidate the other proteins, which appear to be more important (in medulloblastomas and, perhaps, other tumors) than p53 gene products. Although Eibl is not first author in the two heavily cited papers, he made very significant contributions for which the papers where cited. He was not first author of his finding, because in both cases other findings where mixed with his original findings: von Deimling contributed chromosomal loss in their paper, and Ohgaki contributed a p53 mutation in another tumor entity, and since Eibl didn't speak english he could not get the support to publsih his findings, which contributed to such enormously cited papers - of different first authors. Conclusion: Eibl contributed in different ways to brain tumor research: he developed a unique animal model, he found the first p53 tumors in the human counterpart of that model, but at a low frequency of only 10% which increased the value of his animal model in order to find the other binding partners as crucial for the development of childhood brain tumors, and third, Eibl developed the idea of searching low-grade (benign) astrocytomas for p53 mutations and he found them first, and he found them at a surprisingly high-frequeny. This is really notable not only for neuroscientists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.74.27 (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User talk:Black Kite – Is apparently moot. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was speedied by Black Kite under G7, but is not the work of one author. As I understand it, admins do not have the right to delete their talk pages simply because they are retiring. I have no problem with leaving the page blank, but the history should be retained. Father Goose (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Right to vanish, we each have the right to leave the project and that generally does include the removal of userpages and sub-pages (which includes Talk in my experience). We limit that right when the Talk page includes large numbers of warnings and other evidence of investigations into malicious activity or editing. I see no indications that this was a bad-faith edit or that Black Kite left the project under suspicious or malicious circumstances. He/she did not, for example, remove the Talk page archives. (See here for an example.) This speedy-deletion seems to me to be well within reasonable standards of acceptability.
Note: If the consensus is to overturn, please be sure only to overturn the most recent deletion. The removal of the personal attacks and threats (31 Mar - 1 April) were entirely appropriate and show admirable restraint on the part of this editor in the face of outrageous provocation.) Rossami (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well. I am changing my request to temporary undeletion, as certain comments made by Black Kite on his user talk page shortly before deleting it may have bearing on this other current deletion review.--Father Goose (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reviewed the deleted content. There were no comments relevant to that discussion in the history. There was a minor discussion that was moved to his last archive - that content is still visible. Rossami (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It finally occurred to me to look it up via Google's cache. The language in question was at the top of the page: "This was supposed to be a Free Encyclopedia - but is rapidly turning it into a compendium of every piece of trivia ever written, complemented with lashings of copyright abuse." This is relevant to the aforementioned DRV, and I would again like to request undeletion until that DRV is closed.--Father Goose (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know what you're looking at when you refer to the Google cache but I have now double checked every version between the user's last archiving at 08:24, 28 June 2008 and the page deletion at 14:16, 30 June 2008. That comment is not in the deleted history of this page. I suggest that you look in his/her archives instead (pages which have not been deleted). Rossami (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The comments in question were apparently made on June 15, and they are not in the archives because Black Kite deleted them instead of archiving them.--Father Goose (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry but I don't think you are correct. According to the edit history, every edit that this user made to his talk page on 15 June 2008 was moved to User talk:Black Kite/Archive16. The deletion log shows no deletions. I also would question the relevance of a comment at that date. The DRV you cite was not opened until 1 July. The AfD ran from 22 Jun to 27 Jun. A general comment made a week prior does not appear to be some kind of smoking gun. It certainly is not proximate enough to breach his right to vanish. Rossami (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I am willing to allow for a certain amount of leeway in a user's own subpages, particularly where there is no evidence of problems or wrongdoing. As that does not exist here I see no good reason to force the restoration of the page. Shereth 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete User talk pages should never be deleted for reasons of embarrassment. "Right to vanish" is not a right, but depends on the circumstances. I consider this circumstances here borderline at best, and I think permitting deletion in cases like this is a poor precedent. Incidentally, has he really vanished--does he still have admin rights?. Unless he gives them up, he has not vanished. What exactly is his status now? DGG (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, courtesy blank, and protect. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete all non-libelous content. Faulty application of WP:CSD#G7. User:Black Kite was not the only author of the page. In the absence of compelling reasons, the talk page should remain accessible. I do not know what libelous, offending and non-offending content was deleted, but only libelous content should be deleted. Blanking is sufficient for things that are merely offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (keep deleted) The comment in question does not seem, to me anyway, to have any relevance to the DRV discussion for Cheshire Cat in Pop Culture but that is neither here nor there. Since the info that people claim is relevant has already been quoted both here and in the DRV for Cheshire Cat in Pop Culture there is no need whatsoever to restore this user's talk page other than to indulge those that would seek to restore their article by any means necessary. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Way to assume bad faith. None of what you claim here is the basis for my request.--Father Goose (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating a time-sensitive request for temporary undeletion. The other active DRV upon which this request has bearing is about to close, and regardless of whether permanent undeletion is decided upon (I second DGG's comments in that matter), we need the page undeleted to be able to discuss it at the other DRV for just a few more days. The comments in question were apparently posted by Black Kite on his talk page on 15 June, and it would be easiest to find them in the history if Black Kite's deletion-on-his-way-out was simply undone, temporarily. Thank you.--Father Goose (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, please look at the timeline in question. Absent some abusive anon comments, the only edits in this page and the only edits which were deleted were made between 28 and 30 June 2008. Edits prior to the 28th were moved by this user to an archive. Those archives still exist. Undeletion of this Talk page, even temporarily, will not show the comments that you assert interest in. Rossami (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can any admin briefly undelete the page so I can point out exactly what edits I'm talking about, which do exist, and were not transferred to the archives, despite Rossami's assertion that I'm somehow mistaken? This is not state secrets you're defending here, nor any plausible privacy invasion (admins do not have the right to cover their tracks at whim), and I'm not making the request for either idle or imaginary reasons. When did this place turn into The Castle all of a sudden? Seriously, this is absurd.--Father Goose (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Moot - see below. --Father Goose (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and blank. I don't know anything about the other DRV discussion going on (nor do I care too much), but I don't think that talk pages should be deleted unless there's a -very- good reason, and I haven't seen one. Blanking it is fine, but a history of discussion with this user should remain. As for as right to vanish goes...fine, point out the personal info that's there, and then it can be deleted. But "vanishing" isn't a reason to delete your talk page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment - I'd like to point out that the right to vanish does not necessarily allow for the deletion of your user talk page. Specifically: "User and talk pages, and their subpages, and other non-article pages that no others have substantively contributed to and whose existence does not impact the project, may be courtesy blanked or deleted." (bolding mine for emphasis). It's fair to say that many others have contributed to a person's user talk page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion unless there is some specific information that needs to be kept. While right to vanish isn't really a Wikipedia policy, it's the courteous thing to do if somebody is genuinely going and there is no content that might be needed. If there is a requirement for information at a later date, the deleted history can be restored then. --Jenny 05:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification and partial apology. I'm finally catching on to where the confusion was. 1) Black Kite archived his talk pages via pagemoves, which is why Rossami insisted (correctly) that there was little history to restore on User talk:Black Kite itself. Not being able to see its history, it took me a while to realize this was where the miscommunication was. 2) The comments I was looking for, it turns out, were in a transcluded header, and were deleted by Black Kite between the time of the AfD closure on the 27th that's causing all the drama and his retirement on the 30th. So, Rossami, sorry to have gotten frustrated with you; we were each seeing different parts of the elephant.
As for this undeletion request, I now realize it is pretty much moot; apparently there is almost no content to undelete at User talk:Black Kite due to the pagemoves. However, the principle of not nuking your talk page when retiring still stands, and this confusing episode is an object lesson as to why it's a bad idea.--Father Goose (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Osman Larussi – Article userfied. WP:BLP does not apply as his death is attributed to a reliable source. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Deleted when it should have just been tagged asking for sources. It is a verifiable (brief) biography on a noted hostage-taker in the Beslan hostagetaking. I admit the sources used were subpar, but that means a concerned editor should ask me to add sources, or throw a tag requesting sources and drawing attention the to the problem to the article. They are even welcome to start an AfD on the matter. But not that they should wantonly use their admin powers to simply delete the article without discussion or review. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources in mind you could have added to the article? I doubt it'll be undeleted unless you have some. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just provide some sources we can access.-Wafulz (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the deleting editor. I was not the one who tagged it as an attack page, but the unsourced accusation was so drastic that I felt the better part of discretion was to delete it until it could be sourced. Especially after the Seigenthaler incident, we have to be extra careful about accusations of criminal activity. Even if WP:BLP didn't apply, I agreed with the nominating editor that a claim like this, without sourcing, constituted an attack page. I created a sandbox for the editor to recreate the article with proper sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear what "creating a sandbox" means in your context, it's not even like you copy/pasted over the information, you just created a page with the word "Sandbox". Two random sources that back up the claim Larussi was wanted in connection with the hostagetaking are the Guardian and the Centre for Security Studies. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought you might want to start from scratch. I've restored the prior version to the aforementioned sandbox in your userspace for your use. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. This is not a request to have the cached text, I can take that from Google cache or elsewhere. It's a request to have the deletion undone so the article can be improved with the addition of sources, as it should have been in the first place. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as tagger - found it browsing Category:Terrorists, which is a warning light of an article's BLP passing. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion if content violated WP:BLP and encourage User:Sherurcij to read WP:BLP and WP:V before attempting to recreate the article in his userspace. If no BLP violation, then userfy to User:Sherurcij/Osman Larussi until it is properly sourced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per the exact same comments as provided by SmokeyJoe above. LakeBoater (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alan Cabal – deletion endorsed – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

. Lack of reliable independent sources was an overriding policy-based argument correctly identified and assessed as such by the closing admin. Closing this review a bit earlier than usual to end disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The debate leaned towards keep by 7 to 6 and the arguments were strongly for. This is a writer of note. This isn't a journalist who doesn't become a part of his work and simply writes articles. Cabal is well known and his work is filled to the brim with his personality. We put a lot of hard work into looking up references and vetting the article's facts. His work was cited by a university professor as a favorite quote, and the same article was noted by Arts & Letters Daily which is a yearly record of important articles. What more, he caused a huge controversy about his defense of the freedom of speech of Ernst Zundel. That's just what's available on the web. He has a whole oeuvre that can be found at the NYPL's archives of the New York Press. On top of that we were setting the record straight by offering a NPOV on the whole god damn Zundel controversy. That was something good; this deletion is bad. To go on, he also interjected himself into the whole Matt Taibbi mess about the controversial upcoming-death-of-the-Pope article in 2005 at NYPress. He writes for other publications too. This is all recent stuff he's done that doesn't include his more or less offline past from the early days of the Internet which aren't always so well reflected on our World Wide Web. I mean, Jesus Christ, why does one have to make these damn impassioned arguments for a notable writer when so many junky articles freely roam around here (you know who you are). And kudos to God too, whatever good that may do. -Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was fairly clear. I endorse Stifle's closure of it. As for the rest of your arguments, if you'd like I could userfy the article for you so you can add sources written about Mr. Cabal to the article. I doubt a little that any exist online, but offline sources would be fine. I also suggest you keep WP:CIVIL in mind when commenting, to avoid escalation. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeepers! Are you under the impression that there were no sources about Cabal? We had several and they were all from reliable sources. How could I call up the article again?-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- i have to agree. the people who wroeked on the article has a tleast five or six WP:RS reliable sources indicating both Alan Cabals existence, his notoriety, and the instances win which he interjected himself into the whole Matt Taibbi mess about the controversial upcoming-death-of-the-Pope article fr as well as his praise of Holocaust researcher Earnest Zundel. I personally find the deletion was just a little prematrue since this writer had at least a few notable controversies to his name which is more than several other articles writetn about other people (ie athletes, low-level politicons, etc). have. Smith Jones (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closure - I don't see any procedural issues here. Shereth 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural issue: The writer is notable and the required reliable sources have been used. YET the article was deleted. This is a big procedural issue so let's wake up here. -Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I feel that the consensus among editors who demonstrated an understanding of guidelines was clearly to delete. There were no reliable sources produced demonstrating significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Overturn~~. Jesus Christ, do you have to be a superstar journalist to have an article here at Wikipedia? We showed sources quoting him as a favorite, notable articles, Zundel controversy, resignation following fiasco, & etc. What event has to occur (seriously, maybe Cabal will cause it to occur and write an article about it) so that he can remain here at Wikipedia? Does he have to win a Pulitzer?-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Your opinion that the decision should be overturned is clear from your nomination. It is acceptable to continue to participate in the discussion and to reply to other editors but please do not use the bulleted, bolded format at the front of your comment. It creates the impression that you are trying to have your opinion double-counted and creates potential confusion for the person who eventually has to close this discussion. Rossami (talk)
  - Take it easy with the hyperbole, it's not really helping to get your point across. Nor is the constant linking to Jesus Christ - I'm not really certain what you are trying to accomplish. Shereth 21:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I don't know what is with my odd usage of religious overtones either. Maybe it is the stress of seeing this maddening discussion still continuing down this same road of questioning Cabal's notability. I don't know WP:BIO that well but at its heart it has to be about keeping articles about notable journalists.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see a real danger here of this review discussion becoming as farcical as the deletion discussion that preceded it. This discussion is not about Cabal's notability, it's solely about the closing of the discussion.--Michig (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The deeletion discussion was hardly a farce. both sidces for keeping an ddeleting raised well rationalized points and discussed them poolitely and respectfully. to casually dismiss the people who worked to present thei r case as to why the article should be kept or should be deleted deserve to have their optinions and their time respected. Thank you for your tme. Smith Jones (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There were arguments for keeping and arguments for deleting. If anything, the arguments put forward for notability are the ones working as VS changes from Delete to Keep, SilkTork changes from Delete to Keep, and The ed17 !votes for Keep based on the notability arguments. The actual !votes for delete were 7, and the !votes for keep were 7. The convention is that if there is no clear consensus to delete that the closing is normally "no consensus" and the status quo is retained. The closer's argument is that despite the article following policy ("the articles provided as references prove that he exists"), that the references "do not confer notability", so closed on a personal interpretation of the guideline - which, in a sense, got the closer a little too involved in the !voting and decision making - a natural tendency we are not always aware of. There is no clear consensus in the discussion from which to make a delete decision. SilkTork *^YES! 21:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify the issue. The article meets policy as regards Verifiability (the closing admin confirms that in his closing statement), Original Research and NPOV. The discussion is regarding notability guidelines. Notability guidelines are drawn up and informed by the consensus found in AfD debates, and this consensus changes. In this particular case, no clear consensus emerged. The guidelines are not policy, and do not determine policy, they help guide us toward a decision based on past consensus. The WP:BIO guideline formed part of the discussion and a number of those taking part in the AfD discussion were aware of it. It would be inappropriate to close as Delete through a feeling that some people did not fully understand the nature of that guideline. As one of those involved in the AfD discussion I am fully aware of the WP:BIO guideline as I have helped structure it. SilkTork *^YES! 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some contributors to the deletion discussion clearly did not understand what constitutes an independent source (citing articles written by Cabal as sources about him), a reliable source (citing a mirror of Wikipedia as a source), or significant coverage (brief mentions put forward as evidence of notability). The closure was, I believe, correctly based on the valid arguments put forward by both sides. It's not a question of whether WP:BIO should be slavishly followed. The article did not meet policy as regards notability or verifiability of facts about Cabal.--Michig (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those were early efforts. The article was SIGNIFICANTLY improved and reliable sources were found here and there; in fact it was Cabal himself (who has been following somewhat this ongoing discourse) who pointed some of them out. In my researches I've come across an incredibly ridiculous incident involving an article about a restaurant called Mzoli's, which ended up being kept after a certain amount of stupidity but fortunately common sense ultimately won out. I mean, a restaurant! This is different: Cabal is a notable journalist.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - But seriously, this has become a farce. A good one though.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Zlan Cabal is a journalist and the deletion of hs article is a mistake. Deleting his article just beuase he is a journalist is bad as deleting the Tim Russert article or the Brian williams aryicle. Smith Jones (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore inaccurate reading of consensus.The closer should have jined in the debate instead of choosing to close on his personal view. DGG (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). The discussion makes clear that the sources listed in the discussion were considered by the participants and ultimately determined to be inadequate to demonstrate that this person met Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies. Sources were added during the discussion and while they convinced one editor to change his/her opinion, the majority of subsequent editors evaluated them and still found them to be insufficient. The arguments which were based on incorrect interpretations of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sourcing or were variations of WP:OTHERSTUFF were appropriately weighted by the closer. I see no procedural problems in this discussion. This closure was within reasonable administrator discretion. Rossami (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point was raised during the discussion that the wording of the Verifiability policy does allow sources that are appropriate to the topic: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." My point here is that there is no clear clarity of consensus in the interpretation of notability sources arising from the discussion. The article appears to fulfill Wikipedia policy as regards sources - but it was not certain. So the dispute was about the nature of the sources - are the sources good enough? Unfortunately for everyone concerned in the discussion, no consensus emerged. As it is not clear that consensus felt that the article failed, then the process defaults to Keep. It would be inappropriate to continue the argument here about the nature of the sources. The point here is to decide if a consensus emerged from the discussion to delete the article. I see no such consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 07:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own deletion. The killer bit was that the sources only prove he exists, and don't make out his notability in any way. AFD isn't a vote count. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus which had to emerge from the debate. You've injected your own opinion about the quality of the sources without looking at the debate.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~ the deletion. The killer bit was that the sources kept getting better and we had established notability in many ways. Our argument was by far the stronger one. AFD isn't a vote count. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the nom already makes it clear which position you favor. Please do not add traditional style !votes. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. No evidence of sources that are about the subject. There were lots of mentions of the subject in sources, and sources authored by the subject, but Wikipedia should only cover things where reliable sources contain coverage of the subject. None of the keep !votes seemed to appreciate this, and accordingly they were correctly discounted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been slamming your head against the wall one too many times? The entire "Zundel-gets-a-defense controversy" was instigated by Cabal's polemic about the guy's right to freedom of speech. What more, Alexander Cockburn was going to put the article on the Counterpunch web site to help us out. It wasn't about how Cabal was a part-time vegan who just happened to defend someone's freedom of speech one afternoon in an article, it was mostly about the controversial article he wrote with occasional commentaries about how Cabal was now to be classified as an anti-Semite & etc. If you want a source written about the personality of the man then you have one here: [103]. You have a whole spectrum or variety of sources about Cabal. Yet, I'm sure for every one I bring up Wikipedia's "lofty standards" will rear their ugly heads and quickly put it down. Isn't there a disturbing amount of articles about Pokemon (whatever the fuck that is) around here and other stuff? You do realize that journalism is a very serious endeavor and should be given more respect than it is receiving here.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have completely different views on what justifies standalone articles? You have to provide reliable sources that show that some third party has talked about the subject (the person, not his work). Alternatively, you can try showing that the subject is so important that he is mentioned by name in multiple existing wikipedia articles, and argue inclusion based on navigation purposes. What is not good enough is any independent measure of how important he is. It doesn't matter if he is, per se, important. It only matters if you can find someone independent who says he is important, or says anything at all about him, in a reliable source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found more sources! I mean this is one of the most tiring episodes of Stupidity in Wikipedia history (a topic which I'm sure has enough secondary sources to justify an article of its own). I have found a source about Cabal's former band White Courtesy Telephone in which he went by the pseudonym Garbled Uplink y'all read here if interested. Now I'm looking for some additional sources on the band. Go ahead, whine me a river... Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's going in the right direction, but it's a press release. It is still useful, no doubt, but I'd like to see more. I'd also like to note that the deleted article did not make any mention of him being in a band, though it does state his pen name. My offer for userfication still stands, and now does seem to be the best choice. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some magazine articles that I will be going to the library to try and get a hold of, circa late 1990s. But I'd rather work on a mainspace (?) article than work privately in my little userspace. Already other editors have been very helpful in improving the Alan Cabal article and likely they would continue to be so.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I think you should work in the userfied article (I do not endorse moving into the mainspace until the article is final and the author has posted in this discussion letting us know of such). I would also have you invite those editors who have been helpful with the article to do the same with the userfied article (they can edit it as if it were a mainspace article). I think you should take this opportunity to improve the article with independent, reliable sources that establish notability under the Wikipedia guidelines rather than complianing about this being "one of the most tiring episodes of Stupidity in Wikipedia history". We are trying to help you out. Help us help you by improving the userfied article. LakeBoater (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does Wikipedia demand that articles be finished? Almost every article here is a work in progress and there are entire policies I believe about grading that progress. I'm saying this article is already good enough and has met notability. Furthermore, having the article in mainspace will help improve it as other people will actually be able to find it. Working in userspace is a non-starter.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Samurai, I am not saying the article has to be final, I am rather strongly advising that you improve the article so that it has WP:RS showing significant coverage and establishing notability and let us know when you have done such so we/I can render an opinion that considers the article in the best possible light with your recent additions. LakeBoater (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just admit it. I've won. The people for whom this hole was created do not care about these finicky prissy issues. MediaBistro's FishbowlNY recently ran a post asking what happened to a lot of NYPress writers, and left off with: "Does anyone out there have any information on what Andrey Slivka, Tanya Richardson, Alan Cabal or Zach Parsi is up to? Let us know." to which a blogger said: "Alan Cabal: I have no idea what he's doing. I truly hope he's still alive. I loved that guy. He really was crazy. My favorite Cabal story: in the fall of 1999, I was opening NYP's mail, with stars in my eyes and fever-dreams of one day writing for the paper. I also happened to be writing for my school paper, and around this time there was yet another scandal in Camden, with the mayor selling crack or something. My assignment was to find some kind of how-does-this-affect-Rutgers angle. Meanwhile, Cabal came into the office and mentioned something to C.J. Sullivan (also a great guy) about his time in college in Camden being the high point of his drug use. One thing led to another, and soon I was interviewing Cabal -- on background! -- about how the contemporary Camden drug scandal was nothing like the 70s, when Cabal dealt out of his Rutgers dorm. The quote that made it into the Targum was like, "I sold pure pharmaceutical methedrine to biker gangs." (Yeah, so I just broke ground rules. Whatever.)" So, like, I've won.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogposts and webpage comments are not reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm? What exactly do you mean by that? Did you just have this genius thought and decided to share with us?-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cited a comment on a blog as if it were a source for the article. I'm pointing out that it is not, per our own guidelines. Also, I've already warned you once about insulting others. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://web.archive.org/web/19971026090244/www.echonyc.com/~hugh/wct/wctpr.html is starting to get there, with "Cabal named the band and was responsible for most of the "electricity"". But it is not much on its own.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/newspapers/new_york_press_where_are_they_now_68943.asp says nothing about Cabal.

http://toohotfortnr.blogspot.com/2008/02/so-take-look-at-me-now.html has material about Cabal, but it's a blog. That's a huge problem. Let's just ignore the dodginess of the commentary "Alan Cabal: I have no idea what he's doing. I truly hope he's still alive. I loved that guy. He really was crazy" for now. The blogger says "and soon I was interviewing Cabal". Has that interview been published in a reputable source? If so, it could be good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most important source that the Internet Archives link unearthed (and the other blogs were just to show that Cabal is someone worth having an article about here at Wikipedia, screw all that notability nonsense) is this: "Despite Rob Tannenbaum's essay in DETAILS which laments the band's demise, the original lineup of White Courtesy Telephone still intends to continue at some point with Alan Cabal (Garbled Uplink) the sole vocalist." which apparently says stuff like this: "Cabal had been sure the article would never get published. The colorful stories concerning him probably won't hurt his career as a critic currently writing for the NY Press." I am going to the library this week to try and find it.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the library. You have me persuaded that he is notable in the real-world sense. It is unfortunate that our inclusion criteria uses the word "notable" in a way that is specific to wikipedia and different to the real world use. Any source that has coverage of the subject is good, and for many of use, non web sources are even preferable. We have too much web bias. I suggest that you support the userfycation option mentioned below so that you are not unreasonably rushed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion. For the reasons cited by SmokeyJoe and others. The author does not seem interested in trying to improve the article in a userfied space, which leads me to believe it cannot be improved much more. Therefore, based on the latest version, I do not think the article meets the notability guidelines. Furthermore, a good number of the references are not independent sources as they are authored by Cabal himself. One reference has no mention of Cabal... LakeBoater (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

userspace I am in favor of putting the article on my userpsace for further editing instead of on the mainspace. If someone coudl help me figure out how I can go about putting that on my own userpace that would be greately appreciate. Smith Jones (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfycation is a reasonable option here. You have to ask and wait for this DRV debate to run its course. The closing admin may restore the article at User:Smith Jones/Alan Cabal (journalist). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright... It's been fun but lets just put this all behind us now and restore the article. It's fairly obvious to anyone with a level head that it's worthwhile to have an article about Alan Cabal just to know what the fuss is all about.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This isn't AFD2 and I'm not seeing a strong procedural argument made in this nomination. And before I get replied to: AfD isn't a vote, it doesn't matter how strenuously you argue a point if policy isn't behind you, and even if you feel you are in the right, you may be in the wrong. Protonk (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules! Which some poor soul such as myself obviously wrote several years ago after a breakdown.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what decision rule are we to apply so that all rules are not ignored all the time. I'm not applying the letter of the law, but the spirit. In this case the spirit of WP:BLP and WP:N (As well as the deletion guide and deletion instructions for admin, WP:CONSENSUS, and others) directs us to remove non-notable biographies. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please im begging you this travesty has gon on long enough. Please close this deletion review as your earliest convenience and place this article on my userppace that SmokeyJoe created for me. PLEASE! Smith Jones (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We must continue... for the good... of Wikipedia.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Stifle's decision was clear and well reasoned. Besides, this DRV is merely being used as a second AfD[104] - a prime example of forum shopping. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AfD was clear and fair. Please note that we are discussing the notability of a person, not if he is a good journalist. Maybe the article can be userfied and reentered as soon as his importance and notability can be proven with some articles about him and his writing in independent media.Cst17 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I can only see that AfD as a no consensus, but given that an overturn is unlikely then move to Userspace per Smith Jones' suggestion. RMHED (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I'm staying out of this, except to say I don't appreciate being mass-canvassed into discussions I'm not a party to simply because I comment in DRV. I suggest to the nom that they read that link. I also suggest to them they're not doing themselves any favors with their behavior.--UsaSatsui (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mainspace articles wiki-linking to Alan Cabal include Thomas Pynchon, Gonzo journalism, High Times, New York Press, CounterPunch, Simon Necronomicon, Gareth Penn, and Peter Levenda. So it goes. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Got any you didn't add? Not that Wikipedia is a third-party source that proves notability. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - MUST this dragon for so long??? I mean we are goign through so many problems re: tis article that its bearly worth it. I am trying to AGF here but it seems to me that this AFD/deletion review is being extentionally dragged on for almost half a month simply to keep drubbing on Manhattan Samurai. If thats the reason for this then it should end NOW. It is obvous that the article will not be overturned as a result of this reivew in its current state and nothing of any substance or significantion is being debated here. PLEASE just place the article on my userspace we can get through and fix this article if it indeed can be repaired to standards meeting Wikipeda's policies and guidelines. Smith Jones (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is true that this is getting ugly. BUT I think it has been very valuable, as a record of what can go on at Wikipedia, as a forum to discover more about the bio of Alan Cabal, as a lesson in the failure of wikipolicies on the whole, and a real interesting window into the personalities roaming here at Wikipedia. This has been great but yes, eventually the Alan Cabal article must be improved and resurrected. And so, my dear Wikipedians, it is with pride that I sign myself affectionately yours, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

David Davis for Freedom campaign – Reopen discussion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

this afd discussion was closed by a non-admin less than 24 hours after it had been opened. The article is the worst example of wp:soap I have seen and the content is adequately covered in both Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008 and David Davis (British politician) B1atv (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD was opened in June. If it was a recent early closure I would reopen it but really, you should just relist the page on a new AFD. That's all that this DRV will suggest doing anyway. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh... While the usual guidelines for non-admin closures say that non-admins shouldn't do closes like this (since they're not excessively obvious), I'd have to say that he hit the nail on the head for what the debate was like at the time. I agree that the closure was a bit early (given that some delete !votes had been given later in the AfD), but I can't fault the closer's judgment otherwise. I'd say we ought smack him with a trout lightly for being a bit too bold, then relist. Reopening is an option, since it hasn't substantially changed since the closure, or you could just carry on with the merge discussion already going on. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or reopen If non-admins are going to close like this, we should stop non-admin closes altogether. I agree with the view that is downright political spam. The advantage of going through Deletion Review is to publicise this sort of bad close so people will know not to do the like. DGG (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or reopen. Was not an appropriate close. Neither Speedy nor snowball applied. The allegation "Not one of the cited references mentions the David Davis for Freedom Campaign" is serious and was not countered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or reopen. The AFD speedy close was inappropriate, as it did not meet any of the criteria at WP:SK, and it's hard to argue that there was clear consensus for a close under WP:SNOW (five 'Keep's against two 'Delete's is not exactly overwhelming). While the end result would probably have been the same, this article deserved its five days of deletion discussion, and did not get it. I would suggest relisting it after July 10, as that is when the byelection is scheduled to take place - once it has happened, it will be easier to judge this political campaign on its notability or lack thereof. Terraxos (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The original Afd nomination was indeed a candidate for speedy closure as it was contesting future notability, and recommending a merge, neither of which are valid reasons for deletion. If the DRV nominator here wants to relist the article for the different (first) reason he gives here, namely SOAP, then they should do so as a second separate Afd. Reopening or relisting under the same nomination reason of Afd1 would be misleading given the differing reasons for DRV listing here. However, prior to Afd2, I would point out the merge proposal here, which was started after the closure of Afd1, and has already now substantialy covered concerns about WP:SOAP and duplication, the two reasons given for listing the Drv here, and has demonstrated no clear consensus for a merge and subsequently gone cold, with the article still the same as at the time of Afd1. As for anyone contending that the article can be deleted after the by-election, this would violate the notability standard, which states that anything that is judged notable at one time, cannot then become non-notable and be deleted purely by virtue of time passed. MickMacNee (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

David Horne (composer) – Article userfied. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

He's notable Atavi (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Admin User:the undertow deleted the page. At the time I wasn't active in wikipedia. When I returned, I saw the message on my talk page, but I didn't care enough to go into the process. User:the undertow was subsequently blocked and subsequently retired, so I can't contact him. I remembered the issue, because, an article I recently wrote on another composer José Antônio de Almeida Prado was also listed for speedy deletion. As far as David Horne (composer) I have no recollection of what I had written and if the text established notability. The facts are that he is published by a well established company Boosey and Hawkes ([105]),has received a Koussevitzky Commission ([106]) and has been nominated for a British composer award ([107]). In short, I think he is notable. Also, his biographies, on two of the pages above (boosey and loc) in my opinion establish notability--Atavi (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article, as it was written, didn't really assert the guy's importance. Now, I completely agree with you that he's notable, but in this instance I'm going to have to endorse the deletion itself. Since he's notable, you should feel free to recreate it. I'd be happy to userfy the content for you as a starting point, if you want a starting point. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the article basically managed to assert that he a music teacher (at Royal Northern College of Music). Had it described him as a professor, or something else more than "teacher", I'd have seen that as a claim of significance, but the deleted article doesn't. In my opinion, that puts the article text in the no claim, legitimate A7 zone. But by all means, userfy this. GRBerry 13:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Page, as deleted, has no assertion of notability, but of course this isn't a bar to recreating a proper article. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 3 July 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 July 2008

Psychotic Waltz – restored as contested PROD – Stormie (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Expired prod on notable band (4 studio albums); album pages are all still up. 83.203.130.234 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Daniel Johnston (Consultant) – Userfied – Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was deleted for noncompliance with Wikipedia's notability and reliability requirements. However, it now meets both of these requirements. Daniel Johnston has published a number of books that have been extremely influential in the field of international petroleum finance, and he also has several positions on the executive committees and editorial boards of various academic publications, including the newly launched Journal of World Energy Law and Business. Maikadal (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore in userspace it was deleted at AfD in February and speedied today. While the recent re-creation lacked inline sources, enough exist to make a workable article. Other than DGG's !uncertain vote at the AfD, none of the votes were particularly strong, i.e. "COI issues" and 'probably spam'. The article needs work but was improved over the February version and was not an A7. It's not a clear keep, but it needs a chance. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been userfied, located here, for improvements, sourcing. Closing this (unnecessary) deletion review...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spore (2008 video game) – Already restored, appears to have been an accidental deletion. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was suddenly delted just now, with absolutely NO discussion whatsoever. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whoops, it seems to be back. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marcel Richard – restored, "founder of the Greek section of the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes in Paris" is an assertion of notability – Stormie (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contest deletion Marcel Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clive sweeting (talk • contribs) 15:03, July 2, 2008 (UTC)

According to the article's text, the subject, who died in 1976, was a priest and Greek scholar. The page was deleted under speedy-deletion criterion A7, no assertion of notability. Having reviewed the deleted content, I must endorse that assessment based on the state the article at the time. If you have evidence that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies, please provide it here and the page can probably be restored. Rossami (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn because it is an indication of notability. But if all the work is a series of articles, he may not prove to be notable. DGG (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the deleting admin I stand by my decision. I am not saying the person is not notable. The article as it was at the moment of being tagged for CSD and then deletion did not assert notability under WP:BIO. If the author, or another editor can show notability then that's great, and it can be resurrected. -- Alexf⁴² 17:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the criteria for speedy deletion, which clearly state that notability guidelines are not to be used to determine if an article indecates "why its subject is important or significant". Undelete. --NE2 00:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Glenisson and Vieillard list 69 published articles. The notability of the founder of the Greek Section of the Institut de Recherche pour l'Histoire des Textes and author of Opera Minora seem to me at any rate incontestable. I am unhappy with recent speedy deletions, which do not allow for other editors to show notability if (this)one has failed----Clive Sweeting 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC) (ps the Italian wikipaedia allows 10 days for this process).
  - Sounds important/significant, but unless that information was in the article at the time it was deleted, it doesn't apply in this discussion. JohnABerring27A (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was deleted because the article text did indicate why Marcel Richard was important or significant. If the article text indicated why Marcel Richard was important or significant, please list in this thread. Thanks. JohnABerring27A (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can Clive sweeting please explain why he chose to ignore the big warning box above which says "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)"? Stifle (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was contacted despite my preference to deal with real names. J. Berring is right. Opera Minora and IRHT were mentioned----Clive Sweeting

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

Muslim outrage – Deletion overturned. Can be taken to AfD is necessary. I would have userfied, but no one has offered a place to userfy it to. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was speedy deleted as "neologism." First of all, there is no speedy deletion category for "neologism." Second of all, the article was up less than 15 minutes, so there was no opportunity for anyone other than the author and the administrator Jimfbleak to look over the article. The article is not intended to elaborate on the phrase "muslim outrage." Its purpose is as a starting point for information related to the plethora of recent events regarding the West's characterization of the Muslim World's reaction to images, media, and the like that are considered innocuous in the West but that are highly controversial in Islamic countries.

The article is a stub, and as such will require a great deal of work, and someone may even come up with a better title. But I think dismissing this as simply "neologism" after not more than 3 people looked at it is incredibly unnecessary.

Please consider allowing the article to have more than a 15 minute chance. Thank you. Poetnewly (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what the subject of the article is. Do you have a reliable source for the name of the article, or are the words related to a concept that you've chosen to call "muslim outrage"? If the latter, did you check to see if there is already an article about the concept or a related one that covers the field well enough, or could do so with some expansion? --Jenny 06:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, being a neologism is not grounds for speedy deletion. Davewild (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"neologism" isn't a speedy delete criterion, but it would probably be wisest to work on this article offline or at User:Poetnewly/Muslim outrage before pushing it into article space, it will take quite some work to get that into a state that would not be deleted at AfD. --Stormie (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can Poetnewly please explain why he chose to ignore the big warning box above which says "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)"? Stifle (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Needs discussion and consensus with the article available to all interested editors to be able to determine notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy with a view to later introduction into article space under a suitable name (to be determined) once it's recognisably an article about something. --Jenny 10:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn due to invalid speedy deletion reason. --Rividian (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this article probably did not meet the strict interpretation of the speedy-deletion criteria, I am deeply skeptical that it would have survived an AFD discussion. The entire article boiled down to "Muslim outrage is when Muslims are angry and can lead to violence". The thesis of the page could be considered a self-evident definition of a common phrase. The creation of a page specifically titled "Muslim outrage" would seem to fall afoul of WP:SYN. Those, however, are issues for AFD to sort out. I would urge the nominator to accept the recommendation to work on this content in his/her userspace before submitting it to the article-space. Failing that, list to AfD. Rossami (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD - much as I am loathe to suggest overturning something that I'm almost certain will be deleted anyway - it's the fact that I'm almost certain and not absolutely certain that leads me to do so. The speedy was, after all, invalid. Shereth 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I speedied this. Note that the creator of this article removed an earlier prod notice. Although neologism is not a CSD,it seemed to me to be setting up a platform - why "outrage" and not "protest" (see WP:SYN)? Also the removal of the earlier prod notice did not suggest that this is a good faith editor jimfbleak (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest revisiting WP:PROD -- you're obviously familiar with the process (as all experienced editors are), but you don't seem to be in touch with longstanding norms. The community has always been very emphatic about not scrutinizing the removal of prod notices. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Jim, there is policy for what can be speedy deleted, and you are not following it. You do not have the rauthority to et up speedy deletion criteria of your own--and I doubt "platform" would be accepted as a new one--everything that might fit there will be controversial are require a discussion. Having ben prodded is also not a reason to prejudice an article. This needs a hearing at Afd. DGG (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, improper speedy deletion as noted above, but userfy instead of AfD. In its deleted state, it probably wouldn't have survived an AfD because of WP:NEO, WP:DICDEF and WP:SYNTH problems, among others. Should be moved to main space by the author only once it is clear that this is not just a media stock phrase, but a subject worthy of encyclopedic treatment. Sandstein 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Improper speedy deletion, admins don't get to make up their own speedy deletion criteria. RMHED (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list - Topic outrage is basis to speedy delete the article. On the otherhand, will Catholic outrage, Jewish outrage, and a visit to arbcom be far behind? JohnABerring27A (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and userfy per Sandstein. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not a speedy. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. Not a valid speedy delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD Not a valid speedy criteria. DGG, I think by platform jimfbleak might have meant wp:coatrack. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I understood it in that sense. And coatrack is not a speedy criterion either, and equally unlikely to ever be accepted as one.DGG (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Porkchop Cash – restored as contested PROD – Stormie (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I completely missed this prod. Although I'm not criticizing the deletion, I would appreciate it if the article could be restored (either to the mainspace or—even better—to my sandbox at User:GaryColemanFan/New) so that I can expand it and bring it up to the standards for inclusion. Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Candy Coated Killahz – Speedy deletion endorsed, am fine to usefy on request – Davewild (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page deleted for failing to meet notability/significant requirements. This was made in error. Page met the general notability requirement of coverage in two reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Admittedly the article was a stub, but don't destroy the house while it's being built. Notable band, creating page with hopes that other wikipedians will expand it with information. Buddybudee (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was deleted under criteria for speedy deletion A7 for failing to make any claim that the article subject was in any way important or significant. (One of the core types of articles this criteria is meant to deal with is articles on garage bands.) Reviewing the deleted text, the text indeed did make no claim of importance or significance. You may also wish to review the inclusion guideline specifically for bands. GRBerry 04:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can Buddybudee please explain why he chose to ignore the big warning box above which says "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)"? Stifle (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GRBerry here, there wasn't a single line in there telling us why the band is important. I endorse the speedy. I also doubt the authenticity of the first of the references, the one which lacks a hyperlink; the other reference, from this year, states that their debut album is newly released, so I doubt that a piece regarding it could have been written in 2006. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for Buddybudee. Deletions are a poor way to welcome newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:20, 4 July 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 July 2008

Louis Pappas – Work on an article was never saved to the database, nothing we can do here about it – Stifle (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced image removed: Image:LP_wiki.jpg -->146th ASWU president. Widely considered the studliest president. Cousin of Gonzo P...' Jwither1 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I have no idea what this deletion reference refers to, I was editing the bio of a tampa chef...[reply]

You are seeing a warning because there was previously a page at this title, but it has been deleted. The article previously deleted at this title was not about a chef. As you may be aware, there are multiple people in the world with the same name. Just ignore the prior deletion and work on the new article you want to create. GRBerry 22:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on it and it disappeared into the ether. Can I have it put back up so I can finish it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwither1 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was never saved to the database, so no, we can't bring whatever edit you had been typing back. GRBerry 04:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Myungbaksanseong – Deletion endorsed, consensus is that this was a reasonable close – Davewild (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admin Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) deleted the article of Myeongbaksanseong (명박산성) as referring the discussion result to as "delete" and Wikipedia:Coatrack, but I contest to the decision because the discussion is clearly in no consensus and not tilt toward urges for "deletion". The essay is not also Wikipolicy, so the admin just weights her thought to delete the page without plausible rationale. That's why I'm writing for overtune. The article holds not only a recent neologism pertaining structures, but also a current movement of South Korea political issue regarding US beef imports in South Korea. The name itself has been featured in notable South Korean media such as in MBC 9 news program on June 30 as a closing ment.video clip 1. In addtion, even KBS made a special programme regarding this.video clip 2. There are so many reliable articles on this as well[108]. Caspian blue (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - as a valid close. Although the summary could have been more clear and specific, this was clearly a "delete", based on the arguments presented and their basis in policy. The nom seems to think this should be a "no consensus" close based on !vote count, but in reality we make the judgement based on merit, not numbers. Doc Tropics 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the AfD was closed properly. I also took a look at the cached version and came to the same conclusion as the delete !voters. I wouldn't say that the term itself is notable enough for inclusion, based on the relevant criteria. However, the AfD and the sources provided on the cached version have convinced me that a mention of it should probably go in US beef imports in South Korea or whichever other article covers the bulk of this controversy. I'd support a merge there or a transwiki to Wiktionary if you'd like, as well. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you looked at the cached version via googling, then you viewed the unorgnazied one (clumsy and much poorer version than the latest one before the deletion). --Caspian blue (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but I don't have another option. ~~I can't view Special:Undelete and~~ Deletionpedia doesn't have an entry. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, now I can view Special:Undelete and the cached version looks pretty identical to the most recent deleted one. I'm afraid that I stand by my !vote on this one. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Congratulation for your passing RFA, but the version is not identical. I kindly ask you to paste the info to my talk page fo me and other editors who put their effort in developing the article. Regardless of the deletion review, I need to put it to US beef imports in South Korea. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd prefer to see a consensus here develop for it first. You should make a non-threaded comment that you'd like to merge the content, though, just to be sure everyone sees it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). This was a close call but the areguments for deletion were well-supported by policy and precedent (in particular WP:NEO). The comments arguing to keep the page never successfully addressed those concerns. This was within reasonable administrative discretion. Note: I would have no objection to a temporary undeletion in order to allow transwiki to Wiktionary. They do accept neologisms such as this. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist; no consensus to delete. The nomination was difficult to understand (what is meant by "This word has been expired in Korea"?) and the vote was 6 keep to 9 delete, and the weight of the arguments for deletion was not significantly greater than the weight of the arguments to keep. Restoring the page temporarily and relisting it would allow for a more definite consensus to form. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid call and interpretation by the closing admin. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - OK, here's the skinny from Global voices. Myung Bak San Seong (Myung Bak Castle) was a barricade of container boxes built in Korea on June 10, 2008 to protest Lee Myung-bak, President of South Korea. According to the article, "Netizens named the barricade and put it in Wikipedia." And, here I am on July 3, 2008 reviewing the article's deletion from my tiny room in the middle of nowhere far away from Korea. They're right (cue music) "It is a small world after all." JohnABerring27A (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More - It looks like most AfD participants got hung up on the name of the article being a neologisms. Political movements using Wikipedia's popularity to attach a negative, neologism to a government official is not the best way to create a Wikipedia article. Even so, the closer saw the article as a coatrack - a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on particular barricade protests. To get an idea of what Wikipedia looks for in barricade protest articles, see January 1991 events in Latvia, May 1968 in France, June 1990 Mineriad, etc. If you look at the South Korea article, the period of resistance from June 1987 is called the Resistance of June. The BBC covered the June 2008 event[109] so it may be likely there's enough info for an article or a section in an existing article. Perhaps consider developing an article June 2008 in South Korea or, even better, Resistance of June in South Korea in your user space. JohnABerring27A (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further - There is no need for the Myungbaksanseong article. The information about the June 10, 2008 protest is contained in US beef imports in South Korea, which can be expanded as needed. Deletion review does not overturn AfD decisions merely because you want a particular article name for a topic. JohnABerring27A (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (no consensus). Close was not a fair reading of the AfD. WP:COATRACK is not an overriding or compelling reason. WP:NEO was the strongest delete argument, but was well countered by (relevant part bolded):

Keep. The discussions for deletion at the two Wikipedia do not justify to delete the article. Even highly reliable and credential news media such as KBS featured it as a main subject (with its name "myeongbaksansanseong") as did New York Times and other major international media. Besides, the nominator and editor who support for deletion are the same people having tried to delete the article at Korean Wikipedia. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If overturned, consider redirecting to US beef imports in South Korea as per User:JohnABerring27A. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as valid close Article failed to meet both inclusion criteria for nelogisms and inclusion criteria for structures; The news items provided as sources failed to bolster the article's case because they only use the neologism in question, they are not reliable sources about the neologism as required by reliable source criteria for neologisms. There is not enough material for a discrete article on this subject. Even a redirect is not needed, I think, as a word made up by Korean bloggers is highly unlikely to be used as a search term in the English Wikipedia. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are one of the involved party at the AFD to proclaim its deletion. Besides, words tend to be made by commoners, and spread to the public. Myungbaksaneong is now widely used in South Korean media. Your mention of blogger is atcually sounds implausible. Would you also do not use sock pipe line to your saying? People can misunderstand you quoting Wiki policies. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian, I'm afraid I'm having trouble understanding you. Yes, I did opine for the article's deletion in the AfD, for all of the reasons I listed above. The article failed to meet the inclusion criteria for both neologisms and structures. As for the word being made up by bloggers, the article itself said "The word was created by Korean netizens...". I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to what the rest of your post says. What is a "sock pipe line"? Do you mean sock puppet? I assure you I am neither puppet or master. Please elucidate. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're modest not attributing the miscommunication to my obvious Engrish. The sock pipeline is what I picked up from another user's statement somewhere, which appears to be Engrish. Therefore I apologize for your trouble to read what I said. It is like [[WP:NEO|according to some policy (but it looks like your opinion)]] You may use the linking like usages of "bold text" or "italic text" to make some of your statements conspicuous and your wordings as they are copied from Wiki policies--Caspian blue (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I understand now. Although, I don't see the problem with providing links to the relevant policies and guidelines. That way any editor can easily read the policies and see where the article fails, as it does at inclusion criteria for structures, inclusion criteria for nelogisms, and reliable source criteria for neologisms. DRV, however, is not meant to be a second AfD but is here to determine if the AfD closing was done properly. So far, no evidence has been put forth to indicate that the AfD was closed in any way that might be a violation of policy or guideline. As such, I see no reason whatsoever to overturn the AfD. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia Review – page to be moved into article space, AFD is not recommended – GRBerry 13:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's long explanation: Normally, the only question before us now would be whether the article is sufficiently different to escape deletion under WP:CSD#G4. The second AFD was closed as a speedy deletion under G4, so it is irrelevant. The first AFD matters. The article (link admin only) deleted at the time of the first AFD was 100% unsourced and consisted of two sentences and an external link. The new userspace page is obviously significantly different from that, and it is highly significant that none of the "keep deleted" opinions address WP:CSD#G4, which is the normally correct reason to deny a new article on a topic that has previously been through an AFD. Thus, if this were any other article, we would immediately move the article into article space, with a comment that those who disagree could nominate it for AFD if they wished.

But Neil listed this here before putting it into article space as an attempt to avoid unnecessary drama. And DRV does at times consider the merits of the article, and it seems appropriate to do so now. Arguments such as Raul654's, most of Cberlet's, Anetode's, and Poetlister's are irrelevant and disregarded, they carry as much weight as if they had never been said, and would also carry no weight in an AFD. Opinions about whether or not the article meets WP:WEB standards are relevant. There is a marginal consensus that the article does meet these standards. Were this discussion being held at AFD, that consensus is weak enough that "no consensus, default to keep" would be a valid AFD close. DRV does not operate on "no consensus, default to endorse deletion" basis - no consensus defaults to "undelete and send back to XfD". Thus the page is being moved to article space, but since an AFD would probably result in a keep or no consensus outcome, an AFD is not recommended. GRBerry 13:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Note Wikipedia Review is currently a redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia.) This article has been deleted at AFD on two occasions - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review (2nd nomination). However, since these AFDs, a lot of time has passed. There are more reliable sources out there now. Given Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikitruth, two other prominent anti-Wikipedia sites, have articles, I would say that the only thing stopping a Wikipedia Review article is whether suitable references that assert notability can now be found. I have found several, and have created a draft article at User:Neil/wr. This draft is referenced, neutrally written, all sources are reliable, and it asserts more than enough notability to meet WP:WEB. I am looking for an okay to move this into article space, after getting an initial thumbs up at WP:AN. I would appreciate keeping the drama to a minimum. Thanks. Neıl 龱 15:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah - move to article space. Neıl 龱 15:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:WEB are you saying it now meets? I ask because I can't see that it meets any one of the three criteria. RMHED (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 1, I think. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "the content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". The articles in The Independent, InformationWeek, and The Guardian are particularly non-trivial. The citations in academic works are also considered an aide to notability, I believe. Neıl 龱 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent and Informatonweek mentions of Wikipedia Review are just in passing and are definitely trivial. The Guardian article wouldn't load for me, so can't comment on that. As for the Palo Alto Research Centre pdf, that just contained a very brief quote from Wikipedia Review on some new search facility, so again wholly trivial. RMHED (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The PARC stuff is one of the "citation in academic works" I mentioned. Such a citation is never trivial. The Guardian reference ([110]) is entirely about WR and its relationship with Wikipedia, it's unfortunate you can't get it to work. Try this link, it's the printable version. I am surprised you consider the Independent (entirety of paras 3 and 4) mention to be "trivial". Neıl 龱 16:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok now got The Guardian' piece to load and yes that is non-trivial, even with that though, I'd still say it's at best borderline notable. RMHED (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's academic, doesn't mean it's not trivial. No matter how many peer-reviewed articles tell us that "Donald Rather was second mate on the USS Bob Hope during the Battle of Trent Lake", if that's it, we don't need an article on Donald Rather.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, after giving it some thought and checking all the refs I still don't believe it passes WP:WEB. There just isn't enough non-trivial coverage of the subject. RMHED (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - sufficiently notable now. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~I move that we accept this in article space. It's well written and sourced, and reasonably balanced. --Jenny 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
I've rethought this. This is a small forum site whose only relevance can be to Wikipedia and it's only mentioned in that context. I think I was getting carried away. I suggest that we merge the content to Wikipedia, with attentions to due weight. --Jenny 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Nobody bought my merge suggestion and in any case that's an editing decision. It doesn't merit a stand-alone article. --Jenny 00:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a little self referential... are all the things mentioned of general interest to the average general reader? (but of course, that question applies to most of our articles on esoteric topics). The article does seems balanced, well written, and well referenced. Overturn and move to articlespace. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, as Lar has already indicated "overturn", more of an example - we have articles that aren't even of interest to the interested fan, let alone the average reader. Neıl 龱 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether it's sufficiently notable (though the "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" factor would argue for it if this wasn't an invalid argument), but if it's decided that it isn't, at least it should get a brief mention in the Criticism of Wikipedia article, which the WR article currently redirects even though it doesn't mention the site (or at least it didn't the last time I looked, which is a while ago by now). This lack of mention is fallout from last year's BADSITES silliness. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - it's safe to say that Neil has significantly improved and expanded this article enough that it meets our WP:WEB notability standards while remaining decently WP:NPOV. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I move that we accept this in article space. It's well written and sourced, and reasonably balanced. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The article seems plenty good enough and the topic plenty notable enough for inclusion. Captain panda 19:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Create Article in Article space - this is an appropriate article for the encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Since this appears to be WP:SNOW to overturn, can we please restore the entire history of the article and talkpage as well. No need to keep it a secret. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn glad we've finally gotten some sense.128.112.203.68 (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted/Do not move Neil's version to article space Whilst hesitating to fly in the face of the unanimity above, I nonetheless believe that the assertion that Wikipedia Review is sufficiently notable is incorrect. I clicked on and read all the links to sources in Neil's article yet could not find one that was substantially about Wikipedia Review, in fact almost all of them seemed to mention it only in passing. WP:WEB is actually not entirely clear on the point but the general notability guidelines are:
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail
Wikipedia Review has received no such coverage in the sources provided. Certainly there is no critical analysis of Wikipedia Review to be seen. A passing mention in an article or paper concerning Wikipedia is not substantial coverage. If this were an AfD on a business or biographical article such marginal coverage would not be sufficient for retention. CIreland (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Guardian reference is almost entirely about Wikipedia Review, discussing its relationship with Wikipedia, which is certainly critical analysis. Did you read that one? Neıl 龱 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree; I don't see how one could even come close to contending that it is almost entirely about Wikipedia Review. The Finkelstein Guardian piece is about Wikipedia, events on Wikipedia and their aftermath. Wikipedia Review gets a couple of passing mentions as a place where people 'investigated' occurrences on Wikipedia, it is certainly not the subject of the article. CIreland (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn obviouslt COI here - but I wouldnt be voting to overturn unless I was happy that there was a sufficient level of coverage for our content guidelines - in this case, WP:WEB Viridae ^Talk 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of this site I suppose my opinion is not very relevant, but for what it's worth I think it's veryyy borderline and is just on the edge of being significant enough to be included. A few mentions does not notability make, but the Guardian article is just pushing it. I don't think an overturn would be inappropriate here. Naerii 22:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actaully, keep deleted, I agree with jayjg. Naerii 18:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - site for banned users and their surrogates to harass users in good standing. Not to mention it's navel gazing and a non-notable website. Raul654 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK cool. Now got a reason that isn't also navel gazing? (ie on the content of the article itself?) Viridae^Talk 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you have trouble comprehending perfectly good written english, perhaps I should write it out with a few more spaces this time so you can read it a bit better: i t i s n a v e l g a z i n g a n d n o n - n o t a b l e. Raul654 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree. Navel gazing isn't a reason for deletion, and it appears to be notable enough based on what usually passes through Afd. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "banned users and their surrogates to harass users in good standing". Nice personal attack. This isn't BADSITES again. Achromatic (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Raul, as the "Featured Article Director", I'm sure you understand what is and what is not constructive criticism from all those FACs you oversee. I would also imagine you're au fait with "comment on the content, not the contributor". How is it "navel gazing"? Neıl 龱 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Raul hides now. I suppose the following articles would also be considered "navel gazing" and should be deleted: ~~Dan K. Rosenthal,~~ ArmchairGM, OpenServing, Simon_Pulsifer, Erin McKean... need I go on? -- Cool as a Cuke (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know how many times I have to say this: I am not Dan K. Rosenthal. Dan K. Rosenthal, as far as I know, has absolutely zero connection with anything even remotely connected to wikis.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, consider "yourself" a strikethrough. The others are still navels being gazed at. -- Cool as a Cuke (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and create Neil's version. It has more than enough reliable sources, and Wikipedia Review is more notable now than Wikitruth ever was. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 02:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - meets notability, and appears sufficiently NPOV. Achromatic (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/Move Neil's version to article space. Kudos first to Neil for dealing with the article in a sensitive manner, allowing consensus before attempting to move the article into article space. The earlier versions of this article may not have met notability, but it's clear that quite a few of the 14 sources used in this article help establish notability, and appear to verify the material used in the article. I personally would not use the Wikipedia Review site itself to source stuff (refs [1], [6], and [7]): seems too close to a primary source, but the rest of the material is verifiable through third-party sources independent of the subject. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are okay for non-contentious facts when discussing the source itself, see WP:SELFPUB. Neıl 龱 08:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and move to Neil's version - plenty notable now, plus with many media references - Alison ^❤ 05:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Neil's version, obviously. —Giggy 06:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and use Neil's version. Borderline, but just about notable. I'd also comment that Raul's comments were inappropriate within the DRV context - aside from making a sweeping generalisation about people posting on said website, it could be construed as inflammatory. Stick to the article rather than attacking people on Wikipedia. Minkythecat (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Generates too much Wikidrama. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, on that point, all Troubles articles, all ID articles, all Israel/Palestine articles will thus be nominated for AfD? Minkythecat (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And a number of administrators. Neıl 龱 12:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"all Troubles articles [...] will thus be nominated for AfD" - yayy!!! :) - Alison ^❤ 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to nominate any articles you wish for AFD. Or Alison and me, if you care that much :) Stifle (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Just enough notability to be had to allow an article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and use Neil's version. Per Minkythecat and obvious notability from article. Picking to pieces clearly usable sources is not proper. If the sufficiently reliable sources justify the text referenced, and there is sufficient text for an article, and there is no other article to merge to, keeping all the sourced text, we practically must allow the article. Otherwise we are excluding verifiable "human knowledge." --Abd (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and post Neil's version to the article space. There are clearly enough references of coverage by independent sources to satisfy WP:N given there. Nsk92 (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Clearly notable. I'm glad we're getting some common sense about even the things that concern us. Raul's argument essentially is that nothing about Wikipedia can ever be notable. DGG (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted

In the current version [111], the majority of the quoted sources ([112], [113], [114], [115]) do not meet the web content notability standard, namely that the references to WR comprise a brief summary of the nature of the content, i.e. they basically say that WR was where some info was found, or info was posted to WR, or you can look at WR for further info. The focus of the cited stories is the controversy itself, not WR the website, or any specific content that it, and only it, had access to/published. Arguably the only story that focuses in depth on WR as an entity is the Register article [116], and this on its own does not meet the general notability guideline of multiple mentions, and doesn't look good credibility wise given the subjects of some of the Register's other articles. This raises the question, is any website inherently notable because it is a place where people talk about wikipedia? Answering yes would be an extreme case of navel gazing.

The cited sources are acting as a coatrack to justify the rest of the article content, which boils down to promotional content for a non-notable web forum. Contrasting similar forum articles, it doesn't look justified. The owners of WR, the unique existence of WR, or the web content they publish themselves (rather than stuff posted by users) is not the subject of any third party coverage. On the basis of mentions in this coverage, arguably Durova is more deserving of a wikipedia article than WR.

The cited factual content belongs at the current target of the WR redirect, where it is more than adequately covered. Any other article in wikipedia where this proposed article version might be linked from as a target, is not going to provide any further information than will be available at the origin article, and recreation will merely waste the reader's time in establishing they have read all noteworthy information at the previous article. (Unless it is the mission of wikipedia to document the email registration policies of WR or such like).

As a final thought, even without consideration of the above, I generally find that any article that specifically needs to refer to its own notability in its text, or as a header ("Notable involvement"), is not actually as notable as is being claimed. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To meet WP:WEB, multiple non-trivial references must be used. The Guardian and Register articles are both non-trivial. Neıl 龱 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simplification and a half. The Guardian opinion piece lines, where it actually refers to WR directly and not to the wider story, comprises "a brief summary of the nature of the content ...[of WR]". I don't know how you can actually say that statement is not true. It makes clear, if it wasn't WR, it would be another site. On this basis, we need Durova (internet celebrity), because we're at the point where any entity that is simply name checked in an opinion piece about wikipedia, automaticaly gets an article. If this mention is enough justification for the padding out of the rest of the information in the draft article, rather than being inserted in the relevant other articles, then I'm bemused, and I then can't realy see the point of having such detailed policies like WP:WEB at all. MickMacNee (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Neil's comments, I personally feel that even if there are some legitimate questions about technically satisfying WP:WEB here, this is one of those rare cases where it is necessary to lower the notability bar a bit and maybe even apply a mild form of WP:IAR. Where criticism of Wikipedia is concerned, it is better to avoid any appearance of censorship and to acknowledge criticism, even if it is unfair or undeserved. To do otherwise would just give WP critics more ammunition and be detrimental to the public credibility of the project. Nsk92 (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is just plain wrong headed. I can see no justification in changing any of our established article notability standards just so that people won't criticize us. I think it does more damage when it appears our standards are apparently up for modification if the subject is wikipedia itself. It is the perceived variability in the application of these very standards that WR and the like seek to criticise often. Seriously, what information are we censoring here? What critical information in this article draft cannot be found in other already existing articles? Who is going to run the story in the press that Wikipedia denied web-space to the details of WR's email registration process, or what forum software it used, by sticking to their established rules? It's a non-story, that ironically would only merit mention in WR. MickMacNee (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/Move Neil's version per those above. LaraLove|Talk 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and move Neil's version to article-space. I believe the sources provided show that there is, at the very least, a reasonable claim to notability here which deserves our consideration. It will almost certainly be sent to AFD immediately, but that is only right - the existence of such a controversial article should be decided there, and hopefully a successful AFD would end the controversy over this article, as the one for Encyclopedia Dramatica has done. I actually argued for deleting both that article and Wikitruth, but since both of them have been found by the community to deserve our coverage, we have no grounds not to have an article on this website as well. Terraxos (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in other stuff exists MickMacNee (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be nice. Your "keep deleted" could have been replied to with I don't like it. Neıl 龱 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that? What possible part of that post has any element of personal opinion to it that isn't related to a specific policy or principle of Wikipedia? MickMacNee (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Overturn. Clearly notable. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Neil's version is the best existing article and sufficiently establishes notability, although like any other article it needs improvement. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I checked the refs in Neil's version and I don't believe it meets WP:WEB. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth bearing in mind there's a "Will Beback" forum under "Notable Editors" on WR. Minkythecat (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? So we can justifiably ignore his opinions because he would obviously have an exe to grind?. So, not only are we apparently flexing our notability standards based on whether articles are about sites that criticizes wikipedia, now we're discounting the views of wikipedians because they are mentioned on such sites. MickMacNee (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere have I said Will's comments should be discounted. It's merely a point of making the comment to pre-empt any such accusations. Will's comments are perfectly fine; those which fall for the all too easy trap of insults and "oooh, WP:BADSITES" aren't. Maybe you should try WP:AGF yourself? :p Minkythecat (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reason for the comment. Pre-empting a negative pre-judgement others, was really not needed. The comment, however artfully it was intended, imparts a very simple and immediately obvious accusation of bad faith. MickMacNee (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire; highlighting any potential WP:COI can help, given the motivation of opposes is also an issue, as seen in numerous AfD's. Any admin closing this needs to balance those; Will's comment I have zero problem with. Raul's on the other hand... Now, since you're accusing me of making an accusation of bad faith, maybe a mirror is in order? Minkythecat (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honeslty, what are you on about? You know Neil has a WR account right? Shall we toss this whole DRV now because of a COI? Of course not. And Raul? Are you saying he is cleverly hiding his obvious contempt for WR in plain sight, because the wording of his vote seems to make his view pretty clear to me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of Neil's WR account. Perhaps you can point out where WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to a WP:DRV? Surely a drv succedds/fails based upon the merits, not who can hurl abuse the most? Minkythecat (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Surely a drv succedds/fails based upon the merits" That's been pretty much my point since the first reply. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and my point is opposers can easily lose the invective to make points; look at cberlet's oppose, for example. Opposes couched in language such as that merely fan the drama. Minkythecat (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted As Will noted, does not meet WP:WEB. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I'm trying to avoid the drama and personal stuff here, and just look at it as an article on a website of questionable notability. I admire Neil's work and dedication, but I don't think the subject has been demonstrated to be independently notable. This is like an article on a local band that some editors are evidently fans of, but that has been mentioned only obliquely and in passing in independent news coverage. Nearly all the references are analogous to articles about venues that merely list the band in question and give one sentence about its lineup. For instance, the OhMyNews article mentions WR only to identify Brandt, and then to say where a letter was posted. It seems to verify that such a website exists, but nothing more. The Independent source is flimsier: basically a dicdef dropped in a longer piece about Wikipedia. You could find more detailed citations about many clearly non-notable topics. The Finkelstein Guardian piece is the only valid reference, in my opinion, and it's pretty dodgy. It reads more like an angry blog post. Yes, it was published in a major paper, and that's fine, but it's a pretty slim foundation to hang your hat on. If WR becomes notable, described in multiple independent sources, then that would be worth an article. But that's just not the case, despite the effort that has obviously gone into the article, and the affinity that some people seem to feel for the site. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain Indirection. Passing over the advisability of hanging one's hat on a foundation, slim or otherwise, instead of, say, a hatrack, I think that we have all the slim foundations that we can use at present. Elec shun (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. See the comments of Will B. and MickMacNee. Wikipedia Review is the website of a tiny handful of socially dysfunctional fanatics with enormous egos -- but they are not notable. Their notability exists primarily in their own febrile minds. It would set a terrible precedent to reward a tiny cabal of vicious cyberstalkers, conspiracists, and defamers with notability simply because they claim a status of being important. They are not important; they simply enjoy being self-important bullies. In the real world they would be pushing shopping carts full of trash and mumbling about the sinister forces plotting against them. The Internet gives them a stage, we should not provide the audience. --Cberlet (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser Alison and admin SirFozzie say hi, with their dysfunctional fanaticism bolstered by enormous egos. It's ridiculous to generalise and stereotype everybody who posts and reads there. After all, amongst all the dreck is the odd correct information proven in high profile incidents on WP... Minkythecat (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA :) --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some might argue that WP already provides both the stage and the audience for plenty of "self-important bullies" who "claim a status of being important"... Achromatic (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with the above description of WR, but I don't see how any of that makes them non-notable. It's basically just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Brandt and his lot are a truly awful bunch of people, but that shouldn't stop us from having an article on them if, as many of us think, they have achieved notability. (I suppose you could make an argument based on WP:Deny recognition, though.) Terraxos (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of implementing Wikipedia community policies in main space is absurd. I'd love to deny recognition of some wonderful people who seem to be trolling in real life, but they're notable, so you make a Wikipedia article about them. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 06:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted I don't believe the sources that have been found indicate that Wikipedia Review currently passes WP:WEB. The site is not given much coverage in any of them, and what coverage is there is merely mentions it in relation to some other controversy, or criticism of Wikipedia in general. WP:N advises in cases where there is little sourcing the subject should be dealt with in an article on a broader topic, and this purpose is served with the current redirect. Many of the sources cited are either to Wikipedia Review itself (and therefore don't count towards satisfying the notability guidelines) or are merely passing references - "this was noted on Wikipedia Review", "you can read more about this at Wikipedia Review" etc. Hut 8.5 19:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - a serious encyclopedia does not carry so much self-referential content. Any website, person, whatever whose only importance is their relationship to Wikipedia isn't really an encyclopedic topic - it's a tabloid topic. --B (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to comment that some self-reference is appropriate, if they are externally notable. The Jimmy Wales article is solid because he's been profiled in Britannica, Who's Who, New York Times, etc. If the only mentions of him had been throwaway lines such as "Wikipedia, founded by Jimmy Wales", then his bio wouldn't pass muster either. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per MickMacNee. Once again the Wikipedia community shows that it is unable to objectively judge the notability of self referential material. Dance With The Devil (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we can. We call them sources - fun things they are. —Giggy 00:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unlike some of the participants here spitting venom, I actually read the draft. I saw the sources - trivial things they are. Minor mentions in stories about Wikipedia or Wiki-drama do not merit an article. Dance With The Devil (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No valid reason to have ever deleted in the first place. The site clearly exists, and that is all that matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, wheres the article about my MySpace page then. Oh right, your argument has no basis in policy. Dance With The Devil (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write an article about your MySpace page, more power to you. It's a perfectly legitimate subject. If so-called "policy" says otherwise, then so-called "policy" is wrong and must be ignored (not that we're obligated to obey it anyway, since it's all non-binding and non-prescriptive). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn It's sourced, meets the guidelines, why not? Notice that the many of the people who are now voting to endorse deletion are the ones that Wikipedia Review declares to be Wikipedia's most abusive admins and editors. My head is full of good faith, but I can't stop thinking about revenge. Discombobulator (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. It's rather disappointing to see how many of the "Overturn" !votes are general statements that say little or nothing about policy, or are simple variations on "it exists and there are footnotes in the article". As has been so ably pointed out by RHMED, Clreland, MickMackNee, Quadell, Hut 8.5, Dance With The Devil, and others, the article miserably fails WP:WEB. The paltry sources are all trivial mentions; the only borderline non-trivial mention is Seth Finkelstein's article in The Guardian - in which all of three sentences actually refer to Wikipedia Review - and even then, it has to share some of the spotlight with Wikitruth. But the fact that the author is Seth Finkelstein brings up an interesting contrast; Finkelstein himself used to have an article on Wikipedia, and fought mightily to have it deleted. In the related discussions many involved insisted that he was not notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 30), and the conclusion was that he was, at best, "borderline notable"/"of marginal notability". Finkelstein, of course, has had a two page article in the New York Times devoted to him, is a 2001 EFF award winner, proudly notes that he has been quoted in the San Jose Mercury News, is quoted or cited in various books (e.g. [117] [118] [119]) and is a regular contributor to The Guardian. Now if all that combined makes for "marginal notability", what do three sentences in The Guardian amount to? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other stuff exists. Discombobulator (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I still don't think notability has been established. I looked up Factiva to see if I could find any other articles and WR only gets four hits there and two are for the same article and the rest are mentions in passing and not the subject of the articles. I really don't think there is sufficient here to say that this subject passes WEB. Sarah 04:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the Article Obviously if I were listed there for some reason (admin abuse/sock farm owner to name a few /cough ) I'd be against it... cause I'm a wikipedian that hates criticism. Well sourced, its become VERY notable in wikipedia itself actually. Yes I'm also one of the people that read it, and thus "pushing around a cart full of trash" I do wish you'd retract your personal attack though... cause its personal, and its definitly an attack. Using a pistol (single target) or a shotgun (spray and pray) as an attack, doesn't mean the people you hit are less hurt ;) --Jacina (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
move to article space as per User:Neil. Previous problems fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted...espcially per User:MickMacNee's correct summary. Fails WP:WEB. For the record, the website was also listed by Google until recently to be known to have harmful content that may introduce malicious software into viewers computers.[120]--MONGO 15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It exists, and that's all that matters. As for your last point, that's not due to any malice on the part of the WR folks--in fact, they were the VICTIMS of this. There was an exploit in the WordPress software that some malicious hacker used to hijack WR's site for that purpose; the issue has since been fixed. And at any rate, why is that relevant at all as to whether or not we should have an article on it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? They are the victims...now that sure is a laugh. It's "existence" is that as a blog only...aside from those who have heard about it on this website, it is not notable to anyone. Shall we have an article on every single idiotic blog forum out there?--MONGO 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess AGF, NPA, CIVIL, they're just guidelines for other people to follow, huh, MONGO? Achromatic (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong overturn/Move Neil's version to article space. Neil's painstaking attempt appears at first glance to meet the notability requirements, as noted by many responders above. Those arguing for keeping the article deleted are so far taking two points of view. First, that the site in question creates drama or consists of "navel gazing". This may be true, but is irrelevant if the subject of the article is notable. Second, that the references provided in Neil's article draft still do not meet the notability requirements. This could be a valid argument, but the discussion above (with good points on both sides) nevertheless confirms my belief that the bar has been met. Finally, there is another red herring mentioned regarding the deletion of the article on Seth Finkelstein. Since we have gradually shifted to considering a BLP subject's preference on whether an article on him/her exists in cases of borderline notability, and WR is not a BLP, this comparison is not meaningful in this case. All of this already leads me to support bringing Neil's version into article space. However, I also believe that in order to foster improvement and open discussion, Wikipedia should be particularly sensitive to the potential COI in stifling dissent. In addition, I suspect several of the opposers who are arguing above solely on the basis of notability are in fact also influenced by their personal distaste for WR and thus imposing a more-than-usual degree of stringency on the notability requirements, i.e. they would not argue in the same way on a topic they personally find less offensive. This COI issue leads me to augment my overturn !vote to a strong overturn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinp (talk • contribs) 17:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Non-notable; too self-referential. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - Neil's version is sober and neutral. If this were an unrelated site, it would be notable now; thus it should be treated as any other material impartially. Keeping it deleted creates just as much drama as having it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Drama wise, I think this DRV pales in compared to other examples. I've seen longer DRV's for trivia lists (looks below). MickMacNee (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion There are many bad arguments being made here for keeping this deleted. Self-reference is not a reason for deletion. WP:ASR is a style guide and doesn't say anything about not having articles on Wikipedia related topics. The version given is neutral and is well-sourced. The fact that an article might generate or has a history of generating drama is also not at all a good reason to avoid having an article. This would result in terribly large sets of deletion and essentially allows censorship based on how disruptive people are. However, the bottom line is that this does not meet WP:WEB. As Quaddel put it "This is like an article on a local band that some editors are evidently fans of, but that has been mentioned only obliquely and in passing in independent news coverage. Nearly all the references are analogous to articles about venues that merely list the band in question and give one sentence about its lineup." I can't put it better than that. This just isn't enough. This is certainly moving in the direction of notability and I suspect that the next version of this article that we see on DRV will be allowed but right now we aren't reasonably at that point. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I'm still not completely convinced that this passes WP:WEB, as JoshuaZ pointed out. For example, it only seven hits on Google News. This website is obviously notable in the Wikipedia community, but that doesn't necessarily translate to "the outside world". Khoi khoi 00:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted It doesn't pass WP:WEB at this stage. These are the third party sources:
New Straits Times - one sentence passing mention
InformationWeek - one sentence passing mention
The Independent - one sentence passing mention
OhmyNews - two sentence passing mention
The Register - WR is only an external link.
Institut national de recherche pédagogique - one sentence passing mention
Palo Alto Research Center - WR is only an external link.
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - passing mention
The Guardian - briefly mentioned in three sentences.
The Register - Out of about 40 paragraphs, WR is briefly mentioned in five sentences.
SiliconRepublic - WR is only an external link.
Nexus magazine - two sentence passing mention
The Brooklyn Rail - one sentence passing mention
If there's going to be an article on a website, there should at the very least be one reliable source in which the site is the main focus of the content (like what happened to Encyclopedia Dramatica with this ninemsn article). The draft is well written and sourced, but it doesn't pass WP:WEB yet. Spellcast (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per spellcast really and I'm wondering if there are not indepth sources to base the article on how it can meet WP:V without resorting only to primary sources (i.e. WR). Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Spellcast is being very harsh with his "review" of the sources. See my comment below. Neıl 龱 09:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I believe the "endorse" people are wrong - this meets WP:WEB. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 12:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted Subject fails wp:web. L0b0t (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the sources aren't significant enough for an article, IMHO, so keep deleted for now. A sentence or two in Criticism of Wikipedia would be perfectly fine, tho. --Conti|✉ 16:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Sure, the rabid deletionists are going to say I'm violating "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS", but let's be real for a minute. There's a Wikipedia Category called Internet Forums. While I don't have the time to go through that entire massive category stew, I did find the following articles that are sourced and noted to a degree far less than Neil's article about Wikipedia Review. Deletionists, if you are worth your salt and have any measure of an ethical backbone, I expect to see all of these pages up for Deletion within 24 hours:
GayNZ.com

Gay Youth UK

~~OutRage!~~

Outburst UK

OutburstUK Black Pride Festival

QX (Swedish magazine)

Trevvy

6park

Advanced Electron Forum

Airliners.net

Alkon

All Games Radio

Animator.ru

Aotearoa Cafe

Apolyton Civilization Site

Audiogalaxy

Those are just the "gays and the A's"... some of the deletionists who added their votes above may have the extra time to review the "B's through the Z's", and let us know how they're treating those articles exactly the same as Neil's article about Wikipedia Review by calling for their deletion. Right, as if! -- Cool as a Cuke (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous, and at minimum try to read the articles you claim should be up for deletion. For example, Outrage! has a book by a major publisher about its history. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous? Do you mean this, per chance? Outrage: An Oral History on Amazon.com: Average Customer Review: No customer reviews yet. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #6,444,287 in Books. Do you think the subjects of the 6,444,286 more popular books on Amazon.com each have been featured in a Wikipedia article? Yep, that's pretty ridiculous for that to be held up as a point for an article's notability. Is OutRage!'s service to the LGBT community any more notable (or noble) than Wikipedia Review's service to the Wikipedia-related community? I wonder if this user or this user ever bought a copy of Outrage? -- Cool as a Cuke (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a bit much to describe OutRage! as obscure in any way. This is a group that has been mentioned in Parliament[121], and featured on TV news and current affairs reports for over a decade. --Jenny 14:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Struck. How about the others? Any of the "Delete Wikipedia Review" crowd here looking into the B's through the Z's in the Category of Internet forums? Yep, I thought not. All heat and no light. -- Cool as a Cuke (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted until it can pass WP:WEB. A significant, non-trivial source doesn't necessarily have to focus on the subject, but there should be at least two with more substantial detail than the best two sources here. IMO, we don't have sourcing giving us more than a brief summary of the nature of the content. -- Noroton (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted I don't think there is quite enough significant coverage to meet WP:WEB at this time. Davewild (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Still failing in notability. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Everything else aside, we need good sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While recusing myself from any opinion regarding restore/keep deleted, I would like to point out that Ohmynews is not a vetted source. I don't think The Register is generally accepted at other Wikipedia articles as satisfying WP:RS; recommend the closing administrator double check the latter. Durova^Charge! 03:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can buy OhMyNews, but The Register has always been acceptable as a reference. I don't think it's what WP:RS calls "high quality", which is why if quoting it, I always make sure to say "X, writing for The Register, said Y", as recommended in WP:RS. The Register is certainly better than Kotaku, which despite being a blog site, is suddenly being used to justify just about every bit of cruft in video game articles as absolute fact. Neıl 龱 09:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Sources are not good enough. See especially comments from Quadell, Khoikoi, Jayjg and Noroton. Ashton1983 (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted fuck 'em. As a general reference source, I doubt we'd miss out by choosing not to cover a forum frequented by obsessives and sociopaths (though not exclusively) hellbent on the dismantlement of our project. Everyone who actually cares about WR and its motley crew is free to advertise their cause elsewhere. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC) (BTW, Neil, prior comments notwithstanding, yours is a well-researched and fair draft ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Neıl 龱 09:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A lot of the "keep deleted" comments appear to be based on the proposed article failing WP:WEB. Aside from the fact that out of our 6,906,538 articles, around two million are less well referenced than this (just hit "Random article" five times and see what you come up with), the article does meet general notability criteria:

Trivial criteria is defined in WP:WEB as "(1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."
The guideline explicitly does not state that "one paragraph is a trivial mention". I can see that a number of the references are, yes, brief summaries of the nature of the content. But I believe the Guardian, Independent, InformationWeek, How to Split an Atom, Brooklyn Rail and Register references are all somewhat more than that. As is the Nexus Magazine reference. And the citations in published journals from the Palo Alto Research Center are something that is covered in WP:ACADEMIC.
I do believe that the sourcing and referencing provided is sufficient to meet WP:WEB. I believe that many or most of the "keep deleted" comments are merely reciting "fails to meet WP:WEB" because they have latched on that this will make sure we don't have an article on Wikipedia Review. Whether this just don't like articles on a Wikipedia-related topic (some kind of WP:ASR thing?) or because they don't like Wikipedia Review specifically, who knows. It has been an interesting exercise, if nothing else, in seeing certain names pop up on either "side".

A further question - if the article is not deemed fit for existence as a standalone article at present, it seems a shame to delete the content entirely; even if it's not asserting full notability, it's reliably referenced and neutrally written. Could it be added as a section to Criticism of Wikipedia, and the redirect amended to Criticism of Wikipedia#Wikipedia Review? After all, WP:N and WP:WEB both say "Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deleting" (my emphasis Although that "and" should probably be an "or", or an "and/or", I won't fix it right now as editing the section of a policy you're quoting is bad form).Neıl 龱 09:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in WP:ACADEMIC is anything said about the notability of stuff that isn't a WP:BIO article? It's very WP:RECENTISM to create articles about things that can't even justify a good paragraph or two in a reliable source just because x thousand people are on a website. When a thousand people gather together in a local club, backed up by local newspapers, we don't care, but the web, that's a different matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - when the article was first created, the web site was less than a week old. When the article was recreated, the web site had just moved to its new servers. On both of these occasions, the article was acting as nothing but advertising. This is not the case now. At any given time they have an average of 100-200 people browsing the forums, and at their peak they had close to 1,000 people viewing it. They are mentioned routinely as the main discussion point in any criticism of Wikipedia. Look up virtually any fault with Wikipedia and you end up there. It quite clearly does meet WP:WEB or any other rules that are put in place. The one and only question mark is that the people in power in Wikipedia quite simply don't like it. To counter this - consider that, unlike Wikipedia Review, Encyclopaedia Dramatica actually does release real names and graphic images of people that can destroy lives, yet they have their own article. Unlike Wikipedia Review, Wikitruth has released private information about Wikipedia administrators, yet they have their own article. If you want to make the site have less influence here, then give them an article. Otherwise they look like martyrs. At least allow the article to go through a proper AFD. There are many, many, worse articles out there. Indeed, less than 1% of the articles out there are better than this. Dyinghappy (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. You can write an article on this topic in an encyclopedic style and reference third party sources. That's the spirit and the letter of what we ask for. Notice how far the bar for notability moves. I've often wondered how something which claims to be objective can have so many different interpretations. Hiding T 10:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted The deletion of this article has greatly benefited Wikipedia Review, and the number of new people registering shot up when it happened. Jayjg and SlimVirgin obviously appreciate this, hence their votes.--Poetlister 10:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three images used in Roller Coaster (video game) – Images have been restored and fair use rationales added – Davewild (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The fact that the above three images have been deleted from the Roller Coaster (video game) article is causing problems with said article; see its recent edit history.

I don't know if the fact that these deletions were done by BetaCommandBot, which has since been indefinitely blocked, has anything to do with anything. -- Korax1214 (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it has nothing to do with anything. They were tagged by BCB for lacking appropriate non-free content rationales, they were deleted by various admins. If they were all used in the same article, that likely violates WP:NFCC criteria 3a - so judgment should be reached about which one is appropriate and can meet all of the criteria. GRBerry 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BetaCommandBot never deleted anything, deletions are done by admins. Corvus cornix_talk 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted the main image and reinserted it in the article. Please fix the rationale or it will be deleted again. The other images fail WP:NFCC#3a and should not be undeleted. Rettetast (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn These images are non-free, and only have use on one article. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 22:26:15
Per WP:NFCC the non-free content policy, images must meet policy. those images failed to do so and where properly deleted. (note Im AfDing the article now for notability and sourcing issues) β^_command 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD which was rapidly dismissed on the grounds that the "non-notable" and "no sources" claims are both demonstrably nonsensical; and many of those in the debate felt (as I do) that this was a bad-faith nom. -- Korax1214 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - These images, when accompanied with an appropriate rationale (a trivial task), are an example of excellent use of non free images on Wikipedia. User:Krator (t c) 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The screenshots only need a fair use rationale. BetaCommand's AFD for Roller Coaster (video game) also quickly failed with a Snowball Keep. SashaNein (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I requested restore of all three images in case this was feasible, but in fact it's the screenshot images (both of them) which are of particular importance to the article; I suspect the box art is probably on WoS if anyone wants to look at it (I admit, I haven't checked). I don't see how the two screenshots supposedly inherently fail the fair-use criteria, and especially not the speficic WP:NFCC#3a criterion:

"3a. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." (Latter emphasis mine.) The article refers to two games for two different platforms, and the screenshots are one from each game; how does this fail 3a? Especially since part of the point of including the screenshots is to illustrate the otherwise non-obvious (and indeed seemingly implausible, hence the recent edits to the page) point that the Game Boy game is a port of the Spectrum one.

-- Korax1214 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. If the above is correct then they are fair use, and only need FURs to comply. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Someone has already restored the images for the time being. However two are missing rationales and have been so tagged. I think we can close this. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have now edited all three images and think they satisfy all ten criteria:

Image:RollerCoasterTitle.jpg

No free equivalent. This is the box art for a copyrighted game; no free equivalent is possible.
Respect for commercial opportunities. The facts that Elite Systems have given permission for this game to be downloaded from World of Spectrum, and that they still allow Chuckie Egg to be thus downloaded despite selling a mobile-phone version, can be taken as meaning that they have no problems with this. Should Elite do a modern version of Roller Coaster, the resolution of this image is not high enough to assist in making counterfeit packaging for a pirate version.
1. Minimal usage. This is the only possible representation of the box art.
2. Minimal extent of use. Less than the entire front of the cassette inlay would not be an accurate representation, and would thus be pointless.
Previous publication. This image was used as the basis for the adverts for the game.
Content. Article subject is notable and well-sourced; article is in an encyclopaedic tone.
Media-specific policy. Passes WP:IUP.
One-article minimum. Passes, obviously.
Significance. It's the box-art of a notable game.
Restrictions on location. Passes.
Image description page. The only potential problem here is 10a; if need be, I could upload a replacement which definitely is an edited version of the one on WoS.

~~Image:Rollercoasterscreen.jpg~~ — had quality problems (in particular, was actually larger than the Spectrum's screen resolution), hence replaced with:

Image:Rollercoasterscreen.gif (n.b. I could replace this with a .png version if need be)

No free equivalent. Screen-grab from a copyrighted game; see above.
Respect for commercial opportunities. See above; Elite Systems appear to take the view that the continued availability of a Spectrum version has no adverse effect on marketing modern versions.
1. Minimal usage. This is the only Spectrum-version screenshot in the article
2. Minimal extent of use. Less than the full screen would not be an accurate representation.
Previous publication. Although this exact image is not previously published (it was created shortly before upload), it is in all essential details the same as several already-published images.
Content. See above.
Media-specific policy. See above.
One-article minimum. See above.
Significance. First in-game screenshot of a notable game.
Restrictions on location. See above.
Image description page. No problems.

Image:DragonsLairTheLegendScreen.png

No free equivalent. See above.
Respect for commercial opportunities. See above.
1. Minimal usage. This is the only GameBoy-version screenshot in the article
2. Minimal extent of use. See above.
Previous publication. Appears to be from the external source referenced in the article.
Content. See above.
Media-specific policy. See above.
One-article minimum. See above.
Significance. See above.
Restrictions on location. See above.
Image description page. The "Source" and "Low resolution" lines seem wrong (the latter appears to contradict itself), but these are not irreparable faults. Otherwise OK.

If there's any remaining problems, let me know (I'm watching this debate). -- Korax1214 (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Long Beach Boulevard – restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting it to be restored. --75.47.139.146 (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I'd offer to have the content userfied for you, but since you don't have an account and the speedy was done under A3, which is for articles with no content, I'm going to have to just endorse instead. Feel free to create an account and create the article yourself, but having the old version to work with wouldn't help you. Drop me a line on my talk page if you need any help. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I think there is enough content here to escape A3 deletion. For non-admins, the content was comparable to Florence Avenue except that it omitted in the article text to say it was in LA, leaving that only for the category at the bottom. GRBerry 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It clearly wasn't an A3 (no content) nor even an A1 (no context). The article in the cache version does not come under any of the CSD criteria, so should be restored. RMHED (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix_talk 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restored I have restored the article. It was a bad deletion by me. Sorry guys! The next uninvolved party, feel free to close this DR. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cheshire Cat in popular culture – History merge from userspace draft. The arguments for overturning the AfD are more persuasive and more soundly based in policy, and supported by the evidence in the AfD and changes through the course of the AfD. Given that a clearly superior and encyclopedic draft is available, it makes sense to use this draft as the current version. Mergers are of course possible as editorial options. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Black Kite closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheshire Cat in popular culture (2nd nomination) as a "delete"; however, regardless of whether any of us believe the article in question should or should not have been kept, the discussion itself did not have a clear consensus. Those arguing to keep and those arguing to delete went back and forth without convincing each other one way or the other. TEN editors in good standing argued to keep in this second AfD for an article that when previously AfDed closed as "no consensus". Three others argued to merge. As the discussion progressed editors actively worked to improve the article in question and thus some of those who initially argued to delete did not state whether or not the improvements were enough to change their stances. While AfDs may not be votes, such support for a keep or merge suggests insufficient reason or consensus for deleting. Moreover, given the back and forth nature of the discussion itself, I simply cannot see any other read of the discussion than "no consensus". I would certainly not say it resulted in "keep," even though I argued to "keep," but neither did it decisively result in an uncontroversial "delete". Please note as well that I am NOT the only one to have contested this AfD. Please see User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive16. Two editors asked the deleting admin about the close and yet neither one of us received a response. Please note that I waited three days for a response before starting the discussion and because a second editor had also questioned the close, I am taking that as justification for initiating this thread. You will notice that the close occurred alongside a close for another article that was contested and undone. As a side question of etiquette, the deleting admin has since deleted his userpage and regular talk page and so I am not sure if I should still put a DRV notice or if I should respect that the talk page was deleted? In any event, whether or not anyone us want the article kept or deleted, we should be able to acknowledge that the discussion itself did not result in either side convincing the other and had strong arguments and determined proponents on both sides so that the discussion did not decisively result in a clear consensus one way or the other. I am not sure that relisting would necessarily change that and therefore respectfully request that the close be overturned and instead closed as "no consensus." Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore as no consensus--which probably represents the state of things for the view on Wikipedia for most articles of this sort. When I applied for adminship, I was asked whether I would close afds according to my own view of the issue. I replied that of course I would not--that if I had a position on the matter I would argue, not close, and close only things where I was personally indifferent except where there was a really obvious consensus one way or another. and that's what I've done. i was confirmed almost without opposition, and if I had said otherwise, i would not have deserved to be confirmed at all. I recommend this attitude to other admins--in fact, I think it's the attitude required for all admins., The closer has made it abundantly clear at various discussions that he does not approve of IPC and fiction articles unless they meet very high requirements. A perfect defensible view, though I do not agree with it--but in that case it should have been argued, and someone else left to close. What would people have thought of me if I had closed this afd the way I wanted it to come out? DGG (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we count numbers, 9 supported keeping the article, and 18 (15 supporting deletion, 3 supporting merging) supported removal of the content as its own article (one supported keeping or merging). Removal of the content has the majority support here. If we then look at the number of people who, after LGRDSC's continued debate and arguments, remained in support of removal of the content, we see that the majority of people do not agree in this instance with LGRDC and others' interpretation of relevant policies and guidelines. Policies/Guidelines regarding fiction are much debated (as everyone in this conversation as of now knows very well); therefore, we cannot appeal to the "backed by policy" aspect of our purported consensus policy. Numbers will play a larger factor. When I consider that the majority (numbers) of the participants in this discussion clearly evaluated their interpretations of the P&Gs (by the never-ending discussions with LGRDC about them) as well as the interpretations of those who disagree, and maintained (policy) their support for deletion, I believe that this discussion has a consensus for deletion. As for the closer, (who has left the project for a while, and so will probably not be commenting here), his has merely made his opinions on articles such as these more public than some. Perhaps he should not have closed a debate about an article type of which he has made his opinion public. But administrators are selected because the community deems them able to use the tools in a judicious and neutral manner. If there are concerns that Black Kite does not use his position judiciously and neutrally, as the community has deemed him able to do, then they need to be addressed discussing his ability to be an administrator at all, not used as a tool to discredit a particular AfD closure. And, for the record, I have no such concerns. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Three supporting merging is still supporting some part of the content somewhere, and thus does not support outright deletion, which precludes merger under the GFDL. Even so, a supermajority is still not consensus, and ignoring arguments simply because they are in a minority, especially when that minority is made up of a significant number of established Wikipedians making reasoned arguments based on policy, is not a proper way to close an AfD. Finally, one cannot normally show that an administrator is acting improperly without showing a pattern of individual instances, and each of these instances need to first be judged in the normal way (i.e. AfDs judged through DRV). And since the administrator has already had himself desysopped, that point is moot anyway. DHowell (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct in stating that a supermajority is not consensus. This is because our consensus policy stipulates that comments must also be taken with respect to policy. Policy is not clear on this issue – else we would not be having this discussion. Numbers do play a significant role in consensus, especially when there is no clear-cut policy. I am not suggesting we "ignore" the arguments of a significant minority; however, there can still be a significant amount of dissension and have consensus (for instance, in RfAs with <75% support). If policy and guidelines are either not clear, or have differing interpretations (for which WP:N is notorious) numbers play a role. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think an RfA is really analogus to an AfD. One (RfA) is for promoting someone; the other (AfD) is for a last resort. Something as decisive as an AfD when at worst a legitimate redirect location (Cheshire Cat) exists and when a good deal of editors had worked on the article and when admins and established editors argue to keep should not end as anything but "no consensus." Deletion is saying that there is absolutely no reasonable chance the article in question can or will be improved. The article was not a copy vio, was not completely unreferenced, was not libelous, etc. and thus there was no pressing immediate concern to delete the article altogether righ then and there. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we go by numbers in support of the article, then we need to include not just those who argued to delete in the AfD, but also the more numerous number of editors who created and worked on the article in question in good faith for over a year as also obviously believing the article sufficiently met our disputed policies and guidelines to be kept. Plus, it does not help when some of those who posted multiple times to delete in the discussion have stated that it is their mission to delete and that they will would not argue to keep in any AFDs and so if such accounts keep arguing to delete after improvements we cannot really take that as meaning the improvements were somehow insufficient. Thus, there was/is no reasonable way to see a consensus for deletion in that discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore as no consensus. The closer's stated rationale merely echoed the nominator's assertions, and seemed to reflect personal opinion, rather than showing any evidence that the decision was based on the rather lengthy discussion and policy. Merely stating something is "blatant original research" does not make it so, especially against clear and reasoned arguments to the contrary. The improvements made to the article and many reliable sources were simply ignored, rather than addressed in the closing. Ongoing arguments by established editors based on policy were being made on both sides, clearly showing no consensus. At the time of closing, the closer's own userpage also expressed concerns about Wikipedia becoming "a compendium of every piece of trivia ever written", which seems to reflect a personal view favoring one side of the debate. As DGG says, administrators should not close AfDs according to their own views, but should base closings on the actual discussion. And even the closer admitted there was some (even if "(very) little") encyclopedic content in this article, which should have at least resulted in a merge and redirect rather than deletion. DHowell (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore, there was no consensus here. Everyking (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse DRV is not AFD2 and there is no substantial policy based reason why this deletion should not stand. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is approaching this discussion as "AfD2", but because the close did not follow deletion policy, i.e. the discussion totally lacked consensus and thus per deletion instructions it should have been closed as "no consensus". The additional concern here is that two editors (not just myself) requested clarification from the deleting admin who did not respond to either after a few days, who had improperly closed a different AfD at practically the same time that was also challenged, and who has since resigned his adminship. Plus, the close itself even says "information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article," which is really a call for a merge and redirect without deletion as such material cannot be added as he suggests if the article is deleted and if it is added as the close suggests then per the GFDL, we need to keep the contribution history public. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with the existence of any "in popular culture" articles and, with no ill-will or disrespect intended, LGRdC seems to be showing up very regularly here at DRV, I will have to say overturn and restore, no consensus was the correct result. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's been awhile since we've had such a passionate inclusionist emerge, but I personally welcome it. There are far too many deletionists not to have someone of LGRdC's nature around. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed my mind. Endorse deletion but permit access to the content (restoring as a redirect as necessary) so that it can be merged to Cheshire cat. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we do that then we can't delete the contribution history per the GFDL. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, yes I know. I trust the closing admin to do it properly. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse DRV is not AFD2 and deletion was based upon clear failings of the article to meet core content policies. --Allen3 ^talk 12:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is approaching this discussion as "AfD2", but because the close did not follow deletion policy, i.e. the discussion totally lacked consensus and thus per deletion instructions it should have been closed as "no consensus". The additional concern here is that two editors (not just myself) requested clarification from the deleting admin who did not respond to either after a few days, who had improperly closed a different AfD at practically the same time that was also challenged, and who has since resigned his adminship. Plus, the close itself even says "information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article," which is really a call for a merge and redirect without deletion as such material cannot be added as he suggests if the article is deleted and if it is added as the close suggests then per the GFDL, we need to keep the contribution history public. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - LGrdC - copy-and-pasting yourself from just a couple of comments up is unnecessary. Other editors have asked you to hold back on responding to every comment on XfDs, and I'm adding my voice to them. The admin(s) reviewing this will see your first comment, and they and the other folks participating here are probably smart enough to realize that a response to one !vote can apply just as well to others. I can't speak for Allen3, but even a "please see my response above" would to me be preferable than cloning your material. --EEMIV (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose the "please see my response above" is a reasonable suggestion. I suppose it is just frustrating/confusing when I see comments made that seem to ignore a comment made earlier in a discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment:This discussion may have been influenced by WP:CANVASing. Requester has notified a WikiProject which aims to preserve "In popular culture" and "Trivia"-type information[122] and a user which has previously expressed an opinion on this article supportive of the requestor's.[123] Corresponding notification effortss to the admin which closed the AfD, users which have expressed views differing from the requester's, or other locations such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup appear to not yet have occurred. --Allen3 ^talk 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We typically notify relevant wikiprojects of deletion related discussions and notifying another editor who also asked the deleting admin about the discussion is also acceptable. I did not notify the deleting admin as he had deleted his talk page and if you read my nomination above you would have seen that I asked if in such a case we just respect that or if we post a message that is not likely to be responded to. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closure was a reasonable reading of consensus and not a breach of deletion policy. Deor (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn~~ Consensus wasn't there in this AFD, and unlike so many IPC AFDs, there was an attempt to demonstrate sources actually on the topic of "X in popular culture" - these are the relevant sources, so there is no reason for deletion from overriding policy. (The ability to engage in original research and cite "X appeared in media Z" is irrelvant.) However, my opinion is only a weak overturn because the article was not written from those sources and was not on its topic, it was merely yet another laundry list of "X appeared in media Z" claims. The only part of this article that a good article on the topic would have retained is the lead; the entire rest of the article was material for the cutting room floor, and its continued inclusion is going to lead to AFD#3 eventually. GRBerry 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC) See below for new preference. GRBerry 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - it's always a difficult task, closing these sorts of discussions and invariably someone is going to be upset and contest it in one way or another. It might have been nice to see a little more clarification in the closure, particularly when dealing with such contentious topics and debates, but ultimately I do not see where the closure was in error or a misreading of consensus. Shereth 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The close was in error, because the close rationale states that "information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article." In order to merge such information, the article needs to be restored and redirected without deletion. Plus, the incredible difference in arguments on both sides of the discussion reveal a clear lack of consensus one way or the other. Deletion is a last resort and something that we do not do when there is significant opposition and when as in this case editors are actively working to improve the article in question. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy in preparation for merge. It's pretty obvious that the merge = keep argument is only being pushed as it results in a keep, and is a gaming of the Afd process. As can be seen by the changes in the article between Afd 1 and 2, no one is activeley working on it to improve it without the impetus of a deletion threat, so to make sure it is trimmed down properly in preparation for the clear consensus for keeping as a start point for mergeing, it should be userfied. I sincerely doubt, given the principled nature of the debate here, that anyone is actually willing to volunteer to do this though, so if not, endorse. WP:NOTFINISHED cannot be gamed as a way to permanently keep what has been assessed as a poor quality list of trivia, with the same people turning up time and again on principle that wikipedia is a specialist trivia server, and then disappearing again until the next Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- if you want to argue that we should as a general matter of policy consider a merge decision as equivalent to a delete, I just might agree with you once we have a chance to explore all the ramifications. But as regards this particular situation, wikipedia is a server of a great many things in a comprehensive way, and that will necessarily include a good deal that any one person here will consider unjustifiable trivia. 128.112.203.68 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Trivial relationship' is realy not a hard concept to define for a large number of rational and objective people. We are talking about an article linking a Japanese cartoon bus and a word uttered by a Prison Break character here. Anybody on the 'wikipedia can store anything' listification crusade surely has more important articles to make a fuss about than this. MickMacNee (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore No consensus to delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore This was an obvious failure to appropriately judge consensus. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore No consensus to delete. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore Did not seem to be closed in accordance with WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete, especially points 2 and 4. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding point two, whose feelings do you believe the closing admin did not take into account? The "losing" side of an AFD is probably always going to feel some level of upset with the decision; that does not demonstrate in the slightest that the closing admin ignored their feelings or concerns. As for point four "when in doubt, don't delete," unless you have the heretofore unrevealed ability to read minds, you have no standing for saying that the closing admin had any doubt in the closure. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The protracted discussion merited a reasonably judicious summing up but the closer gave no sign that he had even read the discussion and he did not address any of the points made. Instead, he just seemed to state his own opinion. Such a close is unsatisfactory since the losing side will feel that their statements have not been considered. This is the point of item 2 - that justice must only be done, it must be seen to be done. Regarding point 4, reasonable doubt clearly existed even if one only considers the closer's statement, which as noted above, stated that the article had some encyclopedic content. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are making assumptions about the closer's actions and intentions with no factual basis. You are also misrepresenting the closing statement. Black Kite did not say that the article had encyclopedic content. He said that some of the content "could possibly be" encyclopedic and that the amount of such information was "(very) small." Since that content was split from the main article, it can be restored from the main article's history. Otto4711 (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or he could be referring to the new material added during the AfD that was not split off from the main article and that in order to merge, we would need to restore the article to retrieve it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Just add the material from the same sources again. The content doesn't have to be lifted word for word from the deleted article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's much easier and more considerate to other users to restore the article and redirect rather than forcing editors to relook for the material they had already worked on. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Yes it was a very long and complex discussion, but the closing admin's conclusion seems to be as substantially correct as the topic allows. Procedure was followed properly and there is no valid reason to overturn. Doc Tropics 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The conclusion is that some of it could be merged, which can't be done if the article is deleted. Thus, there is no valid reason not to overturn. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - no consensus is the proper answer. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - as Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles really ought to know by now, AFD is not a vote, so his arguments based on the number of editors who argued in favor of any particular action is irrelevant, as is the effort put into the article either before or during the AFD. A thousand editors can edit an article and a thousand more can argue in its favor at AFD, but it the strength of the arguments that counts. The fact that no one arguing for deletion voiced an opinion on whether the supposed improvements to the article were sufficient to change their minds is also irrelevant. Editors are not required to monitor the article for changes during the AFD and voice further opinion on them. And despite the effort put in during the AFD, the simple fact remains that not a single source was offered during its course that was substantively about the topic of the article, which was "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." Sourcing individual mentions of the Cheshire Cat in popular culture, or possible mentions of the Cheshire Cat, or uses of phrases like "Cheshire smile" or "chessy smile," does not demonstrate that the overall topic of the article, "Cheshire Cat in popular culture," is notable. The list of sightings is compiled and the sightings are used as the basis of the argument that "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" is a legitimate topic for Wikipedia because of all of the mentions or sort of mentions or possible mentions that might not be. This is original research by synthesis. The closing admin correctly deleted the article in the absence of any substantive response to the blatant policy violations set forth in the nomination. DRV, which Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles also ought to know by now, is not AFD round two. The article does not need to be restored for merger because the content was split from the main article in the first place, so it's already in the history. Otto4711 (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the strongest argument should prevail, regardless of how much or how little support it has, then you don't believe in consensus. Everyking (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Naerii 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd suggest that an article that violates Wikipedia policy should be kept if enough people say it should be? Otto4711 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question doesn't violate policy, though. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question violated WP:NOT and WP:OR. Otto4711 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on popular culture (thus our First pillar) and was not original research as it contained references and did not advance a thesis. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, you made this claim repeatedly in the AFD and now that it has been rejected there you're trying to fly it here. AFD round two. And has been pointed out to you so many times that it's pathetic that you still try to argue it, the Pillars are not policy. Let me repeat that one more time: The Pillars are not policy. Otto4711 (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't fail any policies, however. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, a number of editors and the closind admin disagreed. Otto4711 (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we clearly had "no consensus." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we clearly had was a failure of those wanting the article kept both to overcome the arguments in favor of deletion and in finding reliable sources substantively about the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." o here we are again, watching you try for another bite at the apple. Otto4711 (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The connection in reliable sources of the Cheshire Cat in popular culture had been made by many others prior to our article. The arguments in favor of deletion seemed to ignore this reality. We must be open-minded when sources are discovered and be willing to recognize that as I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis rather than focus simply on trying to win an argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a particular books contains all four of the words "Cheshire," "Cat," "popular" and "culture" does not mean that the book is a reliable source that established the notability of the concept "Cheshire Cat in popular culture. You can find a source that includes pretty much any combination of words. Look here's 299 sources that are about Hitler and his love of crochet. Oh wait, they aren't about that at all, they merely use the words "Hitler" and "crochet" at some point between their covers. There is a reason why the Google test is an unpersuasive argument and you've amply demonstrated that reason time and again. Otto4711 (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The particular books concerning the Cheshire cat and popular culture do not merely contain all four words but places them together in the context presented in the article in question, which is why your argument is unpersuasive. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply reading even the snippets from the books demonstrate that they are not substantively about the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." They are the same old collection of single-sentence mentions in passing of the cat or comparing someone's smile to the cat's and the like. Still not one source that demonstrates the notability of "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" as a concept. Otto4711 (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know what to tell you then, as I can't see how you aren't seeing the connection and notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I whole-heartedly agree that this DRV is not AfD round two, as someone else (notice the edit summary) had already started that discussion several days ago... --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, no consensus to delete. Naerii 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). While this was clearly a contentious discussion, the job of a closer is more than merely to count noses. Closers are expected to weight the expressed opinions based on a number of factors including the relevant policy(ies) and precedent. Even then, it can be a difficult call. This closure was just within the acceptable range of administrator discretion. I would, however, encourage the closer to explain his/her reasoning in greater detail when the case is this close. Rossami (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He has retired. MickMacNee (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Closers should not calculate a weighted vote either. What they are to look for is consensus. Where opinion is deeply divided with many editors in both camps then we obviously do not have consensus. The closer does not get a casting vote or the unilateral right to impose his own interpretation of policy. Note also that we seem unlikely to get any kind of explanation since the closer seems disaffected and has started folding his tent. My impression is that his close was a Parthian shot, made in a pointy way - another reason to consider it defective. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree rather strongly about "consensus". It doesn't matter how many people agree about something in an AfD if it contradicts policy. If 100 editors claim an article should be kept because "we keep worse articles than this", and 3 editors make valid arguments based in relevant policy, guess who wins? Not consensus....Doc Tropics 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but in this case the article satisfied policies and even the closer said some of it was encyclopedic (which is part of the issue here, the close rationale had elements of merge in it and was not an unambiguous delete). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closer said that a "(very) small amount of information...could possibly be encyclopedic." And that very small amount of content can be restored from the history of the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it cannot, because that material was added to the article in question during the AfD and not split off from the main article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the closing admin did not specify what content he meant, you can't say with any degree of certainty that it was material added during AFD that was being referenced. Otto4711 (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus you can't say that it was the stuff spun out either. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional thoughts. 1) The closer's retirement is irrelevant. (My comment about explaining the closure rationale in greater detail was intended as a general comment, not a specific admonition.) 2) Closers are required by policy and precedent to weight the opinions expressed. Opinions which are consistent with policy or demonstrated facts get greater weight than opinions which are not. 3) The question of whether the material which was added during the AFD discussion is encyclopedic deserves consideration. LGRdC believe that it is encyclopedic. Otto4711 disagrees. My interpretation of the closer's comments leads me to believe that he/she disagreed too and that the potentially encyclopedic content was to be found in other content. Having reviewed the deleted versions immediately before the addition of the AFD tag and immediately before deletion, I personally do not see any added content that I would consider encyclopedic or appropriate to merge to another article. 4) While merge and redirect is far and away the most common way to satisfy GFDL when content is moved, it is not the only option available to us. When only very small content is being moved, it is occasionally easier to satisfy GFDL by attributing the content either in the edit summary or via the destination article's Talk page. I am not sure whether that scenario applies here but it is a legal option to the project. Rossami (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, more than just Otto4711 and I disagree about the encyclopedic content. As the edit history shows, in addition to me, Colonel Warden, John Z, and DHowell were also in the process of improving the article in question prior to deletion and I believe they like me would still continue to improve of the relevant content. As you can see here, whether userfied or not, I still work on articles that I believe in after the deletion discussion ends and fortunately sometimes others help as well. Also, part of my concern with this close is that it occurred alongside another questionable close (closed an AfD as delete after two days when editors had argued to keep); that one was already successfully undone. Then when two users asked the deleting admin about the close, which could have prevented the deletion review discussion, neither received a response and shortly after the admin left, resigned the tools, and deleted userpage and talk page. I don't see any harm in say restoring and redirecting so that if those working on it do have additional sources then they can add them or if some content can be added then it will be. If we do that, then I see the potential to improve our coverage, whereas if we don't, I see no gain or benefit, but rather a lost opportunity. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I was one of the perpetrators of heated argument in that AfD. We can see that a count was made in the AfD as well as here, leaving us with 9 deletes and 15 deletes. We can add the "merge" votes in either column. I feel the editors voting "merge" did so in good faith, as did the editors exhorting people to merge. However, we cannot declare that this had no basis in policy nor no (rough) consensus. First, consensus. Consensus isn't unanimity. A simple majorty isn't consensus (neither is a supermajority). But somewhere along the continuum from majority to unanimity lies the judgment call for consensus. There were a range of opinions expressed in the AfD, some of whom commented and left. Some of whom continued the discussion until the end. Some of us might have been persuaded only by overwhelming evidence one way or the other. Some of us might have been on the edge. We can't know who was where without peering into their hearts. I cannot promise you with any more force that one editor would forever vote to delete than another editor could promise you that I would vote forever to keep. Despite this limitation, we cannot allow holdout votes to drive the debate. I would suspect that the best way to look at this would be to see which positions were independent, grounded in some appeal to policy (or some strong appeal to reason), and not perfunctory. Tally those up and see where you are. Second, policy. I stand by my policy arguments made in the afd and even though this isn't AfD2, I think they are valid here. The mentions of the article subject in reliable sources were thin at best and likely trivial. A number of the secondary sources cited and available to me through a university library service (I can't personally speak to the "Lewis Carroll in pop culture" volume, but other editors noted its tenuous connection to the article premise) either did not mention the subject at all (Cheshire Cat in popular culture) or mentioned it trivially in connection to another subject. as for the wording of the deletion rationale, that is an issue to take up with the admin, should he/she return. Mentioning that some of the less trivial information could make its way into the main article is not cause enough to overturn the deletion debate and bring about a similar kerfuffle about merging the few lines of content that might have some merit. Also, just because the closer didn't mention policy doesn't mean that the article met WP:NOT, WP:OR, or WP:N. The judgment on that one will have to be made by individuals with access to the page itself in the form in which it was deleted. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This DRV is not AfD round two, as someone else (notice the edit summary) had already started that discussion several days ago... Wikipedia is foremost an encyclopedia and as such a compendium of encyclopedic knowledge. If editors believe in good faith that material can be merged as suggested even by the closing admin then we merge and redirect. Deletion is an extreme last resort and there is no urgent last resort need to delete in this case. The article met what Wikipedia is, was unoriginal research, and was a notable topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no need to respond to every single thing that every single person says, especially if all you're going to do is regurgitate the same "this is what Wikipedia is" stuff over and over again. It has been explained to you repeatedly that your collection of essays on "what Wikipedia is" has no force of policy or guideline but merely represent the opinions of the people who wrote them. I could write an essay that says Wikipedia is a balloon bouquet and it doesn't mean anyone has to pay any attention to it. Otto4711 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like what you did in the AfD with everyone who disagreed with you? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over turn and merge to one of the suggested merge targets. The article doesn't meet notability guidelines, but some of this would be high quality content in if located in Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IIRC, none of it was with the possible exception of American McGee's alice, the entry for which contained little more than a mention that the Cheshire cat was gaunt and emaciated. Protonk (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore Clearly there was no consensus. The discussion was active when it was aborted with arguments unresolved, and there were some possible avenues open to improve the article.John Z (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was open for five days, which is how long AFD discussions run. That you feel the discussion was "aborted" by the expiration of the standard AFD timeframe is not relevant to the DRV. If you disagree with the five day timeframe, take it up at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is also the problem. The advocates of these trivial lists as part of wikipedia's mission as a specialist encyclopoedia only turn up to develop them when they are up for deletion, as explained in the nomination. Not that this topic is save-able as an article, but that's beside the point. This is wholly gaming the principle of WP:NOTFINISHED to extend the life of inherently unworthy topics. MickMacNee (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not spread misinformation about people interested in Popular culture content. Interested Wikipedians do more than just "turn up [...] when they are up for deletion". --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 13:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you should post that project. Looking at the member list, a lot of Afd comments and voting patterns now make even more sense. As for the not just turning up at Afd comment, I looked at the last two pages of the edit history of the project front page (back to 10 April), the overwhelming majority of edits involve updating the articles facing deletion/deletion review section, with a smattering of 'why we are here' type edits. The actual amount of activity in the article improvement section pales by comparison.

On a brief sample, I could not see a listing for this specific article anywhere in the front page history, other than regarding its imminent deletion. Granted the project wasn't even in existence after its first Afd, where assertions were made that it could and would be improved, but it was setup up just two months later. Surely someone should have listed it for improvement? Perhaps there was a project talk page discussion about how to improve it? I could not find it in the talk page or the archive (again, I did find a deletion alert about it though). I don't have any objection to well written articles, or improving articles with merit. I've even without knowing it edited a few of the project's articles.

So if you're going to simply use the existence of this project as a rebuttal to my analysis of what's going down here, I'm afraid I will have to reserve the right to spread my "misinformation" about the evident practice of the defence of specialist trivia list hosting on principle alone, in conjunction with gaming WP:NOTFINISHED/merge=keep at Afd, and how this practice compares to the treatment of content at Afd from the rest of the wiki. Maybe with more time in the improvement section on articles with merit, and less time at Afd for any arbitrary topic with the trigger phrase in the title, then the project might manage more than 2 GAs. 14:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC) MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, this article hadn't even been tagged by the WikiProject or given an assessment when it was nominated for deletion, so it's no surprise to me that it didn't make the main project page. I don't want to deny your analysis, you make some good points, but you are not presenting an accurate reflection of everything the group does, only what you experience most often at AfD (did you go through the page histories of all the articles under the scope, maybe you'd see more work being done). EDIT And if editors are making arguments from "principle alone", then this is a practice that should stop. Having principles to guide your actions are good, but having nothing more substantial with which to follow is bad. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is welcome to see that list--I watchlist some pages of workgroups whose principles I do not altogether agree with in order to contribute my own views. All that's necessary to join a group is to not deliberately interfere, just as everywhere else at Wikipedia. A project devoted to improving articles facing deletion is a very good thing, whether or not I particularly like the sort of articles involved. I remind Mike once again of WP:Deletion policy-- deletion is the last resort. Everyone should want to improve articles if they are improvable. How can anyone oppose doing that? DGG (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore - No clear consensus. Besides, it appears to have just been a spin-off of the parent article, which would warrant a redirect/merge. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - No clear consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. I'm going to be blunt about it: Black Kite's closure comes across every bit like a pronouncement -- a personal assessment of the article and not an assessment of consensus. At the time of the AfD, he was in the midst of on-again-off-again wikiretirement over frustration with other users over issues I believe were related those that were at stake in the AfD. (Evidence of this could be found in the recent history of User talk:Black Kite, except that he deleted that page on his way out. That deletion was also improper, as his talk page was not "the work of one author".)--Father Goose (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but speculate that it might have been this type of action that drove him into retirement (I'm not smearing you or the nomination itself, rather he seemed put out by wikilawyering in general--being put out by wikilawyering is his problem not anyone else's). Protonk (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you suggesting is wikilawering in this case? This DRV? It certainly isn't on my part. The principle here is that if Black Kite closed the AfD according to his views instead of evaluating the discussion, it makes a mockery of the AfD discussion process itself. Given the language he used in his closure and the kinds of frustrations he was venting in concert with his departure, he was not the right admin to close the AfD. I'd accept a re-evaluation (and re-closure) by any admin capable of acting objectively; Black Kite, at the time of the closure, was not that admin. Frustration is endemic to Wikipedia editing, and I on that level I sympathize, but it's not an excuse for misuse of admin rights.--Father Goose (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The statement(s) in question on Black Kite's talk page were, "This was supposed to be a Free Encyclopedia - but is rapidly turning it into a compendium of every piece of trivia ever written, complemented with lashings of copyright abuse. Administering this isn't enjoyable at the moment, so I'm having a break from it.Black Kite 20:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)" (I was able to retrieve this via Google's cache, but it would be better if User talk:Black Kite were temporarily restored for the purpose of this DRV.) That statement, and very similar language in his closure, very strongly suggest to me that Black Kite did not heed the debate but just closed the AfD according to his tastes, retiring from Wikipedia shortly after, at which time he deleted his talk page which contained the above comment. Black Kite was not neutral on this issue and he should not have been the one to close this AfD.--Father Goose (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up. Finally found the comments in question, and when Black Kite deleted them: [124]. Black Kite deleted them a day after closing the AfD, shortly after users raised objections to his closure on his talk page. The comments were part of a transcluded header that appeared on his talk page.--Father Goose (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To ask a meta question, what happens if the DRV fails to reach a consensus? :P Protonk (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like this, the AfD would instead be closed as "no consensus". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A no consensus DRV results in the reversal of the original decision? I'm not being confrontational here, I really don't know (DRV is kind of a new thing for me, so many layers!). Protonk (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because there's even less consensus for the delete closure here than there was in the AfD. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. According to the rules established with Deletion Review was founded, an inability to establish consensus here defaults to the status quo. It almost never happens though, and is unlikely to happen in this case. Rossami (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this case there is sufficient consensus to overturn or do some kind of merge and redirect. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is insufficient consensus for the course of action you suggest. Otto4711 (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is overwhelming consensus in this case to overturn the close as either merge and redirect and no consensus. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count 15 in favor of overturning and 11 in favor of keeping deleted. Hardly "overwhelming consensus." And of course a number of those in favor of overturning are WP:PERNOM, which are hardly persuasive either in terms of numbers or consensus-building. Otto4711 (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers show that the majority of the community does not want this article deleted and believe the closure was incorrect. The consensus based argument show also favor either restoring as no consensus or merge and redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not majority rule. Otto4711 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I am pleased that the arguments in favoring of closing as no consensus or merge and redirect are strongest in addition to being the majority opinion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, failing to overcome the objections at the original AFD by failing to find reliable sources that are substantively about "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" coupled with a series of unsubstantiated "me too" !votes in this second attempt to bite the apple because you don't like the outcome of the close does not constitute strength of argument. Neither you nor any of the article's supporters have found any procedural error in the close and you're hanging your entire case on the inclusion of about three words in the closing admin's statement. Otto4711 (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the apology, but the objections at the original AfD were addressed by any reasonable standard. It's not about not liking the incorrect closure, it's about it being an incorrect closure. The procedural error as already pointed out is that it 1) occurred by someone who had just made another successfully contested closure and then resigned the admin tools; 2) had calls for merging in it, which would mean the article would be restored for that to occur; and 3) there's just no reasonable read of that discussion that would lead anyone to say the community felt a compelling need to delete the article in question. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) To address your points in turn: I did not apologize to you, I expressed my sorrow at your apparent inability to comprehend how AFD or DRV work despite having inhabited them for well over a year. The reasonable way to address the objections in the AFD would have been to refute the bedrock policy objections raised in it by finding even a single reliable source that was substantively about the subject of the article, which once again was "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" and not "List of times someone said Cheshire Cat, chessy cat, Cheshire smile or chessy smile in a book, movie or TV show, or when something that in the opinion of an editor resembles the Cheshire Cat in some fashion." As has been amply demonstrated, the inclusion of the four words "Cheshire," "Cat," "popular" and "culture" within the covers of the same book do not constitute a relaible source for the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." As has been amply demonstrated, a one-sentence mention of the cat in a multi-hundred page book does not constitute anything other than a trivial reference. 1) The fact that some other administrative action taken by the closer was overturned is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that the closing admin has since resigned is also irrelevant. 2) The mere fact that some people wanted to merge the article is irrelevant. 3) You are here calling everyone who disagrees with you unreasonable, which again skirts the borders of incivility and a failure to assume good faith. Clearly, there is a reasonable read of the discussion for a result of delete because there are reasonable people here arguing it. Otto4711 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is unfortunate if you do not comprehend how AfDs and DRvs work after all this time. The objections raised in the discussion were addressed by finding reliable sources about the subject of the article. The references found were and are substantial enough to sustain an encyclopedic article. 1) The fact that some other administrative action taken by the closer and his resignation is relevant to this discussion as it demonstrates a frame of mind and pattern of behavior when making the decision to close this AfD. 2) The fact that good faith editors want this article merged and a minority of editors who simply do not like it is totally relevant. 3) I think some who disagree with me are reasonable, but you seem to think that the more numerous number of editors arguing here that the closure was wrong are unreasonable, which does seem to be a bit close to incivility and a failure to assume good faith. Clearly, there is no reasonable read of the discussion for a result of delete, not whether or not you want the article deleted or said in that discussion you want it deleted but how the discussion ended, which is why it should be closed as no consensus or merge and redirect without deletion. After all, I argued to keep, but I am not saying that the close I wanted is the consensus not reached in that discussion as there was no actual consensus in that discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you been warned more than once about simply parroting back what others post? Like, including in the AFD under discussion? Since the bulk of your post is nothing more than this mindless parroting, I'll ignore it in favor of the new material.
The notion that two incidents demonstrate a "frame of mind" or a "pattern of behavior" is ludicrous in the extreme. The notion that his resignation is relevant to this discussion is foolish. Your dismissal of the policy and guideline-based objections to this article as "I don't like it" is disrespectful to your fellow editors. And I don't care how many times you say it, it is not suddenly going to become true that there were reliable sources that were substantively about the topic Cheshire Cat in popular culture presented in the AFD. Passing references are not substantive coverage. Single-sentence mentions are not substantive coverage. A source noting the existence of an appearance by the cat is not substantive coverage of the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." It really is not that complex, especially for someone who claims to be a teacher. WP:N lays out what makes a topic notable and not one thing that's been presented in all of this noise has demonstrated that the article passes notability guidelines. Not one thing has been presented that refutes the article's failure of multiple aspects of bedrock Wikipedia policy. Your obsession with the minutae of popular culture notwithstanding, the discussion was correctly deleted because those wanting it kept failed to substantively address the nomination. "Look, I found a book that has the words Cheshire Cat popular culture in it!" does not address the nomination. "Look, I proved that this trivial mention of the cat actually happened" does not address the nomination. "This is what Wikipedia is" does not address the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing and responding to someone's comments is hardly parroting back. The bulk of your posts are just repetition of what I and others have already addressed anyway. Incidents of bad judgment that preceded a decisive action like resigning as an admin, deleting userspace, and in effect leaving the project is extremely on topic and dismissing it is foolhardy. You should not dismiss the many policy and guideline based rationales for keeping that your colleagues have argued as it needlessly disrespects them. Saying it fails these policies over and over does not mean it actually does when it doesn't. Multiple references are enough coverage for our purposes or at least for a merge and redirect without deletion. The notability guideline is heavily disputed and we can Ignore All Rules in such instances as this when deleting the article outright would be detrimental to our project. Your obsession with deleting popular culture articles notwithstanding, the discussion was incorrectly closed for the numerous reasons outlined above as those wanting to delete did not successfully present a compellingly urgent reason to do so. Dismissing references that a significant number of your colleagues believes are sufficient is not a solid reason for deletion. An opinionated claim that it isn't what your vision of Wikipedia is is also not a compelling reason for deletion. The article passes enough of bedrock Wikipedia policies to justify either its inclusion or a merge and redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is mindless parroting to respond to my comment I expressed my sorrow at your apparent inability to comprehend how AFD or DRV work despite having inhabited them for well over a year. by saying It is unfortunate if you do not comprehend how AfDs and DRvs work after all this time. as is your repetition of such phrases as "your obsession with...notwithstanding." There have been no policy or guideline based rationales offered by those in favor of keeping this article. Certainly you haven't offered up any such, nor have you refuted those offered in favor of deletion. Still waiting for even one source that is substantively about the specific topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." Just one. A single source that is about that topic. The idea that an administrator can't be trusted because he took an action you don't like and then quit soon after is, I'm afraid, meaningless to this discussion. You have no policy support, no guideline support, no reliable sources, nothing at all to keep the article so you hang your entire case on about three words from the closing admin and his resignation. Otto4711 (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want to read such comments, then you should not make unconstructive borderline incivil comments in the first place. Polite comments receive politer replies. Policy based rationales offered for keeping: Notable, Verifiable, Unoriginal research, etc., as I and several others have used to refute the weak arguments for deletion. That does not mean everyone who argued to delete did so in bad faith (although at least one account in the discussion has in fact said it's his "mission" to delete articles and that he would "never argue to keep"), it just means that they did not present so strong of a basis for deletion that it trumps the active efforts to improve or merge the material in question that if allowed to continue would likely result in better coverage of a notable topic. And even one of those saying endorse in this discussion saw fit to make at least redirect anyway. Sources have been presented, and you don't want me to be repetitious so I am not going to relist them, which is not really the purpose of the DRV. Deletion review is not about whether you or I want or do not want the article kept or deleted; we already had that discussion and failed to reach a consensus; it's about how the discussion was closed. Thus, the admin's actions and attitude at the time are what we are discussing here; how and why he read things, not a rehashing of our mutual failure to come to a consensus in the AfD. You have no policy or guideline reasons that are so compelling as to suggest that an article for which a whole wikiproject of editors who are willing and will work on the article when kept or merged must be decisively deleted right now. We have something to gain by continuing to improve this content; we do not have anything to gain by just getting rid of it altogether. Please respect your fellow editors who are willing to do what they can to improve it, just as while a number of articles you work on are quite trivial to me, I would nevertheless not go about determined to delete them just because I don't want to work on them or see any value in them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not responsible for your decision to respond through parroting, so don't blame me for your choices. It is quite easy to say "keep - notable" but it is another matter entirely to provide sources that are substantively about the topic. The topic of this article was "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." What you can't seem to grasp is that there need to be sources that are substantively about "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" and despite your protestations, these were not presented. The admin did not act outside of deletion policy and there is nothing in DRV policy that allows for overturning because you don't agree with the outcome. Failure to meet Wikipedia policies is indeed a compelling reason to delete, and "there are people who are willing to work on it" is not at all a compelling reason for keeping. The article sat ignored for ten months following the first AFD, which rather puts the lie to your claim that there's some platoon of editors standing by, if only this article that has no reliable sources about its topic were allowed to exist. Whether you see the articles on which I work to be trivial is irrelevant, because the articles on which I work have multiple reliable sources that offer substantive coverage of the topic of the article, as opposed to the dearth of such sources about "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." Otto4711 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respond by engaging other editors, while you are certainly being repetitious no one is parroting or doing any other bird related activity. It's actually far easier to say "delete-non-notable" and make no effort to improve the article as well. It is far more difficult to argue to keep, produce sources, work on the article and then have to go back and forth with others who are unwilling to do so in the discussion. Sources were presented whether you want to acknowledge them or not. The article successfully met Wikipedia policies, which is why there is no compelling urgent reason to delete. Editors would actually be able to accomplish more working on these articles if they didn't keep having to defend them in AfDs. This article also has multiple reliable sources on the topic at hand, which is why it will be kept or merged and redirected. The thing is that the claim that the article is orginal research, i.e. as Wikipedia is the one making the leap that the Cheshire cat is significant to popular culture and that no reliable secondary source says so is not accurate. Please look at this example, where the author writes that the Cheshire cat and other characters "have become inextricable parts of our popular culture." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - just beacuase the disscusion was long is not a reason to overturn (note: I origionally voted to delete) --T-rex 04:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And no one is saying that is why it should be overturned. It should be overturned, because there was no consensus and the close rationale suggested merging some of the content for which the article would need to be restored. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - While several individual allusions to the Cat were cited, the article lacked substantiation for the claim that the overall mass of pop. culture allusions to the Cheshire Cat are together the topic of multiple, reliable, third-party sources. As such, ad admin.'s closing/deletion rationale of original research was correct. --EEMIV (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not original research as it contained references and did not advance a thesis. (Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, just erase this text and my signature and pop in your four tildes.) --EEMIV (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article contained substantiation for the claim that the overall mass of popular culture allusions to the Cheshire Cat are indeed together the topic of multiple, reliable, third party sources, which is why the admin's rationale of deletion was incorrect, but the other aspect of his rationale to merge was indeed correct. There's more to Wikipedia than just trying to delete as much of it as possible. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No shit. Why don't you write an essay about it and cite it 18 times per AfD? --EEMIV (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because I am far more interested in devoting my time to improving content, rescuing articles that should not be deleted because a few don't like them, and welcoming new users. There are of course unverifiable, pedophilic, unfixable, nonsense, disturbing, original research, hoaxes, how tos, unconstructive, and disruptive and pointed articles that I agree should be deleted. This article, however, should not have been and the discussion in the AfD lacked the consensus to justify deleting it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing that you point toward your willingness to !vote to delete articles on such things as hoaxes and how-tos, which would be deleted regardless of your participation, as some sign of your growth as an editor and AFD participant. I find it much less amusing that you think !voting to delete articles on the basis of their being "disturbing" or "pedophilic," neither of which are legitimate bases for deleting material, are things to point to with pride. Otto4711 (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're amused. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore history to the existing redirect. I think merge and redirect is a better a better reading of AfD2. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Another user has started writing a new version of this article at User:Protonk/Cheshire cat in popular culture. Thus, I suggest if the AfD closure is overturned, we consider merging the two articles or at least merging the edit histories. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - restore as no consensus. Regardless of personal feelings ( I dislike this type of article) the discussion had no clear consensus at all to either delete or keep so we default to the status quo. As a side note: the repeated and intense badgering of those seeking to have the article deleted made the discussion absolutely terrible to read - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wrote the 'new' article LeGrand is referring to (to which LeGrand is referring? Bah). In my opinion (IANAL), the new article doesn't owe a debt of attribution to previous versions. Sources are shared and wording is derived from sources but there are no fundamental similarities aside from the reporting of fact. As I noted on my talk page, my creation of this article doesn't change my mind about the decision made by the closing admin. It also (because I don't feel the GFDL requires the retention of history for this instance) doesn't change my stance about the disposition of the article in question. If the DRV is endorsed, I will recreate the article (under the same title) with my version (and no history). If it is overturned, I will merge my article with the retained article. I will not, however, do this until the DRV is closed either way. Let me repeat: I don't feel that my creation of a new article compliant with policies and guidelines should influence a review of the decision regarding the old article. Either way, it has been 7 days and this issue could do with some resolution. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use Protonk's copy with history merge Protonk's article is a lot better than the former article, and would have no trouble surviving a new AFD - provided that the trivia lists don't get added to it again. It actually is an encyclopedia article. Reviewing the history of the userspace copy, you started from a copy of the prior article, then cut the garbage, then rewrote. I'd feel a lot better if the prior history is kept with it in these circumstances. With that article available to use, there is no point in overturning or in endorsing the AFD decision of the old article version, the new one is far far superior to it, would escape G4 deletion as substantially addressing the reasons for deletion, yet needs the prior history for GFDL reasons. GRBerry 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will, of course, defer to more knowledgable opinion on the subject. :) Also, the more conservative method (attribution where there may be some question) is usually better. If you feel that maintaining the GFDL history in this article is proper and necessary, I'll be the last person to disagree with you. Protonk (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the initiator of this thread, I am in agreement with merging the edit history of the deleted version with Protonk's version and moving this merged version into mainspace as a fair and reasonable compromise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore No clear consensus, and keep arguments seem stronger to me. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore No consensus to delete. GlassCobra 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use Protonk's copy as a section of Cheshire Cat. I've been dithering over this one for a week since there is such strong support for the article to be merged; yet the content which was deleted was complete and utter garbage. I read it again and again looking for content which was worth salvaging, and there was simply none, just a few potentially useful reference links (added more to score points at AfD than to make a genuine contribution to the article, in my opinion). But Protonk's User:Protonk/Cheshire Cat in popular culture is a fine couple of paragraphs on the subject which should definitely be used, and I don't think the Cheshire Cat article is anywhere near so long that we need to inconvenience readers by splitting this off onto a separate page. I can't actually see anything in Protonk's work that is derived from the deleted article, but if it was, then sure, restore the history and redirect it to Cheshire Cat. --Stormie (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Bryant-1] The Bryant Park Project (July 3, 2008) NPR Twitter, What Are You Doing? Co-Founder Tells All.

[2] Harris, Patricia; Lyon, David; (April 8, 2007) Boston Globe Enter close quarters: colonial to nuclear subs. Section: Travel; Page 8M.

[earthquake-3] Whyte, Murray. (June 1, 2008) Toronto Star Tweet, tweet there's been an earthquake; How an online social network chirpily called Twitter is becoming anything but trivial. Section: Ideas; Page 1.

[4] Arrogant Sons of Bitches MySpace [1]

[5] Interpunk Records album description. [2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]