Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 November 4
2007 November 6 >

5 November 2007[edit]

  • Katie Bramall – There is no real consensus here for anything. Upon inspection of the article, there doesn't appear to be any super-urgent issues or similar. Given this was a speedy delete and there's no clear consensus here for it to remain as such, I have overturned it and relisted. From there, whatever result which should of occured, will occur...hopefully. – Daniel 08:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Katie Bramall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

An ephemeral stub, requesting a review to give opportunity for someone to develop further. She progressed to the next round of UK's Mastermind tonight and has several other TV appearances [1] and is a GP-Registrar/Doctor. Used hangon, but erased before message on talk page. -Ricksy 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy deletion, appearing on quiz shows does not make someone notable. AecisBrievenbus 00:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy as the original speedie-er. College student who participated in some minor quiz shows, and who wants to be a doctor. I really can't see how any of this is notable. It was speedied twice, btw. Would much rather see bios on her profs! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion - Inadequate assertion of notability. Plus, isn't it wrong to say that a doctor intends to specialize in general medicine? Caknuck 01:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion (both times) she's nn, no assertion of notability - going on to a next round of a game show or reality show doesn't cut it. Carlossuarez46 02:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this person qualified as a Dr. four years ago (GMC ref#.6077635) and The Guardian paper article on her quiz involvement dates back to 2001 (reliable sources). Wondering if the flurry of endorsements above is at all biased by The Pond since I've noticed an article for a spelling-bee kid has survived challenges for almost eighteen months. This immediate deletion without consideration for non-admins to peruse at AfD precludes giving those other contributors chance to embellish the article; FWIW Mastermind is reputed to be the BBC's elite quiz contest. -Ricksy 04:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. The Guardian article mentions her once in passing, and being a doctor is not notability; Wikipedia is not a directory of medical professionals, no matter how impressive the sheepskin may be to friends and family. Note that spelling bees are formal academic competitions. If there are more sources about her quiz show notoriety at some point, feel free to return, but I don't see how there's any justification for notability as of today. --Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Trivial mention in The Guardian and appearing on a quiz show is not enough to be notable. It doesn't if they appeared on Mastermind or It's Academic, they've got to be notable for something else. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 12:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. It makes just sufficient claim of importance to pass speedy. I can't see how it will pass AfD, so I suggest the author withdraw the article until she reaches a higher level at least. But still speedy is only for nothing that might possibly be thought important in good faith.-The other article mentioned above is at AfD [2], headed for a deletion this time.DGG (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion Pretty clear speedy, and I'm no fan of running AfDs for things that could never possibly have a chance of being kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD - Winning appearance on Mastermind and other TV shows gets it past A7. The only info I could find was that she was on the British Medical Association Junior Doctors Committee in May 2007, where she express a no confidence opinion about the leadership of the BMA's Junior Doctors Committee (JDC). See Hospital Doctor (May 3, 2007) JDC leaders survive no confidence vote. The Katie Bramall article may not survive AfD, but it would be better to have such an AfD consensus on record than to continue to speedy delete under A7. -- Jreferee t/c 18:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There is clearly an assertion of notability, so fails the speedy criteria, which are intended only for non-controversial, clear-cut cases. As this one is clearly controversial (obvious, as there is actually a controversy right here!), it should be resolved through AfD instead. --Delirium 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at Afd. Per above, notability was asserted. Speedy deletion isn't really meant for articles with minor claims to notability. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Clear-cut A7. "Winning performance" on a quiz show is not a claim of notability, or we would have to accept articles on anyone who has ever won a round at Jeopardy. ~ trialsanderrors 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list Clear cut assertion of notability (winning the show) in the article. Many of the above arguments are appopriate to AFD not DRV. I make no prediction of the AFD outcome. GRBerry 14:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - there were assertions of notability, so speedy deletion wasn't valid. Neil ☎ 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Grant Street – Encourage recreation. Personally, I believe the street is likely to be notable; however, with the lack of sources in the deleted draft, closer's decision cannot be considered erroneous. The simplest way to fix this problem is for someone to perfect a draft, for which purpose I will be happy to userfy upon request. – Xoloz 14:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Grant Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notability concerns were met by sources such as [3] and [4]. The argument was that this wasn't enough for the "relevant guideline", WP:USRD/NT#City streets, but this guideline comes from the "road" side; there's also a "street" side of things, in which streets are parts of a city rather than facilities to carry traffic. As a traffic facility, Grant Street may not be notable, but as a part of Pittsburgh it certainly is. NE2 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn there seem to be sufficient reliable sources to cover this accurately. We don't need to delete articles to save disk space. --W.marsh 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - it's a street; there are some buildings on it, the source could be the yellow pages; but it's NN. What reliable sources give significant coverage that this street is notable? When I saw the title I assumed that it was the (likely more famous) street that is the heart of San Francisco's Chinatown. But, the one here is basically a list of buildings that can be found on the street - similar lists could be constructed for virtually every street in the downtown area of every world city. No coverage of the street per se=No notability. Proper close. Carlossuarez46 02:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you look at the sources I provided, especially [5]? --NE2 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - consensus supported deletion. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no consensus in the AFD. --NE2 07:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my) deletion. I saw a consensus, rooted in policy, to delete. Neil ☎ 10:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What policy is that? You cited a WikiProject subpage. --NE2 13:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOT a directory, as the article was primarily a list of addresses. WP:RS, the sources were not about the street, they were about things that happened to be on the street. The applicable wikiproject guidance suggested non-notability. If you don't like the guidance, work with the Wikiproject to change it. Neil ☎ 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Didn't look like there was a consensus in the AfD for a delete. Deletion rationale by closing admin was based on a guideline that isn't even a guideline. If anything, run through AfD again. --Holderca1 talk 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not a case of counting numbers. If arguments to "keep" or to "delete" are poor or based on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, they can rightly be assigned less weight. Neil ☎ 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of that, but in my opinion, the delete votes carry very little or no weight since they are based off a subpage of a Wikiproject, not guideline or policy. It passes WP:N bases on the sources above. --Holderca1 talk 17:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation of a guideline or an essay is not (IMO, at least) a suggestion that the AfD must follow that guideline/essay, in my experience it's used as a shortcut for "this essay/guideline follows my opinion on the subject, and it's easier to cite the shortcut than to rewrite the entire page here." Corvus cornix 18:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that subpages that are neither policy or guideline are sufficient rationale for deleting articles? That would be like me creating a subpage of articles that I don't like and setting a standard for what they would have to do to be kept, then nominating them for deletion based on that page. Policies and guidelines have to go through a review process and be accepted by the community, essays and wikiproject subpages do not. --Holderca1 talk 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not saying that at all. What I tried to say is, that when I or somebody else uses them as a discussion point, it's to say, "this is my reasoning, this page explains what I'm trying to say." And nobody is stopping you from creating a subpage in your User space which explains your thinking on a subject, and then pointing to it to explain your arguments. Corvus cornix 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It seems to be the principal business street, or one of them. Article needs some more sources to show this clearly, however. DGG (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation - Substantial new information would meet WP:N concerns raised in the AfD. Rename article to include Pittsburgh in it. -- Jreferee t/c 18:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per NE2's new sources, which prove notability and provide substantial new information. Noroton 23:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per deleting admin's judgment above. —Scott5114↗ 01:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC) (nominated article for deletion)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and use the source referenced here to expand History of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The one independent source mentioned is clearly discussing the street as an aspect of the history of Pittsburgh. The deleted article was a directory of addresses, contrary to WP:NOT#DIR. If there is any reason for having an article on this street, it will be as a sub-article on Pittsburgh's history. Such a sub-article, if sourced, will be substantially different from the deleted article for two reasons - first in topic, second in being sourced. GRBerry 14:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - WP:CONSENSUS was for keep and that was ignored. Major street in very large city. NE2's added sources demonstrates further notability. --Oakshade 16:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I created this article earlier today. A couple hours later it disappeared, which is a problem in itself because it does not meet any criteria for speedy removal. Nor did the person who made the change identify himself or herself.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_to_Patent was redirected to "Public participation in patent examination", which is not an adequate location for its discussion. I left several reasons for a stand-alone page about Peer to Patent on the discussion page, which of course was removed as well. Therefore, I'm including the rationale here. Please explain why these criteria do not justify the existence of the article.

I've felt for several months that it's time for a Wikipedia entry on Peer to Patent. It has set down roots with its pilot at the USPTO, which represents an historic evolution in policy-making that is certain to be cited by future attempts to engage the public in discourse with government bodies. The project has been featured in the Washington Post, Forbes, the Economist, Technology Review, Wired Magazine, Science Magazine, and Nature Magazine, and has been highlighted on National Public Radio's Science Friday. (Disclosure: I wrote the article in the Economist.) Thus, it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Further establishing the criterion of long-term notability, Peer to Patent is widely known among people interested in the patent system, as shown by repeated features on Dennis Crouch's Patently Obvious (Patently-O) blog, and has had an impact on policy discussions in the area of patenting.

Andrew Oram, Editor, O'Reilly Media, http://praxagora.com/andyo/ 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I took the action you suggested. This is a situation where it's easy to get confused, because case sensivity matters in some situations but not others. I did a search for "Peer to patent" and saw there was no page, so I created it. I didn't think of searching for "Peer to Patent" (which is actually a better spelling).Andrew Oram, Editor, O'Reilly Media, http://praxagora.com/andyo/ 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was deleted back in February for being unsourced. However, notable sources do now exist, including from major newspapers and magazines such as The Guardian and Vice ([6]). The former content of the article was also largely patent nonsense (claiming that the band had Thomas Hardy like social realism!), so I don't especially want that restored, but the title has been protected, so a decent article can't be created. I'll admit that it is still at the lower end of WP:WEB, but given that it has been covered by newspapers, I think that it definitely qualifies better than half of the rest of Category:YouTube videos. Laïka 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted back in February by Majorly (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Parking Lot is Full. However, it was restored by Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 04:19, 2 November 2007 with the given reason "enough conversation on irc states this does meet notability criteria...". Now, I like IRC, but I think on-wiki and not there is the place to review decisions. So, I bring it here for review. Docg 16:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to !voters: - Alkivar has left Wikipedia. Rudget Contributions 16:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, but we still need a decision on the article.--Docg 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it's just drawing attention to the fact that the recreating user has left Wikipedia, and therefore may not participate in questions that may be asked. Rudget Contributions 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A relisting seems logical. Neil ☎ 16:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why?--Docg 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The AFD was borderline. A relisting can rubberstamp things one way or the other. Neil ☎ 10:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD/Overturn recreation. - The AfD close was a valid interpretation of the consensus. The reasoning on IRC is irrelevant. Recreation of an article need only overcome the reason for the deletion, which in this case was lack of enough reliable source material. As for the sources now listed in the article, comicscom.html provides a sentence of reliable source information. I did a search and could not find anything else. As for the remaining sources now listed in the article, Fadetoblack.com provides no information that would support Fadetoblack.com being a Wikipedia reliable source. groups.google.com uw.general is a blog. groups.google.com alt.zines is a blog. plif.andkon.com is not independent from the topic. DRV is the place to evaluate substantial new information. There is no substantial new information that overcomes the AfD deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW: groups.google.com is not a blog. It's usenet, not that it matters much for reliable sources rules. The content of the post is slightly more interesting. If true, it means the comic may have appeared in print? --Kim Bruning 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two print collections listed on the comic's webstore. Can't tell who printed them or what kind of run they had, though. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It also appears that it ran in print regularly in this magazine, which claims a per-issue print run of around 25,000. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD (re-delete) If some kind of wonderous new sources or additional notability came up in an IRC chat, Alkivar could and should have simply listed the matter here at DRV. Restoring it based on unspecified IRC chats is not only contradictory to policy but a direct slap in the face to the accessable discussion-based consensus upon Wikipedia was founded to operate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the event that people decide to re-delete this, a transwiki to Comixpedia would be nice, as our version is a lot more detailed than theirs is. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I note that the original AFD discussion was actually quite closely balanced, indeed some closing admins would have chosen to keep it as "no consensus" rather than delete based on that discussion. --Stormie 23:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD (redelete). Completely out of process. I have a feeling that Alkivar was making a statement of somesuch. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD and possibly relist--we cannot base decisions about article on irc. it was repeated poor judgement in admin actions which led to Alkivar's departure. DGG (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing the AFD, I think it was closed appropriately. IRC is not an appropriate venue for forming consensus on anything, so Alkivar's overturn is supported solely by his willingness to undelete. Looking at the article, one new reliable source has been added since the AFD, an article at/in The Comics Journal primarily focused elsewhere. It says little about this particular comic. It tells us that it is published at a "online collective of lesser-known artists", is by the authors, "features single panels (although black on white again) with genuinely intriguing texts (...), and yet the site is most recognizable for remaining up since 1995." I don't object to a relisting. I think the result will be a clear consensus that the reliable and independent sources to support an article don't exist. Based on the one unquestionably reliable and independent source that we have, this comic would be better merged either to the collective that publishes or even better to List of early webcomics if that is created. GRBerry 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD, recreated with some strange reasoning, no fundamental changes to article since AfD, no need to relist. Fram 15:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ME/CVS Vereniging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted while no concensus was reached on the AfD. One non-Dutch discussion participant appeared to think that the association is only mentioned in passing, while 2 Dutch participants were trying to explain otherwise. A Belgian user could still have gone either way. Three voters for deletion and one for keep did not participate in the discussion. Meanwhile, there were still improvements made to the article. Guido den Broeder 13:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. Due process was followed by the closing admin. Nominating editor (me) is Dutch too. JFW | T@lk 13:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my) closure - cross posting from my reply to Guido on my talk page: I thought there was a consensus to delete. Ignoring any accusations of bad faith (concidentally, bad faith in themselves), of the six arguments for deletion (one weak), most cited few reliable independent sources, failure to meet WP:CORP, and no indication of notability. The three arguments to keep (one weak) revolved around asserting the topic was notable, and had many reliable independent sources. In making a closing judgement, I thought the balance of the arguments was towards deletion. Review of the article failed to show many reliable independent sources. Neil ☎ 13:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Referenced independent sources include: media coverage, Dutch scientific journal, CG-Raad, ZonMw, CBO. Regards, Guido den Broeder 14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Please specifically list in this DRV the independent sources in a way that will allow a review of the amount of material they provide about the topic. This will help determine whether Neil's interpreation was correct. -- Jreferee t/c 16:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have had a look at the deleted article. Most of the references were reports and research from within the scientific community. I haven't been able to assess their relation to the subject of the article. I did come across the name G. den Broeder (nom?) a lot. At least one of the references was a reliable source independent of the subject: an article in Nederlands Dagblad, a Christian newspaper. AecisBrievenbus 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (1) "ME is géén aanstellerij" (2005), Nederlands Dagblad, May 10, (2) "ME-patiënten binden de strijd aan met vooroordelen" (2006), (3) Arnoldus RJW (2007), "Diagnose als daad" (discussion), with a reply by Huibers M and Wessely S, Maandblad Geestelijke volksgezondheid, 7/8 580-583, (4) 3B Platform CG-Raad, (5) Kamphuis HCM, Stukstette MJPM, Frijters JPM, Sonneveld RE, Kool RB (2007) "ME/CVS Vereniging. Uw organisatie gespiegeld", Verwey-Jonker Instituut, (6) ZonMw CFS programme, (7) Schipper DM, Burgers JS (2007), "Rapport knelpuntenanalyse richtlijn chronisch vermoeidheidssyndroom", CBO Guido den Broeder 17:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Most sources mention the ME/CVS Vereniging in passing. The ZonMW document doesn't mention it at all. When searching the Verwey-Jonker Instituut website there are no results for "ME/CVS vereniging". JFW | T@lk 15:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Verwey-Jonker Instituut lists the Vereniging as one of the reviewed patient organizations in their main monitor report. The review on the Vereniging itself is confidential. ZonMw mentions the ME/CFS patient organizations as a group, which includes the Vereniging. Guido den Broeder 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closer - I posted on talk page of several editors who may be able to read Dutch to get a better discussion on the content of the references. -- Jreferee t/c 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't read Dutch, but what I could tease out of the sources seemed to be problematic, mostly for failing to be independent or failing to be significant coverage. Point 2 mentions ME/CVS Vereniging once only. 4 does mention the organization several times, but it's difficult to determine what the link is for, it doesn't appear to be a national newspaper or something similar. 6 and 7 don't appear to mention the organization at all that I can see. If the organization is indeed notable, it is only hanging on to notability by it's fingernails. However, if it does indeed have enough grip, it deserves to stay. Unfortunately, I can't tell from what's linked. WLU 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorsing closure as executed and explained by Neil, taking into account the sources above and the article in the Dutch Wikipedia. This is a society with 200 members, and while an excellent cause, proabably not notable enough for the English-language Wikipedia. Yet also if it was just notable, Neil made correct decision in the AfD. BTW, I do speak Dutch. gidonb 18:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in favour on erring on the cautious side in AfD discussions. There seems to be discussion about grounds for deletion, hence I would say, keep the article. That only non-English (Dutch) sources are available should (as far as I know) not count for AfD discussions, non-English references are allowed (although not preferred), hence they should be taken on good faith by people without knowledge of Dutch. Arnoutf 18:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Dutch sources are clearly mostmany of them published by the organization itself, or reports of outside bodies which the organisation criticises. DGG (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Guido den Broeder 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • at least no.1, 2, 7, 9, 15, 16, are self-published. DGG (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, the article has been deleted, so these numbers tell us nothing. However, nobody claims that all the sources are there to prove the association's notability. References have several functions. Regards, Guido den Broeder 15:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Guido, when you say that "one non-Dutch discussion participant appeared to think that the association is only mentioned in passing", was that referring to me? I am non-Dutch but I am Dutch speaking (Flemish Belgian), so I am quite capable of noticing that in the available independent reliable sources, the association is only mentioned in passing, e.g. in the Nederlands Dagblad link mentioned above. OR am I the one you mean with "A Belgian user could still have gone either way."? Equally incorrect. Anyway, correct AFD and correct closure, no procedural mistakes, no new info, so no reason to overturn. Fram 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant WLU, but he seems to be changing his position now. Please note that the author of the book mentioned in that article is (on her website) of the opinion that it was her book that was mentioned in passing, and also that she is a member of the Vereniging.
    • As I understand it, the Afd procedure requires concensus, it's not a count of votes. Guido den Broeder 13:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lovely. My position has always been the organization deserves a wikipage if it is documented per WP:CORP - in reliable sources, independent of the entity, to a depth that is reasonable. My stance in the AFD and this page has been that the sources are tenuous, many are fraught with COI issues and lack independence, and do not clearly indicate notability. That they are in Dutch is crippling in both directions - it makes it hard to accept the references and hard to discount them. Hence deferring to contributors who read Dutch and are not themselves in horrible COI. I've also expressed a concern that the page appeared to be, and would probably in the future be at severe risk of coatracking the, IMO, eccentric position of Guido den Broeder. I have deliberately refused to give an opinion either way, instead listing the concerns I had a month ago, and still have. And the whole thing is leaving an increasingly bad taste in my mouth. WLU 15:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is interesting. Am I to understand that the real issue here is not really about the article, but about me? Could you specify what position you attribute to me, and why you judge it eccentric? Guido den Broeder 15:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't get your reference to "the author of the book". First, it is not impossible that different things are mentioned in passing in an article, so I fail to see why it is relevant that "the author of the book mentioned in that article is (on her website) of the opinion that it was her book that was mentioned in passing, and also that she is a member of the Vereniging.". It is irrelevant, and not entirely correct either. She says that "waarbij ook mijn boek wordt genoemd (laatste alinea's)"[7], which translates as "which also mentions my book (final paragraphs)". Mentioning in passing (as happened with the Vereniging) is not really the same as mentioning in the final paragraphs, as happened with the book. That the author is a member of the Vereniging is equally irrelevant, as it is not mentioned in the article, nor anywhere else on her website as far as I could see. Certainly her page "Wie ben ik"[8] ("Who am I") does not mention it, so it seems like the author doesn't think her supposed membership is important. Even more revealing is probably that the webpage of the Vereniging isn't even included on her page with links[9], even though other pages about ME are included. We've had this discussion before, on the talk page of the article. There you called Schonkert a prominent member. You also included her book in the article in the section "books written by members". This kind of repeated inclusion and mentioning of things which have next to nothing to do with the Vereniging but which seem important at first glance makes it hard for me to believe anything about other sources that are unavailable for us to check (like the Verwey-Jonker report), which means that there is finally very little left of independent reliable sources about the Vereniging. Fram 09:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it just means that you are not making the effort. [10][11] Guido den Broeder 10:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, the effort to do what? To make such a negative claim and then to give links to a portal page (as evidence of what? That Schonken is a member of the Vereniging? As for the second link... I was referring to your statement that "The review on the Vereniging itself is confidential." The page you listed mentions the vereniging in Appendix 4 as one of the participating organisations in the category small patient organisations (25-488 members). The ME/CSV Stichting, by the way, is mentioned as well, but in the category "large patient organisations (over 2,000 members)". SO we can't check the Verwey-Jonker report about the Vereniging, the main report only mentions the Vereniging in an Appendix, and your "prominent member" links on her website to a portal page that also has a link to the Vereniging, which would somehow mean that she is a member? Or did you have any other intention with this link? Anyway, you have been repeatedly asked to remain civil and to avoid personal attacks. Claiming that I am not making the effort after I have provided a lengthy post with lots of links (just like I did multiple times in the discussion on the talk page) is very unfriendly, and certainly when you follow it with one irrelevant link and one hardly enlightening one. Fram 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is you, rather, who is unfriendly. I am merely stating a fact, not a reproach. Nobody requires you to take the effort to check sources that are not readily available on the internet. But if you don't, you have no right to conclude that I am supplying you with false information, or that it is not possible to check it. Guido den Broeder 12:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • What fact? Which source have I not checked? The one you said was "confidential"? I can hardly check that one, and neither can anyone else. As for the other bit: do you have any evidence that Schonken is a member of the Vereniging, and secondly do you have any info that she considers that as important? Fram 12:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • You have not done any off-www checking. All you need to establish is that the review exists; I'm sure that if you just pick up the phone and call the Verwey-Jonker Institute (or Fonds PGO) that they will tell you. And yes, I have such evidence and info. Guido den Broeder 13:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For what it's worth, the Nederlandstalige Wikipedia article is at ME/CVS Vereniging. -- Jreferee t/c 22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is what the English article looked like, too, before notability was questioned. The deleted version is still available in google cache, as it appears: [12]. Guido den Broeder 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • New
    • Finally found proof of radio coverage: [13].
    • My interview on Regio TV Utrecht was recorded on September 14, 2005.
    • Additional coverage (from a short interview) is coming up in the magazine of Zorgverzekeraar Friesland, a health insurer. Guido den Broeder 10:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure with no prejudice to recreation when reliable sources are found. - After reviewing the AfD, I see no procedural issue with the close. Further, Guido den Broeder's new source above is of dubious use, as he already admits affiliation with ME/CVS. Being the subject of the interview, Guido den Broeder becomes the primary source of information from the interview. There appears to be a serious conflict of interest here which, combined with the numerous "citations" published from ME/CVS itself, make it difficult to establish a neutral article. I would suggest that Guido den Broeder rewrite an article in his User space, paying mind to use independant sources, and seek other editor's opinions before moving the article to mainspace. -- Kesh 13:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The radio interview was not with me. Anyhow, COI has no bearing on the relevancy or reliability of a reference, it is only a reason to take a better look. Guido den Broeder 14:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The article in Question was listed on AfD because it did not meet Notability. There was no consensus during the AfD discussion. I put some effort to extend the references (the article had a whole number of references) to enlarge the number of independent references. From my point of view the notability should be measured against Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

The primary criterion is defined as: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." In the discussions of the AfD there was from my point of view no discussion that this criterion was not met. The Organization had been subject to coverage and the sources where secondary and reliable/ independent. The AfD discussion was all about of the coverage was sufficient which from my view it is. Another chapter of the same policy deals exactly with "Non-commercial organizations": It reads: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization."

The organization is a national dutch organization that deals with the topic on several levels. The Information can be verified by references to http://www.steungroep.nl a very reliable and independent source to the organization. I want to emphasize that I have no links to the organization nor do I know anyone of the organization. I dived into the AfD, saw the emotional discussion ongoing and did improve the article and the referencing. Since I invested a lot of time in research and improvement of the article. I think the article on this non profit organization needs to stay in en.Wikipedia. Neozoon 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as "useless trainwreck". Even by vote-counting there's a supermajority to delete, or at least merge to Antisemitic canard. "Relisting" an attempt to forum-shop. Its new "Allegations of..." title just proves it's NPOV, an oft-cited reason to delete in that debate. Will (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: AfD closed by non-admin. Will (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment making a comment on an AfD debate is not a vote as per WP:NOTAVOTE. There is no hope of a consenus coming from that particular debate. If there is need for a new debate then go ahead an open one. I don't see any good from coming from it though. All it's done is serve as a soapbox for various users.Bobby1011 11:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said "Even by". I know AFD != vote. Seeing as how you're citing policy, so will I: WP:DPR#NAC - "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." (emphasis mine) Will (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what now? I don't oppose you reopening the discussion. But I don't see it being anything other than flogging a dead horse. Bobby1011 12:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn and delete. I did not participate in the AfD. I agree with Sceptre that this is exactly the type of AfD which should not be closed by a non-administrator. Sam Blacketer 12:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Agree most votes were for deletion after relisting. Risks becoming a coatrack, nil that can't be covered in a more general article as suggested by most editors voting for deletion. JFW | T@lk 13:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment"Jewish subversion" is an antisemitic canard but each of the other canards at Antisemitic canard has its own article. Per Malik and others, "accusations of Jewish subversion date from Biblical times (Esther 3:8, perhaps even Exodus 1:10) and have been a near-constant theme in anti-Jewish politics since." We have people willing to edit but not willing to waste time until article is done from AfD process. Benjiboi 13:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have undone the specious and against guideline non-admin closure, and reclosed as "delete". Neil ☎ 13:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rational mysticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It is an important concept and title of a book by John Horgan. It is also an important concept to many Unitarian-Universalists and religious liberals. It is discussed and cited a number of times in various articles in the internet including one by the important author Sam Harris. Richard Dates 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As discussed here, I restored the article content on a subpage of RDate's userspace as an interim measure. — Athaenara ✉ 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored wholesale, per WP:PROD. Wikipedia is so incredibly non-user friendly that I have no idea how to close this thing, so someone... *grumble*Prodego talk 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_5&oldid=1138431195"