Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 February 15
2007 February 17 >

16 February 2007[edit]

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

Can any one tell me why my artical on Campus Peace Action was deleted? User:FlJuJitsu

  • Endorse - judging from the AFD the subject matter looks to be of dubious notability at best. If there is something there just rewrite citing reliable sources that support notability. Moreschi Request a recording? 12:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jason Edward Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Although Jason Robertson has not published any books, his teachings and writings are very influential among Southern Baptist and Reformed Baptist. Seminary professors, teachers, state presidents, and hundreds of pastors around the world are influenced by Jason Robertson's sermons and internet articles every day. His is notable by thousands of Christians, his church is highlighted by the Southern Baptist of California as one of the most successful church plants in the last ten years, and his church polity and structured is studied via online articles by thousands of students. His is a renown vocal critic of the Emergent Movement and the Church Growth Movement within Evangelicalism. He has preached in hundreds of churches on three continents. He appears weekly on either radio, TV, or internet radio programs. Please reconsider the deletion of this page. It is not merely a bio of Jason Robertson, but it is any entry that will grow into a popular wiki page that will be helpful to thousands of readers as they study this Christian leader. Jason E Robertson 21:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion as a valid A7. The article contained no assertion of notability. This could be a speedy close candidate, given that the nominator is the article's subject. --Coredesat 22:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I sense a conflict of interest here as well. Whispering 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion Notability is asserted. Hundreds of students and theologians around the world read and/or listen to this man daily. --Jason E Robertson 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Overturn" struck out - if you nominated the article here, it's automatically assumed you want the deletion overturned. --Coredesat 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: The article describes a working minister. I'm sure that he's very important to his congregation, and I wish him well, but there is no justification for a biography to be written, much less for it to be considered a biography of a figure so well known and curious that the world needs it summarized in an encyclopedia at this point, and this is aside from Proverbs 16:18. Geogre 02:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Youtube atheists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article was about the notable group of atheist on youtube that has stirred a great fuss over the internet. Specially after the events where one of the members was banned for content(Later revised to copyright violation) featured on sites such as Slashdot, digg and others in relation to censorship Lord Metroid 16:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the article on Google, but where is the process that removed it? As far as i can tell, the only objection I see to the articles would be whether this was a stable group with an actual name, or whether the article should instead by Youtube atheism. DGG 17:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist: There appears to be no valid reason for deleting this article that I can see. The YouTube Atheists are a real entity. There is some kind of culture for atheists or something going on on YouTube. The only sense in which you could consider the group "unstable" appears to be that its generally growing. Many of these people have in fact referred to themselves as "YouTube Atheists". And "stirring a great fuss"? I don't know what that means in this context -- the article was about the existence of YTAs. The fact that a group Atheists have managed to congregate together and form a group is actually a kind of unique sociological event that is noteworthy, since Atheists tend to avoid organizations. Qed 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion group is not notable, speedy deletion under A7 was the right course of action.--RWR8189 18:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the criteria for notability? The Blasphemy Challenge has attracted about a 1000 video responses to a specific cause. On YouTube, I am not sure how often that happens. An easily identifiable group of people has come together as a result of this. If that's not notable, then I need to know what notability means in the Wikipedia universe. Qed 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist: May or may not be notable, but that's for AfD to decide. What's certain, however is that "made famous" is an assertion of notability, so A7 is precluded. David Mestel(Talk) 18:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist: The current/recent controversy about Nick Gisburne makes this group notable at present. Running an AfD would, I hope, let the dust settle so we can get a better picture of just how notable a group this is. CWC(talk) 19:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Current rage/passing fad/"memes" have to do a hell of a lot to pass the bar. Among a dozen other things, they have to be verifiable, which is impossible here, and have an effect, which is doubly impossible. It is particularly difficult for a "meme" like this to demonstrate notability sufficiently to even pass A7, much less be "keeps." Geogre 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you think this is a fad? Nearly all these athiests are long term atheists who have been searching for an outlet for their voice. What do you mean, they have to be verifiable? You see a person on YouTube proclaiming their atheism, or calling themself a YouTube Atheist. What more verification do you need? This is not just some fleeting idea. There are atheists, and there are YouTubers, then there are people who talk about atheism on YouTube. Many atheists do not talk about their atheism, either on YouTube or anywhere, for example. This group/category is non-trivial in size, and appears to be somewhat cohesive. It was my understanding that Wikipedia does not ignore fairly notable concrete ideas or events on the mere opinion of someone, claiming it to be the current rage, a passing (no evidence provided) fad, or meme. I mean, by that criteria, WTF is Asia_(band) still doing listed? Qed 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, absolutely no assertion of notability, no sources, a long list of vanity namechecks, no redeeming features whatsoever and absolutely no indication that this is or could ever be an encyclopaedic topic. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? If you want to fix the vanity list, then why don't you do that? The notability is self evident by the fact that there is a long list of "vanity namechecks" -- those names were all real, and they really are "YouTube Atheists" you know (I checked them myself.) You can't have it both ways. Sources?!?! We are talking about a classification of people -- you can go investigate each of these people to your heart's content; there was this "long list" remember? There was also a link to stories covering the Blasphemy Challenge, which made news coverage. Your reasons are just baseless assertions. Qed 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How can you see the article? I only saw it briefly yesterday and don't remember much. But today when I went back to contribute it was then deleted. Lord Metroid 23:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Looking at the google cache, "made famous" is an assertion of notability, and references are given, so this is not an A7. It might not pass AFD, but it needs to be listed at AFD. — coelacan talk — 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Made famous" is not a valid assertion of notability. The A7 criterion exists because very little is as common as "John Smith is world famous as the most fantastic booger tosser in the world." One does not say one is famous: one shows that one is famous, and fame is not "discussed." Fame passes beyond mere mayfly notoriety. Geogre 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD. I'm not sure if this is a valid A7 (which sort of makes it invalid), but the sources at the bottom likely should have precluded any speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per Coelacan. --Metropolitan90 06:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember hearing about this in a Newsweek section written by Beliefnet. I am going to find the article and see what it says. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AFD as the article does make definite assertions of notability; even if those may not pass muster upon further review, further review than a speedy was called for. Balancer 10:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AfD, I hope to be deleted after due process. Seems like a useless article on a meme to me, but it did have references and clearly asserted its notability... it was not an appropriate candidate for speedy-delete. The very fact that there is a significant amount of wishy-washiness here indicates it was not a clear deletion candidate, and should not have been a speedy. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 14:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AfD, it does have references which seem to assert notability. Enough debate here to show it should at least get an AfD. Trebor 15:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - I may or may not then argue for deletion, but I think this one is at least close enough to the borderline of notability to be worth an AfD debate. Metamagician3000 05:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleting admin here: I stand by my decision. IMHO, the article didn't ascertain notability at the moment of it's deletion. I've got no problems at all if this is overturned and relisted. Lectonar 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems fairly opaque to me. What sort of effort was put into ascertaining this notability? There are links right on that page to the Blasphemy Challenge, and few clicks on those links into YouTube and you'll find the news stories about it and even a counter challenge that made it to television. If you like, I could easily expand the list of "vanity links" to a thousand YouTube members fairly easily. Is there an official Wikipedia definition of "notability" that I need to look up? Qed 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On the issue of notability, it appears as though YouTube Atheists qualify, because the Blasphemy Challenge has appeared on multiple US local television channels, and BBC's World Service Radio. Discussion of Nick Gisburne's multiple account deletion has been reported on digg and slashdot. These count as independent, reliable, accounts of Atheists on YouTube. The broad categorization of YouTube atheists most closely falls into social club or interest group. Thus YouTube Atheists appears to meet the criteria of notability according to the Wikipedia rules. So my position on overturning and relisting stands. Qed 15:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BBC World Service info, which was not included in the original page is realized [1], [2] and [3] in which another YouTube atheists (Paul Doeman) is involved as a participant in the interview. Qed 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Examples of the use of the phrase "YouTube Atheist" can be seen [4] (at the very end) and [5] Qed 23:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: The Nick Gisburne controversy has been citied on the YouTube entry in Wikipedia itself [6]. However, the fact that he's a "YouTube Atheist" was only just made clear when I just editted it right now (Aliento has just editted the link to Atheist, which loses a lot of context in explaining who Nick Gisburne is). The whole point of what it means to be a "YouTube Atheist" would go some way to giving more information about the Nick Gisburne case is all about. Its probably not appropriate to expand on all the details of his case on the main YouTube entry, but it does make perfect sense to do so in a "YouTube Atheist" entry. Qed 00:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - More information pointing to 'YouTube atheists' being a significant group:

Secular student alliance - "Interview with the Creator of the YouTube Atheist Video": http://www.secularstudents.org/node/522

It's also worth noting that the 'Blasphemy challenge' didnt occur until December last year. It could be argued that the Rational Response squad sought to take advantage of an existing YouTube atheist community and in so doing became a part of the YouTube atheist community themselves. YouTube atheists like Nick Gisburne began posting their videos in the first half of 2006. I think a "YouTube atheists" page will also serve as an example of a new social group created by Web 2.0 technology, that previously could not have existed. Relisting the page will allow links to it from a wide variety of other entries, such as: Web 2.0, YouTube, Atheism, Blasphemy challenge and others. It looks like YouTube atheists are a real, significant and growing group. I cant see a reason for removing the entry. paulypaul 12:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Blood Red Sandman – closure endorsed; as obiter dicta I note that merge/redirect is an editorial decision subject to normal editorial processes not a deletion decision for deletion review but also that consensus here was clear that this was reasonable – GRBerry 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blood Red Sandman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Although the AfD for this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Red Sandman, was closed as redirect, this was not actually the consensus reached. Consesnus apears to be keep (although relisting may now be nescesary as no-one thought of the merge). The 3 similar nominations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's Your Daddy? (song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Would You Love a Monsterman?, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil is a Loser were closed as keep. Perhaps most importantly, though, the closure stated editors at Lordi should merge as they deemed fit - in fact, that directly ignores here and here, were it's already already decided not to merge these articles into Lordi. I even provided these links in the AfDs. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse reasonable closure. There was majority support for keeping the article but a number of the arguments were very weak with unclear or non-policy compliant rationals. If the information is not wanted in the Lordi article, it can remain behind a redirect on the basis of insufficient notability for a stand alone article. Also, it is not clear that the fate of this article should be determined by consensus in related AfD's since seperate singles may have variable notability. Eluchil404 10:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by closing admin: - Users please note that the other nominations closed at keep were of numbers by the band that had been on the top of the Finland charts, at #1 position. The highest position this song ever claimed was #9 on the charts. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Wikipedia is nto a directory, of songs or anything else. Where is the multiple non-trivial coverage with this song as primary subject? Guy (Help!) 11:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. No independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage on them. That is why I avoided closing the other AfDs. They can be successfully merged to a list article of some sort. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirect because the most notable thing about the song ("It is worth noting here that the words that make up the title of the album feature in "Blood Red Sandman", and these words are now used regularly in reference to Lordi merchandise.") wasn't sourced. No prejudice against recreation if it is, but unless the Lordi article is bloated it's probably a good thing to keep it all together. - Mgm|(talk) 13:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure `'mikka 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jcink.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This site is very helpful to me and many others. More and more people are learning about this site, and you still won't keep it, but other articles get to stay even though they are for useless stuff. I can get over 100 signatures of people saying they would like a Jcink.com Wiki Article because it has helped them. Opalelement 05:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's useful and a hundred people like it are not grounds for having an article, I'm afraid. There is no evidence that this site has been the primary focus of multiple on-trivial independent coverage in reliable secondary sources, which is our primary notability criterion. Lack of encyclopaedic notability is not a measure of the worth of the site, it's just that it's not discussed outside of its own small circle. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion no assertion of notability, reads more like an advert than an encyclopedia article, liking it or getting 100 signatures don't make it a valid article or subject for article. --pgk 13:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the AfD? we are wasting effort here to consider appeals from Speedy. DGG 02:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, same as the other one just above this one. Perhaps this point needs to be made clearer on WP:DRV. Mathmo Talk 04:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sometimes, the Google cache is sufficient, but for whatever reason, not here. -Amarkov moo! 05:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, deleted three times by three separate people, most recently me. It's a big ol' ad and an AfD would be a waste. Opabinia regalis 06:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on Afd. I am learning that the Google cache is usually fine--they generally don't clear it out all that fast. But though it is quite likely that I might agree with Opabinia regalis, for I have just a low a tolerance for commercial spam, I think the fair course is to look at it rather than take it on trust--even from such a RS. DGG 05:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 06:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse preferably speedily. No policy compliant rationale given for deletion. Eluchil404 10:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The editor and requestor, user:Opalelement, has no contributions other than this article, which they have reposted three times now. First versions were all "coming soon" style nonsense, final version was a righteous G11. Redux: yet another unsourced spammy article about a website with no objectively provable significance created and argued over by a single purpose account. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • list on Afd Speedy is wholly inappropriate, because the speedier must have known that it would be challenged, and such cases should never use speedy--speedy is for when its obvious. I make no comment about the article. But if it was a"argued over" in good faith, its not a valid speedy.DGG 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Undeleting WP:CSD G11 deletions because their creators ask us to is a rather bad idea. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. `'mikka 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • 23:00 – deletion endorsed; creation of a stub with content encouraged – GRBerry 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
23:00 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Well, I don't know what to argue since I wasn't even aware that the article had been deleted, let alone why. I was only aware that it had been when Image:2300manga.jpg turned up orphaned. Article doesn't appear to have been deleted through AFD either. Anyways, It is a published manga series and I don't see any reason for it to have been deleted. SeizureDog 04:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list, a printed manga series is not a "person, group of people, band, club, company or website". How you can speedy something which specifically contradicts your deletion summary, and not notice, is beyond me. Of course, it would be nice if your nomination gave some evidence of notability, but still, it should get an AfD. -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest speedy restore - The deletion summary says A7, which the article does not appear to be. It is a work by Tomo Matsumoto, who appears to be a notable individual. --BigDT 04:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how much a 1 sentence substub with a single source demonstrates notability of the author, but you are still right that it isn't A7. -Amarkov moo! 04:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well ... I wasn't basing my determination on the article. I googled him and he appears to be the author of multiple real books. --BigDT 04:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, wow, I didn't realize that. Goes to show that A7 should be applied sparingly. -Amarkov moo! 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleting admin is on a wikibreak and has had no edits since February 7 ... if he were around, I would discuss it with him ... but does anyone have any objections with a speedy restore? --BigDT 04:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author's notability does not mean that every work ever created by the author is automatically notable. The contents of the page at the time of deletion consisted of a single sentence - little more than a restatement of the title. Perhaps it technically didn't deserve speedy-deletion under case A7 because it's a work, not the person, but it was probably speedy-deletable under case A3 (no content). In particular, I note that the page was unexpanded since August 2006 and that the prod deletion was within a few hours of running its course uncontested when the speedy-tag was applied. The fact that it went that long without improvement suggests to me that it is probably not fixable now. Leave this one deleted but if you feel you must restore it, create it as a redirect to the author's page until we actually have published sources to reference about the work itself. Rossami (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The author's notability does not mean that every work ever created by the author is automatically notable." Actually, Criteria 5 of Wikipedia:Notability (books) does say something along the lines of "if the author is notable, then his works are too". The manga also would pass the theshold standards, though granted the libraries holding the book would be in Japan...--SeizureDog 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did it say? --ais523 13:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The total contents of the page at deletion were an infobox, some wiki-tagging and the sentence "23:00 is a manga by manga artist Tomo Matsumoto." Earlier versions didn't even have that much. Rossami (talk)
  • The article itself was extremely short and didn't cite any sources. If the article about the artist lists it, it should be redirected until a fully sourced article can be created that states more than its existence and also source the info in the infobox. - Mgm|(talk) 13:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: It is both A7 and A1, and no item in Wikipedia can be justified by borrowed fame. Even King John doesn't get in because Shakespeare wrote it: it has to be significant in its own right. Some very, very few people are so intensively studied that everything they did is contributory toward the understanding of the great works, but we're talking about Shakespeare and Dante and Virgil, here, not pop musicians, software engineers, or comic book artists. Insufficient time has passed for there to be the sort of study that generates interest enough for that kind of reasoning. Valid A7 and A1. Geogre 02:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, not an A7 or an A1. A7 may have appeared proper if the deleting admin wasn't aware of it, but the bluelink probably should have merited some investigation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Geogre (and add A3). If I had found this I would have redirected it (and the content-free Tomo Matsumoto) to the unsourced, plot summary, WP:NOT poster child Beauty is the Beast. If anybody wants to write an article on the subject, there is nothing stopping them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the only problem is a lack of information, I can try to dig some up for the article. However, one has to admit that "23:00" isn't exactly the easiest title to search for, which is probably what stopped me from writing a full, proper stub in the first place.--SeizureDog 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The amount of content in the article was sufficiently small that it would be just as easy to start from scratch, more or less. Valid deletion under the current wording of A7 (although that's possibly slightly controversial), and both A1 and A3 seem reasonable. No prejudice against recreation of an article with enough content to give context, and preferably some sources. --ais523 11:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
30LL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The administrator's only comment before deletion was "The result was delete" without mentioning a specific reason, even though there was was no consensus for the deletion of the article. The comments that were posted on the deletion discussion page mostly acknowledged the fact that the article was not spam, which was one of the main reasons why it was considered for deletion. In addition, there were 7 "keeps" and 4 "deletes" (one of which was anonymous and the other unsigned), with a clear consensus on the issue of spam. Regarding notability, commenters from both sides presented valid arguments and facts to support their claims. However, I believe there was not enough evidence to justify the deletion of the article because of non-notability. The 30ll.org website is a recent creation and is enjoying rapid growth. It is gaining recognition among people interested in Lebanese/Middle Eastern current affairs and should be considered notable. Therefore, I suggest the administrator take a second look at the article. Kartrab 01:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Assertions that it's important are unconvincing in the face of teeny google hits and large Alexa ranking, and being from new accounts doesn't help. Do you have sources for it being important? -Amarkov moo! 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - How does 30LL differ from other podcasts such as DropShock, that have few google hits [7] and a high Alexa ranking [8]? There are several entries similar to DropShock, and they are in no way threatened with deletion. It has also been noted in the AfD discussion that 30LL is the first result among 999,000 hits for a Google search on "Lebanese Podcasts". This number cannot be regarded as insignificant. Kartrab 06:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, a good call by the closing administrator. This fails WP:WEB by a longshot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.115.237.182 (talk • contribs).
  • Endorse close. It appears to differ from those other podcasts by being less significant. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: though it would perhaps have been better if the closer had made a comment to the effect of "disregarding the !votes of very new users". David Mestel(Talk) 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. `'mikka 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion due to failure of WP:WEB, but most of the comments (for both "sides") on the AfD weren't grounded in policy or guidelines. Trebor 15:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the keep votes are non-trivial and even borders WP:SNOW. Wooyi 01:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - By deleting the most popular result for Lebanese Podcasts (The first result of about 1,010,000 on Google [9]), Wikipedia would be effectively denying the existence of such podcasts. If 30LL doesn't deserve a Wikipedia entry, then no other Lebanese podcast does, and Wikipedia would be deeming Lebanese podcasts as insignificant. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. I do believe having an entry on Lebanese podcasts would contribute to enhancing Wikipedia's high-quality status by acknowledging an important, popular and growing means of communication, in a large an equally growing Lebanese online community. Amasoussou 02:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Consensus of established users was clear in the AFD. The basic building block for Wikipedia articles is coverage by independent, reliable, published sources. If they exist (I have no basis for an opinion on that question), then recreation using only material from such sources following the method set out at Wikipedia:Amnesia test will be possible. If they don't exist, that won't be possible. The key is to write an article citing every assertion of fact to one of those sources independent of the podcasts, the website, and the website's staff. After doing so, if there is a real article and it is desirable expand the article further from reliable sources that are not independent of the topic. GRBerry 23:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC) advise section expanded GRBerry 13:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fixity of species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|DRV)

New improved content compared to the previous article which was deleted. See User:Pbarnes/Fixity_of_species2 for proposed content. And User_talk:Pbarnes#Fixity of species for reason of current deletion. Pbarnes 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how this will fit into the current content on evolution and creationism? Reading the prior discussions, no use for this given our current content was a major concern. Where is the hole in the current coverage, where will it be linked from? GRBerry 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is meant to be a historical piece to give information on the scientific community's view of biodiversity prior to Darwin's revolutionary book. It's not related to creationism because it should remain far from current religious battles (although many scientist just accepted the culture's religious dogma by default). It was replaced with evolution but isn't really related in a way where it should be included in other evolution related articles. Fixity of species had great influence on the way early scientist viewed biology. It should have an article of it's own with much more information then I'm able to write. Pbarnes 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Origin of SpeciesHistory of evolutionary thought (I knew there would be a better target out there somewhere). I think both previous reviews were against the topic, which has strong overtones of pointiness. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see what Plato, Aristotle, and Linneaus opinions of biodiversity have to do with The Origin of Species. The only connection this has with evolution is that it was replaced with it. There is no more reason to add this information to evolution related articles then it is to add geocentrism to globe/earth related article. Pbarnes 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said that last time, as well. The fact that before Darwin it was thought that species were fixed has no impact on the fact that since Darwin the scientific consensus is that they evolve, regardless of creationists' attempts to pretend some kind of support for the alternative. Undue weight applies. The only people currently using the term appear to be creationists looking to pretend that there is wider opposition to the evolutionary biology consensus than in fact exists. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I have seen fixity of species appear in many biology books and university websites that are completely unrelated to creationism. I fail to see how this is an "attempt to pretend some kind of support for the alternative." If you knew anything about creationism, you should know they don't support fixity of species. Most creationist believe in things they call: creationist orchard (Kurt Wise/Jonathan Sarfati) , limited common decent (Stephen Meyer), common descent (William Dembski/Michael Behe), or microevolution (Kent Hovind) which are all names for the same belief which is not fixity of species. You've got me very confused in this whole statement because most of what you have said is simply not true. Pbarnes 09:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - new information has arised since the MfD. There should be enough information here that can warrant an article.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 00:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion The correct place for this material is "History of evolutionary thought", where there is already an excellent article. If there is anything in this article not included there, it should be added in. A redirect should be to that page. I am not sure the original author was aware of this better place--there are a number of detailed pages in the Biology series on Evolution, in addition to Origin of Species. The article may have been improved, but the reason for deletion still remain. DGG 02:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I'm strongly persuaded by DGG here. It looks like this content should be merged into History of evolutionary thought where appropriate. Pbarnes, is there some compelling reason why DGG's suggestion is misguided? — coelacan talk — 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, this is notable and has plenty of information about it. Merging it into other articles serves no other purpose than to make already long articles even longer. Mathmo Talk 06:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, it could make existing articles better and more complete, it could prevent wp:content forking, it could keep relevent information in one place where it's easier to integrate and understand. There are all sorts of good potential reasons for merging. I've already asked Pbarnes to comment on whether a merger to History of evolutionary thought would be appropriate, so let's wait for an answer. — coelacan talk — 08:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - About the merge to History of evolutionary thought. What does this have anything to do with fixity of species? The only connection I see is that it was replaced by evolution. There would be no content splitting since both article attempt to provide material unique to itself. If you think about it "fixity of species" is before the "evolutionary thought" and therefore, should have its own article and not be misplaced into the history of something its not. The only reason I can think to merge them is because the article can't stand on it's own...which is obviously not true. Pbarnes 08:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have this to do with the history of evolutionary thought: fixity of species was part of the view replaced by evolutionary thought. Since it is now considered as a part of history by everybody but a few people pushing against the tide, that is a good place for it. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain to me how all the content on fixity of species fits with the history of evolutionary thought. Simply put, it wouldn't. The only thing that fits on the history of evolutionary thought is a little note saying. "prior to evolution most of the western world believed species were unchanged." Talking about Aristotle's view on specie fixity would seem very out of place. And like I wrote earlier, most creationist don't accept fixity of species, so please quite bringing up the minority of the minority in your arguments.Pbarnes 18:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Sorry, Pbarnes, I'm not convinced. Lots of history articles have an early section that discusses what was believed prior to the new theory. I don't see any reason why this needs to be different. — coelacan talk — 22:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see the reason why it should be merged to history of evolutionary thought. It's not just "what was believed prior to the new theory" like the other history articles have, it's who believed it and what influence did it have. Most of the content is and will be completely unrelated to evolution. Pbarnes 00:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 01:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i really don't see what more to say. This article was apparently created with a substantial amount of care by an ed. who wasn't aware of the excellent coverage already in WP. There's nothing much to merge, though we should say merge instead of delete so it reflects respect for the work done. The ed. should take a look at the series of articles on evolution, and find a undeveloped article where he can put his efforts to good use--the eds there will have plenty of suggestions. WP very much needs a few more biology editors. DGG 02:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salt - Pbarnes has no respect for community consensus on this issue, he has re-created this article at least 4 times (and I think more, at other names) despite the fact that it was legitimately deleted and the deletion was upheld by DR. Guettarda 06:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_16&oldid=1144732447"