Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 6

Logan_Whitehurst – listed at AFD with the consent of the deleting admin – GRBerry 20:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This deletion was by Alkivar who mistook this for a memorial page.

For one thing, it's not a memorial page -- it existed long before Logan Whitehurst passed away. Additionally, Alkivar claims that the article does not meet the music notability guidelines.

By analogy, Logan Whitehurst is to the Velvet Teen -- a band which does warrant inclusion on Wiki -- as Pete Best is to the Beatles. Pete Best has an article, despite having no claim to fame himself except for having been a member of the Beatles before they became famous.

Logan Whitehurst, by contrast, released several albums and is acknowledge by indie labels in Northern California as a well known person. Dr. Demento has dedicated at least one show to Logan Whitehurst and had his music in rotation. Pab Sungenis has done the same. Nigel Stinkwell interviewed him on his Jr. Science Club material a long while ago. While neither of these are major radio networks, Dr. Demento's show at the least is syndicated and well known.

He toured with the Velvet Teen in Japan at the very least -- that satisfies the international tour portion: Portland Mercury popmatters.com

What is additionally notable about this artist is that his popularity came primarily from mp3.com -- a nonstandard form of music syndication. He's known nationwide at the very least. His second to last major release -- Goodbye, My 4-Track -- had the help of members of Death Cab for Cutie and Pedro the Lion, both notable bands.* User:Cerise, 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete - Alkivar has been notified - not a WP:CSD A7 candidate based on the google cache, and last time I checked, WP:NOT wasn't on the list of CSDs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete / list at afd if Alkivar prefers that Sources and claims in petition suggest a reasonable WP:MUSIC pass and yes WP:NOT is not a CSD. Bwithh 00:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and AFD it then since enough people question my judgement... send it to AFD and let it be decided there. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - Wiki's own page for determining the notability of a musical artist says "A good online resource for music and musicians is the All Music Guide." The All Music Guide verifies "The Velvet Teen"'s tour, which satisfies number "3" of the notability requirements. Number 11 (Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network) is satisfied by Dr. Demento's January 7th 2007 show dedicated to Logan, as well as his October 12th 2003 show. In "criteria for lyricist", it says "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above." The Velvet Teen qualifies, and Logan wrote music and lyrics for that group. I could go on, but this vote is getting a little long. Needless to say, Logan qualifies in every possible way. FilmCow 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - I think the notability criteria has been met. PabSungenis 00:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - Logan Whitehurst has every right to be on here than most other people. Logan creates music and has sold CD's which just about every popular music artist has done and they get their own page. There's no reason why Logans page should be taken off. He creates music and has been with other bands as well and all of them have been popular among many people. Such as Little Tin Frog. The stupidest and most undeserving things get on wikipedia but this is not one of them. So i say to undelete Logan Whitehurst because he has every right to be here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fireguy15 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Undelete - Logan meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability A4cts 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - Logan Whitehurst meets the requirments. I and many others love his music and he has every right to be here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dusty353x (talk • contribs) 01:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
undelete I know nothing about his music, but it is obvious that it was not an uncontroversial decision. I would not speedy an article in a field I did not understand if it was anything like this extent and high degree of wikification. The only possible reason I can see is that the recent death was spotted & the deletor looked no further. There are some memorials appropriately in CSD that assert nothing much, but the difference between them and this is obvious.DGG 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - Logan meets (although this is opinion) enough of the Wikipedia criteria requirements. To cite a few-

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). Panacide Records.

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. Little Tin Frog.

I could note a few more, but I believe that's already been done here. comment was added by Rusty117 (talk

I would like to add that Logan's music was also released by the larger indie label "Slowdance Records", which also has signed The Velvet Teen and The New Trust. FilmCow 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Logan meets Wiki's requirements for notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cole1231 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Udelete- Logan Whitehurst does meet the reguirements to have a pag On Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fire-burner (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Undelete - This is not a memorial page copyright is still in effect for his work so why shouldn't his wiki. Mbooks 01:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not certain what you are saying here. Copyright has no bearing on this matter, and it isn't "his" wiki anyways. Nchaimov 07:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - Logan Whitehurst is notable, as he has released multiple albums, and his music is available for listen and purchase on places including iTunes. His Wiki page serves not as a memorial, but as information about his career. Ufotofu 03:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - Logan meets Wiki's requirements for notability", or whatever you decide to put. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.86.194.71 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Undelete - Logan is definitely a notable musician with many fans. 67.180.232.122 04:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD WP:NOT is NOT a speedy criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 06:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I deleted it per CSD:A7 Admins can see this is what it looked like at the time ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - The article (if my memory of it is correct) did assert notability, so WP:CSD A7 should not apply, and WP:NOT is not an appropriate criterion for a speedy delete according to my reading of that guideline. Moreover, WP:MUSIC clearly states that "Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion". Nchaimov 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I deleted it per CSD:A7 If your an admin this is what it looked like at the time There is nothing in there to support a claim to notability and at the time was a valid CSD:A7. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. Invalid application of speedy deletion. Listing on AFD is optional. RFerreira 08:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid A7. Playing in a couple of reedlinked bands does not amount to a claim of notability, neither does being ill and dying. AfD would not hurt, mind, but the parade of brand new users above suggests it might prove problematic. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, not an A7. if you're not an admin, this is what it looked like, and the assertion is quite clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

G.ho.st – Speedily closed, endorsed on January 21 – trialsanderrors 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The content of the page is identical to that of similar applications such as YouOS and DesktopTwo. The level of novelty is the same. It is not clear from a logical analysis point of view how different is the G.ho.st page from the similar ones! 213.6.9.14 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous DRV linked. ColourBurst 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Non-notable product whose web site doesn't even include links to media mentions (which indicates that there probably aren't any). FWIW, the user above is most likely User:TareqM, who raised an identical argument in the last DRV, and whose name strongly resembles that of one of G.ho.st's founders. BTW, Tareq, YouOS has four non-trivial media mentions, so it passes WP:SOFTWARE. When your company or product has some substantial media coverage, then we can talk about restoring the article. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Angry Nintendo Nerd – Speedy close, this will no longer be considered without a new proposed article – trialsanderrors 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Angry Nintendo Nerd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD1|AFD2|AFD3|DRV1|DRV2|DRV3|DRV4|DRV5|Talk DRV)

New Evidence of Noteability Vranak 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in the Philadelphia City Paper (Nov 9 2006) [1]
Claims 1.5 Million hits to Cinemassacre.com, Mr. Rolfe's personal website, during October 2006[2]
Mr. Rolfe quit his job to focus on the Angry Nintendo Nerd project[3]
Over half a million subscribers on YouTube[4]
Interviewed on 411mania, apparently a website with a 10-year pedigree, Jan. 5th 2007 [5]
Interviewed on BlogCritics Magazine on Jan. 24th 2007, where Mr. Rolfe claims to have received 3 million hits during December [6]

Comment linked to the past 5 (!) DRVs and the Talk DRV. ColourBurst 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And the other two AFDs. GRBerry 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, speedy close per last seven or so unanimous votes to keep it deleted. Nothing new, and constant re-nomming is bordering on disruptive. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, points 1, 5, and 6 are new. Vranak

1 isn't substantial (and starts out "my friend", so I don't think it's independent either) and 5 and 6 are hardly reliable sources. Face it, we need more than "claims to have x website hits" and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and yes this is disruptive. Nardman1 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Philadelphia City Paper article is a one-paragraph "Hey, this is neat" kind of thing that doesn't really do much towards establishing notability, to me. I'm not sure whether 411 or BlogCritics are really fitting under WP:RS, personally. I'd prefer to see something in a more established and slightly more "mainstream" media source before suggesting a reversal. At the moment, weak endorse deletion until more sources turn up. (As a note, the nominators might do better to wait until they get a really bang-up collection of reliable media sources before doing this next time, instead of just renominating every few weeks; it'll save trouble all over.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion As far as I can tell, BlogCritics is a group of bloggers with no fact checking, so fails to be a reliable source. The Philadelphia City Paper thing is certainly trivial coverage, even if it didn't suffer from a lack of independence. I think, but am not certain, that 411mania.com doesn't do fact checking either, so would not be a reliable source. Even if it is reliable, it would only be one, so we wouldn't have multiple coverage. I've looked through all the old discussion, and don't see anything else that would be a useful source, to make a case for bringing it to AFD.

I do, however, think that this is the best DRV nomination we've seen since the first one, there were some attempts to find reliable, published, independent, and non-trivial sources, instead of just having big number claims. My advice would be that any recreation should be at a user sub-page and in accordance with the essay on the amnesia test. Remember that blogs, forums, etc... aren't reliable sources. GRBerry 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion City paper piece is brief (therefore a trivial mention), cinemassacre not an independent source, who cares how many hits it got on YouTube, the last two are not reliable sources. JChap2007 18:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gibbs High School – Speedy deletion overturned, listing at AfD at editorial discretion – trialsanderrors 02:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has no reason to be deleted. It is notable as is is part of Pinellas County Schools and had several notable sources including the St. Petersburg Times. From Gibb's web site: "Gibbs is named after Jonathan C. Gibbs, a black man who served as Florida’s Secretary of State in 1868, and state superintendent of public instruction in 1873. Prior to the opening of Gibbs High School in 1927, there was no high school in St. Petersburg for black students, although a very modern high school for white students had existed as early as 1910." There was a full page detailing the history of the school, with sources listed. Morthanley 06:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is yet another article written about the school today. http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/11/Floridian/Class_dismissed.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morthanley (talk • contribs) 07:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Overturn, listing optional. Deletion was as "no evidence of notability". Speedy deletion criteria is "no assertion of notability". If this is deleted, it should be via AFD, not speedy deletion. Being part of a school district does not make an individual school notable. And there is a stronger assertion of notability here than in the article. GRBerry 13:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Your school isn't notable. Nardman1 13:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, since being named after someone famous is not an assertion of notability. Unless you have these sources so we can review them? -Amark moo! 14:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some more sources... maybe they werent in the article, but that just means the article needed to be added to, not secretly deleted so most people would have no idea the article existed:

http://www.pinellas.k12.fl.us/choice/high/gibbs.pdf "Gibbs High School opened in 1927 as the first high school in St. Petersburg for black students."
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/08/09/Neighborhoodtimes/History_will_live_in_.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/08/Southpinellas/Gibbs_High_turns_a_pa.shtml
Plus there was the list of all the notable alumni that attended the school. I cant believe someone would just delete all that for no good reason. This admin seems to enjoy deleting high school pages.
I should add I never attended Gibbs High School and dont live in St. Pete. I dont understand how some of you think Wikipedia would be a better place by deleting these articles. (apologies if I replied in the wrong format, this is my first undeletion request) Morthanley 17:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, create a redirect to Pinellas County Schools. >Radiant< 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy and list on AFD if necessary for a full debate. A good faith contesting of an A7 speedy. In general, speedy deletions are for uncontestable cases, and with the notability of schools so hotly contested, this is not such a case. If the reason for speedying a school is that the article is an attack page or a random string of characters, fine. If the reason is a value judgment that the school is not notable, then it should be on AFD, and not speedied. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The reason given by the deleter, "No evidence of notability, no reliable sources," is not a speedy criterion. Even with no assertion of notability, a school article wouldn't fall under WP:CSD#A7 as I understand it. Pan Dan 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD since the notability of schools is hotly debated, as it has been for years now, schools tend to make uncomfortable speedies. I'm not saying no school article should ever be speedied, but it should be reserved for only the most obvious cases. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, invalid speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and either relist or keep. It is time to establish that high schools of any substantial size are notable so we don't have to keep doing this. Newyorkbrad 19:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and list at AfD I often vote to delete HS articles, but it there is any claim to N it should be at afd. It should have been clear initially that this wasnt suitable for speedy. DGG 21:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. Plenty of sources appear to be available, and there is something to be said for being the first area school for African American students. RFerreira 08:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per RFerreira. --Myles Long 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - There are ample sources and information to make a decent article about this school. Also, speedy deletion criteria only applies when notability is not asserted; this article clearly doesn't fit in. I may be misinterpreting the information available, but according to this log, the admin's reasons for deletion call for AFD, not CSD--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list Does not appear to fit the speedy criteria. The sources mentioned above should, at least, be considered at AfD. Shimeru 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and undelete per the above, listing is optional. Sadly, this is not the first time Centrx has misapplied the speedy deletion criterion. Silensor 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Funday PawPet Show – Close endorsed, relist on afd in a month if the article haven't improved Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Second deletion nomination, recently closed as keep, but strong flavour of "I like it" versus "does not satisfy inclusion guidelins." Debate centered around a single single news-item six years ago, and if that constitutes "multiple." brenneman 05:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. It's not clear-cut enough for me to say it should be just deleted, but a six year old article does not constitute multiple reliable sources. -Amark moo! 06:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Serious question for those who have been here longer than I. How is this article with it's one valid (albeit old) reference more deletable than those here: [[7]]. I'm not trying to get into an "Everyone else does it" argument, just seriously trying to understand why there's a whole category of articles with no valid sources that don't appear to be in the AfD crosshairs. Arakunem 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because furries are fair game on Wikipedia. Jay Maynard 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak relist I'm not seeing anything particularly convincing from either side here. Basically seems to have had one substantial article in a respectable newspaper... but that's apparently all there is, and the article will probably ultimately be deleted if more aren't found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone wanna source it - myspace and livejournal pages tend to fail RS -- Tawker 06:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Let the article have the standard 3-6 month breathing room before renominating for afd. Nardman1 13:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... why? The article gets breathing room to avoid people repeatedly nominating it until they get lucky and have lots of people saying delete. Not so that your article is only in jeapoardy once every 3 months. And besides, if the AfD is decided to be a bad closure, it doesn't count. -Amark moo! 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't "my" article. And I believe if it goes to afd again in its current state they may get lucky and have lots of people say delete. The breathing room is so that somebody who cares can track down the sources. I don't care but I'm sure someone can. Nardman1 14:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If someone has a mind to track down reliable sources, then they can rewrite it even if it does get deleted. --pgk 15:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not like there hasn't been two years to improve the article. -Amark moo! 15:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - From Wikipedia:Deletion review: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." You are abusing the process. Nardman1 16:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nardman - no such "standard breathing room" exists; several policy proposals to create one have failed. >Radiant< 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say it was wiki policy. I should have referred to it as a courtesy. Nardman1 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. This sounds a lot like "we didn't like the result, so we'll keep voting till we get a result we like". How many times must an article prove itself? -- Jay Maynard 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close This feels like forum shopping to me. Strength of arguments is to the advantage of keeping; additional sources were actually found, and after they were the discussion obtained only one delete opinion. So the close was absolutely within reasonable administrative discretion. GRBerry 16:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as per GRBerry - yes, there were some "I like it" comments for keeping, but there were also some reasonable keep responses, so I'd suggest there was nothing wrong with the AFD or the closing decision. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close Apparent repeat nomination to get lucky, which is a improper use to take advantage of loopholes in the policy.DGG 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignoring the insult in the last ~~three~~ comments, perhaps I should be more clear: The "keep" individuals are all ignoring the content of the guidelines cited by the "delete" individuals: Multiple non-trivial sources. Only one source was provided, and thus the nomination ("No sources provided to indicate notability or any sources that show that is passes the web material guideline.") was effectivly taken as read. If there is some suggestions that the web guideline and the notability guideline should be re-written to say "having one source is enough" I imagine that it would be very difficult to gain consensus on that. </understatement> This is pretty clearly a case where "voting" was allowed to over-ride the arguments, so bringing it here is well within bounds. - brenneman 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This reasoning dangerously misunderstands the weight of guidelines, elevating them to the level of policy. Guidelines can be disregarded, and a substantial core of people choosing to do so is itself an acceptable reason to disregard. Phil Sandifer 01:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/Delete. Lots of "I like it", handwaving, and a bit of wikilawyering versus one (1) six-year-old news article. Not even close. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. One source: section F of the (extra-large, I presume) sunday edition of the Orlando Sentinel, six years ago. That's sailing close to trivial and definitely non-multiple. No point relisting: if there are no sources in two years, five days more won't matter. Interesting that this was VfD'd within days of being created. These days it would probably be {{db-spam}}'d or {{prod}}'d. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - guidelines can be broken at will, hence being guidelines and not policies. The fact that it is a renomination further strengthens this - this looks like a through and through abuse of AfD. Phil Sandifer 01:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated aid hoominum aside, let's actually examine the claim:
- First afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funday pawpet show - mostly nose-counting, 5.5 votes to delete, 3.5 keep votes based on "reasonable results on Google and Google Groups." If we're going to start making half-arsed deletion discussion like this stick forever, can we start with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elf_Only_Inn?
- Second afd (linked above) - half a dozen people agree that the well established, almost unquestioned guidelines that get used hundreds of times a day apply, one "keep as performing at conventions is re-distribution", one "I'll look for sources," four established users who don't argue that the guideline should be overlooked but appear to simply beleive that a single source satisfies the guideline.
I'm shocked at the suggestion that four people get to overturn a "non-policy" that literally hundreds of people use every day and that <hyperbole> thousands accept as gospel. </hyperbole>.

brenneman 07:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Similar to you and your ilk not respecting the breathing room articles get between deletion nominations, right? Per [8]: "A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion (if kept) or re-created (if deleted)." Per [9]: "Note, however, that by long tradition and consensus, Deletion Review only addresses procedural problems that may have hampered an AFD. For example, if the participants of an AFD arrived at one decision but the closing administrator wrongly executed another, Deletion Review can opt to overturn the administrator's action. It must be emphasized that the Review exists to address procedural (or "process") problems in AFDs that either made it difficult for the community to achieve a consensus, or prevented a consensus that was achieved from being correctly applied. It does not exist to overide a lawful decision by the community. If an AFD decision was arrived at fairly and applied adequately, it is unlikely that the decision will be overturned at the Review." And frankly, your counting sucks. I count more keep votes in the old discussions than you have represented, even discounting anons. You are just attempting to back-door the afd process. Claiming people's "votes" (I know they aren't technically votes") were based on misinformed opinions is just a way to subvert the result. It is NOT a procedural error in reaching the community consensus. Nardman1 12:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse for now, crap article but several !votes were "keep and rewrite", which works, but only once in my view - if that hasn't happened in a month then we can nominate it again. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close Debate. As the original nominator, it is only natural that the appellant would disagree with the consensus that was reached. The closing admin determined the consensus was Keep, and not "No Consensus to Delete" as was the case the first time. Note too that the article was cleaned up and improved during the review. Let us not forget the guidelines here when reviewing a Keep consensus: WP:GD#If_you_disagree_with_the_consensus Thank you. Arakunem 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ~~deletion~~ close - The results of the close are required to reflect consensus, and it appears to me that this DRV is an attempt to overturn an AFD that the nominator was not happy with. The Keep arguments on the MfD are valid. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, Ed, If you intend to keep the article (as your reasoning suggests) then why does your vote say "delete"? Nardman1 16:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not what I meant. Sorry about that, I must have gotten very confused yesterday :( Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I still believe the IP's points regarding its broadcasting, coupled with the article and the other source mentioned, are well-founded -- even if the Folkmanis mention is in the nature of an ad or a press release, it's one by Folkmanis, not the show, so is still independent. It isn't very substantial, granted -- but it's enough for me to lean to giving the article a couple of months to be worked on. If that doesn't happen, I don't see a renomination as out of the question. Shimeru 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close I find it of note that there was a gap of 10 hours (Feb 06 05:52 - Feb 06 16:22) between the deletion review being posted and the article being tagged as such - by someone else! [10] I suspect malicious intent by the nominator. 70.168.242.19 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People mess up here all the time. It seems like I make at least a third as many deletion review related edits fixing poorly formed entries, notifying deleting admins, adding other links for the complete history to the header, etc... as I do actually commenting. The most that will get is another 10 hours run here, at the discretion of the closing admin. GRBerry 03:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet mother of Abraham Lincoln. How about we make a deal: The next time someone accuses me of bad faith, we just delete the bloody article outright? Since there appears to be no other way to get @#%$s to stop. I know that it may be hard to believe that furry cosplay is not the centre of my existance, but it's not. /* Insert sound of grinding teeth. */
brenneman 05:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest this comment calls into question the objectiveness of the nominator and commentor. If Mr. Brenneman does not wish to have others reacting emotionally to his nominations, he should also not be responding in kind. The assertion concerning something "not being the centre of my existence" imparts a negative and a non-impartial/biased viewpoint. Futher, the suggestion that an article be unilaterally deleted if someone calls his character or reasoning into question does not strike me as part of a responsible viewpoint, more that of a temper tantrum. I'm rather astonished that someone who claims to have the best interests of the Wikipedia project as his goal would make such statements. 204.152.235.216KikoNguyen

Comment and Apology. As the AfD was closed with the "Please Don't Edit" notice, I was not able to say this in time, so I will say it now. My comments in the AfD implied a bias against the furry community on the part of brenneman. I wish to publicly retract that statement and apologize to Mr Brennenman for my comments. They were based on fallacious and incomplete research on my part, and were inappropriate for a discussion meant to be grounded in facts and not emotions. Such comments do nothing to advance the cause of the project and I deeply regret making them. Arakunem 11:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I just can't bear the continued needling about "me and my ilk." I, however, have been around the block enoughtimes that I shouldn't let it get under my skin. Thanks again. - brenneman 02:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gay Nigger Association of America – Deletion endorsed, overwhelming consensus – Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

CNN just did a six minute segment on jewsdidwtc.com, a GNAA production. See it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rubm-ttR-Lw . The last AfD concluded that information about the GNAA was non-sourcable- i think we can all agree that CNN is a valid source Fellacious 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion One mention of a site related to GNAA does not constitute a source. Just stop trying. JuJube 05:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and speedy close of this DRV. a 10s overlay of a website on CNN does not come anywhere near enough material for an article whatsoever. CNN would actually have to do an segment which they haven't. -- Tony Springston 05:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse restore per this video. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 05:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per the first two endorse arguments. A ten-second clip does not notability or verifiability make, and there is absolutely no indication that the clip is relevant. Not this time. --Core desat 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - And having watched that YouTube clip, I don't see the relevance of it to GNAA beyond a short video clip of the domain name itself. The loons they're interviewing are real loons who believe in this shit, not GNAA trolls. --Cyde Weys 05:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn originally deleted as unsourceable... CNN certainly counts as a reliable source. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ORG requires multiple sources, and one source of questionable relevance is not multiple. --Core desat 05:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Cyde.-gadfium 05:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Core. Really grasping at straws here. --Calton | Talk 05:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion GNAA is not mentioned in video, not a source. Even if another source linked the site to the GNAA, then combining those sources to say this is a reference to the GNAA would be a violation of WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per HighInBC. 1ne 05:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. What? How in the world is that a source? Have we forgotten that the purpose of sources is to source the information in the article, not just to verify that something exists? -Amark moo! 05:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion' - the CNN video proves NOTHING, there is not 1 fact that can be sourced from it. The fact exists that there are 0 RS for this article, and hence the deletion will stand. -- Tawker 05:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, speedy close. The video didn't even mention GNAA. Nothing new here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, just give up already. There are no reliable sources concerning the GNAA, and there will never likely be.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Is that actually something that aired on CNN? I rather doubt it from what I've seen so far... the audio isn't synced to people's lips very well, it's choppy, looks heavily edited. At any rate, if they ran this special you'd think they'd have put something on their web page... but there's nothing. --W.marsh 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per various above. What is it a source for? It certainly doesn't confirm the whole content of the article such that it could be recreated. --pgk 10:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and move on, people. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Super E – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article had been rewritten following a previous speedy deletion. It contains third party endorsement for an important new method in the building industry. The format of the article follows that of other articles that have not been deleted, such as BedZed SustainableCommunities 11:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The correct title of this article is Super E. I originally speedily deleted the article as blatant advertising, and another admin deleted two later versions. They seem less spammy (they got rid of all the TMs, for example), but still seem promotional in tone to me. NawlinWiki 13:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a valid G11. There are also serious conflict of interest issues here. --Core desat 14:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are three images, presumably originally associated with the article, that weren't deleted at the same time as the article. --ais523 16:15, 31 January 2007 (U T C)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Article is in large part a copyright violation from an advertising web page. If there are independent reliable sources an article from them might survive. But copyright violations and advertising won't. GRBerry 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Manufacturing Engineering Centre – Listed at AfD for clarification – trialsanderrors 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

not blatant advertising Reason:

I understand that the MEC article was considered "blatant advertising" because of certain phrases that I used to describe the Centre. However, my description of the MEC is entirely based on facts, as you will see below. The MEC is a non-profit organisation - a research centre of Cardiff University. Our mission is "to conduct world-class research and development in all major areas of advanced manufacturing technology and use the output to promote the introduction of knowledge based manufacturing to industry in Wales and in the rest of the United Kingdom." We are not a commercial organisation and therefore do not engage in "blatant advertising".

Here are my explanations for using the phrases that were found objectionable:

1."award-winning Centre":- the MEC received two major awards: "DTI University/Industry First Prize" and the "Queen's Anniversary Prize for Higher and Further Education" and the MEC is the only advanced manufacturing research centre in the UK to have earned both accolades.

2."The work of the 90 strong MEC has received the overwhelming endorsement of sponsors and supporters":- The MEC has 90 researchers and supporting staff and over 100 industrial partners who support research projects at the Centre. We are also endowed with two industry-sponsored laboratories- the Mitutoyo Metrology Centre and Siemens Automation and Drives Centre.

3."attracted hundreds of industrial partners" and "establishing lasting and fruitful partnerships with industry" - it is a fact that the MEC attracted hundreds of industrial partners. The MEC was awarded the DTI University/Industry First Prize by the Secretary of State for Trade & Industry in recognition of its success in building lasting and fruitful research partnerships with industry (which was what the Prize was for). Sweetpea2007 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The nominator, from the pronouns used in the nomination, clearly has a conflict of interest, and is strongly encouraged to read our guidance on handling them. The article is written in the form of a PR puff piece, and would need a total rewrite to become an encyclopedic article. Accordingly, deletion under G11 is appropriate. I recommend that any new article be written either (first choice) by someone not affiliated with the centre or (second choice) in accordance with the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overthrow and edit the article for COI. It seems strange to delete and then recreate an article when a proper editing by an unrelated editor is sufficient. There are many such requests, asked for at RfC and some just done by people stopping by. Unless it was clear that there was no possible way to do this, the original deletion was improper, and should be overthrown. Deletion should be a last resort. (yes, that does mean I will take on re-editing the original text--Cornell has a number of such centers & I've removed COI language from one or two already. )DGG 05:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What does COI stand for? —Mets501 (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Conflict Of Interest Mathmo ^Talk 12:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, that makes sense. —Mets501 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of universities have groups with names like "manufacturing engineering centre" (though not as many as have Wolfson Centres, they seem to be ubiquitous). So at the very least the title needs to clarify where it is. But actually we generally don't have articles for individual groups within departments of universities, and indeed most individual departments don't get their own articles either. It is part of the work of a university department to generate publications, after all. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment is there any evidence there have been no publications? Has anyone searched carefully? In applied sciences these will not necessarily be journal articles and will not necessarily be in Google. DGG 22:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on those seeking inclusion, not on me to prove a negative. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Manufacturing Engineering Centre at Cardiff University is not a research group but it is an autonomous centre having the same status as a University Academic School.
Comment: Why Warwick Manufacturing Group but not the Manufacturing Engineering Centre at Cardiff University? Sweetpea2007 14:40, 2 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 02:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, add content to Cardiff U instead. >Radiant< 10:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undelete:~~ Warwick Manufacturing Group, and Wolfson Centre for Magnetics are research groups operating within their respective Universities' Schools of Engineering and are listed as separate entities in Wikipedia.

Please also see: Center for Computational Chemistry, a research centre in the department of Chemistry at the University of Georgia; Applied Economics Research Centre, a research institute of University of Karachi; Center for Research in Securities Prices, a part of the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago; Center for Research in Finance and Management, a research centre attached to the University of Namur, and many more similar articles in Wikipedia ... Sweetpea2007 10:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Manufacturing Engineering Centre (MEC), Cardiff University is not only a research group but it is an autonomous centre having the same status as a University Academic School. By reason of consistency in the application of Wikipedia policy, the MEC should be listed separately. Sweetpea2007 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Struck~~ duplicate opinion by nominator. GRBerry 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetpea, that argument is usually referred to as the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS fallacy. Aside: my old uni had a Wolfson unit as well, they are all over the place (which is why the title must always be suitably unambiguous; is this the only manufacturing engineering centre? Even in Britain? Guy (Help!) 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion - The article does assert notability, and should be recreated on the conditions that the editors try to maintain wiki-standards.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

change of name I agree with the mention above that, should the page be kept, it should be renamed. I hope this will be the first

of these centers in WP. not the only one. Qualifying with a place is the usual way: (Cardiff)DGG 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dicta License – Overturned deletion and listed at AFD. – —Doug Bell ^talk 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The band IS notable, contrary to the claims of the administrator. here are links to articles/reviews/award nominations written about the band that prove they are worthy of a page in Wikipedia: mb.com.ph, titikpilipino.com, abs-cbnnews.com, and here's a forum about them, which has more links to more articles: forums.abs-cbn.com. Jenvidanes 01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Their "official website", licensetospeak.com, is just a landing site, there are no published album sales anywhere, and their only album is "self-produced". Non-notable. Nardman1 02:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be true that licensetospeak.com's domain has expired and has not been renewed. But it isn't true that their current album is self-produced. The "album" you're referring to is just their EP. Their first album, Paghilom, is actually under Warner Music, Phil. Have you actually read the articles in the links I've posted? please do so before endorsing deletion. you can check them out here: myspace.com. Jen Vidanes 202.138.180.33 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention a related deletion discussion here. [11] Nardman1 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion in the absence of multiple non-trivial sources whose primary focus is the band itself. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, list at AfD Album on Warner Music Philippines, clearly asserts notability. ~ trialsanderrors 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit history restored behind screen. ~ trialsanderrors 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list I have no clue which Philippine music charts would cause notability, but the article asserts having a hit high in a chart, so it has an assertion of notability. AFD is the proper fora for evaluating whether or not the meet WP:MUSIC. Systemic bias is an extra reason for giving this the extra attention that AFD should give it, but asserting notability means that WP:CSD#A7 was improperly applied. GRBerry 22:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. obviously not a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, self-produced album fails WP:MUSIC. >Radiant< 10:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment except 1) they're not self-produced (at least that's the claim) and 2) WP:MUSIC is not a speedy criterion. ColourBurst 13:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. Their album, Paghilom, is indeed under a major music label (Warner Music Philippines). They deserve to be in Wikipedia, not just because they are popular, but because their music talks about things that do matter in the Philippine society. 124.106.210.156 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion without prejudice, if anything, this is a valid G11 - it reads like a self-promotion. I have no prejudice to unsalting it if it can be rewritten in a non-promotional tone, with sources showing notability per WP:MUSIC, which the original article did not do. --Core desat 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
author requests for more time to rewrite article. 124.107.137.6 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article. Jen Vidanes 12:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Allow recreation, initial decisions to speedy were correct (no notability was asserted), but enough reliable sources seem to be cited to support an article. The new version would need significant cleanup though (way too many hyperlinks in the text, some of which need wikilinks instead, some of which go to Tripod etc. and just need to go). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
some links have been changed to wikilinks and others have been removed. Those that I have maintained are for emphasis purposes. Jen Vidanes 00:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
what will happen next? please review the revised version of the article to restore Dicta License's page. Jen Vidanes 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

6 February 2007[edit]