Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August

< July 2008	Deletion review archives	September 2008 >

31 August 2008[edit]

Wikipedia:Esperanza – Closed per WP:SNOW. Editors that want to continue discussing this issue are encouraged to do so at the Village Pump. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since the deactivation of Esperanza, Wikipedia has become a colder, nastier place. Acrimonious editorial conflict, such as that described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines is commonplace, while even respected administrators are accused of abusive sockpuppetry, forming the basis for nasty mud-slinging matches along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar. If good-faith contributors were encouraged to socialize, if we knew each other as people, we might have a far more harmonious editorial environment. While supporters of deactivation cited our policy that Wikipedia is not a social networking site, the policy is intended to prevent the usage of Wikipedia for the sole or primary purpose of social networking, not to preclude socialization among genuine contributors, with its attendant salutary effects in terms of reduced editorial conflict. Our policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy was also cited, as Esperanza had a central organizational structure. Yet the application of the policy was itself ironically bureaucratic, as the literal prohibition of all structural hierarchy would eliminate the Arbitration Committee, etc. Given the time that has passed since Esperanza’s deactivation, there may be a consensus to reinstate it. Though Esperanza was often derided as a “group hug” organization, in comparison to a group edit war, a group hug doesn’t sound too bad, does it? Kristen Eriksen (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah--start over with a new and much simpler project for the same purpose, if one is really needed. Esperanza was noble in intent at the start but had devolved to little but elections and instructions by the end. Chick Bowen 00:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the above makes a case for the existence of Esperanza (or a similar organization) I don't see that undeletion is needed here. The old content is either out of date or decidedly unhelpful. Just be bold and start a group. If it's successful, then propose moving it to the old Esperanza page. There's no point in resurrecting old discussions or member lists and still less the roundly criticized aspects of Esperanza like the Advisory Council. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no deleted revisions there, and I highly doubt DRV is a good place to discuss the closure of the MfD itself, as a wider consensus would likely be needed to go anywhere on restarting Esperanza itself. Suggest a speedy close and seek another forum. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No We do not need to bring this back. MBisanz ^talk 07:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, what Chick Bowen said. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think that there is a clear consensus here against the wholesale reactivation of Esperanza, as the nominator invites us to do. This discussion would nonetheless be useful if it were to articulate some consensus as to the permissibility of a successor organization without ostensibly bureaucratic elements "like the Advisory Council" -- that is, if it were to answer the question of whether a project to promote social interaction between editors would be viewed as a valuable community-building resource, or a frivolous waste of server bandwidth. Since servers and internet access are cheap to the extent of the usage contemplated here, and since the community-building which might reasonably be expected would be quite valuable, I am inclined to support the former view. John254 15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment doesn't appear to be a DRV issue, there doesn't appear to be any process issues, this isn't an article so we can't easily judge if "additions" make it overcome the reasons for initial deletion, nor do I think we should be judge of what the broader community believes is useful. As above sounds better to try and propose something new even if it does overlap then resurect something with in many people's eyes a tranished image. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either no club or start anew. EA was fundamentally broken and it needed to be eliminated. --harej 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been around before, during, and after Esperanza, and I can attest to the fact that Esperanza not only improved nothing, but they evolved as an exclusive subculture at odds with the rest of the website. --harej 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in responce to John's question. While I think there is clear-cut consensus against the wholesale revival of Esperanza, I am not sure about the formation of a new group with the laudable goal of promoting wiki-love. Therefore what follows is my personal opinion. I firmly believe that a new or revived group would be "a frivolous waste of server bandwidth" both because it is highly tangential to the encyclopedic buidling purpose of Wikipedia and because it is unlikely to work. Experience with Esperanza has shown that it is much easier and more natural for such a group to evolve into an exclusive and self-promoting clique than a genuine force for the good of the project as a whole. I also believe that the claim that the demise of Esperanza is linked in any way to the current WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL issues is specious. Instead the problem comes from the increased abuse of Wikipedia sp spammers and POV pushers and the understandable, but unfortunate, effect this has on many long time editors. That said, I don't doubt the good faith of either Kristen Eriksen or those involved in the original creation of Esperana, nor do I wish to minimize the importance of good faith and civility amoung Wikipedians. I simply believe that Esperanza, or an organization similarlyu designed primarily to promote comraderie amoung its members, has no realistic potential of furthering its stated goals, important and valubale as those are. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--NE2 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consensus was only to shut down EA as it was, and it wasn't a ban on the concept. DRV is unneeded if you wish to attempt something similar. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Advice to nominator: Find something better to do with your time than give people incentive to find out who you're a sock of. —Giggy 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No The close was primarily on the basis of "projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical" I think that if anything , the consensus against closed projects is considerably greater now. We've had dramatic further examples of the problems caused by cabals and the like, or things that appear to be such. DGG (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no' per DGG. Moreover, to be very clear as someone who was around when Esperanza was here: things could get pretty cold and nasty then too. Things might be colder and nastier now or not. I don't know. But I severely doubt the presence or absence of Esperanza has anything to do with that. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose recreating Esperanza as it was, as noted by most commenting here. Please see Wikipedia talk:Esperanza for some discussions regarding reviving the name "Esperanza" for something a bit more basic (also noted by others above). - jc37 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close I already closed this but was reverted. There si no point to this discussion and the nominator is clearly a sockpuppet having a nice troll at our expense. To avoid drama I'm not reclosing it myself but I still think this should be closed now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure where the sockpuppet accusation came from, but I still believe this is a nice, calm, and healthy discussion. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 August 2008[edit]

29 August 2008[edit]

Todd Palin – The redirect has already been replaced by a new article. – Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I located several news articles about the man, not his Vice Presidential candidate wife, Sarah Palin. Mrs. Biden has a Wikipedia article. Mrs. Biden's claim to be in an encyclopedia is exactly the same as Mr. Palin as both have some sources on them, just not a whole lot. Let's immediately recreate this article as a stub and let it grow. Let's not wikilawyer to stall the article or kill it prematurely. I came here at the request of Sandstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.20.2 (talk • contribs)

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

Sam Wood (footballer) – Restored prodded version, which was better than later version anyway. Article has never been through AfD (yet). Still needs sources. – Chick Bowen 05:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted because the player in question had not played a competitive first team match. Now he has done (see http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=49537), therefore the article should be restored. Steve1986 uk (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sport notability guideline is an indication of the kinds of people who will achieve multiple non-trivial independent coverage. Wikipedia policy does not allow articles on living individuals without credible sourcing, simply running out for a professional match does not actually have any relevance to that policy. Please cite the non-trivial reliable independent sources form which you wish to draw the article. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the special guidelines for athletes supersede the general guidelines, which are just the default in case there is nothing more specific. Even if Guy thinks otherwise, it is still a claim to notability fully sufficient to pass speedy. I'm glad the editor used any of the available channels. Some people prefer to come to an open forum. DGG (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you amended WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT to reflect the fact that unsourced articles are permitted in the case of fulfilling the aim of being a directory of every footballer who ever played a single league match? That's kind of an inportant policy change to be made via a notability guideline which specifically states that it's only a guideline not a policy. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Either this is contesting the original prod deletion in whish case an automatic restoration is necessary (and the reason for the prod has been addressed - which was "no evidence of first team appearances in a fully professional league") or the speedy has been contested and an assertion of importance has been made (and sourced) namely that he has played in a fully professional league. In either case the article should be restored and updated. If anyone then wants to take it to AFD they can do but I doubt it would be deleted there. Davewild (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per above. Meets WP:BIO. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alana Austin – Recreation permitted (that option was not discussed specifically below but is the natural conclusion of the debate). The original material is quite weak, and though it does not run afoul of WP:BLP in the sense of controversial content, it is certainly speculative about personal issues ("normal childhood" etc.). However, by long precedent a properly sourced article would not fall under WP:CSD#G4 and there's nothing to prevent an interested editor from writing one. – Chick Bowen 05:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

(This concerns only the first deletion.) The article was deleted for lacking sources, however this person is probably notable, it's quite linked in the article space, concerns about notability and research of sources where needed can be handled by an afd. There are problems with articles related to Tag Entertainment due to editors with disruptive/tendentious editing. However, this article can be easily organized into a stub and the unsourced content removed. I'd recommend this to be undeleted and possibly sent to AFD. Cenarium ^Talk 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no objection to restoring it and sending to afd, but given that she seems from IMdB to have had only a succession of very minor roles, what's the point? I'd encourage editors to go any route they prefer with their requests--some may feel more comfortable coming here, tho probably most will want to go directly to the admin involved. DGG (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who deleted the article is on indefinite wikibreak and unlikely to respond to any message. Cenarium ^Talk 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refer only to the first deletion, the second deletion was justified. Here's the diff with the state of the article before the first deletion and the recreation. Note that I prefer discuss with the admin before, but in this situation I think DelRev is the only way. Cenarium ^Talk 15:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion to avoid the pointless bureaucracy of an AFD that would almost certainly end in a delete result. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course if I thought that the afd result would be almost certainly delete, I wouldn't have asked a DR. Alana Austin has played a major role in A Simple Twist of Fate, see [1]. You can verify the basic biographical data here. Allmovie lists 5 "starring role" [2]. For example in Motocrossed, which is documented in medias [3]. There's already enough sources for a biography with basic personal data and documentation for her major roles. Cenarium ^Talk 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- a bare lack of sources does not constitute legitimate grounds for speedy deletion, except under certain narrowly defined circumstances described in our biographies of living persons policy, which are not present here. Given the sources provided by Cenarium above, and the reasonable prospect of AFD discussion participants finding additional sources if they were able to read the text of the article (which, at present, is accessible only to administrators), we should not prejudge the outcome of an AFD discussion by assuming that "an AFD... would almost certainly end in a delete result", but should instead allow the discussion to actually occur. John254 15:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pirate Cat Radio – Relist. Considering the closing admin's statement, I'll simply reopen the existing AfD. – Tikiwont (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

no consensus was achieved in the latest AFD. Numerous 3rd party references were located and about half of the editors believe the article met WP:N and were proposing rewriting the article with these references yet the result was delete for some reason. Rtphokie (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Relist - Looks like this could have used another 5 days to me. Oh, here's the AFD in question. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist If someone feels more comfortable asking here, nothing wrong with doing that and getting a variety of opinions. There was clearly no consensus reached in the AfD. DGG (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care one way or the other, relist it if you guys desire. I'm disappointed that the nom didn't come to me first though, I likely would've undid my close had he asked. Wizardman 02:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that is exactly why people should be requesting the deleting admin to take a second look rather than opening a process here for five days. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Seems to meet WP:N and I didn't see consensus here. I'd have suggested a close of no-consensus or a relist rather than the delete close. Hobit (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was the first deletion review that I've requested and I missed the step of contacting the deleting admin first. I apologize for the concern it has caused a couple of admins but would like to see this review acted on since there seems to be a consensus that it be overturned and relisted.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per above. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Hunt For Ida Wave – Deletion endorsed – Chick Bowen 20:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

page met music criteria and was deleted not long after having been proven. Winter.skin (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reasonable indication that the article gave as to why its subject was notable? As far as I can see it's one of a million bands with an EP and a MySpace page, which shares a couple of members with other bands of no great notability. --Stormie (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the hunt for ida wave meet the following;

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.

- both current members are in Eternal Lord, the vocalist is an ex-member of a highly popular group, I Killed The Prom Queen, he has done world tours with them as well and is fairly well known / respected in the scene for that music.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability

- before the band split they were known in their local scene for their fierce live presence and shows.

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).

- band has released two cds with a third to be released at the end of this year, also they have signed to several record labels which are owned by larger companies / are establish labels for distribution. Winter.skin (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No such discussion took place. Had it done so, I would remain pretty unconvinced by any of the above arguments, which ignore all the important qualifiers such as "a major label or one of the more important indie labels" and "most prominent representative... of the local scene of a city"! This is pretty much "side projects, early bands and such" with a side of WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Only one test matters a damn to me: has this person been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. No evidence is provided to suggest that this is the case. Notability is not inherited or contagious. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that may be the only thing that matters to you, but I prefer to follow the WP policy, where the entire notability requirements are guidelines, requiring us to consider the possibility of exceptions, and the actual WP:N guideline is accompanied by a variety of specific other considerations. I don't make the rules, but in evaluating other people's

s work, i do follow them. 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

it was started on the discussion page of the article like the deletion notice informed me to do, sorry i don't write anymore at the moment, i buggered my neck at a concert last night. Winter.skin (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that is the WP policy. Check WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don't they only have to meet one requirment? Winter.skin (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per JzG. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 August 2008[edit]

Paris Hilton energy plan – Keep closure by non-admin endorsed, as it is clear overwhelming consensus is not to delete the article. A merge is not supported by consensus at AfD and thus not mandatory following this closure. Any merge/redirection in the future is subject to editor discretion and should only be performed with consensus. – --PeaceNT (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

====

Paris Hilton energy plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This was a non-admin closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton energy plan which has now led to edit warring. From looking at the AFD, there is no consensus but to Keep, or no-consensus at all, which defaults to Keep. The novel solution (by a non-admin) has been taken by some editors as a license to go nuts edit warring with redirects, despite other editors flat-out saying they're going to expand the ultra-covered topic extensively. Was this a good close or bad?

I have begun collecting a wide array of sources I will use to expand this out, which even further demonstrate notability of the video itself. You can review them at: User talk:Rootology/Sandbox 7. Thanks. rootology (T) 06:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus on that page to merge the material. To call this "going nuts" is inappropriate. The material at both Paris Hilton#Political Satire and this article are identical. The redirect itself was put in place by the article's creator. User:Wikidemon wanted to ruleslawyer about whether "merge" was an admin action because he (mistakenly) believed "merge" meant "delete and move," which is an especially thin line of reasoning. The article, in its current form (and, I imagine, in all future forms) is a quick overview of the video and then a bunch of citations for all the times it was mentioned in the news media. This does not make a good encyclopedic topic on its own and is best served by being merged back into Paris Hilton. Several third parties at the AN discussion have since concurred that there was a general consensus to merge, as did the closing user, as did the article's creator. I strongly endorse the merger. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an alleged consensus, which is disputed. A close or contentious AFD needs to be closed by experienced admins. As I mentioned here I plan to heavily expand this. There is such a large amount of material under sourcing as I listed on the AFD that I can get this to Good Article status asleep and drunk. rootology (T) 06:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only when you disagree with the result. If you review the AN thread you will find several very experienced administrators who concur with the consensus. And if that's true, maybe you should get drunk and go to sleep. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is not where these things are decided. DRV is. You should let it function as is appropriate.

I am. You'll notice I'm not objecting to this being here. I very much look forward to watching this discussion unfold. My points about AN are only that they corroborate the closing user's impression of consensus. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on AFD:

"Obvious keep I'm not even going to bother listing out the various sources, since... well, c'mon.... This is absurdly notable. Is it a long news cycle? Maybe, maybe not. WP:N says "multiple non-trivial". Here's several sources, of which you can take any several dozen from any of these searches: here, here, and here. Take your pick of any several dozen. rootology (T) 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)"rootology (T) 06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that notable enough? Myself or anyone else with 5-10 hours maximum to spend can trivially get this to Good Article status. All that aside, it's so far beyond notable as to be painfully notable. Look at my links above. Now, lets let everyone else do what DRV does. You don't need to reply to everything I say. rootology (T) 06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it's unclear what the closure was. Although I agree with the nominator that the result was "keep", and that any nonadministrative "merge" result is both incorrect and invalid (as not an option open to a nonadministrative closure), we are currently discussing the whole thing at WP:AN. Depending on the outcome there this one may well be moot. Can we speedily close or suspend this please until we get a clear answer from WP:AN as to whether the nonadministrative closure result was actually a "keep" versus a "merge?" If it was a "keep" there's nothing to discuss here, the article is kept. If it was a "merge" we can have that discussion, but limit it to whether the closure was done correctly as opposed to the broader policy question of whether there is such a thing as a nonadministrative "merge". Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be on DRV. ANI is a waste of time trainwreck for all but simple stuff. DRV is made for correcting bad or incorrect closures, and DRV is the final authority on these. DRV outranks ANI. rootology (T) 06:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hell no. If there's an objection to the closing status of a deletion debate, it's brought to deletion review. Forum shopping for your preferred outcome won't find you any favors. You should give up on the AN thread and let this one run its course. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon, listen to CC. I'm agreeing with your position, but I'm agreeing with CC who is opposed to me that this belongs on DRV. Besides, even if DRV somehow endorses the close, this is where I'll bring it back in 2-3 weeks to fork it right back out when I add 20-30+ new sources in one of my sandbox pages. The article is going to stand in the end, but this is the right venue. rootology (T) 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus clouds, you're being terribly uncivil and tendentious - your ridiculous accusations of bad faith are just plain juvenile. Will you please cut that out? I bring a simple question to WP:AN (not WP:ANI) about whether there is such a thing as a nonadministrative "merge and keep" result. Apparently there is not. This forum is not the place to decide that kind of policy. Rootology created the process fork by bringing it here instead. I wouldn't call it forum shopping - he/she isn't hoping for a better result here than in the proper forum. It's a simple good faith decision, even though I think it's wrong to create process forks in this way. Wikidemon (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, there are two possible results of an AFD, which are delete and !delete. This one closed as !delete. Therefore, the page is not deleted. Had I closed the debate, I would have done so with the closure "no consensus to delete — whether or not to merge can be dealt with on the talk page". Endorse outcome in so far is it is !delete. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think my closure was correct (see Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure). The merge is not a result, it is just a (strong) recommendation. Ruslik (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure though I would have closed it as no consensus - Stifle is correct and the result here is !delete...everything else is a matter for editors of the article to sort out amongst themselves, not a matter for DrV. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as a delete closure would have been clearly inappropriate. For all the users taking that close as a free reign to redirect and the like, point out to them that it was closed as keep and not merge, so that part of the close is just the closer's opinion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Cumulus Clouds. Closure was good, there certainly was no consensus to delete, but just because people have edit warred over a merger because of the closure doesn't mean that the closure was suspect. I am confused as to how edit warring can be seen to be justified by a closure. The people edit warring are those responsible, not the closer (nless he edit warred too of course). Since when does edit warring require a deletion review? Note: I support a merger as well, but the closer didn't say a merge had to happen or not happen, only that it was recommended. Hence, people should be discussing whether to merge or not on the talk page(s), not conducting deletion reviews. Deamon138 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of football (soccer) players by nickname – Deletion endorsed. – Stormie (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like a review of the contradictory content precedent arising by the recent closure of two related Afd's as keep and delete in the same week. Both List of football (soccer) players by nickname and List of sportspeople by nickname were Afd's by the same person, for the same reason: "Unmaintainable list that seems based mainly on original research and has little verifibility" with no mention of why only the football and general lists were nominated yet none of the others (see below). Both lists contain the same type of content, lists of sportpersons and their nickname. The football Afd was closed as delete with the only closing note being "the prevailing opinion is that it not appropriate content" (although the list does not seem to infringe what wikipedia content is not), while the general sportspeople Afd (which includes soccer players) was closed as keep, with no reason given at all.

Now clearly this has produced a rather big contradiction, when considered also with the fact that we also have person nickname lists for NFL, hockey, baseball, darts, Ozzie rules football, basketball, cricket and snooker, whereby because of the delete close, a recreation of the football article would be speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material, but because of the contradictory keep, an Afd of the sportsperson list on the basis of the consensus apparently shown by the delete vote of Football (which has by the above closure ruled sportsperson nickname lists are "not appropriate content"), would be speedy closed as too soon after a keep result. So I request an overturn of the deletion of the football list on the basis that the judgement that nickname lists are "not appropriate content" is not supportable given the contradictory keep closure of the sportsperson list (and I might add a few Afds having been passed keep on some of the other sport lists), with the option of a group re-nomination of all the sportsperson nickname lists to cater for the fact that consensus can change (and invoking ignore all rules if anybody wishes to speedy prevent that based on any recent keeps on the other articles).

As a pre-emptive point for anyone who goes that way, other stuff exists actually supports this DRv nomination as it encourages the application of consistency in deletion outcomes when there is no material difference between the topic of articles being compared (c.f. Yoda vs. Windu). I will state right now my personal view that there is no material difference in the notability, verifiability, source-ability or appropriateness/lack thereof for wikipedia, of lists of nicknames for sportspeople, whatever the sport named above. This opinion was barely refuted in either Afd for the closers to consider as a proper position, with the debates both concentrating on the concept of the appropriatenes of sportsperson nicknames generally. As such, a consistent opinion on the topic as whole should be declared, without deadlocking of the issue due to Afd/Drv process issues or misapplication of 'other stuff exists'. MickMacNee (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as closer of the AfD. What you fail to mention is that there were 10 delete !votes in the football related one, but only your own spiteful delete vote in the general sportsman one (a debate in which you described the nominator as a c**t). Thus there were clearly differing opinions on a general sports list and a specific football one. In my mind, the arguments for deleting the football list were persuasive, particularly the point that, in theory, every football player has a nickname, and thus the list could end up being thousands and thousands of players long. If anything, the other article should have been deleted too. Given your outbursts in both AfDs, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL before contributing to any similar debates. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything, the other article should have been deleted too. That's the whole point, it wasn't and nothing you have said here, or anything that was said in either Afd has explained the difference between the two outcomes, so what is the point in blindly saying one group of editors were right and one were wrong, when they were discussing the same thing? The argument you just used to bin the football list can be used to all of them, it isn't specific to football (or can we delete the football section from the sportperson list based on this decision?). We have thousands and thousands of cricketer/hockey player etc. articles. What you failed to mention is that most of the delete votes in the football one were of the form WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, something you failed to address in the closure (in fact with this reply you appear to be endorseing its use as a valid Afd argument), and you are failing to address now. Basically, please explain why you think the inconsistency you clearly disagree with too, but for different reasons, should remain. What would you do as an admin based on these conflicting results if someone renominated the sportsperson list now on the back of these comments? What would you do if a perfectly uninvolved editor created a football list based on the reasonable assumption that because lists for cricket, hockey, aussie rules etc currently exist football would be allowed. It is not acceptable to leave the current situation as it is, it makes a mockery of the pedia, and I'm not seeing any rational explanation why it should. MickMacNee (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The two AfDs had different results because different editors voted. There were far more contributions to the football debate than to the general sports one, which suggests that a wider audience feels that the article is not appropriate. As for why the inconsistency should remain, there were two separate debates with two separate outcomes. Perhaps it is appropriate to have one for all sports, but not sport-specific ones. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Number 57. Furthermore, actions carried out on Wikipedia should not be based on "precedent", so your argument that one article being deleted while the other remains sets a bad precedent is moot. The only reason that the deletion should be overturned is if the reasons for its deletion are no longer valid. I can see that this is not the case, and the deletion should be upheld. – PeeJay 10:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what wikipedia you have been editing, but precedent is very much a central part of what goes on around here, or do you think the same arguments being made again and again is productive, or even actually happens? Please give an example where an established precedent is routeinely disregarded. It is used everywhere, how do you think guidelines come into being, or that speedy deletion criteria such as schools/places/pokemon are notable get decided? Yes, some people think every single issue is always up for debate in Afd time and again, this clearly not a sustainable position, as it produces exactly this kind of contradiction. And as an aside, there were barely no valid deletion votes if you actualy examine the reasons specified in the deletion policy, unless you count personal opinion while stating no policy as a valid deletion reason. MickMacNee (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The points made by MickMacNee were raised in the Afd, and thoroughly considered. While persuasive to me, there was a clear consensus to delete that was not outside of policy. I don't feel that the list was indiscriminate, or lack sufficient inclusion criteria, but I can't say that the contrary position in this AfD violated policy - reasonable minds can differ. As this is merely a review of the process of the AfD, the close as delete was appropriate. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which "above" exactly? MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur with the opinions of Number57 and PeeJay2K3. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That every footballer in the world could have a nickname? This is clearly an argument against the general topic of sportsperson nicknames, if this realy is the assertion, then clearly you three should all be supporting an overturn, and group re-nomination of all the lists, as I explained in the nomination. Endorsing this one deletion does not address your apparent general concerns regarding this type of list. MickMacNee (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the well reasoned and perfectly logical arguments above. These XfDs are conducted on a case by case basis, then deleted or kept per consensus to do so. I also ignored your delete !vote when I closed the keep afd because it was a personal attack. I'd like to recommend that you avoid this in the future. Synergy 16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What logical and reasonable arguments? I will request again, as it seems to be being purposely ignored, what exactly is the argument to support the idea that one nickname list is "innappropriate content" and another isn't, barring the fact two separate Afd's were visited by different people for different reasons - the arguments on both did not make any distinction between the two, and neither did the deletion nomination reason. If this is your only case for endorsing, that Afd's are done on a case by case basis, then clearly this is a case of ignore all rules per other stuff exists because adhering to the Afd case by case policy is creating a non-sensical situation that makes the pedia look inconsistent and incomprehensible to an outside reader looking at Category:Nicknames in sports and wondering why there is a big football shaped hole in it (not that they would have any link to these deletion discussions to find out the quirky nature of Afd). Otherwise, I will request from you as I have from the others above, if you endorse this result as is, then what would your response as an admin be if somebody either nominated all other lists for deletion as innappropriate content on the basis of the football Afd consensus, or re-created a football list by splitting the footbnall content from the kept all sports list? (the deleted article was actually in a much better sortable table format, but hey, nobody seems to care about that). MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well no. This is not one of those cases for IAR. I wasn't aware of this deletion before I kept that article, but even still, I don't see anything wrong here. The one I kept was a main article and apparently (unless I'm wrong) the fork articles are the subject of debate. You happen to be arguing this as if the articles are the same. They aren't. The fact that no one agrees with you should tell you something. Synergy 21:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's well established that even if a 100 editors makes an argument not based in policy and 1 does, then that one person is not wrong. There is no current debate over the merit of the fork articles right now, there was of sorts a long time ago, and that only concerned how to keep them synchronised. If anything, the borderline consensus then with a small number of editors involved was to transfer the main list entries where forks existed and use the proper sub page {link}. I can't see how any difference can be drawn between the main list and single sports lists where you end up with a conclusion that one huge list is appropriate and sub lists aren't, they contain the same information, sportsperson nicknames. I ask you to please explain the reasons in detail if you seriously believe differently. We aren't talking about a complex content issue here. And even if the merit of the forks was currently in dispute such that forks should be deleted and the main one kept, that argument was not even mentioned in this Afd, so how is it even relevant now when passing judgement in review of the original deletion?. MickMacNee (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - P.S. You should have been aware of the other Afd when closing that one, as I cross linked both of them as they were made at the same time by the same person for the same reason. This is what makes the resulting divergence so bizzare, when as said directly above, not one person made mention in the footbal Afd of there being any merit in keeping a main list and not forks. In fact, if you look at the football Afd, a keep vote was registered to actually transfer all the football entries in the main list to the fork list, this seems to have been ignored in amongst all the general UNENYC delete votes. MickMacNee (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The soccer AfD was deleted on August 21, and I closed out the main article on August 20. I was aware of the debate but as I said, I was not aware of the deletion because it happened a day after I closed the main one. While the content may have been the same, theres a difference (albeit small). Fork articles often do not survive, but main articles do. Each AfD was closed based on consensus. Consensus can and always will be formed differently at any given time. If someone wants to overturn my close and delete the whole list under the same premise as the fork, then I am fine with that since I do not have an opinion regarding it being kept. I see somewhere in the middle of the debate, you attack the future closer of the afd, and opt to delete under this rationale. I can see you are arguing this pretty strongly, and I think furthering this conversation will do not be productive. Synergy 01:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A raft of invalid reasons for deletion is not a consensus, and yes I lost my cool but this was because I could see the possibility, eventually proven right, that a closure based on a vote count of invalid reasons would end up outweighing policy based reasons for keeping, resulting in this now inconsistent hole in the coverage of wikipedia, because only two lists were nominated, the main list and the football fork (without any explanation of why only those two required deletion, when the nomination reason applies to all of the forks). That and the fact the nominator didn't even have the simple courtesy to even start the article talk page of the football list with his concerns before nominating, and nearly everyone voting simply refused to answer valid questions about their rationales, again reinforcing the impression of a sloppy non-policy IDON'TLIKEIT vote counting exercise was in progress. MickMacNee (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You do realize that you can ask here that we relist the AfD I closed right? I am not adverse to this, so long as you include all of these lists as a batch. Synergy 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Same difference. Were it possible I would have made a joint DRv, but as the Football one is deleted I did it in that one's name to highlight the consequence of the deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just because nicknames is used it shouldn't be claimed it is all OR as many times it is easy to find the nicknames mentioned in various news articles. Mathmo ^Talk 02:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per comments I made at the time and per closing editor. Peanut4 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from sourceing, which I demonstrated within the first few hours of the Afd was clearly not a serious enough issue to come close to the necessary violation of wp:cite to warrent outright deletion (as could have easily been demonstrated if the nominator had not acted so rashly in Afd'ing an article which had zero comments on its talk page), your stated reasons and those of the closing editor you now endorse are applicable to all the lists. Why is nobody actually getting my point here? I can only assume nobody actually read my Drv nomination in full: I am not challenging the deletion of this one article and that's it, I just want people to demonstrate an ounce of perspective here outside of the one article/Afd and just have the intelligence to accept that their (i.e. your) reasons apply to all the other lists, and to do something about it, i.e. to delete/keep/change all the articles in one go, instead of lawyering about precedents/afd processes and pretending the problem of the obvious inconstistency produced now doesn't exist and everything is fine and dandy in the world of the future reader who might be perusing category:nicknames in sports one day and notice the big whole, as I was way back when. Faced with the incredible narrowminded willfull blindness being demonstrated in here and the Afd, I certainly now wish I could go back in time and get back the hours I spent forking and formatting that article out of the main list and into a table on the perfectly reasonable assumption it was valid content given the existence of footballers in the main list, and the existence of umpteen other fork articles. I also hope nobody makes the same mistake in future, as there is the sum amount of zero information anywhere to show they would be wasting their time. MickMacNee (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn the Football article to no-consensus. Put simply, I do not see a consensus for deletion. I'm surprised it was not a keep, given that the deletion reasons were irrational--I can not see how any list is unmaintainable if people are willing to maintain it, nor how nicknames of players cannot be sourced. DGG (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. No policy based reason to delete that has any validity IMO. "Not encyclopedic" is perhaps the best of the lot. Not sourceable is crazy talk, newspapers use nicknames all the time. Not maintainable also seems unlikely as long as we keep ourselves to the notable players that have articles (20K? more?). Simply put, the close was wrong and should have been "no consensus to delete" as there were only weak or provably wrong reasons given for deletion. The lack of consistency across wikipedia is also a problem. I honestly think if the nom of this ~~AfD~~ DRV hadn't violated WP:DICK this would have been kept as people realized the inconstancy with other similar topics. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 August 2008[edit]

Catholic Office for Emergency Relief and Refugees – "Keep" closure endorsed. – Stormie (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

i believe that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. this article has no reliable secondary sources. i was the only contributer to refer to policy in the afd, all the others voted keep with no basis for their vote. after contacting the closing admin, i was refered to wp:consensus, which as far as i understand it, is about consensus based on discussion and constructive arguments. the afd was treated more like a vote, which it shouldn't be. there were far more keep voters, but not one of them made reference to policy. no consensus regarding whether or not this article should exist based on wikipedia policy was ever reached. wp:consensus says "In the few cases where polls are used, understand that they are actually structured discussions, not votes. Your opinion has much more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a simple vote. Your goal should be to convince others of your views (and give them a chance to convince you)." Jessi1989 (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustain keep' The award was sufficient to justify the keep.A reasonable close. Nominate again in 8 or 9 months if you insist, and if you have made a good faith effort to look for additional sources and failed to find them. DGG (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure An article not making use of sources is a reason for {{sofixit}}, not for an AFD nomination, much less a deletion outcome. A deletion outcome would only have been appropriate had there been a sound showing that no possible sources exist - which even the nominator said was not the case. On this topic, it is highly implausible that there are no useful sources in any language. GRBerry 14:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closer correctly interpreted the consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only one source in the article (that I would consider reliable) mentions the organization in prose. While an article not making use of sources can and should be fixed, the same is not true if those sources don't readily exist. I can understand the nominator's frustration. He was the only person in the room pointing out this lack of sourcing. I don't know if sourcing does exist, but if it doesn't, I'm going to say that the close might not have been right. Protonk (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep Process followed. MBisanz ^talk 07:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Picoku – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON The page was deleted before it was completed as a result of saving it several times while it was in the process of being edited by an inexperienced user. This page is not advertisement and nowhere refers to any company or product. It is a word/poetry game that provides endless amusement to young and old. More information can be found at http://picoku.blogspot.com/

Endorse deletions Appears to be an attempt to advertise that blog. The text string is a valid word in some foreign language, but no reliable source in English uses it as a word, much less for this topic. GRBerry 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The only source I can find for this word/poetry game is the aforementioned blog, which started three days ago and has only two posts. No independent sources have been identified to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Velasquez, Vosloo.jpg – Deletion endorsed. – Stormie (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The image that I uploaded was in the same logic that the image at The Mummy Returns#Cast but deleted because it didn't have a valid fair use rationale. At the time, I was a newcomer and didn't know about some procedures, and my mistake to didn't ask for help. Now, I'm trying help other people to make things right and if I find an image which is missing a fair use rationale, I'll try put it if I'm familiarized with the subject. This didn't happen to me when I was a newcomer! If it happened, I wouldn't be blocked by violating the rules, when I didn't know what to do. So, doing my routine, I found this image linked to a biographical article, similar with to the image deleted. So, if this fair use image can be linked to living people, so the image uploaded by me, linked to the movie article and articles of actors appearing in the image deleted. Now, for fair use rationale, I can use {{ScreenshotU}}. Today, I'm thinking how many times daily I find something like this. How many times I try to others images be accepted on Wikipedia. Is my attitude with others over good or the attitude given to me was bad. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remembering better, I did insert a fair use rationale for the use in the article about the movie, but Yamla (now retired) said that the image didn't show anything about the movie. And about the Image:Kapoor JabWeMet.jpg linked to Kareena Kapoor, does it shows about the film and is it allow to have this image on the biographical article about her? I had knowledge about this image when recently went to see Yamla contributions. He was who had me blocked on Wikipedia for using this image. I'm feeling discriminated!--Sdrtirs (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page was deleted nearly six months ago. Is there a reason it has not been brought up here until now? Stifle (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I though that Yamla was right, so I didn't question his authority. Like I said, I was a newcomer, so I didn't know well the rules. Today, looking back after seeing something similar with my case with other attitude, the image was accepted, I'm starting to think that there wasn't a reason to delete this image nor having me block for reverting removal edits of the image I uploaded to biographical articles of those actors. I just want equality without any discrimination attitude.--Sdrtirs (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Image source: http://www.bollywoodsargam.com/hollywood_celebrity_photos.php?poster=9183719-262244836-1-latest-The_Mummy_Returns_Movie_desktop_wallpaper_images_pictures.html
License: Fair use
Propose: Illustrating the movie (in a section of the article about the movie)
Reason for deletion: Yamla said that this image does not illustrate the movie
Images similar to this with different treatment: Image:Kapoor JabWeMet.jpg, Image:Chameli (Kareena Kapoor).jpg and Image:Kareena in K3G.jpg linked to the biographical article about Kareena Kapoor and Image:Mummy returns.jpg about the movie The Mummy Returns. Notice that Image:Kareena in K3G.jpg had reversion to it original uploader, due to vandalism, by Yamla. And the user: BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ wasn't blocked and neither this image was deleted.

Endorse deletion. As Yamla quite rightly noted when he tagged it, a movie screenshot should be explicitly used in its article to support some point of encyclopedic analysis. This one wasn't. The fact that we have many other images that are used wrongly doesn't mean we should keep this one (). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the article about the movie hadn't a screenshot image. So, this screenshot image on the article was uploaded after this image uploaded, and consequently my block. And if you think that one screenshot is enough in the article about the movie, what do you say about the biographical article about Kareena Kapoor?--Sdrtirs (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fut.Perf. ☼ said:
  The fact that we have many other images that are used wrongly doesn't mean we should keep this one
  That's what I meant when I referred to discrimination attitudes!--Sdrtirs (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS apply to Image:Kapoor JabWeMet.jpg, uploaded on 4 July 2008, after deleting this image, uploaded at February 2008? What the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says about deletion of content is discriminating editors! All discrimination attitudes are against Universal Declaration of Human Rights.--Sdrtirs (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, but that's a specious argument. For one thing, the UDHR does not have any authority on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I said that to compare with the disrespect of the users/editors which WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS brings. Wikipedia as a community editors must help each others and I think that liberals ideas such as Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood should be present all days in Wikipedia. Freedom, Wikipedia don't censure content; Brotherhood, editors are trying to help others editors; Equality, yet it's undefined...--Sdrtirs (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad.jpg – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

(1) An image went through [Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 19 deletion review], had many keep votes and also a number of delete votes, but was determined to be a "delete" by its closing admin anyway, which is fine. In any case, the primary deletion criteria of the deletion votes was because it was a headshot from a video, which was argued didn't supply enough information to be encyclopedic. (2) So today I uploaded a completely different image -- that's not a head shot and that illustrates information in the text it accompanies. Yet, a user mistakenly deleted it as a recreation. (Which isn't too terrible; deleted material can be recreated.) OK, finally, here's the presenting problem. I can't find where to appeal this delete since this new image is not listed for deletion anywhere, whatsoever, akin to its being a stealth action. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC) PS the new image is here. It shows Hilton smiling. The original one has her talking, with a serious look on her face. (I'll post it as soon as I locate it.) $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Well there's so many screenshots out there, but there's a both a closeup and (if you click the No. 2 under it) a farther-away shot found here. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC) This is just supposed to review the process of deletion-without-proper-discussion, a discussion where everybody could weigh in on the merits instead of only two contributors: two contributors who mistakenly believed that one image was a cropped from the other, so they were deleting the same image. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 11:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very careful before you start making accusations about the deletion discussion. The discussion for the new image was here: WP:IFD, after which it was speedied as G4. You didn't mention that the old image, discussed here was a crop of the new one. The arguments in the old deletion discussion apply for the new one as well and since the new image is a portion of the old one, I believe it qualifies as a recreation. Also, if an image or article is deleted at AFD or IFD, it can be speedy deleted under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I would be equally careful about calling such actions "mistakes."
The old image was not deleted because it did not "supply enough information" but because it failed item #8 of the nonfree content criteria, which states that a nonfree image must significantly enhance a reader's understanding of the events. The discussion for the old image indicated that any portion of the video would not satisfy that criterion, since it could just as easily be described in the text without having to use an image. The closing administrator for that discussion concurred with that assessment and rightly deleted the image. The exact same argument would apply to this new image and so, again, it was correctly deleted under CSD G4. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whoever believed the new image was a crop of the old one was simply mistaken and I'm sorry but that's just a fact. The mid-distance shot had Paris smiling and the closeup had her talking with a serious look on her face. So the rationale for the second image's deletion was a mistake, plain and simple!

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 04:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. The old image showed paris hilton. the new image showed paris hilton. Neither image was free. Neither actually illustrated the subject (the controversy) anymore than an image of paris hilton would. We have free images that show what paris hilton looks like. The new image didn't address the deletion concerns, which (unfortunately for the future of a FU image on the subject) were basically that a shot of paris hilton doesn't enlighten the reader about the subject of the article in any meaningful sense. endorse deletion. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, this bait and switch manoeuvre is aimed at circumventing the non-free content criteria, which this image clearly fails. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the image remaining deleted. The difference between the one I deleted after the IfD and the one deleted by Fut Perf as a Speedy G4 are not substantive enough to invalidate the Speedy. Image was correctly deleted - Peripitus (Talk) 11:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fred R. Klenner – Deletion overturned. – Tikiwont (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is from way back in 2007, but there was still no consensus to delete: 1 delete, 6 keeps. The delete vote says he had only 2 publications, and other comments seemed to indicate that that was misleading or false. The delete vote updated this to 5 publications and 1 book section publication. Because of the way this AfD started, it may have been hard for the admin to follow. Still, I don't see justification for overriding 6 editors. Not all of the keeps were from "OMM advocates", either -- Espresso addict voted keep and Gordonofcartoon voted weak keep, noting something called the "Fultz quad connection" (not sure what that is). II | (t - c) 18:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. I cannot imagine why this was not appealed earlier. He was nominated as part of a very confusing group discussion, and the deletion rationale was "While he may be one of the founders of orthomolecular medicine, this isn't really a mainstream theory. " True, it's not a mainstream theory, but its still a notable one. The article was in my mind deleted on the basis of his work not being mainstream, rather than not being notable. It perhaps can be shown his contribution was not significant, and I may not argue for a keep in that, but this really needs a new discussion. DGG (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closer clearly got this one wrong; whether or not it is a mainstream theory has nothing to do with whether or not the article should have been deleted. Consensus of that discussion was to keep the article, and no argument from overriding policy appears in it. GRBerry 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why this is being brought here so long after the AFD closed? Stifle (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No particular reason. I saw an unjustified close and thought it should be rectified. II | (t - c) 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Reasonable arguments made for keeping and there was certainly no consensus for deletion. Davewild (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Leaving Trains – already restored by deleting admin, discussion here is moot – Shereth 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and restored again by me; closed again. — Coren ^(talk) 03:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Illegitimate A7 deletion of a band with eight albums on SST Records. The group rockets over WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be reopened, because after the deleting admin, User: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry restored it at 15:34, User:Coren, inexplicably, deleted it again via speedy on the same questionable reason at 23:13. I have notified him of this discussion. I assume he accidentally failed to notice the article log. DGG (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the article and put it to AfD; I did fail to notice the log. I don't agree with the closer that the article meets, let alone rockets over, WP:MUSIC but AfD is a better place to discuss the matter. — Coren ^(talk) 03:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 August 2008[edit]

Thunder Express – Closed. The AfD was non-admin closed as Delete (non-admins should not deal with Delete AfDs per policy). It was not in itself a completely unreasonable close, but on examining the AfD, I have re-closed it as No Consensus, so this DRV is now moot – Black Kite 11:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-admin closure of the AfD without consensus. Reasons were put forward to keep, that were not adressed. Band has 2 albums, and a member in a second indubitably notable band. Some editors therefore say it meets numbers 5 and 6 in the Music notability guidlines. I thought non-admin closure should only be for uncontrovertial deletes, and should be explained? First page of google find sources such as [4], which says: "Washington DC-based label Fandango is putting out a Radio Birdman tribute comp featuring a number of Scandinavia's leading rock'n'roll acts such as The Flaming Sideburns, The Sewergrooves, The Doits, The Sewergrooves, Thunder Express" (emphasis mine). Also [5], with in depth coverage by RS. I've never heard of this band, but sources say notable to me, after 5 seconds of googling. Yobmod (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

SocialPicks – Continued deletion endorsed. Consensus is that they're no there yet. – Eluchil404 (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article is about a company that has a business partnership with Reuters and that has raised half a million dollars in VC funding. You can see my draft of the article at User:FinancialAnalyst/SocialPicks. The company and several of its peers are notable and should have Wikipedia articles, and its peer companies already do. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC) :Comment: The editor who brought this to deletion review has been subsequently indefinitely blocked. I mention this because if there is belief that this editor will continue to work on it, it is unlikely that this will happen. Toddst1 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. While some of the references in the draft have only trivial coverage, three of them seem to be clearly significant coverage in usable sources, namely, TechCrunch and Mashable which are very highly-ranked blogs that can be considered reliable sources. VentureBeat's coverage is also non-trivial but I don't know about their reputation. Beyond that, there are other sources available on the subject, from the deleted version of the article (which can be found in this history of the draft, specifically, here. I note that there are many sources there not used in the draft, including a short mention in the Washington Post and a source from Yahoo Finance that seems to have checked out at the time but the link no longer works. Mango juice^talk 03:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The added blogs do not yet convince me that the assessment of the AfD needs to be overturned or reexamined. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the reputation of TechCrunch and Mashable? Some random blog would not be a reliable source, but top, respected blogs like these are a different story. Mango juice^talk 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there were Techcrunch and Mashable links in the previous version, albeit different. I've read the latest and it sounds like a 2006 talk-up. Techcrunch seems indeed to be influential but that has a downside for using it as source. Wikipedia's article weasels around this saying that "no claims of conflict of interest against TechCrunch have ever been proven". As for Mashable, I didn't know them, but was amuesd that the link calls for a Troll contest to leave an insulting comment on that post to win something. So I'd prefer to see this firmly anchored outside of the blogosphere.

Keep deleted: While I suspect the company might have some notability, the draft article as it now stands is largely a recreation of deleted material. I'd want to see a significant re-write with a strong demonstration of passing WP:CORP since it has recently been through AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call 6 months ago "recent," not at the pace this sort of topic develops. And I guess the more significant re-write will be impossible now that Toddst1 has indef-blocked the nominator. Mango juice^talk 04:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. The company is notable, has a business partnership with Reuters, and has received substantial press coverage. There is already a large precedent of similar companies being notable enough for Wikipedia, and many of the other companies that came out of the same seed funding program as SocialPicks have Wikipedia entries. Some of SocialPicks competitors, with less or similar funding have Wikipedia entries (Bullpoo, Cake Financial, etc.). FinancialAnalyst (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your stance already clear with the nomination so there is no need for a bold !vote. And the only precedent here is that everybody pushes stuff, in this case several times already after the AfD. In general unpaid volunteers can only spend so much time to follow-up on articles that juts consist in mentionings of their funds and counting the covergae generated.. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is ready quite yet, given the shortness of it. But I'm fine allowing it back into the mainspace, as long as everyone knows another AfD on it would likely be good. So, move to mainspace and let someone who doesn't like it (two above me already) nom it. As a side note, I'm not sure that it's exactly correct that their partnering with Reuters; it looks more like Reuters owns them, given that the two "About" pages are nearly identical (1 and 2), but there might just be something else going on (maybe copyvio?). I've also notified Keeper of this. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 00:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation, probably enough there to get through an AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep deleted' until they actually do something documented by RSs with the half million dollars--which, by the by, as venture capital goes, is not particularly impressive. DGG (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per DGG (half a million dollars is the bill for an IPO party for some venture capitalists; not a notable sum). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that any company, in the history of the world, has ever had an IPO party with a $500,000 bill thrown for it by venture capitalists. I am also not sure what that has to do with SocialPicks. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, as above. Add some zeros on that IPO. I also checked the deleted version of the requesting WP:SPA's userpageand concur with blocking; this is an obvious sock, perhaps of Dimension31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suggest we simply close this. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is WP:AGF still something done on Wikipedia? FinancialAnalyst (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No way is this a sock of Dimension31, or there would be more of him. And also, Dimension31 isn't blocked anyway. Mango juice^talk 01:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, per DGG and Toddst1. Still not enough evidence of notabilty, seems dime a dozen. (and thanks, lifebaka, for the notification - I closed the AFd way back when). Keeper ǀ 76 21:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 August 2008[edit]

Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list – Deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete: Have you seen WT:CASH yet? This template is built for purpose. We don't want to have "See Hollywood Freeway" because it confuses peole when one highway collides with two number. The problem of duplicating the exit list is outdting when people will update one list but not the others, that's why we thouhgt about building a template.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Templates are not used for content, in part because it makes it harder to edit. --NE2 03:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a location to point out how the deletion process was not followed, not a location to try and get a more sympathetic hearing. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Destination Void (band) – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

meeting the demands for band sand groups at point 6 of the wiki guidelines 81.217.56.140 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion - the article was mostly discussion of the various members of this band, which is apparently a spinoff of the death metal band Miasma (band). Most of the content was a detailed timeline of what the various members did through their careers, with a single line at the end saying that these members left Miasma to form this band. There's a note under the discography section that their demo is being recorded now. Under WP:MUSIC, there is one guideline suggesting that bands formed by members of other notable bands may be notable as well, but, and I quote: "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply." In this case, considering the band is just now getting started, hasn't even got a demo together, and so on, that a mention in the Miasma (band) article and a redirect would be a better approach for now. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that User:Destination void, who created the article, appears to be one of the band members, so there's a WP:COI issue here as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, we seem to have a walled garden here, with Miasma (band) and a series of redirects for all the members of both. The deleted article is hopelessly poorly written, exhibits clear signs of WP:COI and lacks any obvious assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the argument provided here (WP:MUSIC point 6) was provided at the AfD discussion and proved unpersuasive - probably because there's no particular sign that Miasma is a notable band either. Indeed it seems likely that if that article was nominated for deletion it would be deleted. --Stormie (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article seems to have been re-created. I will nominate for CSD as this appears to be heading in one direction. --Ged UK (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit of the recreated version was enlightening and PA-ish, too. My first challenged deletion *and* my first claim of misuse of the admin tools, all in one bundle! Woot! Tony Fox (arf!) 15:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom e-mailed me, and I explained basically what I said above in a response, suggesting that if it wasn't good enough to come here. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Endorse deletion as no evidence has been provided of an anomaly in the deletion process here. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

John F. Dunn – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Dunn seeks review of Deb who deleted his name page Afterfostercare (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. entire contents at deletion were "You can read more about John Dunn at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Afterfostercare". CSDed as A3 - No content, it also effectively fails R2, as it is effectively a redirect from article space to user space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion under cases A3, A7 and/or R2. This was not content appropriate for Wikipedia. I would also very strongly urge the contributor to read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. It is a very bad idea to attempt to write about yourself on Wikipedia. If you really do meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies, you are much better off being patient and waiting for someone else to write the article. Rossami (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion in mainspace, perhaps userfying would be an idea. I use {{nn-userfy}} for this. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to reply to a simple request. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would never do this, but judge on the merits. We should not enact procedural barriers to those seeking to review administrative actions, nor delete or endorse the deletion of anything by default for failing to follow exact protocol. DGG (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS BY THE PERSON UNDER REVIEW - JOHN DUNN (AFTERFOSTERCARE) I am not an experienced editor here and I am the subject of this review. I am also not trying to be dramatic. I merely asked the deleter (Deb?) if I could discuss the issue and have as of yet not had a response. The deletion was almost instantanious to when I created the page therefore even if I was about to create much more content, it was deleted so quickly that I would not have had time to edit more content into it.

- Either way, I am not here to argue, I simply wanted to have a discussion as to why it was deleted so quickly and if the editor had any suggestions as to how I could have my name added since people do search for me on the Wiki and I want it associated with our organization, The Foster Care Council of Canada. I am also not aware of anyone who knows of our work, who also is ok Wikipedia, therefore have not had anyone write anything up. I do know that a great number of people use Wikipedia as a fairly respected source and therefore wanted our organization listed even if my name were to be redirected to it somehow.

- I even added my name (John F. Dunn) to the ambiguous names page I think it was called under John Dunn's but that too I think was deleted, I can't recall right now.

- Could someone please advise me and be patient since I have simply not been online as freuently as the editors might be, therefore it 'APPEARS' as if I have not replied ... instead I just came here today after only two days.

- Please advise how I can redirect my name to my organization without appearing to be "abusing" any protocols or rules here as this is not my intent.

- - I have finally figured out how to link the name John F. Dunn to my organization page. To see what I mean, and what I meant to do the whole time, do a normal search for "John Dunn" and see "John F. Dunn" to see how it now links to my organization. That is the intent from the beginning I was just not good at editing Wiki. Thanks for the decent suggestion DGG

Afterfostercare (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Petri net tools – Userfied as requested – Stifle (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

temporary revision

User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted this page a while ago. I agree with its deletion, but I want the latest content on my talk page so I can re-insert it into the Petri net article. Gustafson referred me to this place - I hope I'm doing everything right. Rp (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rp/List of Petri net tools but bear in mind that Wikipedia is neither a link repository nor a directory of non-notable tools. A straight drop-in to the other article would be inappropriate. Actually I don't see what you're likely to find useful in that page, but whatever. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three Dots Tattoo – For now, just making a redirect with no undeletion. History available by request if anyone wants to work on it. – Chick Bowen 00:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obviously no consensus to delete. Closer has not left an explanation for disregarding this. meco (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote, closer includes strength of argument relative to core policies. The deleters pointed out lack of verifiability from reliable sources and the prospect of the article being the result of original research. The keeps stengthened the delete arguments by backing up that the only sourcing was their own personal experience which would not be a reliable source and original research. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and recreate as a redirect to Criminal_tattoo#North_American - there appear to be plenty of online sources for the 3 dot tattoo and 'mi vida loco' ([6]) but it probably doesn't require its own article. Black Kite 11:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't write a rationale because I thought the debate was uncontroversial. Apologies for any confusion. This article was deleted because of verifiability issue - no reliable sources for editors to base on and write an article. The first keep voter, a self-claimed addiction psychologist, acknowledged that s/he has not "seen any research to verify whether the specific claims made in the article are valid". The second keep vote asserted that three dot tattoos is popular in Belgium but gave no reference to back up the claim, so that argument was weak. (The credibility of this voter is also hard to judge, as they were an anon.) That said, if good references are found here I would not object to overturning and restoring the article. Otherwise, endorse close. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest handing it as Black Kite suggests, or having a further discussion that might get some more attention. DGG (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This could be a potentially decent article with some work. If someone is willing to go dig sources up, let's put it into their userspace as a draft. Of course, a redirect is fine too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could go with a userfy. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:John Salza – I'm assuming this has been dealt with satisfactorily. If not, let me know. It's best that the history not be undeleted per BLP. – Chick Bowen 00:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could I have a history only undelete of the talk page so that I could look at the controversy before the deletion? JASpencer (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy was over sourcing (all refs were self-sourced to sites owned by the subject), with consequent notability issues. It's a bit problematic per WP:BLP, do you want me to mail it to you? Guy (Help!) 17:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mailing would be great. What would be the BLP issues? JASpencer (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 August 2008[edit]

Template:European-English – Deletion endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

here is the deletion log for a template. I know that wikipedia is not a democracy, but is a meritocracy. This discussion shows support and opposition over its deletion and works out 50/50 for each. However administrator User:Happy-melon claims that "The result of the debate was Delete" even though there was no consensus from the wiki-community (see the TFD above). The real result of the discussion was no consensus for deletion. User:Happy-melon has decided to use his admin powers and delete the template because he personally disagrees with it, not because there was a consensus from the wiki-community. If admins are going to delete things for personnel reasons instead of going by the discussion, then why have these discussions? I believe this may be User:Happy-melon using his admin powers to suit his own WP:POV, instead of using them responsibly and for the intended purposes, which he was granted with them for. He even told users to "Get over it".
Firstly I believe the TFD should be reviewed by other admins, and secondly other admins should review weather User:Happy-melon used his admin powers appropriately or not. Thanks Ijanderson (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - The nom was well argued and I don't see a similar argument to keep the template - people might not call the language they speak "British English", but they certainly don't call it "European English" - not to mention the fact that millions of native English speakers don't live in Europe!! In reality, of course, they usually just call it "English". The {{Template:British-English}} is sufficient here - the only other NPOV names I can see that it could have is "Commonwealth English". Black Kite 19:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Whatever you think about it, if you think it correct or not to use this term, the matter is something else here: The TfD was inappropriately closed because there is no clear consensus - there were only two real votes: One to delete and the other to keep and all the other votes where "per XXX"-votes. And those were exactly 50/50 split. So no matter what you think about the subject in question, there was no clear consensus to delete it. And thus I think it should be rediscussed to establish a clear consensus. So Why 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my endorse - I don't think the first Keep was valid, and all the other Keeps were per the first one. Black Kite 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And all other deletes were the first one. So there was 1 delete vs. 1 keep. I share the nominator's concern that "get over it :D" implies a certain POV in the closing admin (not as he writes in general but with this specific close) and thus I think another TfD can only serve to establish a clear consensus. If there really is consensus to delete it, then that will be the outcome there as well. So Why 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was one Delete that wasn't per nom, but that's nitpicking - the main point is that Mike R's nomination was well-argued and made good points, whereas the single Keep viewpoint doesn't really make sense at all, as I mentioned above. Having said that, I've no real opposition to relisting it, but I suspect it'd end up like the first one. I note that a couple of the Keep voters are in regular touch with the User:Ijanderson977 on their talkpages, too. Black Kite 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we be listening to what the wiki-community wants, there was clear support for "Keep", however these users views were ignored, whether you believe there view is correct or not Ijanderson (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was no support for keep, there was no consensus with delete-votes equaling the keep-votes. So Why 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio of keep votes to delete votes isn't terribly reliable as a judge of consensus. Look at the strength of the arguments rather than the numbers. Wily D 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, User:Happy-melon chose to go with his POV instead of waiting for a consensus to be developed. Ijanderson (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, template is redundant with {{British-English}} and was only used on one page. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Sure, the debate edges a little toward No Consensus territory, but the fact remains that the deletion nomination stands unrefuted. The arguments in favor of deletion would, if I were closing the debate, be persuasive. Allegations of admin abuse are quite serious, and I note that you posted this request at ANI as well - but I see no evidence of anything here other than a good faith close that seems to have properly evaluated the debate. As Tim Vickers noes, there's already another template for which this template is redundant, so I'm not sure what precludes the use of that template. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, case for deletion was reasonable and pragmatic, the case for keeping was based on the strange notion that "British English" is a POV term and that "European English" is a meaningful term in the context that this template used it (and there is no sign that I can see that this is the case). A perfectly reasonable close. --Stormie (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; the close was proper. — Coren ^(talk) 02:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Process followed. MBisanz ^talk 11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was no consensus reached on that case, therefore a deletion should not have occured except if policy stated this template could not exist, which it did not. This closing is incorrect per policy KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Wikipedia is not an experiment in political correctness. The closer evaluated the strength of the arguments (essentially: "delete, redundant" versus "keep, avoid pro-British POV") and acted accordingly. Considering that the English language was developed by the English, and given the admission (in the TfD) that European English is just British English under another name, the closure was certainly appropriate. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - seemingly correct decision. "Unused, never to be used, essentially unusable" is a far stronger argument than the demonstratably false "European English is a thing". Wily D 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg – Deletion endorsed - either on a argument strength/policy basis or a nosecount – Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe that the image should not have been deleted as it is irreplaceable and had a valid fair use rationale. Image was deleted despite discussion here in which other editors were agreeing that the images' use in the Chillenden Windmill article was justified. Mjroots (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - I agree with Howcheng who cited WP:NFC#Unacceptable use images #6. This is not an iconic or famous enough image to overcome NFCC#2 concerns. If people want to see a picture of the windmill after it was blown over, they can look at the source given in the article, and follow that to the BBC article. Offline readers and printed version users will have to make do without. See here for examples of famous, much-discussed, images where I feel NFCC#8 overcomes NFCC#2 concerns. This image does not qualify, in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, I would also endorse the deletion of Image:Chillenden mill part frame.jpg and Image:Chillenden windmill frame.jpg. At the very least, only one of these should be used, and efforts should be made to find free images that would illustrate the same things. You would be surprised what you can find in photo archives sometimes - 19th century or early-20th century pictures may exist showing the framework of such mills. Or ask nicely for the owners of those pictures to release one or more under a free license. Carcharoth (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would oppose deletion of either or both of those pictures. It may well be possible to find photos showing the framework of a post windmill, but that would not show the framework of Chillenden Windmill, which is a mid-nineteenth century mill, and has completly different framwork from, say, a mid-seventeenth century mill. I will ask IJP about getting free-use copies of the photos in question. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per original deletion rationale, and Carcharoth's statements above. Kelly ^hi! 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion and allow the IfD to run its proper course. The deleting admin was already involved and !voting in discussions on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 21 concerning the issue at stake. See AN/I. It was out of order for him to use admin tools in this instance. WP:DRV is to decide whether process was followed properly, which in this case it was not. Ty 02:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be more efficient to keep deleted and follow policy. Sure, Future Perfect could have waited, and should have given a 48-hour notice separately, but ultimately following process here will only result in deletion in any case. The BBC are using it to illustrate a news story. We are using it to illustrate the history of the windmill. Is that transformative enough under US fair use laws? That, to me, seems to be the real question. Carcharoth (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate and overturn the deletion It's a valid use of an image per WP:NFCC; important to convey meaning; and an invalid deletion. Modernist (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a picture of a windmill lying on its side after being blown down. That text adequately replaces the image. Especially since we already have a free picture of the windmill (after reconstruction) so the appearance of the windmill is covered by that. We don't need a non-free one of it after it was blown over in a storm. People can follow the link to read the BBC article and see the picture. Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Granted there is an image of an intact windmill (after reconstruction) and that image conveys what the windmill looks like. However the phenomena of the blown over windmill (covered by a Fair Use Rationale) helps to explain visually what cannot really be totally understood by explanation alone. The image brings a different message; and that's important and now it's lost..I think about ground zero or an Olympic event - the destuction can be explained; the athletic achievement can be described, but the images deliver the information in a profoundly different way. I'd hate to only access the Olympics in my morning paper. This encyclopedia has a unique character and ability to convey visual information. Modernist (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Reasonable fair use of the picture to explain an important part of the article. I'd otherwise have not the least idea of what such an occurance looked like, and I deft anyone to describe it clearly inw ords. DGG (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a couple of the overturns above don't actually address the deletion issue, i.e. failure to meet one or more of the actual fair use criteria, that it may arguably meet some of the other criteria does not overcome the requirement for deletion. (In fact the argument that this is a particularly good image to illustrate the windmill probably strengthens the argument that it fails criteria 2) --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, and that is a matter of interpretation...Precisely we disagree concerning criteria 2. The illustration of the event is not intentionally or unintentionally replacing commercial journalism's role in depicting that event. The encyclopedia is simply conveying information; and making clear and visually understandable..what otherwise would not be..It becomes a matter of timing as well...Modernist (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but doesn't address my point, succesfully arguing that something is green, whilst the article wasn't deleted for being non-green is a non-argument. If one of the typifying traits of why it was deleted is in fact "being green", then it is potentially just strengthening the argument for deletion. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? What in the world are you talking about? The initial argument was about the bbc spending money, and the article image trodding on journalists commercial turf..addressed by comments above. Have you seen WT:NFC#Press agency photos? Modernist (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what in the world are you talking about? (Good eh, makes my argument a winner). I was referring to some of the comments not being referenced to the reason for deletion e.g. DGG's argument (sorry I had to pick one) "Reasonable fair use of the picture to explain an important part of the article. I'd otherwise have not the least idea of what such an occurance looked like, and I defy anyone to describe it clearly in words.". The first part is just a bald assertion that it passed the criteria which is similar to "Non-Notable" or "Notable" as an argument in terms of strength. In this it doesn't provide any direct counter argument to those claiming it fails NFCC#2 which is cited as the primary reason for deletion. Second part is highlighting why it's a good image and thus passes NFCC#8. i.e This perhaps succesfully argues that NFCC#8 is passed, but in order to pass our fair use policy all points must be passed. In this case the deletion was specified as being a failure on NFCC#2. Now with regards NFCC#2 it seems in arguable that the commercial opportunity here is a picture illustrative of the windmill fallen down, the fact we want to succesfully argue NFCC#8 is passed since it is a good image to illustrate the windmall fallen down, would in fact suggest we are using it "in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role", since that is the original market role. i.e. as an argument it is potentially supporting a failure to meet NFCC#2. The point here is not if it does or doesn't meet any of the particular criteria, it's about if the arguments presented are in fact properly in context of the deletion. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your circular and vague comments above make my point.. Modernist (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, another argument winning statement. It seems quite clear that either I am not able to express my point clearly (which isn't about if the image should or shouldn't be kept) or you are not able to understand it. Either way it seems pointless to continue. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. "We really want to use it" doesn't qualify as a fair use rationale. We shouldn't be using press photos ever if there are suitable free replacements, which it seems in this case there is. Nandesuka (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must be confused...What suitable replacement? Are you replacing the deleted image that satisfies all WP:NFCC with a suitable free replacement? Great...Modernist (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, fails WP:NFCC number 8. Stifle (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a point which can and should be debated at IfD. This is not the place to introduce new arguments. The deletion was not on that basis. Ty 05:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The image has to meet all of the NFCC, not just one or some. this is a case where the guidelines for inclusion of images differ from those for content. The process issue at hand (whether or not is was deleted early) can be handled by simply relisting at IfD or accepting this debate as a stand-in for what a relisting debate would be and deleting based on this consensus. I'd rather not do that, as it would give some incentive to treat this venue as XfD2 (more so than usual). either way the deletion appeared appropriate given that the delete votes referenced the "governing" policy and the keep votes did not (despite the suggestion of the nominator). Protonk (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirming own deletion, reasons have been stated above. I add that it also probably misses NFCC#8+1. The exact visual sight of the blown-down windmill is not crucial for understanding the article. The degree and nature of the damages can easily be described by text, if it's really necessary. Language is more powerful than some people think. We don't need a visual representation of exactly which piece of rubble was blown where. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Closing administrator provided comprehensive rationale, which is supported by policy. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reason given for deletion was NFCC#2, which is -

Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

The original market role of the original copyrighted media was to tell a news story. The purpose of the image in the article is to illustrate a part of the history of the windmill, not to tell a news story. Therefore the reason given for deletion is not a valid one in my opinion. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original market role of the original copyrighted media was to illustrate the windmill's destruction, and that image is still valuable to anyone interested in telling the story of the mill's destruction. You could claim fair use for using that image in an artistic collage entitled "Destruction in South America" or in an article entitled "The Power of News Coverage in Europe" or in a book called "Photographing Destructed Buildings". But as long as you're just using that image to tell the story of the windmill's destruction, you're in direct competition with the news agency that took the time to produce that photo. --Damiens.rf 20:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This just looks like a pile-on, not a discussion, To reiterate my comment earlier Precisely we disagree concerning criteria 2. The illustration of the event is not intentionally or unintentionally replacing commercial journalism's role in depicting that event. The encyclopedia is simply conveying information; and making clear and visually understandable..what otherwise would not be..It becomes a matter of timing as well - The point is that the image does not violate NFCC#2 or the other nine either... I'm done now.Modernist (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This non-transformative use is in direct competition with the commercial interests of the copyright holder. (And an image must satisfy all of the NFCC.) The deletion rationale was based in policy. I'm sure the BBC would be happy to license this to us for a fee. Until we start allocating donations to pay these license fees, however, we can't be using this photo. Clearly fails the NFCC and likely also the statutory balancing test. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong definition. The image was speedy deleted under WP:NFCC#2 citing WP:NFC#Unacceptable use#I6 as a justification. The latter concerns "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP)." This photo was not from a press agency: it was from the BBC, which is a public service broadcaster, i.e. "broadcasting intended for the public benefit rather than for purely commercial concerns." A press agency relies totally on income from the products it provides in order to survive financially and is a profit-driven business. The BBC is in a very different position, as it is government-funded and has a remit to do public good. A press agency's primary function is to sell material. The BBC's primary function is not to sell, but to broadcast. Thus WP:NFC#Unacceptable use#I6 does not apply by definition, and all arguments above referring to that are invalid. There is a strong argument that WP:NFCC#2 does not apply here either, and certainly not in a clear-cut way that justifies unilateral speedy deletion while discussion is in progress on IfD. The deletion was improper and should be reversed. Ty 06:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try image-googling for "chillenden windmill". You find this image a couple of times: on wikipedia, on another site that illegally ripped it off from us, and several times on various news reports on bbc.co.uk. Wikipedia comes first. BBC has a legitimate commercial interest that readers wanting to learn about the story are led to its own website. By mirroring the image here, backed by the market power of being one of the world's top-ten websites, we are channeling such readers away from them and to us. This is exactly "competing with the market role of the image". We are actually not just competing with them, we are overshadowing them. As for the commercial status of BBC, they clearly act as a commercial journalistic agency; read their terms and conditions, they certainly don't say: we're non-commercial and in the service of the public good, so you can rip off our contents at will. They say quite something different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you say, Fut.Perf, the BBC is a NEWS organisation. When the mill blew down in 2003 it was news. Now, five years later, it is history. Therefore, the use of the image to illustrate an historical event cannot be in conflict with the use on the image to illustrate a news event. Mjroots (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you read Fut.Perf's posting above yours?? BBC still uses this image and, at this very moment, we are detracting the value the image has for them. It's part of BBC commercial strategy to have a presence on the web, and we are driving readers way from their website by copying their content to ours. --Damiens.rf 13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I've read it. The BBC is a Public Service Broadcaster, paid for by the TV Licence fee which I and all other UK viewers have to pay - to paraphrase them, "it's my BBC!" Please explain how the use of the image on Wikipedia is driving readers away from their website? I'd argue that on the contrary, it pushes readers towards their website with the link on the image and in the article on Chillenden Windmill which uses the article the image appears in as a reference. Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As a tax payer, consider starting a campaign to make BBC produced material more free. In the third-world, for instance, Brazilian Governmental Photo Agency licenses all of its images under CC-BY-2.5. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Not all the BBCs activities are paid for by the licence fee, it does engage in commercial activities which bring in additional income. When it sells on TV series to other networks charges etc. i.e. There is still commercial opportunity. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question If I uploaded a different image, which was not from a Press Agency, with appropriate licence and rationale, such as this one, would it get to stay in the article?

You would have problems with WP:NFCC#8, since we don't need a visual representation of exactly which piece of rubble was blown where. But alternatively, have you considered contacting the copyright holder and asking him to release this image under a free license? See WP:COPYREQ for avoiding common mistakes. --Damiens.rf 15:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion is that it fails #8, mine is that it passes all 10 points. I'm trying to locate the copyright holder - he is active om flickr but I don't have an account there. Mjroots (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Contacting that flickr user is certainly a good idea. If we're lucky he might give us a truly free license on it, which would be best for everybody. If he won't do that and only grants us permission for Wikipedia only, or for non-commercial use only, then it's still non-free, but at least we'd steer clear of NFCC#2, so yes, it would be somewhat better than the BBC image. In that case, the issue of the other NFCCs would have to be reassessed. As I said, I'm also a bit skeptical there, but that's open to discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that such an involved argument needs to be put in order to justify the deletion is proof that it is not clear-cut, as should be the case per WP:SPEEDY: "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." There is obviously reasonable doubt, and the IfD should be allowed to proceed to achieve a consensus. This venue is not a substitute for IfD as it is being treated: it is to examine whether the proper process has been followed, which it has not. If the image should be deleted, then the IfD will establish that outcome. Ty 05:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Natch. This is supposed to be a free encyclopaedia not an excuse to violate commercial copyrights. NFCC neds to be closely adhered to. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. And it needs to be discussed in the IfD as to whether this image meets NFCC, so that is an argument for undeletion. As pointed out above, NFCC does not specifically prohibit press agency images. It also needs to be decided whether this is a violation of copyright. If it is a legitimate fair use, then no copyright violation is involved. The Foundation Licensing policy "permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project". One use is for an image to "illustrate historically significant events". This is not something an admin should unilaterally decide when there is a discussion in place about it, particularly when the discussion is going against the view of that admin, who is at the same time engaging and !voting on similar debates on the very same IfD page. Ty 05:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For information The image was raised at IfD on August 21 but the image was deleted before the IfD discussion had run its full course. General consensus there was to keep the image. Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_21#Image:Chillenden_windmill_blown_down.jpg shows that at the time of the speedy deletion there were 4 users !voting keep and 1 delete. Instead of participating in this debate, as he had with some other similar debates on the same IfD page, Future Perfect decided to circumvent the process and impose his view with admin tools. This DRV is not about deciding whether the image should be kept or not: it is clear that there are differences of opinion on that, and IfD is the venue for those opinions to be examined in detail. This DRV is about whether it was right that an admin should perform an action in this way. Those opposing undeletion need to address this issue. Ty 11:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You insist on head-counting, but the closing admin is supposed to weight arguments. The nomination was concerning the use of an image proceduced by a commercial news source, but none of the keep arguments addressed the matter raised by the nomination, even with a legible NOTICE on the nomination warning about this common mistake. MBisanz's argument for keep was that the image "would not be replaceable", what was a complete no-issue. Mjroots's argument was also about the inexistence of a free alternative and the impossibility to "recreate the exact image". How does this address the concerns raised by the nomination? Tyrenius's vote was just a recitation that the image meets WP:NFCC" with no further explanation, other than a link to a talk he started (and concluded nothing of interest). Nyttend's vote was an attack on the nominator (yours truly) that he pasted on almost every other image on that IFD page. Any admin would be right to ignore these head-counts. --Damiens.rf 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the IfD should have continued - to look into these points. See Wikipedia:An/i#Action_to_be_taken_on_Consensus_violations. Ty 00:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are those of us who say NFCC is met, and some say it isn't - restoration of the image and a new discussion is in order...Modernist (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Damiens.rf. --Kbdank71 13:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Unless I'm missing something the purpose of a deletion review is to establish whether policy was correctly followed. In this case an image was CSD before an IFD was completed, i.e. the policy wasn't correctly followed. I'd suggest overturn and allow the IFD to be completed. 217.41.55.225 (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - L.A. Times v. Free Republic would suggest that no fair use rationale could be crafted for reproducing press content in its entirety, which would make this a valid speedy. The presence of an XfD does not prevent a valid speedy from being speedied. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no comparison between this case and the one you cite. Free Republic was reproducing whole articles en masse. This is just a small part of the original article on the BBC site. This is also why the speedy deletion citing WP:NFC I6 is invalid and shows the difference between a press (as in photo) agency and a broadcaster. The agency's sole output is the photo. In the case of the BBC article, the photo was a small part of the output, which was mostly the text in their article. Ty 00:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The work in question was a photograph. We are reproducing it in its entirety, and therefore derpiving the BBC of its ability to re-sell the image, if in fact it was an image taken by the BBC. I see no reason to distinguish between the BBC's News & Current Affairs department and any other journalistic body. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 August 2008[edit]

Image:Lloyd Richards – Deletion endorsed. – Chick Bowen 02:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meets all requirements for Fair Use Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin's note: image originally deleted was Image:Lloyd Richards.jpg. Speedy deletion under NFCC#2/CSDI7, for being from a commercial news source. Was re-uploaded immediately after first deletion without attempt at discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at IfD. I very much doubt that a low res image adversely affects a news agency's commercial rights WP:NFCC#2. Now whether it meets the WP:NFC#Images#6 guideline is up to users to decide at an IfD. RMHED (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Images were used a mere two years ago in the New York Times. It seems to me this is well within their commercial lifetimes. Nandesuka (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, blatant violation of NFCC 2 and probably don't meet 1 or 8 either. The requesting user is also encouraged to follow the instruction on this page to discuss matters with the deleting admin before listing here, although it probably would not have accomplished anything in this specific case. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirm own deletion, as per Nandesuka and Stifle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; deleted as a WP:POINT violation. No point in discussion with deleting admin as said admin has made it clear he will not take any interest in such discussion. This image may or may not meet fair use criteria but knowing deleting admin's track record significant doubt is likely to exist. Restore and relist if necessary. --John (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Lew Anderson.jpg – Endorsed. NFCC#2 is fairly clear on this sort of thing. As for the WP:POINT allegation, no evidence was provided that the deletion was made for any reason other than a good faith interpretation of policy. – Chick Bowen 02:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleting admin's note: image originally deleted was Image:Lew Anderson.jpg. Speedy deletion under NFCC#2/CSDI7, for being from a commercial news source. Was re-uploaded immediately after first deletion without attempt at discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at IfD. I very much doubt that a low res image adversely affects news agency's commercial rights WP:NFCC#2. Now whether it meets the WP:NFC#Images#6 guideline is up to users to decide at an IfD. RMHED (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. This image is a mere two years old, and was recently used in the New York Times, USA Today, and other publications. That's quite within the lifetime of a commercial photograph, and doesn't fall into the "historical archives" exemption on NFCC#2. Nandesuka (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Nandesuka. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirm own deletion. On reflection and on reading comments made about my actions on ANI, I see no reason to change my opinion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; deleted as a WP:POINT violation. No point in discussion with deleting admin as said admin has made it clear he will not take any interest in such discussion. This image may or may not meet fair use criteria but knowing deleting admin's track record significant doubt is likely to exist. Restore and relist if necessary. --John (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Bo Yibo – Deletion endorsed. Consensus here is that the closer corectly interpreted the NFC criteria. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meets all requirements for Fair Use Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at IfD. I very much doubt that a low res image adversely affects news agency's commercial rights WP:NFCC#2. Now whether it meets the WP:NFC#Images#6 guideline is up to users to decide at an IfD. RMHED (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse — does not appear to meet NFCC 1, 2, or 8. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - already been through IfD (Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_21#Image:Bo190.jpg) and closed in a fairly normal way. Nominator here does not say how the image meets WP fair use requirements and has not given a reason as to why the closing admin's decision was incorrect. Why also has this not been discussed with the closing admin per the instructions at the top of this page ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; deleted as a WP:POINT violation. No point in discussion with deleting admin as said admin has made it clear he will not take any interest in such discussion. This image may or may not meet fair use criteria but knowing deleting admin's track record significant doubt is likely to exist. Restore and relist if necessary. --John (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirm own deletion. It was a commercial news image from Reuters. Deletion meets the spirit and the letter of both WP:NFC and WP:CSD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse IFD policies were followed just fine. I looked up one Getty image, and for a 200x300 thumbnail they wanted $300 for a two-year license. They are clearly in the business of licensing low-res photos. This fails WP:NFCC2. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; inappropriate deletions? for the community's view on this. --John (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Max Grün – restore all as contested PRODs. Please add sources to the articles, or they may be nominated for deletion. – –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has now played professionally, in the 3. Liga. [7] Also applies to Alexander Benede, Marco Höferth, Marco Stier and Stefan Rieß. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You will get those articles recreated, I have yet to see sports fans lose one. Still, those are non-notable soccer players, that fact will likely produce low quality articles but since they are under the protection of the WP:ATHLETE the articles will stay.

A side note, just for soccer players there are over 30,000 articles, all very notable indeed. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a widespread fallacy among sports fans that the guideline which says that players at a certain level are likely to have the kind of coverage that allows us ot have an article, means that all players at that level must have an article regardless of the existence of reliable independent sources. Funny, really. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These were all PRODs, so strictly they should be restored on request. Stifle (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

New Cold War – Deletion endorsed. There is certainly no consensus below that Coren's closure of the AfD was incorrect. Weighing up the arguments below, and partly discounting those who are arguing AfD pass 2, the balance is that significantly on the side of keeping the article deleted and endorsing the closure. – Peripitus (Talk) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted as original research by the closing admin (under CSD G6), when the result of the discussion was no consensus for delete. I believe the closing admin substituted his judgment for that of the nearly fifty participants in the discussion. I understand that the job of closing a deletion discussion is to weigh arguments not based on quantity but based on our policies, but as best as I can tell, four participants raised concerns with synthesis or original research (two of which came in very late in the process, about three hours prior to close). Meanwhile, at least four others felt it was strongly sourced and cited. That's out of at least 46 participants. I don't believe in tallies for determining outcome, but I do believe it can help gauge whether or not any consensus has been reached: by my count 21 participants advocated for keep or some variant thereof, while 26 advocated for delete or some variant thereof. Certainly, I think many people, including myself (as the first editor of the article) and the nominator for deletion, believed there was no consensus for delete. user:j (aka justen) 16:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and close as no consensus. As J said, the OR concerns were a very small minority; further, Coren seems to have completely missed the discussion between myself and csloat regarding the improvement of the article on the talk page of the AfD. I said from the very beginning that AfD was completely incorrect for the article; with all the sources provided, it should have been made into a list, nothing more than a glorified disambig page, detailing the various usages of the term through the decades. GlassCobra 18:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, Coren's reasoning looks sound to me. Discussion of possible "new cold wars" does not amount to any kind of authority for the existence of a term "new cold war" or any scholarly conensus as to how it might be defined. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; as closer. I've reexamined the evidence to see if I missed some substantive argument, to no avail. All of the keeps were based on the fact that the phrase was found in use on the web and in the media. "New movies" gets 98 million ghits and is used a myriad times in the media, that does not mean there should be an article with that title either. The phrase is used constructively, by multiple independent entities and for dozens of different meanings. It's not even a neologism: it's a politically loaded catchphrase with no set meaning; any article on the topic is doomed to be original research, no matter how fancy and cleaned up. — Coren ^(talk) 18:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside to the vote counters out there: I did simply discount the keeps that were based on "I've seen it in the media/in a book title" as they do not address the primary problem of original synthesis. — Coren ^(talk) 18:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I've always believed that there was consensus to delete, User:J is quoting a deleted statement that doesn't reflect my views or opinions on the matter.
Of course User:J violated WP:OR, he wrote an essay arguing that the new Cold War had arrived, that essay was created by putting together bits of News articles.
Coren, the closing administrator made a correct judgement. The entire Background section of that imaginary, undefined, unrecognized war was invented, literally invented.
The keepers argued that the essay was sourced and also that the term new Cold War was notable by itself, since it has many different meanings. That argument doesn't address the serious violations of the WP:OR and WP:SYN policies. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 18:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was no basis for this deletion in any deletion criteria. There was a lot of good reasoning for having it modified but the subject of a New Cold War is just as legitimate as an article on World War III or the New Great Game. The arguments given against it were not sufficient arguments for deletion and it seems Coren even conceded as much by not even bringing up the neologism or crystal nonsense put forward by those advocating deletion. AfD isn't there so an admin can wait five days, jump in, give their own opinion, and delete an article based on their own inklings. If that were the case there wouldn't even be a need for discussion. The article was flawed no doubt, but the subject was perfectly legitimate. No need to delete that which can be improved. It seems however that some people just weren't willing to give it a chance.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't bring the "neologism" argument up because the phrase isn't even worthy of the term: it's not a new term for some concept, it's a strictly constructive phrase with no set meaning. You have not addressed how "improving" the article could be done in a way that is not original research (which, I should remind you, is the reason why neologisms aren't acceptable either). — Coren ^(talk) 20:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a strong set meaning, across dozens of reliable sources. Here's an article from The Nation, in 2005, titled "The Media's New Cold War" (referring to Russia). Here's an article from the Washington Post in 2006, titled "Russian Media Warn of New Cold War." You have your opinion on the matter, but that opinion wasn't supported with consensus from the deletion debate. Which is why your close needs to be overturned. user:j (aka justen) 20:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No phrase or term has a single definition, but one thing which could certainly be agreed is the present-day take of a new cold war is going to be almost entirely referring to something between the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. and China, or the U.S. and both. There are also several sources which talk of this situation matter-of-factly as a New Cold War. Some examples in reference to Georgia: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] and one that's a litte more interesting: [15]
    I said before that I do not like the term "New Cold War", but I don't like the term "Cold War" either. However, this has gotten sufficient notable coverage that to delete the article is simply ridiculous. You can't simply ignore books, articles, and chattering pundits talking about a new cold war with Russia not just for the past few weeks, but past few years. There are clearly a lot of issues here well beyond simply Georgia as some deletion advocates said. This dispute over the Arctic resources, the talk of Russian military in Cuba or Venezuela, the missile defense dispute, and now this conflict in Georgia have all had people talking about a new cold war. Also, no argument given in the AfD did anything to address the basic issue of notability and verifiability. Clearly both criteria were satisfied and no other sufficient criteria for deletion existed. Your argument about original research doesn't satisfy as the subject itself was not original research and did not require original research for substance. You can't delete an article on the basis that it contains original research, that's an argument for improvement. The subject itself was not original research and had ample verifiability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those sources simply mention the term "new Cold War" informally and only once. Those sources don't attempt to even define the term and don't treat the term with seriousness. Coren has a point when he writes: "unless someone brings up reliable sources discussing the use of the phrase, as opposed to simply using the phrase itself in yet another new context." ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 16:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Although the article was extremely well written, interesting, and I am certainly reluctant to see it deleted, wikipedia is not a primary source for synthesized material. I suggest the author submit it to one of many online magazines for publication, I think many would be glad to have it. It is patently unsuitable for Wikipedia, however, and therefore Coren closed this discussion appropriately. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The closer seemed to impose his own opinion of the matter rather than following the discussion in which there was clearly no consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, by the way, that the phrase New Cold War is quite irrelevant to this since, per WP:NEO, if the title is ambiguous or otherwise unclear, we can readily move to another title such as Russo-American relations in the early 21st century or the like. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a totally different article; feel free to start it. This article is about "new cold war," which could refer to any number of things (I have listed at least ten during the discussion), which is why the deletion was warranted. csloat (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yet more sources explicitly calling this a New Cold War proving the argument about original research or not having notability is flawed: [16] [17] [18] [19] This one is actually referring to Litvinenko, not Georgia or any of the other issues. [20] [21] A poll showing most Americans believe there is likely to be a new cold war. Also a comment from the former Georgian President saying there is a New Cold War which started over missile defense. I think all of these sources pretty much obliterate most of the arguments given in favor of deletion since several of these not only say there is a new cold war but that it was the case before the recent developments in Georgia, including one source connecting it to the New Great Game. When one considers the debate in several areas brought up constantly in various situations, in fact here's another source on that very debate showing it was a topic months before the conflict, it's hard to imagine how there could have been any justification for deleting the article. The broad scope of the debate itself suggests it is a subject deserving of an article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That "New Great Game" article is one big WP:SYN violation. It should be the next AfD. csloat (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I went ahead and listed it for deletion; folks here should join what promises to be yet another fun-filled discussion about the principles of original research and synthesis. csloat (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Even the person who nominated it was convinced by the evidence submitted during the discussion, and tried to withdraw the afd. The number of books cited was more than sufficient to fully establish the notability of the subject. The closing was overinfluenced by the delete comments at the beginning. I think the article title might need some clarification, butt hat's another matter. DGG (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not true, I've always been convinced that there was consensus to delete and I never tried to withdraw the AfD.
  I did try to offer a compromise solution so that there would be no losers or winners, not only was I ignored, the offer was read as a sign of weakness of my position. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected; you didn't withdraw the AfD, you stated you would accept other things than deletion. I apparently misread, giving you credit for recognizing the massive evidence supporting the use of the term in political science in contexts other than Ossetia. DGG (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - DGG, I should point out that you've just shot your own argument in the foot. With a 12-gauge no less. The phrase is used in a lot of contexts, meaning all sorts of different things— that means that any article on one of those use is is necessarily original research, and thus verbotten— unless someone brings up reliable sources discussing the use of the phrase, as opposed to simply using the phrase itself in yet another new context. — Coren ^(talk) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - on the contrary, my argument is for the expansion of the article to express a broader viewpoint--the opposite of deletion. As the following arguments show, others seem to have understood this. DGG (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Clearly, there was no consensus to delete. The closing admin gives the following rationale: "This isn't a New Cold War of set meaning (even as a neologism), but several allusions or parallels drawn to new Cold Wars.".. Few to none of this AfD participants actually suggested this. People have written books about New Cold war, this is not "an allusion". There is a significant literature about the "New Cold War", which is simply a growing confrontation between Russia and the West, according to the main meaning of the expression. Surprisingly, this article has been deleted exactly at the moment of the second Russian-Georgian war, which marks the beginning of the "New Cold War" according to many observers.Biophys (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like there was an editing conflict earlier. user:j (aka justen) 02:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The assertion that we are experiencing a New Cold War is ludicrous, since there is no definition or consensus among historians or political analystis.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for this Cold War to have books written about it because it has has as background the 2008 South Ossetia war that happened 3 weeks ago.
The definition and the background of this New Cold War were created entirely by User:J, they don't exist anywhere else because the war itself doesn't exist.
It's very hard to move on if the issues regarding "original research" are not dealt with or even acknowledged. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I gotta point out the numerous flaws with your argument, partly because many calling for deletion used similar arguments:
  1. The article did not claim the New Cold War was an actual occurring event but that some have considered these events as an indication it is.
  2. The Russia-Georgia conflict is not the only background to this article, far from it. As I pointed out this idea has been around for a while sparked by other events like the dispute over the Arctic, the spread of NATO, the West's backing of Kosovo's declaration of independence, the American missile defense system, the assassination of Litvinenko, and Russia's attempt to monopolize natural resources as well as using those resources for political purposes.
  3. The original research claim only applies if the subject of the article itself is original research or synthesis. If the article merely has original research in it but the subject itself is both verifiable and notable then original research is only a case for improvements, not deletion.
  Your argument for deletion was inadequate and Coren's argument was as well. I admittedly did not review all the sources used to see what specifically they said, however if they were not good sources that is not an argument for deletion, but for getting better sources and there are plenty of sources to back this subject up. Ultimately the article itself did not conflict with any policy on Wikipedia and did not satisfy the deletion criteria. Considering this deletion happened only days after the article was created I think this is a basic case of editors not giving an article a chance.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1- "The article did not claim the New Cold War was an actual occurring event"...
    So Wikipedia had an article about a war that may not exist. This war could be occurring or not, we just don't know it yet...but just in case, we created an article about it.
    That's why that article violates the WP:OR policy, this conflict is not confirmed.
    2- I disagree, I read the background it focused on the Ossetian War of 2008 as a starting to this "new" conflict.
    3- I disagree, it is impossible to write an article about the "New Cold War" without violating the WP:OR because "New Cold War" is not a defined concept. He could have written the article Post Cold War tensions between Russia and Nato but he ignored that offer. His WP:OR violating essay would have been digested there. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 20:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1. So I take it your next target for deletion is the article for World War III? The article doesn't claim there's a New Cold War because presently that is a matter of dispute. Several have said there is a New Cold War and several has said there isn't. Others have said we are heading towards one. The back and forth discussion makes the subject notable.
      2. Apparently you didn't read the background or you didn't read it very well. It was pretty clear that the conflict in Georgia was one of many things being cited to claim there was a New Cold War. It also cited the missile defense systems and issues over oil and gas. I don't remember everything cited, but I know there was more still.
      3. It is a defined concept actually. It is simply a concept with multiple definitions but one commonality is that the modern-day usage of such a term is almost universally meant to be some form of new global struggle as a successor to the Cold War particular a struggle with some major power like Russia or China. You can keep chirping OR, but it's nonsense since I've already provided ample evidence that there are numerous reliable sources which could be cited in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Simply because the article was "strongly sourced" does not give it a free pass to be kept, see WP:SYN. And even looking at all the news articles and speculation, it seems that the columnists themselves do not even have a consensus on whether there is a "New Cold War" going on. Many of the articles include a question mark after the phrase for example. To quote from one of them: Unfortunately, there appear to be plenty of people in the West who are now arguing for a new Cold War. They have fallen into the trap of believing that Putin is the new Hitler and Georgia the new Czechoslovakia, so “the West must make a stand”. ([22]) In addition, many other articles seem to oppose this idea, such as this one from the Salt Lake Tribune titled, "Despite Georgian-Russian conflict, new Cold War unlikely". Another example: While politicians sometimes talk of a new Cold War, none seems on the horizon. ([23]). Why don't we wait until there is an academic consensus on what the exact definition of the word is, and whether it's actually happening or not. I don't see any evidence of most experts agreeing here. For now, why don't we take Condi's advice and not jump the gun here. Khoi khoi 09:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the very fact it is so widely discussed suggests it is a subject notable enough in reliable sources to justify having an article on it. Something popularly speculated on, but not actually in existence or generally agreed upon can still be considered worthy of an article. No one's actually terra-formed a planet or colonized the Moon, but it's still a notable subject of discussion worthy of an article, so is this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the article is about the term applied to 2008 South Ossetia war. There is no way to ensure the term will be applied the same way in a few months (and especially years) time. As shown by csloat the term was used to describe many entire different things before. Just now we have a neologism and no way to ensure that it will be ever notable. We do not have a crystal ball to see if the term will be ever notable in future. It was shown quite clear on AFD Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close as no consensus. Clearly there was no consensus for deletion. The OR concerns advanced by a handful of people can be solved by improving the article rather than deleting it. Hobartimus (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus), let interested editors sort it out, and relist in a couple of months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was as clear a "no consensus" as I've seen in awhile. I'm growing weary of administrators simply imposing their own view in deletion discussions, instead of simply measuring where consensus is in the given discussion. Extra buttons do not give administrators extra rights not possessed by other editors. What this closing admin essentially did is count their recommendation as outweighing all the others who posted there and failed to reach consensus. This is unacceptable, and should be overturned. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the validity of the arguments? If all that is required is a consensus then this article is going to be kept simply because editors want to, no rationale required.
  One can now create an article titled Cold War II, get keepers claiming "notability" and "fully sourced", drive the debate to a "no-consensus", interpret as such and keep the article. This is what happened.
  User:J and others were counting on at least a "no-consensus" result, that's why all the compromise offers that corrected the WP:OR issue were ignored.
  Did Coren delete that article for the wrong reasons? That's the important question. Once again, unless the "original research" issues are recognized we will go in circles. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 20:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue specifically here at Deletion Review is whether User:Coren closed the deletion discussion properly and accurately. Many recognize the outcome of the discussion was that there was no consensus for delete, hence this deletion review. This isn't the best place to rehash the deletion discussion. user:j (aka justen) 20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, what I did is follow the principle guiding XfD: namely that policy trumps head counts, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.". — Coren ^(talk) 20:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue is that a number of editors disagree with your assertion that the article is original research; headcount isn't the issue here. What is the issue is that you seem to believe that your opinion that the article was original research trumps anybody else's opinion that it is not original research. I believe you have essentially said here, now, that you closed the AfD not based on the consensus there but based on your own personal opinion of the article. That's a problem. user:j (aka justen) 20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really? They did? Excellent, then you should have no problem giving a single reliable source that discusses "New Cold War" as a defined concept, as opposed to simply use the phrase as a rhetorical device? No? Odd. Strangely enough, pointing at original research and saying "not original research" is not an argument. In fact, I've just reread the AfD discussion and not a single editor has advanced that this was not original research; indeed 18 of the keeps were simply stating "notability" because media or book titles have used the phrase. How is this "dispute that this is original research"? — Coren ^(talk) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "No? Odd." I think dismissive rhetoric is not quite the best posture to take, but do as you will. You don't seem open to recognizing your error here, and this isn't the place to discuss your reasons for deletion; that place would have been the AfD, which you erroneously closed based on your own disputed opinion (an opinion that simply wasn't supported in that discussion). Nevertheless, I'd suggest you take a look at The Nation article entitled "The Media's New Cold War" or the Washington Post's article entitled "Russian Media Warn of New Cold War." If you want to debate your opinions on those ~~articles~~ sources, though, I'd suggest you take it up at a future AfD for the article. user:j (aka justen) 21:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It appears you define "error" as "not what I wanted". It is pointless to discuss under those conditions. The close was good, and this DRV is now veering into the (lack of) merit of the article— something for which this is not the proper venue. — Coren ^(talk) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Really now if it was 100% delete opinions but none of the deletion criteria were justified then any deletion review would ultimately note that criteria were not satisfied. That's all that's being done here, pointing out the criteria for deletion were not satisfied. I've actually given about a dozen sources so far showing several articles that not only treated it as a defined concept, but actually treated it as a fact on the ground. You can go back and forth claiming there was no consensus about whether there is a New Cold War, but an article shouldn't be deleted because the subject itself is disputed. Many Wikipedia articles exist on disputed subjects, often times the dispute itself justifies having an article. In this case pointing out various sources saying there isn't a New Cold War does not establish any basis for deletion, in fact, it's basically an argument in favor of keeping the article. Clearly the subject of a New Cold War is notable enough to be a matter of discussion by high-ranking politicians, media pundits, and books. Also I've already pointed out several books that while New Cold War is not in their title, still deal with the subject of a New Cold War. In other words your justification for deletion and Economicst's argument for it are both shaky and just plain wrong. It is not appropriate behavior to impose your opinion on the rest of the community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- Coren's argument that the article constitutes original research as "the phrase is semantically transparent" [24] is completely without merit, since there is a general consensus that it is acceptable to have articles concerning words or phrases which are susceptible to multiple meanings and are construed on the basis of the context in which they appear, provided that each meaning for which we have an article is notable. For instance, we don't have users clamoring for the deletion of Technicolor, Technicolor (physics), and Technicolour by means of an absurd claim that since the word might refer to a photographic process, a particle physics theory, a band, or who knows what else, it actually has no meaning at all. Given that the term "New Cold War" has been used innumerable times in reference to contemporary US-Russian-Chinese relations by the many reliable sources cited in this very deletion review discussion, the assertion that the article somehow constitutes original research is absurd -- one might as well claim that our article on Technicolor (physics) is "original research" because "the article is an interpretation of current usage" of the term "technicolor" in particle physics literature. This deletion should be overturned not merely because there was no consensus for such an action, but because Coren's closing argument was fundamentally flawed. John254 00:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, per reasoning I already gave little more than a day ago. Coren's close was a good one, and justified by both the discussion and wiki policy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; at the end of the day, this comes down to WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse deletion; this whole article is a gross WP:SYN violation. There was clear consensus in the discussion for deletion despite the fact that a few of those arguing for keeping were more shrill than the rest of us. Besides the SYN problem, there is the problem that the article title has no proper referent. At one point in the discussion I posted the results of my research into scholarly uses of the phrase. I only listed the books with titles that included the phrase "New Cold War," and even that extremely limited search turned up ten totally different uses of the expression. These different uses varied from describing US intervention in central America to describing tension between China and the former Soviet Uniion, to discussing terrorism and religious nationalism. I pressed those who supported keeping the article to provide at least one single peer reviewed scholarly source that used the phrase as something more than a sensationalistic catchphrase and nobody could do it. So there is no evidence of any agreed upon usage of "new cold war" in academia. Besides all this, there is a severe problem that the article is being used as a crystal ball and a soapbox for a particular political perspective. I have seen this problem before where users create what amounts to an original essay out of a synthesis of various articles that they use to soapbox a particular point of view. That is simply put not the purpose of an encyclopedia. csloat (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are different uses for many phrases and terms. That doesn't constitute an argument for deletion. Also crystal ball did not apply there and Coren should have understood this to be the case. As far as soapbox I fail to see how it was so, though I presume this involves some nonsense about hawkish neocons. All the things cited in the article have been identified as being aspects of a New Cold War. If the sources failed to verify this then you need only look at sources I've provided here to see this does not mean the claims were not verifiable. Beyond that all the information was provided in an objective manner which does not suggest a POV. Considering your arguments here constitute the bulk of deletion calls I think that provides a very clear indication there was not a consensus for delete as your arguments are easily debunked by merely looking at the article and examining the subject. Far from there being non consensus I think it's clear there was a consensus for keep as all deletion arguments showed an underlying ignorance of deletion criteria, the article, and the subject itself. I can only assume this happens because people browse the AfD area and insert their opinion haphazaradly after making swift evaluations of the arguments and skimming the article, perhaps only reading the introduction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, crystal ball did apply, as well as WP:SYN and several other arguments that have been discussed to death by now. The bottom line is that the sources don't support this as a notable category itself; what they show is that it is a sensational catchphrase that can be used for various different meanings. This has nothing to do with "hawkish neocons" that I am aware of. It is actually most of the "keep" arguments that showed an ignorance of our deletion criteria (and of our policies here generally), which is why many of them were appropriately ignored by the closing administrator. And I agree with you that people browse haphazardly and don't read carefully before voting; a lot of such readers voted "keep." csloat (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - the most recent vote (from someone who didn't even participate on the original AfD) on this page is a case in point of what I mean). csloat (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that this is not a second deletion discussion; this review is specifically to determine whether or not User:Coren closed the deletion discussion correctly, reflecting the consensus (or lack thereof) that was (or was not) determined during the deletion discussion. user:j (aka justen) 23:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right -- let me be more clear then: I strongly endorse Coren's closure of the deletion discussion with the result of delete, which strongly reflected the preponderance of actual arguments discussed during the deletion discussion. It also was the decision most consistent with Wikipedia policy, as I noted above. Excellent work, Coren. csloat (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the bold from your comment here, lest it be mistaken for a separate opinion on the matter. I'm sure neither of us would want a mistake of that magnitude to occur. ;) (As a side note, and in all sincerity, it may be helpful to move your comments here into your comments above, for the benefit of the closer of this review?) Take care, user:j (aka justen) 23:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. In determining consensus, the closing admin is supposed to evaluate arguments and not just count votes. Per the instructions, arguments that amount to likeit/don'tlikeit should be ignored. Whether arguments represent valid interpretations of policy should be considered. Often a decision must be made whether an article can plausibly be brought within policy, and the admin must make that call. Creation of a dab page (pointing to particular books or article sections) with the title of a deleted article is not generally treated as recreation of the deleted page, so is not forestalled by the deletion decision. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but did you even read anything that's been said? The argument for overturning this deletion is that the admin's reason for deletion was not in keeping with policy. The editor who deleted the article actually said above that he/she did so after discounting arguments saying the subject was discussed in newspapers and articles. In other words, this editor basically admitted to discounting arguments given on the verifiability and notability of the subject. That completely contradicts established policy. Verifiability and notability of a subject is always a reason for keeping an article and should always be taken into consideration. This fact alone suggests the deletion was completely invalid.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assiduously read everything that has been said in both the original deletion debate and in this review, hence my opinion. The deletion was within process. Original research that uses verifiable sources is good quality original research, but it is still not what Wikipedia does. As for notability, the term has no set meaning, none of which are particularly notable. One should not take uses of a term to mean X and use them to establish the notability of a term to mean Y. That is what I take "semantically transparent" to mean. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Title of ABC News front page / Associated Press article today: Russia "Not Afraid’ of a New Cold War. Whether anyone thinks we're really in a "cold war" or not, even as a concept, a "new cold war" is part of the mainstream reliable sources lexicon and scrutiny.[25] And oh yes, there was no clear consensus to delete. --Oakshade (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, the article mentions "new Cold War" it doesn't define the concept of "New Cold War".
  "Cold War" is a state of affairs per wordnet.princeton.edu "a state of political hostility between countries using means short of armed warfare."
  So basically the term new Cold War means a new state of political hostility and not Cold War II.
  Not even this "new state of political hostility" has been confirmed or become consensus among political analysts. That's why it was offered to TransWiki the term,
  Why not create the article Post Cold War tensions between Russia and NATO? We are trying to create sensation and awe with an article entitled as New Cold War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EconomistBR (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 August 2008
Comment. At the enormous risk of sounding like a broken record, please remember that this is not a second deletion discussion. This review is specifically and exclusively to discuss the accuracy of the closure. There is no need to debate notability or prominence; the only issue here is whether or not User:Coren was correct in his determination that there was a consensus to delete or a case of original research which could only be cured by deletion. user:j (aka justen) 14:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What was the use of any of this? The article has already been recreated.
  I give up, two weeks wasted is too much time.
  ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 15:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pointing out the subject is notable and verifiable considering those are the two major things to look at when making a deletion decision is legitimate. Fact is Coren actually admitted to ignoring arguments for notability and verifiability when making the decision and those were the majority of the arguments for keeping the article. Furthermore pointing out that in spite of what was contained in the article ample sources exist to support the notability and verifiability of the subject also serves as legitimate in deletion review.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. My concerns are undoubtedly fairly obvious through my comments above. The article was not synthesis, was not composed of original research, and it was on a notable topic. With all that in mind, I find it interesting that, thus far, 12 out of 24 participants in this review are presumably uninvolved in this dispute and did not participate in the AfD. Among the 12 "involved" of us, I think this has become a second deletion discussion, exactly mirroring the result of the original AfD: no consensus. Among those 12 uninvolved participants here, though, the picture is a bit clearer: eight have !voted to overturn, while four have !voted to endorse. Of the four endorsing, each shared the closing administrator's view that the article contained synthesis. Of the eight advocating the decision being overturned, several expressed, in very strong words, their disagreement with that assertion and their belief that the closing administrator substituted his opinion for the lack of consensus at the deletion discussion. I believe this deletion (and, hopefully, undeletion) process has been contentious and unnecessarily complicated, but it is what it is. I hope and expect that the administrator who closes this review will look closely at the viewpoints expressed here, and reach the same conclusion I have, that there was no consensus for delete reached in that original discussion and that the closing should be overturned as such. user:j (aka justen) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC) updated: 15:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn- Plenty of sources going back several years. Its a valid topic for an article, and it seems competently written and adequately sourced. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I admit to being biased, having been one of the people calling for deletion. But in all honesty, I can't see anything wrong with Coren's actions, procedurally. I would, in fact, welcome the existence of the disambiguation page I proposed, but the decision was taken on the article as written, and seemed fair. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the few days since the Afd several things happened that are relevant to the initial Afd discussion among them Russian president stating "Russia is not afraid of new Cold War" and mountains of articles discussing the prospects of a new Cold War see for example [26] [27] Hobartimus (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that there is a semantic distinction between New Cold War (a proper name) and new Cold War, an adjective plus the existing proper name. If someone were to describe the discussions between Ukraine and Russia as a new Crimean War, that would not justify us in posting an article on some New Crimean War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or consider "New Watergate." That headline appears on a regular basis, referring to the scandal du jour, and has 10K GHits, let alone significant pre-Web usage. Yet, I would oppose an article on the subject, even a list of various usages, as unencyclopedic. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the argument about lower case and upper case is the most ridiculous red herring being trotted out here. The fact is in the post-Cold War era talk or another Cold War is pretty constant with most either putting the opposing power as Russia or China or both. The Cold War part is always capitalized and that's the important part. There many claiming there exists a new international competition on the level of the Cold War or that the world is headed for one. Given the amount of discussion on this subject, it's notable and verifiable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The lower case "n" makes a world of difference. The "new Cold War" the media is mentioning is simply a new "state of political hostility between countries using means short of armed warfare" (Princeton), it doesn't mean Cold War II. Only few articles mention "New Cold War".
        That difference is very important and it will have to be noted and made clear once this article is recreated. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update on sources - A list of only a small percentage of articles about the concept of a "new Cold War" published since the AfD ended.
- Sabina Zawadzki (Aug 28, 2008). "Britain warns Russia on new Cold War". Reuters. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- Emma Alberici (Aug 28, 2008). "Russia warned against new Cold War". ABC News (Australia). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- "Miliband: Medvedev must avoid new Cold War". International Herald Tribune. Aug 28, 2008. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- "Russia 'Must Not Start Cold War'". Sky News. Aug 27, 2008. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- Tom Rivers (Aug 27, 2008). "Britain Urges Russia Not to Start New Cold War". Voice of America. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- Caroline Alexander and Daryna Krasnolutska (Aug 27, 2008). "Russia Must Not Start New Cold War, U.K. Foreign Secretary Says". Bloomberg Television. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- "Replay: Is It A New Cold War?". Sky News. Aug 27, 2008. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- Paul Reynolds (Aug 27, 2008). "Testing for a new 'Cold War' in Crimea". BBC News. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- Patrick Buchanan (Aug 27, 2008). "Pushing Russia Into the Cold". Komsomolskaya Pravda. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- Taras Kuzio (Aug 26, 2008). "Russia takes one step closer to a new Cold War". Kyiv Post. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- Anne Penketh (Aug 28, 2008). "Is the Ukraine the new Cold War front?". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- David Blair (Aug 28, 2008). "Analysis: Should we fear a new Cold War?". Daily Telegraph. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- Anne Johnstone (Aug 28, 2008). "All too easy to drift into a new cold war". The Herald. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- James Hider (Aug 26, 2008). "Dimitri Medvedev raises spectre of new Cold War". The Times. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)--Oakshade (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn- The decision was made far too hastily and stemmed from disagreements over the current situation in Georgia. Certain individuals seem to be following their own agenda, proposing the deletion of these articles on the basis of their individual views and not on the basis of the content of the articles. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a matter for DRV to consider; we are only interested in the conduct of the closing admin. If it were, Justen's massive removal of discussion from the AfD would be at least equally questionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original nomination of both neo and new cold war was made by a user who, for some unfathomable reason, thought, erroneously, that the articles had been created as a result of the current conflict in Ossetia, disregarding attempts to prove otherwise. Despite discussion on the article and possible comprises to deletion due to noteworthy issues raised therein, the discussion was closed before consensus had been reached. The fact that a merge of neo and new cold wars had been proposed not long before the deletion of the new cold war article should also be taken into account, and could have been one of the motives for the hasty decision to delete the article. The merge discussion in itself could have provided a valid basis upon which consensus could have been reached, removing the less notable "Neo Cold War" and merging into the more notable "New Cold War". There were two AfD discussions, and one merge discussion taking place. Consensus should have been reached on all three issues, as they cover one and the same. The admin has acted hastily and with poor judgement, seeking not to reach consensus or a closure of discussions, let alone comprise, but simply remove these articles from Wikipedia. This entire situation has been mismanaged from the start. I would strongly suggest replacing the article and resuming discussion on both deletion and merge with neo CW, as well as merging the different discussions and deletions into one. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as a reasonable conclusion from the discussion. The major alternatives discussed were transwikiing (my preference) and conversion into a dab page, but both can still be done; the page is not salted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, you believe there was a clear consensus to delete from that deletion discussion? user:j (aka justen) 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sufficiently clear to be within the range of admin discretion. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. Many keep !votes were solely based on the opinion that there is a New Cold War, without evidence; some, as some here, disregard elementary English syntax or WP:SYNTH. No consensus might also have been defensible; but it is not mandatory. If it had been no consensus, I would not have come here; but I would have considered renomination. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think what you've just recognized is the key problem: if you concede there was the reasonable and (at least on your part) uncontestable possibility the deletion discussion could have been interpreted and closed as no consensus, then I believe that's quite incompatible with it being closed as it was. The synthesis argument was argued by a small minority of the participants, and was dismissed out of hand: synthesis requires using a source to make assertion alpha, and a source to make assertion beta, and then inserting unsourced assertion charlie (as original research). The article didn't do that: every single assertion was sourced. The problem here is that a "no consensus" deletion discussion was closed based on an error in "admin[istrator] discretion." If you believe there is the possibility that the deletion discussion could have been reasonably interpreted either way, I think you're missing the point of exactly what "no consensus" means. user:j (aka justen) 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are mistaken on what WP:SYNTH is. Saying A (sourced) and B (sourced) in such a way as to lead the reader to conclude C (unsourced, and with no evidence that the sources for A and B would agree) is synthesis; indeed, the paragraph began with an example which did that. It is sufficient that it "expresses [your] opinion"; how it does so is secondary.
        You are still more mistaken on what consensus is. If we required that there be no possible argument that it wasn't consensus, we might as well require unanimity, or the liberum veto, which would reduce WP "from a juridical anomaly into a farce", as one historian of the Austrian Empire desribed its last days. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). This was within reasonable admin discretion. At time of deletion, the page was a self-evident dictionary definition that "New Cold War is a phrase used by the media to describe" followed by several different descriptions all of which boiled down to 'a recent conflict that is similar to the last Cold War'. The sources provided in the discussion and here document that the phrase is used - but no one is disputing that point. The relevant question is whether any of the sources are substantive enough to be the basis of a proper encyclopedia article that does not cross the line into original research. Reviewing the sources makes it clear that unlike Cold War, there is not yet consensus on what the "new Cold War" is, who it's with or anything useful. (In particular, the sources do not support the assertion made above that "new Cold War" is a term with a settled definition or scope.) Right now, it's nothing more than a catchphrase being used by journalists. There might be enough here to support a Wiktionary entry but not a Wikipedia article. Rossami (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only is there enough reliable sources (hundreds, actually) on the concept of a "new Cold War" to write an article, already Mark MacKinnon's entire recent book The New Cold War has been written on the subject. --Oakshade (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That (as the AfD brought out) is one of many books and papers, which have been written on many subjects, using that title. For example, MacKinnon's book is about the color revolutions, as should be obvious from its subtitle; the deleted article had no place for them. The article was always purely verbal; that's why it belongs on Wiktionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not finding any reliable sources on this concept (much less the "hundreds" alleged). Many sources (including that one) use this phrase but not as a single consistent or coherent topic. What we have are hundreds of examples of journalists using a catchphrase to draw attention to their topic du jour. Mere examples of usage of a word or phrase is not, all by itself, evidence that we can write an encyclopedia article on a topic. I'm sorry but no change of opinion at this time. Rossami (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* Endorse deletion & Coren's closing rationale.
This "new Cold War" is a mere rhetorical expression; a comparison, a parallel, and a simplistic attention-generating hyperbole. As such, it may merit a single-sentence mention in an article on "West"-Russia relations after the fall of Communism, and nothing more.
In principle, an encyclopedic article could be written about this expression's usage — provided some serious publications -academic ones, not your odd book or newspaper article- have analyzed the usage itself.
The deleted article went beyond a dictionary definition (Wiktionary is that way) to include an original synthesis of different press articles & books. It even started with "The New Cold War^[1] is a term" (notice the capitalized proper name), while the BBC News article used as reference (with the clear title of 'Cold war' comparisons on Georgia, 16 August 2008 - mmhh... 'Cold War' comparisons... I'm so tempted to start a fine Allegations of Cold War series-) mentioned perceptions of a "new Cold War", or a "Cold War-style" face off, and a reporter cautioning against Cold War comparisons. — All comparisons, parallels, and simplistic attention-generating hyperbole in non others than The Sun and the Daily Mail.
Regards, Ev (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems some people here aren't paying attention to the central issue. There is no criteria for deletion that mentions a subject not having a single clear definition or starting with lower case in common media mentions. Really, all criteria for deletion stem from notability. To this extent the statement of the deleting admin here should be considered:
I did simply discount the keeps that were based on "I've seen it in the media/in a book title" as they do not address the primary problem of original synthesis.
If you look at the AfD this basically means Coren discounted nearly all of the arguments given for keeping the article. What's more noting something's usage in the media and literature constitutes an argument for a subject's verifiable notability using reliable sources. In other words, the arguments Coren discounted are arguing for what is basically the key issue in any deletion decision, the notability of the subject. Coren ignores an argument on the key basis for article deletion and instead deleted it by citing a problem with the article. I do not like the term "New Cold War" myself, but I recognized rather clearly that this was a notable subject which could be verified by reliable sources. As such the article met all the crucial criteria for inclusion. The argument of the original nominator was that it constitued a crystal ball or neologism, both of which were seriously flawed as it is not a neologism and it was not making a predicition or even asserting something as fact. Most argument for deletion reiterated this argument or made irrelevant statements about it not having a single clear definition, which ignores the notability of the subject itself. One thing which is commonly agreed is the idea of a large global struggle following the Cold War has been a matter of frequent discussion with several considering there to be one ongoing and others arguing that such a situation doesn't exist. As such it constitutes notability solely by the matter of it being widely discussed. This argument was given on several occasions, but apparently ignored and Coren did not address they key issue of whether the subject itself was notable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be very clear, in my comment above I am explicitly endorsing the closer's decision to discount those opinions. The relevant question is not whether the phrase exists - lots of words and phrases exist. The only relevant question is whether an encyclopedia article can be written on the subject. The concept as you define it above (any "large global struggle following the Cold War") is too diffuse to substantiate a properly sourced article. None of the other sources presented are able to substantiate a prospective article either in my opinion. There is no single subject behind this catchphrase at this time. Of course, that may change in a few years. We'll have to wait and see. Rossami (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Devil's Advocate mischaracterizes deletion policy by attempting to boil it all down to notability. Wikipedia:Deletion policy enumerates fifteen criteria, and states that these are not an exclusive list. Of the enumerated reasons, eleven can sensibly apply to articles in mainspace, and only one of those involves notability. Others include WP:NOT, content forking and articles that contain prohibited syntheses. In this case, the administrator found that trying to cover every meaning of "N/new Cold War" would render the article an indiscriminate collection of information, while concentrating on one meaning would give one view undue weight. Moreover, the fact that it uses sources that talk about a Russian-China "new Cold War" to support a thesis on a Russian-American "New Cold War" makes it original research. The article is caught on a fork: the solution to one policy problem causes another policy violation, and any article that overcame the problems would owe little debt to the deleted article. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even if we made an article that said, " 'New Cold War' is a term defined by the news media to describe any tension or rivalry between nations that does not result in armed conflict...", it would have to have a source...and where is that source? This turns it into a wiktionary definition, rather than an encyclopedia article. And it turns it into OR again, since that's a synthesis of all kinds of different definitions to this over the years since the end of the Cold War. Hires an editor (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, doesn't matter if the current article had too much OR that is something editors of the article deals with not AFD. Secondly a "New Cold War" (or "2nd Cold War" or whatever) is getting a lot of media time at the moment, also this is a concept that has been around a lot longer than just now (such as WWIV). Mathmo ^Talk 02:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The existence of sources that use a phrase is indeed irrelevant to whether an article on it should be kept. Sources that discuss the phrase itself are what is needed. Closer was right to disregard comments based merely on wide usage without evidence of material that could make this more than a dictionary definition. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently it's relevant enough to argue for its deletion but not enough to argue for it being kept. Many of the delete opinions and the deleting admin as well argued based on media reports that the subject was not clearly defined and therefore should be deleted. Yet somehow the deleting admin did not consider those media reports enough to argue against its deletion, only enough to argue for it. Let's be clear on the problem. Discounting almost every opinion given for keeping the article because they cited media reports and books which not only use the term, but several which describe it and define it as a contest between the U.S. and Russia is simply ridiculous and is one reason why the deletion should be overturned. It's also complete hypocrisy to then cite media reports in justifying deletion. I argued that the article should include other things the term is used for, but focus primarily on Russia because other articles on similar subjects do the same thing. A subject can include more than one thing but be focused primarily in one area. As such including other uses is not making it an indiscriminate collection of information, but acknowledging that while one use is most common there are other uses that are not notable enough or different enough to have their own independent article but should be mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Advocate, see necessary and sufficient conditions. Sources (in existence, even if not in the article) are necessary for a keepable article, but they're not enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked again at the AfD and found most deletion advocates made completely ridiculous arguments for deletion that belie a general ignorance or the article itself. Most seemed to think the article was centered entirely or mostly on the recent conflict in Georgia, which it wasn't, several argued that because it has not been used exclusively to refer to relations between the U.S. and Russia following the Cold War it shouldn't be an article, and yet others seemed to think the article was actually saying there was a New Cold War then argued that there wasn't and said therefore it should be deleted. None of these arguments are legitimate or have any basis in policy. The only legitimate argument given was crystal ball, but that one falls completely flat from the fact this wasn't asserting a future event, but describing a perception of recent events. Nowhere did any editor make the argument Coren did and the argument itself was simply wrong. The argument was that the article was "an interpretation" of current usage, which is not accurate. It's not an interpretation of usage, it's a description of what the term commonly refers to when used by the media and several authors in the post-Cold War era particularly in the past few years. I've pointed out a number of areas its used in as it concerns Russia and not simply as a possibility or fear, but as a reality. This is beside the fact the possibility itself is widely discussed. Mind you, again, I'm opposed to the use of this term to describe these events, I think it's naive and silly, but I also understand it has been used for several years to refer to relations between the U.S. and Russia and has well-established notability. I'm not biased towards the subject of the article, I'm biased against it. However, I think even concepts and ideas I find ridiculous should be given articles if they are sufficiently notable, and this one is.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to get it. Read this more carefully and think about how it might apply to this article. Citing more sources that use the term, as someone else said, is just shooting yourself in the foot -- there are lots of uses of the term, all different, and nobody writes anything connecting these various uses except for Wikipedia -- that is an original synthesis of ideas (however ridiculous they might be). An article in a RS discussing the various uses of the term does not appear to exist. csloat (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be legitimate if this was claiming there was a New Cold War, but it's referring to a term or concept. So citing multiple articles involving this term isn't synthesis. Also, several articles exist that do tie together the various uses of it towards Russia such as these: [28] [29] [30]. I can tell you right now quite a few sources can be found linking the missile defense, Georgia, Kosovo, and disputes over energy together under the umbrella of a New Cold War. So your argument on synthesis is wrong.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What concept? And how many of your "sources" address that concept, which ever one you choose? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a post-Soviet collapse global confrontation between Russia and the United States. That is the most notable usage of the term beating out its use towards China, Iran, and Islamic militants. Also they do address it rather clearly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. You cite three sources.

One says "the hint of a Cold War"
One doesn't discuss any sort of Cold War; the phrase is in the on-line comments and the headline.
One comments on a media tsuris about the phrase, in order to deny its reality and importance compared with the ccnflict he really wants to discuss.

In short, therefore, you are claiming that we should have an article on the basis of headline writers and bloggers; and I presume these are your best sources. Perhaps we should add a clause on that to WP:NOT, but I don't think we have to. Please stop wasting our time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion. I could not agree more with Guy. Regards, Asterion^talk 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Grand Orient de Suisse – Userfied to User:JASpencer/Grand Orient de Suisse. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could I have a history only undelete here please? JASpencer (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~why? Protonk (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)~~ Not to be combative, but what is the purpose behind the request? Protonk (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

presumably to see if there is material suitable for merging or improvement. Looking, there is little there, but the links might be useful DGG (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have been more clear. Protonk (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

RF CHECK – Userfied – Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting temporary review with the article restored to a userspace so work can be done on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion. I'm making this request for the creator, Nathanvoite. The user wishes to edit, possibly re-write the article to Wikipedia standards. I was making many edits using Huggle at the time I added the CSD tag to the article and don't remember anything about it and figure it wouldn't hurt to bring the article back in a userspace and give him a chance to fix whatever was wrong with it. If it can't be added to their namespace without them making the request here feel free to add it to mine so they can copy it from there. Oroso (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 August 2008[edit]

Grand Orient du Congo – Text inside. Nothing further requested. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could I have a history-only undeletion please? I want to see what needs to be done to the article. JASpencer (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than a category tag and a request for citation, the compete contents of the article read The '''Grand Orient du Congo''' or ''[[Grand Orient]] of [[Democratic Republic of the Congo|Congo]]'' is based in [[Kinshasa]] and has an office in [[Brussels]], [[Belgium]]. Excluding the edits which added the deletion tags, no version had more than minor wikification of that text. Rossami (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

DoubleJay Creative – Deletion endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rewritten to be notable; speedily deleted without review Dingstersdie (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm doing this right... this is the first article I've written and I'm still learning my way here. Since the article has been deleted, you can see it in my sandbox at [[31]]. Again, I'm trying to learn here, so please tell me *nicely* if I'm doing something wrong.

The DoubleJay Creative page was originally deleted due to non-notability, so I significantly revised it, adding almost double the amount of links and media coverage of the company than it had before. The page was speedily deleted under G4, but the copy is NOT substantially identical to the deleted version and I added a great number of additional articles and sources to specifically address the reason it was previously deleted. Therefore, I don't see how it fits that policy, and think it should be restored. If someone will tell me the specific issues with the page I will address them, but since the entire reason for its deletion before was non-notability (and there were those on the talk page that disagreed with that, even then), and I have added a great number of new sources, this action doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

I've provided a number of reliable, independent sources which cover and explain the significance of this company. In fact, the majority of the articles focus specifically on DJC and their work, which more than fulfills any notability guidelines I can find. The editor who speedily deleted it mentioned being suspicious of SPAs, and my only response to that is that this is the first article I tried to write, and I see no reason to waste the effort to move on to another until I can figure out exactly what's required here. I thought that doubling the amount of media coverage provided, adding new projects of nationwide importance, and taking out non-factual language would do it. I wish that someone would tell me how to fix it, if it is indeed broken, rather than just deleting it. Thanks for your time, Dingstersdie (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion. I am automatically suspicious of SPAs. Dingstersdie should have the modesty to wait until an established Wikipedia editor writes about the company. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the version deleted is not the same as the one deleted at AFD except that the sourcing remains pretty similar. Perusal if the new sources doesn't suggest that any of these meet RS. I'd say that this should be userfied for the creator to research better sources and bring that version to DRV for review of the original deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If four papers, three magazines and numerous other sites aren't RS, what is? (I don't mean that in a bitchy way, I'm just extremely confused.) Suspicion of SPAs is not a sufficient reason to delete this. Again, tell me what to do to change it to make it better-- don't just tell me to go away, which seems to be what the editor is doing with his "modest" comment. I am trying very hard to make this conform, and I don't understand why the sourcing (and notability?) isn't sufficient now, after adding the additional information and sources. Dingstersdie (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - To give you one example, IMDB isn't a reliable source. Have you read the guidelines on sourcing here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I took out the IMDB and even some of the award pages that only mention DJC, would it be acceptable? As I said, there are numerous newspaper and magazine articles in there which are solely focused on this company and its work. Are those the offending links?Dingstersdie (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Three speedies and an AfD, all versions by the same single-purpose account, all versions advertorial. Dingstersdie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tells the story here, look at the deleted and remaining edits - almost everything this user has done here since arriving has been to promote this subject. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions page observes specifically that "the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors." Judge the article as it is now, with a wide variety of sources. And why should I as a user be punished for not giving up and trying to improve an article until it meets wikipedia's standards? Tell me what to change to make it acceptable, please. I have tried to take out any advertorial language-- if some remains, please point it out and I will remedy the situation.Dingstersdie (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page makes it absolutely plain that your constant agitation in respect of a subject with which you are obviously connected, is unacceptable. As is repeatedly re-creating said content after numerous deletions. Nobody else has created an article on this, the only other edits at any time appear to be maintenance tags pointing out that it is advertorial, and attempts to make it less blatantly promotional. I tend to the belief that after four separate deletions of an article, created in every case by the same spammer, it is time to leave it gone until another established editor comes along. And if there's one thing worse than a spammer it's a wikilawyering spammer. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question Can someone who knows more about the awards in the article comment on whether or not they are significant enough to justify an article? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion in the AFD was that they were not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per JzG. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 August 2008[edit]

Burning Up Tour – We don#t undelete copyvios so how about creating an original sourced article and bringing here for review – Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Burning Up Tour (talk|history|links) (AfD1, DRV discussion, AfD2)

This article was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning Up Tour) on the grounds that a previous AfD resulted in deletion. This article was not a simple recreation of the previously deleted article, and it underwent another AfD, where it appeared the outcome would be no consensus—however, an admin speedy deleted it and closed the AfD without even considering the views of the participants in that AfD, citing past consensus. I believe the more recent consensus (or lack thereof) is what should be followed. Everyking (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comments. The previous version of the article was a highly promotional article lacking in sources, consisting mostly of a list of appearances. The version I deleted was a highly promotional article lacking in sources, consisting mainly of a list of appearances. Offers to userfy either version to make it not promotional or to properly source it have been roundly rebuffed. The keep votes focused on potential sourcing, but nobody has offered to step up and do that sourcing. When we have a clear consensus not to have an unsourced version, and nobody's willing to bell the cat, what should we do?
Additionally, the keeps in the AFD were mostly appeals to incredulity. "How can you not think this is notable!" doesn't really answer the question "Where are the reliable sources that have seen fit to comment on this subject?" Everything that I've been able to find only mentions that there was a tour in support of such-and-such album, a fact which is already appropriately covered in Jonas Brothers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We already know the sources are available; in the last DRV for this article I pointed out that there were hundreds of sources available on Google News, and I specifically cited two of them. It is not necessary for them to be immediately placed in the article to justify its existence; once it exists, someone will do the work. Everyking (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you like me to undelete one or both versions so you can add those sources to them? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you're offering to undelete it in the mainspace, then yes; if you're offering to undelete it in userspace, while then acting as a gatekeeper to unilaterally decide whether the sourced article is acceptable to go in the mainspace, then no. Everyking (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see how making a point of "You're not the boss of me!" is more important than improving the encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Just wanted to note that if the article were undeleted, only the earliest versions can be restored...which are indeed simply a list of dates. The article was riddled with copyright violations from the day it was created. The creator of the article pasted content from here a half hour after first edit and shortly thereafter added a pretty blatant one, beginning with the words "The Jonas Brothers tickets are headed to the big screen with a Disney Digital 3-D feature film that will include footage from" That "tickets" is the give-away. See here. I'm surprised it wasn't detected. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for copyright concerns. Only the earliest versions of the article could be restored, and these truly are just a list of dates. Copyright violation was introduced at the first addition of a text section, and those violations continued through the history of the article with only a few minor additions and alterations. Given the PR powerhouse that this band has become, I wouldn't be surprised if sufficient reliable sources probably could be assembled to document widespread, significant coverage, but this article didn't do that, and the copyrighted text makes it improper to serve as a base for a new article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted (or redirected to the band's page as it currently is) both because of copyright concerns and because I have found nothing to indicate that the concerns raised in the prior Deletion Review discussion have been addressed. Everyking asserted in the prior discussion that sufficient sources had been found to support the article. I reviewed a significant number of those cites and could not reach the same conclusion. No new evidence has been presented here, in the deleted article itself or in the aborted second AfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this appears to be the product of a user who isn't interested in taking the simplest route in avoiding CSD-G4, userification and approval before returning an article to mainspace. I see no good reason why that route wasn't taken. I can't see the deleted versions so I won't comment on how alike or different the recreated article was. All I can say is that we should all strive to solve something at the lowest level possible, invoking process only when required by the situation. Protonk (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for reasons expressed on A Man in Black's talk page. Obviously bad close. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn While it is impossible to be certain given that all evidence has been destroyed, the version deleted here seems to have been improved above and beyond the original version deleted. If there is material in violation of WP:COPYVIO it should be removed, but unless the entire article consists of violating material, there is no justification for deletion. The original DRV was closed with the comment that "Closure endorsed, no prejudice against recreating a new and better article", and it appears that the new article was better. As consensus did not support deletion and as the speedy appears to have been unjustified, the closure would violate process and should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pete Draganic – There is no current will to recreate this article. You might try again some time later with more extensive references to independent news sources. – Chick Bowen 02:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am here (and hopefully doing this correctly) to request the undeletion of a page titled "Pete Draganic". Pete Draganic was a page here in 2006, created by someone else when Pete ran for Governor of the State of Ohio. It was later deleted because (per the discussion) he had not won and was therefore not noteworthy. However, since that time, Pete Draganic has won a city council seat, running against the well-funded godson of Dennis Kucinich, no small feat. He was also elected as a Republican Committeperson and currently serves both offices.

The page was recreated recently and deleted by speedy deletion.

While he may not have been thought to be noteworthy following his gubernatorial race, he did in fact gain a lot of recognition statewide during that time. He had spoken and debated to thousands of Ohioans. He was interviewed and reported on by every major and dozens of minor newspapers, radio stations and television (air and cable) venues throughout the state. He is known by all Republicans in authority all across Ohio. Pete Draganic campaigned through 77 of Ohio's 88 counties alondside of his powerful opponents (then the current State Attorney General, Jim Petro; Auditor of State Betty Montgomery and Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell.)

It would stand to reason that someone with political ambitions such as Pete's plus his most recent successes, That his background would be of interest to many. He is a political figure on the move and in the spotlight regularly.

His burst into politics has earned him some fast credibility as well. He was the ONLY ONE of 180 republican council candidates to receive funding form the Cuyahoga County Republican Party (Cuyahoga is Ohio's most populous County). He is a fixture in republican events and his campaign advice is sought after by others. For the record, the party doesn't give much money to any candidates at all.

I suspect that in short order, you will see his page grow to substantial lengths.

Pete Draganic was included in Gubernatorial polls in 1996. He was included in at least one newspaper poll. He won two blog-based polls. There are thousands of internet references to him. He is currently a winner of two public offices.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. --65.43.181.120 (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what will be needed for this is media references from major newspaper in the state talking in a substantial way about him. If you have them, re-create the article in user space and let's see it. DGG (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the user page to provide links to an archive of 25 news reports on Draganic as well as the full list of google archive news references, most of which are pay to view, unfortunately. The original archive of 25 is not a pay to view source. You can view that user page here[32]

--65.43.181.120 (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One good way to handle pay per view sources from which a interested party collected an archive is to cite the original print publication, add its online link if available , and then add a "convenience link" to the place where you have it visible. Optionally, include the quotation. A few of these sources appear to say nothing more than that he's among the candidates; pick the most substantial. I'll give my opinion that similar sources could be found for many candidates who do not win election if sufficient work were done, and this material appears to fulfill our WP:N general notability criterion. DGG (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that aside from his notability as a candidate for major office, he has gone on to win other lesser offices which, I feel, increases his notability in that he is a person of current interest instead of simply one of historical reference.

--65.43.181.120 (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support re-creation in user space if nobody disagrees. DGG (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me clarify this. It already exists in user space. It was deleted as an article and I would like to recreate the article.

--Pete Draganic (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hollywood Undead (band) – Non-controversial request fulfilled – Stormie (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This should be a quickie; the protection of this page was overturned a little while ago at DRV for this article, which is located at Hollywood Undead. (The band was so popular that both the normal name and the (band) name were protected due to repeated recreation.) I'd like to have Hollywood Undead (band) unprotected so it can be redirected to the actual article. Likewise, I'd like to have hollywood undead unprotected and redirected for the same reason. Chubbles (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, not controversial and at the request of established editor. Someone else can archive this, I stuffed it up last time. TravellingCari 01:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of creationist museums‎ – There is not much consensus here. The new information that motivates this deletion review is that more pertinent articles have been created. But by itself this isn't seen as sufficient to restore the list as it was and still is. Whatever the general take on redlinks, their prominence in this particular list was a major concern in the AfD, even for some who argued to keep. While it will therefore need to be pruned in some way, this can be done calmly in user space where it already is and where it can serve at the very least as working aid. Linking the userspace list on Category talk:Creationist museums and elsewhere would help interested parties to contribute in pruning and improving it. If such an annotated, trimmed and improved list with stable blue links is then later moved back to main space it would rather not be subject to WP:CSD#G4 but to survive a second AfD it would probably also need to show added value with respect to the now existing category. With respect to an article on creationist museums, I can here only note that it would be useful as anchor also for the category (but observe that Natural history museums is currently a redirect to a list.) – Tikiwont (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a somewhat non-standard DRV request; it isn't as much a request to undelete the page, as it is a request for clarification on how to recreate it. The list was deleted with a variety of arguments, but the reasonable ones seemed to be that there were too many red and unsourced links in the list. In the course of the debate, User:Plazak referenced quite a few of them, and after I was personally challenged to make articles for them I made two reasonable, well sourced (if I do say so myself) articles (including one WP:DYK), and three more in the 4 days since the close. In short, I feel fairly sure there is plenty of reason to restore the list, but want to know how to best restore it, while taking the result of the AFD into account:

Should it be restored completely, like an undelete, leaving the red links as opportunities for expansion?
Should the red linked entries be unlinked until their article is created, but left in the list?
Should the red linked entries be deleted altogether until their article is created?
How about the ones that are cited with reliable sources writing about them, but not enough for individual articles of their own, can they still be part of this overall article on creation museums in general?
Something else?

I was asking the deleting administator, and he did kindly restore the article, with history, to my userspace - User:GRuban/List of creationist museums - but said that question was too hard for him to answer quickly, and after two days of silence, he protected his talk page, so I somehow think he's not going to answer. So it looks like my best remaining choice is DRV. Advice, please? GRuban (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This DRV will probably be closed early since this isn't TOO much of a matter for deletion review. My advice is to keep it in userspace until some more sources can be found, specifically those that define what a creationist museum is and preferably a source that lists creationist museums in general. Those two sources would eliminate the most valid AfD complaints. contrary to the assertion of a few people in that AfD, red links are fine as long as we could reasonably expect the target subject would be included in this encylopedia sometime in the future. But without a source providing a criterion for inclusion, this list is still indiscriminate and without a source showing that museum X is creationist it still smacks of WP:OR. Does that help? Protonk (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, they all say they're creationist. The word "creation" is in half of the museums' names. If you want, it can be "creation museums", it's not a big difference. It's the term they use for themselves. It's not something they're ashamed of. What they say is controversial, but whether or not they're creationist isn't. Here's a list referred to by USAToday: [33]: [34] --GRuban (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they all say they are creationist then we can cite each of their "about" pages on this list. All I'm saying is that apparent obviousness of categorization doesn't absolve us of the need to properly delimit categories and to ensure that entries fit the categories themselves. Protonk (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation Article provides a clearly-defined inclusion criteria and sources are provided. As to the presence of red links, a recent study reported in the WP:Wikipedia Signpost indicates that "This implies that the connection between redlinks and new articles is a collaborative one, and that adding redlinks actually spurs others to create new articles." While a Google News Archive search turns up "Creation Museum", it does so in the context of a specific museum. This search using "creationist museum" turned up 111 articles, providing ample evidence of institutions meeting teh definition. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, most are about Creation Museum, which is one.We66er (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia:Deletion review is for "disputed deletions and disputed decisions." The consensus was to delete and it was deleted. User:GRuban has since been creating articles promoting pseudoscience. See Category:Creationist museums. As it stands the few articles about this is Creation Evidence Museum (a double-wide trailer could be merged with Carl Baugh) and Museum of Earth History (which has two sources) doesn't need a list. If you count Liberty University, that category has 7. Thus, the AFD was closed appropriately and User:GRuban has since created three or four articles on the subject to argue his position to keep the list. We66er (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work in user space to determine if the other museums are notable enough to create articles so they may be blue linked and restore at that point. Welcome to ask at WP:MUSEUMS for help - I don't think I'll have time to help but someon eelse might. TravellingCari 01:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation Three (or more) museums is enough for a list. It can add information about location, and date of founding, that would not be in the category. Deletion Review is an appropriate way to proceed when there is a new basis.DGG (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information on location, date of founding, etc. may be found by clicking on the relevant link in Category:Creationist museums. Articles so categorized pass Wikipedia standards for notability and verifiability, a directory-like list appears to be an attempt to sidestep these requirements. Moreover, entries in the userfied list include institutions that are in various stages of planning, including an external link to their patrons could be seen as blatant solicitation (not to mention WP:CRYSTAL concerns). I fail to see how the convenience of a category is superseded by the liability of such a list. I'm inclined to endorse the AfD result. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the existing articles are not justified because of lack of notability or promotional nature, then nominate them for AfD, and let's get rid of them. while they till exist, they justify a list. DGG (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that the existing articles fail notability guidelines. There is no way to tell whether other entries and redlinks on the list satisfy these criteria, I suspect that many of them don't. And lists aren't justified, they're either useful or superfluous. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eh If I were aware of the original discussion, I'd be likely to have called for keeping, but I don't see a compelling reason at this time to overturn. Why doesn't the category work fine? Also, the vast majority of these creation museums don't meet WP:N so redlinking them might not be such a great idea. I do think the idea of putting in userspace for now as suggested by Verdana is not a bad idea at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As others write, the list does allow more useful comparison than the category - it's not easy to use the category to find out which is closest to you, for example, without clicking through all of them, and it will allow adding opening and closing dates, and other relations between them. I created the category (not the list), so I'm not gainsaying the usefulness of the category by any means :-) but there is a place for both. And I suspect most of them do meet WP:N, in fact. These sorts of places tend to be just the sort of thing that newspapers write about, and news programs do feature segments on. I've been able to create five of them so far, in about as many days of work, so evidence shows they'll be useful red links. --GRuban (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person who wants to overturn this admitted this is about WP:POINT against me. We66er (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware there was a rule against improving Wikipedia to illustrate a point :) --NE2 00:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see no admission of an alleged disruption, nor could this be construed as somehow violating WP:POINT. I see in the link provided someone making a effort to fill a hole he feels exists in Wikipedia, and there seems to be no reason not to fill this vacuum at this point. Alansohn (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for that DefendEachOther, folks. Appreciated. I think if We66er and I can work together, we can make these articles quite good, actually; but it's a lot easier if the articles are there for us to work on them. :-) --GRuban (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the link I supplied, GRuban wrote: "And, two, because you challenged me to. I never did a thing in this area until running across that AFD." This behavior "deliberately thwart[s] the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship." This AFD was closed per consensus. Now because GRuban feels "challenged," he wants to keep and expand it. We66er (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think it makes a difference what the motives are or why you believe that creating viable articles on notable subjects constitutes gaming the system. Look at the article and judge it based on what's there not on what you think are the circumstances of its creation. Alansohn (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Your strawman arguments don't push this discussion forward. The motives for an AFD review that goes against the purpose of an AFD review are important. Secondly, I am not opposed to "creating viable articles on notable subjects." The list isn't notable and consensus was acheived with that view: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creationist museums. So you do admit that the motives behind this AFD review may not be about the article itself? We66er (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Who cares what the motives are, if it improves the encyclopedia? --NE2 18:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Besides the fact that it violates wikipedia guidelines and demonstrates bad faith against another editor's views of improving wikipedia? We66er (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll let you have the last word. My last one will be undelete. --NE2 19:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For what it's worth, We66er, I think you are sincere in attempting to improve the Wikipedia. I don't doubt you are trying to make it better, and don't accuse you of disruption. I'd appreciate the same faith in return, of course, but it's not required. --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Legends of Motorsport (band) – Question asked and answered. No affirmative request for undeletion recieved. While the question could be liberally construed as a dispute of the prod tagging, my review of the article suggests that A7 applies so that it should not be undeleted absent discussion. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

why was this page deleted?

Looking at the deletion history it was deleted as a PROD with the rational that the article was about a non notiable band, having no sources and failing WP:MUSIC. --76.66.182.152 (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it can be restored on the request of any user. Do you want it restored? Stifle (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 August 2008[edit]

Silkroad Online – Unprotected, draft moved in from userspace, everything seems all flowers and sunshine. Non-admin closure. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC) – UsaSatsui (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting unsalting only. Article was deleted over a content dispute (mainly gamecruft perceived as POV), then salted due to being "large." If undeletion would be preferred, that's fine, otherwise I have a ~~new cruft free stub~~ ready to make a fresh start. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the new article longhand from the User subpage into Article space. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've unprotected, just a note to any passing admins, DO NOT restore the prior revisions as they are very difficult to delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Knowledge instinct – Nomination withdrawn and reposted version deleted pending confirmation of copyright release. – Rossami (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page goes not have original research, everything is from published materials which are referenced. I agree that the style of the first version was not appropriate and I have changed it to the neutral style, hopefully making it acceptable.

I made a mistake by posting the new version of the page too quickly, as I lost the name of the admin who deleted it the first time. I hope one of the admins can find out who this was and add the appropriate notification. Thank you. Romanilin (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy-deletion. The problem with your first draft was not tone and style but copyright violation. Your text was almost word-for-word identical to a section of this page. If you are the copyright owner of that page, you need to follow the procedures at WP:CP to prove that you are authorized to release the text under GFDL. If not, you need to rewrite the draft from scratch in your own words. I strongly recommend using the amnesia test when you do so in order to prevent a recurrence of the copyvio. By the way, your reposted version still has many of the same problems. While some of the text is apparently in your own words, much is still copied from that site. We really need to delete even that second draft and give you a clean page to start over with. Rossami (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see the problem. I will get the copyright released, that will not be a problem. Romanilin (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be closed off then... Stifle (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With the repost being deleted until the release is with wikimedia? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be normal. When the copyright release is confirmed, just contact any administrator and he/she can restore the deleted history so you can pick up where you left off. Rossami (talk)

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

The Jewish Internet Defense Force – keep endorsed. I have been editing the article, and so will revert this closure if anyone would like; however, the result seems clear enough that I think we're just waiting on somebody to slap down a few archival templates, here. – – Luna Santin (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm requesting that this keep (and subsequent speedy keep) be reviewed. The initial AFD was a mess of sockpuppetry accusations, disruptive comments, etc. I started a new AFD just yesterday because I believed I hada better rationale for deletion than the original nom. However, this morning my AFD was closed as "speedy keep" and I was told to bring it here. This is an article about an "unofficial" collection of people that hijacked an antisemetic Facebook group and started deleting its members. As far as I can tell, all of the provided third-party references that can be considered reliable don't actually talk about this group beyond that single event. The CBS news one is about the Canadian military telling it's soldiers to not post their photos on Facebook. The Computerworld article is about the Simon Weisenthal Center. MOST of the provided references in the article are from the group itself. A Facebook vandalism group doesn't seem particularly notable, and WP:ONEEVENT seems to apply here as the overall breadth of coverage is pretty scant. Two articles about hijacking a Facebook group and an opinion piece that was written by one of the people who has edited the Wikipedia article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep. No one else felt it needed to be deleted. It's merely a convenience that all of the links all go back to the same group which publicizes what it does. If anything as time goes on this group gains more attention. So pushing for deletion seems absurd as this page is becoming more important. - Saxophonemn (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Saxophonemn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think it's a shame as this is the first time I was ever inspired to contribute to Wikipedia and I was trying to help make this article more neutral in the first place, and as soon as everything dies down and we all start getting along and the article is making progress, it seems it continues to get vandalized w/ all of these deletion tags (despite the fact that most people seem to think it is notable enough and with enough reliable sources to keep it.) is this how it goes for all new articles? If so, it might be too frustrating to continue to try to help edit...--Einsteindonut (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Einsteindonut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~:*Comment:The two votes above should be ignored. Rob^{Not an admin} 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)~~Closing editor/admin's discretion. Rob^{Not an admin} 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So in this democracy my vote doesn't count, what's going on? I would also point out the tag added to my user name seems erroneous, I registered back and haven't had to do any major revisions until dealing with the JIDF article where things got all heated.Saxophonemn (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an election, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and you have very few edits that aren't related to this article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was this determined? There doesn't seem to be objective criteria? Someone appears to have added that tag to my name as a discredit, I'm aligned with the majority opinion. As much as assuming good will goes it doesn't add up so cleanly.--Saxophonemn (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was determined by the amount of edits you have done on that article. But I also note you have worked on some other articles. But you mostly work on this one. It was a BOT not a user that added that template. Rob^{Not an admin} 22:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Seems to meet the notability criteria. The AFD was a mess, but pretty much a keep. I don't see any issues. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Saxophonemn. Further, I explained on the deletion request that most of the links Nobody of Consequence has listed here refer to the back ground section. Naturally this sets the context and does not refer to JIDF itself. There are references in the Jerusalem Post, Artuz 7, and the UK's Telegraph -- all specifically about JIDF. As discussed extensively on talk (and which there is concensus on) the nature of the group JIDF recieved press coverage for is critical to understanding the JIDF. It is one thing to say the JIDF aims to close groups that are in its opinion antisemitic, it is another to have third part references validating that the group in question was indeed widely considered antisemitic. As for WP:ONEEVENT, the take over of the group is a single event. The JIDF is an organisation and will most likely be notable again in the future. To remove an article now would be to raising the bar significantly from common practice, and an insult to those editors who have been working on this (these editors come from many different perspectives on this and have worked hard to reach common ground - the common thread is that we all agree an article is of benefit to Wikipedia). Oboler (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn or Relist Most of the keep !votes at the original AfD acknowledged that the group probably wasn't notable for more than one event or a momentary burst of publicity. Despite heroic efforts, nobody has been able to provide more sources in the 12 days since the first AfD to better establish the group's notability. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The time span of the second AFD was too shot, and this AFD was a good chance to collect different POVs about the article, but deletion while the {{icu}} tag still on top of page was not logic, if any one checked the talk page, he will notice that the contributing editors understood the side effects of the subject and stated a joined effort to solve all of them step by step, the evaluation must be after they finished their work not before, please Malcolm X, I want you to take my point of view and put it in the form of the options listed above, I selected you as your comment was the most neutral one from my POV, and I don’t know how to add my comment to this stack.--Puttyschool (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep It is not the function of DRV to re-run an AfD, but to discuss whether the AfD was done correctly. It was.--Bedivere (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator replied on my talk page. I think that I would endorse per Oboler. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just spent some time cleaning up the article, verifying the citations, digging up some basic Who/What/When/Where info, and adding quotes from the few reliable sources available. Take a look and see what you think. Personally, I don't think this is really an "organization"; it's one guy, Daniel Appletree, with several Facebook groups, a web site, and a large buddy list. Notability, per WP:WEB and WP:ORG, is marginal. But there's some non-trivial press coverage in major news media, so we probably should keep it. --John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... no disrespect, but... all the RS references refer to a David Appletree as the spokes person. I don't there are even unreliable sources about a Daniel Appletree. ;) At any rate it is not unusual for an organization to have a single spokes person, particularly a campaigning organization. Unreliable sources (i.e. the messages from the group etc) point to a number of people coordinating the campaigns, at the same time there is nothing in a RS to support your OR claim that it is one person. (If it is he clearly doesn't sleep). Oboler (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's "David", not "Daniel". As to the size of the organization, that's an interesting question. They claim 5000 "members", but it's not clear what that means. You can send them money via PayPal, subscribe to their bookmarks, get their RSS feed, and add them as a friend on Facebook. "Members" are presumably counted as people who've done that. There's no indication that they have meetings, employees, offices, or a corporate existence. Also, the first usage of the JIDF name only seem to go back to May 2008, when they registered the domain. We're on the edge of WP:ORG notability here. --John Nagle (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth many organization use "wobbly" tactics like these to count members - anyone who donates, anyone who gets a newsletter, etc. Banjeboi 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a rather messy review because two closures are being appealed in one. I certainly endorse the second closer when they say a second afd is way too soon. I want to investigate things a bit more before expressing an opinion on the original closure.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep Sorry, my comments are above but I didn't explicitly "vote". Oboler (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep This was the first article that I edited on Wikipedia. However, when I went back to continue editing, I noticed that most of my work was destroyed by one user. Now after the information has been removed and the JIDF seems irrelevant, the users that deleted the information are trying to have it totally removed from Wikipedia. The JIDF is a valuable growing group and they have done more than "delete one Facebook group" as was stated above. If the users that want to delete would check the history on the JIDF web page, they'd see much activity. For example, the JIDF just took over a new Facebook group which was supporting the terrorist organization Hezbollah and it had over 118,000 members in it. Shachna1979 (talk)
Endorse Keep:Like it was said above, this is not to see if some thing should be re-listed but to see if the AfD was correct and it was. Rob^{Not an admin} 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep I didn't know I was supposed to do this above either. Sorry. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep and file RFCU to find out who these socks are. Bstone (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment part of the problem I have with this article is that whenever someone questions the notability of the subject, someone else assumes conspiracy and bad faith. When I started a new AFD (which was apparently too soon after the first one, sorry about that), another editor decided to post this on the article talk page, which to me amounts to little more than an assumption of bad faith as well as an attempt at vote stacking [35]. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. AfD's weren't perfect but I think we got it right in the case. The 2nd AfD never should have happened and DRV is not AfD 2.0 generally. I concur with Bstone that some digging through the editors involved in some of the more contentious dialog might have implications for other articles. Banjeboi 01:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist. We need to have a proper debate on the notability of this group, which received a handful of press references after its successful Facebook campaign but doesn't appear to have done much else worthy of our attention. Btw, would I be remiss in saying that this Deletion review has already turned into a circus (much like the edit history on the article itself)? CJCurrie (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep The article can use improvement, but there are claims of notability supported by sources. No evidence that there was anything out of process here to justify disregarding the result. Alansohn (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep At least the present form of the article is acceptable. Some of the arguments above seem based on the irrelevant claim that it once was notable, but is not any longer. The second AfD was much too soon after the first, and should not have been permitted. Counting this Review as effectually the third consecutive keep decision, I'd regard another AfD within at least the next six months as disruptive. DGG (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No definite opinion one way or the other, but if interesting were a criterion I would say Endorse. Because, notable or not, I found the article interesting. And not because of what it said, but because of what it didn't say. Who is this guy Appletree, and where does his organization (if there is one) come from? It looks from their web presence like someone is bankrolling them. It also appears, judging from the video clips posted on the site, that the group has strong links to Israeli right-wing, settler organizations. It's a topic that merits some good investigative reporting, which, of course, as slugs devoted to NOR, we wikipedians are forbidden to do. But I don't doubt that someone eventually will, and then we will have a really interesting and notable article.

It is interesting not only because of the specific political context, but because it is an example of how the Internet is being leveraged for political purposes by marginal political groups. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep. The AFD in which this was kept was entirely proper, which ought to be the sole concern of this DRV. IronDuke 02:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep. As long as there are editors willing to keep on top of it so it does not become a promotional for the guy. And make sure if there is any WP:RS evidence of criminal activity he is put in that category. Carol Moore 19:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}If there is one, do tell.

Comment Can someone please close this DRV? :-) It seems about over. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

James Tramel – Overturned and relisted; old AfD reopened. – Chick Bowen 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe this debate was incorrectly closed as delete. It was closed after only a day despite several keep votes - there certainly wasn't consensus. No policy was quoted as to the reason for this 'rapid delete' and dispute discussions with the closing admin User Talk:Moreschi#James_Tramel I still see no reason for the early close as delete. Closing admin has quoted WP:BLPBAN as his reason so I'm not sure this is the right place for review but as it seems the most logical place I've started it here. Comments in the AfD suggest that the article was properly referenced so I'd be surprised if WP:BLP has been breached. I have no idea whether this article should be deleted as I've not seen it - I'm asking for review purely on procedural grounds. Dpmuk (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn; there was a number of keep votes, from regular AfDers, who would have caught this if it were a clear WP:BLP issue. It's not a clear negative bio, despite what the closer said; the news is all about him becoming a priest and respected member of society, not the (well-documented) crimes he did. Just looking at the first article in the Google search[36] should make it obvious that this is not an open and shut AfD, unless you're an inclusionist, in which it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and allow AfD to finish. I can understand WP:BLP concerns but with the exception of one sentence alleging professional misconduct (I did find an RS, here), the article was thoroughly sourced and not negatively written. Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion notes that "If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, containing primarily unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." The policy goes on to say that "Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. If the dispute centers around suitability of the page for inclusion – for example, if there are doubts as to notability or the subject has requested deletion – then this should be addressed at xFD rather than by BLP summary deletion." Whether this individual is a worthy candidate or not according to WP:BLP1E should be decided in that AfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn'This was not a consensus decision, but done as an administrative rapid delete under BLP. In essence, he is a reformed criminal who became an ordained priest, and was subsequently suspended for an accusation of misconduct unrelated to his prior conviction (neither admitted nor proven, but responsibly reported). There are good newspaper sources for both the earlier and later parts of the story. This seems to be of fairly clear general interest. "One event," is clearly not applicable--there were three distinctive events over a 23 year period. There were keeps or strong keeps, some explained in detail, from six responsible editors, and 2 deletes besides the nom. and the closer. The keeps relied on one event, which seems contrary to the plain facts of the matter--he would have been notable even without the subsequent suspension from office. The close was against consensus, presumably based on personal conviction. DGG (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Based on the arguments presented at AfD there are perfectly valid justifications provided that the article satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard supported by reliable and verifiable sources. As there are valid claims of notability, combined with a consensus for retention, the "rapid delete" seems to be in violation of process. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. The deletion was out of process, but there are BLP issues present, we can't just overturn and ignore them. Wizardman 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with a relist, but what BLP issues are present? It's incredibly verifiable and notable that he's an ex-con (convicted of murder) who became a priest; dealing with the issues behind the suspension can be handled on the talk page, not through AfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, per DGG. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist DGG gave the rationale well. I'll note that I had looked at the AFD due to its deletion sorting, looked at the article, looked at some of the sources, and decided that this was perfectly appropriate to leave to community decision making. I can't see any good reason for speedy deletion. GRBerry 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist I'm not seeing anything that would call for a speedy deletion like this. Let the AfD run it's course. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. There was no consensus for deletion, and no relevant criterium for speedy deletion has been cited as the reason for the deletion. Sandstein 15:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - BLP speedy deletion is for cases where the article is negative and unsourced, which was not the case with this article. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

MyWikiBiz – Move into article space. While this deletion review is only 72 hours long, a clear consensus is forming to move this into article space. Non-admin closure (but don't squeeze my neck). – Sceptre ^(talk) 06:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

As the article on MyWikiBiz was deleted through AFD previously (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWikiBiz (third nomination)), I thought bringing this to DRV (as I did with the Wikipedia Review article) would be a good step. While the old version of the article failed to assert sufficient notability, since April 2007, a lot more sources have appeared, most notably including Jonathan Zittrain's book. I believe the draft version of this article, which you can see for your edification at User:Neil/mwb, meets all the neccessary criteria for an article; it is neutral, it is referenced, reliably sourced, and it asserts notability. I am looking for a green light to move into article space. Please note this is not an AFD discussion. Thanks. Neıl ☄ 13:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move into article space as nominator and creator of draft article. Please note I have notified each administrator who has either deleted or undeleted the article of this discussion, based on the deletion log of MyWikiBiz. Neıl ☄ 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject A large number of the citations are internal to Wikipedia or MWB. Additionally, several of the exterior citations appear to be coverage of Wikipedia or blogs, where MWB is incidentally mentioned. I'm not seeing the widespread or lasting coverage I'd expect for such a topic. MBisanz ^talk 13:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 16 citations, 3 are Wikipedia (wholly appropriate as a ref for the topic (e.g., referencing the COI policy, which is mentioned in the article), and one is internal to MWB. 4 out of 16 isn't really a "large number". Zittrain's book, Die Welt, the Post-Gazette, the Chronicle of HE and the AP article are all widespread coverage that meet WP:WEB and WP:N. Neıl ☄ 13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I am seeing 2 of the 16 sourced to MWB, 3 sourced to WP, the Chronicle of Higher Ed piece is from the Chronicle's online blog, not the actual magazine, then we have the Attack of the Show blog entry, The Future of the Internet covers it in under 3 paragraphs of a lengthy chapter, and contradicts other sources, saying that MWB is dormant (not active). The Heise article is about Friedrich Metz with 2 sentences referencing his coverage of MWB if I'm reading the german correctly. The Register article is about Jimbo and mentions MWB in passing, The Pittsburgh Gazette article looks like a copy of the MSNBC piece, not a separate coverage incident. The SBWire piece never even mentions the term MyWikiBiz and is a press release, not independent coverage. I'm seeing barely any MWB-focused, independent sources here. MBisanz ^talk 13:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you aren't seeing very well? I still only count one reference sourced to MWB, being #3 (unless you mean #7, which is a press release from MWB, sourced to 24-7 Press Release). Including and referencing a company's mission statement and the press release announcing its inception is hardly a bad thing. The CofHE piece is still fine - or is the Chronicle's web coverage not reliable? Three lengthy paragraph's in Zittrain's book is MWB-focused, detailed and independant. The Pittsburgh Gazette article is, yes, mostly the same as the MSNBC piece, but the fact multiple reputable media sources picked up the AP piece is further evidence of notability. Neıl ☄ 14:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted with Neil) Comment The issue here is inclusion-worthiness, which is usually determined on the grounds of notability, the encyclopedic/discrete nature of the topic, and whether or not there are conflict of interest/BLP issues. I don't think anyone would accuse Neil of the latter, an individual business/website is certainly an encyclopedic and discrete topic, and the article asserts and proves its notability through the following coverage: MSNBC, Chronicle of Higher Education, Die Welt, paragons of reliability whose coverage could not credibly be deemed trivial. Your objection seems to boil down to "too many bad references", which seems irrelevant to the inclusion-worthiness of the topic. It has enough good references, ergo it is notable. What's the real problem? Skomorokh 13:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space A significantly improved article that includes multiple reliable sources that cover MyWikiBiz as the primary subject. While some of the blog and Wikipedia sources could be questioned, sources from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Chronicle of Higher Education are the kinds of reliable and verifiable sources that satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alan - note there's only one blog as best I can see (and that's the official blog of a topic notable enough for its own article). Are any other sources blogs?Neıl ☄ 13:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with both you and the comments from Skomorokh above. I have no issue with the inclusion of these blog/Wiki references in this context. While there might be justifiable issues if these were the only sources, my point was that the bulk of the article is referenced by ample reliable and verifiable sources that cover the topic and establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Approve notable, encyclopedic and free of spam/coi/blp concerns. Skomorokh 13:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space appears free of problems and well sourced George The Dragon (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space Sources covering all bases. Internal sources are required to show internal policies (doh) Jacina (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Accept' into article space in its present form, regardless of earlier history of the article. DGG (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still no evidence of notability, fails any test of a business getting into Wikipedia. If it weren't for the internal Wikipedia debates that have used it as a test case, we wouldn't be having this debate. The company perhaps merits mention in an article on Wikipedia, and might usefully redirect there.--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is self-referential. It's only notable because there was a fuss on Wikipedia. Nobody outside Wikipedia would regard it as notable.--Bedivere (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-reference alone is not an argument for not having an article; absence of sources from outside Wikipedia might be. We have plenty of articles related to Wikipedia "fusses", such as Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, which exists because people outside Wikipedia regard it as notable. The article's ample sources are overwhelmingly from independent reliable sources outside of Wikipedia discussing the fuss. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ASR is a style guide. It means we don't write things like "a webpage, such as the on you are reading now". It says absolutely nothing about having articles on subjects related to Wikipedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ASR#Writing about Wikipedia itself does address the Wikipedia issue, but this article clearly meets the standard set there. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, yes it does mention it. The point is that it doesn't say anything remotely like "no references to Wikipedia" or "avoid articles about Wikipedia" or "the notability standard is higher for things related to Wikipedia". JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I have been misinterpreted. All I am saying is that this is a subject of notability only to Wikipedians, not to people outside the Wikipedia village.--Bedivere (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support move It's a colorful part of Wikipedia's history, and it's received a suprisingly substantial amount of coverage. (Arguably more than Mzoli's.) But if an independent article is deemed unacceptable, some of this should at least be merged somewhere. Is MyWikiBiz mentioned anywhere in the article space? Zagalejo^^^ 19:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MBisanz. Almost all the citations are in reference to the Wikipedia community rejecting his business overtures, and not about his business itself. No evidence of notability for businesses at all. If the bar for inclusion is "someone, somewhere, mentioned you" then that will open the floodgates. --David Shankbone 21:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
allow recreation with Niel's draft Holding my nose here a fair bit. This appears to just meet our notability criteria. Having Kohs interviewed about MyWikibiz on such items as Attack of the Show and discussion in Zittrain's book make this notable. Also, if this is recreated can we please have the sensibility not to do something disruptive like nominating it at a DYK? (Aside from the fact that self-referential DYKs make us look like dicks) Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't think the revised version meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion standards for organizations. I reviewed every citation in the current version (and my rusty old german was barely up to the task). All were either passing mentions in an article primarily about another topic or were articles about the controversy with Wikipedia, not about the company itself. As Troikoalogo said, however, a redirect to the appropriate page about Wikipedia and the conflict might be appropriate. But not a stand-alone article based on those sources. Rossami (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it not meet the primary notability criterion? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, exclude the sources that trace back to the company's own publishings. Self-published materials can be used to validate some facts in an article but under the rules of WP:CORP, they can not be used to establish the question of notability. They lack the necessary independence. Then subtract the sources that mention the company or it's founder only in passing. The standard set at WP:CORP is that the coverage must be primarily about the topic in question. Trivial coverage in a story about another subject is not sufficient to meet the sourcing requirements. When I excluded for those two factors, there were zero sources left of the list in the current version. Thus, the primary criterion was not met. Rossami (talk)
    - Eh, are you sure about that? I haven't read Zittrain's book but as I understand it there's a fair bit of stuff in there. Attack of the Show is independent (although I can understand since that's an interview format why you might exclude it). The Philadelphia Inquirer article seems to no longer be online but IIRC it was substantial. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Attack of the Show failed in my mind not because of the format but because of the content. It was primarily about the dispute with Wikipedia, not about the company in its own right. Likewise, the PI article. I must confess that I do not have access to Zittrain's book directly but relied on a review in that case. The review, however, did not imply significant coverage. I believe what I saw was "three paragraphs" - again, not on the level with expected standards such as God, Country and Coca-Cola. Rossami (talk)
- The controversy with Wikipedia is part of this company's history. How are those articles that mention the controversy not about the company? And this article discusses the inspiration for the company and its subsequent development, so it's not purely about the controversy. Zagalejo^^^ 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. A story about the company would talk about its business plan, customer base, economic impact, innovative products, expansion or contraction, etc. Exxon is notable for being a really big, famous and economically significant oil company, not for being involved in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. If the oil spill were their only claim to fame, we would redirect the page to the article about the spill. This company's only claim to fame is the controversy. Getting caught up in a scandal is a story about the scandal, not the scandalizer. (Not sure if that's the right word but it's late. I hope I'm not being too unclear.) Rossami (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A company being involved in a scandal or controversy is a perfectly acceptable way for it to become notable. If Exxon was otherwise not notable or barely so and then the Valdez spill occurred we'd likely have a separate article on Exxon. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's more an application of the "one-event" principle for me. Yes, I know we've only formally written that principle down on the BLP page but it has been an unwritten principle behind WP:CORP decisions for a long time. Organizations need to be notable for more than just the one event or product, etc before they get stand-alone coverage. While their notability is solely based on one thing, a redirect is strongly preferred. Rossami (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is the same reason why I can not have an article on Wikipedia. We aren't WP:SELF. Willy on Wheels would not have an article, despite his notoriety. When a person's main claim to fame is that their brush with Wikipedia had passing notice in the mainstream media, such as I have had, or even Dan Rosenthal (Wikipedia spokesperson and admin) and Cary Bass, it can be problematic to allowing that as the primary pass for criteria. I think that's right. If a person's main claim to fame is working on here, or causing a controversy on here, then we should only give that status when there are more sources about it independently. Right now, those company specific signs of notoriety are nice, but not "you have arrived" nice, or even "you're clearly a rising star in your field" ring to them. Do they to you? --David Shankbone 03:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A company doesn't have to be a success to be notable. See Pets.com. And, from what I can tell, none of the redlinked topics have received the same extent of coverage that MyWikiBiz has. (But congrats on getting that interview! You should at least get a mention at Wikinews.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space Unlike other recent "rescues", this one isn't as clear cut, but it's just over to a bit over the threshold that I can see for WP:N. Whether or not that all spawned from, of, or before Wikipedia doesn't matter unless someone wants to get consensus to change WP:N to say otherwise (Good luck) rootology (T) 01:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space, I think it's been established that the topic is marginally notable. Everyking (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace - notability is clearly established. The only real issue I have with it is that the last paragraph of the lead seems to exist solely to establish notability, isn't there any content from those sources to put in the article? Mr.Z-man 02:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move into mainspace. Notability is easily asserted despite some people's dislike of the topic. —Giggy 03:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace notability demonstrated, WP:ASR arugments hold no water whatsoever. Viridae ^Talk 04:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space. Neil is showing members of the community how things should be done - salvaging articles and improving rather than a blanket "begone from our encyclopedia". Notable, improved sourcing. Article need improving, but that's no argument for the article not to be present. Minkythecat (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space Failing a consensus for that, it might not be bad to have as a summary for the project space. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space. Clearly meets our notability requirements, and more importantly, is interesting and verifiable based on reliable sources.--ragesoss (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is reaaallllly stretching the bounds of notability. Half the so-called "sources" are links to Wikipedia articles. naerii 02:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that it's the other half that establish notability, and those are unaddressed. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, not even a quarter of the sources are Wikipedia links. Zagalejo^^^ 04:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to insufficient reliable sources. Setting aside any opinions I have about the subject of the article and the people involved, I have gone through the sixteen separate inline citations listed on the present draft and find that they really boil down to only two reliable sources:

Inline citations 1, 9, 11, and 12, although from different publications, all refer to the same wire story by Brian Bernstein and the only difference is the subediting. Citation 2, from a blog associated with another publication, is also a slightly disguised write-up of the same story. The same story written up by different publications is still only one source.

Inline citation 10 is a short guest opinion piece in a newspaper. I was unable to check whether it appeared only in the online version rather than the print version, but the author Mathias Peer has written nothing else in this spot. His normal beat is providing travel videos under the name "Journey into the Blue" which are website only.

There are then the non-reliable sources. Five of the citations (3, 7, 13, 14, 15) refer to internal Wikipedia or MyWikiBiz pages or press releases. Citations 6 and 8 are passing mentions in web-based news sites. Citation 4 appears to be a passing mention in a book. Citations 5 and 16 are blog entries. Taken together, this topic cannot reasonably be said to have been the subject of "multiple independent reliable sources" and therefore fails notability. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have been involved with a few articles where notability issues have arisen and I cannot see that by the standards that seem to prevail on WP, this subject can be considered notable.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. For a few weeks I have been in discussions over the notability of topics where I think the WP:N guideline tends to underestimate the notability of certain subjects (in particular, villages in developing countries). This is a case where a strict interpretation of WP:N will tend to overestimate the notability. The subject we are dealing with is a small one man company which was briefly active on Wikipedia. The impact this has on the world (outside Wikipedia) is minimal, yet the company gets covered in sources simply because it's on the internet and therefore easy to write about, whether it's an online newspaper or blog. It has piqued some interest because its unusual and because it involves a large website, but judging on criteria which I feel contribute to notability (revenue, employees, impact in society, fame, importance, etc.), I just cannot see why this is significant enough to cover in an encyclopedia which routinely doesn't cover most one-man businesses. It simply disturbs me that a company like this is being considered more notable than an unremarkable factory with ten times as many employees and a economic impact and revenue far larger than what this business ever was able to produce. I realize that my argument can easily be construed as IDONTLIKEIT, and I acknowledge that Neil has made a fair effort at writing this article. Therefore I'm kind of ambivalent to this whole thing. I just wanted to get it off my chest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space. There is enough independent coverage to justify an article. Ty 00:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak move to article space. Neil's draft is a good solid attempt at an independent, well referenced article, so first kudos for the attempt. I see three arguments against moving to article space mentioned above. A) references are weak/insufficient to demonstrate notability, B) article is self-referential re Wikipedia, C) only MyWikiBiz' interaction with Wikipedia/Jimbo is notable, not MyWikiBiz itself. A) I disagree with - most of those making that argument point to a subset of the 16 references provided and state that subset would standing alone be insufficient for notability. That may be true, but at least 2 of those 16 (possibly more) appear to be fully valid for showing notability and that is sufficient, regardless of the others. B) is a true claim, but being self-referential is not in itself a reason to exclude. C) is marginal; it is true that MyWikiBiz' main claim to notability is its history of interaction with Wikipedia and Wikipedia's community. However, that history is not a single event but an ongoing pattern, and WikiBiz' current form is in direct response to that pattern. So on balance I don't buy C) either -- ergo, weak support for moving. Martinp (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hernán Rodríguez de Monroy y Orellana, 6th Lord of Monroy – Deletion endorsed. I will be happy to userfy upon request. – Eluchil404 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Despite Spanish Lords having no automatic seat in the Parliament, in Spain the title of Lord is as much a title as Baron, Viscount, Count, Marquess and Duke, and as so is recognized in the Elenco de Grandezas y Titulos Nobiliarios Españoles. Beside that, Lords, as other titulars, as their owners, were the actual rulers of their towns, as were and are the Alcaldes, Mayors, and such. For that reason, they should be considered at the same level as such. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the modern descendants, but he was a 17th century figure, and I think they may still have been sufficiently important then to count as notable. 16:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, he was a 14th century one. But still... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... 1: I don't know why I got a DRV notice on this. 2: There's no article history. If there a typo somewhere or, what's going on with this? Wizardman 16:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hernán Rodríguez de Monroy y Orellana, el Bezudo, 6th Lord of Monroy, User:Moonriddengirl found it for me. Wizardman 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't know what you did but I do: you were the first to request the deletion. Read the discuss on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hern%C3A1n_Rodr%C3%ADguez_de_Monroy_y_Orellana,_el_Bezudo,_6th_Lord_of_Monroy&action=edit&redlink=1. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be temp undeleted so we can see the content?--Troikoalogo (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The contents of this page at time of deletion consisted of one line about his title and three long paragraphs about his genealogy (marriage, children, distant relatives, etc). If this page had been cut back to encyclopedic standards, it would have read "Don Hernán (sometimes called Fernando) Rodríguez de Monroy y Orellana, el Bezudo, 6th Lord of Monroy, was a Spanish military and nobleman. He was Lord of Las Quebradas and a Knight of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and its Sergeant-Major and Commander of Moratanos." and maybe had a succession link to his father, the 5th Lord of Monroy. (By the way, if you follow that link, it's almost identical to the deleted page about the 6th Lord. Most of the discussion is not about the subject but about increasingly distant relations and what they did. Actually, go back a version in history because I'm going to try to clean that page up in the next few minutes.) Rossami (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what? Maybe these "distant relations" were actually links to other existing pages. Besides, if you see any British titular's article you'll see the same "marriage, children, etc". G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What you don't see are pages where that's the only content. (Or, if you do, that's cause to clean up those pages as well, not to perpetuate the problem.) Wikipedia is not a geneology site is solidly established as policy. Biographies in encyclopedias are supposed to be about notable people and what they did. If this page had been 95% biographical detail and 5% geneology, it probably would have passed muster. The ratios in this case were reversed. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. DRV is a place to point out how the deletion process was not followed properly, not to advance new arguments (or repeat old ones) as to why the article should be kept. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. If someone has new arguments that are relevant, there's really nowhere other than DRV to reasonably discuss whether or not to relist. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were useful sources for building an encyclopedia article presented, this would readily be overturned. genealogica.net is not such a source. The others were dead tree, but supporting only genealogical data in the article, so absent further evidence I doubt they can support an encyclopedia article. Generally speaking, nobles are not inherently notable in the sense we use. See WP:BIO for the explanation of our general notability standards as applied to people. The true test is whether we can find adequate sourcing to support an encyclopedia article. At the moment, endorse deletion as such sourcing is not in evidence. GRBerry 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- genealogica.net is not a source?... Right!... Why?... Because it's genealogic?... Beside, it was by no means the only source, only a complementary and corrective source to every other sources I've mentioned:
  - Cunha, Fernando de Castro Pereira Mouzinho de Albuquerque e (1906-1998), Instrumentário Genealógico - Linhagens Milenárias. MCMXCV, pp. 310-1
  - Instituto de Salazar y Castro, Elenco de Grandezas y Titulos Nobiliarios Españoles. Various (periodic publication)
  - Machado, J. T. Montalvão, Dos Pizarros de Espanha aos de Portugal e Brasil. Author's Edition, 1st Edition. Lisbon, 1970, pp. 20 and 47 - Arv. 1
  - Genealogy of Hernán Cortés
  - Origin of the Surname Cortés
  - Origin of the Surname Monroy
  - Origin of Vázquez de Coronado Family
  - Genealogy
  - Genealogy.
  They prove these people and these titles / charges existed. As I said above, and I repeat, Despite Spanish Lords having no automatic seat in the Parliament, in Spain the title of Lord is as much a title as Baron, Viscount, Count, Marquess and Duke, and as so is recognized in the Elenco de Grandezas y Titulos Nobiliarios Españoles. Beside that, Lords, as other titulars, as their owners, were the actual rulers of their towns, as were and are the Alcaldes, Mayors, and such. For that reason, they should be considered at the same level as such.. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - So what? Existence was not the question. The question is whether you can write an encyclopedia article about the person. Not a genealogy entry. Piling up genealogical sources does nothing to prove you can write an encyclopedia article. Find some sourcing for what the person themselves did or accomplished and write the encyclopedia article, don't waste our time presenting more copies of the basic genealogical data. GRBerry 16:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion per Stifle and GRBerry. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Turncoat!... Theyr arguments weren't even valid!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per default, because no argument is made that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, that a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions, or that significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article (see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates, above). Sandstein 15:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some simple questions: are the contents and sources valid or not? Aren't they worthy a page despite not knowing that much about them, like it happens with biographies of ancient and medieval people? Someone said above that being of the 17th century - and older, I presume - would be enough in such cases. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not relevant in this process. Such questions should have been raised in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hernán Rodríguez de Monroy y Orellana, el Bezudo, 6th Lord of Monroy. You may, however, recreate the article, impeccably sourced, in your user space, such as at User:G.-M. Cupertino/Hernán Rodríguez de Monroy, and then come here to request its restoration. Then we will discuss its sources. Sandstein 07:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't do it, since someone deleted it without warning and then it was too late, months had passed since that time. I know the article lacked of information, but that's what wikipedia is for, for someone, along the time, can complete and improve what exists. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to a subpage of User:G.-M. Cupertino so that the article may be improved. The fact that the close was procedurally correct makes little difference if an acceptable article (i.e. proves notability, is well-sourced) can be written. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jamie Anne Allman – Deletion endorsed, per the lack of independent, reliable, sources with non-trivial coverage of the subject. – Eluchil404 (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

She was on 16 movies. Sixteen!... How can that be not notable? I've seen biographies in here with half of it!... The deleters didn't see them from between the many small guest starrings she did and which alledgedly weren't enough to make her notable. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look through this search and see if you can find some secondary sources. That would make her notability claim bulletproof. Plasticup ^T/C 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know I can't find a secondary source as complete in filmography as IMDb - which, by the way, is considered accurate in filmography content -, but I've seen biographies here without any other source. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--the AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Anne Allman DGG (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Process properly followed. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you about the process: if I hadn't made the mistake of adding some elements that allegedly violated some copyrights and had I just made the page with the filmography in the first place, I would've never been contested by any of these reasons. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure: nominator doesn't explain why the closing was incorrect, seems like he just wants AFD2. Wizardman 17:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD2 for you too!... I explained, you didn't get it or you never saw the previous discussion: the page was deleted because despite her more than 30 works, most of them were just guest starrings, which according to some people isn't enough to be notable. However, since they were too rush or lazy to read it properly, they missed that 16 of her works were actually films, and I've seen biographies with less than that never contested. In short, since she was in 16 films, she is notable enough, despite all the other small roles and special guest starrings. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've argued it twice with the previous two deleters. I chose this way this time instead. Beside, those were too old discussions, I had to start it new, that's why you never noticed this discussion taking place. I warned the deleter, I don't even know who the administrator is!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about notifying people that this DRV is taking place, I'm talking about asking the person who deleted the page to reconsider their decision before even listing a DRV. That's what the instructions on this page say to do. On the other hand, this is quite an old issue, so it's possible that the discussions are in archives or history that it would take too much trouble to find.

Endorse deletion, per Wizardman. When an AFD discussion has determined that an article should be deleted, the only role DRV should take is to be sure that the process was followed and consensus determined correctly. It is not for DRV to reopen the matter. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse, but allow a user draft One editor in the AfD notes copyvio problems, so I'm not sure if there's anything from this page history that could be put into userspace. Let's not forget that process is just one possible reason to bring something to DRV. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elements concerning name, birthdate and roles are good enough to be restored. If not, I'd like to know why. I could've made a new page without all that but as they did before they would've deleted it again because it is a recreated page - without knowing the content of the old page and just because the page has the same name!!!... If I had created a page without any vice at first they would have never deleted it: I've created one or another page with only a few films per actor and they were never ever even contested!... Go figure!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure per default, because no argument is made that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, that a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions, or that significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article (see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates, above). Sandstein 15:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. We don't restore copyvios. --Smashville^BONK! 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recreate a good article on her in userspace, with valid references, and then get it moved to the right place. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a new page with new references be deleted? How can I be sure such references are found to be valid? It's allways a risk. Someone gave me half a dozen of them, but I don't want to take the risk without a minimum of certainties. Are these sources valid:

This article includes "And Jamie Brown (memorable as a doomed prostitute in cable TV's "The Shield") ..." according to this Google search. You'll have to register to read the article (or visit bugmenot.com for a name and password)
Press release re: her in the movie The Forlorn.
An alternate list of credits. Not as complete as IMDb but on cursory inspection does not appear to be user generated. Unfortunately also includes credits for a producer with the same name.
Interview with her husband (then-boyfriend) where he talks about her
Blog entry from the writer of her movie Automatic.
photos of her and her husband
Another photo of Mr+Mrs Allman

G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable sources. Much less nontrivial mentions in reliable sources. And two of them are merely pictures. --Smashville^BONK! 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse process was followed correctly. IMDB is not a reliable source. No prejudice against creation and building of proper article in userspace for if/when she is sufficiently notable (and the notability is sufficiently verifiable by reliable sources). Number of appearances isn't the same as notability and IMDB on it's own doesn't show whether the roles actually existed or not (just that someone claims they do). Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What??? You even doubt IMDb over the actual roles?... It's the only thing that is based on actual information from the films or shows. The site receives elements from the movie production as the technical sheet or whatever you call in America, and adds it. And then someone says that it was someone else who gave the information? Many people can assure that so and so were in this or that movie because it's true. How could we prove it, by watching every single movie that was made or by talking directly to Productors and Film companies?... It's absurd, where else would we find cinematographic information? No one challenges IMDb on that specific information. IMDb is CREDIBLE in filmography. About that, I want to quote another editor:
  - WP:RS says that reliable sources are "credible published materials with a reliable publication process". On IMDb, anyone can submit a credit and, unless it is obviously wrong, it gets published. There is little (if any) fact-checking involved. An example from personal experience: a friend of mine appeared in a movie under a pseudonym. I added the credits for that film, crediting him under his real name (also listing the pseudonym) and they accepted my word for it. On Wikipedia that's considered original research and is not allowed. Any source that allows original research is not a reliable source. An exception is listed here, in that IMDb gets their screenwriting credits directly from the Writer's Guild, qualifying only those as reliable. I would agree that their other credit listings are usually accurate but are wrong often enough to not be taken as gospel. Bottom line, I don't disagree with using IMDb for credits but biographical information has to be from somewhere else. Precious Roy (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The same goes to information over cast and crew, also provided by reliable informants such as producers, companies, agents, managers, etc, etc. In fact, if you follow the link to a given film or series, you will find, at least in most of the times, the name of the actor in a non-contested page, the film or series' page. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flat_Daddy – Restored and sent to AFD by deleting admin. – Stifle (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I challenged the speedy deletion made under the ground of "unverified concept/slang" here Talk:Flat_Daddy nonetheless, the page has been deleted without further discussion. As specified, the concept is well documented and popular - and it has nothing to do with slang - in my view, criteria for SD by an admin are not met in this case. Note as well the concept has two interwikis already. Yesterday, I left a message to the proposer for the SD and today to the admin who did it.

I have no objection to putting the article through a "normal deletion" process properly discussed by the community, of course cheers --Ofol ^(t) 08:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article has been undeleted and put into normal deletion process by Anthony Appleyard --Ofol ^(t) 10:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 August 2008[edit]

Template:Irrel – Endorsed by letter, overturned in spirit. There's some feeling here that the template is needed but that "irrelevant" isn't quite the right word, and that it, as the closer of the TfD says, suggests a subjective judgment rather than an objective fact. Might I suggest (editorially, not ex officio) "Off-topic" as, indeed, the best way to put it, in keeping with other templates and the section to which the template links? I'll undelete (the actual template, not the redirect), and this could be run through TfD again as some suggest, but I think this can be solved editorially just by identifying the right word and editing (and moving) the template. – Chick Bowen 02:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Irrel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache) (TfD) The template added an inline subscript Irrelevant? to the statement. The consensus for its deletion was very weak, and I find myself in need of this template in other articles (just as before it was created). The goal of this inline template is to point out statements that may violate WP:UNDUE by being irrelevant to the main subject (the explanation of the template read: The material in the vicinity of this tag may contain the information irrelevant to the article's main topic); it is an inline version of {{Off-topic}} and offers similar but singificantly different focus to {{dubious}} or {{POV-statement}}. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment The consensus was that the template added an inline opinion of the one placing it about the relevance of a sentence, rather then an objective observation based on policy or guidelines, like {{dubious}} or {{POV-statement}}. Relevancy however is strictly content-based, and content should only be discussed on the talk page, not in-line in the article. — Edokter • Talk • 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why this DRV is being placed only now for a deletion discussion from nearly five months ago? Stifle (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
possibly because there are so many questionable deletions in Wikipedia that it is taking a longtime to examine them all? (smile) DGG (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is when I got around to this issue :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I'm neutral on this DRV because the debate could reasonably have been closed either way, and while I don't think I'd use the template, it could be relevant. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The question of how to deal with possibly irrelevant content is one that has never really been properly addressed, for we have o firm criteria. Though this template wouldn't solve that problem, it would at least specify it. I am not sure it might not end up being used to exacerbate politically charged debates, but it warrants a discussion with more attention paid to it. DGG (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. DGG and Piotrus say it all really. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The history of this template is located at {{Irrelevant (inline)}}, to which {{irrel}} redirects. Without commenting on the TfD, I'd like to suggest changing the text and name of the template (if is recreated) from "irrelevant?" to "relevant?". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tony Piccalo – Deletion endorsed. – Chick Bowen 02:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Everything on Tony Piccalo's page is correct and it was deleted for no reason. 20:58, 19 August 2008 User:Manbearpig321

If I undeleted it and AfD'ed it, the verdict would almost certainly be "Non-notable school teacher" or similar. Someone else db-tagged it as NN: I merely obeyed him and deleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The article was deleted as failing to assert significance under criterion WP:CSD#A7. An article may be deleted speedily if it does not "give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." Having been employed as a high school football coach for four years is not an indication of importance or significance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Moonriddengirl. I have reviewed the article and didn't see anything that would indicate he would qualify as notable under WP:ATHLETE. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion. I'm generally skeptical of A7 deletions but this is one of the best examples of appropriate use that I've seen in a long time. Rossami (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per default, because no argument is made that a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions, or that significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article (see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates, above). Sandstein 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Clear A7. Football coach at a high school with an undistinguished record there and no information about any possible previous notable career.DGG (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mike Banks (musician) – Contested PROD, restored – Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contesting prod. I have sources which validate Banks's presence as a key musician in Detroit techno. Chubbles (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

SDF-4 Izumo – Automatically restored as contested PROD. – Stifle (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

References were being discussed and added to address the article's shortcomings 1-54-24 (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alchemy business solutions – Blatant spam, doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Deletion endorsed. – ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Factual Article, submitted by KingSenna, submission fixed by TravellingCari 02:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been deleted by three admins as G11 (Blatant advertising). All appear to be correct. Endorse deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Being true doesn't mean it's notable. Write a draft up showing notability and not advertising the company, and then maybe we can work towards inclusion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, was previously created, speedily deleted, and the deletion endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 26. The version which was created and deleted today is virtually identical to the version deleted in July. --Stormie (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, clear advert and reposted several times with no attempt to deal with why the article had been deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion blatant advertising. Hut 8.5 10:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eugene Victor Tooms – Restored as contested PROD. – Stormie (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article has been in place now for at least a couple of years, and was only just recently prodded and deleted. To the best of my knowledge, no editors were notified. I would vote for it to be undeleted, but at the very least, to be restored and redirected to The X-Files so another editor could try adding real world information to it at a later point without having to restore the whole thing from scratch. CyberGhostface (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Contested prod, all you need to do is ask. I suggest going to the deleting admin first next time. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 August 2008[edit]

Hindu terrorism – Speedy close; blatant trolling – Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

dozens of reliable sources. admins speak for themselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.54.191 (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion, no reason has been presented as to why the AfD closure was incorrect, edit summary of nomination indicates a lack of good faith. --Stormie (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. This is not AfD2. The AfD got a good hearing, and there are not procedural problems. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am speedy closing this per the edit summary here and the subsequent edit there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Postville Iowa Raid (Agriprocessors Kosher Meat Plant) – Overturned, but I am redirecting to Postville Raid, a much better article that has recently passed AfD. – Chick Bowen 02:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was speedily deleted with an edit summery of (G10: Attackpage or negative unsourced BLP). I noticed this fairly new article shortly before it was speedily deleted. (It had not been tagged, or else I would have removed the tag and suggested a WP:AfD instead, since this was obviously an controversial deletion, so that a reasoned discussion could take place first.) While it is true that the article needs work, this in and of itself is no reason to simply delete the entire article without allowing for discussion and improvement. The article was by no stretch of the imagination an Attack Page, as has been asserted by the deleting editor. Much of the information in the article comes from the government itself, and another source is an inside account of the process as observed by an official federal translator who was involved in the process, and which has been extensively covered in the press. I recognize most of the information contained in the article from local, national and international news accounts, and I believe that it would be quite easy to supply citations in proper wikipedia style to most of the information contained in the article. In addition, formating the article into sections should provide no great difficulties, and I was planning on starting both of these when I first discovered the article just prior to its being speedily deleted without notice. Any percieved POV problems can be addressed by allowing multiple eyes to attend to the article. Why not allow wikipedia editors a chance to bring the article about this important and historic immigration raid that has recieved so much attention, both nationally and internationally, up to wikipedia standards before speedily deleting it? This is not what Speedy Deletion was ever intended for. Ramsey2006 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Copied from my message on Ramsey's talk page] I interpreted it as an attack on those who supervised the raid, an article created simply to disparage the raid, and as a hopelessly anti-raid POV (not to mention the idea of "raid" itself seeming rather POV) it is an attack page that can't be rectified. We can speedy delete an advertising article if it's a page which exclusively promotes some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic: it can get so bad that it simply needs to be deleted immediately. This page was similar, except being an attack page that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. With all of the article's sources simply being listed at the bottom of the article, I couldn't tell what (if anything) was being sourced to reliable sources, except the court calendar (which obviously isn't enough to sustain the article), and the reliable sources that are being used (such as the NYT article) are being used in a totally POV way, taking the guy with the obvious anti-raid POV at his word without even listening to anyone with a pro-raid POV. Contrary to what is stated, the article was hopelessly POV, and as I noted on Ramsey's talk page, anything with a decent source would need to be completely rewritten. All reliable sources that were listed on the article I copied to Ramsey's talk page, so that s/he could begin work: if everything needs to be rewritten, and if all that's currently on there needs to be removed, there's no reason to keep the article. As to my speedy deletion of the article: because I have the technical capability to delete articles, I have no need to place a tag. If I believe that it deserves review from another editor, I'll place a prod or nominate it for AFD, but there's no reason to. Reading from WP:Attack page, "If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists solely or primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place;" I don't deny that the subject is notable, but as it was primarily an attack page against the persons who conducted the raid, and there was no good revision to revert to, I deleted it and gave the listed reliable sources to someone who knows enough about the subject to write an appropriate stub article. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall the article containing any personal attacks. But if it did, said personal attacks can easily be removed, and were certainly not the thrust of the article. Furthermore, calling a raid a "raid" is not POV, but even if it were, relatively minor edits could resolve the problem. As for advertising, I don't recall any of that, either. I do not agree that "everything needs to be rewritten" and that "all that's currently on there needs to be removed". --Ramsey2006 (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it was advertising: I said that it was similar to advertising, in which we can speedy delete a bad article, even on a notable topic. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't mean to mischaracterize your statement. Let me amend my response to say that I don't believe that there was anything similar to advertising contained in the article.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misunderstanding the analogy here. :) As I read it, Nyttend is not saying there was advertising or anything like advertising in the article. Rather, s/he seems to be comparing the processes of deleting an article for BLP concerns and deleting an article for promotional concerns, noting that in either case deletion may be proper, even if on a valid subject. Regardless of the specifics in this case, I believe this is a correct interpretation of policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. I don't believe that the content of the article is "solely or primarily" an attack against any named person. I also disagree that it is "hopelessly POV". While I do think that the article needed some work to bring it into compliance with encyclopedia standards, it was not hopeless. The raid was widely reported and therefore notable. Let's restore and fix it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, Matt Drudge is linking to this unusually long (2600-word) AP article. "A small town struggles after immigration raid". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion. I do not believe this existed purely for disparagement/attack purposes, as even in the google cache version I can spot numerous paragraphs that seem to be factual, referenced and encyclopedic. If any such content exists, it really calls for cleanup or AFD rather than a simple speedy deletion. That said, the article was in bad shape... but there's a reasonable argument that it's a notable topic, and there was some quasi-useful content in what was deleted. It should go to AFD. --Rividian (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Has been all over the news and will likely have long-term implications for meat packing in general. Certainly not speediable. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Sections of the article were purportedly referenced and well written. I would like to see the article return -- possibly any NPOV statements could be revised. I disagree that a statement that it was a "raid" is by itself biased. Wikipedia references a raid as either "a sudden attack behind an enemy's lines" or "a police action involving the entering of [a building] with the intent to capture personnel or evidence". By either of those definitions (defining "lawbreakers" as the enemies of the police), the action was a raid. Government press releases refer to the action as a raid. I do not see how calling the action a raid is, in and of itself, NPoV.
Overturn deletion but consider changing the title, and then rewriting the article to be shorter and more encyclopedic,and less a detailed blow by blow account. . Cleanup will be necessary, and coordination with other related articles, and there is every reason to expect the involvement of people with various strong POVs, but in any case it was not a speedy A10. Snow overturn, and I suggest waiting a few days for improvements before proceeding to AfD. Simplest way to proceed now will be for the deleting admin to revert himself. . DGG (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, article has POV issues and sourcing issues (some sources are reliable but a number are blogs), but I don't believe it meets any criteria for speedy deletion. --Stormie (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article was recreated by original creator at Postville Raid and is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postville Raid. We've got some duplication of efforts going on. I'll notify contributors to that AfD, but I'm not at all sure whether this discussion should be happening here or there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and allow some improved version of this article. The present version (reposted at the link above) needs work for tone and possible copyright issues, but having some article on this event is not an attack, and "raid" is the most common term for this sort of immigration enforcement action. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing/keep deleted. While I disagree with the speedy, its main article is Agriprocessors and we don't need a separate article for this specific event. Overturning now that there is a more proper redirect is kinda of pointless. Synergy 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, over at the AfD, Ultra has shown some improvment on the recreated title and I believe that one would be the more preferred fork (given its notable to keep the fork). Synergy 13:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the best title can be decided on later, and then the merge done as necessary. I think it's fairly clear that onle article will be needed; perhaps we could suspend this discussion until after the afd thre. DGG (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn This is an article that needs reworking and improvement, not deletion. This was a notable incident that received major media coverage nationwide and beyond, and has received continuing coverage since, including editorial responses in The New York Times. The reliable and verifiable sources satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Issues of tone or alleged "attacks" should be addressed through editing, not summary execution of an article. Alansohn (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Olivier Girault – Non-controversial request, page history restored. – Stormie (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A new version of the article has been recreated, so I'd like the old history undeleted. Thank you, Korg (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the same individual. Nothing problematic in the history. (Nor anything really to be gained, as there are no sources either.) Why not? GRBerry 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roleplay Online – Allow userfication for improvement. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Move to userspace, preferably User:Banaticus/rpol so I can add requested site review prior to restoring article to main Wikipedia space. For instance, [37] and [38]. Please include history of page, as discussion at the RfD appears to indicate that poor NPoV edits were made prior to article's deletion. Banaticus (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment Many people do not do so, possibly because they are unduly scared of admins. We do not place bureaucratic blocks in the way of editors trying to save articles. If this is desired to be an absolute requirement, propose it, but based o earlier comments here I do not think the change will be accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  - Nowhere on that page does it say it is optional. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nowhere does it say it is mandatory either. Chiding him for it is just process for process sake. What exactly would he need to discuss and work out with the deleting admin? --Smashville^BONK! 19:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - As per the required steps to list a new deletion review, I notified the deleting admin hours before Stifle's comment was posted. ;) Banaticus (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The intention is that you try to discuss the matter with the deleting admin before listing something on this page, not just before Stifle notices and objects. :-) Jossi may have been happy to simply move the deleted article to your userspace without a deletion review discussion being necessary. --Stormie (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yup, that's the idea. It's both courteous to the deleting admin and helps avoid unnecessary process. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userify on the merits, no reason not to allow for improvements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Userfy. Reasonable request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Straightforward request. --Smashville^BONK! 19:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to userfication so Banaticus can have a crack at improving it, but based on those two links provided (a blog and a college newspaper) I'm not sure that he's going to be able to overcome the reliable sources and notability concerns expressed at the AQfD. --Stormie (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu – Deletion endorsed. While some issues with the deletion reasoning have been raised, they have already been discussed at the previous DRV which resulted in a decision to keep the article deleted, and significant doubts about the actually deleted version remain. The current combination of redirect and article on the murderer would therefore be the starting point for further editing but it is also possible that a discussion of a fresh draft might come to a different conclusion. – Tikiwont (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article survived an AfD a couple of months before admin Phil_Sandifer deleted the article, giving the edit summary 'No assertion of notability, article in poor taste, BLP by spirit, if not letter'. I restored the article and he deleted it again. I say that the subject of the article is notable and worthy of inclusion. Richard Cavell (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was uncontroversial for 15 months, and with good reason - it's a tabloidy piece of WP:NOT#NEWS of minimal significance that falls well under the general understanding of BLP, since the deceased has living relatives who are implicitly harmed by our deciding to memorialize ephemera like this. Why on Earth is this being dragged up 15 months after an utterly uncontroversial deletion? Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did not realise at first that Phil's deletion was endorsed here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30. Still, I request deletion review on the basis that his deletion was designed to circumvent, and does circumvent, the consensus of the community at AfD to 'keep' the article, and that his cited BLP policy does not apply to a dead person. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say it better than I did 15 months ago: "BLP is about protecting the dignity of people. The fact that the child in question is dead does not remove the fundamental BLP issues - her family, including her brother mentioned by name in the article, still have every bit as much potential to be hurt by this article as she would be. BLP is our policy about being ethical citizens. This article has clear ethical issues - this is an ephemeral case where we do not add meaningfully to the world and we substantively take away. It should remain deleted." Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the only BLP violation could have been solved by omitting the brother;s name. DGG (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is manifestly untrue. We have BLP for ethical, not legal reasons. Her only claim to notability was her unfortunate death. The reasons we ought not have an article on her and the reasons we ought not have an article on a marginally notable living person are the same. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Based on the process I can see, the BLP deletion is justified. Subject is adequately noted at Dante Arthurs. Townlake (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse based on the prior DRV. Unless there has been a change in the facts of the case (e.g. better sources are now avalible) or Wikipedia policy/consensus (e.g. BLP speedies are considered innapropriate) a new review is unlikely to bring a different result. Since neither of those conditions apply the prior decision should stand. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP speedy? No, this was deleted for WP:CSD#A7. -- Ned Scott 07:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did I mention the person in question isn't living? -- Ned Scott 08:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is more than adequate precedent to treat articles on the recently deceased as BLP issues because of living relatives. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. invalid speedy deletion. No offense, Phil, but you should have listed this at AfD if you disagreed with the first AfD's results. -- Ned Scott 07:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also not swayed by the fact that this wasn't challenged right away. It's a big wiki, and it's easy for these things to go unnoticed and slip through the cracks. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also not swayed by the first DRV. This occurred around the time when BLP paranoia was particularly high on the Wiki (again, BLP reasons for a dead person? WTF?). badlydrawnjeff was right. -- Ned Scott 08:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. There are many things that badlydrawnjeff was, but "right" was never one of them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. See that L in WP:BLP? Stifle (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How to Proceed Article has been redirected to the criminal, which does make sense according to out current practice. An afd discussion should be held for that article, which may or may not pass our current standards for BLP, but let community decide. I am particualarly bothered by the deletion comment of violating the "spirit of BLP" ; I hold with strict enforcement of BLP, but only within the limits of the actual rule. Certainly not for deletions specially opposed to the actual rule. The suggestion tht it apply to the recently deceased was mooted duringthe original discusion of the policy, and soundly rejected."the spirit of BLP" can encompass a great many things. None of the other reasons given permit a speedy after a community vote to keep. As for a delete of the redirect, which is what would now be the question, this should be dealt with at the new AfD--it may become irrelevant, and if not, should go to RfD. BLP is not about "our policy for being ethical citizens" a very widereaching role, we should be ethical citizens, and many of us think that this is done best by reporting with NPOV everything outside the limits of the actual BLP policy, and censoring what doe not need to be censored by our policy is the opposite of ethical. DGG (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Typically, I'd agree with you. In this case, though, reading the May '07 DRV it seems like most of the deleted article's content (which I don't have access to) was similar to the later People You'll See in Hell narrative on the event. I'd be willing to reconsider my opinion if I'm wrong in that assumption, but on the surface, I find Phil's action justifiable, and the DRV that already took place on the subject seems to have generally agreed. Townlake (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. Was not speediable. Overzealous interpretation of the scope of WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as proper as per Chick Bowen below. Sounds like WP:BLP violations permeate the history to the point that it would be too hard to excise the information while maintaining the GFDL. Allow recreation subject to WP:BLP, including incidental mentions of living people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The subject of the page is an eight year old girl who was murdered. I agree that her page should redirect to a page on either Dante Arthurs (where it currently redirects) or to a page on the crime itself. I'm obviously not able to read the article, but I find it difficult to believe that an eight year old girl could have been notable on her own. If her only instance of notability is that she was the victim in a particular crime, then I believe that she should merely be referenced on a page discussing the crime. Banaticus (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article as it now stands is on the murderer, which is almost certainly the better choice.DGG (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse. previous endorsement at DRV surely should satisfy even the most died in the wool process wonk. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

even those with the most flexible interpretation of language should realize that Living and Dead are not synonyms There was a proposal to include "recenttly dead" and it was soundly rejected by the community. And I don't see any blp problems with respect to the convicted murderer. DGG (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. WP:BLP explicitly covers only living people and therefore cannot justify speedily deleting an article about a dead person. If the article contained objectionable content about living persons, that content can be editorially removed without deleting the article. Sandstein 15:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ick I certainly think the article should be a case of delete and redirect. And I'm very worried about someone treating BLP to include this. That said, this appears to be a case of NOT#NEWS and given previous deletion should certainly be deleted. So don't endorse but delete. BLP didn't belong here and notability doesn't either (WP:N is clearly met by sources). But deletion was the right thing to do. I've no objection to sending it back to AfD, but have little doubt about the outcome. Hobit (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The second and third paragraphs of the deleted version are OK, but the first is unsourced, speculative narrative about a minor who is still alive (the subject's brother). That text goes back to the earliest revision. Given that, I don't see how this could be undeleted, and as an admin I can't do it in good conscience (I came here to close this debate). A new version might be a different matter, but this one should stay deleted. Chick Bowen 02:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not wish to defend the article's mention of her brother. I am defending the inclusion of an article on the subject (the girl). Phil's deletion of the article rests on NOT#NEWS and BLP violations. The BLP violations that he asserts will not be adequately addressed by excising mention of the brother; he states, correctly, that the existence of the article affects the family of the deceased girl. I say that the effect upon the family by the existence of an article on the girl is not a violation of BLP, and is not a reason to otherwise speedily delete the article. I request that I be permitted to recreate the article, with modifications, and submit it to AfD, AfD being the proper forum for this discussion. Will an admin please close this review? - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

University of Windsor Students' Alliance – Overturned and relisted by closing admin. – Stifle (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I disagree that a delete consensus was reached. At best it was no consensus. The deletion should be overturned. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen clear case of no consensus--the debate was so sparse that it should have been continued for further discussion. Of similar pages, some are kept, some aren't, and the comments of neither the keep nor delete people rally addressed the issues involved. DGG (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh geez.. you could've asked me why I closed it the way I did before DRVing. Plus I noticed you notified the other keep voter, which is a violation of WP:CANVASS. Anyway, Endorse closure. AFD is not a vote, remember. The delete voters said that it wasn't notable on it's own, and as you can see where were no realiable sources to prove this. The keep voters said it was inherently notable, but if you look at previous AFDs on student organizations, very rarely are they notable (unless they of course are covered in reliable sources). I'll relist it if consensus leans that way, though. Wizardman 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The AfD shouldn't have been closed as a consensus-delete with that little input. Townlake (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no quorum on deletion debates. There have been multiple proposals that there be a quorum for deletion debates but they have at every juncture been roundly rejected by the community. If the only complaints about the close are "I don't agree" and "not enough input" then there is nothing in policy (or even in practice) to support the request for review...
brenneman 08:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Oh, and I reversed the re-opening of the debate. Have some patience, people![reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, he's been consulted now, and his statement above is that he, not surprisingly,endorses his own close. We ought not raise procedural objections to people trying to rescue articles. He offers to relist if a consensus decides that way--not that there would be any choice if such were the consensus. I note that he closed entirely on his own opinion, and not a good one, because it was "most such organisations are not notable," which is irrelevant to the question of whether this one is. and it would have made more sense to join the debate and let someone else close, which. 09:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
- If I was trying to raise a procedural objection I'd have been more likely to speedy-close this DRV for not following process, which would be absurd. I'm merely asking why the nominator didn't do the closing admin the basic courtesy of asking him to reverse or explain his decision before coming over here, especially given that it is explicitly stated as something that should be done. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete full history and convert to redirect to University of Windsor. Without knowing, I presume that the article clearly failed WP:N, and this swung User:Wizardman to delete. If so, the redirect is preferable. This case is a symptom of the overuse of AfD to the point of exhaustion of interested wikipedians, and relisting is not what is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The normal outcome for student organizations is to smerge them to the University. Very, very few have enough independent sourcing to sustain an article. This article managed to assert that the group exists and is a member of Canadian Federation of Students. Neither the article nor the AFD participants demonstrated any reason to have an article. Given the normal outcome for student organizations, and the lack of anything to merge - there is more data in the university article (though just the trivial factoid of being local #49), delete and redirect or redirect without merging would be fine outcomes. Keeping as an independent article would not be a reasonable outcome. GRBerry 13:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll relist it; the bickering here's generally pointless and won't solve anything. Wizardman 13:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 August 2008[edit]

Emochila – Relisted at AfD by deleting administrator. – PeterSymonds (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

For the page Emochila, I have been working hard with GRuban to get the proper articles and notibility for in order to get a Keep status on the article. Please reference the article's discussion section where GRuban was telling me the necessary steps. On August 16, GRuban said the article met the standards, and you can see that he placed a Keep on the article.

Not more than an hour later, someone was agitated that their comment was deleted from the talk pages, and the article was then deleted. I do not know if the person who issued the delete was the same person, as only their IP address shows. However, they say that the article is spam and written by officers of the firm. Well, if GRuban issued a Keep, it was not spam, as it contains the proper notability and article references. Furthermore, I am not an officer of Emochila.

I'm requesting that this page be reinstated to a Keep as originally authorized by GRuban. He was very helpful, and I followed his instructions to a T, rather than the Delete that was issued on rubbish and, frankly, points that were simply untrue. Kwintern (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin Though I cannot restore the page and close the AfD, I'm quite happy to relist the AfD, which I'm doing now. It was in the backlog with two arguments to delete, so it was done, but a firmer consensus is likely to make the issue clearer. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Relisted at the current log. It appears it was also relisted yesterday, but was never removed from the archive. I've fixed this. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 August 2008[edit]

Leigh Mills – restore – пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article on a footballer was deleted by AfD on the grounds that he had not played professionally, however he made his professional debut today ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can we just make a rule that a player who has made his début can just be recreated/undeleted by private request? There has been a purge on marginal players over the summer and we will be swamped with straightforward requests like this if we don't. Its not like I even like football but I'm happy to do it if people leave me a note. Oh and allow recreation/undelete etc. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm an admin so could have done it myself but figured it would be best to do things "by the book"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that wasn't adig at you simply a desire to get an agreed consensus on how to deal with the inevitable flood of débuts. Doing it by the book is cool. Shredding the book where possible is even better. ;) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, now meets WP:ATHLETE. BTW, I've got another admin telling me that I should be DRVing rather than asking to restore. Perhaps we simply deal with the root cause, and should not be so quick to delete players that are likely to be part of the first team when the season resumes, or who are on the first team, but only as substitutes. Nfitz (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was first deleted over a year ago - waiting a year for him to make his debut is hardly constructive. The root problem is people creating the articles before the players meet the criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the deleted version to mainspace and add a reference about this player having played a professional match. I don't think this is really a case for DRV. The AfD was closed appropriately at the time, yet the circumstances have clearly changed now. In a situation like this one should probably simply contact the closing admin directly and ask for the article to be undeleted. It would probably help if in AfDs of this sort the closing admins made allow recreation/undelete in case of future professional appearances a part of the closing summary. There are quite a few other AfDs in the same category, where new players have been signed up by professional clubs but have not made actual game appearances yet. E.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waide Fairhurst is a recent one of this sort. Nsk92 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jack Wilshere – Raised as an misunderstanding. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Player passed earlier DRV of August 9. In the meantime, as fully expected he started today for Arsenal F.C.. The previous DRV should have passed on WP:N alone because of the massive international media coverage this player has had. Could an Admin please restore the article ASAP so as to not waste someone who knows no better's time starting to write a new article from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - according to the link he is listed under "subs not used". PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - oops - to be honest, I hadn't noticed that - and had I, I would have handled differently. (in particular I wouldn't have said he had started!), and I apologize for starting this debate in this manner. However, now that we are down this road, this clearly demonstrates he is an important part of the first team. And surely even sitting on the bench of one of the top 4 football teams on what is arguably the best league in the planet, is notable - particularly compounded with the massive media coverage he has received. I'm completely confounded that with the international media coverage he has received in the last few weeks that anyone is arguing that he doesn't meet WP:N - typically the argument against WP:N for a football player goes along the lines that "the Wessex Evening News is a local rag, and he needs national coverage" ... yet this time we have significant international coverage. Nfitz (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as deletion endorsed Nothing new here. Player has still not played for first team (reason article was deleted in first place) and last DRV closed as deletion endorsed earlier today. No need to re-discuss. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, because I have made an error, I don't have any objections if User:Chick Bowen wants to speedy close - but I ask that he reconsiders his notability under WP:N as per my comments yesterday on his talk page after he closed it. Nfitz (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marc Geelhoed – Deletion endorsed as AfD was unanimous. – Chick Bowen 17:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

My biographical entry was deleted. I was a prominent journalist in Chicago before leaving to join the Chicago Symphony Orchestra to manage its record label, CSO Resound. This is similar to running a music label in any other genre, and is therefore prominent and of interest to people who follow the classical-recording industry. My blog is also one of the top 25 most popular classical-music blogs. I feel this meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, which I have read. The admin who deleted my entry states on his (or her) page that they are not to contacted about why an article was deleted. For this reason, I am not going to notify him of this request. Thank you, and please restore my article. 75.21.84.5 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted as the result of a community dicussion, accessble via the AfD link above and from the deletion summary which the deleting admins talk page directs you to. The basic standard for notability for biographies such as yours is listed at WP:BIO. It would be helpful if you could state why you believe you are notable relative to the standards outlined there. On the basic criteria, which is essentially to have non-trivial coverage about you, written by independant third parties in reliable sources from the article as written doesn't appear to have been met, there were lots of references to places you have worked or to articles you have written, but none to articles about you. Even for the other criteria within WP:BIO such assertions would need to be backed up by similar independant reliable sources. Someone here may come and try and search them out for you, but they may not or may not be able to find them, so if you have such references you can add them here. (Additionally if you can demonstrate that you meet the norbaility standards there is the other issue of the content of the article needing to be verifiable that is it needs to reference the sources for where the facts come from, you knowing it to be correct is not enough, other readers need to be able to follow up on the sources to verify what they read) --82.7.39.174 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also you may wish to see our conflict of interest guideline. In general, writing about yourself is not such a great idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per AfD. Userfication might be a reasonable next step but should probably wait until the author gets an account or someone else expresses interest. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - No problem with AfD, no substantive new arguments brought up.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per default, because no argument is made that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or that significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article (see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates, above). Sandstein 15:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dance Gavin Dance (album) – Request withdrawn. – Stifle (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was deleted because it was lacking in sources, but there are now several reliable sources talking about the album. ([39][40][41]) It is also confirmed to be a self-titled album on each of those sources. One of the sources is even from Alternative Press, so there should be no question of reliability. I'd say more but I don't know what more there is to say; I'll let the sources do the talking. — ^Fatal Error 07:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any of those satisfy WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the first two meet RS. The third appears to be the website of a music magazine. If it was published in the mag then it counts but I'm not sure that a purely online article would count. Can the nominator confirm whether this was a mag or website story? They may also wish to bear in mind that meeting our guidelines on reliable sourcing generally requires material from mainstream quality publications or books. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it was published in the actual magazine, no. I didn't think about that. I just figured, since it was published by one of the largest music magazines in the world, it should be reliable enough. In that case, how about a source from the band's record label? — ^FatalError 07:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. primary sources do not establish notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wait, never mind, for some reason I thought I was trying to find a source proving the album name, not notability. Never mind then, I guess I'll wait for more sources. — ^Fatal Error 08:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cassi Davis – Article deleted in error after vandalism removed most of its content, now restored. – Stifle (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article, present for quite some time, speedily deleted by User:Alexf on CSD#A7 grounds (no assertion of notability). Davis is a NAACP-award winning (Best Supporting Actress) television and cinema actress, and the last time I saw the article a day or so ago I believe it both asserted notability and passed the notability guidelines, and the cached Google copy does the same as well. I would request, at least, that the article be restored to my userspace if it is determined that it needs additional work. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that that article has been recreated. Under the assumption that either the article will stay or be sent to AFD, then I guess this should be closed for now. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the db-bio notice the article only contained the following text: "Cassi Davis is a Christian singer and actress." That's it. Nothing more. I was doing more than one vandal reversion and some CSD at the time and this obviously looked like a clear db-bio case. Upon looking again (after I was notified) I see the article was recreated and indeed it shows notability now. Studying the log on this page I see now that on 15 Aug 17:36 User talk:209.215.62.10 practically deleted all the important text for whatever reason (vandalism it seems). Apologies then for my deletion. -- Alexf⁴² 01:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 August 2008[edit]

Skank – Recreated with {{Wi}}; Wiktionary now contains a definition of the word. – Sceptre ^(talk) 21:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged as WP:CSD#A5 but I could not find the deletion debate. It was deleted while I was checking it out. There are a number of links, so I think we should review this and if we do think it was a dicdef (likely, IMO) then I guess we need to fix the redlinks to point to wikt:Skank. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a bit odd, but have you asked the deleting admin? He might be able to shed more information on why it was deleted as such. Shereth 22:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was an error on my part. It was supposed to be a dicdef. Sorry.

In doing my post-error homework, it appears that it's been AfD'd twice:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skank- inconclusive
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skank (2nd nomination) - inconclusive

Toddst1 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it has not been transwiki'd to wikt:Skank. Should it have been? Or should it not have been deleted? --Stormie (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crap. I was going to simply restore the thing and be done since this was obviously a mistake but since there have been wholesale surgery of the article as a result of an OTRS ticket I'm not really in the mood to research the whole thing again. This clearly needs a further debate. My suggestion is to restore the last version and list at AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Ontario Freeway – Talk page restored as was deleted under G8 and is no longer orphaned. Seems non-controversial but contact me if there are any issues. – Stifle (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talkpage restore requested. --75.47.152.157 (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jews in the history of business – Non-admin closure of AFD rescinded and AFD reopened. – Stifle (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

AFD was closed as a withdrawal, but there is no explicit withdrawal, nor should AFDs be withdrawn when an early consensus even says it should be deleted. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wasn't nominated for deletion at the time - the nominator withdrew the AfD tag. There's no use in a DRV because anyone can re-list at any time. Before doing that, though, I'd suggest taking a look at some of the discussion here and here. Wikidemo (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he just forgot to put it back? I've done it sometimes. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the AFD was closed by the articles creator, and given that the nominator had only advised that user of the AFD a few minutes before removing the AFD tag, with an edit summary suggesting they were restoring the article to it's original form for the deletion discussion, this close does indeed seem somewhat questionable. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed that - please re-nominate if you wish. But this is completely out of process - the AfD and the DRV. The article was renamed to favor deletion, then nominated for deletion under a misleading name, then the the nomination withdrawn. Start fresh perhaps, but don't reinstate bad process - which would be invalid whatever the result. I'll add, this was an out-of-process DRV closure too. Instead of going nuts on procedure, please simply start over if you still think the article is worthy of deltion and allow a proper AfD. Wikidemo (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thomas Wm. Hamilton – AfD deletion endorsed – RMHED (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I cannot understand why this entry was deleted, and cannot find the listing for whomever did the deletion, so I cannot argue it with him/her. This person was in the list of "former child actors", having performed in at least three shows which are themselves listed in wikipedia (Barnaby, Mr. I-Magination, and Miracle on 34th Street), as well has having authored three books, many articles, etc etc. including being the first to suggest use of a manned spacecraft to visit a Near Earth Asteroid, and working on the Apollo Project. He should be listed in your list of American Astronomers (if you have such) rather than being deleted. He also ran for public office at least twice, and was for 8 years County Chair of a political party itself listed in wikipedia. I'm very uninformed as to how this works, so I have probably wasted my effort writing this here, and spent half an hour just finding this place to complain. Instead of posting a response here, where I probably couldn't find it, how about sending it to my email, [email protected].

Endorse deletion. The deletion discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wm. Hamilton, where the unanimous decision of the people contributing was to delete the article. I may be persuaded otherwise by citations from reliable sources which indicate that he meets the inclusion criteria at WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Process met. MBisanz ^talk 11:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. About as straightforward of a deletion as you can get. --Smashville^BONK! 13:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the article(s) included no reliable sources. It's not enough for information to be true, the means of verification must be provided. If Anitalerman seriously wants to work though this, then userfy. Anitalerman would need to express clear intention.. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget this has already been deleted twice at AfD. Even if the information given above was verifiable, it would not be enough to be kept at an AfD. --Smashville^BONK! 14:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If userfied, improvement would be needed, starting with proper sources as per WP:N.

Endorse: Being the one who closed the AfD discussion, there was a consensus to delete it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, seriously lacking in credible independent sources, a fact correctly reflected by a properly closed AfD. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'endorse' Clear consensus to delete. and the correct decision. DGG (talk)

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

Scour – Overturned and listed at AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scour. Can be moved at any editor's discretion if kept. – Chick Bowen 17:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not blatant advertising — company originally documented was significant, and had not been in existence. Article existed for years, with a lot of editors reviewing it, and would need deletion review instead of speedy deletion. IlyaHaykinson (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I disagree that Scour was blatant advertising qualified for speedy deletion. It was the history of a company which was arguably notable (see CNet results with Scour Exchange), with a recently created search company at that same site. It had been recently edited with advertising language solely about the latter company, but I reverted it. If it was reverted back, it would seem like an ad, but the article's history should have shown it could be reverted to a non-advert version.
I wouldn't have had an issue with removing information about the recently created search company, or reducing it to an acknowledgement that the domain has been redeveloped by an unrelated search company. If the deleting admin only saw this ("How is Scour different? Scour differentiates itself from other social search, ratings and community sites in that it..."), I can understand how he saw it as an advertisement of a newly created, non-notable company. However, until very recently, it was more like this, which is not written like an advertisement and provides claims of notability. Galatee (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The wrong reason was selected as the article was not advertising, but the deletion still meets the requirements of CSD:A7 (which in fact is the criterion under which it was tagged) as it was an article about a company/web content which did not indicate any notability or importance. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about an undeletion to Scour (P2P) instead of to Scour? The company was significant enough at the time (1998-2000): LA Times, Wired articles, ZDNet, CNET, as well as front page business section mentions in the LA Times and Wall Street Journal. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Looks like advertising, which means that independent sources *must* be provided. Undelete or userfy if reliable independent sources are identified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List at AfD or Userfy. Looking again, I seemed to have overlooked that this was an possibly zealous speedie. Would need improvement (especially sources) to survive AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, userfy for rework if wanted but this was poorly sourced, promotional in tone and failed to make any credible assertion of notability, so was a valid speedy. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn If it was deleted as A7, it made reasonable claims to notability as a company; if it was as G11, it eas vn as it stood possibly encyclopedic. Send to AfD ifnecessary, but, looking at the article, I think it would quite possibly stand there.Retitle however appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Link above shows that it was clearly quite notable. Given the comments above that the article had been non-spammy quite recently, I don't see how it qualifies as a speedy. Do we delete for vandalism or even good faith poor edits? Hobit (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, upon reading the cached version, it asserted all sorts of notability. Being sued by the big boys, having big name acquire 25% interest in you, etc. are all assertions of notability. Hobit (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I can only assume that the deletion was based on the version written by User:George1221 on August 8. Until that edit, the article was clearly not a G11 - it did not "exclusively promote some entity" nor would it "need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Nor was it an an A7 - at Hobit says above, assertions of notability, at least, were present. Additionally, I think it is seldom a good idea to "speedy" delete an article which has existed on Wikipedia for more than four years, as this one had. --Stormie (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse either as A7 (the non-spammy version by Galatee does not assert notability) or G11 (the earlier, shorter version by George1221 is written in the tone of a press release). Sandstein 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone do a history undelete? It's pretty hard to discuss something that I can't see. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 August 2008[edit]

Commander Dante – Deletion WP:SNOWball endorsed. If Le Grand Roi would like the article, in whole or part, usefied, he may ask at my talk page. – lifebaka++ 01:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was in process of dramatic revision to cover a notable real-world historical figure. Discussion closed without adequate input from others regarding the real world historical figure. Article should be either undeleted so that the numerous improvements regarding the historical figure covered in numerous published books and TIME magazine can continue or be relisted to consider the coverage of this major Philippine leader. (see [42] and [43] for sources that were actively being incorporated into the article when article was illegitimately deleted. You'll also note that in these sources "Commander Dante" rather than the person's real name is how he is typically referred. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The historical figure's given name was apparently Bernardo Buscayno. The article that was deleted was apparently originally and chiefly about a figure from the Warhammer legendarium. No real opinion on that outcome, but the actual article that was deleted seems not to be an impediment about the creation of a new article about the historical figure. This title can always be made into a redirect. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem lies in that some of the deleted content being added to the article is a firm basis for an article on the historical figure who was chiefly known as Commander Dante like how Josef Stalin is not known by his actual last name. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Consensus was strongly in favour of deletion and, in my view, your additions of bits about Bernardo Buscayno, the real-world Commander Dante, just made it more confused. If Bernardo Buscayno is notable, by all means create an article about him, rather than hijacking a dubious in-universe Warhammer 40,000 character article to save it from a deserved deletion. The fact that there's another person who goes by the same name does not make the original subject of the article any more notable - make him his own article untarnished by this one and I doubt anyone would have a problem. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be more than happy to do that using the new material I had added to this article. There's no reason why I should have to start over. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I checked the article maybe an hour before the AfD closed, I don't recall there being much more than a sentence on the real-world guy. But by all means, I wouldn't object to userification of the article if you do think there was something to be salvaged on Bernardo Buscayno - he certainly sounds notable on principle. I'd object to wholesale article-space restoration of the article, as it was still primarily about the WH40k character for whom a delete consensus was pretty clear. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as the deletion was pretty clear-cut. I would be more than willing to provide LGRC with a userfied copy of the material regarding Bernardo Buscayno if he wishes but there's no reason to run around overturning perfectly valid deletions. Shereth 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion was premature, which is why it is invalid. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Premature in what way? The argument ran for a full 5 days. Shereth 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - At the end of the discussion I proposed my idea for a rewrite and notified the relevant deletion sorting threads. We should have heard from them. We don't have to stay too firm to the five day thing. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Not only was the deletion clear cut, LGRC's concern was specifically addressed in the deletion rationale. The page isn't protected, so an article can easily be created on the other Commander Dante. --Smashville^BONK! 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I need the content that I had added in order to create such an article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. This DRV is breathtakingly specious, and in my mind approaches an abuse of process. mazca's description of this as a "hijacking" seems apropos. Your wish to write an article about Person B is in no way compromised by the deletion of an article about Person A. To argue otherwise is simply untenable. Nandesuka (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please approach these dischussions honestly and seriously. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always do. Nandesuka (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That unconstructive comment suggests otherwise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::*Endorse deletion and suggest speedy close - LGRC has been repeatedly advised that if he wants material from a deleted article to try to create an article that meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines all he need do is ask any admin to userfy it for him. Yet instead of doing this, he seemingly invariably opts for the DRV route. This refusal to request userficiation and instead tie up his and the community's resources in countless DRVs is tantamount to an abuse of process. There was nothing procedurally wrong with the close of this AFD, and as usual no valid reason for overturning the deletion has been offered. If LGRC spent half the time he spends on frivolous AFD defenses and picking DRV fights on writing articles in his user space, he could have already written an acceptable article on the historical figure and put it in place. Otto4711 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's funny is you never provide any valid reason as to why you renominate so many articles for deletion that were decisively kept and somehow don't see that as an abuse of process. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see, the thing is, it's your behaviour that's under discussion here, not mine. Otto4711 (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've frankly given up on even commenting on Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's DRVs of my closures; it's a waste of time. But editors may be interested in participating in the related ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AFD and DRV behavior as Disruptive. Sandstein 22:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and go and write an article about Bernardo Buscayno. Here's the full content of what you added to Commander Dante (entirely by you, no other contributors, so don't try any specious "but the GFDL will be violated if you don't restore!"). --Stormie (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bernardo Buscayno,^[1] who became military leader of the New People's Army^[2] in the Philippines in October 1970^[3] during the First Quarter Storm. William Chapman refers to Dante as one of the "ideological Huks."^[4]

There's no reason not to have just done so on of the article that I had already started working on. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion and speedy close as vexatious abuse of process. The deletion case was quite clear, and this whole maneuvre about the rewrite is nothing but obvious filibustering. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's blatantly dishonest. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, this is an AFD 2.0 nomination. Again, an article about the historical figure is more than welcome, but this was pretty clear. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was in the process of doing that when it was deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and speedy close - DRV is not AfD round two. This amounts to nothing more than gaming the system. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carnifex (band) – Restored as a contested PROD. – lifebaka++ 21:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contesting prod. The group hit the Billboard charts with their Victory Records release in 2008. Chubbles (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sarr3.jpg – Deletion endorsed – RMHED (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admin deleted the image, stating "Not valid to use an image from a TV program on the article about a person starring in the program." I advised the admin that this was not an image from a TV show and that it was not being used to illustrate an article about a person who appeared in a TV show. Admin then switched his deletion rationale to WP:NFCC item 1. I pointed out that no free image exists and, since this is a photograph from 1964, there is no way to create a free equivalent absent heretofore unknown time travel technology. Admin then switched his rationale again, to CFDD item 8 saying "You are using the image as an image of the living person. A free image of that person could reasonably be taken and released under a free license. An image of the person as he appeared in 1964 (or whenever) does not satisfy NFCC#8." However, I do not agree that #8 applies here, as the image (a photograph of the article's subject assuming the throne of Empress of the Imperial Court System and his first Imperial Court) is not being used merely to show what Sarria looked like in 1964, but to show the significance of his assumption of the throne and how the Court presented itself for its public debut. Text cannot adequately describe this presentation. No free image of the Imperial Court of 1964 can be created. The image satisfies our requirements for non-free images of living persons. Otto4711 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Whatever the NFCC number quoted, the result is correct. The image had no proper copyright information, no real information about what it actually showed (was that a scene from some staged public action, or a private snapshot from some party, or a poster, or what?), a blatantly untrue FU rationale ("for illustration and critical commentary", when there was not a shadow of such commentary in the article). Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the outcome here, I just wanted to thank you for assuming good faith and not calling me a liar. Oh wait, you didn't assume good faith and you did call me a liar. Otto4711 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Comment on whether the image is acceptable or not, but this is a clearly incorrect speedy deletion. The image was deleted per CSD I7 which explicitly only allows immediate deletion for "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot)". As User:Stifle is asserting that the image failed WP:NFCC, it should only have been deleted "forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader", to allow him to make his case as to why the image did not fail NFCC. There was no notification of the uploader. --Stormie (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion per Fut. Perf.'s excellent rationale. To Stormie: the user was notified on the very upload page. He chose "fair use image of a living person" at the upload page, which as you will see if you go there and try it yourself, loads a template explicitly warning the user that the image may be deleted by any administrator after 48 hours. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I appreciate that Otto4711 made the effort to discuss the deletion with me as per the instructions on this page rather than just going straight to DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I must confess, I'm not a big uploader of images, and I doubt I've ever selected the "fair use image of a living person" option, so I've not seen that warning. I think for the interests of drama-avoidance, though, it would still be better to follow the route of leaving a note on the uploader's talk page and deleting 48 hours later. --Stormie (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse You can't possibly expect to upload an image of 9 different people and expect to be able to use it as a FU image of a living person. Deletion was outwith the rules but clearly the only acceptable outcome. process doesn't trump common sense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dbgmem – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UnqualifiedDecision Moser michael (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- the deleted page only outlines features and functioning of a open source memory debugger; very similar to all existing pages in referenced by [Memory Debugger]

Endorse clear advertisting with no evidence that the product was in anyway notable. While A7 doesn't apply to products, G11 certainly does. Suggest re-writing in userspace with evidence of notability from reliable sources. TravellingCari 14:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sans deleted article the nominator has a total of two edits. Most new users in a similar situation aren't even attentive enough to fully read the deletion notice, much less make a properly formatted post to DELREV. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Endorse deletion per TravellingCari. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yang Peiyi – Status quo as redirect endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was speedily deleted on the same day that it was created, by User:MrKIA11. Grounds given were WP:CSD#A7, no showing of importance. In fact, the subject of the article fairly easily meets WP:BIO. This is the girl who actually sang a song at the 2008 Olympic opening ceremonies, but who was apparently judged not pretty enough to actually appear in them, so a lip synch performer was substituted. The incident has been written up in multiple, reliable sources, including the Washington Post. — Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I actually just closed the discussion. The article was speedied on the 12th by Pegasus and again by Orangemike on the 13th for the same reason (A7). MrKIA11 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - wasn't sure about that. Will notice them also. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn both, but just restore the August 12th version. It's much better than the one from the 13th. Even though she might not be notable (per WP:BIO1E), in my mind it's worth of a discussion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another possibility would simply be to redirect the page to 2008 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony, which contains a segment about her already - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've gone ahead and redirected the page to 2008 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony#Welcoming ceremony for now. Shouldn't have any bearing on this discussion, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overturn Not sure if she's notable but definitely not A7. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "overturn" the only option? Have you considered maybe the redirect? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the content in 2008 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony#Welcoming ceremony is at least as detailed as any deleted revision of Yang Peiyi. Also, given WP:BLP1E, I'd have to say that the status quo is as it should be. I'm pretty sure that "reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event," and that therefore "a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." --Stormie (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain the status quo (keep as redirect). I was wrong on the CSD A7 deletion, but she is non-notable apart from the Opening Ceremony incident. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect. See WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Worth going through the formal process on this, on the off-chance that anyone with better info on Chinese entertainers has any input. Townlake (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support process for the sake of process. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign subject that was already fumbled once under a speedy-fix rationale; it's worth giving the broader community a shot at showing there's broader notability here than the one event. (Good-faith question: did anyone look at Chinese / other Asian Wikipedias to see if there's sourced articles on the subject?) With respect, my opinion is hardly "process for the sake of process." Townlake (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse redirect, WP:BLP1E applies. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect, she wasn't notable for anything before the event, she's barely notable for the event (she is a significant part of the news stories, but most are more about the event itself and the reaction than the people involved), and there's nothing to suggest she will be notable for anything in the near future. Seems a pretty clear-cut case of BLP1E to me. Mr.Z-man 03:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect per BLP1E. The subject herself is non-notable, even if the event *might* be. Ral315 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect BLP1E as thoroughly and correctly stated by Z-man. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse redirect she may become notable in the future but for now its one event issue and can be covered in sufficient detail the article about the opening ceremony. Gnan garra 09:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good redirect Cover the event, not the person. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirection BLP1E applies here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 August 2008[edit]

Sonic shower – There's no real consensus here, though it's clear that one editor's insistent view that the close was "nonsensical" is not shared by the community (such divisive arguments are never helpful on this page). There is sufficient will to userfy and allow a new, article, using reliable non-fiction sources, that focuses on speculation about the possibility of a real sonic shower rather than Star Trek--there is consensus that the Star Trek use (or similar) in and of itself is not notable. I'm somewhat arbitrarily going to put it in Lifebaka's userspace, since he's the one actually tracking down sources here, but of course anyone can work on it there or move it somewhere else if preferred. Note that only an article with a substantially different focus will not be subject to WP:CSD#G4. – Chick Bowen 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfDs may not be a vote, but in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic shower (2nd nomination) when seven editors in good standing argue to keep and another argues to merge, we do not have a consensus to delete, especially when the deletes are unsubstantiated WP:JNN in nature. Seven editors in good standing argued to keep and one argued to merge. The closer claims that the only sources are wikis, but a Google book search (see [44]) shows that this claim is simply not true. Thus saying that verifiability outweighs consensus is inaccurate, because the article can be verified by multiple published books and because it is exists in multiple published books, it is thus notable. Please note that a different editor had raised concerns with the closing admin prior to this DRV: User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FSonic shower .282nd_nomination.29.Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, several of the deletes point out that the sources in the article were two other wikis, which we all know are not reliable, and thus the article was unverifiable. Sandstein noted this in his close, which seems reasonable. '~~Keep deleted'~~. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hits included verifiable information in published books, which is why the close was unreasonable and the article should be undeleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This search is better. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note to the folks who have turned up all of the sources here: next time, do it during the AFD, not in DRV. Neutral, as the sources presented seem rather in-world or minimal in reference. Carry on. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The keep arguments were weak and did not successfully refute any delete arguments. Without some reliable, non-fiction sources to establish notability of the subject, there's no good reason to overturn. If exact examples can be provided, I will reconsider; I did not see any in the Google books search. lifebaka++ 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By contrast, the delete arguments were weak and the keep arguments effectively refuted them by providing reliable sources to establish notability, which is why the discussion must be overturned. Such sources as this, an interview, provides out of universe commentary. This ones also seems to be a real world usage of the term. Thus, at worst we can make some kind of disambugation page. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hem. I'm not convinced that the Star Trek item has merit for its own article from the first. Is the concept used in any other shows?

The second link is unrelated to the previous article, and by itself isn't enough to merit an article. But I'll bet that idea has been discussed elsewhere, likely under a different name. I'm not satisfied enough with either to switch my opinion on this one, but I'd like to note that Sandstein's close doesn't preclude an article about a different topic. I'm heading through the books hits farther to check if there are more. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is used in other media. Here are three books. So I'm currently unsure what to make of it, and am switching to neutral. lifebaka++ 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping an open-mind and engaging in productive discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I hadn't finished looking yet. These three books are non fiction and contain "sonic shower" in what seems like a related context. Relevant quotes are, in order,

"... rather than the traditional view screen on the bridge, and details of the Captain's quarters which includes a sonic shower and a 360-degree mirror). ..."
"... take a sonic-shower, undergo a light therapy session, see a play, be transformed into an opera diva, ride a pink mini-cycle, slide into a latex skin, ..."
"One can wash in a "sonic" shower, c be scrubbed in a conventional tub by the ver faithful family robot or be dressed by a ..." (typos?)

Can't tell if any of them are useful, but it's what I found. I'll see if I can get my hands on any of them as quick as I can. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(conflicted) That is certainly helpful. :) The Google Books link above led me to another fiction ref, too. [45] ("...the sonic shower didn't use water. It used pulses of inaudible sound and a stream of heated air to gently remove dead skin cells, dirt, and excess oil.") This clearly verifies some materials I see in the deleted version. The WP:V argument is glaringly false. --PeaceNT (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn unreasonable close, not taking into account the information presented. DGG (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the information presented did not refute the valid arguments to delete. A search on Google Books turning up a lot of hits may indicate that reliable sources are likely, but does not prove their existence. Despite the insistence of editors in the debate that sources were out there, none were either presented for argument or added to the article. The likely existence of sources does not satisfy inclusion criteria and these arguments were rightly afforded less weight. Shereth 18:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google books results refuted the invalid "reasons" to delete an article that was improperly nominated in the first place as an earlier AfD closed as a decisive keep by demonstrating that reliable sources exist. Sources were presented in the discussion and above. The claims that sources don't exist is dishonest and inaccurate based on this reality. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - improperly nominated in the first place as an earlier AfD closed as a decisive keep by demonstrating that reliable sources exist -- that AfD was almost a year ago, and those claims of sources' existence never extended to actual inclusion in the article. Given that window to improve the article, which editors failed to do, Judgesurreal was right to nominate it. EEMIV 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The right thing to do would have been Wikipedia:SOFIXIT as if I can find these sources, so too could others. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn No consensus for "delete" in that discussion. The admin's comment regarding WP:V looks like a delete vote rationale, not a closing statement. There is no verifiability issue. Most fictional topics can easily be verified by the fiction works themselves, and some sources were cited above. Saying that this is unverifiable is just wrong. --PeaceNT (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional source: The first result in Daniel H. Wilson, "10 Genius Inventions We're Still Waiting For: PM's resident roboticist imagines new tech that will transform our lives. Now all we need is someone to invent it," Popular Mechanics (May 2008) is none other than "Sonic Showers". --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just read the first AfD. In case anyone hasn't noticed, there are some interesting real-world related refs cited in that discussion. Could be helpful as additional source, too. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – Here are some other non-trivial mentions in real-world sources:
- Graham, Jefferson. "'Voyager': Change in the stars", USA Today, 1998-07-24, p. E9; quote: "Outer-space cleansing: It's been much discussed, but this season, viewers will get their first peek at Voyager members taking a sonic shower. 'It's real loud,' Braga says. "A bath in sound waves.'"
- Kirsch, Jonathan. "From Flawed World to a Flawed Utopia", Los Angeles Times, 1988-06-15, p. 8; quote: "Walden Three itself is an off-the-shelf technological conceit that offers no real surprises at all—a domed Shangri-La, providing its placid residents with the pleasures and conveniences of sonic showers, moving sidewalks, three-dimensional video walls."
- Spelling, Ian. "The plot hit close to home for Kirk on Planet Deneva", Denver Post, 1994-09-09;quote: "Those aboard the Enterprise used a personal-hygiene device called a sonic shower to keep themselves clean." Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the references provided in this DRV discussion, which indicate sufficient coverage of this device in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - the question is not whether now, after the fact, digging around turns up a sentence here and a sentence there that mentions "sonic shower". The question is, was the AFD decided correctly based on the article as it stood at the time the AFD was closed? As the closing admin noted, consensus does not and cannot override core policy, and WP:V is a core policy. Clearly, if the article was sourced only by two other wikis, it failed WP:V and the closing admin correctly deleted it. Rather than dashing off yet again to try for yet another AFD round two, is there some reason why Le Grand could not have requested the article be userfied, written it with appropriate sourcing and then moved it to articlespace? This constant rush to DRV every time Le Grand disagrees with a deletion is a waste of the community's time and resources and borders on an abuse of process. If the AFD is overturned, there is no guarantee that anyone so earnestly asserting that there are reliable sources for the topic will spend another second working on it. How many times at AFD have we seen articles kept on the "wait and see" premise, only to have them languish untouched for months or years as this one did and return to AFD? Keep the article deleted and let's see if Le Grand or one of the other editors who wants it restored will volunteer to userfy it and write it to actual Wikipedia standards. Otto4711 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An actual waste of the communities time is your constant renomination of articles for deletion that were unambiguously kept. Unless you concede that trying repeatedly to get something deleted that is kept sometimes multiple times is somehow not "AFD round two" then you are in no position to say anything about anyone who takes obviously bad closures to DRV. Just because the AfD ended is no reason why serious encylopedists would just stop with any effort to find sources or to augment our coverage of notable and verifiable topics. AfDs that close as delete are not the end all of us ever covering that particular topic. If new reliable sources turn up, we undelete and add them to the article. The closing admin ignored the sources presented in the discussion and apparently did not do a simple search as those who commented here did that would have turned up the sources, i.e. to verify that the inaccurate claims for deletion were in fact false as eidtors have shown above. The close was wrong, sources exist, and therefore I did not ask for userfication as there is no legitimate reason why editors cannot work on this notable and encyclopedic topic in mainspace. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say sweetie. Have some milk and cookies and try to calm down. Otto4711 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I wish I had some on hand, but all I have are 3 Musketeer bars... :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - There is a difference between "AfD round 2" happening one year after the first AfD, and this rehash of keep/delete rationales just a few days after the AfD. All these sources that have been dug up here could have been dug up during the AfD -- but should have been dug up when people created the freakin' article. I'd support userfying this text in Le Grand or someone else's space. But I oppose restoration to article space. There was no lapse in the closing admin's recognition that the article itself, regardless of what was alluded/linked to in the AfD, had no reliable sources. Clarely, Le Grand et al. and the closing admin. et al. disagree with where sources need to be -- I side with the folks saying they need to be in the article itself. But, this is a discussion for the village pump or on users' talk pages. Anyway. I suppose it's unfortunate that keep-!voting editors' failure to integrate the sources they found with the article led to its deletion -- and if someone wants to take it under their wing to work on in user space and later move to article space when it's actually, ya know, an article with sources, that's great. But considering how little work the article received in the ~year since the first AfD, along with the backlog of Le Grand's userfied deleted articles, I have little faith that an article restored to article space will receive sufficient attention to actually look at and review the sources. --EEMIV (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - When new sources are found, even if minutes after the AfD, then we take these into account and reconisder. We know from User:EEMIV/Deletions that you have something against Star Wars and Star Trek articles and will make whatever argument you can to get and keep them deleted. Yes, these sources should have been used and there's no reason why those arguing to delete couldn't have found and used them to do so. Anyone who is actually here to build the encyclopedia is more interested in helping to do that then just trying to get certain articles deleted. The source searches presented in the AfD contained sufficient enough results that any neutral or reasonable close would have been keep or no consensus. Those arguing to keep would have better time spent incorporating the sources into the article if they didn't have to keep combating closed minded deletes that never acknowledge legitimate sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We know from User:EEMIV/Deletions that you have something against Star Wars and Star Trek articles - Wow, that's quite a bit of dickish original research. Would you like me to point you toward Star Wars, Star Trek, and other sci-fi articles I've contributed toward to bring them up to featured article and good article status? Hell, I put the majority of Category:Star Wars vehicles (with a lot of help from Deckiller and Saberwyn) through a tremendous overhaul -- and not AfD, because I have a grasp of notability and sourcing. Or more recently, a quick and rational note from User:JIP led to a move and small edits to I.K.S. Gorkon rather than a possible prod deletion. And just a few minutes ago, offering to help a newbie editor fire up some other Trek-related stuff. And that's because these editors and I understand WP:GNG, we don't cherry-pick what parts of policies and guidelines we cite and ignore, we know that policies trump a single editor's minority opinion, we don't invent inclusion standards to fit our personal preference, and we don't -- as you've just done -- throw some, "Oh, you just don't like it" pixie dust into the air to cast aspersions on people whom we disagree with. You're being either hopelessly myopic or deliberately obtuse to look at my list of deletions and cull from that only that I don't like Star Trek or Star Wars articles -- for one, how about all the fair-use and copyright violations I also seek to delete? But more importantly, if you're honestly trying to size up my priorities and biases, really wouldn't an honest editor look at the entirety of my contributions -- a wealth of which work to improve Star Trek and Star Wars articles? I link form my user page a small list at User:EEMIV/Contributions, and deletions are a subset of it. And I'm sure this is at least the second time I've pointed this out to you -- just as I and countless other editors have tried to steer you toward a better understanding of what makes for notability and what makes for reliable sources. If you really think I have some vendetta against these franchises, how about we both request editor reviews or comments-on-users or whatever they're called for each of us and see what comes up? And, Jesus Christ, Pumpkin, of all the times to be a dick, this is one case where I'm actually okay with this content getting shifted to your user space and not opposing stamping it out. --EEMIV (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you objectively step back and look at the tone and text of your post (such as doing "original research" on my userspace...) that I replied to above, then you'll understand why I replied as I did. I would not say that everything you have done is somehow unconstructive and if I challenge you, it is because I know in some instances you can be better than that, but I do find a good deal of these deletions to be unhelpful and closed minded to at least possible merges and redirects without deletion. By the way, have you seen this? And why is Michael Stipe Jesus Christ? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Might suggest that you take this discussion up on your talk pages, as it's not really relevant to this DRV. Stifle (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD isn't a vote. It is odd that Sandstein would decide to delete and then make it known that he deleted it on WP:V reasons, but it could have just as easily been deleted under WP:N. If we need to overturn this deletion and then re-delete it on the grounds that the AfD should have resulted in a "deleted without explanation" or "deleted because the subject isn't notable", that's fine. As for the WP:V, the decision was correct with regard to the article both at the START and END of the AfD. Given how much frothing there was in the deletion discussion over how obviously notable the subject was, how did 5 days elapse with only memory alpha links on this article? As for the 'sources' suggested in the AfD, almost all of those referred to sonic cleaning devices (referred to by a number of different names: "sonic sink, ultrasonic sink, ultrasonic shower") which did not resemble the article subject in form nor function. An ultrasonic sink in the real world bears no resemblance to the sonic showers of science fiction. Likewise, independent sources weren't found that referred to the subject of the article as it related to science fiction. And again, google searches don't count. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow userification and recreation See! How hard was that. There are like 6 sources listed above. Was that too hard to do during the AfD? If half of the sources listed above were linked in the AfD (not waved at with google searches) or, heaven forbid, added to the article, we wouldn't be here. Endorse, as the close was valid, but a new article can be created from the userified history of the old one. Sheesh. Protonk (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has it been the task of AFD to improve poor articles? The idea of AFD is to get rid of articles that can't be improved. How hard is it to not delete notable topics so that they can be improved without all this needless bureaucracy? -Halo (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT isn't. But it hardly makes any sense to wait until after the 5 days to bring up some sources when the 5 day timeline is pretty well set. For that matter, why wait a year between the first AfD and the recent one? Why did this article go for years without sources? I'm glad that sources are here now but that doesn't change the decision at the moment of decision. Again, the EASIEST way to avoid this "bureaucracy" is to just cite the sources in the article when the information is added. Failing that, just cite the sources in the article when the material is questioned. IF that doesn't work, just cite the sources when the article gets nominated for deletion. EVEN IF that is too hard, just specifically list sources in the AfD that establish notability (the linked sources in the AfD didn't, some didn't even apply to Sci-fi topics). That's it. How is that hard? The deletion process isn't going away. WP:N isn't going away. Given those two elements of policy, the easiest way to avoid this mess of AfD/DRV/etc is to just cite the sources. IF you don't do that, what are the rest of us supposed to think? Protonk (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to improve the article yourself, then yes, you have to wait. Simply because you cannot force other editors into improving that article. The point of having an AfD is to delete articles that stand no chance of being improved. Editors arguing for "keep" only have to point out some sources, not add them to the article. There are sources; granted they were found a bit late, but my point stands: there is no reason to keep the page deleted now. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse bu allow userification and recreation - That does sound like a good idea, AS LONG AS THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT REAL SONIC SHOWERS, NOT STAR TREK ONES (not shouting, just for emphasis). That way, we might have a real article about a real topic and not just plot repetition. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I quote from the closer's AfD statement... "It may be userfied on request, and may be recreated after it has been complemented with sources that satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:N." So why wasn't that done instead of this DRV? The closer's rationale seems entirely justified and well-explained to me. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources were sufficiently presented in the AfD and the arguments for keeping were strong enough that it should not have been closed as delete. No consensus, perhaps, but there was no consensus to delete. As sources have been presented in this discussion, per the quote above, the article should be recreated and the sources added. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the point of this process is to determine if the AFD was closed in a way inappropriate with the rules of AFD, and it wasn't. If you have 100 keep votes that talk about "references" that have no verifiable content, and one person says that wikipedia policies are that you need verifiable content through reliable sources, and the closer says "delete", that is completely appropriate. It is not a vote, and it is not a vote count, it is a discussion about whether the article conforms to wikipedia policy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it was closed inappropriately. Sources were presented in the two AfD discussions and thus any claims that it was not verifiable was simply not true even with what was there as looking at the two AfD discussions (and not just at the article) revealed. Thus, the arguments too delete were fallacious. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion for now, but someone may want to take the sources dug up here, actually write a sourced article about the concept, and then bring that to DRV. --Stormie (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be easier to do if the unjustifiable deleted article is restored. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem, I am more than happy to userfy it for you Le Roi, so that a better article can result. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that the instructions for this page expressly provide that "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." Thus, the argument that "since the sources to establish the notability of this concept weren't presented at the AFD, the article was correctly deleted, and we sure as heck can't restore the article even if adequate sources are available now" is completely without merit. Furthermore, even if this request weren't procedurally compatible with deletion review (which it is), I also claim that as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we should be permitted to restore the article on the basis of the sources described here, rather than concluding that because the sources weren't introduced in the AFD discussion, the users supporting the restoration of the article are in procedural default with respect to those sources, and are not entitled to any consideration of the sources at DRV. Since Wikipedia is a volunteer project, we can hardly expect sources to always be produced within the five or six day deadline of an AFD discussion. John254 00:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how wikipedia works. Almost all articles start in poor condition, then through a multitude of minor edits they are transformed into something good. It is not proper to require that editors bring in excellent, detailed, sourced drafts of an article before they may be included in mainspace. I also recommend that we overturn the deletion. The closing admin should have written his deletion rationale in the debate below, and left the job of closing the AfD to someone else. AfD hero (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. According to the closing statement, this article was deleted because it can't be verified. There are sources. It doesn't matter whether they were cited in the article or not; they are still sources. To endorse such deletion statement as "sources don't exist" is I think lying. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Does WP:V now trump WP:CCC while I haven't been looking? Wikipedia default controversial deletes to "keep", not "rewrite the article in userspace" - especially since there are sources - and the closer also didn't sufficiently prove their opinion that the article couldn't be improved to meet Wikipedia's requirements. -Halo (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, yes, requiring that articles be verifiable does trump the idea that consensus can change. It is not the job of the closing admin to "prove their opinion." It is the job of the closing admin to interpret the discussion in light of relevant policies and guidelines and explain the close. This the closing admin did, and there is no technical fault in the AFD that necessitates overturning. Otto4711 (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fault is that verifiable sources were also presented in the two AfDs, i.e. the whole verifiability matter was addressed in the actual discussions and ignored due to the status of the article itself, which if those arguing to keep didn't have to kill time going back and forth with those arguing to delete who were not willing to help improve the article then perhaps those arguing to keep would indeed have had more opportunity to instead focusing on improving the article in question. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the closing admin's job to wade through a ton of Google hits in the hopes that one or more of them might turn out to be a reliable source. It is the responsibility of those wanting to keep the article to demonstrate that there are reliable sources, and posting a link to a Google search result does not demonstrate that any of the results are reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those wanting to keep has sufficiently presented reliable sources and there's no reason for an admin not to do a quick double check for sources himself. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great reason for closing admins not to do a "quick double-check" of the supposed sources presented in the form of a link to every book on Google Books that happens to contain both the word "sonic" and the word "shower" and that is that admins are volunteers with limited time to assess hundreds of AFDs every day. Expecting closing admins not only to read the arguments but evaluate the supposed sources is far too much of a demand on the admins' time. Honestly, rather than just running a Google search, is there some reason why you couldn't have followed up on it in the course of the AFD? Must you present these vague "references" and then, when you don't get your way, run off to DRV? For all of the time and effort you've spent responding to pretty much every single comment here trying to get an unsourced article restored, you could have had a halfway decent article completed in place. Is this constant arguing really the best use of your time on Wikipedia? Otto4711 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most important question here is whether Wikipedia's administrative processes exist to serve editors, or editors are here to serve Wikipedia's administration. If the former is true, then the deletion should be overturned, since the sources presented at this deletion review clearly indicate sufficient coverage of this device in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. If the latter holds, then the only question to be examined here is whether the deletion was correct at the time it was effectuated -- however, it should be noted that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and that few editors will be willing to contribute under such conditions. John254 13:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the deletion as being in course as the article stood for almost four years with no reliable sourcing present; whether that's because it wasn't available, or because the references were only tangential, I can't say. That being said, if the sources provided herein this DRV (and the AfD) meet muster, please provide the previous content to any editor willing to vet said sources and rebuild a notable, sourced, real-world-based article.
The closer deleted an article that—as it stood—failed a myriad of policies and guidelines. Was this wrong? No. Can the article be recreated (or restored) to make par? Sure. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, even if we now clearly have sources to establish the notability of this device, the article must remain deleted to punish editors for not introducing the sources earlier? Wikipedia's deletion process exists to remove articles which cannot be brought into compliance with our policies, not to force cleanup, as described in our deletion policy -- deletions for the latter purpose are grossly insulting, and discourage contributors. Note that, per the GFDL, the page history of the article must remain intact to attribute the work of the original authors if we are to use any of the content of the previous article in writing a new version -- thus, the endorsement of this deletion would require any new article to be rewritten from scratch. The claim that "the previous content" could actually be used in writing a new article, without restoring the page history on-wiki, is a blatant misrepresentation of policy. John254 14:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time in two days someone has played the punishment card and I have to say I'm getting pretty damn sick of it. Having an article deleted is not a punishment. Admins are not to the best of my knowledge a secret society plotting the downfall of the project through vindictive deletion. I believe that your GDFL concerns are unfounded, because as I understand the process userfying the article involves undeleting it, including the page history, and moving it to a subpage of an editor's user page, i.e. User:Otto4711/Sonic shower. When the article is re-written to Wikipedia standards, it is moved to the appropriate articlespace, Sonic shower, with page history intact. Otto4711 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While "having an article deleted" shouldn't be "a punishment", is is clear that some editors endorsing this deletion intend to use it as such:
See! How hard was that. There are like 6 sources listed above. Was that too hard to do during the AfD? If half of the sources listed above were linked in the AfD (not waved at with google searches) or, heaven forbid, added to the article, we wouldn't be here.[46]
Since the sole justification for the deletion was a lack of sources in the article itself (failure to adequately use those sources would be an editorial problem not remediable via deletion), it is theoretically true that we could simply add the sources presented here to a userfied version of the article, then move it back to the main namespace, in minutes. The resulting article wouldn't be subject to speedy deletion pursuant to CSD G4, since "the reasons for which the material was deleted" would be addressed by the provision of sources to establish notability. Likewise, since the sources establishing the device's notability would be present in the article, the article shouldn't be deleted if re-nominated at AFD, since any other problems, such as "in-universe" style, lack of inline citations, etc. would be reasons to edit the article, not to delete it. It is virtually inconceivable that any of the editors endorsing this deletion support such a pointless exercise. Rather, it is highly probable that editors supporting userfication believe that the article must be substantially rewritten before it would be permissible in the main namespace, and are prepared to misapply CSD G4 to force this result, perhaps even to the extent of requiring that the content be brought back to deletion review before it would be allowable in the article space. This would constitute the use of the deletion process to force cleanup, a result which our deletion policy expressly forbids. John254 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. I wrote that quote. I don't see deletion as a punitive process. I see it as a practical process. It can't be indefinited because then it wouldn't result in outcomes (given the 100+ nominations per day). It can't rest on the vague promise that sourcing exists because anyone can promise. When the rubber hits the road, it has to be a process we can use to churn through 100 articles a day and see a minimum of appeals (meaning that people are basically happy with the outcome). As a result of the goals, the process has intended and unintended results. I don't think AfD should be punitive at all (in goal or outcome). Protonk (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the comment you quoted demonstrates that the editor in question is out to punish anyone for anything. Nor do I see anyone lined up to pounce on a properly rewritten and sourced article and G4 it. Otto4711 (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and close as no consensus. There is not a significant verifiability issue and with due respect to Sandstein the sources did exist and it was then down to the debaters to determine whether they were sufficient. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus). Probaably a merge & redirect is suitable for this one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. That delete was the consensus from this this AfD seems to be pretty borderline. As the primary justification in the closing statement was a lack of reliable sources, and several reliable sources have been referenced in both the first AfD and particularly this DRV, then the basis for deleting doesn't seem to hold water. Possibly this should be renamed sonic shower (Star Trek) - but that's another issue. Nfitz (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist if really needed. Closer's rational for delete was poor (WP:V as a problem here? That isn't reasonable and wasn't a part of the discussion that I can see). Further, sources now exist and seem to me to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The "sources" which supposedly justify overturning a sensible and well-considered closure consist of mentions in assorted skiffy books and TV shows and passing mentions of these mentions. Those aren't much use for writing an article, not unless Sonic showers in popular culture is the aim. The Star Trek Encyclopedia seems to contain no more than the startling revelation that a sonic shower is a shower that's sonic. Well, there's a shocker. What's usable is trivial, what isn't trivial isn't usable. There is no "here" here, no article to be written. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The close was nonsensical and ill-considered given the large number of reliable sources and non-trivial coverage available. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 11:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to point me to these sources which address the subject in a non-trivial fashion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stan burdman – Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD. Consensus below is that notability was asserted and further discussion may be profitable. – Eluchil404 (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I noticed that Stan Burdman, a famous radio dj, game reviewer, and comic, did not have a wiki page. I just thought this was strange so I made him one, using all the information on him I know and giving proper links to his radio show and all the other things he has done. The page was deleted, apparantly because you can't make wikipedia pages on people. This is really strange because I see a lot of wikipedia pages on various public figures and entertainers like Stan. I would like the Stan Burdman wiki page I made to be undeleted if that is at all possible. Thank you for your time Braddj1977 (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW only. The speedy deletion was technically improper because the article asserted notability ("He has written for, and hosted, several online podcasts and radio shows. Most notable of these is his entertainment talk show ..."). However, a Google search indicates that this person is not close to having the sort of coverage that would make him pass WP:N; the article would have almost certainly been deleted at AfD. Sandstein 07:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm not big on actually endorsing misused speedies, but Sandstein's got a great point. Unless someone can find some sources to prove notability, it's likely a waste of time to restore the article. Likely this'll overturn, given that there're a lot of people who are trying to send a message by !voting overturn on this sort of DRV (I count myself as one of them). Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 14:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Sandstein (76 unique Googles of which some are mis-spellings of Stan Boardman) and citing Geogre's Law. WP:SPA seems unusually well versed in Wiki ways... Guy (Help!) 15:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list The reasons speedy articles that are not valid speedys should always be overturned her, even if they appear hopeless are that 1/someone might find something given a chance, and Deletion Review is not AfD--to argue over whether there are sufficient ghits here is to argue in the wrong place. and 2/ otherwise admins making improper deletions will continue on their ways, and delete things that might be supportable as is, but where the often--intimidated newbies will not bring here. If a valid defense for a speedy here is that it would not standard afd, then the speedy criterion becomes anything that will not stand at afd, but no single admin is qualified to tell tha, and consequently proposal to that effect have always been rejected. Geogre claimed only a strong correlation, not a perfect one, between miscapitalization & unsuitability (& he's right, there certainly is a correlation). If someone seriously propose that miscapitalization be a speedy criterion, let them try to propose it. DGG (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn and list Process is important. The article asserted the notability of the subject, so a speedy was improper. This is not the first out-of-process deletion by User:Orangemike, and DRV needs to consistently overturn the actions of any administrator who fails to abide by the wishes of the community. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm rather uncomfortable with what I seem to be hearing here, which is the assertion that the mere use of the word "notable" in an article about, say, some kid with a YouTube vid and a podcast makes it invulnerable to speedies! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor finds the governing policy or guideline to be problematic, he or she should work to change or clarify it. Process is important, as it makes it easier to work together comfortably and effectively. Right now, the A7 speedy delete criterion reads, An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. [emph. added] DickClarkMises (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I should add that Orangemike is pleasant to work with--I just disagree with his interpretation/application of the policy above. DickClarkMises (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, and not just for pragmatic reasons - I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to why this is an invalid CSD A7 speedy? The guy has a website, does podcasts/internet radio, and YouTube videos. In what way does that "indicate why its subject is important or significant"? In what way is that "a reasonable indication of why it might be notable"? Are some people under the misapprehension that this guy actually has a radio show on a real over-the-airwaves radio station? --Stormie (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list: No reason not to have an actual discussion if an editor believes in good faith that the article is notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list, while I don't rate its chances at AfD, speedy deletion is restricted to specific criteria for a good reason. If the deletion is both controversial and fails to properly meet WP:CSD then I think an AfD discussion is the best way to clarify it. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The admin who deleted the page is free to close the DRV by agreement with the lister. Perhaps its time to change the deletion review page. Clearly, some people prefer not to contact the deleting admin first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've now been pointed to a request on OrangeMike's talk page which is either archived or removed. Thanks. Endorse deletion as there is no significant claim of notability here, and in so far as there is a claim of notability, it hasn't a snowball's chance at AFD. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. Claim of notability. Good chance that good sources exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the person who originally made the "Stan Burdman" wiki page. I would just like to say that I completely understand if you admin guys decide not to resurrect the page. Stan Burdman is not classically famous like a Howard Stern, but, in all fairness, Stan has a solid fanbase of a few thousand people for his podcast, videos, etc. I respect the opinion of you admins and will not fight whatever decision you guys come to, you've been doing this for a while and I truly believe you guys know best.Braddj1977 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List at AFD Since the nominator is being so reasonable why not let the article have it's day in court? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak overturn This one is close to being speedy-able as the assertion of notability was apparently really weak. I can't see the article so i don't know for certain, but I'm see at least 2 people who _can_ see the article think it's debatable. Hobit (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 August 2008[edit]

Category:Mononymous persons – No consensus here, closure applauded and endorsed by default. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I assert that this debate was erroneously closed from the perspective of the discussion which had taken place. It appears rather obvious to me that the closing admin decided to chip in on the side which he/she favored disregarding the merits of the discussion. I would also point to two previous deletion debates of related categories which was similarly closed by the same admin. Subsequent to those two I urged the admin to reconsider his decision, announcing then that I would request a deletion review. I now follow up on this with the present category. meco (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer. My close had nothing to do with what I favored. As I stated in my close, this is a recreation of previously deleted material. But if you really want to go based upon the merits of the discussion, we can do that too. "Leave it be, for gosh sakes . . it isn't hurting anybody" is a rather weak reason to keep. "Having one name is clearly a notable enough connection." is another reason to keep, and when questioned what Aristotle had to do with a drag queen named Barbette, the answer was "That's pretty simple: they are both Mononymous persons!" The overcategorization and OR arguments put forth in opposition to the category were stronger by far. --Kbdank71 16:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You present your case for not playing favorites poorly by ostentatiously picking the non-sequiturial and weakest pro arguments to reflect the past debate. __meco (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could pick others. Your argument to keep centered on how I had closed two other similar discussions as delete when they were brought to CFD to rename. Or Nihil novi's argument to keep, which was "Keep". Or Masterpiece2000's "I don't understand why people want to delete this category. Category:Mononymous persons is an interesting category". There are many interesting but unencyclopedic categories, and they get deleted. --Kbdank71 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Kbdank71, that was not my full quote. And that was not Nihil novi’s full quote. The following was the full quote of Nihil novi:

“In most of the world in modern times, it is unusual for an individual to go by a single name (mononym). It will surely strike anyone with the slightest curiosity as singular — if it is brought to his attention — that Molière, Voltaire, Stendhal and Colette all chose to use mononyms on the title pages of their writings: the first three, invented ones; the last, the author's actual surname. Similarly, many artists, entertainers, athletes have likewise deliberately employed mononyms though they had not been deprived of given names at the time of their christenings. At least one, Teller (magician), has actually gone to the length of legally discarding his given names.

This is a coincidence of perhaps more import that those that are enshrined in such categories as "Category:Deaths from tuberculosis" or "Category:Burials at Père Lachaise Cemetery."

The fact of the use of mononyms has not escaped the broader world — a Google search yields "about 2,000" citations — but it has, till now, been overlooked by Wikipedia. The article and category "Mononymous persons" have sought to remedy this oversight. I must therefore, in the present deliberations over retention of Category:Mononymous persons, vote:

Keep.” Proof: [47]

The following was my full quote:

“I don't understand why people want to delete this category. Category:Mononymous persons is an interesting category and many editors have already pointed why this category shouldn’t be deleted. It was nominated for deletion in July 2008 and many editors argued against deletion. Please read the arguments by editors who voted “keep”.[48] I don’t want to repeat the same arguments again.” Proof: [49]

Yes, there were many unenyclopedic categories that were deleted in the past. But in this case, Category:Mononymous persons is not an unencyclopedic category. Many editors pointed in the first deletion discussion why this category shouldn’t be deleted. I asked the admin who would close the deletion discussion to read the arguments by editors who voted “keep”. Enough was already said and I didn’t want to repeat the same arguments. Please read the arguments by editors who voted “keep” before making such comments. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were also misrepresented. I may have used single sentences to start with, but when pressed I provided lots more reasons. I also said, "per the arguments of Cosmic Latte" as did at least one other editor. Why weren't the arguments of Cosmic Latte mentioned then? I also like how whenever the Guardian or New York Times articles are mentioned, all those in favour of deletion gloss over them. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT it would seem. They show the connection is notable! Deamon138 (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Johnbod's comment: "Mononymity is not intrinsically notable because in certain times and places it has been the rule rather than the exception." To categorise on this basis ignores this fact in favour of more recent and Western trends to "stand out". A list, which can provide additional information such as time period, location, birth name, and occupation, is much more suited to this task than a category. Given the balance of arguments, the close was well thought-out and appropriate. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I don't know how these reviewy thingies work, but I'll just say that the decision was a bad one. Regardless of the fact that I supported the existence of this category, I don't think there was consensus to keep or delete in my opinion. The deleter had to write a hefty summary of why he decided to delete, and I always thought (and I'm sure this is in Wikipedia policy/guidelines somewhere but I can't remember where) that when a decision is made based on consensus, it should be obvious whether there has been consensus i.e. a lengthy comment before closing shouldn't be necessary as far as I'm aware.
In terms of my own views on this category (am I allowed to give them, or this page merely fr discussing whether the closing editor was justified in closing it with delete?), I would say that is there any link between Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking? They are both physicists, and I am sure they are both in some physicist category. But that is their only link. The same goes with mononymous persons. The link between Aristotle and Barbette might only be that they are mononymous (never mind that Barbette is a stage name, that is a matter of criteria for entry into the category, it has no bearing on whether the category should exist or not), but sometimes people are notable for having one name. For instance, trying to find that hypothetical new Brazilian footballer someone might've heard about: Pele/Rivaldo/Ronaldo/Ronaldinho/whatever? etc. You get the point, Brazilian footballers as an example, are noted for having one name. Now those of course aren't their real names, but it is the name they are most known as (most people would look for Pele not Edison Arantes do Nascimento). Most people won't look for François-Marie Arouet, they will look for Voltaire, his pen name. Whatever criteria are used for this category, it certainly has a use to help readers find people known for being mononymous in some form, and that is the point of categorization: to aid the reader in finding a particular article. Deamon138 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been notable people known by one name, but no one has ever been notable because they have one name. Postdlf (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fairly true, but then most articles are in categories they aren't notable for being. For example, Einstein isn't notable because he was a zionist, and yet he is in Category:Zionists, nor is he notable for dying in 1955, yet he is in Category:1955 deaths. The same should apply here. Deamon138 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closer properly disregarded absolute vote count to resolve based on merits of arguments in light of policy and precedent. The category was based on mere trivial coincidence of name, and so properly deleted per WP:OC, and it was a recreation of a previously deleted category. Postdlf (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "it was a recreation of a previously deleted category." We're using past consensus to tell if there is a present consensus now? And here was me thinking that consensus can change. Deamon138 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as nominator. There is no indication at the CFD that the closing admin misread the discussion. AFD is not a vote and DRV is not AFD round two. And although AFD is not round two, to respond as I did in the AFD to the notion that Einstein and Hawking are "only" connected by the one thing of being physicists, that's a pretty damn big thing. Having one name or two names or three names or two names with a hyphenated last name is perhaps interesting an an article on the phenomenon would probably be an interesting read. But interesting is not the standard for categories. Brazilian footballers, regardless of how many names they have, are categorized as Brazilian footballers. Someone using the category scheme to locate articles on Brazilian footballers is going to look for Category:Brazilian footballers, not Category:Mononymous persons. Otto4711 (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks with regards to Brazilian footballers would correct, if articles were only allowed to be in one category. But they're not, so why restrict people looking for a particular Brazilian footballer to just look in one category? (not all Brazilian footballers are mononymous by the way too). Deamon138 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really, truly, in your heart of hearts, believe that anyone using the category system to find Brazilian footballers is going to think of starting at Category:Mononymous persons? Otto4711 (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, but what would be the point of having multiple categories for an article, if people are most likely to start looking in only one of these categories? Deamon138 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of multiple categories is that he people, places and things with articles on Wikipedia often have more than one defining trait or characteristic and multiple categories allows for them to be grouped together in a meaningful way. The possession or use of a single name is not a meaningful grouping. Otto4711 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Let me ask a question: What is the relationship between Monica Bellucci, an actress, and Émile Durkheim, one of the founding fathers of sociology? There is only one link: both are agnostics. That’s the only common link between them. The same goes with mononymous persons. Many famous people are notable for having one name. The link between Madonna and Pate is that both are mononymous and that’s a unique link. Very few people in the non-English speaking parts of the world know that the full name of Madonna is Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie. The category is useful because it helps readers to know how many monomymous people there are. This category is not equivalent to "Musicians whose first name starts with M" because nobody would care if the name of Michael Jackson were John Mills, but people would like to know why the name of Madonna is just Madonna. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait. The category is useful because it helps readers to know how many monomymous people there are. So, then, there are only 15 monomymous people out there? I'd be willing to bet there are more. Not exactly useful. And if people are interested on why Madonna is named such, then perhaps they should read the article, because the category doesn't tell you that. Again, this is useful how? --Kbdank71 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "So, then, there are only 15 monomymous people out there?" Well there would be more in the category if people didn't keep putting it up for deletion. Deamon138 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't a list be more useful than a category for the purpose of knowing "why the name of Madonna is just Madonna"? After all, a category can never answer complex question of "why" or "how", whereas lists are perfectly suited to providing these relevant details. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have the article Mononymous persons. I don't think we need a list. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I reject the argument that the closer is not permitted to weigh the strength of the arguments mustered when assessing whether or not there is consensus to delete. In this situation, it was a category that was previously deleted and re-created under a slightly different name; in such a situation, those favoring keep should bear a slightly higher onus in order to justify keeping the category, since technically speaking the category is open to a speedy deletion. The arguments that were given for keeping were fairly weak, as many above outline, and so I think the closer was entirely correct in assessing this. Closer could have been lazy and just said "no consensus", but that would have ignored the stark contrast in the strength of the arguments. CfDs are not a "vote", nor is the quantity of writing engaged in by one side determinative. Several keepers responded repeatedly to those who favored deletion, but the arguments didn't get any stronger as their volume increased. Many keepers seem passionate about retaining this information; in my opinion, it is a good candidate for a list. (Also: many of the "overturn" arguments above are focusing on other categories and their relationships, rather than this one. If their arguments are persuasive, this should not be necessary.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was an excellent closing. It is imperative that closers interpret all discussion comments in relation to our policies and guidelines. Those wanting to keep this category gave plausible rationales for keeping a list of mononymous people, but the rationale is insufficient for keeping a category. Kbdank71, who has probably closed more CFDs than anyone, thoughtfully explained in his closing why the "delete" comments outweigh the "keeps". The point of CFDs is to help us keep our categorization system coherent. The purpose is not to re-envision our policies and guidelines with each debate. Our policies and guidelines can change, but there has to be cogent reasons to do so, and the discussion should focus on why it is imperative that the guidelines and policies should change. That did not happen in this discussion, so it makes sense that the closer took the action he did. In such cases it is not unusual for the closer to write a lengthy explanation. I am not aware of any case where the length of the closing explanation was an issue. If anything, closing explanations should be longer, not shorter. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There was no consensus to delete. The administrator made the suggestion that this is equivalent to categorising people with the first letter M, or people named Buddy. These are truly trivial characteristics, and tell us nothing about the person. A mononymous name however, tells us a lot about the person and their social status. It is non-trivial for that reason - not as important as being born in a particular country, but important nonetheless. While it is indeed a categorisation by name (which sent people towards delete), it is a categorisation by a type of name, which (in this case) is a notable characteristic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a mononymous name tell us anything about a person's social status when it is possible, in most places, to legally change one's name for a small fee? Also, what about the role of cultural differences in naming conventions? For instance, Madonna and Nyumbu both have mononymous names, but the former is an American entertainer, while the latter is a Zambian tribal chief. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the name a person chooses is exactly what tells about his perceived status. And the national variation would be a good argument for using subcatogires as well, not for eliminating this one.DGG (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why are some of the people who endorse the deletion of this category saying it would make a good list instead? Surely a list has to contain more information than a category? If so, then how can someone make the argument that it is trivial as a category but would be a good list if lists require more information? Either it is a trivial connection or it is a notable enough connection for a list: which is it? Deamon138 (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a list can contain more information than the name, such as the dates, nationality, and field. it can even be sortable. that would answwer some ofthe objections raised in the CfD about the unrelated nature of the individuals--by permitting sorting them for relatednesss. DGG (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but people have been saying (and I paraphrase), "there is no notable relation between the people eligible for this category, hence the category is trivial" but some of the same people are also suggesting a list, which as you (and I before you) have said, uses more information. How can a list be okay to these people if the connection in the first place is not notable according to their argument against the category? Deamon138 (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the individual users. Name names, so they can explain what they meant if they wish to. It's possible you have misunderstood or your paraphrase is a mischaracterization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you were one of them! In your endorse comment above, you said, "in my opinion, it is a good candidate for a list." Do you not remember your own opinion? Deamon138 (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I am someone who said this, I am happy to respond. The criteria for categorization require much more than verifiability and notability. Categorization is a system of organization, and we have collectively decided that it must be edited to keep it from becoming overcategorized. The under-stated reason that we reject this as a category is that it would drastically lower the bar on our criteria for valid categories. It is not enough to be notable. Categories must be robust (not prone to cause clutter), functional (help users navigate through numerous articles), and academically oriented (helpful in researching a topic). This category is not robust (it would add to clutter, especially if other similar categories were allowed), not particularly useful, and not connected to a field of academic study. A category adds a prominent link to every article in the category. A list does not, so it does not need to meet the criteria I've mentioned. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this category isn't robust, functional or not connected to academia, then surely the same would apply to a list. If the category causes clutter, then a list would cause the same clutter. Besides, where does it say that a category has to be connected to a field of academic study? I have not come across that part of Wikipedia policies/guidlines. I always thought that the connection that the category is about has to just be notable. Surely the Guardian and New York Times articles show notability? Deamon138 (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability may be necessary for a list, but it is not sufficient for category creation. The clutter I mention is "category clutter" -- when an article gets dozens and dozens of categories. We do not create a category for every notable attribute of a person. If we did, category listings would grow to be as long as the article (longer if we allowed multiple intersections). -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as no consensus. I'm inclined to say that there was borderline consensensus to Keep, but as someone in favour of keeping, I believe it is accurate enough to say that there was no clear consensus either way. The cited argument (while put forth by a user whom I particularly respect) that the category was analogous to "People named Buddy" is also flawed, to the extent that independent sources (such as The Guardian and The New York Times discuss the cultural significance of mononyms; I've yet to see comparable sources concerning the relevance of the name, "Buddy." If nothing else, the lack of consensus and lack of solid deletion rationale should make this a clear WP:DGFA case: "When in doubt, don't delete" (emphasis in original). Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That kind of skirts the fact that it was a previously deleted category under a different name. The onus kind of shifts in such cases, and "if in doubt, don't delete" doesn't apply with the same vigor. Some might even argue that in such cases, it should be "if in doubt, re-delete". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A fair point, but in that case I'd simply say that, of my arguments above, the non-WP:DGFA-related ones (especially the independent sources one) would be the strongest. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: By the way, while WP:AGFing as much as possible, I find this diff by the closing admin to be very...odd. There, he appears to claim that Nihil novi's argument was simply the word, "Keep," when in fact Nihil novi's argument became quite in-depth. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's fairly obvious that he was probably referring to Nihil novi's initial comment/vote, which, because of its odd structure and format, appeared to be, at first glance, simply, "Keep". Anyway, his further comments have been pointed out above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Highly refreshing to see an administrator weigh arguments seriously instead of merely counting votes. I believe the overturn side has yet to address the argument in favour of deletion that says that mononymity is inherently non-notable because in different cultures it has meant different things; in some of them it has been the rule rather than the exception. Nor has it been explained how, if mononymity is notable, polynimity is not. Why hasn't a Category:Persons with two names been created? Or Category:Persons with four names? What is the argument that explains the notability of mononymity and non-notability of these? There is none. In and of itself, mononymity has nothing to do with fame, nothing to do with personal choice, and nothing to do with the accomplishments of the person so-named. The mononymity of Madonna may be significant, but she is not the only candidate for entry in the category. The mononymity of Charles the Bald is unrelated to that of Madonna. In his case it is insignificant, since most persons in his society were mononymous. Srnec (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The fact that "in different cultures it has meant different things" was addressed in the initial CFD. That, I believe, is why Nihil novi argued that "in principle only such persons should be included who use a mononym but come from a polynymous society." Two names, four names, and the name Buddy have nothing whatsoever to do with this. We're talking about mono- and poly-: one or more-than-one. This is not a slippery slope to a bajillion trivial name-related categories; this is simply an assertion of the relevance of two types of people, mononymous and polynymous. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I addressed the silliness of a contrived principle by which a category would not cover what its name covers during the CFD. If I cannot go to Category:Physicists and assume that it ought to include all physicists on Wikipedia, what use is it? Should it exclude racist physicists because we don't like them? Or physicists who are more famous as something else because they make it bulky and less convenient? A category entitled "mononymous persons" ought to in principle cover all mononymous persons that we have articles on. Do you support Category:Polynymous persons? Will you create it? Srnec (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I would support Category:Polynymous persons, if it could be demonstrated that a notable group of polynymous persons comes from mononymous societies. More generally, I support using common sense. It may be useful to browse a category full of several individuals who have defied social customs (sociological relevance) regarding their name-based identities (psychological relevance). If you believe that categories are supposed to be exhaustive, even in principle, then you are in direct conflict with a Wikipedia editing guideline, which states that categories needn't even be comprehensive! I quote: "Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization" (emphasis in original). Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn:

13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC): Kbdank71 closed 2nd CfD as delete
16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC): deletion review initiated here
16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC): category tagged with {{delrev}} notice. {{Cfd}} notice above it includes the caution do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress
20:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC): Kbdankbot began removing the category from articles

Kbdank, after selectively disregarded community input in the CfD closure, disregarded the community consensus process guideline not to empty a category which is under discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 04:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider withdrawing or rephrasing the last portion of your comment, since there's a lot of relevant information that you've overlooked. First, restoring the contents of a category is a simple matter when the depopulation is carried out by a bot (it's all in the edit history), so it's not really a big deal, especially when the categor contains just 15-20 pages. Second, the whole process of depopulating a category is automated: at 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC), approximately three hours before the DRV was initiated, Kbdank71 listed (see diff) Category:Mononymous persons on Kbdankbot's "to do" page; the bot just didn't get around to emptying the category until 20:38. Third, the caution to "not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress" refers to the CFD discussion, which has already concluded, and is not present on {{delrev}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected in re {{Cfd}}. — Athaenara ✉ 05:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good faith Del Rev is an indication that the discussion is still in process. DGG (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~While~~ Whether true or not, it's not relevant here, as the timeline posted by Black Falcon ably demonstrates. Even if Kbdank71 was engaged in some nefarious plot to thwart the community by emptying the category after the delrev notice went up, that in and of itself is not a reason to overturn the decision. Athaenara's rationale for overturning the CFD relies on arcane interpretations of process and does not address the substance of the CFD or the closing admin's rationale at all. Otto4711 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The CFD discussion is about the merits of the category. This DRV discussion is about the merits of the close. So a good faith Del Rev is an indication that a Del Rev discussion has started. The CFD discussion had already ended. --Kbdank71 18:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Admins are supposed to weigth the arguments, including the interpretations of policies and guidelines. Deletion discussions are not head counts. I find that the closer weighted correctly the relative weight of the arguments, and correctly discounted some very weak arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Process followed, end of story. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The decision to delete Category:Mononymous persons was taken without due consideration for the well-reasoned and well-documented arguments for its retention. This absence of careful reading and weighing of arguments is illustrated by the superficial reading of my own arguments, which were reduced to the final single word "Keep," which had merely (and intentionally) closed my argument instead of opening it. It also does not inspire confidence in the proceedings that previous debates on related categories had analogously been closed by the same single, evidently biased administrator. Proceedings conducted in similar ways have in the past sometimes been characterized as "railroads." Nihil novi (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that as an assumption of good faith you retract your suggestion that the nominator was biased against the category. Perhaps if you'd written your AFD comments in the format that every other editor uses there would not have been any confusion that the lengthy comments above it were yours as opposed to those of an unsigned editor. Even so, you have no evidence to suggest that the closing admin didn't read and evaluate your comments even if he didn't realize that they were yours. Otto4711 (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps if you'd written your AFD comments in the format that every other editor uses there would not have been any confusion that the lengthy comments above it were yours as opposed to those of an unsigned editor. Give me a break! How can this comment cause any confusion? Anyone who read the full comment can easily figure out that the comment was written by Nihil novi. One has to read the comment carefully. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I saw the comment, I was a bit confused by it. I think it can be confusing at first glance. It's partially attributable to the way reading on a computer screen differs from reading a piece of paper, but another factor is that it was set out and structured differently than 99% of all comments made in CfDs. I wouldn't take the closer's comments regarding these particular comments as the be all and end all of his decision. Obviously, he was basing his final decision on more than just his confusion or lack thereof regarding the comment and who made it. In any case, this has been addressed above twice now, and this is the third time it has been brought up. Maybe we should forgive him for making a mistake in attribution and give up carping about it. Or are there no more substantive reasons to be in favour of overturning the decision? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"More substantive reasons" are to be found within that comment itself and other comments made in the course of the present deliberations and of the earlier deliberations on related questions. Nihil novi (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your quote has been reproduced above. This is the third time it's been raised. My point is instead of continually carping about a mistake that someone made, present some new substantive reasons. If you don't have any more, no need to say anything else, I guess. I meant "more" in the sense of "in addition to what has already been covered on this page", not in the sense of "better" substantively. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments of deletionists in the matter of Category:Mononymous persons come down to three:

Similar categories have been deleted previously. While the notion of stare decisis is often considered in decision-making, it is not regarded as absolutely binding. U.S. Supreme Court decisions long upheld the constitutionality of slavery, only to be overturned in the course of the American Civil War.
There is, allegedly, nothing notable about mononymity. This is gainsaid by numerous commentaries remarking on the phenomenon as it occurs in polynymous societies, and moreover offering explanations for the phenomenon — explanations that indeed provide the common thread whose supposed absence some deletionists bemoan.
If all mononymous persons were admitted to Category:Mononymous persons, this would create an unmanageably large category. This is unlikely to be the case, for only a few Javanese, for example, become prominent enough in the world consciousness to become eligible for inclusion — and such persons should be included in such a category.

I submit that the deletionists have not made a convincing case against Category:Mononymous persons. The decision to delete the category should be reversed. Nihil novi (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. A general borderline deletionist myself, I'll happily welcome a convincing deletion argument when I see one. But I fail to see any in this CFD or DRV. In fact, I'd say that the deletion arguments are actually rather contrived and left-field when it comes to policies and guidelines, whereas the keep arguments are considerably more direct. For one thing, the deletionists never met WP:CON in the CFD. Second, they are ignoring reliable sources (!!!), such as The Guardian and The New York Times (hello, folks?) Third, they are inventing standards of category comprehensiveness, and then arguing that the category doesn't meet these standards, when a Wikipedia editing guideline states, about as clearly as can be, "Not all categories are comprehensive"! The deletion was, IMDO (in my deletionist opinion), absolutely improper. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of reliable sources that discuss the phenomenon of using one name only in a poly-name culture establishes the notability of the topic. Notability is the standard for articles. It is not the standard for categories. Otto4711 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: O RLY? Well, that isn't what you said in this diff, in which you asserted the need for "reliable sources about what it means to use a single name." I provide these sources, and now you claim that sources are irrelevant? Ooooooookay. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deliberately misrepresenting my argument at CFD or was it unintentional? My comment about reliable sources was in relation to your assertion of a link between fame and the use of a single name required reliable sources that are specifically on that topic of pursuing fame through the use of a single name, otherwise using the asserted link to justify the category constituted original research by synthesis. Otto4711 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears that it's not just the closing admin who made a mistake in interpretation. Maybe now we can all admit that mistakes in interpreting comments happen and that it's not a great reason to argue that an otherwise well-considered decision should be overturned. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, mistakes in interpreting comments do not a well-considered decision make. A well-considered mistake is effectively an oxymoron. Deamon138 (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence the closer did not read and consider the comment or even that he misinterpreted its meaning. All he did was a matter of mistaken attribution. He was mistaken about who made the comment and he was mistaken about the content of Nihil novi's initial comment (the closer thought s/he had simply said "keep", when in fact the comment that preceded it was his/hers). Please give this issue up. Learn to forgive. Move on. Pluck the beam out of thine own eye. I don't know how else to say it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In any event, notability is "the standard" for categories. I have provided sources to demonstrate that mononymity is indeed not trivial, at least for several individuals. It makes perfect sense to have a Mononymous persons category that includes at least these several individuals, although I would argue along with Nihil novi that it is also notable to defy social conventions in polynymous societies and go by a single name. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sources (see way below) can be used in the same way to demonstrate that having blue eyes is notable. So when do we start Category:Blue-eyed people? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See my responses to you (i.e., the blue-eyes sources) and Occuli below. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes the closer made a mistake. Yes forgiveness is a good thing to do. I have done that. But forgiving it doesn't change the fact that if a mistake occurs, then the decision becomes suspect, and hence the deletion review i.e. the closer made a mistake in his verdict, so that regardless of whether this category should be deleted or kept, the decision should be overturned. Think about it: if you were the one on trial, and the jury/judge made a mistake when they decided to "delete" you, wouldn't you want a mistrial called, as the mistake puts reasonable doubt into the decision? Deamon138 (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lol, all sarcasm aside, I'd say if we can't use reliable sources to establish the notability of a connection for a category, then what are we supposed to use to decide? How do we decide whether to keep a category such as Category:20th_century_philosophers if its connection is disputed, without reliable sources? Deamon138 (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what it is. Per WP:IINFO, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You can find in The Guardian or even the NYT that Person A has blue eyes, but that doesn't mean we're going to have Category:People with blue eyes. Being a philosopher is defining, having one name is not. As for reliable sources, if you can't find a source to say someone is a philosopher, then you're probably adding original research and therefore shouldn't add the article to the category. --Kbdank71 16:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You can find in The Guardian or even the NYT that Person A has blue eyes, but that doesn't mean we're going to have Category:People with blue eyes." Have you even looked at the Guardian article? Have you ever seen an article like that calling people with blue eyes "a select band"? It is not just an article about a mononymous person, it establishes the notability of the connection in the first paragraph.
"Being a philosopher is defining, having one name is not." Yes I agree it is, but if someone proposed that category for deletion, then how does one assert that it is a notable connection? The answer is: reliable sources discussing the concept. And the same goes here. We have two reliable and respected sources showing the connection is valid. You would never get an article talking about "the blue-eyed brigade"!
"As for reliable sources, if you can't find a source to say someone is a philosopher, then you're probably adding original research and therefore shouldn't add the article to the category." I don't think I or anyone else is talking about sources for the articles to go in the category. That is a given. The point is, you and others have the argument that it is a trivial characteristic. How can one refute that unless through reliable sources? We (well Cosmic has) have presented two such sources. If sources are needed to show a connection isn't trivial, then what is wrong with those particular sources? Deamon138 (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothin' in the papers about people with blue eyes that is comparable to the articles that have been provided, eh?:

• Elizabeth Weise, "More than meets the blue eye: You may all be related", USA Today, 2008-02-05

• Ben Clerkin, "Why blue-eyed boys (and girls) are so brilliant", Daily Mail, 2007-08-20

• Douglas Belkin, "Blue eyes are increasingly rare in America", International Herald-Tribune, 2006-10-18

• Sheelah Kolhatkar, "The Blue-Eyed Predators", New York Observer, 2005-08-21

• Stephen J. Dubner, "Is Eye Color the Key to the White House?", New York Times Freakonomics blog, 2007-10-11

• Seth Mydans, "Oh Blue-Eyed Thais, Flaunt Your Western Genes!", Thai Sunday, 2002-08-29

So, based on the logic used for those who want the category, why don't we have Category:Blue-eyed people? In a few minutes' work, I already have three times as many articles about this than anyone's been able to produce about mononymous people. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Give me some cocktail party effect-style evidence (see my response to Occuli below) that blue eyes are as intertwined with identity and/or awareness as names are, and give me some evidence that people are defying some sort of folkway in order to change their eye colour to blue, and I will support such a category. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I proved my point. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And I think I proved mine--I guess we'll just have to wait and see what other folks think. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need to add something about using the cocktail effect and defying folkways to the guidelines to provide help in the assessment of notability. :) It gets a bit absurd — if I name my kid Dweezil and he becomes famous, can a category exist called Category:People named Dweezil? It's majorly defining after all — see the cocktail effect — and naming him that certainly defied some folkways (just ask his grandmother!). Or do we make it more broad: Category:People with names that are unusual and folkways-defying in their culture? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We already have a similar category, albeit under a more succinct name! It's called Category:Pseudonyms--and many of them aren't even that unusual! How odd that we should have a pseudonym category but not a mononym one! Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's no good 'cos my kid's name is Dweezil; it's not a pseudonym. And he has blue eyes. Maybe we can get a quadruple-intersection category going for all his trivial characteristics that he has in common with other famous people ... (Jeez, I've really got the do this on the talk page ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I realize there's a difference between your example and a pseudonym; that's why I quickly changed my wording from "such a category" to "a similar category"--similar insofar as both Dweezil and many pseudonyms are further examples of self-defining and folkway-defying names--in this diff. Still, we're talking about people who have forgone last (or first, or whatever the case may be--as long as they're forgoing something) names in order to be known specifically by one name. And I still don't see how mononyms are any less valid than pseudonyms, for which a ctaegory already exists. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except not all of them have forgone the name on a plain interpretation of the category. Many people only had one name. (Yes, I know, I know — you would like to limit it to those who come from cultures where mononymity it not the norm, but that's an added layer upon the category that only adds to its problematic nature.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up above Good Olfactory said, "(Also: many of the "overturn" arguments above are focusing on other categories and their relationships, rather than this one. If their arguments are persuasive, this should not be necessary.)" Do you stand by that comment in light of all this about blue eyes, and Dweezil, that you raised? If your arguments are persuasive, this should not be necessary. :P Deamon138 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I stand by my statement. I think I already indicated that the comments were not necessary (see my comments about needing to take my comments to the talk page). They are totally unnecessary, but it was an amusing diversion for me to show how easily your arguments could be picked apart with a couple of minutes searching on google. Sorry if that troubled you, but come to think of it, it probably should have. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - As Kbdank points out, being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is a classic example of recentism and Western bias making a notable characteristic out of something which is nothing of the sort. The close was based on sound reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm as opposed to recentism as anyone else, and maybe even more than most, but I don't see how it is recentism to call Voltaire a mononymous person. Hillary? Sure. But certain others? Not at all. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - this seems an excellent example of a non-defining characteristic. Occuli (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm as strongly opposed to overcategorization (and to Western bias) as anyone, but names are inherently defining characteristics, at least for the individuals themselves (and at least in societies in which this has been studied). Our names are intertwined with our identity and awareness, as the cocktail party effect and plenty of other psychological evidence suggests. The fact that people change their names to mononyms means that they are defying social conventions and thereby altering a crucial aspect of their awareness and identity. They are deliberately augmenting an individually defining characteristic into a transparently social action, and that is the point at which, when notable people do this notable thing, it becomes of "encyclopedic" interest. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names can be defining, having one of them is not. Bill Clinton is not less famous than Madonna because he goes by two names all the time, since both Bill and Clinton are very ambiguous. Further, the argument raised again and again by you and Nihil novi to the effect that since some mononymity is notable a category titled so as to cover all mononymous incidences ought to exist to cover those some instances that are notable is unconvincing. Until you get more support for Nihil novi's "principle" regarding inclusion/exclusion, you have no consensus for restricting the category to only mononymous persons in polynymous societies and since that is the only way in which it would be viable, it is clearly not viable unil you achieve such a consensus. This is why recentism and cultural (not even Western) bias apply. Srnec (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We can talk about reaching consensus on that later. The point is that, not only was there no consensus to delete, but--moving now from the WP:CON aspect of the close to the more directly argument-based aspect--this is (in principle) a very meaningful category, an argument that the deletionists and closer did not, by and large, acknowledge. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a meaningful category because there is no meaningful connexion inherent between mononymous persons. What is the meaningful connexion between Charlemagne and Madonna shaped by their mononymity? There is none. This is because in Charlemagne's culture nearly everybody was mononymous: it was unexceptional. Charlemagne's mononymity is no more than a reflection of a cultural practice. Since Madonna's is exactly the opposite, the mononymity they share is not really shared at all. It's two different things which happen to look alike. This is what is meant by "not meaningful": the "meaning" (significance, implication) of mononymity in Charlemagne's place and time is totally different from that in Madonna's. Category:Physicists has been raised in this discussion before. This is a meaningful category. The connexion between all physicists is apparent: they study each other's work, they reference each other, they are influence by each other's work, their work altogether forms part of a single differentiated field and discipline of study. Being a physicist and finding two persons to both be physicists are meaningful. If I know that A was a physicist I immediately know something about A besides the fact that he is called "a physicist". If I know that B is also a physicist I immediately know things that A and B share besides "pysicist-ness". This is because "pysicist-ness" is broad and defining, full of implication. "Mononymity" is not. Hence knowing that two people both have only one name tells us only that they both have one name. Nothing more. And this, on its own and independent of culture, is not notable or even worthy of study. If you insist on injecting culture into it in order to extract meaning, you are violating guidelines on recentism and global perspective. Srnec (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Monica Bellucci and Émile Durkheim? Bellucci is a hot actress and Durkheim was one of the most brilliant people who ever walked on this planet. Bellucci is an agnostic and Durkheim was an agnostic. That’s the only common link between them. Bellucci is in Category:Italian agnostics and Durkheim is in Category:French agnostics. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about this category or that cateory is not a persuasive argument. The existence of the agnostics by nationality category structure does not support the notion that this category must exist also. If you don't believe that agnosticism is sufficiently defining to warrant categorization, take it to CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe agnosticism is sufficiently defining to warrant categorization. I support both Category:Mononymous persons and Category:Agnostics. I’m trying to point out that even if one unique link exists between two people, it is worth highlighting that link. The only common link between Bellucci and Durkheim is that both are agnostics. The same goes with mononymous persons. The only common link between Madonna and Pate is that both are mononymous and that’s a unique link. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Persons whose names begin with M? I think the policies/conventions/guidelines line up against you. Or, better, Category:Things. Srnec (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, you didn't read my above comments properly. Category:Mononymous persons is not equivalent to Category:Persons whose names begin with M because nobody would care if the name of Michael Jackson were John Mills, but people would like to know why the name of Madonna is just Madonna. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And would anyone like to know why the name of Socrates is just Socrates (not why it is Socrates, by why he has no other name)? You see, your view is mere recentism and lack a global perspective. Only when polynymity is the rule are questions raised about mononymity. And vice versa. And personally, I don't care why the name of Madonna is just Madonna. Srnec (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To dismiss the views of editors who are supporting this category as "mere recentism" is not wise. I think you should read the arguments of Cosmic Latte. You may not care why the name of Madonna is just Madonna, but many people want to know why. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If I know that A was a physicist I immediately know something about A besides the fact that he is called "a physicist"." What is it then that you know about A other than "A is a physicist"? If all you know about A and B is that they are physicists, that is all you know they share. There are biophysicists and cosmologists; experimental physicists and theoretical physicists; liberal physicists and conservative physicists; witty physicists and dull physicists; Jewish physicists and African-American physicists; up-and-coming physicists and established physicists; controversial physicists and uncontroversial physicists; public-eye physicists and shy physicists; etc etc you get the picture. Physicists are as diverse a group as the Mononym brigade, so there is a great chance that there is no connection between A and B other than their career. I would be interested to know what connection, other than their "physics-ness", there is between say, Alfred Wegener and Georges Lemaître? Deamon138 (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it implied that I know more than just their physicist-ness. I said that physicist-ness is "full of implication" (i.e. it subsumes other things within it). Wegener and Lemaître studied much the same stuff, their work is part of the same discipline: Wegener's chief theory and Lemaître's theory both undermined a consensus regarding the static nature of the physical universe. "Mononymous" has no implications. "Physicist" always does. That is the difference. And please note that Wegener is not in any physicist category. Srnec (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the original CfD, the Guardian source was produced. The reason for this was that according to Otto4711, Cosmic Latte's comment "amounts to original research by synthesis." He said that, "To say that the use of a single name sheds light on the nature of fame, in the absence of reliable sources on single-named people and the nature of fame, is unsupportable." Well, the Guardian source was produced. The New York Times source was produced as well. These two sources show that Cosmic's comment about fame is backed up by two reliable sources, and hence the connection in this category is notable. Still, we are now told that we can't use sources to justify the category (I'm still not sure why). So how then does one justify a category? Is it okay for people to justify the Physicist's category with "The connexion between all physicists is apparent" (and the rest of that comment)? No. Because while it is obvious that that category should exist, if it HAD to be justified, the only way you could do it would be to appeal to sources. Which is what we have done for this one. Still, let's look at what WP:CAT uses for its criteria for category justification. Here's what it says:

Questions to ask to determine whether it is appropriate to add an article to a category:

If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?

If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

Does the category fit into the overall category system? Categories that don't fit are often deleted. To familiarize yourself with the types of categories that routinely get deleted read Wikipedia:Overcategorization.

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then the category is probably inappropriate.

So the question is, is the answer to any of those questions no? Let's see:

"Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?" Yes it is. In fact it is more than possible, as we have the article, Mononymous persons, which is fairly well sourced too. That's more than a few paragraphs imo. Criteria one is satisfied.
"If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" Well, I don't know what was in the category originally, but as long as the reader knows what "Mononymous" means, then it should be really really obvious why Voltaire (or whoever) is in the category. So criteria two can be satisfied, and if the category is kept, I will make sure it is satisfied, as I'm sure other users of the category will.
"Does the category fit into the overall category system?" Yes it does. Currently, the category is in Category:Names, and it seems to fit into that category (Mononymous names are names after all). Therefore, criteria three is satisfied.

I would therefore say that since those three criteria are satisfiable with this category, then that alone is a good enough reason to keep this category, never mind the sources as well. Deamon138 (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" is the key question here. The answer is, "No, almost never." This is because only in some cases is it at all notable. In the case of Voltaire maybe, but then I don't know how much we would talk about the singleness of his pen name so much as the reasons for it. In the case of Plato his mononymity is unmentioned, as it should be. Srnec (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vaunted Guardian article, which is offered to prove that there is a link between using one name and seeking fame, patently does not provide proof for such a link. It says in relevant portion "People who wear their fame with such confidence that they have dispensed with the B-list concerns of having more than one name." It does not say anything about a link between only using one name and seeking fame. It merely notes that some people have already achieved such fame, whether using one name or multiple names, that they are readily identifiable by one name. In the gay community (and possibly in the straight community as well, I have no idea), most people hearing the names Barbra or Judy or Merman or Liza are going to know who is being talked about. Are any of these people, who are so famous as to be identifiable, eligible for this category? No. The NYT article is about Hillary Clinton branding herself as "Hillary" for her campaign. It says nothing about her using a single name while becoming famous, because she didn't use a single name while becoming famous (she came to national prominence as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and per the article only started branding herself as "Hillary" when she ran for Senate). SO the sources which claim to prove this link between mononymity and fame in reality do nothing of the sort and there have still been no sources that indicate that the alleged link is anything but synthesis. Otto4711 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn While the keep arguments were not great, the delete arguments were as bad or worse. It came down to "this is a defining characteristic" and "no it's not". In such a case I think you are stuck with basically taking a vote, and I see this as no consensus leaning toward keep. Hobit (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody was arguing that mononymity is a defining characteristic without arguing that polynimity is equally a defining characteristic, they were being inconsistent. Yet though my three names (first, middle, last) may be defining, the fact there are three is not. I would like to see somebody take seriously the suggested creation of a Category:Polynymous persons if they seriously believe in this category. Srnec (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this like arguing we should have a category for those that aren't MLB players? It's rare, and it's something people are known for and it's something that is discussed (about those people) in RS. The Polynymous aren't. Hobit (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been following this debate at all? I have been arguing precisely that the mononymous category is just as vacuous. People are not known for having only one name unless they live in a polynymous society. Not everybody has. See Plato, William the Conqueror, and Solomon. See WP:Recentism. Srnec (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the arguments of Cosmic Latte properly? It is unique for people who comes from polynymous society to have a single name. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but are you seriously basing your argument against this category, on the fact that it fails WP:Recentism, which is an essay, and clearly says at the top of the page, "This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may heed it or not, at your discretion." Deamon138 (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not basing my arguments on an essay. Have you read my arguments? To Masterpiece2000, I have read Cosmic Latte's arguments. Have you read mine? I know it is unique for a person from a polynymous society to have one name, but it is also unique for a person from a mononymous society to have two (see John Crescentius or Henry Berengar). So why no Category:Polynymous persons? Srnec (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps because there's relatively little in terms of sources and/or academic/public interest to make polynymous persons stand out enough. I don't know. If we can garner consensus that Category:Polynymous persons would be a useful category, then so be it. I find it interesting, though, that the deletion arguments have largely concerned slippery slopes to categories other than the one (directly) in question: polynymous persons, people with four names, people named Buddy, people named Dweezil, etc., etc. Even the nomination for this category was a slippery slope, i.e., there was consensus to delete other mononym-related categories (an assertion that I don't even see verified in their CfD's, but that's beside the point), so there will surely be consensus to delete this one. That conclusion does not follow logically, and as the sheer existence of this DRV demonstrates, it needn't follow empirically either. No one is proposing the formation of categories that fly in the face of common sense (WP:UCS?) or WP:RS. We're simply suggesting that these things do apply to the existence of this category. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To Srnec, I've read your arguments. Category:Polynymous persons should be created, if it could be demonstrated that a notable group of polynymous persons comes from mononymous societies. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Cosmic Latte: I do not believe that most arguments have been of the slippery slope variety. Some have; and they are still good ones. Other are not slippery slopes at all, rather they are challenges that mononymity is non-notable in and of itself and it is not a significant connexion between two persons.

To Masterpiece: Are Henry Berengar and John Crescentius not notable enough? What about the Trencavel, who adopted that epithet as a surname and the preferred name for those in the family whose baptismal name was Roger? Or what about the notable adoption of surnames by famous Italian families in the high and late Middle Ages? The Doria arose in a time single given names were still the rule. Or what about the apostles: Simon Peter, also called Cephas? Was his adoption of other names non-notable? Even then, in the generally mononymous Hellenistic culture of the eastern Mediterranean, the Gospels give the impression of a significant number of Jews using two names, but not most of them. Matthew-Levi? Nathanael-Bartholomew? Are these non-notable? And better question: do you think it would be hard for me to find a study of this use of more than one name among the polynymous first-century Hebrews? Srnec (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 August 2008[edit]

User:Oren neu dag/my userboxes/User Pro Georgia – No action taken. Consensus is it's fine in userspace. – lifebaka++ 18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's not inflammatory, and it is in line with all wikipedia rules Oren neu dag (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - expressing support of a country/group/place/thing is not inflammatory. If a userbox proclaiming "Pro Georgia" is inflammatory, then there are a myriad of other userboxes that must go. And before anyone waves WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me, the established existence of so many other political statement userboxes that it really doesn't apply here. Shereth 23:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The initial movement into the template space, which made it violate WP:CSD#T1, was the reason for the initial deletion. There are a lot of political statement userboxes, but they are kept out of the template space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it out of the template space. --Oren neu dag (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I missed the fact that it was a redirect. It shouldn't be there. Shereth 04:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do nothing - it's ok in user space. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

God's Playground: Volume I - Chapter Synopsis – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

clearly no-consensus, please, relist or move the content of the deleted article to my page, this article is in a GA class frame and doesn't need extra work, merge or move would suffice greg park avenue (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greg. I also strongly condemn this deletion given that, as you say, there was not a general consenus. I have asked the editor to also relist it. I too have asked lifebaka why a speedy delete was made - Wikipedia rules state that there must be a CONSENSUS after a five day deletion debate and this was certainly not the case. Ivankinsman (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closer - I closed the debate as delete because the keep and merge arguments seemed weak and contrary to our policies (specifically WP:PLOT). I have, however, emailed the content to Ivankinsman, the author, as he put a ton of work into the page and it would be a shame to take that away from him. I'd also like to note to the above users that consensus is not merely a vote count; argument strength is also factored in when determining consensus. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on here. This is entirely YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION and you were not even a part of the discussion. One can equally argue that argument consensus was for maintaining the article. As a result, I am going to restore it based on this fact. I also took the courtesy of explaining this to the original editor who put up a delete notice - saying that I would re-list it -and he didn't even reply after some time had elapsed, so another argument for re-listing.Ivankinsman (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, recreating the article from the text I emailed you is generally a Bad Thing^TM, as it circumvents consensus discussions. If there's a consensus to overturn here, then the article is restored. So I'm going to restore the rest of the history, blank, and fully protect the article for four days pending the resolution of this DRV. Cheers. lifebaka++ 10:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, protecting might not've been the best idea there, so let me know if anyone wants to improve it in the meantime and I'll lift it (or have someone else do it, that's fine). Cheers. lifebaka++ 10:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:PLOT refers to fiction ONLY. Nothing even remotely resembles the subject which applies here. We talking a historical, non-fiction book written by an uncontroversial scholar Norman Davies, a book which can be used as a source of reference, unlike many pamphlets delivered by the controversial authors as Jan T. Gross by whom many articles are littered throughout Wikipedia. Please, reconsider to move the content to User:Greg park avenue/God's Playground: Volume I - Chapter Synopsis, I take it from here. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to God's Playground under the section Plot. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trimming necessary to get it down to a reasonable size would be pretty massive. I'm fine with this outcome, but first someone will need to step up to actually do the work. lifebaka++ 03:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, possible merge to God's Playground -- note that per GFDL concerns, the page history of a merged article must be accessible to attribute the work of the original author(s). As observed by Greg park avenue, WP:PLOT applies only to fictional works, not non-fiction books such as God's Playground. Even if WP:PLOT were (counterfactually) applicable here, when appropriately merged, the content of this article would not violate WP:PLOT, since it would not result in an article being comprised primarily of a plot summary. The creation of a plot summary via a direct analysis of the work in question does not constitute original research, provided that the plot summary is purely "descriptive", and does not "make... analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", as described in Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. John254 23:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, massive cut-and-paste copyright violation. John254 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm... A random spot check of half a dozen sections of the article showed each of those sections to be lifted verbatim from the book itself. Why would we have this in Wikipedia? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is indeed comprised almost entirely of copyright violations, it should remain deleted. Requests to delete articles as copyright violations should prominently state the problem in question, to avoid extended discussion at AFD and DRV. John254 23:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, but it supposed to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, as in court of law. So far, as any evidence has not been provided yet, I recommend to proceed with an assumption the author of the article is innocent until proven guilty as per WP:AGF. greg park avenue (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute! How someone may claim NOW copyright violation AFTER the article has been entirely deleted from Wikipedia and no one except admins has access to it? Is Boody an alternate account of one of them? Pretty strange! Even inspector Clouseau would be confused. greg park avenue (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know, Inspector Clouseau, among others, was easily confused. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A cached version of the deleted article is currently available at [50]. John254 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, John. I saved it for future reference. For the record: version from August 3 - 127kB. Looks like twice longer one than the version deleted yesterday but will do. greg park avenue (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to do a history-only undeletion to check for copyvios. It'll also give everyone a better idea what the article looked like at the time it was deleted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, Lifebaka. But I think it's pure waste of time. Copying from a printed book takes much more time than writing by oneself. And the author of the article is not some fifth grader, but an English teacher. It seems to me Boody was only fishing. He can do that now after the long version (127kB) has been released by John. The last version was probably 65kB only and is standard for GA. greg park avenue (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history's up, but the page is currently blanked. I don't have access to the book, so I can't check for copyvios myself (I'll check against the limited preview in Google books, though). Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' It is an anomaly that we do not have an equivalent of PLOT for non-fiction/. True, for fiction PLOT is often over-applied--a fairly full description of a complicated work is necessary for any understanding of what the subject is about. The same is true for non fiction, but when the summary becomes an equivalent of reading the book, then there are genuine copyvio concerns. An excessively detailed summary is copyvio even if the language is not used exactly or closely paraphrased. There are also concerns of NPOV--an article like this can essentially be a repetition of one historian's view of all of Polish history. This is a standard work, but not all of it is universally accepted. John is correct that OR does not apply, but copyvio and NPOV certainly do. We need a separate discussion of what degree of summarization should be acceptable--I think it would depend on both the importance and the nature of the work. As an additional factor, summaries such as this have often been tried in much more POV circumstances, as a way of getting a second article on a persons particular theory, and we need to watch out for this also. Whether or not it remains deleted, we need a general discussion. DGG (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Ummmm...again Pick any phrase at random from the "synopsis" and plug it into Google book, and bingo. (Except where our author spells "magnate" as "magnet.") Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you write a synopsis of a history book, it is difficult to not state the facts as they existed at the time. After all, the Liberum Veto was the Liberum Veto, the Siege of Vienna was the Siege of Vienna and the historical events as described by Davies should be in the synopsis. However, I would like to make a more general point here. At the moment, the main article page for God's Playground - this fantastic record of Poland's history - is extremely DREARY. It simply gives some scant information about this book. I have put in a considerable amount of time trying to open up his brilliant record of events to a wider Wikipedia audience. What will Wikipedians learn about this book by reading the current article page? What does it tell them about Professor Davies' account of this historical period? Absolutely nothing as it stands. Go to the article page and have a look for yourself! Ivankinsman (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not just key words. The vast bulk of the synopsis is lifted verbatim from the book and is a clear WP:COPYVIO.Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it. Just some examples but these—1, 2, 3, and 4 (and 4a)—don't seem to indicate that it's all copyvio. Do you have examples? lifebaka++ 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now try it without the quotes. So (without going through all your "not seeing it" examples), let's pick the first one you say isn't WP:COPYVIO. Your version has "should have passed their formative years in contact not only with Germans and Balts, but also with Illyrians, Thracians" while Davies version has "should have passed the formative years in contact not only with Germans and Balts but also with Illyrians, Thracians." You changed "the" to "their", hence it won't show up inm an exact phrase search. Seeing it now? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for the clarification. I took "lifted verbatim" to mean the exact same wording was used. The third example I took (3) doesn't appear to be a copyvio, but the other three are. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boody's word is as good as yours and as mine I guess. He still didn't provide any proof of copyvio, neither did you. Cheers! greg park avenue (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdented) Okay, I'll go back over it. Here are my previous examples (with the third removed, since it wasn't one.
1) "should have passed their formative years in contact not only with Germans and Balts, but also with Illyrians, Thracians and" 1
2) "Poland been seen to be quite characteristic even in modern times" 2
4) "In a system where Golden Freedom forced no-one into civic responsibilities, it was all to easy for noblemen to cultivate" 4
These are pretty clearly copyvios; the only changes are extremely minor. Picking at random some more pieces of text,
5) "Republic's economy, suffered at the hands of invading armies, particularly in the Swedish Wars of 1655-1660, and in the Great Northern War" 5 is not a copyvio
6) "The Truce of Andrusovo, which left Smolensk, Kiev, and the left-bank Ukraine in Muscovite hands, was supposedly a temporary measure." 6 is a copyvio
7) "Also, the Teutonic State was established during this period in the north of Poland." 7 is not a copyvio.
At least part of the article has this issue, and I welcome anyone else to take a look at it. I'm happy if someone want to create a non-copyvio version, but the work involved in creating one would be pretty large. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, number6): Points out Poland's importance to European history from medieval times to the present, examines the nation's multicultural heritage, and discusses the many problems Poland has had to face. How it corresponds as a copyvio to the text: Also, the Teutonic State was established during this period in the north of Poland. Where is this text? Beats me. 19:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No idea why, but it links to the wrong part. The text is at the bottom of page 407, but it links to the bottom of 408. lifebaka++ 19:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mixed no 7) with no 6), it should be: The Truce of Andrusovo, which left Smolensk, Kiev, and the left-bank Ukraine in Muscovite hands, was supposedly a temporary measure. instead of Teutonic Knights ... it still doesn't make sense. The text must be hidden somwhere but where? I also cross-checked the words Poland's and Andrusovo in my saved file (long version) and found only three entries as Poland's Hungarian... etc. for the command "find on this page": Poland's, found nothing for Poland's importance and zero (0) hits for Andrusovo. greg park avenue (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. 1) The passage has been taken from: The Slavonic heartland:

It is now generally agreed (contrary to the Polish School) that this lay on the forest-steppe which stretches along the northern slopes of the Carpathians between the middle Vistula and the lower Dnieper. Evidence suggests that:

- the Protoslavs did not disperse until relatively recently;

- they should have passed their formative years in contact not only with Germans and Balts, but also with Illyrians, Thracians and Iranians (e.g. Bóg (God) and raj (Paradise) are Sarmato-Iranian by derivation).

According to this theory, the Slav migration grew into a flood with the collapse of Avar supremacy in the seventh century - one branch headed north and east into the Baltic and Finnish territory (East Slavs), a second branch moved south into the Balkans (future Serbs, Croats, Bulgars and Slovenes).

It's definition of a theory. And as any definition you can't write that entirely with your own words. Hardly a copyvio, especially since you didn't find it verbatim. If so any definition in Wikipedia, say, of hydrated oxides or of Newton Laws would be a copyvio.

Re 2) 1 word characteristic has been found in the text from August 3 supplied by John - short sentence/not verbatim

Re 4) 4 words Golden and Freedom has been found in the text from August 3 supplied by John - short sentence/common phrase/not verbatim

Re. 6) Thy only copyvio you claimed to be found verbatim is this: The Truce of Andrusovo, which left Smolensk, Kiev, and the left-bank Ukraine in Muscovite hands, was supposedly a temporary measure. I didn't find the word Andrusovo in the text from August 3 supplied by John. So how this violation could be verbatim?

In one word no shred of evidence of verbatim copyvio you have supplied so far, ans as far as I understand copyright violation, there must be a block of text copied from the text, not just a few keywords - they just are a tool to find such a block. The main idea is: If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed. as per WP:Copyright. In other words, there is no reason to delete entire article if view keywords resemble other text. The only one long sentence [Ref 1] about the not-verbatim-definition is not conclusive for a text over 100kB.

Besides, this DRV doesn't deal with copyright violation. It's an obvious snowballing as per WP:SNOW, that's all. greg park avenue (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no -- massive WP:COPYVIO's has everything to do with a DRV. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - this isn't a summary, it's a long-form book report and looks to be entirely original research. The close was perfectly fine, the arguments for deletion were reasonable, the arguments for keep didn't stand up far as I'm concerned. If there are verbatim copyvios, even more of a reason to keep it gone. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a place for book reviews or plot summaries (either fictional or academic). Numerous issues: PLOT, NPOV, OR, copyvio, etc. The text is available in God's Playground history if someone would step up to incorporate most relevant facts into History of Poland. Renata (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please leave a note here if you do, so the article won't accidentally be deleted afterwards. Merge and delete is a Bad Thing^TM. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)~~ Bleh, misread that. lifebaka++ 19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renata, History of Poland is a historical article, already writtem and maybe contains sufficient info; it shouldn't be overlapped by adding the content of a book or its parts, doesn't matter how good written. The article once logically consistent doesn't need extra input until there is a reason to do it. But a book is a book and if notable and well written and uncontroversial it deserves a separate article. Wikipedia is a source of reference and someone someday may look for additional information regarding history of Poland. It doesn't mean the article History of Poland must be rewritten each and every time someone publish a book about the subject. greg park avenue (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although well written, History of Poland is a very general article and gives a very brief overview of this country's history - a country, by the way, which I currently live in. I feel that a much more detailed analysis is needed for those people who want more concrete detail about a particular historical era. and this article has been written exactly for these purposes. As Greg above has stated, a lot of people use Wikipedia as a source of reference and he is correct in surmising that some may want additional information than is currently provided. Ivankinsman (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you'd like to do, I'd suggest editing the subarticles of History of Poland, such as History of Poland (1569–1795). They provide a much more detailed history than the main does, which is just a summary of all of them. Likely there are articles about specific important events as well. This suggestion is slightly off topic, though, so I suggest letting this particular thread drop. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. A lethal combination of original research and copyvios. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - Massive WP:OR, lots of copyright violations... why on earth should this be restored? Asenine 09:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but WP:OR states "...This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." What position is being advanced here? The article is not arguing any particular point of view so why state that it contravenes WP:OR? Ivankinsman (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, was closed correctly within policy. Kusma (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - there was a consensus to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Yes, the content was enjoyable and well written, but it was a plot summary and we are an encyclopaedia not a repository of plot summaries; the keep opinions appear to have missed this fundamental point of policy. Surely this can be transwikied to somewhere? Guy (Help!) 15:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, again this comes back to the MAIN ARTICLE OF GOD'S PLAYGROUND. If someone is interested in what the book is about, what information - if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - will they get from this page; basically, just a list of chapter headings. I keep on stating that the article is far too brief - there must be a lot more information on what Norman Davies covers in his book e.g. how does he view the early formation of Poland and its people? what are some of the key areas he addresses? what is his take on the Vistula grain trade? None of this is addressed in the current article and IT SHOULD BE!!! It seems to me that the people who keep on stating delete have not even bothered to check out God's Playground and, more importantly, made no effort to improve it. Why is this the case? I would be interested in Lifebaka's input on this since he is the administrator who deleted the article... what steps will he take to ensure that the article is improved if this article is deleted? Ivankinsman (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way to address that is to add encyclopedic content to the article. The way to definitely not address it is to create an article that is comprised of huge swaths of the book in question being copied into the article. This is a serious WP:COPYVIO. Your argument is akin to someone caught selling a bootleg CD arguing that if he doesn't sell them, the person's music won't be heard. The point being that there is always the option of buying Davies book, or consulting the many reviews available. I think this is straightforward enough, and it's apparently not the first time you've run into this problem. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have very little idea about writing an article. You say '...add encyclopedic content to the article' - this is what I have done from the book itself by means of a summary format. You say '... there is always the option of buying Davies book, or consulting the many reviews available' - check for youself and you will see hardly any on-line reviews, and the ones that do exist are by poorly qualified invididuals. Your option of buying the book is also absurd. People go to Wikipedia to get information on a subject that they don't have readily available - am I going to buy a book on every person or subject matter I am interested in - I don't think so. How about you improving the main article page of God's Playground instead of taking a swipe a my work? What efforts have you made to improve this article - have you bothered to carry out the hours of research to find these mysterious 'many reviews available' that you talk about? Please show me these reviews... Ivankinsman (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned Ivankinsman that his account will be blocked if he continues to engage in copyright violations. John254 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the same comments I have made to Boodle also apply to you. As Greg says (see below), I believe a degree of jealousy may be involved here over another editor's work, given that you have made very little contribution in terms of articles to the Wikipedian community and simply seem to like to criticise (and Greg sums this up perfectly on his profile page with a Mark Twain quote: "Some people have something to say, some people have to say something". I don't like to make subjective comments but its difficult to avoid here. Also, if you accuse me of copyright violations - which I believe to be unfounded here - I presume you must have access to the book itself. So, what contributions will you personally make to the main article of God's Playground? What work are you prepared to carry out to improve the article, given that you want to delete hours of painstaking research? Please give me some specific answers here. Again, it comes back to my point that the article of God's Playground contains no useful information other than a list of chapter headings (which are of no use to man nor dog). Ivankinsman (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - warning to British editors writing about Poland: Don't write about Poland if you are in little trouble. If you do you may be in big trouble the way Jeffrey Archer was after writing Kane and Abel and its sequel Prodigal Daughter. They gonna eat you alive and you may even end in jail. Smile. greg park avenue (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment II - this massive copyvio charge is just a joke. I can show you, if someone cares, how Tom Clancy in his The Bear And The Dragon copied Polish jokes supplied by Nelson DeMille in The Lion's Game - just the words as "and" or "with" was the only difference - there are many more examples. Still, no one complained and we talk #1 New York Times bestselling authors. Brothers Wikipedians, we need something more serious than few keywords, disguised under skimask (the article in question wasn't released to my or any page as I requested), while most copyvio charges didn't compute, to squash this article, and now it's a little to late to look for copyvios. It should be done before the article was deleted. Now, one need to restore the article, wait about one week until it appears on Google and then make a copyvio check. It was probably too good written article and some of you eager for delete got overly too jealous, huh? Can someone find an article or a stub over 10kB edited by, say, Boody? I would love to check it for copyvios. So far, I found none (articles or stubs over 10kB edited by him). 100kB nothwithstanding. Is that so much to ask? Cheers! greg park avenue (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Greg, I don't know what on earth any of this has to do with the massive WP:COPYVIO's in the article that everyone but you seems to see. But let me remind you again, as you have often been reminded in the past, of WP:CIVIL, among other things. Denigrating other editors with accusations of being motivated by jealousy and the like simply because they found egregious problems with an article you are inexplicitly championing (despite its aforementioned and documented egregious violations) is just plain....rude! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please give me an answer as to what IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MADE TO THE God's Playground ARTICLE if this article is deleted? I keep on asking this question to all those editors who want a delete but get no answer. Why? Maybe, because they themselves are unprepared to take this work on. A very large number of hours have gone into writing this article and I want to know who is willing to do the same amount of work to produce something better. I KEEP ON STATING THAT THE ARTICLE IS DREARY - it contains nothing but chapter headings. So, either someone comes forward and says they are prepared to improve it or the article should be re-instated. Ivankinsman (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first improvement was to remove the giant piece of plagiarism you created. Wikipedia has 2,507,965 other articles that, unlike the one you created, arent cut and pasted from a book. Don't worry, it will work itself out. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 12:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you, won't you Boodlesthecat? Will you, won't you, Boodlesthecat? Will you, won't you answer my question: what steps will you take to improve the article - God's Playground - if this article is deleted? What contribution(s) will you make to it if, as you so strongly suggest, you feel you can do a better job than I have attempted to do? Please can you list some concrete suggestions below as to what steps you are prepared to take. Also, as regards 'the giant peice of plagiarism', I stated earlier I have attempted to address the main themes in each chapter of the book. History is a factual subject and you cannot re-write the main events in an imaginative fashion. Have you ever tried to write an article on a book yourself? If you have actually made an effort to do this for Wikipedia, please direct me to some examples of your work. Ivankinsman (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment III - since User Lifebaka stated that he doesn't have access to the book, the hits (those first three 1), 2) and 4) not verbatim) must be supplied to him by someone else who has. Otherwise the chance to get hits on Google would be nil. So far for random picking of the phrases. This packet obviously included hit No 6) - long sentence which would be devasteted as per WP:COPYVIO: The Truce of Andrusovo, which left Smolensk, Kiev, and the left-bank Ukraine in Muscovite hands, was supposedly a temporary measure. But the Ref No 6 seems to be very good concealed fraud. The words Andrusovo, Kiev and left-bank don't appear in the text from August 3 supplied by John. Without releasing the deleted text I think this phrase may be doctored just to get one hit on Google and should be thoroughly investigated as suspected fraud. greg park avenue (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud on who's part, greg park avenue?

Ivankinsman's version has The Truce of Andrusovo, which left Smolensk, Kiev, and the left-bank Ukraine in Muscovite hands, was supposedly a temporary measure here.

Mr Norman Davies, in his book, wrote The Truce of Andrusovo, which left Smolensk, Kiev, and the left-bank Ukraine in Muscovite hands, was supposedly a temporary measure, which you can clearly see here. In fact, if you look more closely, you can see quite clearly that Ivankinsman lifted the entire paragraph word for word from Davies. So can we please stop these silly obfuscations. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you, won't you Boodlesthecat? Will you, won't you, Boodlesthecat? Will you, won't you answer my question: what steps will you take to improve the article - God's Playground - if this article is deleted? What contribution(s) will you make to it if, as you so strongly suggest, you feel you can do a better job than I have attempted to do? Please can you list some concrete suggestions below as to what steps you are prepared to take. Ivankinsman (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's beyond the scope of a DRV. I never indicated anywhere that I could "do a better job," and I am not in any way obligated to contribute to the article at all just because I happened to point out the massive amount of plagiarism you enaged in. Do note, however, that you are perfectly free and indeed encouraged to improve the article yourself with well sourced information that follows Wikipedia guidelines. Just simply refrain from plagiarism, as a few million other articles on Wikipedia manage to do. That would be my first suggestion given your level of concern. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IV - giving up. The devastating edit was however this one. Made three or four hours after the cache supplied by John. So why play cat and mouse from under cloack and dagger with us humble editors and waste our time? Just wonder, how Boody as a non-admin has access to deleted diffs? Smells of conspiracy and fish market. greg park avenue (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Greg, try to make at least one post that doesn't contain an uncivil, groundless accusation. I don't even care what your accusing me of, just knock it off. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as per nom and WP:COPYVIO - still it's minor misdemeanor, happens all the time to bestselling authors except maybe John LeCarre for his unique language, see my comment above. But once Wikipedian always Wikipedian, must go with the crowd. Hope, Ivanthekinsman won't mind - next time be more carefull! greg park avenue (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wraith Squadron – Request denied. Pure wiki deletion systems have been determined to be a bad idea by overwhelming community consensus. In the future, if you want access to the historical content but do not actually want the article undeleted, please just request userfication by contacting a willing administrator; that's fairly non-controversial and will not waste everyones time. Userfying to requester's userspace at: User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Wraith Squadron. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

All I am asking for here is an undeletion of the edit history and (maybe even protected) redirect to Wraith Squadron (novel). The phrase is a legitimate search term and there was some material in that article that could be merged elsewhere. Yes, I see that someone moved the other article here; however, during the Afd I had added some review links that could be used in both this article and some of the character articles. Is it possible to merge the edit histories therefore or add the revisions so that they sources can be utilized? Also, please note that another user had questioned this close prior to my DRV: User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FWraith Squadron.Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, probably not. There doesn't seem to be a reason to void the deletion decision. Pure wiki deletion systems have been proposed in various forms and rejected by the community many times. The same arguments from the "List of Cogs" DRV apply here. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as there is no compelling reason given to restore the edit history. The article was rightly deleted and it contained, basically, a bunch of trivial, in-universe content. I doubt there is anything in there that will be merged in to the present version. Shereth 21:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no compelling reason to delete in the first place, which is why it was wrongly deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The consensus in the discussion was clearly to delete. You may not agree with the reasoning behind it, but you can't really call it "wrongly deleted" when the deletion was proper and within procedure. Shereth 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we went by votes, okay, but not by strength of argument. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit the redirect as what the closing admin actually intended, at least as i interpret "The result was delete. Any subsequent move, redirect, etc. is an editorial matter." if that's not saying permit the redirect, i don't know how he could have put it any plainer/.DGG (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the redirect target has already been moved to this name, so there is no reason for a redirect. Shereth 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's still mergeable material in the deleted edit history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, consensus in the AfD discussion was clear that the article should be deleted, and that it did not contain content which was worth merging. --Stormie (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no clear consensus in the AfD and even so it is not binding; if we believe material can be merged, we undelete and do so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The consensus in the AfD discussion was abundantly clear, and it's also clear that nobody other than you believes there is any material worth merging. --Stormie (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The consensus was not clear, which is why it's up for review and I would reckon those who volunteered their time to work on the article believe its contents are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. A handful of editors saying otherwise in one AfD is not relevant. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's up for review because it was an AfD discussion where nobody wanted to keep the article except you, and as we all know, that's the quickest route to a tendentious DRV discussion. --Stormie (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's why DGG said to permit the redirect and a number of those in the actual discussion didn't seem to oppose it either and we don't delete edit histories when we redirect unless there's some copy vio or libel in there that must be deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - those who volunteered their time to work on the article believe its contents are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. A handful of editors saying otherwise in one AfD is not relevant. - Then what is the purpose of AfD? --EEMIV (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        To determine if the article is a hoax, copy vio, or libelous. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok. Here's what I have never gotten about you. Ever. Those are your guidelines for inclusion. Not the projects. Why, when applying a community process, do you declare that it has failed if it doesn't uphold your guidelines? Wouldn't it make more sense to apply community policies and guidelines for deletion when judging if a close was proper? Just asking. Protonk (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you really want nothing to do with me, then please stop making it a point to comment in every DRV I start, especially directly to me, or dwell on me elsewhere. Since the first diff provided in this post, I have resisted replying to you in these various discussions until now, because of that aforementioned diff. Please do not in effect order someone to avoid you and then when that person decides to respect that and makes a conscious effort to not reply directly to your particular comments in AfDs and DRVs (and everyone knows that I typically engage many editors in AfDs and DRVs, so when I actually hold back from doing so...), determine it is somehow consistent with your request/demand to then comment on him by username in other discussions or comment directly to him here. You are confusing me immensely, because on one hand you make it seem as if you do not want me to comment to or about you, which is fine by me, but then you make posts to me and I do not know what to think, do, or say. I am more than happy to discuss with just about anyone, but I am not sure what to make of these mixed signals. In any event, the guidelines that I follow for inclusion are consistent with the larger theme of the project's. The project's rules and policies themselves evolve like the articles and some of them, especially with regards to fiction and notability in general are heavily disputed as evidence on talk pages, essays, a category of editors, etc. and in actual practice by the thousands who create, work on, and read some of these articles. What I see are the same ones who staunchly argue for overly exclusive policies also comment in the AfDs and in these AfDs in which a handful argue to delete based on their more limited interpretation of these ever changing policies and guidelines, I do not find that that subjectivity trumps the reality of the much larger elements of the community who believe the articles are indeed consistent with what Wikipedia is. If foremost Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to catalog human knowledge then I base my arguments on what is most consistent with that general purpose as a long-term and practical objective. That means that material that can be constructed in paragaphs and verified by published sources is suitable for inclusion, because that is what some editors and readers use our project for. If some others do not happen to like that we cover this stuff, then they are encouraged to help improve what they do care about. But there is no real reason to make it a point to prevent others from developing information that some untold number of editors and readers and maybe even donors do see value in barring it is libelous, a hoax, or cannot be verified. The whole notability thing, however, is subjective, because if it was not then we would not have AfDs in which someone can argue for notability and someone else can argue against with both citing the internal link they both presumably read. In some instances, perhaps one is dishonest, but in most it is a variation of opinion on what does and does not constitute notability and as it is a variation of opinion, I would far more want to err on the side of furthering our purpose as a comprehensive reference guide and gaining the good will of those who create, work on, and read that material. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably souldn't have posted, I just overcame caution because it really does confuse me. It baffles me. I don't get it. I'm sorry for posting. When I say I don't want you to come to my talk page I mean it. But I already thought I was clear that no magic barrier exists around these AfD's and DRV's. These are community discussions. As for your answer.....ok....but you are still ignoring WP:NOT and WP:N when determining if AfD's were closed properly. That doesn't make you WRONG (it's an opinion of course). IT just means that these DRV's are largely going to get closed as endorsed (except the sonic shower bit might be overturned because new sources popped up). It's your time, it just seems like a waste of it. Protonk (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closing - Still no notability established, as wikipedia requires, through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has been established through reliable sources, which is why it should be overturned. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

2008 Summer Olympics highlights – It's linked from the main page, the Oympics are on right now - it's getting serious traffic. Sort this out after the games are over - people are using this pretty actively right now -- Tawker (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC) (formatting close correctly) – RMHED (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an improper close as a speedy keep. I'm counting several editors besides the nominator calling for deletion and speedy keep does not make an allowance for it to be used in this situation regardless of whether or not its linked from the main page. Even if Kusma believes the nomination to be disruption the presence of other editors (8 in addition to the nominator) calling for deletion negates that rule of Speedy Keep. Crossmr (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, reopen the AfD and let it run five days. If it closes as anything other than keep (or no consensus defaulting to keep) then the main page link can be updated accordingly. There's nothing that says these things have to happen in one order or the other. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the Olympics is over. At least that how it was done with Beckham's contract AFD; since the article was in ITN, it was "immune" from deletion until it was taken off. –Howard the Duck 17:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If this page gets deleted, then it would almost certainly be proper to have a seperate page for every day of the Olympics, as they would all have significant amounts of media coverage. The WikiProject Olympics page decided to have this instead, though, so that would be the proper place to discuss any changes. Benjaminx (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse The closing admin's point was that the discussion should first be taken to Template talk:In the news as to whether the article should be removed from the main page, and then the issue of deletion could be discussed. If there is no consensus to remove it from the main page, there will certainly not be any consensus to delete it! Still, the nominators refuse to follow this proper course of action, and instead insist on burdening the article with endless, pointless deletion templates. Lampman (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "Highlights" is POV. Lugnuts (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, or at least postpone the bickering until after the Olympics are over. Shanes (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(AFD closer) It is a proper close under the speedy keep criteria (unfortunately somebody removed the explanation from the policy's description a while back. Having deletion notices on pages linked from the Main Page just makes us look silly. Note that I personally believe we should just link to Wikinews' coverage of the Olympics instead of having up-to-date articles here (but I don't think we can manage to enforce WP:NOTNEWS in this respect. Anyway, if my close here is endorsed, can we re-clarify the speedy keep criteria so they reflect what we do again? Kusma (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erich Feigl – Deletion endorsed, with no prejudice against recreation of a neutral properly sourced article. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I deleted this article, as the subject did not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO, based on the citations used in the article. The creator contests the deletion, arguing that the subject's German bio is more complete, and asserting that he has written two significant books and 14 others (found on Amazon), has over 12,000 google hits, has made 60 or so documentary movies for Austrian television, and has won Austrian state and Vienna city medals of honor. I have not verified the accuracy of those claims, except the google hits: my own test returns just over 7,000 hits, but I haven't checked to see the quality of the hits, or whether or not they all refer to the same Erich Feigl. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion based on a rough consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was strong indication that deletion request and some of the support was highly politically motivated, not related to concerns about notability. His one book has attracted strong negative attention from a certain ethnic group. Prof title was removed by the original editor pending better investigation. Most references did refer to him as Prof. He is in German Wikipedia and books are in Amazon. He has met most of theWP:BIO requirements.--Murat (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to expand on why the deletion was/is unjustified and unnecessary. There were two reasons given:

WP:PROF - was not relevant anymore

- Most of the references I had come accross had this title in front of his name. - Europeans, especially Germans and Austrians tend to be rather fussy about the use of academic titles, so I was not compelled to investigate. (Example: Verzeichnis der Bücher von Prof. Erich Feigl) - Most importantly, as soon as the title was challenged, I had removed (I can not verify this at the moment) the title from the article and promised to investigate it further. Unless it was added in later by someone, this condition of failure did not exist at the time of the deletion of the article: [[It is a good question. All my references refer to his Prof. title and U. of Vienna, but I have not been able to determine further detail due to my limited German. I need to ask around a little. Any help would be appreciated.--Murat (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)]] - Unfortunately, I was not able to pursue this further.

Complies with WP:BIO

- It seems Erich Feigl was known enough to a number of the folks who were insistant on deletion. Their knowledge of him certainly pre-dated my humble article. - He is mentioned in Wikipedia/German. Are we to consider Wikipedia a source of "triviality"? Isn't there a contradiction here? - A goole search yielded +12,000 hits. Assuming many of them are trivial and repetitive references, still I think this is a rather high number by any measure for a "trivial" personality. - At Amazon, with a simple click, I was able to find 8 (eight) of his books. Three of them the same title translated and edited in different languages. His bio lists 16 books. This is certainly not an absolute measure, but it is there. Not that trivial by most measures. - His really significant book is Myth of Terror, which is translated to numerous languages, in various edits and gained him the negative attention of a specific ethnic and nationalistic group, which has a lot to do with this deletion. - "The Kurds", which is one of the earliest books to look into this topic in detail. - His Wikipedia/German bio includes 60 or so documentary movies he made for TV. It was for Austrian TV mostly, which is not a trivial country in a not so trivial part of the World. That is a large amount of significant, if not earth-shattering work by any measure. His interest was mostly Asian and Near Eastern cultures and peoples. He can be found at: MRC FilmFinder-Directory Filmography. - For his work he was given "Austrian Science and Arts Medal" and "Vienna Golden Service Medal". I am not sure if I have the right translations, and I do not have more detail on this, yet. This is one of the conditions for WP:BIO: The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them and The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

It seems that the argument for deletion is rather weak, and even contradicts the established Wikipedia criteria. More disturbing is the nature of the requests for deletion, which seemed to be more politically motivated than a concern for the quality of Wikipedia content. Such targeted efforts to remove "undesirable" persons and events and data from the global information space is one of the reasons why some of this information does not seem to get the attention it should get. This is no coincidence. I really hope that you can help me restore this article and let the facts about it stand on their own merit and be subject to the usual Wikipedia scrutiny.--Murat (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD closure was a reasonable interpretation of rough consensus in the debate. While I think Feigl is notable enough (as journalist/author, monarchist, and Armenian genocide denier) to have an article here, the only fault I can find with the closure is that WP:PROF is ctied, which seems inapplicable (while Feigl had the title of a professor, he didn't actually have the job of a professor). Unless interest in Austrian monarchists in the English-speaking world increases, I think both having and not having an article about the person are reasonable outcomes here. Kusma (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have pretty serious concerns about the neutrality of the article as it stood when deleted. I don't think undeleting it in that form is really an option. It may be that a good article could be written but it would probably be best to start over from scratch in that case. Chick Bowen 04:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Allstarecho/lefthand – Keep deleted. I'm not going to endorse such a blatantly wrong application of CSD T1, but there is very clear consensus that the box is inappropriate, and UsaSatsui's suggestion of CSD G3 (pure vandalism) seems a very good fit for the image/userbox. Putting images of penises on user pages (even your own page) is pretty much Wikipedia Vandalism 101. I see no reason to change that definition now. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This userbox was speedily deleted under the T1 criteria. T1 specifically states that it only covers templates that are in template space, yet this is in userspace. Even if T1 did cover userspace, how was this template "divisive and inflammatory"? If this was substed onto a user page directly, how would it have been dealt with? I doubt very much there would ever have been a consensus to remove it, and a user wouldn't have been blocked for displaying it on their userpage, which makes this userbox speedy deletion against policy and should be overturned. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: Perhaps the deletion reason was not completely acceptable according to our guidelines and policies, but this userbox is ridiculous - and does not help improve the Encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. I'm fine considering this an IAR deletion as its presence on any page reduces our credibility as a legitimate Encyclopedia. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, it doesn't help build an encyclopedia, but it neither do many userboxes. We usually allow users to have a large margin with what is acceptable on a userpage. What would happen if I put a hard copy of this on my userpage? Would I be blocked or would it be removed? I doubt that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point - lets delete those too. (And I'd hope it would be removed). - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No user in good standing would be blocked for having this userbox, neither would they have it removed. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course blocking would be extreme - as for a removal, well, there are 1600 admins - I don't think you know what all of us would do. Anyhow, we agree to disagree - feel free to leave further on my talk page. I'd rather not clutter up this page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Absolutely no reason for this to be advertised on a user page. ~~Also potentially insulting to those who are left-handed.~~ And I can certainly see someone with this userbox being asked to have it removed, good standing or no. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a left handed person, I can assure you that this isn't insulting - well, personally I don't class it as something to be updet about. No comments on your other reasoning. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, not being left-handed myself, maybe I'm overreacting. But I do still stand by the rest. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Saying this is acceptable sets a bad precedent. What next, userboxes for the entire List of sexual positions? Common sense people. BJ^Talk 02:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: not being an admin I can't view the exact content, so I can only go on what others have said. While the deletion may technically not have fallen under any of the CSD criteria precisely, and while "divisive and inflammatory" probably isn't a strictly accurate description, there is no way that I can see that this template could possibly advance the project in any way, shape or form. WP:UP#Inappropriate content states "There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense", which appears to be relevant here. Now that it's gone, I see no reason to bring it back. --RFBailey (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the userbox by checking the cache at this URL. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you---it's really made my evening..... --RFBailey (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per consensus precedent at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_4 (User:Bluedenim/Blondes). It has been determined by long-standing resolution, that userboxes would be converted to userspace. In userspace, we allow alot of latitude for users to express themselves. Content would have to be outright disruptive to be considered deletable. Except in extreme extenuating circumstances, deletion of userspace content without the agreement of the user requires a discussion at MfD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This nomination coming from the user with a penis on his own user page is simply shocking. With this nomination, you're saying you believe that users should be allowed to declare, in userbox form, which hand they use to masturbate, and include an image? This is a legitimate and good-faith effort by you to improve the project? Really? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Holy crap, what is wrong with you people? No matter what you might feel personally, this is obviously not a valid speedy deletion. It's ok to violate the deletion policy just so long as the deletion agrees with your view? Shame on you. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I have to agree with ned that deletion policy means what it says. i think this would be deleted easily enough at Mfd--I certainly am not prepared to defend it--. We have a proper procedure,/ this is not the sort of an emergency requiring IAR speedies-- as sexual content goes this is not exactly a major scandal. DGG (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:IAR. Completely inappropriate content, no use running it through an MFD which would almost certainly come up with the same result. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhere on the scale between wanting to overturn and wanting to endorse. On the one hand, we should know better as admins than to circumvent the deletion process without a Very Good Reason^TM. A userbox offending some people is not a Very Good Reason^TM, it's merely a good one. In this case the deletion could have waited for the conclusion of an MfD without hurting anyone or anything, so there's no basis for needing to apply WP:IAR in the original deletion. Misuse of the WP:CSD also rubs me the wrong way, since it's got so much less community overhead to prevent abuse.
But at the same time, an MfD for this would inevitably be a snowstorm in August, so there's no point sending it there now. There's no question this isn't a useful userbox, and I would probably !vote to delete it myself.
Since I can't make up my mind between those two, put me down as neutral. I just figured some of the above needed saying. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Yes IMO this should be deleted, but doing so in this out of process manner only ends up creating DRV's like this. Process is usually always the admin's friend, it's there for a reason, so should be followed in all but the most exceptional circumstances. If this had been swiftly sent to MfD then it would almost certainly have been uncontroversially deleted. Admins are trusted by the community, these type of deletions lead to an erosion of that trust. RMHED (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Speedies should, IMO, be very careful with process. Bring to MfD first. Change speedy rules if folks think this kind of thing should be speedied. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And looking the cache, I'd !vote to delete in the MfD. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I think it is ridiculous that you, and others, are seriously suggesting that it be overturned, only to go to MFD and be re-deleted. Why not take the approach I did above, and state (if you feel this way) that the deletion probably should have happened via an MFD process, but leave it deleted anyways. Why open up another process just for the sake of process? Seems like a waste of effort, doesn't it? - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would mean endorsing this deletion and the way it was done, that I'm not prepared to do. RMHED (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no reason you cannot state your objection to the way in which it was deleted, and still suggest it remains deleted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - But then next time someone will do the same thing because they know it will hold up. Better with speedies to follow the letter of the "law". Hobit (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I hope they do. This is clearly something that should be speedily deleted, even if it can't be pigeonholed into the criteria. The rules are getting in the way of improvement. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then change the rules. But because of the very nature of speedy deletions, IAR needs to be carefully applied. It sounds like the speedies for templates should be changed (per discussion here). Someone should do so. Hobit (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -while I normally argue that process is important, here I agree with Rjd0060, there seems no no point in extending this wikidrama when it's fairly obvious that a MfD would result in a delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The wikidrama only happened due to not following process. Overturning these type of deletions makes it more likely that in future admins will follow process and thus reduce drama. Whereas endorsing this deletion is only likely to lead to more of the same. RMHED (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. Hobit (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as an invalid application of speedy criteria. Shereth 21:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Oh, really now, let's use a little common sense. There's a difference between a group of userboxes that there's a pretty significant debate about, none of which are clear speedies, and things like this, which is clearly (and thus far, unanimously) inappropriate. If we must slap a label on it to get rid of it, let's call it G10 or even G3, but there's clearly no reason to restore this just to delete it again. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, completely inappropriate, and per Wikipedia:User page "such content is only permitted with the consent of the community," which is clearly not present. --Stormie (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn on procedural grounds. –xeno (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Rjd006, UsaSatsui. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per m:Don't be a dick. John254 04:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er...I'm not sure that's the kind of "dick" the MFD is referring to. ;) --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 August 2008[edit]

Matthias Schwarz – Both restored as contested prods – Davewild (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has now played professionally, in the German Cup. [51] Also nominating Michael Kokocinski, who has played in the 3. Liga [52]. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brian Eddy – New article has been written which addresses the CSD A7 concerns that led to the original being speedily deleted; assertion of notability is present now. No prejudice against AfD but clearly not a speedy candidate anymore. – Stormie (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brian Eddy is a pinball designer and programmer who designed several of the most popular pinball machines ever made, including Medieval Madness, Attack From Mars, and The Shadow. He also programmed several other popular and influential pinball machines including FunHouse and Bride of Pinbot. Eddy's contemporaries, Pat Lawlor and Steve Ritchie, also have Wikipedia entries specifically for their pinball work. Luvcraft (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn then. Make sure, though, that when the article is created, it clearly asserts notability, especially by referencing reliable third-party sources. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn if this is the case. Echo Falcon; provide the references needed to verify these claims and there should be no problem. Synergy 12:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the deleter, I agree Overturn if this is the case. The article I deleted did not make any mention of the popular and influential nature of his work ( "a programmer", "a game designer" etc) and contained no reliable, independent sources about the man, which would have implied notability even if not stated directly. As a result I don't agree that I made an error based on what was in front of me, though agree that claims of notability have certainly emerged here. --Slp1 (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was hoping that once I created that stub others would come along and flesh it out, as has happened numerous times in the past when I have created stubs on subjects that I believe belong in Wikipedia, but that I don't have enough information on to write a full article. Can the article be restored as I had written it? I did name several of the games that he worked on, with links to their own Wikipedia pages, and presumed that "He designed these three games that are notable enough to have their own pages, and programmed these four other games that are notable enough to have their own pages" would be notable enough to keep the article alive until someone with more information about him added more to it. Luvcraft (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's see the references from reliable sources to back that up. Per the verifiability policy, it is for those seeking that content be included in Wikipedia to justify its inclusion with citations. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the nominator: while your nomination implies that the subject is certainly notable, perhaps it would help your case further if you could provide reference to some reliable sources that verify the cited facts and assert the subject's notability? Wiw8 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By that rationale, should the Pat Lawlor article also be speedy deleted, since it doesn't cite any sources, and contains even less information than my Brian Eddy article did? I don't want to see the Pat Lawlor article go away, I'm just trying to establish some kind of baseline here. Luvcraft (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've re-created the article with much of the same text, but with the references in-line rather than all collected at the end. If someone feels that this is still not enough work to justify a stub, then please PROD or AfD the article rather than speedy deleting it, so that I (and, hopefully, someone who knows more about the subject) can make any suggested additions before it is killed again. Thanks! Luvcraft (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg – Deletion endorsed. If NFCC #2 were not at issue here, this would be a clear overturn, but there is very little leeway for interpretation in this criteria. There is no compelling argument in the DRV that the use was to analyze the work itself. A noncommercial replacement that passes NFCC #2 and serves the same purpose is available, as is mentioned by the deleting admin. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deletion of this image seems to simply substitute the admin's own view of NFCC policy for the well-articulated views of NFCC policy of the two users who commented at the IfD. This seems to directly contradict instructions given to administrators assessing IfDs both here and here. There doesn't seem to be any justification for this deletion other than that the admin just disagreed with the commenters. ^S._D.Jameson 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Firstly, three users commented, not two, one advocating deletion the other two advocating retention. The arguments in favour of retention, although citing the non-free content criteria, applied the criteria far too liberally. The closing admin simply accepted the argument that was best in line with policy. However, even if no editor had spoken in favour of deletion, deltion would still have been the correct course of action; consensus at IfD cannot set aside NFC policy. CIreland (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were no recommendations for deletion, apart from the nominator's. And the nominator has been shown to simply be nominating every Australian politics-related non-free image for deletion. No, Fut Per simply substituted his opinion on NFCC policy for the well-reasoned recommendations of the commenters, as did you in your endorsement of it. That's not allowed, per the two links I provided, and that makes this a bad close. ^S._D.Jameson 05:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is where we disagree - it specifically is allowed when the opinion of the closing admin reflects the common understanding of the NFCC. That's what people mean when they say that the NFC policy trumps consensus. CIreland (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "common understanding of the NFCC" with regards to this image, as is reflected by the fact that not one commenter supported Fut Per's severe intepretation of it. Fut Per is very anti-fair use, and has demonstrated as much numerous times. This unwillingness to abide by consensus to keep just further demonstrates why the instructions I linked in my comment above should be followed and not ignored, as Fut Per has done here. ^S._D.Jameson 05:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - CIreland, above, writes: "The arguments in favour of retention, although citing the non-free content criteria, applied the criteria far too liberally." (emphasis added) This is a clear indication that the commenters at the IfD were not ignoring NFCC policy, they simply understood its application differently from CIreland and the closing admin. Since there is no general consensus on how the policy is to be interpreted, the consensus of the commenters is valid, since its establishes how the policy is to be interpreted and enforced in regard to the specific image under review. For the closing admin to ignore this local agreement (which is not trumping NFCC policy, but establishing how it should be applied in the specific instance) goes against consensus and was not a well-founded action. The image should be restored. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse.~~ Judging by the use of the image, the caption, and the article text that was near the image, I would say this image would fail fair use. Yes, it is true that Dunstan is a deceased person, so any photograph of Dunstan, unless otherwise stated, will be under some sort of copyright and a free version cannot be "made" anymore. However, this specific photo was just showing Dunstan with another person, Mike Rann, just hanging out having a glass. Unless this photo was a focus of debate or part of some political issue in Australia, it is just a random photo that decorates the article. Since there is no stated purpose of the photograph and it just seems to be there to fill up space, I agree with the deletion of this photo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Putting up a nice etching, or a painting, or a photograph of a unrelated person, or a colorful mandala – that's "decoration". A picture relevant to the subject matter cannot be mere "decoration", it adds something to the textual material. What it adds may be more or less desireable, other images may do a much better job of it, but those are editorial matters, not a matter of whether use of the image is "fair use" or not. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was just my observation and how I personally view the NFCC; the photo needs to add context to the article and I didn't see any context to the photo at all inside the article text. If the context existed, then the photograph should have been moved to that section. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but I don't think that the closing admin would agree with you. You endorse the current deletion because it fulfills your definition of what is not fair use, but you would have left it under other circumstances in which the closing admin most certainly would not have. That you agree in this case is pretty much coincidence; in point of fact, you disagree with the closing admin's interpretation of what NFCC policy means and how it should be enforced. That's the problem with an admin enforcing NFCC policy as if their understanding of it represents the consensus view -- there is no consensus view, and until there is things should be dealt with more sensitively. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point conceded. Honestly, if someone brings me a stronger case in using this image, and perhaps build context around the photo, I am willing to reconsider the vote I have placed. There is no blanket way to deal with NFCC; sure, we got the policy, but it is always on a case by case basis. Plus, as with everything on Wikipedia, we can always give it a second review. Granted, I am an idiot when it comes to Aussie politics, but as I said, if someone can make a strong case for this photo, I will reconsider in asking for it to be restored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking out my vote, since I want to work with the uploaders to figure out how to get this image under compliance. So I also ask for a restore. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! I wish that such behavior could in some way be encouraged and became part of the standard approach to possibly non-compliant images; that is, to help the people responsible to bring them into compliance rather than to have them deleted as a matter of course. Both programs would result in a higher percentage of images on Wikipedia being NFCC compliant, but one results in more images and a visually interesting encyclopedia, and the other results in a paucity of images and a bone-dry and visually boring project. I applaud your stepping in. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, will applaud the effort. Really, I mean it. Only, watch out for that damned NFCC#2, it's a real killer. Nothing than the most solid of "transformative uses" escapes it. (And personally I still can't see how that would work here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I again point out what I've said here repeatedly, which is that your personal interpretation of how the policy is to be enforced is not necessarily controlling. That you sincerely believe that "nothing than the most solid of 'transformative uses' escapes" NFCC#2, I do not doubt, but it is also the case that this is your opinion about NFCC#2 and not the community's view. The policy is set, the words of the policy are what they are, but the way the policy is to be interpreted and implemented is not your individual choice to make, except to the extent that every editor can do so for himself in the absence of a general community consensus. Be that as it may, your use of your administrator's tool to enforce your particular view is not justified. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that nobody has so far even bothered to refute my reference to NFCC#2; it stands unchallenged. And NFCC2 is actually absolute. If there was any arbitrary interpretation in what I said, it was the concession that NFCC2 might be overridden by a very very strong "transformative use" case. As "the words of the policy" stand, it can't. That image is used by a commercial news source for illustrating reports about Mr. Dunstan, and they might possibly license it out to other commercial news services to do the same. We also use it to illustrate reports about Mr. Dunstan. Our use diminishes its uniqueness and hence its commercial value. It's out, period. That's not my opinion, that's straightforward application of the rule. The only exception that one might construct in the spirit of fair use law (but against the wording of NFCC) would be if we had a legitimate interest of reviewing and analysing the creative act of the photographer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the place where you should have made this argument, since you feel that strongly about it, was as a participant in the IfD debate for the image, which you chose not to do. Perhaps with that argument in the IfD, the closing admin (who would not have been you, because of your participation) might have been convinced that deletion the image was justified. We'll never know that, though, because instead of participating and putting forth your views, you chose to close the image not on the basis of the IfD discussion in front of you, but on the basis of your own obviously strongly-held beliefs about NFCC-policy. That makes the closing of the IfD as "delete" by you an egregious misuse of the tools (albeit a good faith one) which can only be undone by restoration of the image. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind that NFCC#2 is actually a speedy deletion criterion. I could have legitimately made that call even without any IfD at all, merely with 48h notification. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What difference would that have made, since you entirely ignored the IfD debate anyway?
Could I suggest a hubris-check might be in order? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it doesn't make a difference. I'm entitled to judge a case of NFCC2 without consultation, that's my job as an admin. It doesn't make a difference for that whether an IfD is already running or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember Lord Acton. A lighter touch and a constructive lack of absolute certainty would seem to be called for in the circumstance. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, constructive suggestion in the sense of Zscout: Did you guys notice there's a very similar image online at Mike Rann's campaign website? Its of lower quality, but it has the advantage that the copyright likely belongs to Rann, so we'd be out of trouble with the NFCC#2 if we used that instead, in a context where Rann and his relation to Dunstan would be the focus of our discussion. You'd need a bit of text to embed it though. What if you used that with an "analytical" caption stressing its symbolic significance, along the lines of Mike Rann, a former close associate of Dunstan, prominently featured a photograph of Dunstan and himself on his election campaign website to stress political continuity with his former mentor. Something to that effect. Might work, for instance in a section on "political heritage". Just saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I suggested at Ed Fitzgerald's talk page. I did see the photo on the campaign website, but I didn't think about using that one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good idea. (Sorry not to have picked up on it from my talk page -- it's been a rather frazzled RL Sunday around my place.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting admin's comment: I stand by my judgment expressed in the IfD, and in fact I would stress the NFCC#2 aspect of it even more now. Not much to add apart from that, so endorse own deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, some more comments about the "keep" arguments available at closure time:
- User:Timeshift9 and User:JRG only spoke about the importance of the people shown in the image without relating that to policy in any discernible way, except for pointing to "irreplaceability".
- User:Orderinchaos quoted excerpts from NFC, among them: Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary. However, the image is neither iconic, nor of historical importance, nor the subject of commentary.
- No "keep" comment, at the IfD or here, has ever addressed the question of whether the image use was legally "fair use" in the first place, as opposed to just matching our internal NFC criteria. I have strong doubts it is not. It certainly doesn't match the conditions of Australian "fair dealing" as was claimed in the image description page (they are more stringent than the American ones).
- Orderinchaos at the IfD, and Dean Jameson here, seem to endorse an understanding of NFCC according to which anything that adds to the article in any interesting way at all would be legitimate. This argument, though superficially compatible with the wording of NFCC#8, is clearly incompatible with the spirit and intentions of our policy, which is clearly that NFC use must be minimised. Their approach, if taken at face value, would lead to the result that we could plaster every article with an unrestricted number of non-free images, since almost any image could be argued to be interesting in some way or other. This is most definitely not what the policy is meant to do. Arguments based on this understanding of NFCC are therefore prima facie invalid.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is faulty, since it relies on your own personal understanding of what is "incompatible with the spirit and intentions of our policy," which is not a fact. With this faulty premise, your conclusion is suspect. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As well, the bulk of your argument consists of the slippery slope fallacy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, may I point out that Australian legal standards are presumably irrelevant, given the location of the projects servers in Florida. It's American legal standards of "fair use" which would seem to pertain. May I also suggest that your understanding of the Australian standard may be unduly influencing your interpretation of WP policy? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it fails the American standards too, most likely. I was referring to the Australian ones because they are better defined and they happened to be referenced by the uploader. The American standards are notoriously ill-defined, but it most certainly fails what competent real-world guidelines describe as conservative best practice in dealing with fair use and be on the safe side. I'd need a bit more space than I have here to explain that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, here again, you are substituting your understanding of what the law means, your understanding of what "conservative best practice is", your interpretation of what a "competent real-world guideline" would say. You had before you a discussion, about which your job as an administrator was to assess the will of the participants and implement their consensus of whether the image was suitable in respect to WP policy, not to substitute your own judgment, your own understanding, your own interpretation. The commenters did not say "Screw NFCC policy, we want the image and therefore I !vote "Keep" - they clearly and distinctly discussed it with policy in mind, and explained their judgment about why the image should be kept in light of that policy. To substitute your own very different understanding for their measured judgment is a usurpation of a local consensus (necessary and controlling due to a lack of a general consensus) by dint of your possession of the administrator's tools, and was improper. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact not just "my" understanding. There is more consensus about these criteria than you seem to believe. There certainly is a lot more consensus among those administrators who routinely deal with such things, as expressed in the common practice of IfD closings. My understanding of policy is informed by multiple precedent both at IfD and DRV. It's no fault of yours that you may be less familiar with this practice than I am, but still, I hold that it is this actual practice that defines what actual policy is, and I know it well enough to judge that my closure fit in with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not if those administrators are doing what I believe you have done in this instance, which is to substitute your own judgment for that of the people involved in the discussion. Your status as administrators gives you no special privileges to determine for the community what the community's consensus is, nor can your collective actions, if wrongfully done, be considered a valid representation of the community's ideas about this issue. The judgment of administrators, individually or collectively, cannot substitute for the judgment of the community, in whole or in part, or else why have XfD debates at all, when administrators could easily make the decisions on their own?
No, it's clear that your job is not to independently decide what should be the consensus viewpoint, your job is to enfirce it once it is decided. If and when the Wikipedia community comes to a general consensus about how the NFCC policy should be implemented and enforced, then your job is to apply that consensus. If the absence of the general consensus, your job is to apply whatever local consensus there is. In extreme cases, where the participants are clearly unwilling to make their debate under the terms of the policy, an administrator would be justified in being bold and overriding the local decision, but that was absolutely not the case here, where the discussion took into account NFCC policy, and the opinions were rendered under its terms. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the relevant "consensus" I have to observe is not that which is constituted exclusively in the narrow space of the individual local IfD discussion (with its four participants), and also not just the literal wording the policy pages. Rather, in order to make IfD closures consistent and just, I have to observe the consensus as constituted in the general space of project-wide discourse about NFCC and fair use. Within that general context, there in fact is a solid consensus about certain minimal standards – barring those users who simply don't endorse the project mission about free-content-with-only-minimal-exceptions, and whose opinion for that reason doesn't count –, and this image here fails those minimal standards, quite blatantly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but here again you are according the opinions of administrators with some kind of special status, and that is most assuredly not meant to be the case. Administrators are not intended to be a privileged caste, and in the absence of a general community-wide consensus, they cannot establish on their own authority what that consensus should be.
I recognize that this puts administrators in an awkward position, of having to enforce a polcy that there is no clear project-wide agreement about how it should be enforced, but the answer to that is the procedure I outlined above, to follow the local consensus (of, as you say, people willing to agree that the official policy is controlling) about which images fulfill the policy's requirements and which do not. The answer is most assuredly not to, as a group, enact your own consensus as a substitute for a non-existent general consensus -- you, in fact, do not have that privilege. Whether images are to be deleted or not is to be decided by the debates held in IfD, by the people who participate in those debates, and, as long as they accept that NFCC policy is the ultimate criteria to be used, and make their arguments consonant with that, for you to usurp their valid judgements and replace it with your own is simply an option not available to you.
To argue otherwise, that the collective judgement of administrators trumps IfD debates is to effectively render the entire IfD process irrelevant, since it could be overridden at any time by an administrator following an adminsitrators' consensus. This was never intended and is clearly antithetical to the basic working philosophy of Wikipedia. If there comes a time (one hopes) when a project consensus about the implementation and enforcement of NFCC policy is established, then the administrators will have to enforce it whether or not it accords with their own collective judgment. In the meantime, with no general consensus in effect, the local consensus as expressed at IfD debates, must be followed. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a consensus established by competent users project-wide, not just administrators as such. And it exists, whether you believe it or not. Among that subset of users who are in general agreement with the project mission. And I stand by my assessment that it is this consensus that counts here, not that of one-and-a-half opinions in this particular IfD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Competency"? Are we now going to have NFCC-competency tests given to participants at IfD before it is decided (by you "competent" folks, presumably) that they are allowed to express their opinions about whether images should be kept or deleted? And the size of the IfD debate is irrelevant: consensus decisons about deletions and keeps based on a small number of participants are a daily occurence on Wikipedia; in fact, I'd wager that they are the norm rather than the exception.
That you perceive the existence of an adminstrators' consensus I do not doubt; it may, in fact, exist - but even if it does exist, even if it is exactly what you report it to be, it has no particular validity because it is neither the general consensus of the community nor a local consensus regarding a particular image. It is simply the consensus opinion of a group of users who are adminstrators. That gives it no more special status that the group opinion of any other randomly selected group of users. The possession of the administrator's tools doesn't grant you the right to decide for everyone else how policy is to be implemented.
What I would appreciate hearing from you is the answer to this: What specific Wikipedia policy says that the views of an elite "competent" subset of the Wikipedia community creates the consensus that "counts" in the absence of a general community consensus?
What you are, in effect, saying is We know best, and we will decide for you. You'll pardon me if I demur. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the bolded comments here. The administrator bit is only a set of extra tools, it does not convey authority. We don't *run* Wikipedia, we *help* it. When we get to the stage where we think we do run it, rather than Foundation, we're really not serving the community's interests and just setting the scene for lots of drama. Also, we're being presumptuous in doing so, as we're saying our opinion counts for more than the community's. I have used "we" here as, like almost any admin of my vintage (18 months) I have occasionally gotten into this end-run myself and had to pull myself back or had friends point it out to me, although mind you, I never quite to the point of pointily closing XfDs. Orderinchaos 09:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

Comment. The real question is, did or did not Fut Per follow the guidelines for deleting images, as I linked above. There's absolutely no question that he did not. He simply substituted his own vies of what should happen for that of the well-reasoned commenters. This is a bad deletion, it's as simple as that. ^S._D.Jameson 06:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, as you were told before, if you had issues with his use of the admin tools regarding fair use, bring it up with him. If that fails, WP:ANI is your next step. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, ANI sent him here. Interesting. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On second thought, you were. My apologies; then I suggest going to RFC as Fut.Perf. said. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree this is the most suitable venue; unless, that is, if somebody wants to question not just this particular image but my use of admin tools as a whole, in which case you'd probably go to, terribile dictu, WP:RFC/U. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per nom. Timeshift (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per nom - complete violation of consensus by closing admin, who has furthermore been incredibly incivil on some of the deletion noms to anyone who disagrees with their own opinion on these images. I would have suggested someone neutral close it had I been aware they were intending to. I would suggest that Fut Perf has made a mistake I was guilty of a couple of days ago on an unrelated matter, and started taking Wikipedia personally. It happens to the best of us, but really is inappropriate when it goes too far or becomes pointy. Orderinchaos 09:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. Ed Fitzgerald provides a strong case here, but I am not going on this alone. I don't see a clear enough reason to justify the deletion of this image. Sure there could be more in the article(s) with respect to this image, but I believe Fut.Per's rationale does not justify its deletion. Synergy 11:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - That image really does not pass Wikipedia:non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - The use of the image was so stupidly against our policy that no editors cared to vote delete. Fut Perf's interpretation of the police is completely uncontroversial. --Damiens.rf 14:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the initial nominator, who chooses to fling around phrases like "stupidly against our policy" in his endorsement, further proving that the initial nomination itself was pointy in the extreme. There's really no debate to be had with a person who uses such phrases in their reasoning, I'd simply like the closing admin to keep in mind these type of comments (and their unhelpfulness), and the fact that they come from the initial nominator, when closing this DRV. Sometimes these type of things need to be taken into account. ^S._D.Jameson 16:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Argumentum ad hominum. --Damiens.rf 17:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Nice try, but no. It's more appropriately called tu quoque, which isn't always bad, as with your incredibly pointy nomination, and your own inappropriate "stupidly" phrasing used in your above comment. And, to expand, it's definitely fruit of the poisonous tree, as your post here has further proven.^S._D.Jameson 17:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, Damiens, well, it is an argumentum ad hominem all right, but still, your comment wasn't the most helpful one. You might consider redacting it, especially since S. Dean is actually trying to keep this all relatively civil, an effort that should be acknowledged. (And it's hominem, not hominum too :-P). But S. Dean, you also shouldn't throw the "POINT" bomb around that freely; neither his nomination nor my closure was "pointy" in the least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think your close was point-y, FP, just wrong. :) As for Damiens, I don't use the WP:POINT link lightly. I have no doubt his initial nomination was pointy. He has nominated many non-free Australian political images for deletion simply because he apparently doesn't like them and thinks they're "stupidly against policy." I admit when I'm wrong, but this time, I'm not. Damiens makes pointy IfD noms, it's as simple as that. But my issue with your close is a simple one: I think you ignored the instructions given for closing administrators, not that what you did was pointy. ^S._D.Jameson 17:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per Nom and Ed.Fitzgerald. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 15:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion and restore the image. The closing administrator improperly applied his personal reading of the relevant policy instead of applying the community's consensus opinion as established in the IfD. It is true that administrators may discount opinions that are weak in the light of applicable policy. But to the extent that the policy calls for the exercise of editorial judgment, such as with respect to whether an image is required for the understanding of an article, that judgment must be exercised through consensus, not by administrative fiat. Sandstein 15:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Per Nom & Orderinchaos. Five Years 15:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; a new image cannot be made, but this one is neither historically significant nor necessary for the article. — Coren ^(talk) 16:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Basically, I've seen no one who endorses this deletion actually defend the action given the links to the explicit instructions given to administrators I provided in my rationale above. This isn't the place to express your support for Fut Per's take on NFCC. It's simply a place to examine the action he chose to take, against consensus, based solely upon his own personal views. I would encourage whoever closes this to simply discard "endorsements" that do not address the concerns with Fut Per's simply ignoring the instructions given to admins who close deletion discussions in the links I provided. This isn't the place to express your support for his view of NFCC policy, it's where we discuss the action he took, and how it relates to normative IfD policies. ^S._D.Jameson 16:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore The interpretation of how necessary an image is for the article is almost always going to be a matter of judgment, and a wide range of judgements can all be consistent with basic policy. This is a community decision, not that of an individual admin, who is not permitted to substitute his own view of how the policy should be interpreted. If he could, we all of us with different views would be in a race to see who could close first to get his own view carried out, instead of judging the consensus objectively whether or not we agreed with it. DGG (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong restore per nom. The substitution of one's own policy view of NFCC over that of consensus, whatever it is (whether deletionist or retentionist or in the middle) is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I fully concur with the comments of Ed Fitzgerald in relation to the powers of moderators. JRG (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interpretation of WP:NFCC is open to discussion, in the same way as interpretation of WP:V, WP:N, and so on are open to discussion at AFDs. If the discussion had been an AFD about a bio, the nominator said that the person was non-notable, and two other contributors suggested a keep on the grounds that the person is notable, then I seriously doubt any admin would close the discussion as a delete based on his interpretation of the notability guidelines. This is no different. My personal opinion would be that the image doesn't comply with NFCC8, but the time for me to have said that was at the IFD itself. Overturn deletion as it was against the consensus at the IFD. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that NFCC, unlike V or N, makes deletion absolutely mandatory. You cannot just sit back and let it stand. If you, personally, believe it fails NFCC, and the objections you would have raised at its IfD weren't properly voiced and addressed there, may I suggest the only logically consistent call for you to make now would be overturn and relist, rather than overturn and restore? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion This image is clearly replaceable with text (readers clearly would not understand the article any less without this image). Those who commented at IFD misinterpreted policy, plain and simple. The closing admin does not need to follow "consensus" that is simply the commentary of three users. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the image itself, it's about FP's close, which was undeniably improper. This isn't the place to debate the merits of the image itself. No endorser yet has defended the close of the IfD as proper. ^S._D.Jameson 17:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While at the same time, none of the overturn voters has seriously defended the image as properly passing NFCC. If the IfD were to be re-opened now, and a new closing admin duly took the substantial opinions about the image itself into account that have been voiced here by now, the new endorse/delete votes here would far outweigh the original keep votes on the IfD. I wouldn't mind having it run through that, if it allays your concerns about due process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IfD can't be "re-opened" because you closed it improperly. We're in a different situation not, and speculation is unhelpful, especially when it's advanced as a supporting argument. One can easily imagine scenarios counter to your own. Perhaps if it had been allowed to run, more editors might have joined in with new input, or the arguments advanced would have covered more territory or become more sophisticated and compelling, but we'll never know. What we do know is that some remedy has to be found to counter your egregious closing, and that remedy is to restore the image. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the IfD can be re-opened. "Overturn and relist" is a very common outcome of DRV's. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the IfD you closed, it's a new one. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It is the closer's job to apply the guidelines for deletion (for that particular slice of the project). Fair use images must also be considered provisionally. Those images should be used only when they meet the guidelines for inclusion and those guidelines are relatively straightforward. In this case fut perf applied NFCC and came to the decision that the image didn't meet it. The three 'keep' comments were WP:ILIKEIT and a recitation of WP:NFCC (without an argument as to how the image met NFCC 8). If we had an AfD for a non-notable article and the "consensus" from the discussion was "it is notable" without sources or arguments, I would hope that the closer would do his or her job and close as delete. We don't give admins added authority over other users but we do give them the tools to close discussions like this. Along with those tools we expect some discretion and thought to enter into their decision--I wouldn't want an admin to just make headcounts on deletion closures. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should have an official template which provides every single technical requirement that IfD commenters have to answer in order to satisfy NFCC absolutists, since it doesn't seem to be enough for editors in good standing to simply express their opinions. "Please say in 25 words or more why the image meets NFCC 8. (Extra credit given for any discussion of the role of NFCC 8 in keeping the project safe from predatory lawyers.)" Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're being sarcastic, but let's be realistic. We have the NFCC for a reason. NFCC 8 is pretty clear, as are most of the other criteria. You are free to express an opinion about it, but why should that expression matter in the IfD result. We have instructions at the top of the page and in the deletion guide that deletion isn't a vote and that arguments will be accepted on their merits. Should we ignore those because we get outcomes that we don't like? IfD is going to result in those kind of outcomes. If you want to keep an article or an image you should be able to explain how it meets the guidelines or (if it doesn't) why we should ignore all rules and keep it. I read the tag on top of WP:NFCC as a policy, meaning that the exceptions to it ought to truly be exceptional. We can treat it the same as WP:BLP. Exceptions to that policy ought to be pretty well buttressed by argument. In this case the exception wasn't buttressed by anything but WP:ILIKEIT and the image version of WP:USEFUL. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NFCC itself may be clear to you, but I don't believe that's generally the case in the community as a whole, and in any event, even if the policy is clear, that doesn't mean that the means by which it should be implemented, or the practical standards by which it should be enforced are clear – most assuredly, they are not, and the conversation here (as well as all the other conversations that have taken place around Wikipedia) is proof of that. You cannot point to the clarity of your own understanding as being controlling, in the face of the widespread (and obvious) disagreements that have fractured the community on this issue. Whitewashing them doesn't make them go away, they exist, and define the world we live in. Policy implementation must take that into account, and not act as if the certainty of a sub-group is the last word on the subject. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if the policy is clear but disagreements exist among community members as to how to interpret it, that is not a reason to ignore the policy. If that IfD had been a rousing discussion over what constituted cause to meet NFCC 8, we might not be here (we might, see the Cross of Coronado IfD and DRV). NFCC is still a policy. I see no successful RFC to mark it as historical. As such it doesn't really make sense to treat people who understand and apply it as some hard line minority. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have such a guideline: It's the guideline for filling out Non-Fair Content Rationales. All those substantial keep arguments that were missing in the IfD (because they couldn't legitimately be made) ought to have been already on the image description's FUR (if, that is, they could have applied, which they couldn't). That's why we have FURs. Alas, most uploaders, instead of writing a substantial and individual rationale that actually anticipates such points of debate, fill their description pages with useless drivel and inapplicable boilerplate text. The description page for this one, at the time of deletion, actually claimed that: (a) the image was used for research and study as well as for review and criticism and for reporting the news; (b) the image was a historically significant photo of a major event in [Dunstan's] life; (c) the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. I count at least six major and blatant untruths in there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FP, you continue to make these "heads I win, tails you lose" propositions whereby no one can possibly interpret NFCC differently than you. It's circular reasoning, and it doesn't hold water. I guarantee if an administrator who doesn't hold such a strict interpretation of NFCC as you had closed this before you managed to, it would not be a redlink right now. ^S._D.Jameson 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with all conversations about this issue is that many fair-use hardliners have an agenda which is somewhat different from making sure that all images on Wikipedia comply with NFCC policy, and that is to eliminate fair-use images entirely. The strategy of these hardliners is to hold to an absolutist reading of the policy under which as few images will pass muster as possible, thereby eliminating as many non-free images as they can.
I AGF, so I'm not claiming that FP (or anyone else involved in this discussion) falls into that category, but it has to be said that their reading of NFCC policy, and their method of enforcing it, are virtually indistinguishable from what those absolutist hardliners would do. Certainly, FP's unwillingness to acknowledge even the possibility that his understanding of NFCC can be wrong, or that others can, in all good faith, disagree with his reading and come to different conclusions about specific images, and his action in blatantly ignoring the judgment of the participants in the IfD by closing the discussion as "delete", all certainly look like the actions of someone who doesn't want any non-free images to be used. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: I'm emphatically not one of those who would like to eliminate non-free context completely. I'd hate to have an article on Picasso that couldn't show Guernica. But I'm strongly in favour of a clean, intellectually honest treatment of non-free content, which doesn't claim things that aren't true. I don't like it when people claim they are using things for review or criticism when they aren't. I don't like it when people claim an image is iconic when it isn't. I don't like it when people claim an article couldn't be understood without an image when it obviously can. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear that -- but you should consider that NFCC isn't an intellectual exercise, it's essentially part of a legal strategy, which means it is much more about practicality than about the standards of intellectual discourse. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a crusade to eliminate fair use images for the sake of eliminating them. Application of an existing policy to images that don't meet it is proper. I object to the characterization of this policy as 'disputed' and the characterization of its adherents as absolutists or hardliners. If you disagree with NFCC, the place to act upon that disagreement is the talk page or an RFC. We can't simply continue to argue out these disagreements in the breech as though each side comes from an equally valid and supported position. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But see, that's the thing: they do. There are arguments for and against the hardline position taken by some on how to enforce NFCC policy. The interpretation of that policy is not cut-and-dried (see above), and to pretend it is, as you do here, is not helpful. Closing an IfD based upon one admin's hotly-contested interpretation of a policy like NFCC isn't good form in any way, when there were three good-faith, well-reasoned "keep" recommendations at the IfD. FP just ignored them and did what he wanted to do. That's not acceptable, per the instructions given to closing admins in the links I provided in this DRV nomination. ^S._D.Jameson 20:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to point out that it is logically inconsistent to object to being called a "hardliner" or an "absolutist", and on the other hand to hold that viewpoints opposed to yours are unsupported and have no validity. In fact, holding that very position makes one an absolutist by definition, in possesion of the absolute truth about NFCC (as opposed to anyone else, who is just wrong). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that opinions opposed to mine have no merit because they are opposed to mine. That is absurd. I am suggesting that opinions unsupported by argument have no validity. This is no more controversial than rejecting "I like it" statements at XfD. Don't misrepresent my position, please. Protonk (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I was. You wrote:
We can't simply continue to argue out these disagreements in the breech as though each side comes from an equally valid and supported position.
which I took to mean that you don't believe that the other side is valid and supported, because...that's what you wrote! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't wrong because they are against me. We just can't treat every discussion as a dispute between equals simply because there are two articulations out there. You clearly don't see merit in the 'hard core absolutist' view. I don't feel the views are meritless simply because I disagree with them. I feel that some inclusionist FU views have little grounding in current policy and we can't act as though they do for the purposes of discussion. Protonk (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pretending anything. I think we got into this discussion at the cross of coronado IfD. Fut Perf is right here. The fair use guidelines and the NFCC present clear prescriptive guidelines. I AGREE that interpretation is muddy, but we need some counterinterpretaion in the IfD to even consider that FP was out of line. the only IfD comment that comes close was this one:
Keep As Dunstan is dead, and the image's specific purpose and place is to represent the two men together as they were then seen, this image is not replaceable by a free use image. Guideline examples from WP:NFCC specifically include: "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." NFCC#8 "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." appears to also apply, as it greatly aids an understanding of Rann's background. Nomination appears to violate WP:POINT.|Orderinchaos 15:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The two arguments made there are "this is a pointy nomination" and "the picture aids in understanding of the subject". We can dispense with the first argument. The second is half of an argument. Orderinchaos says that the picture adds to an understanding of the subject but doesn't say how or why and doesn't say how the omission of the photo would harm that understanding (in other words, if the image were gone and replaced by text saying "Dunstan was friends with Rann" or something to that effect. Given that 1/2 of the argument, what is the closing admin to do? If he is supposed to accept this 1/2 argument at face value then I misunderstand XfD guidance and I should start gainsaying poor arguments made at AfD. If he is to apply judgment and knowledge of policy how is he to do it in this case? Protonk (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've overlooked a third argument, which I believe is the primary reason that this DRV was opened by SDJ, and that is that the deletion of the image by FP was not based on the debate in the IfD, and did not follow the relevant instructions to closing admins, but was instead closed on the basis of FP's own personal beliefs about NFCC policy, and that such an egregiously bad closing needs to be remedied by restoring the image. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overlooking it. I don't agree with it. I also don't have a problem with overturning it to relist the image at IfD. Protonk (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Protonk writes about NFCC policy: I AGREE that interpretation is muddy. But here's the thing: FP clearly doesn't agree that the interpretation of NFCC is muddy. FP has made it abundantly clear throughout this discussion that, to them, the interpretation of the policy is crystal clear, and FP used that understanding to improperly close the IfD. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that interpretation is muddy. FP isn't required required to agree with me. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but FP is required to follow the instructions about closing an IfD, and not close on the basis of his own extreme view of how NFCC should be enforced. The participants in the IfD debate didn't reject NFCC, they made their arguments on the basis of NFCC policy, but FP chose instead to ignore that and substitute his own understanding. That's just not on. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that he has a narrow view doesn't stop it from being right occasionally. In this case, the image doesn't meet the NFCC under a broad interpretation (the second half of the NFCC 8 clause) or a narrow interpretation. In this case the argument was that the description page (required by NFCC 10) Template:Non-free historic image, was accurate. Not to rehash the IfD, but it wasn't accurate. At all. In this case, it was proper to interpret the NFCC to exclude this image. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I often wonder if NFCC was written by deletionists for the sole objective of getting rid of fair use. It seems to be no matter *what* one argues or *how*, it's wrong. The deletionists claim they are the only people capable of understanding and interpreting the document, much like Catholic priests during the Dark Ages used to tell the people what the Bible said in order to keep them in line. If you want to delete all fair use, change policy to make it happen (and wait for the riot to start as a result of your actions - a lot of people won't stand for it). But this endless gaming and intellectual posturing has got to end somewhere. The fair bulk of Wikipedians are ordinary people with no malevolent agenda to break copyright, will do what they can if they know *what* to do, and the fact that at the same time noone is telling them what is necessary to do (and please don't say "it's in NFCC", I have read that document, I've argued on the basis of it and my arguments have still been rejected, so clearly there is more of an absolutist, intellectual wankerish agenda going on here - and I speak as someone with one degree and on the way to another) and at the same time those very same people are trying to get the images removed, and even openly defying consensus, a foundation bedrock principle of this encyclopaedia, to get their ideas through over and above the masses, and insulting users in violation of WP:CIVIL, etc, when there is no question of the images being copyright violations ... I think we need to resolve this once and for all as a community, and maybe look at getting some topic bans put in for some of the worst offenders. Malicious compliance is indeed an art form. Orderinchaos 00:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy? NFCC should comply to that. It's not that it "was written by deletionists for the sole objective of getting rid of fair use...". --Damiens.rf 13:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment again very carefully. Orderinchaos 20:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now THAT was patronizing. --Damiens.rf 03:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the slightest. You were arguing a point I didn't make. Orderinchaos 08:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence was "I often wonder if NFCC was written by deletionists for the sole objective of getting rid of fair use." You then proceeded to argue that interpretation and application of this policy represented intellectual posturing and gaming. If that wasn't enough, you assumed that rejection of your arguments was based on "[an] intellectual wankerish agenda" rather than some flaw in your argument. It is a pretty valid response to tell you that NFCC was derived directly from foundation licensing documentation rather than spawned from some deletionist cabal. To respond to is as you did was pretty insulting. I was disgusted reading your paragraph long screed above. It shows a failure to assume good faith and a battleground mentality to what is a policy dispute. Please consider rewording it. Protonk (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Use of the image fails NFCC#8 and #1. -Nv8200p talk 01:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Essentially per DGG's reasoning. This seems to be at odds with the general consensus of how to interpret NFCC. Moreover, the close seemed to have little connection to the discussion at hand. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a bit disturbing to me that Fut Per is allowed to "stack the deck" in favor of deletion with this out-of-process close and deletion. What it essentially does is force those wishing to keep the image to develop consensus to do so, when IfD requires there be consensus to delete. I really believe the administrator who closes this DRV should keep this fact in mind when closing it. Fut Per shouldn't be allowed to stack the deck for deletion by essentially framing the discussion here (which should have happened at the IfD--this should be about his close, not his interpretation of NFCC policy). This is an unacceptable use of tools to simply frame the discussion in a way advantageous to his (clearly minority) view of NFCC. ^S._D.Jameson 14:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policies represent project-wide, well-established consensus, and that's what make them triumph over a 3x1 IFD "consensus". --Damiens.rf 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "project-wide, well-established consensus" concerning the enforcement of NFCC policy, although some folks like to behave as if there is, and as if their views represent this consensus. It doesn't, and until there is a general consensus, admins shouldn't be allowed to use their personal views to override reasonable and policy-compliant debate on IfD which reaches a clear consensus. (The number of participants is a red herring, delete/non-delete decisions are routinely made with that number of commenters.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, what Ed Fitzgerald says is true. Those arguing for a strict interpretation of NFCC may wish it weren't true, but this DRV itself shows the lack of a well-established consensus on how NFCC policy should be interpreted. Second, one admin's very strict (and not based on "well-established consensus") view of NFCC is not enough to overcome a 3-0 (no one but the nominator recommended deletion) recommendation of "keep." Simply having the admin tools doesn't make him special, and it shouldn't allow him to stack the deck in favor of deletion, which having this discussion at a DRV instead of (properly) having it at an IFD essentially does. ^S._D.Jameson 15:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This DRV itself shows the lack of a well-established consensus"? Do you really see any discussion about interpretations of NFCC taking place on this DRV (or even at the IFD)? All restore arguments are of the form "fut perf is wrong" or "the policy is cloudy and can't be applied", but none is really like "this image usage is permitted by our policy and by the resolution because <insert hypothetical valid argument here>". Disliking a policy is not the same as having a different interpretation for it.

To make things simpler, please try to explain either this specific picture showing two men drinking "illustrates any historically significant event", "identifies protected works", or "complements articles about copyrighted contemporary works". And make sure you could still say with a straight face that this usage is minimal. When at least one editor could elaborate such an argument, we would still have to discuss the question of legality of the usage (that, of course, has also not has been addressed by any of the restore votes). --Damiens.rf 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last response to you here. I've tired of your "two men drinking" specious description of the photograph. As for the "Fut Per was wrong" rationale, that's all that has to be found to overturn an improper deletion. Perhaps you should take another look at the two instructions links I used in my DRV nomination. He was clearly wrong in the close, per those links. This isn't an IfD, Damiens. That was my problem with the close: Fut Per has used an inappropriate close to try to flip the burden of proof to those wishing to keep the image. ^S._D.Jameson 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Latest news: When it comes to usage of non-free content, the burden of proof IS on those wishing to keep the image. Period. --Damiens.rf 17:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your condescension aside, the burden of proof at an IfD is on the delete recommendations, period. If there's no consensus, it's default keep. You may think that the burden is on the keepers, but it's not. ^S._D.Jameson 18:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy we've found the root of our disagreements. You really seem to honestly believe that a non-free image should be kept unless there's a good reason to delete it. But trust me, it's the other way around. The NFCC is callled an Exemption Doctrine Policy for a reason. --Damiens.rf 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a non-free image should be kept when it fulfills the requirements of the NFCC, which this one does. I've recommended deletion on several photographs during the IfD process, so any potential accusations of "NFCC abolitionism" would fail quite badly. But as I've said numerous times, this isn't the place to debate NFCC philosophy, but instead to overturn an out-of-process deletion by an administrator who has clearly shown he deleted the image not based on any reason given as acceptable in the instructions I linked, but because of his own personal interpretation of NFCC policy. That's clearly out-of-bounds. ^S._D.Jameson 20:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you educate me on what's out-of-process in deleting a non-free image which (for instance) used a generic rationale (that failed to explain why the specific image was necessary) more than 48hs after the uploader have been warned? --Damiens.rf 20:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't "educate" you on that matter, since you don't even recognize that the entire last half of your post above is your opinion on how to interpret NFCC policy, not NFCC policy itself. And in my nomination, I clearly delineated how substituting an administrator's own opinion for what actually happened in the IfD discussion was completely unacceptable, per the instructions given to closing admins. ^S._D.Jameson 21:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You refuse to explain how is this image ok with our policy and also refuse to explain what was wrong with deleting it. Regardless of what you say, admins are expected to weight arguments in light of the policies. Regardless of what you say, there's nothing controversial in deleting a non-free image with a generic copy-and-paste rationale that completely fails to explain why is the image necessary. And regardless of what you like, we need an exceptionally good reason for using a non-free picture of juice-drinking men whose copyrights are owned by a commercial news source. --Damiens.rf 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)No, see that's the thing, I fully recognize my interpretation of NFCC as just that: an interpretation. You think your take (and Fut Per's evidently) should somehow hold sway in the face of other interpretations, because you think you're right. The problem here is with the close, not with the interpretation. Fut Per's (and your) points should have been made in the IfD, in an attempt to develop consensus to delete. Those points weren't made. Fut Per deleted anyway. That is out-of-process based upon the instructions given to closing admins. That--and only that--is the issue for this IfD to address. NFCC policy can be addressed in an overturn and relist option for this image. Stacking the deck by deleting, then trying to force the "keeps" to have the burden of proof is out-of-process. Your opinion about interpreting NFCC policy is no more valuable than the opinions of the majority here who have said this bad close should be overturned. ^S._D.Jameson 22:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"keeps" do have the burden of proof when we're talking about non-free content. --Damiens.rf 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Fut Perf and others. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the state of play

With the full understanding that this is not a !vote, I thought I'd at least provide a summary of where we stand in this discussion, given that it's gotten to be quite long. If my count is correct, there are 13 Overturn/restores, including the DRV nom and the "Keep" participants in the IfD, and 8 9 Endorse deletions, including the admin who closed the IfD and the original IfD nom. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is the problem with such an out-of-process action. Such an outcome of an IfD would default to keep as "no-consensus." But since Fut Per misused his tools to simply delete it anyway, he's effectively tried to shift the burden of proof to the "keep" recommendations, which is quite appalling, and should not stand. ^S._D.Jameson 22:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But then the obvious remedy is (as you said above), to overturn the deletion , restore the image, and relist it at IfD to allow those points to be made there. This effectively undoes the out-of-process closing and starts things over again.
Or am I missing something?Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope so, but we'll have to see if that really does happen. I'm not holding my breath, though. ^S._D.Jameson 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, God! The burden of proof IS on those wanting to "keep" non-free content. --Damiens.rf 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we know, you really, really, really believe that. It doesn't make it true. In an IfD, if there are disagreements about how to apply NFCC to the specific image, and consensus isn't reached, the image stays. It's as simple as that. ^S._D.Jameson 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damiens, perhaps if you make your "IS" really, really big, and color it red, perhaps that will convince everyone? Seriously, simply repeating the same words again and again doesn't make it true, nor does it have any real effect on those who understand the situation differently from you. It's essentially the argument from authority without any particular authority to support it -- perhaps the argument from repetition and raising one's voice would best describe it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 August 2008[edit]

Lewis Chalmers – speedy restore as he now clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. – пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Player now passes WP:ATHLETE after playing for Aldershot Town in a fully-professional league -- [53] [54] --Jimbo^[online] 23:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy restore. Indeed he has. Nfitz (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore policy is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy restore - see here. Smile a While (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jack Wilshere – Deletion endorsed, barely. There is a reasonable complaint here that the specific notability guidelines should not trump the main one, WP:Notability; while that's true, it's also not clear that the coverage qualifies as significant. I note also that both the userspace versions rely solely on non-independent sources. A better draft brought to DRV would be in a better position to make a case that coverage is sufficient. In any case, if the kid gets some playing time this will all be moot--in that case, and if a userspace draft is created with solid sourcing, any admin should be willing to unprotect without a new DRV. – Chick Bowen 02:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

He is part of the arsenal fc first team so a profile should be allowed to be put up of him on wikipedia he has been given a shirt number which can be confirmed on http://www.arsenal.com/player.asp?thisNav=first+team&plid=86459&clid=4421&cpid=703 Jackwilshere19 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - arsenal.com link doesn't work by the way.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a relevant discussion here.--PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - still fails WP:ATHLETE as not having played a competitive first team game. Arsenal make wide use of their squad in, for example, the Carling Cup, so it is significant that he hasn't played a competitive match, yet. Smile a While (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it is remarkable that a 16 year old player should be so close to the first team squad in the first place, so I don't really find it surprising that Wenger didn't give him his debut as a 15 year old in the Carling Cup last season. Even Cesc Fabregas had to wait until he was 16 to make his debut. Anyway, there is of course no policy argument to object to this deletion but from one football fan to another, this kid will be an England international before he is 20 years old, I guarantee you. ugen64 (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shouldn't be too long before he plays a first-team game then, at which point he can have an article no questions asked. But at the present time there is no reasonable reason to undelete the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The reason his article was deleted was that he has never played in a fully professional league. This has not changed since the AfD debate. How about waiting until he actually makes his professional debut? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree with Number 57, after his professional debut the article can be restored. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Deletion Review is a venue to point out how the deletion process has not been followed. It is not a venue to present new arguments, or repeat old ones, that belong in an AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - User:Jackwilshere19 is just re-hashing arguments presented ad nauseam at AfDs on youth team players. The player in question did not then and still does not now satisfy WP:N, WP:ATHLETE or even WP:FOOTYN and there is no valid reason to open a DRV at this time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The deletion at AfD was correct and the reason for deletion, that the subject does meet WP:Athlete, has not been addressed, that is, he still does not meet WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The AfD appears to have focused on the strict definition of WP:ATHLETE rather than considering WP:N. Since the AfD closed on July 27th, this kid has got major media coverage. He even got headlines in my local newspaper, thousands of miles away [55] that notes "Premier League club Arsenal has included 16-year-old midfielder Jack Wilshere in its first-team squad for the new season". In addition to the Toronto Sun, he has had coverage by Canadian Press, Setana Sports "one of England’s most talked-about teenagers", the Internation Herald Tribune where Wegner is quoted as "He looks strong enough and he is not fazed by the big games", the Daily Mail "rated highly by Sir Trevor Brooking, the FA's director of football development, and a first-team debutant in the Gunners' pre-season games.", the Malaysia Star, and hundreds of other media references in the last month alone. Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn WP:ATHLETE is an inclusion criteria, it does not exclude individuals who do not satisfy the specifications. Wilshere satisfies WP:N, having had received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Alansohn (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with WP:N is that it is a totally unrealistic barometer of notabilty for football players. Football recieves blanket media coverage, to the extent that semi-professional players playing at the fifth level can have more coverage than heads of state. Ergo WP:ATHLETE is necessary to tease out the truly notable players. If this kid leaves the club and never makes a first team appearance, will he be notable for playing in a couple of pre-season friendly matches? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - While you may protest about WP:N in general, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) (of which WP:ATHLETE is a subcomponent), it is the official guideline on the subject. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria specifies that "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under WP:N." WP:ATHLETE is intended to avoid disruptive arguments about notability of individuals who pass an agreed upon standard; it most emphatically does not exclude articles for individuals who don't meet it. WP:ATHLETE is a great (albeit imperfect) argument for retention; on its own it is an invalid argument for deletion. The whole concept of notability is based on media coverage, not our personal biases. Saying that Wilshere and other athletes receive "blanket media coverage" is the exact evidence we're looking for to support notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read all the quote you gave yourself. It also says that "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". That is a guideline but not mandatory either way. - Nabla (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. He was brought on the trip to the Netherlands for the club's match against FC Twente, but was an unused substitute. I have created an outline of a potential article at User:VincentValentine29/Sandbox. Vincent Valentine 13:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being an unused substitute is irrelevant here. By not playing, he still fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is another sandbox version here.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn And I must say that I am shocked by several of the opinions expressed here. Subject-specific supplemental notability guidelines are intended as a second catchment that articles which can not clearly pass WP:N can be kept under. They are intended to be used for subjects for which definite consensus has determined are frequently unable to pass the vague overall notability guideline, but are surely notable. They are by no means intended as an additional hurdle that an otherwise notable subject must also pass, in order for its article to be retained. To suggest that WP:Athlete can be used to delete an article on the basis of notability when the article clearly passes WP:N is simply an obnoxious twist-up of the rules. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

insectarium – No real reason to undelete, but I also see no reason to deny a reasonable request with nothing bad in the history. Editorially speaking, the disambiguation page obviously makes sense here for now. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

History-only undeletion; reason given was that page was "too short". I made a disambiguation page out of it for now. –radiojon (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether there is any value in restoration - the entire content was "An insectarium is a tank you put insects in to look at". Davewild (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore It can be expanded. Stubs are acceptable. DGG (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave deleted, there is absolutely zero content of any value in the deleted history, and thus no point to a history undeletion. --Stormie (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave deleted, no content of value in the deleted history. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unforgotten_Realms – Userspace draft may be moved to mainspace at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted due to being NN, locked for constant recreations in April 2007. Since then, the show has been picked up by the The Escapist Magazine where it's contemporaries on the site(Drawn By Pain, Kung Fu Grip) are considered notable enough for an article. Therefore it meets criteria three of the web content notablilty guidlines. "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"DoeEyes (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

An obliging admin might undelete it and put it into your user space User:DoeEyes/Unforgotten Realms, where you could add the updated content and bring it back here to see if a move to article space is appropriate. RMHED (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to do that, but the article's a two-liner so there's nothing really to restore. If User:DoeEyes would like to provide citations and URLs to back up the above claims, then we can consider the matter further. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the sole content you get from combining the six deleted revisions is "Unforgotten Realms is a cartoon parody created by Robert Moran from Canada, about two guys playing Dungeons and Dragons. Robert Moran does play World of Warcraft." I see you've worked up a userspace draft at User:DoeEyes/Unforgotten Realms - I wouldn't object to that being moved to main article space, although it would be good if you could reference some publication other than Escapist Magazine writing about the series. --Stormie (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tommy Smith (footballer born 1990) – Article recreated and deleted history restored – RMHED (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Second DRV - (First DRV) - as discussed in previous DRV, is first team player for Championsip team Ipswich Town F.C.. As predicted, started in match on August 9 - [56] Nfitz (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy restore and update Concerns raised in the AFD were all over him not having played in a fully professional league, this has now been addressed. Davewild (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and update as he now meets WP:ATHLETE. – Pee Jay 16:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one of you Admins could actually do this then? Someone has now created a new article in that space, which means instead of a simple restore, one now has to merge the information together. This is the whole reason I'm opposed to this mindless deletion of players who are clearly going to play shortly is that you end up with this type of mess where no one can access the old article when it's needed. Nfitz (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a new article had been created, I have restored the full history. Davewild (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Committee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal – Overturn/relist. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was no consensus to delete. The result of the discussion was a clear no consensus. Furthermore, admin seems to be making a WP:POINT due to earlier AFD's in which we've both been invovled. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu terrorism. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure Closure reflected discussion / good close. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The delete supporters only had one credible, strong, reasoned debater and so did the keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Relist a new AFD. I see new citations and marked improvement. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/relist There were few respondents to the discussion and the closer provided no rationale. Improvement of the article was made during the discussion which might have invalidated the early !votes. There did not seem to be a significant consensus either way and so the prescription of WP:DGFA would be When in doubt, don't delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it would be helpful in this case to see the article history. If it was improved, if that is the case, I want to know because that changes things... maybe. I'll request a history only review. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- I've restored it, then blanked it. I am not aware of the template you put in to denote history only review (if there is one) so maybe someone else could add that. No comment on the DRV question itself. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you NonvocalScream (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{tempundelete}} was the one you were looking for. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own close - I thought Nsk92 and Pete.Hurd argued convincingly for a delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again it's not admin's role to take sides. The inability to recognize this is one of the recent problems that lies at the heart of falling confidence in the administrators and value of wikipedia. To tacitly let this behavior to gone without some editor like myself speaking out about it would be wrong. There has been a recent leeway given to admin perhaps in reaction to WP:FRINGE editor-type problems. Yet some of this recent admin reaction is overreaction. An a lot of this overrecation is not really "under the radar". Anyone willing to do a bit of honest soul-searching can see this. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past dealings with this admin (Noam Chomsky quote) have shown that he or she would much rather abuse processes, waste-time, and try and "win" discussions than act on clear evidence. This was not a complicated AFD discussion. It was not a fair-minded close. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen AfD for further discussion, there weren't a particularly large number of commenters, and sources were added to the article during the discussion - it's not clear whether those who had earlier called for deletion saw the added sources. --Stormie (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 August 2008[edit]

Joe Sernio – AfD closure as "no consensus" endorsed. – Stormie (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

closed as no consensus despite the lack of discussion from the "keep" side based in policy/guidelines. Keep side looked at the number of references in the article and not at value of those references (per WP:V). It can't be no consensus if one side clearly fails to discuss the policy/guideline reasons for their "votes". I ask only that the article be relisted in order to allow a proper debate based in policy to occur (and perhaps for someone to list the article with some appropriate wikiprojects to invite more participants to take part in the discussion. I would have done this originally myself but, was unaware that anyone was allowed to do so. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I don't see any consensus there either. Choice between no consensus close and relisting is pretty well admin discretion here. I personally woulda' relisted it, just to check if more discussion happened afterwards, but I see no reason to overturn the close to do so. Overall, ambivalent about the close. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sustain close The admin made a deliberate judgment that further discussion at the time would get nowhere, and that was a reasonable thing to do well within his role. It takes quite a lot for me to want to overturn a no-consensus close unless its obviously totally off the wall. DGG (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close though it probably would have benefited from a relisting. RMHED (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - a reasonable close. Though the closing admin recommended that it doesn't come back for 3 months, there is no bar on a somewhat earlier relisting. Smile a While (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close no evidence that any elemt of close was out of process. Alansohn (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

FXB International – Speedy deletion overturned - article should probably be listed on AfD if references establishing notability via reliable sources are not added. – Stormie (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason for deletion appears to be the lack for sources, which I can post, but this is an International NGO like CARE or SOS Children's Villages it shouldn't have been deleted.If the article can be sent to me I will work on it so it adheres to the proper standards. Abyfield (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC) abyfield[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, the reason for the deletion is that the article did not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, do you want the article restored or do you just want it sent to you? Stifle (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore it does give indications of notability through the extent of its operations. It would need some real references to survive AfD, but that's another matter entirely. Many users feel more comfortable coming here than confronting one of us scary admins on home territory. Though in fact the admin involved here is perfectly open to discussion, some people still are more comfortable this way. As the rule is written they have the option. I don't think there would be consensus to change it. DGG (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per DGG. Or Userfy/send(to wherever) if you need more time before recreating to further verify notablility. Synergy 12:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list - operating in over 20 countries can be taken as an indication of its importance. However, lacking secondary sources, an AFD review to determine notability seems in order. Smile a While (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ladytron – This page has not been deleted, or been the subject of a deletion discussion. Please discuss the removal of content with other editors on the Talk:Ladytron talk page, or report blatant vandalism to WP:AIV. To figure out who you need to talk to, look at the page history, located here. – Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unknown user continues to scrub factual information from 'singles' section. The entry for 1999 - He Took Her To A Movie should give proper credit to a different vocalist who sang for Ladytron in 1999, Lisa Eriksson. Prior occurences of this information, when posted by several users, has been deleted (both from the 'Background' section and the 'Singles' section. 68.183.225.245 (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 25#Unqualified "Terrorism" – No consensus to overturn keep closure; (default endorse keep closure). – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The decision was against both the clear consensus and the weight of the arguments. Sarah777 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion debate Procedure followed, admin explained themselves, in realm of admin discretion at close. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The explanation is totally inadequate. Much more is required when going against both consensus and the weight of the arguments. Do you require me to recycle the deletion arguments here?! I also explained to the Admin that "consensus" has everything to do with counting votes; as will be demonstrated by the outcome of this review. I have seen "consensus" repeatedly defined as numerical superiority. Fact. Any counter claim is merely, in the words of Winston Churchill, haggling about the price. A good example in the current context is the use of the term "terrorist" in the 9/11 article, where a clear and flagrant breach of Wiki policy is repeatedly reinforced by a simple vote. Sarah777 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't AFD_2 so I am not concerned with the arguments put forward by each side, what I care about is the process, did Hersfold follow the deletion process and act within reason. Nothing I can see indicates he acted outside any of our accepted practices. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, on Wikipedia, consensus is specifically not counting votes. We've got tons of pages explaining that - Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, {{notavote}}, meta:Voting is evil, and so forth. Especially when deletions are involved, it takes a strong and clear consensus to take action on something. If consensus is not clear, then more discussion is needed or the proposal is turned down. Deletion debates are often closed in a manner contrary to the majority "vote" because of this. And as I explained to you, this was very nearly officially closed as a "no consensus" which defaults to keep anyway. I suspect you don't really understand what consensus is. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderestimate me as Mr Bush once said! I fully understand what consensus is and also fully understand what the concept called consensus on Wiki is in reality. I think Ceedjee below makes the same point I am making though I think his support for keeping the Cats is dodging the issue. I feel that in the long run the unacknowledged (certainly under-acknowledged and not understood) prevalance of serious Western bias in EN:Wiki is a greater threat to the long-term credibility and reputation of the project than any amount of trolling, vandalism and incivility combined. I am especially bemused that so many Admins apparently cannot see that Wiki consensus is actually simple majoritarianism - ie - decided by vote. And in this case the vote, and IMO, the argument, went with delete. So I suggest a relisting. Sarah777 (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin comment: As I explained to Sarah, consensus has very little, if anything, to do with simply counting votes. I closed the discussion as "keep all" because a clear consensus was very hard to gauge, and many of the arguments in favor of deletion were well countered by the arguments to keep. Many of the keep comments noted that if there was a problem with the category, it would be better handled by either renaming the category (which yes, involves deletion, but this discussion did not decide on a good name to use), or editing it to improve the inclusion criteria and subsequently monitoring articles to ensure they are reliably referenced and not suffering from excessive bias. This is done with many articles which are nominated for deletion based on neutrality, and even BLP concerns. As was also pointed out, accessibility to users is a concern as well. Deleting the Terrorism category can make finding articles rather difficult for readers. Renaming the categories won't necessarily help with this, however the damage would be worse if they were deleted out right. So yes, I closed the discussion against the majority, but not necessarily against the consensus of the discussion. And :-P at MBisanz for edit conflicting me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. This AfD deals with a difficult issue. Even voting and arguing for the delete, I would have closed by keep. But I don't agree with your comments to justify this. Policy respect and argumentation was on the side of the deletion. The only problem is the fact that there is an antagonism between wp:policy and internal rule (-> delete) and a majority view [in western countries] (-> keep). Please, read a few more times the whole discussion... (I want to point out anyway that the solution you suggest is wise : let's keep this cat and create better ones.) Ceedjee (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. It seems pretty clear to me that there was consensus, because:

The only comments that referenced anything resembling policy were in favour of deletion
The comments endorsing deletion based on policy were correct per WP:TERRORIST
The overwhelming majority of voters voted to delete
Nearly all keep arguments were countered and mostly well-countered
Relatively few of the individual arguments (not votes) to delete were logically countered.

However, the consensus that I saw was a consensus to delete, and I'm not sure admins are supposed to simply go against clear consensus like that. The reason I favour relisting instead of deleting is mostly the procedural issue cited, which tends to randomly skew the discussion. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. There was a significant consensus in favour of deletion, whether based on vote counting or weight of arguments. The closing admin should not close based on his opinion just because there was a lot of discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There were multiple keep votes and so no consensus to delete, per WP:CDP: If there is no consensus for action upon closing the CfD discussion, the status quo shall be preserved. Therefore No consensus shall be read as Keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Labelling of particular people as 'terrorists' is one of the things editors are told to avoid, but categories are more complicated and the official guidance hints that it is a special case. The category page itself gives useful guidance on who should be included. It seems to me that some form of category for those involved in political violence was more generally accepted than the specific arrangement under discussion. However the arguments put in the deletion debate were so finely balanced and I can't agree with the nominator that they weighed so heavily as to justify deletion. I would have closed the debate as no consensus, defaulting to keep, and would now overturn the close to that limited extent. Discussion should continue about any alternative name or arrangement. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As much as I personally disagree with the outcome, I can't see that there was anything wrong with the close (although like Sam, I would have closed it as no consensus). --Kbdank71 12:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Again, I see that most of the arguments for deletion or review or relisting are discussing one category Category:Terrorists and its subcats and not at all discussing all the other Terrorism categories and their subcats. This is a very unbalanced treatment of the situation, not reflecting the reality of the categories in question that involve terrorism events, not people. Also, why is it so important to some editors to not identify terrorists by category for what their articles state and document as fact: this person is a terrorist. Categories are not the place for such arguments; articles are. Hmains (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Woah... You voted... Maybe a practice of NPoV would make you understand why you should just have commented here. Ceedjee (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK; so as votes counted decide nothing here (or so I'm told) and as the balance of the arguments are clearly in favour of relisting, shouldn't someone just close this and relist? Sarah777 (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn:
1. It's a BLP landmine. Many of the people in the categories are living, and as "terrorist" has no clear definition, we shouldn't label people as such, leading me to...:
2. We shouldn't offer our own definition of terrorism. Violates NOR.
3. As a process point of view, there seems to be an overwhelming number of deletes.
4. Several keep votes either acknowledged the categories' inherent POV or offered definitions of terrorism which would encompass most war-time leaders.
Sceptre ^(talk) 04:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I find the original CFD and this review to be very interesting. As much as we need to discuss these categories, we also need to make it clear that the process of discussing and closing these discussions needs to focus on solving problems and thereby move us in the direction of having clearer guidelines. I am not sure how I would have closed this discussion, but I would not have closed it as "Keep" because the problems mentioned during the discussion are real problems and our guidelines are not supportive of keeping categories with those problems. Closing as "Keep" implies that the problems are not important, and the categories can be kept as is. At the least this should have been closed as "no consensus" which recognizes that the problems have not been solved. I suspect that there needs to be some discussion about an alternative naming scheme that would help users navigate through many or most of these articles without using the word "terrorist" or "Terrorism". If there are over 100 definitions of "terrorism", it goes against the main guideline of our categorization scheme -- "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." If our reliable sources (like Reuters) have policies to avoid the term, that seems to be pretty clear evidence that it can be shown through reliable sources to be controversial. I don't think closing xFDs are a vote. It is the responsibility of the closer to see the big picture and make a wise decision. Let's keep discussing this and see if there is a non-controversial, NPOV, way to help users navigate the topic. If no such solution can be found, we should create cited lists and delete these categories. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I think the closure addressed the key issues well, and I don't believe the discussion produced a clear consensus. Procedurally, any relisting should not be done in bulk as there are varying concerns across the categories being contested. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure The close was properly within policies and guidelines. For purposes of categorizing and listing, Wikipedia can set a practical, commonsense definition. It is not unheard of for us to adopt a definition specifically for a list in order to be able to manage it. Look at this language at the top of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming: Inclusion is based on specific, attributable statements in the scientist's own words, and not on listings in petitions or surveys. For the purpose of this list a "scientist" is an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article during his lifetime in the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field related to climate. For general listing that also includes persons who have not published a peer-reviewed article, see global warming skeptics. This excellent precedent, long accepted, effectively counters Sam's point (at 05:42, 10 Aug) about Reuters, and Sceptre's point that the close was contrary to WP:NOR. For practical, encyclopedia-managing purposes, we can pick reasonable definitions and use them. That's not against policy, that's common sense. The commonsense need for terrorism categories trumps the quirky, funhouse mirror arguments that you can't define "terrorist" because somebody will disagree. I think Sorites paradox is a useful concept here. When you have a category about something like a "heap", and when having a category about heaps is known to be extremely useful, you draw up a definition for the purpose, explain it, say it's "for the purpose of this category" and keep the useful category. Some piles of sand with one fewer grain than the definition will be left out -- that may be too bad, but it's inevitable if you're going to have a good, workable category or list, you need to set boundaries somewhere. It's allowable. Noroton (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "funhouse mirror arguments that you can't define "terrorist" because somebody will disagree." I'd suggest that this is central to the credibility of WP:NPOV and nothing "funhouse" about it. False 'analogies' don't help. It matters little and is unlikely to bother anyone what a "heap" is. The phrase "terrorist" is used by virtually every nation and organisation in an armed conflict to describe the enemy. So your "specific definition" would be what? Commonsense definition? Is what? Surely it would include any bombing of targets from the air that is likely to kill innocent civilians? Wouldn't it? Half the world described the Georgian attack on Ossetia last Friday night (which killed 1,400 civilians) as "terrorist" - the Americans described the Russian response as "terrorism". This common sense tells you what? One is right? The other? Both? Sarah777 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your "specific definition" would be what? I don't need one. I thought my point was pretty clear: For practical, encyclopedia-managing purposes, we can pick reasonable definitions and use them. Definitions exist. The one on the Category:Terrorists page looks good. It seems that definitions can be found that are reliably sourced and rather widespread. Pick one, get consensus for it, use it. Perfection is not required. Unanimity is not required. Dissatisfaction is inevitable. Noroton (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per Sceptre and Stifle. --John (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Global Fund for Children – The well developed article "The Global Fund for Children" already exists, this page has been redirected to that article. - Icewedge (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Original reason for delete was (nn, unsourced). 53,000 raw googles so not convinced non-notable. Appears to have been deleted without AFD discussion and without CSD code specified. RJFJR (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Looking at the article, I see a reasonable claim to notability "In 2005, they received $50,000 from Oprah’s Angel Network to distribute 17,000 books to children and youth in war torn regions such as Rwanda, Uganda, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan and in the Middle East. They currently fund 95 grassroots groups around the world." However, I doubt it it will pass AfD unless some sources get added. The deleting admin had not been notified--I just did so. DGG (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (The deleting admin has left the project.)
Neutral leaning towards endorse The article needs some serious cleanup in addition to needing sources - it almost qualifies for CSD G11 (spam). "GFC's Board of Directors reads like a "who's who" of Wall Street." It'd almost be easier just to start from scratch. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. Rewrite it with sources that prove notability, and I don't have a problem. If the old version is as spammy as the admins above imply, though, restoring it seems pointless. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation per the large amount of coverage this organization has been receiving in various news sources.[57] I volunteer myself to do the create/cleaup. As the article seems to have been deleted entirely out of process if there is anything at all worth having there can some one undelete it and I will get to work. - Icewedge (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would guess it was deleted under either WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11. Either way, it's not out of process. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither of the reasons for which the admin deleted it ("nn, unsourced") is a valid CSD. - Icewedge (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If "NN" means "non-notable", then it could fall under A7. Honestly, though, we're nit-picking. Could one of the ever-useful admins with their magic delete-history-seeing power let us know how this was tagged in the first place? --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was not tagged for speedy deletion before being deleted, it had five edits from the article creator only, before being deleted. Davewild (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't actually make a decision on this without reading the article, but those certainly aren't CSD unless the article actually made no pretence at asserting its notability, because in that case it would fall under A7. However, that is by far the most contentious criterion in my view, and the admin didn't cite either that or G11. I'd hate to see time wasted restoring it only so it could be speedied "properly" under G11, though, so I'd only vote undelete if I could clearly see how to make it not spam. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion was over a year and a half ago. Just go ahead and recreate the article, making sure to follow the usual conventions on notability, sourcing, etc. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article as it stood on deletion qualified for an A7 speedy deletion, because it did not assert any notability other than by vague handwaving statements like "its directors read like a who's who of Wall Street". Stifle (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more important piece is that the article already exists under a different name, The Global Fund for Children. I'd say the DRV is unnecessary as a result, unless there are two... Avruch^T 13:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Puja Chatterjee – Deletion endorsed. This is not an example of systemic bias, as we have quite a precedent of deleting articles on American Idol contestants who have no notability outside the show: e.g. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. J. Helton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leah LaBelle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Christian. The examples of Americal Idol finalists given below all have other claims of notability, e.g. charted hits, awards other than Idol, etc. If it can be demonstrated that Puja Chatterjee does also, then an article could be created. – Stormie (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject of this article, Puja Chatterjee, is an Indian singer and 6th finalist of Indian Idol (season 3). I believe that this satisfies the second entertainer notability criterion, but to show that 6th place is a good accomplishment in such a competition, consider that Carmen Rasmusen, John Stevens, Constantine Maroulis, Kellie Pickler, and Carly Smithson were all 6th place finalists on American Idol.

Note that before I came here, I added a comment regarding this issue on the deleting admin's talk page, and received a response that he would undelete the article if I intended to add more content myself. I do not intend to add more content myself, as I do not know very much about India. However, I feel compelled to argue this because I feel that systemic bias may be more the issue here than notability. (This is not an attack, but an acknowledgment that unintentional bias is prevalent around non-Anglo topics, possibly this one.) « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A claim to notability is sufficient. The deleting administrator would have been wrong to delete if the basis was inadequate notability, or lack of references. But I notice the article was previously deleted at AfD, as part of [[58]] I havent the least idea what the standard is for Idol contestants at AfD these days, and it may have changed over the last 9 months, but before taking it there, it would certainly help to have more information in the totally inadequate article. DGG (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. As is said ad nauseam, this is not the second round of AfD, and even if it was, notability is not temporary - and nobody can know if their notability will persist much longer. Besides this, there was very clear consensus, and also clear consensus about the notability of game show contestants (and ::country:: idol is a game show by many definitions). It's also worth noting that two of the articles deleted in this AfD were re-created without seeming to resolve the AfD NN issue, and so I have nominated them for speedy deletion per G4. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those latter articles have been deleted and salted. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This article was deleted as a result of an AFD (and subsequently G4 speedy deletions). As such, unless new and previously uncited sources can be provided to show notability (along with, perhaps, an explanation of why they weren't brought forward to date), or an error in the deletion process can be shown, a DRV should not be opened to reargue the matter. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as deleting admin. I made no comment about references; I would be interested to see a consensus view on notability as it applies to lower-ranking finalists in this type of competition, though I did suggest to dtrebbien that in my view 6th place was not adequately notable. But the point is, of course, that the article has been deleted previously per WP:AfD discussion. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 August 2008[edit]

IGO Search – Deletion endorsed, content confirmed to be a copyvio of [59]. No prejudice against creation of a fresh article on the subject, although given the notability concerns expressed, it should definitely establish notability via "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" – Stormie (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

--Stormie (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion without editorial concensus, based on opinion of one single editor, who refused to explain reasons for deletion nomination, despite many comments and questions from the article's author. Suspicion of an extreme case of deletionism and/or abuse of editor power. I would have thought that in Wikipedia it is not possible that one single person wrecks work of somebody else, without discussing, without opinions from other people. I would like to reopen a proper discussion about what, if anything, was inappropriate about the content, so that it could be improved. Marking the work of as 'blatant advertisement' was almost an insult, especially if the person failed to provide any reasons. Thanks for any help on investigating both the article publication and the suspected deletionism issue. Tomas J. Fulopp (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid my suspicions of deletionism and power abuse are growing. When I asked for more information to the editor who had my article speedy deleted, the editor did not act on my valid complaints and questions, and even deleted my text from his talk page. Here is the last revision, where my complaint was deleted. How can deletions be discussed when people solely responsible for them delete the questions? I call for an objective investigation of this case, or for directions on how to conduct one. Thanks for any advice.--Tomas J. Fulopp (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Personal attacks and snotty comments do not a cogent argument make. Corvus cornix_talk 21:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Corvus cornix. Summary: one single person has deleted my page without proper reasons, despite me actively trying to discuss solutions to the situation. What can a simple editor like me do in such cases? Please help. --Tomas J. Fulopp (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider part of your question like "How does it feel to delete someone else's work if you are unsure it was a right decision, while you seem to have been just the only person who was of such opinion. Do you feel victorious? Do you feel you've done a good work?" to be in anyway constructive? I'm not really suprised they didn't want to enter into any significant discussion with you. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For anybody looking into this case, please take into account my original points in the talk page which were deleted in mid discussion, and my points to user Corvus cornix at my talk page here, especially the following reasoning I put forward: I reacted on the 'speedy deletion' nomination mere minutes after it was posted today. I asked the editor, very politely, why this was done. Initially he cited 'blatant advertising', which I questioned, and he changed it to lack of 'notability', which I countered providing objective information about the non-commercial non-governmental nature and superb respectability of the publisher of the service described (mandate of the United Nations, 101 year history as an international research institute, etc.) I also said, citing help sources, that if notability was in question, speedy deletion is the last resort of an editor, and I asked him to reconsider. Afterwards he asked for sources, which I was ready to answer, were the article not already deleted in the meantime. It would have been enough if he changed it to possible deletion, giving me and other people more time, don't you think? Thank you. --Tomas J. Fulopp (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore The article qualifies for speedy under neither G11 nor A7. The full content was: "' all websites of intergovernmental organization (IGOs) (currently over 3000 bodies). IGO-search.org has been developed in 2008 by the Union of International Associations (UIA), which has been collecting information on international non-profit non-governmental organizations since 1907. All of the IGOs, and all international non-governmental organizations, are profiled in detail in one of the UIA's flagship databases known as the Yearbook of International Organizations (Guide to Global Civil Society Networks). The UIA has created the IGO Search interface to facilitate public access to the rich variety of information that these bodies make publicly available." It asserts importance as the major product of a notable organization. It is a little spammy, but that can be solved by editing. It will need to have sources, however, but that's not a reason for deletion, and certainly not speedy. You did right to bring it here--there is no need to get personal. You probably should have asked the admin who tagged it first, but that's just a procedural detail. It might though have reduced tensions, so it's always a good step to do. You seem to have contacted only the relatively inexperienced editor who placed the tag, but the responsibility for deletion is on the admin who actually does it. DGG (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Assuming that the text quoted above by DGG is accurate, the article was, in large part, a copyvio of this. In addition, it seems to me to fall under CSD A7 (if not G11, which was the criterion cited by the deleting admin) as nonnotable Web content. A mention or external link in Union of International Associations or Yearbook of International Organizations might be appropriate, but a stand-alone article on a search page needs a more compelling raison d'etre than this one offered. Deor (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ""If that's the only problem the copyvio material can be rewritten easily enough, and I am prepared to do it. DGG (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can write an article that asserts and establishes the notability of this Web content, which is nothing more than a custom-filtered version of a Google search, I don't see anything that's stopping you. However, we're here to review the speedy deletion of a different article. Deor (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy-deletion. Deor is correct that this is a copyright violation. I am also uncomfortable with DGG's reasoning that this page asserted importance merely by being a product of a notable organization. Notability is not inherited. In my opinion, things need an assertion in their own right to escape deletion under A7. This specific case might have been close enough to list to AfD but the copyright violation makes relisting moot. Rossami (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn due to inherited notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. You should be well aware of this by now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an "argument" that I don't find compelling or convincing. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion of copyvio. DGG is of course more than welcome to write a new article on the topic. While notability is not in general inherited, that doesn't mean that being connected to something notable is not some claim of notability. (This is more than just wikilawyering. One reason that we allow a minimal claim of notability to avoid A7 is because it makes it much more likely that we will find something demonstrating actual notability. Connection to something notable frequently is correlated with other forms of actual notability). JoshuaZ (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Cogs – Request denied and request kinda approved (by IAR). I will place the article history in a userfied version in requester's user space. That ought to make everyone happy. Joy for all! – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am only asking for undeletion of edit history and (can even be protected) redirect per [60]. Thanks! Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected the article already, as it's pretty simple to just restore the history under it regardless and I'm pretty sure the redirect is uncontroversial enough. I don't really see restoration of the history under it as terribly useful, however. I'm open to being swayed on that, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. The suggested redirect target doesn't make any sense to me and I don't see any good reason to switch to a pure wiki deletion system on the sly here. The ex post facto redirect suggested is not a reasonable search term and does not benefit from the history of the page being attached (it would, in fact, confuse me to see an article about Toontown online redirected to GoW). The 'redirect and protect' results from the Warhammer AfD's and DRV's were compromises stemming from the fact that a significant amount of information that pertained to the parent existed in the redirected articles--history in that case could be used to selectively merge certain items to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) from a daughter article. It didn't define a new stance toward deletion or set the stage for the same sort of suggestion to be used where the 'parent' and 'daughter' articles have no topical relationship. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it wasn't a legitimate search term no one would have created the article in good faith in the first place. There's no reason not to undelete the edit history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh I don't think so. It seems that the validity of this as a redirect to Toontown was discussed and rejected by the closing admin. List of Cogs->toowntown seems like the most legitimate redirect. List of cogs to GOW, the current redirect seems like a real stretch but redirects are pretty harmless. But even if somehow we have decided that it is a legit redirect to GoW, that doesn't make the article history relevant. As for the article creation argument, people create articles all the time that may or may not be search terms for anything notable. Even if it is a legitimate search term for GoW, that still doesn't provide a reason to undelete the history. Protonk (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As it was a bad call, it is being reviewed here as there is no compelling need for the edit history to remain deleted. We don't gain anything from that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well that's cool, but in my opinion that means you have an affirmative case to make that it was a bad call in this DRV. We can't just assume that it was and then proceed from there. And assuming that you make this case, you would also have to detail why it would be a matter to bring to DRV and not just discuss with the admin. Protonk (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I always discuss with admins first, but after a day or so passed, when I elaborated on my request at a redirect and undeletion of the edit history, I did not receive a reply even though that admin was still editing. I have also of course notified that admin of this discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, no no no, I didn't mean that. I mean that if you aren't arguing that there is something wrong with the close procedurally, then maybe DRV isn't really the right venue. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I didn't see any consensus in the discussion that was adamantly or convincing against some kind of redirect without the edit history intact. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok. But now you still have to make an affirmative case that the refusal to redirect was a bad call and that the retention of the edit history somehow makes sense given the current redirect target. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that someone else went ahead and redirected after the AfD and has not been reverted shows that redirecting is not something being opposed. As to the edit history, those who originally created and worked on the article may be curious why it redirects there and the edit history is part of that story. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But thats the thing. If it redirected to Toontown, the edit history might be part of that story. but it redirects to GoW. And it is also beside the point. the article was deleted. If you are prepared to argue that the deletion was wrong, then you can of course do so. but if the article was deleted, there is no reason to go around the deletion policy and restore the article history just because someone came along and created a redirect. I can redirect any number of deleted articles. Me doing that doesn't suddenly void the reason for deletion. Protonk (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As much as I hate to use a WP:HARMLESS argument, having the edit history of redirectable articles undeleted should not be an issue unless if there is something copy vio or libelwise that must be kept from the public's eyes. Plus, one five day AfD with a dozen odd participants is not the end all of any article's content and what to do with it. If AfDs were definitive, then we would never allow renominations (and we do even though off-wiki sites mock us for it). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent). None of those are reasons to overturn the close. the length of time at AfD's is a matter for deletion policy. as is the suggestion of a pure wiki deletion proposal. How did the close violate procedure or policy? Protonk (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - All I am asking for is to keep the already in place and apparently uncontested redirect, but also just undeleting the edit history. If the close violated anything, it closed as an outright delete even though a number of those who had the bold delete in the arguments actually said in subsequent posts that they wouldn't oppose redirects and if something is redirected there's no real reason not to have the edit history undeleted as well. A discriminate list need not have its edit history removed if redirected. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted) unless there's an actual reason to restore access to the pagehistory. The AfD consensus was clear and I can find no process problems in that decision, nor any subsequent reasons here to overturn it. The assertion that the subsequent creation of a redirect is de facto evidence that the deletion discussion was in error or even that it was disputed is false. Rossami (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no clear consensus for a deletion rather than a redirect with undeleted edit history. Assuming that one AfD is the end all of the matter is false. One AfD is not definitively binding on what we can do with the content in question. There's no actual reason not to undelete the edit history and keep the redirect in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, no compelling reason to restore the history of the deleted content. Shereth 21:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No compelling reason or valid was provided to delete in the first place, which is why the history needs to be restored. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, consensus in the AfD discussion was clear that the article should be deleted, and that it did not contain content which was worth merging into another Wikipedia article (it has already been transwiki'd to a more appropriate place, [61]). --Stormie (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD i not the end all of the matter. As the consensus was unclear in the discussion, there's no valid reason not to undelete the edit history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe the consensus of that AfD discussion was even remotely unclear. --Stormie (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was; there was simply no valid or compelling reason presented for redlinking the article and keeping the edit history hidden from the public; hence, the drv. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Ort Institute – Overturn both – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Incorrect deletion under G11 and G12 criteria. The G11 and G12 criteria specifically state that a page can only be eligible for deletion trough these category if:

G11 It is blatant advertising
G12 the article is a literal copy of the external source

Both of these do not apply anymore. The Ort Institute has been fully rewritten in a non advertising way (Copy can be found here). Even though the previous version of the page was blatant advertising and a likely copyvio (i tagged it for removal myself three times), In its current state the article does not, to the best of my knowledge, violate any policy in such a way to warrant a CSD template.

I also notice that the deleting admin has also removed Bramson ORT College, a page which has been discussed at WP:ANI for a possible copyvio ([62]). However, Since that ANI notice was placed several editors have completely re-written that article in a way that i cannot imagine it is still a possible copyvio, although i have no way to check this anymore Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 16:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn both After some rather sketchy allegations had been made that the Bramson ORT College had been in violation of WP:Copyvio (based on duplicate text on a Wikipedia mirror), the article had been restored to a previous version as a stub. I had added to that stub material that is fully referenced from reliable and verifiable sources. The article does not contain a word that can possibly be deemed to violate a copyright. Even if there was a perception that the policy had been violated, WP:Copyvio provides rather clear instructions for dealing with copyright violations: 1) the infringing material should be removed. 2) if all (emphasis in original) of the material violates the policy, revert to a non-infringing prior version; and 3) delete only if none of these can be done. In both cases, the articles had been completely rewritten to address any possible copyvio issues. The speedy deleting administrator has failed to specify what material has infringed on a copyright and has failed to take the required steps to address the supposed violation without deletion. As the G4 G11/G12 requirements have not been met and as both deletions are completely out of process, both articles should be undeleted. Alansohn (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Ort Institute was deleted under WP:CSD#G11, not G4, and Bramson ORT College was WP:CSD#G12'd. Also, a page with the title ORT INSTITUTE was previously deleted under G11 as well and is currently at DRV here. ~~ORT INSTITUTE is salted due to repeated recreation, so I'm salting The Ort Institute pending the result of this DRV.~~ Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, already salted. lifebaka++ 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD justifications have been corrected. The argument that the deletions were improper stands. Alansohn (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops is also the word i need to use now. The template left on my talk page signaled it was deleted due to G4, but the log shows G11. Doesn't chance much to the case though, as the CSD sill does not apply. I updated the text to reflect the logs though. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn both Firstly The Ort Institute was completely rewritten from the previous article deleted at ORT INSTITUTE (which I have endorsed the deletion of at the previous DRV) and cannot see it as being a page which 'exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic'. It does not look to be a bad start to an article for me. Also it is not a valid G4 as the nominator has stated (no previous AFd) and because it is completely different to the previous version.
Secondly the Bramson ORT College article appears to have been rewritten from scratch and not using any copvio material. Again it now looks to be a good valid start for an article. Therefore I cannot see it as being a valid speedy deletion for copyvio. Davewild (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge discussion to the below DRV on ORT INSTITUTE. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Both articles were recreated in their entirety after the other DRV had been initiated, and both articles contained reliably-sourced material when they were arbitrarily and unjustifiably speedy deleted. The discussion of these speedy deletions, and that they violated Wikipedia policy, is taking place here. Alansohn (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Both - I was one of the admins who G11 speedied the original version of one of these at ORT INSTITUTE, but the version at the new name looks much, much less promotional. And with the rewrite removing the copyvios at the Bramson article, I would have to say that neither CSD reason properly applied to the versions specifically in question at this DRV. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Astro empires – Deletion endorsed, the arguments presented here against deletion have already been discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 4, nothing new has been offered here. – Stormie (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wuite popular among gamers, and GameZone will give it a complete review. I suggest the administrator restore the article and let editors add reception from GameZone later. RekishiEJ (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closer: It is my firm opinion that the consensus in the discussion indicates that the game is not yet notable, though the release of the GameZone review may change that. The review has yet to be posted to the site, however (yes, I did just go check), and so the article should not currently exist. I stated in the close that I'm willing to restore when the review is published. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from participant: I disagree with lifebaka. Notability was established early on via an article in the premier newspaper in Portugal. There was much discussion subsequently about whether other sources cited were notable, and I think it was agreed that some of the sources cited weren't notable. I feel the outcome should have been no consensus.--S Marshall (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of a previous DRV because of the sources pretty well invalidated the idea that the other sources established notability, in my mind. WP:CORP also explicitly requires multiple sources for notability, which I did not see evidence of. Of course, this changes when the GameZone review is published, which is why I stated I will undelete at that time. lifebaka++ 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think WP:CORP would apply to an organisation rather than a game, and I think WP:CCC addresses the previous deletion review.--S Marshall (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion at least until review show up, then either a restore or a relist might be a good solution. Hobit (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 August 2008[edit]

State of society – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 04:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

article apparently was deleted in en masse action. obviously without a look at the article. admin when asked gave no reasons for his 'weak keep arguments' opinion. 77.113.46.238 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no process problems in this deletion discussion. The creator of the article was asked for sources and never provided any to the satisfaction of the community. It is unclear whether the opinions of the suspiciously new users were discounted by the closer but it would have been within reasonable discretion if he/she had done so. (Incidentally, I am unclear what the nominator here means by the reference to "en masse action". This appears to be a routine AfD closure to me.) Rossami (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was not aware of any potential sockpuppetry when I closed this AfD, and it would not have changed the outcome either way. Cheers! lifebaka++ 11:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This discussion, while perhaps contentious, reached a pretty clear consensus. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roblox – Draft not ready for mainspace. – Kurykh 04:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason why it was deleted was for no 3-rd party referances. I have created a new one at User:Briguy9876/Roblox that address the issue, but I had to sacrafice a full article, because the game is fairly unkown and still in open beta Briguy9876 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't think it's ready to come out yet. Of the three sources in your draft, the first describes itself as "a user driven internet startups community" and encourages the creators of new ideas to post about themselves. The content itself reads more like a press release than independent commentary. The third is from the company's own website, again failing the independence test required for sources under WP:CORP. That leaves only the second reference, a "Lifestyles" article in Midweek, a small regional newspaper. I don't think that one small reference would be sufficient to keep the page from being re-deleted if you moved it into the main articlespace. This should sit for a while longer still. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. This closure was reasonable, because there was consensus on a number of good reasons for deletion, such as non-notability. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per the analysis by Rossami, there just is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notabiliy at this time. Davewild (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

MyAnimeList – Request acted upon. – Kurykh 04:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Asking for a simple history-only undelete for both main article and discussion page. A number of things were discussed in the talk page that I feel could be a good reference for the new article. Kei-clone (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. That seems reasonable, now that the new article is in place and not good only for deletion. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Undelete Reasonable request, can't see any reason not to. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Political society – Deletion Endorsed. The AfD in question was intended to consider an appealed speedy deletion as recreated content. Taken together, the first and second AfD demonstrate clear consensus that this article is not verifiable, as it lacks sources. Contrary to one opinion here, that is a valid reason for deletion; just read the introductory paragraph to Wikipedia's official policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, to verify that. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

reason for deletion was 'weak keep arguments'. i do not get why given references and sources were weak and admin did not answer to it. article during hot disscusion was improved significantly by several users and was nothing like at AfD placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.112.165.230 (talk • contribs)

Relist As far as I can see it, there was no real consensus, even if the sockpuppets (alleged) are removed from the tally. Unfortunately I cannot view the article in question as the cache is from July 28th. I have no idea if the claim is true that improvement was made, so an admin might want to review that. But as said, I think 4 deletes and 3 keeps (one delete was conditional only if the article was copyvio) are no real consensus and it might need a new discussion to be decided. So#Why ^{review me!} 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just so ya' know, it's usually better to notify the deleting admin in these cases. Luckily for you (I guess), I'm already a DRV regular. lifebaka++ 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: admin did not notify author about deletion. --77.114.227.188 (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were notified of both AfDs when they began. There is no requirement for closing admins to notify the authors again of the result. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that might not make sense to others. It appears that this and the nominator are User:Discourseur, who has a frequently changing dynamic IP around the ranges 77.112-115.*.* and keeps forgetting to sign in. I'm working under that assumption, at least. lifebaka++ 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no process problems in the first AFD discussion. The second discussion was held because at least one user thought that the recreated version was not sufficiently similar to the deleted version to qualify under CSD criterion G4 however based upon my own review of the deleted content, the recreated version suffered from the same lack of sourcing as the initially deleted version. This conclusion was endorsed in the Aug AfD discussion where sources were again requested but were not provided to the satisfaction of the community. No new evidence was presented in the recreated content or in the second discussion or here that would support the reconsideration of the previous two decisions. Rossami (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There was no consensus in the second AfD. A lack of sources isn't in and of itself a good reason to delete. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tom Manion – Non-controversial relist to allow review of new sources. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted by myself (and then redirected) after this AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Manion. I have just been approached on my talk page about this deletion and new sources have been provided there - see User talk:Davewild#Tom Manion, some of which are quite good. I am unsure myself, but am leaning towards relisting at AFD to get more opinions as the concerns raised in the first AFD included the weakness of the sourcing and the AFD had a quite thin participation. I would appreciate more opinions on the correct course of action rather than acting unilaterally, thanks. Davewild (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on the quality of the sources themselves, but I'd support a relist. Would likely to be useful to undelete and unredirect the article going into it, and maybe give a little time for improvement—two days seems good to me, but I admit arbitrary selection. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are two standard times: 5 days for prod, 7 for a Underconstruction tag. DGG (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ace (Doctor Who) – Snowball close endorsed. Mass deletion nomination of a cluster of articles including a GA had absolutely no chance to survive. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This debate was closed one hour after opening by a non-admin who is an active memeber of the wikiproject that maintains these articles. There was insuficient time to discuss the matter, and the closing admin was not in a position to act from a point of objectivity Fasach Nua (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closure - the nominator didn't even look at the articles before nominating them, instead doing so en-masse. Several articles did cite third-party sources, and one was even a GA. En-masse nominations usually fail because of the wide disparity of article quality, and this is no exception. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm waffling between endorsing and reopening; I think I'll go with reopen, simply due to the short time between the nomination and closure. Two hours isn't enough time to build a proper consensus for WP:SNOWing, IMO. Nothing really wrong with it otherwise, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how long this went, two closures were possible: 1) trainwreck, nominate individually where appropriate or 2) keep, nominate individually where appropriate. There is no point to reopening a mass nomination. GRBerry 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; five keeps over a collection of articles that includes a GA. No chance of this closing as a mass delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was a pointless train-wreck waiting to happen, come hell or high water there's no way that the GA article would be deleted, Donna Noble shouldn't be in an AFD either if these are anything to go by. There's no way so many character articles could realistically be discussed properly in a single AFD, and since it seems a bunch of them were just picked up and flung in the bucket I see no reason why anyone should have to slog through them just to prevent their deletion. Someone another 16:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without any opinion as to the content or discussion, the manner of closure as described by Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) is wholly inappropriate. I suggest either overturning as out of course, or re-opening and re-publishing the AFD to allow either (a) further community discussion or (b) unbiased administrative closure without any possible overtures of impropriety. Regardless of projected outcome, the closure was bad in the face of openness and objectivity and should not be allowed to set a worrisome precedent. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it's the best closure in the world, but it's a valid speedy keep, no matter who did it. The precedence that mass AfDs that include GA-class articles can be speedy kept by anyone after five keep votes (with no deletes besides the nominator) doesn't strike me as a bad one; this really was an awful AfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Nominating user has not really looked at the articles he nominated. As pointed out above, there were several B- and even a GA-class article amongst them, all sourced and thus not failing WP:V or WP:RS as claimed by the nominator. And WP:CRUFT, even if often claimed, is not a valid reason for deletion but a interpretation of WP:NOT and is not a policy or guideline and there is no broad consensus over it. So the AfD was not within any reason and as for example GAs are almost never deleted there was not a valid reason to assume it would be different here. The nominator has failed to specify reasons for the articles themselves, instead trying to delete a dozen articles with claims that are only partly true for some of the articles and are completely wrong for others. If I went and picked a dozen articles from the main page and list them for deletion claiming they all fail WP:V and WP:RS and are fancruft, such an AfD would be SNOWed within minutes and that would be correct. The situation is the same here. So#Why ^{review me!} 17:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural point, no opinion on the deletion review. If the decision is to relist it would be better to list one or two of the nominated articles individually rather than the mass nomination. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, I don't think anyone objects to individual articles being relisted. That can be done without this DRV. This DRV is about the mass AfD as it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure No possiblity that debate was going to end in all the articles being deleted (or almost certainly any of them in my opinion), it would either be a trainwreck or keep all. Regardless of who actually closed the debate the decision itself was correct. Cannot recommend renominating seperately either in view of the sourcing that seems to be available on the ones I looked at. Davewild (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Sceptre probably should have left the close to somebody totally uninvolved with all things Dr. Who related. This kind of mass nomination of articles of assorted notability is never a good idea. Some of those listed probably should be renominated individually. RMHED (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure. That has to be the most unnecessary AfD I've seen. I'm shocked that it would go to DRV. Many of the articles in question are well written, well referenced, and far to long to have the material go back to Doctor Who which is already too long as it is. Perhaps nominator should follow guidelines and nominate a single article, rather than all. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure. Textbook WP:SNOWBALL case; this was an indiscriminate mass-nomination which featured well-sourced articles and a GA-class article. Such nomnation deserve to be speedy closed, no matter by whom. — Edokter • Talk • 23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, clearly obvious WP:SNOWBALL keep, combined with allegations of WP:POINT violations by the nominator. Nothing useful or good could possibly have come out of that AfD discussion. --Stormie (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, many of the articles in question do need work to include more/any reliable citations. However, their content is largely well-written and editors are aware these articles need improving thanks to the assessments visable on their talk pages. Also, I think strong arguments would have been made that would have resulted in keeping each individual article. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trip Lee – Recreation allowed and draft article moved into mainspace. – Eluchil404 (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original Trip Lee page was unsourced and not notable. I have created a new version with some sources (independent). The artist is musically notable having now broken into the Billboard Top 200 Album sales and the Billboard Christian Top 10, both of which I have external documentation listed. My new version is at User:Dimsim da man/Trip Lee, where User:TexasAndroid was kind enough to restore/merge the old articles history. The last version of this article before deletion is here. Thank you for your time and attention. Aquatiki (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. The artist's album reaching the Billboard charts certainly provides notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace Nice work, userspace version much improved on former deleted version, with notability now established. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move the above copy to mainspace, seems to at least criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC with multiple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - Good work, & glad to see you brought this here per my suggestion at RFPP. VegaDark (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - Great improvement on the deleted version, good work. Wiw8 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As an admin who over a year ago G4 speedied a recreation of this article, I was not certain if the new information was enough to overturn the original AFD, and felt that a DRV would be best to get consensous on that overturn. I suggested this to the author of the new version, and directed him to DRV. DRV having shown a fairly unambiguous overturn of the original AFD, based on the new information, I have now moved the article back into place, including all it's history, and undone the salting in the process. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kulim (Malaysia) Berhad – New article has already been created in place which does not suffer from the original's advertising/copyvio problems – Stormie (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

--Stormie (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still new and probably make mistake in update article in wikipedia. I really hope that you can unblock this page so I can update information about Kulim' plantation company so can be share with all people about it. Thank You Kulim (Malaysia) Berhad (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, but I deleted the above user's userpage as the content was nearly identical to the deleted version. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this, it was pure spam, looked like a copyright violation too although i didn't check, unprotected now jimfbleak (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article title is now unprotected so you can create a new article there. However would suggest following the Wikipedia:Amnesia test and paying particular attention on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before rewriting an article. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 August 2008[edit]

All Stars (video game) – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted per apparent lack of notability, I say, however, that the subject has substancial notability since it's one of the most popular mods for C&C Generals and has even been recommended by the developers of the original game in an official post on the official C&C site. MrStalker ^(talk) 21:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not afd round 2, no process issues raised, just disagreement with the outcome. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Original deletion wabased on a misinterpretation of the notability and reliable sources guidelines; the sourcing definitely met the smell test for reliability in the context of a game mod, and from an outsider's perspective (I've never played C&C), this mod seems to meet the notability threshold based on the sources. The guidelines leave room for judgment calls, but the generic delete comments and the deletion nomination did not seem to go any deeper than the single sentence in the video game-specific recommending against (not ruling out) the kinds of sources used.--ragesoss (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no reliable sources establishing notability were present in the article, none were presented during the AfD discussion, and none have been presented here, so I see absolutely no problem with the AfD closure. If it does possess "substancial notability", I recommend you present reliable sources demonstrating that to DRV. --Stormie (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, on the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? --Stormie (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Short answer is I forgot. Sorry. No point doing that now right? --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — As a non–admin who has made his recommendation in the corresponding AfD discussion and who has been invited to participate in this discussion, I have made the following observations:

The nominator of this deletion review did not contact the closing admin (jonny-mt) as to exactly why the article was deleted; that is, what caused said admin to decide to delete the article past citing an "apparent lack of notability."
The reason stated by closing admin as to the deletion of the article seems insufficient and open to interpretation (as made clear with usage of the qualitative word apparent).
It does not seem that any new information has come to light since the article's deletion, nor has there been any indication of any such information.
Referring to WP:ANI for a deleted article would not be the most appropriate alternate venue for a deletion dispute to occur.

Having made those observations, I feel that the user challenging this deletion is in a disagreement with the AfD's outcome and is going right to a deletion review in an attempt to re-argue what has been stated in the AfD discussion, i.e. AfD Round 2. However, the closing admin did not make it clear as to explaining why the article was deleted (i.e. not indicating the flaws in the arguments made by the users, not linking valid arguments to policy and guidelines, using "weasel words" like apparent). Therefore, I find fault in both the user requesting the deletion review and the AfD's closing admin.

I recommend that other admin take a look at the AfD discussion and draw conclusions based on those arguments. I remain neutral in regards with the endorsement or non-endorsement of the deletion. In addition, I stand by the arguments I have made in the AfD discussion. MuZemike (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the closing admin, let me address a few of the points raised above. Naturally, these are things I would have explained had the issue been discussed with me before bringing it to deletion review, but I'm not particularly fussed by that.
- It seems pretty clear to me that the nominator is contesting my close not because they believe it was performed contrary to Wikipedia deletion procedure but instead because they contest that the article is non-notable.
- My use of the term "apparent" in my close is simply to reflect that I am not handing down a judgment when I close an AfD--rather, I am measuring the rough consensus reached by the discussion. While I do generally take a quick look through the article to make sure no glaring points have been missed, I keep this to a minimum in order to maintain the objectivity required to do the close.
- In measuring the rough consensus in the discussion, I do not count "votes" but instead give appropriate weight to the comments provided. However, were I to count votes here, it should be noted that there were two comments stating that the article subject was non-notable, one comment stating that the article was non-verifiable, and one comment stating that sufficient sources were provided to establish notablity. Naturally, this does not count the nomination, which cites both notability and verifiability as reasons for deletion.
- In response to ragesoss's comment above that I mis-interpreted the notability and reliable sources guidelines, I would like to point out once again that my job is to measure policy-based consensus. In this regard, it meant giving weight to the policy-based arguments presented by MuZemike and taking into consideration the fact that two comments in favor of deletion were presented with full knowledge of these sources.
- While I understand that a full analysis of the discussion might be helpful, I have found that it is only really useful in close calls or in explaining no consensus closes (such as this one, which I closed yesterday, this one, which I closed about a month ago, or this one from early June). For discussions like these that I consider self-apparent, there's not much benefit to spending twenty minutes typing up a close.

I hope this helps to clear things up. --jonny-m t 01:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My intention with this nomination was to have it relisted so a broader consensus can be established. The article was deleted per lack of notablity, but from where I stand there is a clear notability as it has been featured on the official C&C site. I think you can see my dilemma. If that is not enough, well then, fine. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Though I didn't participate, I did look at the sources and was unimpressed. WP:Notability is specifically not about popularity, it's about significant coverage in reliable sources, if a thousand reliable sources 'point' to the game in question then good for the game, but it doesn't provide any materials to build an article with. Someone another 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue for challenging deletion decisions by explaining how the deletion process has not been followed properly, not by advancing new arguments (or repeating old ones) about the notability etc. of the subject. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

ORT INSTITUTE – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 18:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I'm not skilled at this but I'm just asking that you reconsider the rapid delete of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ORT_INSTITUTE Its jsut a not for profit school located in skokie, illinois. not seeking to advertize, simply inform. I tried reaching the administrator and was unable to do so to discuss this directly. The page mirrors the posting from our sister school bramson ort college http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bramson_ORT_College which has long been successfully referenced on wikipedia. I believe that hte president is set by the sister school's posting that our's is an appropriate posting thank you, steve Sapplebaum (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Sorry but the article did look promotional (indeed it looked like it had been copied from somewhere but can't find evidence of that). I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Spam which explains that wikipedia is not here to be used for the promotion of any organisation. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Much of this is a copy of Bramson ORT College, which looks to be copied from the catalog at [63] --Kbdank71 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted the latter as a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Par being the person why tagged it multiple times. The article is likely a copy of Bramson ORT College. I asked the deleting admin (User:TexasAndroid) to have a look at that article. IF the articles are similar (Or almost identical), i wonder if the second article should not be removed as well. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse with extreme prejudice. I tried to put a db-copyvio tag on the Bramson ORT College article, and the spam blacklist wouldn't let me do that because the copyvio is from a blacklisted site. If the site it's copied from is blacklisted as spam, we sure don't want the article here. Corvus cornix_talk 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice There has been some discussion about this on my talk page, which might or might not be relevant. I however, belief that this is an Good faith editor for now. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice The page has been re-created at The Ort Institute in correspondence between me and the original author. Originally the author believed ORT INSTITUTE was a good article because it was based upon a very similar existing one, which happened to be a low quality (spam) article. I am certain that this recreation meets all the appropriate guidelines in a manner that it will not be applicable for CSD/AFD/PROD tags. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting us know. I've deleted that too. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Discussion of the improper deletion of the Bramson ORT College and the recreated The Ort Institute articles is now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 7

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

Wikijob – Overturned and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikijob 2. – Chick Bowen 19:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion challenged by another user. Wikijob is an article created by Redsuperted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose contributions to the project consist almost entirely of this article and promoting the website (e.g. [64], one of a series of gratuitous links that ended up with the site being blacklisted per [65], although the user has now added a second domain name so bypassed the blacklisting for the link in the article). I speedied the article during AfD because the content was not significantly different from the version whose deletion was endorsed in April, it appears to be essentially the same userspace copy that was rejected then with only minor changes (including turning the first word into a hotlink to the site under its new domain name). It read to me, then and now, as blatant advertising, and the user admits to the conflict of interest. Just to be completely up front, though, here it is for review. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Guy - you interupted a perfectly legitimate debate during AfD on whether or not this article should be allowed on wikipedia - you deleted the article, you deleted the discussion - you deleted everything because you have some kind of vendetta against this site. You also left me a private message stating I should "stay away" from wikipedia - well I don't think you have the right to do this. You are not Wikipedia's pricate police man. During the previous AfD review 3 editors agreed that the site should be kept because the references in the article were substantial, and they are - they include national newspapers, university careers offices and trade press. I find it very ignorant and arogant of you that you just deleted this debate. Put the article back and let people decide if it should be kept - further more, I agree I previously added some link to wikijob on other articles. I was new to wikipedia, and this was a mistake. People change. Not everyone understands wikipedia from day one. We are not all editors with the power to delete all articles at will. Give me a break. Let people have a voice. Redsuperted (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vendetta is a word that gets thrown around a lot here, and I suggest you remove the terminology. Discuss the article, not any individual. Corvus cornix_talk 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And all of this means we should undelete why? --Smashville^BONK! 21:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - because (1) Other than Guy, everyone who had taken part in the AfD thought this article was notable. (2) The references to the article are notable sources. (3) The site is as notable as other sites that have profiles on Wikipedia - such as ROF and "Thestudentroom". (4) I have been labelled a spammer and I take offence - I made a mistake when I joined wikipedia and spammed. It was a mistake. Guy has misunderstood me and this article and I feel he has used his authority to ban my web address and ban this article unfairly. I'm asking for the www.wikijob.co.uk address to be released from the blacklist and a debate to be allowed on the legitimacy of this article. (5) Apart from re-stating that this article was removed back in April, Guy doesn't offer any serious reason why this article should be removed, and as you know consensus can change. Redsuperted (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Redsuperted, you are a single purpose account, your contributions to Wikipedia consist solely of promoting your site, the article was a valid WP:CSD#G4 as a repost of content that had been deleted and reviewed in April. You are a spammer, an abuser of Wikipedia for your own perosnal gain, and you need to go away. You need to go away because you were asked to stop and you haven't, instead of stopping you posted the article that had been reviewed by deletion review and deletion endorsed. You might have hoped nobody was looking, it turns out they were. You knew the text had been reviewed by deletion review a couple of monoths ago, you knew that as an editor with a self-confessed WP:COI you should not be creating this article, and yet you did it anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was NOT a repost of content. It was an edited version of the article you took down without allowing debate the first time round. Read the actual article as it stands now - it is objective, truthful, 100% fact. Everything is referenced. It discuss a site called WikiJob that is a very innovative concept in graduate jobs. I am NOT a spammer, I just think this article is worthy for wikipedia. This article has been posted twice. That does not make it spam. That makes this an aritcle that is trying for a second time to get an article past a very unforgiving editor - the purpose of wikipedia is to allow anyone to add content. Well Mr, I want to add this content, and other editors believe it is of value so let there be a debate, that's all I'm asking. I'm not forcing this article on to Wikipedia, but I am asking you to please let people other than you make this decision. ....AND PLEASE, don't tell me I need to go away. I'm pretty sure you are not the owner of wikipedia, and I'm certain you can't tell me to leave a website. Especially the world's most open website. That is not polite, not civil, and just plain ludicrous. Redsuperted (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comparing [66] (the version deleted and the deletion endorsed by DRV in April) to [67] (the version deleted just now), they certainly seem to be substantially identical in content. --Stormie (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn The consensus of the Afd was clearly either keep, or no consensus. A Speedy deletion on G4 grounds doesn't seem appropriate, as the previous deletion was speedy (and, incidently, also by Guy). There was a previous deletion review, but there was enough time for consensus to change, and the deletion discussion seems to suggest that it has. I don't think a G11 speedy deletion was appropriate, as the article didn't seem to me to be obviously advertising, and as argued in the deletion discussion, I feel there are enough sources to suggest notability, so an encyclopedia article on the subject is possible. Also, I feel that if speedy deletion was appropriate, the criteria should have been raised in the deletion discussion, so it could be contested. I feel the article should be undeleted, and relisted for deletion, to allow a full discussion of the grounds for deletion. Silverfish (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and relist to AFD - it appears that there was no consensus to delete at all in the recent AFD that was apparently cut short by a speedy deletion. Although editors shouldn't be creating articles where there is a conflict of interest, at this stage it isn't really relevant who created it as long as the article is well-sourced and written from a neutral point of view, which can be determined in the AFD. Aside, although it may be true that the easiest course of action when dealing with editors who have caused problems (such as spamming) in the past is to vigilantly delete any further references they add, but part of remaining neutral is to judge each article purely on its own merits and conformance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and not by the credibility or history of its creator. Wiw8 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-open the AFD - no grounds for speedy deletion here. While it may have been a recreation of a deleted article, the early comments in the AFD suggest that it may now pass our notability policies; or perhaps consensus has changed. In any case, I see no need for a speedy deletion; let the AFD run its course, and if there is then still a consensus that the article is unencyclopaedic, it can be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn we can deal with spammers by consensus. If this had been by a new admin, I'd call it beginner's failure to understand policy. . DGG (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speeding an article at AfD which looked like it was going to be kept seems wrong. Let AfD finish and some other admin should close. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a WP:CSD#G4 repost of a spam article by the website's owner that had already beenr eviewed in exactly that form a couple of months ago. Why shoulod we reward the spammer for simply ignoring that and waiting until everyone's back was turned? Guy (Help!) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn As I cannot see the article in question, I can only make a judgment based on the discussion at AfD. The gist of the discussion at AfD seems to be that the article might need improvement, but that there was no justification to delete the article. The AfD, as it had progressed to the point where the article was deleted, did not demonstrate a consensus for deletion. Nor do any of the arguments for speedy deletion appear to trump the consensus of the community for retention. As the deletion was out of process, the deletion should be overturned and the article restored to reflect consensus. Alansohn (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CSD#G4 is only applicable to content deleted by discussion, which means that a G4 deletion was out of process here (DRV is designed to review the process rather than the content, so an endorsement doesn't count). The vast majority of my speedies are G11, but had I come across this article without knowing the history or seeing the AfD, I would have probably let it be. Had I come across it knowing that it's written by an apparent SPA, has been deleted under various names, and that the link is blacklisted on Meta, however, I can't say with 100% certainty that I would.
For the benefit of those who can't view the deleted content, here is the portion that I would call promotional in nature. It composes a little less than half of the article as deleted.
Discussion board
The messageboard is a key feature of the site, allowing students and graduates to exchange information about interviews they are currently applying for or preparing for. This part of the site was actually launched before the core wiki sections, and was originally called NotGotAJobYet. The messageboard is in fact still accessable via the original web address notgotajobyet.co.uk^[5].
This board has grown in popularity rapidly since implementation and continues to receive many daily posts from various new as well as long term users. Posts debate interview technique and necessary preparation, detail assessment days for city firms and discuss the benefits of specific companies compared to others. Users value the messageboards because the information they receive comes from their peers, rather than from companies or recruiters where it can often be limited and highly corporate.

--jonny-m t 09:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After the article is restored, any material that is primarily promotional in nature can be reworded or removed. Alansohn (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I created the article. It is the first and only wikipedia article I have created. I used Wikipedia articles on other similar websites as a guide when writing the article for WikiJob. It was not my intention to overly promote WikiJob. If anyone disagrees with the tone or content, I am quite prepared for them to edit this article, or to edit myself. Redsuperted (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a discussion, the deletion review in April which endorsed deletion. Redsuperted is being slightly disingenuous when he says it is the first and only article he created; he also added links to the site to numerous articles, admitted to being associated with the site and asked for help with adding links. He is a spammer. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn clearly should have been left to run its course. Viridae ^Talk 09:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note JzG added the site's URLs to the local blacklist ([68], [69]); should this article be restored - even if sent straight to AFD - the entries will need to be removed from the blacklist to enable this. Neıl ☄ 09:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, then delete properly through AFD. Kusma (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the closing admins job to measure consensus, and not just to enforce his own opinion? What seems to have happend here is the exakt opposite. --MrStalker ^(talk) 10:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are indeed wrong. The closing admin's job in deletion debates is to enforce policy and reflect upon the discussion of policy within the debate. This is not a !vote process. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What, so you're saying that the admins job isn't to measure consensus? Then what's the point with an AfD in the first place? From what I've heard consensus create policy, not the other way around. I'm confused here. --MrStalker ^(talk) 21:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a vote count no, but a weighing up of arguments, yes. While the ultimate goal is to conform to policy, the problem is that interpretation of policy can vary. Which is why the closing admin's job is to consider all arguments presented in the debate, and make a judgement as to the nature of the overall consensus, or alternatively, lack thereof. It is therefore somewhat concerning to hear an admin give "why should we reward a spammer" as a reason for consensus to be ignored and an article to be deleted. Wiw8 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Let the community review the references Guy deleted to see if the site meets WP:WEB. I'm skeptical that such a site would have notable references, but no one is served by Guy blasting the article before anyone people can fully assess the merits of the article on their own. That shows a lack of trust in the judgment of his wiki-colleagues, IMO.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist to AfD. There were no prior XfD discussions closing with a "delete" decision so criterion G4 could not be appropriately applied. The DRV endorsement of the speedy-deletion of the prior version can not substantiate a re-deletion under criterion G4. However, the prior deletion justification could theoretically apply. In this case, the prior speedy-deletions cited A7 and G11 respectively. The comments which had already been posted to the aborted AfD discussion, however, were sufficient to raise reasonable doubt and to justify the full AfD discussion. When in doubt, let AfDs run.
The conflict of interest issues are serious but those are for AfD to sort out. Being edited by a person with a conflict of interest is not a speedy-deletion criterion.
Incidentally, the premature closure here was egregious. These attempts to short-cut the process undermine the credibility of the process itself and create far more work and hard-feelings that could possibly be "avoided". Process is important. We built these processes for a reason. Let the discussion work. Rossami (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "World Notes THE PHILIPPINES," TIME (Jun. 22, 1987).
^ Mila D. Aguilar, Journey: An Autobiography in Verse, 1964-1995 (University of the Philippines Press, 1996), 33.
^ The late Michae, Dictionary of the Modern Politics of South-East Asia (Routledge, 1996), 187.
^ William Chapman, Inside the Philippine Revolution: The New People's Army and Its Struggle for Power (I.B.Tauris, 1988), 79.
^ http: //www.notgotajobyet.co.uk Notgotajobyet

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

Katie Reider – Keep (or its variants) endorsed. – Kurykh 05:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus default to keep was affected by SPA sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brhannan where it was shown that this user and his blatant sock IP only edited the Katie Reider AfD (they did not edit WP prior to this AfD and have since ceased editing). AfD was closed by Sean Whitton, and after the blocks were set in place, I contacted Sean here to clarify whether their votes affected the outcome. I received no response. I would like the article deleted if the socks affected the vote, because no consensus minus two keeps means delete. MSJapan (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure Even with the sockpuppets removed I still cannot see a consensus to delete from that AFD. With them included I thought the debate leaned towards keep and without them it still looks like a no consensus over whether or not she meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Yes, it's a memorial, but it has more sources than many articles on musicians that have all three fans clamouring to keep. Review in a year if you want, by that time the historical perspective may be clearer one way or the other. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep If you review the entry discussion, you'll note that I voted "Keep" only once. You'll also note elsewhere in Wikipedia that MSJapan's claims of "sock puppeting" were ignored by the admins because they were unfounded. My contributions to Wikipedia have no bearing on the relevance of this entry, which is well documented. With respect to the above-mentioned's motivation, please see: this. Nomad 2 (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep As noted in the previous discussion after the first AfD, this artist has been the subject of many non-trivial articles over the last 10 years, not the least of which is this article in the New York Times; [70] . She is currently in rotation on Sirius Sattelite Radio. She has won many CAMMY awards (I'll have to do some research but I believe more than any other artist in Cincinnati, including Bootsy Collins, Over The Rhine, 98 Degrees, The Afghan Whigs, Peter Frampton, etc.). Her songs were featured in multiple national television shows. All of this was noted in the initial discussion. I don't know why we are still having it. She meets several of the criteria for notability without question. I appreciate User:MSJapan's diligence at keeping wikipedia free of non-notable, trivial vanity articles but I think it has been established that this is not one. Note It has been raised in a previous AfD discussion that my editing of and commenting on articles related to Blue Jordan Records may not be in compliance with Wikipedia's "conflict of interest" policy by virtue of my username but I stated then and reiterate now that I am not an employee or owner of Blue Jordan Records, just an enthusiastic supporter. Bluejordan (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, it has not been made out that behaviour at the AFD materially affected its result. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anna Borkowska – Article rewritten by Ecoleetage, in the process finding an actress by the same name. Page turned into a dab. No further action necessary. – lifebaka++ 18:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A notable article, speedy deleted three times by User:Gamaliel and than locked by him to prevent recreation. Following our discussion the article was rewritten from scratch to dissuade any suspicion of copyright infringement. All statements made at source were re-worded except one, due to its significance. The article was never nominated under AfD so that it could be discussed. Meanwhile, the unilateral decision to speedy delete for the third time (with a repeated claim of WP:CV) could use an oversight. Please review. Poeticbent talk 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my deletions. This editor used copyrighted material as a template for the article, in some sections barely changing a word or two. I think Wikipedia should have an article on this person, but this isn't the way to do it. The copyright violation should not be restored. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please be advised that I took the initiative to be bold and I rewrote the article. The source that was the question of contention was not included in the article. Since it was salted (an action that I feel was excessive and a bit hostile -- aren't we supposed to work together?), I did an end run and turned up with two new articles for the price of one. You can find it at Anna Borkowska (Sister Bertranda) plus a new Anna Borkowska (actress) article, too. Someone may want to disambiguate the two Annas. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nitzan Haroz – Restored as a contested PROD. – lifebaka++ 17:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contesting prod; Haroz is the principal trombonist for the Philadelphia Orchestra and performs on his own, e.g., [71]. He's also listed at WP:AR1. Chubbles (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bootb – Overturned; since consensus was not clear on whether to deliver it to AfD, someone can do this independently of this discussion if they desire. – —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was speedy deleted without giving any reasons and not under speedy deletion criteria. The deleting admin did not reply.

The subject is notable enough to be into Wikipedia (this was proved by reference links and can be easily checked with Google). I'm asking to create an apropriate forum to discuss if this article should really be deleted. If any corrections should be done to fit fit encyclopedia criteria, this can be easily done. Reflecta (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you haven't raised any issues with the speedy. What specifically was wrong about it? Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just updated description. Sorry for inconvenience. Reflecta (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, takin' a look at the article, I'm going to have to !vote to overturn. A good portion of the article was spam-ish, true, but the lede and first section were fine. A better solution would have been to trim the spam parts and leave the rest (or pursue other avenues of deletion). Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Somewhat promotional in tone but not enough to warrant a G11. RMHED (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Fits the normal criteria of spam; starts with the company name linked to the website, promotional tone, sourced from prweb and other non-independent sources, written by WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn G11 requires it to "exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten"--all this needs is some trimming. We do not speedy because an article is spam, we speedy because its hopelessly spammy and impossible to easily rewrite. DGG (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Maybe not blatant enough for a speedy. Restore, then trim the spam and/or send it to AfD. There is a fair chance that the community will say delete. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD. Not entirely spammy, may be worthwhile. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of fascist movements by country – Retention endorsed. – Kurykh 05:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

None of the keep votes addressed the salient fact that there are zero references for any of the articles. We don't allow unsourced material about living people; extend it to currently operating groups. It's more worrying when "fascist" is a term one does not normally apply to onesself because of its negative connotations. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep closure, the linked articles seem to be mostly sourced, and it should be possible to use these sources to the list to verify the information in the list. You're free to remove those where the article doesn't support a mention in this list, but AFD is not cleanup. Kusma (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus in the AfD was pretty clear there. Please remember that DRV is not an AfD redux. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The consensus was 9-3 including the nominator; If Sceptre want to expand BLP to Nonbio articles about of Nonliving things other than People he should try for such a policy change, though I don't know what the policy could be called. 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse Closure Consensus was very clear, BLP has never, and does not, apply to organisations. Davewild (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McLibel. Ethical requirement applies. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No side here, just noting that the primary concern may be addressed with the work being done on List_of_fascist_movements_by_country_G-M. Presuming others interested in these lists remaining work up the other sections up to this level of quality and sourcing everything should be alright. (note that at this time I am not finished, but you can see a sample of what I'm doing at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fascist_movements_by_country_G-M&diff=230043433&oldid=230030578. Note that User:Stlemur also put some help in. —— nix eagle 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close this legal paranoia is unconvincing.. it's good for us to remove libel when we see it, yes. But not to delete articles because there could theoretically be libel, but we don't actually have any examples or anything. A bunch of superscript blue numbers does absolutely nothing to remove libel from an article... dealing with libel involves actually reading the article and identifying libel, then removing it. A blue number after a claim doesn't at all mean it's true and verifiable. --Rividian (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Scepter has blanked the articles per WP:V. Out of principle I must agree that this is acceptable... the burden of proof is on people restoring content to find sources. However... some of these are bound to be easily referencable... can't somebody get on this? I guess I will eventually despite having little interest in this topic. --Rividian (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are sources already, just not in the list article, for most of the claims in this article. I don't think WP:V disallows sources that are one click away. Kusma (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close unblank. BLP doesn't apply here. Maybe we need a new policy, but if so it should come from the legal wing. Hobit (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Many thanks to the editors working on clean-up too. Dance With The Devil (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my closure. No evidence was provided of libel, rather an empty assertion. We do not delete articles on this basis; the community largely agrees with this, consensus of this was apparent, and I closed that way. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. No evidence of libel.Biophys (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fort Myers Miracles players (bundle nomination) – Although the bad-faith remarks of the requester of this review are cause for concern, and to be honest made me somewhat disinclined to acquiesce to their position, there seems more than ample reason to find that this closing was improper. Though not overtly so. I do think the closer acted in good faith and probably felt that his decision was honest and proper. But at the end of the day, as many good wikipedians have opined here, there was no consensus in the discussion, and the underlying policy which was the stated basis for the closing decision has been the subject of ongoing controversy. As DGG very well stated, the closing administrator does not get to choose sides and put one side of an ongoing policy debate over another; if the AfD discussion did not do that already, then there was no consensus. Closing accordingly: overturn all. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Anthony Slama (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Brian Dinkelman (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Robert Delaney (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Brandon Roberts (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Rene Tosoni (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Edward Ovalle (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Steve Singleton (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Daniel Lehmann (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Matthew Williams (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Spencer Steedley (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Oswaldo Sosa (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Blair Erickson (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Cole Devries (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Alex Burnett (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Wilson Ramos (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Danny Hernandez (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
Tyler Robertson (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`
All received strong support in their articles for deletion debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players). Unfortunately, too much power has been given to an egomaniac who just does whatever he wants, (User:Wizardman.) and they were all deleted. I strongly believe they should all be restored, and I strongly believe that Wizardman should lose his administrating powers. He deleted a lot of good articles that day, and I'm sure he's done it before.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. I think it might be a bit much to call him an egomaniac who does whatever he wants. Numerically, it seems he was more or less justified in doing what he did, but if it were me, I would probably have closed it with no consensus. It appears that even by the time they'd all stopped debating, nothing other than an impasse was arrived at. Also, as an adjunct, this whole mess seemed to result from unclear policy, but I almost think WP:IAR should have been cited during the debate. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted. None of these articles were sourced at all. As such, per WP:V, the content of every one of them could have been deleted in their entirety. WP:BIO calls for significant coverage in independent reliable sources and this was definitely not met in these articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted. Extra support came from Jose Mijares (which i closed as keep) and the one from yesterday (whose name I don't even remember), which I restored. Reviewing the AfD the rest of them I still believe should be deleted. It sounds like you're tryign to use DRV as AFD part 2, which generally doesn't work. Wizardman 13:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] If anyone, I'd think the person above you was doing that even more than the (unnecessarily belligerent) requester, and it's a paradigm we should probably try to break. However, the idea here is not that the articles should or should not have been deleted (and I think they probably should have been, myself), as that is scarcely relevant here in my opinion. It's that there was no actual consensus in the AfD discussion and so it should not have been closed with consensus. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Wizardman is not entitled to do what he did, decide which of two disputed policies is controlling/ The community is entitled to do that and nobody individually is. The closing admin is entitled only to evaluate their decision (rejecting irrelevant arguments, which is why it takes someone with knowledge of policy.) As he said himself "this was a tough one to close" and since the policy issue is unresolved, the corresponding close is non-consensus. If whoever closes a afd on one of these baseball items closes according to what he thinks is the better policy, then we will have random closings, or else a competition to close by those with an agenda. Maybe I should start closing them, as non-consensus, for I do not know which side is right and I am not reluctant to say so. DGG (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure - all unsourced, no significant coverage and DRV is not AFD2. And the editor that brought this to DRV could do with a nice cup of tea and a sit down, by the looks of it. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure what you mean by unsourced. I showed-- with every single entry-- that my sources were the Miracle website and Minor league Baseball.com. What more did you want?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] WP:BIO asks for "substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn There was substantial support in the debate for keeping several of the players involved, and Wizardman's close ignored that and focused on his interpretation of an ongoing policy debate. The AFD itself with it's confusing mass of names was improper and the different players should have been listed separately so they could each be evaluated on there own merits. These pages should not have been deleted until a consensus could emerge within the project as to baseball notability guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] very weak overturn I think these probably shouldn't have been allowed to progress as a single AfD and ideally they wouldn't have been nominated without some sense of consensus about notability of minor-league players was established. Some of these players were in all-star games too. I think it was a hard close, but given all the problems with the submission and the !votes, I think it should have been no consensus. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure per Wknight94. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Chicago musicals – Deletion endorsed. Consensus is clearly against categories so broadly defined. A narrower one might be a different story. – Chick Bowen 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Chicago musicals was deleted as part of the mass discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_6#Category:Musicals_by_nationality. This group of categories was deleted in part because they were ambiguous in nature. It was unclear if the category designated where the musical premiered, where it had its most prominent extended run, where it was set, where it was composed, etc. I intend to create a category Category:Musicals with extended Chicago engagements for the purpose of managing musicals that have extended runs in Chicago. I mentioned the fact that I run WP:CHICAGO using bots that track article activity based on their inclusion of categories. Many musicals that have extended runs in Chicago are important to our project as a subcategory of Category:Culture of Chicago, Illinois. I have been unable to do anything related to musicals for our project. In the debate, the fact that even if the category were clearly defined to mean locations where a musical had a notable run, the category should be deleted because each successful musical would have numerous categories (for each city it was performed in). There is great difficulty in determining where to draw the line on significant performance runs, but I do not believe any of the musicals in the category at the time of the Chicago musicals category deletion were insignificant runs. User:Kbdank71 closed the debate as delete on January 14. The musicals in the category at the time included The Color Purple (musical)‎, Jersey Boys‎, and Wicked (musical)‎. In terms of whether the category has encyclopedic value, each of these articles has significant sections for which WP:CHICAGO members can provide assistance. I need this category to run the project. As a subcategory of Category:Musicals this category is fairly useful because only a limited number of cities in the world host lengthy extended runs of musicals. I can not speak for any city other than Chicago, but I do feel the deletion of the category has deleted information from the project. I am not a proponent of adding categories to articles for stops on national tours, but rather for extended runs, (probably at least a three or four months, but a generalist Chicago contributor I am not sure where to draw the line. I am not proposing that every show that plays a weekend or two somewhere gets a category added for the stop. It is useful to the reader to know where a show had extended runs. It is useful to editors to be able to know where to contribute. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. As we have Category:London West End musicals and Category:Broadway musicals then it seems reasonable to have one for Chicago - presuming it's used for long-running shows (shows that run for months), rather than every 3-day performance that comes to town. With this category bulked in with many categories that were quite difference, the AfD was poorly done, and should have been listed by itself. Nfitz (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as the others have said, this one appears to be a unique situation. -- Ned Scott 08:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. No clear consensus to delete Chicago in the CfD, and a good case is made by TonyTheTiger. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. This is not your second shot at CFD. Tony was the only user who wanted to keep it. There was nothing wrong with the close. If you read the CFD, there was, in fact, clear consensus to delete. --Kbdank71 12:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is no parallel between the West End, Broadway and Chicago. "I'm appearing in the West End" - big. "I'm appearing on Broadway" - big. "I'm appearing in Chicago" - what, the show? no, the town. So what? Guy (Help!) 20:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The response sounds more like New York is better than Chicago rather than assessing whether the category has encyclopedic value. The question is not whether Chicago can hold a candle to New York's Theatre scene. The question is whether there is encyclopedic value to the category. In this case it is essential to the management of the WP:CHICAGO project and it is informative to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the question is whether one is sufficiently noteworthy that people would reasonably come here looking for it, and this is a matter of judgement. The judgment is a question for TfD, and was not unreasonable. DGG (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you commenting in the right section? This is a category not a template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid deletion. DRV is not CFD2. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The new point is that it is now six months later and I am unable to use the bot to manage the musicals that would be part of the project without some sort of category. This is not just restating prior arguments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The deletion was valid. Having categories for every city that has an extended run of a play is contrary to WP:OCAT (see the performer by performance and by venue rationales). It would clutter every musical with categories that are not defining characteristics. For example, look at the cities mentioned in Wicked‎ as having extended runs. Should there be categories for San Francisco, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Stuttgart, Melbourne as well as Chicago? I don't think so. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not at all like performer by performance or venue because I have explicitly stated we are not interested in one or two week performances. There are only a few articles that would have more than a dozen cats by this categorization type. Each of those few would probably be helped by persons interested in the category at issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The deleted category did not have any description that explained how it was to be limited. If you want to create categories for the city of origin of musicals, that seems like a reasonable objective, but creating a category for every location that had an "extended run" would be problematic. Deciding how long an extended run is, would also run afoul of WP:OCAT. The category needs to be defined clearly enough so that there is no question what belongs and what does not. I would support "Musicals that originated in Chicago" or something similar. There is nothing to stop you from creating such a new category. Having this one endorsed as a "delete" would confirm that the original was too vaguely defined and prone to OCAT problems. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 August 2008[edit]

User:Bluedenim/Blondes – Overturned. I think Krimpet is absolutely right about these but we agreed a long time ago that userbox wars could be averted if we were willing to follow procedure. To MfD they go; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/August 4 userboxes. – Chick Bowen 16:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also:

User:Krimpet deleted several userboxes for her own personal reasons, including blondes and User:Bluedenim/Brunettes, not seeking discussion on whether or not the massive userbox deletion should occur. I believe there are at least two others she deleted without discussion. What did they hurt? They are just userboxes. King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

Endorse. Utterly pointless, useless userboxes, with no encyclopedic value whatsoever? Get rid of them all! -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How useful are some of your userboxes to building an encyclopedia?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They serve a valid encyclopedic function. Knowing that an editor has the hots for blondes is not, last time I looked, relevant to building an encyclopedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, your anti-userbox stance is not helpful here. Numerous userboxes have been speedily deleted by User:Krimpet, when they no not appear to fall under WP:SD, or violate WP:UP or WP:UBX. I find it highly troubling that a single admin is going around deleting userboxes that he simply deems "inappropriate". They should be discussed at the proper venue, i.e. WP:MfD. PC78 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*ahem* - "he" ??? :) - Alison ^❤ 21:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Krimpet doesn't specify his or her gender on his or her user page. I'm not a mind reader, you know. PC78 (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't assume she's male. You're not a mind reader, you know - Alison ^❤ 21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*ahem* - Gender-neutral pronoun#Gender markedness --NE2 21:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. PC78 (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*coffs* - are we done with this nonsense yet? My initial comment was meant to be humorous (hence the smiley) but you seem to want to make a big deal of it for some reason. Now why? - Alison ^❤ 21:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read "Then don't assume she's male. You're not a mind reader, you know" as humorous, but as stating that everyone should be using gender-neutral language, which is typically awkward when applied to English pronouns. If it was intended as humorous, I'll disengage. --NE2 22:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* - the initial "mind reader" phrase was used by PC78 just before my reply. All I did was (humorously) turn it around again. Point being, of course, that people should look before they leap, especially given the nature of the situation here and that people are very obviously on-edge (as somewhat proven now) - Alison ^❤ 22:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think PC78 did look, and couldn't find any gender mentioned on Krimpet's user page :) --NE2 22:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Peeps, does it really matter - Gender doesn't matter here, we're all just Wikipedians! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone say peeps?? :) - Alison ^❤ 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if I said that yes, while I am a wee bit touchy with regards to this whole affair, my initial reply to you was also meant in good humour, even if I was somewhat negligent in not making that clear with a smiley? Can we all smoke the peace pipe now? :) PC78 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Whatchoo got in that thing anyways? :) - Alison ^❤ 22:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all and list at MfD. No reason has been given for deletion other than a rather subjective "inappropriate" or "somewhat inappropriate". What speedy deletion criteria do they fall under? What policies or guidelines do they violate? PC78 (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at MfD - None of the recent userbox deletions by Krimpet have been through MfD and should have a fair chance there. There's no speedy deletion criteria that covers "This user loves blondes" userboxes and if we go down this road, there's many, many others that should also be deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Not sure if I should vote here or not, but I will. Like Ryan said, there are a lot of userboxes that could be seen as "unencyclopedic" as these.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've listed the others above. PC78 (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and remind the admin involved not to abuse their sysop powers in this way. "An administrator doesn't like it" has never been a speedy delete criteria for anything. Let the community decide what is inappropriate...and in my eyes, these boxes are completely appropriate in userspace. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Stupid? Yes. Pointless? Certainly. Valid to speedy delete without discussion? No. Most userboxes are completely stupid but the fact is they are a small way in which editors can grow to like Wikipedia and express themselves and thus continue editing. Perhaps Krimpet should try to divorce the ideas of "what Wikipedia should be" and "what they want wikipedia to be". Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer blondes, but brunettes and redheads are fine in a pinch. As for the deletion, no clue. --NE2 04:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. We select administrators for their judgment. Punishing them for exercising it is simply silly. The templates were / are inappropriate, and thus, were deleted. Move on. And Bedford: petty vendettas and agendas will get you nowhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have a mop does not give you the right to do whatever you like with it. Admins need to work within the rules of Wikipedia and within the consensus of it's users, probably moreso than others. Speedily deleting things that don't fit on this list is an abuse of the tools, plain and simple. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only in limited form. Admins should have a good sense of judgement, but do not replace the community. Since the community would like to discuss the matter, it sounds more than reasonable to let them. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, per my comment above to MZM. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also per WP:HOTTIE. -- Ned Scott 08:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  THIS DRV SUCKS AND IS NOW ABOUT TRAINS
I also hate to be a process pedant, because Krimpet is quite right, but Overturn and list at MfD where hopefully the community will have the sense to delete them. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all and list at MfD - this should have gone through the proper channels, regardless of the deleting admin's opinion of the boxes. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and fie on process wonkery. Of no conceivable encyclopaedic value and in very poor taste. Myspacery at its worst. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: OMFG. An admin deleted those, without coming anywhere near process, for no other reason than he didn't like them? I don't care if they were "unencyclopedic" as hell, that's monstrously uncivil to speedy from userspace, and excuse me, but Wikipedia is still not censored. That some users don't like infoboxes I understand, but the simple answer is this: if you don't like them, don't use any. Yes, we select (in theory, anyway) admins to exercise judgment ... but where in all of that did they obtain the right to do whatever they want and never have that judgment questioned? For all the Myspace cracks, I would fifty times over rather that people clogged their user pages with the stupidest userboxes ever - which, by the bye, won't offend anyone who isn't far too touchy and sensitive to be working in a collaborative environment anyway, and who aren't gazing at the userpages in question - than have admins who feel they can just barge into userspace and speedy anything that bruises their tender sensibilities. RGTraynor 00:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - an administrator needs very strong grounds to speedy-delete a userfied template (i.e. it must be blatantly offensive and inflammatory), and though tasteless and puerile, these templates do not reach that line. In this case, there is clearly debate over the appropriateness of the templates, which should be sufficient to get them undeleted and sent to WP:MFD. As for the claim that we elect admins to let them use the powers how they see fit - well, no, we grant them the powers in order to exercise them in line with policy. This deletion was not justified by any policy, and thus should be overturned. Terraxos (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; thoroughly unencyclopedic and unhelpful templates. Speedy was not the way to go, but some of the opinions that advocate relisting at MFD acknowledge that deletion there would be imminent anyway—which gives rise to the question: why bother with the MFD process at all then? We are not in the business of engaging in unnecessary time-wasting with a foregone conclusion in sight. Ryan's complaint about a "slippery slope" is also somewhat fallacious, as the community always has multiple escape routes to overturn poor deletions, this very forum being one of them. On an ancillary note, WP:CENSORED applies to article space only, and not in project or user space, where free speech is stifled with regularity.
It is also disappointing and worth noting that Bedford has aggressively cross-posted a manifestly non-neutral message concerning this discussion to a carefully chosen group of editors, using unfortunate and poisonous language such as "this follows other subjects about women [Krimpet] has chosen to take on herself whether or not they should be on Wikipedia the past two weeks, including starting an 'edit war' on the DYK section of the main page" (the deception of using an edit war which got himself desysopped to smear Krimpet with notwithstanding). This latest incident only reaffirms in my mind that Bedford's recent defrocking was for the best. east718 (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion at MfD is not assured for any of these templates. Sufficient interest has been shown in discussing their merits at the proper venue. PC78 (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. If we just limited userboxes to "only what helps build the encyclopedia", there'd be...well, not a lot of userboxes. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Quite. Where is the encyclopedic value in knowing that a user's favourite colour is green, or that a user likes olives on their pizza, or that a user chooses to masturbate with his left hand, or that a user... the list is endless. PC78 (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait. I thought this and this reaffirmed it? >_> ~Jennavecia^(Talk) 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Has absolutely no encyclopaedic value. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Err...most userboxes don't. Should we delete all of those as well? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list Bottom line, too many good faith users have contested this to make them clear cut speedy's. Discussion & consensus is required.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion I'm disappointed that Krimpet inappropriately used the delete button. If you think something doesn't belong and you can't find a valid speedy deletion rationale, send it to TFD/MFD. With the exception User:Affused with holy water/Loves sexy girls (which is a bit over the top), I believe the userboxes should all be restored. IMO, they're quite harmless, and describe a sexual fetish of sorts, just like a number of other userboxes listed at Category:Sexuality user templates. If these are inappropriate userboxes, why don't we delete User:ISD/Userboxes/Dominant, User:UBX/kinky or User:UBX/slut? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and fie on process wonkery. Of no conceivable encyclopaedic value and in very poor taste. Myspacery at its worst. per JzG / Guy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - utterly useless MYSPACEry. Yes, they're in poor taste and are in no way conducive to building an encyclopedia in a collaborative environment. Ask the question as to whether desk-signs like these would be appropriate in industry and if not, why not? It's pretty self-evident, really. While I'm unimpressed with Krimpet's direct approach to the problem (MFD is the proper way), I'm more than happy to endorse these speedy-deletions here - Alison ^❤ 21:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMGWTFBBQ Hi, the userbox wars called, they want their drama back. Come on people, lets not forget WP:GUS. -- Ned Scott 22:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a great many elements on Wikipedia that are of "no encyclopedic value." Userboxes generally aren't. Neither are formatted font names with colors and curlicues. Neither are userpages with artwork layout, photos of the editors, photos on userpages generally, display of barnstars, the GA/FA how-great-I-am displays, and so on. None of these are necessary in order to build an encyclopedia. And with but one single exception, every editor above who's used the "no encyclopedic value" or "unnecessary" lines have one or more of those elements on their own user pages. Me, I'd put up some aluminum siding over those glass houses, folks. RGTraynor 23:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Per RGTraynor. I've got a picture of a motorcycle on my user page. I suppose, based on the logic here, it's history. It's not my bike per se, but it's the exact year, make, model, color, condition, and amount of farkle. I love that bike. Personally, I thought we only cared about user pages and userboxes when they were highly offensive, and even then, it took a lot of work to delete them. These userboxes (if only I could see them, so I'm guessing here), aren't offensive. We should spend a lot more time building an encyclopedia than worrying about this situation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Speedy deletion was inappropriate. Not everything on userpages is encyclopedic. If consensus to delete at WP:MfD exists, then delete, but an admin should not bypass proper process due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rlendog (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and happy with the approach Krimpet took. Deletion is only inappropriate when the object deleted has any sort of merit. No, not everything in userspace has encyclopedic value. But there is a line between a bit of fun and out-and-out impropriety, and this sort of thing really crosses that. If I don't get to put up a 'Honk if You're Horny' sticker on my cubicle at work, I shouldn't get to post something like this here (and the sort of environment we should be building towards here is, IMO, similar to that of a relaxed office). If these are okay, I suppose no-one will object to my posting a "This user loves sleazy horndogs" userbox? ~ Riana ⁂ 00:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we endorse out of process admin action because the admin knows the WP:Truth?--Cube lurker (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, I'd be happy top see 95% of all userboxes deleted but this isn't the way to go about it. I agree with the deletion of these boxes but not the unilateral method employed. The more leeway you give admins to act out of process the more controversial actions you'll get, and much drama would no doubt ensue. Best to keep a tight reign on what admins can and can't legitimately delete. RMHED (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per RGTraynor and RMHED. JohnCD (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, absolutely. Rlendog put it very well. GlassCobra 15:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've seen in a long time. These were not deleted for personal reasons at all Bedford. There is not purpose to these userboxes other than sexual preference. There is also no way you can justify these userboxes as being encyclopedic. Therefore relisting at MfD is now redundant. This is one unilateral admin action I am happy to ignore (just this once). I echo MZMcBride, and in response to Ned Scott: Not everyone wants to hash out the uselessness of these userboxes, when the uselessness is self evident. By simply endorsing here, we can spare the MfD. In other words; since they are already deleted, and we know they need to be, there is no point in dragging this on any longer, per east718 as well. Rlendog: you do realize that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is used inside deletion discussions and not for reasons to delete, right? Synergy 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all. Admins don't get to unilaterally delete pages because they consider them inappropriate. These probably are inappropriate, but MFD is the place to go to deal with that. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There are no procedural grounds for this speedy deletion, and as there are at least several people above who in good faith do not believe these should be deleted at all, the deletion should be overturned as speedy deletions should only be used for obvious cases. Personally I don't use any userboxes but would not interfere with other people using them except in the really worst cases which I am not persuaded these were. Davewild (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn If Krimpet thinks that the userboxes are inappropriate, she should nominate them for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All the "endorse" opinions seem to be based on the idea that they would vote a delete for it in MFD, so there's no point in overturning. Please think of it this way: you're endorsing the idea that an administrator can see a page and delete it unilaterally for whatever reason, so long as they find it "inappropriate", and to heck with the long-established processes that actually determine such things. I know I don't want that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at MfD. I probably will vote delete at the MfD for all of these except this (which is kinda tongue-in-cheek and shows a bit of humour), but I believe that this deletion was out of process and should have been subject to discussion before a speedy deletion. Sexist? Well, yes, it could easily be argued that these 'blonde, redhead, brunette' userboxes do indeed objectify women. However, I do feel that if men were being portrayed in the same way in userboxes there might not be such controversy about it, and indeed many men in the real world, outside of Wikipedia who read tabloid newspapers and lads' magazines would not see what's so wrong about stating normal, heterosexual preferences for women based on their looks, especially if we can give recognition to less common sexual preferences and orientations in userboxes.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all. Unilateral undiscussed speedy deletion outside of the limited scope of speedy deletion criteria. The proper venue and method for deletion of such content, if it should occur, is MfD. There is already ample consensus (and no need for further drama) about userbox migration, and the Germans seem to have handled it without a community 'come-apart'. User pages are allowed much latitude, and these boxen did not violate any of our core policies or cause any harm. That they do not provide any collaborative benefit is probably accurate, but niether is the limited bio information on my own user page, and similar content on most users' pages; which has never been challenged. To make one the self-appointed userspace police is not within the purview of an an administrator. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: This kind of sexism, as well as racism, makes it difficult to collaborate productively. --Aphaia (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, how so? How many user pages do you commonly review? User talk pages, yes, but user pages? There are ten names in this debate with whom I've spoken over the years (heck, there's one with whom I was involved in a contentious DRV a couple months back), and until this debate where I deliberately checked, I've never had occasion to look over their user pages. Come to that, I haven't looked at yours yet; for all I know you've a userpage proclaiming that you're a neo-Nazi who sacrifices cute kittens to Satan during commercial breaks of American Idol. Leaving quite aside that I worry about someone who goes blind with fury at seeing a "I love sexy women" userbox being involved in a collaborative project at any level, there's a fundamental point I think's being missed. What about communicating with an editor requires ever making a point to look over his user page? RGTraynor 14:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the principle behind the action (that these userboxes are useless), but I can't agree with the way it was carried out. The use of "inappropriate" and "somewhat inappropriate" as deletion reasons sets a very bad precedent. Overturn all unless/until we reach an actual consensus to delete useless userboxes (some actually are useful). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all I guess someone deleted MfD. Oh wait, its still there. --mboverload @ 18:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Unacceptable, may be offensive to some editors, without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a dating service, nor is it a place to make people feel unwelcome by sanctioning offensive comments such as this. — Werdna • talk 07:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This DRV seems to be payback for Krimpet starting the wheel war which led to Bedford getting desysopped. Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt this is the case, and would ask you to reconsider your statement. I have no idea what has occured in the past with Krimpet and Bedford, but as the creator of one of the deleted userboxes, I would surely have instigated this DRV had I not been beaten to it. PC78 (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Richard Sukuta-Pasu – Deletion endorsed – Davewild (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

As noted in the AfD, this young soccer player meets WP:N, having received a lot of media coverage hundreds of articles this summer, including a feature article in Bild, "'the best-selling newspaper in Europe". During the AfD no one challenged his notablity under WP:N however the closing Admin noted discounted that he met WP:N because he failed to meet WP:ATHLETE. I feel that an article for an athlete should exist if they meet WP:N even if they don't necessarily meet WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as closer of the debate. Football players generate large amounts of coverage due to the media saturation of the sport. It is therefore a totally unrealistic barometer of notability. For example, a part-time footballer in the Conference will have more media coverage than the King of Tonga, when it's quite clear that one is more notable than the other. Here we have a young footballer who has never played for a professional club, but has played in a final in a youth tournament (and whilst he scored, it was not the winner, and he was not top scorer). Obviously he will get mentioned in the press a lot during the week of the tournament, but when he returns to his club and sits in the reserves, that coverage will dry up. Like Tim McLean (who has 1,675 news hits at the moment) this is a WP:ONEEVENT situation; details about him should be included in the tournament article (which they are), but he is not yet deserving of an article. If he never plays for a professional club (being a youth international is no guarantee - football magazines run regular features on players who won youth caps but never actually played professionally), will he be notable in 20 years time just for playing in a youth tournament? I suspect the answer is no. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand the point of the comment that a footballer gets more coverage than the King of Tonga. Not only do I not see the logic of comparing the amount of media hits of a ~~British~~ footballer in Britain to a Tongan monarch on a British news site using a British search engine, in the example given the King of Tonga got 134 hits compared to less than that for the footballer. Also Bild is not a football magazine - it's one of the biggest newspapers in Europe. Nfitz (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The footballer example I used is not a British footballer - he's French
Tonga is a former British protectorate, and therefore is covered well in the British media
In the example given the King of Tonga gets 95 hits compared to 119 for the semi-pro footballer.
You've misunderstood the magazine reference. I wasn't referring to this player; I was referring to the fact that the likes of Four Four Two occasionally run "whatever happened to..." features on Englands U-18 team from ten years ago, and what happened to them. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - it's been a limit case, but we also have a wide consensus to feature footballers who managed to play at least game in a fully professional league. This is not the case. As #57 noted above, football coverage is terribly huge, sometimes even too much, so WP:N needs to be interpreted according to the particular situation. As I already suggested, WP:ATHLETE should work alongside WP:N in order to establish a clear notability borderline; this particular case could barely meet the latter criterion, whereas it's quite clear it fails the former. I also support to restore the article in case the subject should actually play a Bundesliga match this season. --Angelo (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - AfD was properly closed. Fails WP:Athlete. When he kicks a ball in anger for Bayer Leverkusen he gets his page. TerriersFan (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I can empathise with the case but the real factor is that if he really is notable then professional or top level amateur games are inevitable - thus disproving the "ONEEVENT" idea. I had a similar discussion with User:Angelo.romano over Gerardo Bruna, another young footballer. The WP:Athlete limits are very lax for football players anyway - just one professional game in a recognised league and they can be in. Think how little this achievement is and then think that the subject has not even done this yet. Just wait and the article can be made when there's more to write about. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's no point noting that it fails WP:Athlete; I'm not contesting that. However it clearly passes WP:N, and that's what should be addressed here. Nfitz (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Quite apart from the WP:ATHLETE issues, the Google News results show that apart from that article in Bild, practically all the other Google News hits are match reports mentioning his name. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse: Leaving aside the WP:ATHLETE issue, with which I agree, the Bild article is not only a weak quick five- or six-pop question quiz with a shaky claim to be "significant," but it's the only one out there, and if WP:N is the hinge, it recommends multiple sources, not just the one. Beyond that, what is the basis for appealing at Deletion Review? There doesn't seem to be any procedural issue at stake here; the admin decided that the WP:ATHLETE guideline trumped the WP:N guideline, and that's pure judgment call. RGTraynor 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The original closing statement didn't reference WP:N. It was only added as an afterthought after I asked. To be honest, I'm not convinced the closing Admin is neutral given how active he is AfDing similiar Football articles. Nfitz (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be so, but however much one questions the admin's intent or potential bias, I can't see that there's an egregious violation of process here. The admin ruled in favor of a black-letter guideline, and did so with consensus on that side. RGTraynor 15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In which case the Admin erred. WP:ATHLETE cannot be used to trump WP:N. WP:ATHLETE is an additional criteria of WP:BIO. It explicitly notes on WP:BIO#Additional criteria that "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under WP:N". As this person meets WP:N, the article must exist even if they don't meet WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You presume there's an unambiguous and uncontested consensus that the subject meets WP:N. I don't, myself, think so. RGTraynor 17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deolis Guerra – Restored by deleting admin. – lifebaka++ 18:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deolis Guerra-- on top of being one of the top prospects in one of the top Minor league systems in all of baseball-- was one of the players included in the Johann Santana deal between the New York Mets and Minnesota Twins. Wizardman deleted his-- as well as several other articles I did on current and former Fort Myers Miracle players. I attempted to contact him (talk page), but I've gotten no response. I think Wizardman's status as a Wikipedia editor needs to be reconsidered. If you look at the debate that went on between people both in support of keeping and deleting these entries, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players), you will see that strong arguments were given in favor of Guerra and several other Miracle players. Wizardman gave absolutely no consideration to any of the opinions that were given and went strictly with whatever he wanted to do. I believe an ego like his is very likely to do this again to other very good articles. --Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"That didn't matter to you at all; you completely ignored the debate and imposed your will," plus your demeanor above led me to not respond. I'll re-look at that one again, though at this point I hardly care if it's restored or not. Wizardman 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. I have no desire to bicker over hardly-notable people. Wizardman 18:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka – Overturn. Undeleted by Athaenara. – lifebaka++ 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It strikes me that the only way anything can legitimately happen here without Thebainer's presence is to have a formal discussion in the proper venue. Procedural nomination. Anyone not already aware of the issue should look at the page's talk for context. --Random832 (contribs) 17:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. To remain open, User Conduct RfCs must be certified by at least two editors who tried to resolve the same dispute. But this RfC was not properly certified, as no one besides ChrisO (who filed the RfC) had attempted to resolve the dispute. --El on ka 18:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Elonka keeps misrepresenting the dispute as being about her most recent action against me. It's not; it's about the general issue of her interpretation and implementation of ArbCom sanctions, an issue which has been raised across multiple articles. The same issue was certified by myself and Ned Scott, who had previously disputed the same issue with the same article. See Ryan Postlethwaite's summary here. It's disappointing that Elonka is trying to avoid this RfC by wikilawyering and lobbying [72] rather than actually dealing with the issues raised in the RfC by multiple editors and admins. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Thebainer acted against consensus. The RFC was properly certified by Ryan Postelthwaite. Thebainer did not discuss the matter with Ryan, nor did he seek community input on this subjective decisions. Furthermore, it appears that Elonka made an off wiki request to Thebainer to get this done. She immediately thanked him and asked for the talk page to be deleted as well. [73] Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jehochman is just making things up at this point. I categorically deny that I made an off-wiki request to Thebainer. I have no line of communication to him. When I saw that he had deleted the page, I did point out to him that he had deleted the page, but not the associated talkpage. That's it. --Elonka 19:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why then did you thank him for deleting the page if you had not asked for it to be deleted? Diff. I have added emphasis to a particular word above, the word "appears" makes clear that this is an appearance, not actual knowledge. He just came in out of the blue and deleted the page with no discussion whatsoever. You didn't just "point out" that he failed to delete the talkpage, either. You asked him to delete the talk page. Same diff Please, this is most unseemly the way you attack those who question your actions. If you say you didn't contact Thebainer, I will believe you, but please show a little comprehension for how your actions can be viewed by others. Perceptions matter. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Full quote, lest we descend into arguing about nothing: "Thanks Thebainer. :) BTW, you might want to delete the talkpage, too?" See diff above.--chaser - t 22:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per talk page discussion.. Elonka should be bending over backwards to not give the appearance of trying to sweep this under the rug. We don't need to be ruleslawyers here. The RFC was in use and being actively edited. There was no reason for deletion. Friday (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I am just an outside editor but I think the RFC should continue. From my outside view, the RFC has more editors talking about multiple articles that need to be talked about. I really think that the discussions need to continue. I don't understand why anyone would stop or delay hearing from the community about concerns it has. Please consider this when considering whether this should be deleted or not. And for openess, I have spoken with Elonka about the rules set and a ban imposed at Quackwatch --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. "Same" vs "Different" case is very subjective in this instance. The disputes were the "same" in that they involved similar actions from Elonka. They were "different" in that they involved different articles. A reasonable person could interpret this either way; as such, the RfC should be reinstated. On a non-policy-related note, it will be better for both Elonka and the community as a whole to get this done with now, as opposed to dragging it out again in a few weeks. Antelan 18:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The RfC was pretty active until it was deleted, and 9 people signing the "Other users who endorse this summary" section indicates that there is something that's worth discussing, and I don't see what we gain from stopping the discussion. The deletion reason seems like wikilawyering to me. --Conti|✉ 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as out of process deletion, as per Jehochman. Deletion once the dispute was certified and without consensus could also be construed as wheel-warring.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn RFCs are non-binding and an established part of the DR process. Amerique^dialectics 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per first half of Antelan's comment. Coppertwig (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- An admin had already certified it and others completely agreed with it; a single solitary admin can't just come along (after being prompted by the person the RFC is about) and uncertify it and delete it without discussion. That's a complete violation of policy, civility, and common sense. DreamGuy (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- after being prompted by the person the RFC is about see above, where this is "categorically" denied.--chaser - t 22:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Jehochman. I had not participated in this RfC, but if the deletion is overturned I am willing to file Form 4308(b) in triplicate at the local galactic office or whatever needs to be done to ensure that the RfC procedure is followed to the letter. Raymond Arritt, now editing as Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, everyone above has already explained why; request closure. Wizardman 19:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the request for closure as per WP:SNOW.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unwise to close this too fast; it's only been a few hours since it opened. Leaving it open for a day, to allow everyone involved to comment, won't hurt anyone too much, I don't think. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, snow. Thebainer may have had a good reason, but the community is going to comment anyway, and channeling comment to the more deliberative environment of an RfC will minimize disruption, and there are other remedies that can be applied if disruption takes place at the RfC. --Abd (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The overturning of a speedy deletion does not overturn the requirement for a Request for Comment to be certified by another editor who has tried, and failed to solve the same dispute with the user. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I venture no opinion on this particular RFC or the decision to delete or undelete it, I must point out that essentially what you are saying here Sam is that RFC is not an appropriate process to examine patterns of behaviour over several areas (i.e., without a discrete locus of dispute) with either users or administrators. If that is the case, then what straightforward dispute resolution methods are available to the community to address and discuss such patterns, short of requesting an Arbitration Committee hearing? And is that really the message you want to send out? Risker (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Most people think that the requirement has been satisfied, while other people (a minority to be sure) think not. So here we are, having a meta discussion instead of working on the underlying problem, which will not go away by fiat of deleting the discussion. Perhaps this situation is more obvious to me than others because I'm a marketing consultant. I am constantly advising clients to be open about problems instead of trying to sweep them under the rug (which only produces a worse backlash). Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either Sam has not read the page in question and just assumes Elonka is right or he has read it and is ignoring the fact that all the necessary editors have certified it and admins have agreed that it was for the same dispute. Either way his hope that another editor will need to certify it completely misses the reality of the situation. DreamGuy (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn a stunningly bad, unilateral, out of process, deletion. RMHED (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I don't think Elonka did anything wrong, but closing a discussion where multiple good-faith users obviously do think there was a problem is just making problems where none existed and making existing problems worse. – iride scent 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: votes don't change certification requirements. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Morven is correct, however, certification requirements, like all rules, require interpretation. There are at least two alternate interpretations here; further, the "rule" is itself subject to community consensus, which it does not bind. In other words, we can change the rule any time we decide, by consensus. This is really standard deliberative process. In this case, an administrator -- who happens to be an arbitrator, but that's procedurally irrelevant -- deleted an RfC, based, apparently, on his interpretation of the rules or IAR or whatever, it, again, doesn't really matter. And we are now following process with regard to that decision, because it was, quite simply, a deletion decision and DRV is the place most efficient to challenge it. The issue here isn't Elonka's conduct, a complex and fairly difficult question, I'd say. It's simply whether or not a project page should stay deleted or not. ArbComm could trump this process, if it chooses, but, given the heat generated, I'd highly advise doing so publicly, based on discussion and debate. If necessary, a quick injunction could be issued freezing the RfC until it's sorted out. I'm not advising this, just noting that, if there is some legitimate reason to avoid the RfC, which would surprise me, it could be done, and properly. Not as it came down. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are there now three arbitrators completely out of tune with the community? Did you have a mailing list discussion before Thebainer acted? For Nth time, most of us feel that the certification requirements have been met. ArbCom has not exactly done a very good job lately winning the community's trust. Maybe you folks should do more listening, and less preaching. Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What the frak is going on? Why is ArbCom turning out in force to contradict community consensus? Are you people actually saying you approve of Elonka's application of discretionary sanctions here? I'm rapidly beginning to think that all those people claiming ArbCom is out of touch are not raving loonies after all. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. But ignore all rules means there are no so called requirements, and to insist on the letter of the law is to breach our ignore all rules policy. It's also wiki-lawyering. Alun (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm a bit confused as to why three arbcom members have become involved in this. Coincidence I suppose, but it's unusual. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We could just as well delete Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kirill Lokshin for the same reason. There is no evidence that User:John Carter tried to resolve the same dispute, after all. That doesn't make any sense, you say? Well, that's because it does not make any sense. We don't follow rules no matter what, we follow common sense, and ignore the rules when they prevent us from improving the encyclopedia. There seems to be a legitimate desire from about a dozen people to review the actions of a user, and we should not prevent that from happening because of a technicality. --Conti|✉ 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn. me too me too. Alun (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn With due respect I disagree with the comments by the arbcom members.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Again, with due respect, I see two comments by ArbComm members here. Morven states, !Votes don't change certification requirements, which is indeed a problematic statement. What determines "certification requirements?" It's technically true, it is arguments -- in theory -- which prevail, but if a dispute over certification requirements goes to ArbComm, what's going to decide the matter? Arguments or votes? Morven has made the semantic error of Lost performative, assuming that rules exist in some objective space, and are applied without any person involved, and, in particular, he seems to be assuming that community opinion doesn't matter. Yet the community could, in the next few minutes, change the rules, making the particular objection to the RfC moot, or could, here, simply decide, in effect, that this case is a legitimate exception. Votes do count, just not in any automatic, majority-rule, manner. The other admin who has opined here is Blacketer, whose comment was less troublesome. Again, technically, he was correct, but, again, the matter of how guidelines established by the community are to be interpreted has been ignored. Standard deliberative process makes the "assembly" the ultimate arbiter for interpreting the rules (see Nuclear option; we don't have specific process for that, but follow rough consensus plus an administrative decision, which can disregard the consensus, but which is always subject to appeal. I claim that Thebainer's deletion was proper and within process, it was his judgment, on the face, that the certification requirement had failed. It was a separate judgment, which he also made, that this required deletion. Both of these were proper for him to make, unless COI is shown. "Proper" does not mean "correct." It it is also proper for the community, upon appeal, to review that decision, which it is doing here. I'll note that no arbiter !voted to support the deletion, they merely pointed out the possible problem that led to the deletion in the first place. Let's all take a deep breath and take this one step at a time, without making assumptions about the next step. --Abd (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a very insightful view. I have to say, though, that I take a more utilitarian view: which does more harm, leaving the RfC deleted, or letting the dispute fester by squashing the community's attempt to deal with it? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, per my comments on the RFC's talk page. Saying that the certification requirements were not met is a judgment call at best - to my eyes, a poor one - and given the level of participation in the RFC prior to deletion, an out of the blue deletion is a poor show. Thebainer has no special ArbcomPower to delete RFCs he doesn't like; Arbitrators are ostensibly a part of the community they purportedly represent, and must supposedly follow the same rules as everyone else. Do not snow, though, please - I would rather see this overwhelmingly overturned. Neıl ☄ 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I'd already certified this RfC, yet Thebainer decided to overrule me, without even popping over to my talk (or any other page for that matter) to discuss it. If he had, I'd have told him this; The dispute in question centred around the belief by some that Elonka has made biased/unfair sanctions against other editors. Chris' certfication is clear - he started the RfC. Ned's certification is also very clear - Ned has attempted to discuss his concern over the sanctions that Elonka has been giving out,[74][75][76][77] yet he believes his concerns haven't been relieved. There you go - two certifications, based not around one incident, but a pattern of aledged misconduct which at least two users have previously tried to solve without bringing it to RfC. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This displays poor understanding of policy. The locus of dispute is not the al-Durrah article, it's Elonka and special restrictions in general. If Ned Scott tried to resolve that problem, as I believe he did, then the certification was valid. Anyway, if you read the "Godwin's Law" thread on my talk page, that could plausibly be viewed as an attempt to resolve the dispute (or at least try to get Elonka to see she's doing something wrong) by yet another party (myself): the dispute as it relates to Race and intelligence articles. Bad decision. Even if not properly certified - and I think it is -Iridescent is absolutely right. Moreschi 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It's clear that multiple users believe it was properly certified. The deletion was unilateral. Some people seem to think there's a problem with Elonka's behaviour. I don't see why DR should be somewhat broken here. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Arbs don't get super sekrit vote multipliers, and this was done outside of process. There is absolutely no deus ex machine at Wikipedia. Follow the rules, people. Geogre (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. My talkpage contains a conversation that I believe provides support for further certification if required, even if we are to look at the narrowest possible definition of "same dispute". I am disappointed with thebainer's deletion, and with the level of wikilawyering on display. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. It's a sad day when sitting arbcom members endorse blatant wikilawyering and refusal to listen to problems with popular admins, but given their track record I can't say I'm surprised. There are legitimate and serious issues with this administrator's conduct. Skinwalker (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: RfC's exist to explore significant issues that editors have with each other and with administrative decisions. Based on input at the RfC, a number of established editors have concerns that ought to be fleshed out and discussed. The rules are supposed to be subservient to common sense; insisting on a narrow, bureaucratic interpetation of certification is the wrong focus here. The certification requirement is intended to forestall frivolous or harassing RfC's. This is clearly neither. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, RfC is on Elonka's attempts to deal with multiple contentious articles, with several articles providing examples of the results that she has achieved and the conflicts that have resulted. I therefore disagree with the argument that since not all of the users certifying were talking about the same article, that these certifications were not valid. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn while I believe there are several problems with the RfC, deleting it isn't the way to resolve the issue. Shell ^babelfish 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted: as per obvious consensus above. — Athaenara ✉ 22:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, obviously: I'll start with the preamble that it is likely that I have deleted more rfc/us due to lack of certification than any other admin (including some high profile ones, such as Kelly Martin's, and others) as well as having closed the latest MfD with guidelines as to its usage, including adhering to certification rules. *** The problem here, as I mentioned at ani, isn't so much the validity, or lack thereof, of the certification, per se. (whether it was or was not valid, I don't know; I've yet to examine the matter closely), but rather, that one admin deemed the certification valid and another reversed his decision without bothering to discuss it with him. (And I'll reiterate that the latter admin being a member of the Arbitration Committee, actually weakens the deletion, because they, especially, need to act responsibly and serve by the not-above-the-rules example))((Conversely, the fact we have two other Committee members, seemingly, in support of their commipatriot —yet fail to touch on the undiscussed reversal— serve to further erode confidence in the Committee. Their carelessness is not their credit) El_C 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There are many complicated issues which can be discussed, if not perhaps resolved, in an open and calm RfC. Mathsci (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kelley Gulledge – Deletion endorsed. The argument to overturn boils down to an assertion that the mere phrase "fully professional league" in the notability guideline carries such weight that it overcomes any other issue. That has never been how guidelines have been applied, nor should it be. As for the other issue, I have no opinion about whether minor league baseball players, lacking notability other than their status as such, should be included. But I don't think it makes sense to determine that question in relation to other sports with completely different league structures. The very definition of "fully professional" is entirely different in the context of football/soccer than it is in a sport that has a minor league system. – Chick Bowen 16:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:BIO unambigiously states that an athlete who has played in a "fully professional" league is notable by that fact alone. The subject of this article is currently playing in AAA baseball, the highest extant minor league and fully professional, and has played professional baseball for years. The closing admin stated - after the fact, and only when asked to elaborate on his decision - that there has never been consensus that professional minor league play was notable, but this is incorrect; broad consensus has upheld just that, time and time again, for years, and all attempts to change WP:ATHLETE to alter that have so far failed. The closing admin also relied on Delete voters who stated, quite inaccurately, that WP:BIO was more restrictive than WP:BASEBALL's own project criteria (in fact, it is a good bit less so). Given the controversial nature of the admin's assertion that minor league sports are inherently non-notable, one would think he would close with a clear consensus, but in fact it was a 7-6 split. Finally, the closing admin appears to be a staunch partisan of the POV that minor league baseball players are non-notable, as per the discussion here, and in his shoes I would myself preserve the premise of neutrality by avoiding a close apparently that much in keeping with my own partisan views. This deletion merits overturning. RGTraynor 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn due to partisan nature of closing admin's views. A neutral administrator should have handled the close on this AFD. Debate was split down the middle and close should have been "no consensus"Spanneraol (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I was not closing it based on my personal views, but rather, how the votes lined up. DRV is not AfD part two, and AfD is NOT a vote, as seems to be the counterargument here. No one countered the rationale proposed by BRMo, and his rationale outweighed the keepists arguments. (If you take his vote and reasoning out, it is clearly a no consensus close. The fact that no one's counterarguing it speaks volumes). That's what I based my close on, nothing partisan. Wizardman 16:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm curious as to Wizardman's rationale that the counterargument is that AfD is a vote. The plain counterarguments are (1) This decision goes against the explicit and unambiguous language of WP:BIO; (2) That BRMo's argument was based on the unofficial and nonbinding baseball Wikiproject's private notability criteria, which certainly does not override WP:BIO and which itself is currently under hot debate; (3) That several of the Delete voters misrepresented WP:BIO's criteria as more restrictive than WP:BASEBALL's, instead of less so; (4) that while if a consensus went for Delete anyway, the matter would be moot, but in fact there was no such consensus; (5) if an admin is going to back a controversial deletion decision which goes against black-letter policy, it shouldn't be against consensus as well, and definitely not; (6) where he rules in favor of a position which he provably holds. That aside, a couple editors argued against BRMo's reasoning; that Wizardman plainly prefers BRMO's side is his own business, but it scarcely ended the debate. RGTraynor 16:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a debate for nearly two months on the WP:BIO talk page as to what "fully professional" implies. Wizardman 16:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every few months for years, some faction or another comes in to reopen that debate, and the language hasn't budged one syllable in all that time. I'm certainly all for appropriate Wikiprojects to be given binding authority to rewrite subsections of the notability criteria, but until and unless that happens, I'd like to see a slightly better rationale for a close outside of consensus than that you don't like black-letter guideline. In any event, this isn't the venue for arguing whether WP:BIO should be changed or not. RGTraynor 17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say the best course of action is for some outsiders (non-baseball people) to check this drv to see if it's right. We already know what each person on the baseball talk page is gonna say. Wizardman 18:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're that convinced that people can only judge violations of policy and guideline based on what decision most favors their personal partisan views, mm, fair enough. RGTraynor 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Clearly meets WP:ATHLETE as noted by those opting to delete in the AfD because they don't like WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This will continue to come up again and again. This really needs a community discussion of whether to endorse WP:ATHLETE--a decision made harder by the lack of consistent agreement there. Personally, I don't care which way it comes as long as it gets settled--and for those who do care about the subject, it should be in their interest also, so whatever the rules are decided to be, they can go back to writing articles according to them. But the notability guidelines, general or specific, are not binding in any particular instance, the community has consistently refused to elevate them to policy, and we have very frequently made all sorts of rational and less rational objections. It does not make sense to talk about what WP:N or any other guideline permits in an absolute sense. My own view of the relationship between general and specific, is that specific supersedes general, being obviously able to be tailored more closely to particular situations--but only if endorsed tacitly or explicitly by the community. We take the advice of experts, we do not give them final authority. DGG (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted: One bad precedent wouldn't justify another, so any of our excesses of granularity in other places or sports wouldn't justify multiplying the error. If we gather up all of the MLB players, we're in the thousands. If we wish three levels of minor league, per year, we're at astronomical sums, and yet without any genuine cultural significance. Geogre (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. As others have stated, he didn't meet the poor guidelines at WP:WPBB#Players. Further, most of the content was sourced by unreliable fansites and non-independent web sites anyway. There would have been precious little left if that content was removed per WP:V. Forgot to mention that there is a discussion underway on the general topic of baseball player notability at WT:MLB#Minor league players' AFDs closed. My proposal on disputed notability guideline. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would scarcely consider cites to the leagues in question for verification of a player's stats and awards unreliable ones, any more than Columbia University is a bad source for information as to who may have won Pulitzer Prizes, and would question upon what basis you figure they aren't independent of the player if the very issue was applicable to this debate, which it isn't. RGTraynor 16:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness, I'll list the sources below:
- http://www.brewerfan.net/ViewDailyReport.do?dailyReportId=338 - A fan site with the word "fan" in the name.
- http://www.coverallbases.org/instructors.html - A web site for an instructional camp of some sort that Gulledge works for.
- http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/G/Kelley-Gulledge.shtml - The Baseball Cube for statistics.
- http://www.americanassociationbaseball.com/cgi-bin/dist/news.cgi?id=1192029066 - A league web site page with a single paragraph, most of which is statistics.
- http://dodgers.scout.com/2/709568.html - A story written by a "minor league editor" for a non-notable web site whose obituary (unfortunately) can be found here.
- http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Kelly%20Gulledge&pos=C&sid=l112&t=p_pbp&pid=460658 - More stats.
So where is the article? Where is the "significant coverage by independent reliable sources"? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll be happy to help you. I would be hard pressed to think of a reason why the American Association is unreliable as to the stats it records and the awards it confers. Scout.com is affiliated with Fox Sports, and there is nothing in WP:V debarring someone from covering the minor leagues, nor to debar a valid source because the author is now deceased. web.minorleaguebaseball.com is the official source of minor league baseball. Nor can I find anything in WP:EL explicitly barring a website that has the word "fan" in it. Frankly, I'm baffled as to your characterization of such websites as "unreliable" or lacking in independence - I'll concede you Gulledge's baseball camp - and we haven't even begun to touch the 320 hits that Gulledge gets on Google News, which admittedly weren't cited in the article. Really, are you sure you want to make this into a citation and notability issue? RGTraynor 20:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really I do. I know, the gaul. I wouldn't touch a fan site with a 10-foot poll as far as reliability and I'm honestly troubled that you would. WP:SPS. Please tell me you're not sourcing material here with fan sites and blogs and personal web sites because I'll start one up with so much subtle misinformation, no one will know what's up. As for American Association, I'm not questioning reliability but independence. Also usefulness in this case since the source cited had almost no information. I also wasn't saying anything about the one editor being deceased - I was just pointing out that there is a write-up about him making clear that he was just a contributor to this non-notable site. He's not some insider or someone behind a reliable published source. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't waste my time myself trying to claim that a Fox Sports-affiliated website (and one that, by the bye, was one of the official selectors of the NCAA All-American college football team in 2006 and 2007), a league website or the website of the umbrella organization of all of minor league baseball are unreliable, or (based on what information, exactly?) that their contributors are somehow unprofessional or unsupervised. This remains a straw man argument that runs far afield of the proper remit of a deletion review. RGTraynor 22:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. Has played in a fully professional league. -Djsasso (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This should have been closed as "no consensus". I haven't seen the article so I can't comment on it but from the AFD discussion, it does seem there are news articles about the player in question and that alone is sufficient for "notability" as Wikipedia uses the term. The closing admin seems to have hinged his decision on the fact that the player only played for a minor rather than a major league, even if the topic satisifes the general notability criterion. That kind of detail is best left to the relevant WikiProject. --Polaron | Talk 18:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. In the AfD, RGTraynor raised his argument that minor league baseball players are automatically notable by WP:ATHLETE, but that opinion was not widely accepted by the other participants in the discussion. Because the opinions expressed in the AfD were fairly evenly split between keep and delete, the discussion could have been decided as no consensus. However, the closing admin (Wizardman), following the guidance that AfDs should be closed based on the arguments that were presented and not on simple vote counts, evaluated the arguments that were made in the discussion. As he noted, most of the discussion revolved around the baseball WikiProject's criteria for notability, and early in the discussion several of the editors cited these criteria as a reason for keep recommendations. But later discussion indicated that Gulledge didn't actually meet the WikiProject's criteria. Therefore, the decision to delete was a reasonable, albeit somewhat controversial, conclusion to draw from the discusion. BRMo (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Wikiprojects don't get to define notability criteria any more than I get to delete the Main Page. I think the closing admin's verdict was satisfactory. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You are correct, Wikiprojects don't get to define notability criteria. So as this player achieved WP:ATHLETE by playing in fully-professional league, why are we letting the Wikiproject override this and delete because it was a minor league? Nfitz (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hollywood Undead – Unprotected, userspace version by Davewild moved to main space. – Chick Bowen 22:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

New information has been released by the band on myspace and amazon and other online retailers show the band's new album is being released on the 26th of August 2008. Plus the band is now going on tour. The band is one of the most popular myspace bands to be signed up and now with definite information(from reliable sources like amazon.com and the band itself) about the new album and its release date and even its tracklisting, I think this article should be undeleted and just semi protected so that we can edit it. Killeroid (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added links to two other AFDs for this band. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation I have done a bit of searching and there does appear to be quite a bit of coverage recently since the previous AFDs - [78], [79], combined with the older coverage such as [80], [81], [82]. There seems to be just enough now for notability. Davewild (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the history of the article, I really think it would be a good idea to work up a version in userspace (e.g. at User:Killeroid/Hollywood Undead), making sure that is establishes notability via reliable sources, and then bring that to Deletion Review. --Stormie (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted until per Stormie: recreation is fine, but to make that carte blanch just puts us right back here, I fear. Get the sources and the information and a good looking piece, and then let's examine it. Better here than AfD x2. Geogre (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As people require a userspace version I have created the outline of one at User:Davewild/Hollywood Undead (feel free to improve it anyone). I feel it clearly establishes their notability, which is only going to grow over the next month, and so we should allow it to be moved to mainspace. Davewild (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Dave. The business with the Virgin Mobile Festival (described at [83]) does indeed to be a substantial addition to the band's notability since the previous AfDs. The festival is this weekend, I'd expect a bunch more coverage early next week. --Stormie (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That version looks good to me. Sufficient sources and all that for general notability. Let's move it to mainspace. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Recreation I have a story that I think should prove this band's notability. Just before I got home tonight, I heard the song "Undead (Out The Way)" on a commercial rock radio station (97.9 WGRD, Grand Rapids, MI) and instantly loved it. They didn't announce the band or song name, so when I got home, I immediately searched for some of the phrases in the lyrics and identified the song. I then found a copy to listen to on YouTube, to verify it was the same song, and then searched for the band on Wikipedia, because I wanted to know about them. A little more searching, and here I am, pushing for this article to get recreated, because, surely, they must be notable enough for me to passively discover them like this and want to know more! Right?! I'm not sure how often they are played on the station, because I don't listen to the radio too terribly often, but it's possible they are in "regular rotation" which would satisfy #11 on WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Also, I think #10 is satisfied, since they have a song on the MySpace Records#MySpace Records: Volume 1 compilation. That's my 2 cents! --DJ Phazer ^talk 07:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The consensus seems to be allow recreation of the article by moving the userspace version [[User:Davewild/Hollywood Undead] to mainspace.Waiting for one of the admin to approve this.

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

County Route 59 (Chautauqua County, New York) – Snowballed overturn. – lifebaka++ 15:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was deleted for "no assertion of notability", but that's not a speedy deletion criterion. The deleting admin did not reply. --NE2 02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AfD if it's truly not notable. I am of the personal belief that enough can be found on most roads to establish notability. TravellingCari 03:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about county routes like this, but if it's not notable the best course of action is to redirect List of county routes in Chautauqua County, New York. Having the article text would obviously help determine if that's so, and even if it's not there's no reason not to have it in the history. --NE2 04:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not 100% certain either, I'd also support the redirect. It's not one I'm interested in enough to research, but I think we all see it's not a speedy. TravellingCari 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overeturn all county highways are notable. Splat5572 (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Roads do not fall under the A7 speedy criteria. Davewild (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn primarily per Davewild. A7 is the only speedy criteria that mentions notability (and even that says that it has a "lower standard than notability"), which clearly does not apply to roads. If the road is truly not notable on its own (I never saw the deleted article so I don't know if this is true), then the correct course of action is to redirect it to the list article (per NE2 above), and keep the history so that it can be merged into a more detailed list article (like List of county routes in Rockland County, New York (1-38)) in the future. -- Kéiryn (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as above. A7 does not apply to roads. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This is a question for AFD. I don't believe all roads or even all county roads are notable, but this isn't like an article on your garage band playing its first gig in two weeks. A large enough percentage of road articles are notable that an article on a road deserves an AFD. --Rividian (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn While County Routes are not always notable, A7 certainly doesn't apply. Should have been taken to AfD rather than speedy deletion. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A7 doesn't apply to roads. RMHED (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Aside from the often-stated (and true) statement that A7 doesn't apply here, it's important to note that County roads definitely aren't notable by themselves, but surely it's possible for them so to be, so the article should be given a chance to be debated when non-administrators can see the content of the article. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 August 2008[edit]

User:Losplad – Overturned. There is no consensus that the userpage qualifies as spam, and we don't have a policy to delete userpages of inactive users, even those who have never been active. Maybe we should, but that should be discussed elsewhere. – Chick Bowen 15:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user page was recently mentioned in an ongoing discussion at AN/I as a claimed example of "admin shopping". This two-sentence user page was created as the first and only edit of its owner. Some months later, it was tagged for speedy deletion as spam four times by Calton; on the first three occasions, the request was denied by three different admins, until, on the fourth attempt, Kylu finally agreed and deleted the page. Rather than summarize the history further, I'll just present the edit and deletion history of the page (in reverse chronological order) as it can be seen by admins at Special:Undelete/User:Losplad:

01:54, 22 July 2007 Kylu (talk · contribs) deleted "User:Losplad" ‎ (content was: '{{db-spam}}NO COVER is a rock alternative band from Idaho. Original guitar player Chris Reynolds died on March 2, 2005.')

01:21, 22 July 2007 . . Calton (talk · contribs) (122 bytes) ({{db-spam}})
06:26, 8 July 2007 . . AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) (109 bytes) (decline speedy)
04:31, 8 July 2007 . . Calton (talk · contribs) (121 bytes) (Reality check: it's spam. Kindly acquaint yourself with policy.)
02:17, 8 July 2007 . . VirtualSteve (talk · contribs) (109 bytes) (No sorry agree with OwenX - I can't see the option of deleting this page)
01:21, 8 July 2007 . . Calton (talk · contribs) (121 bytes) ({{db-spam}} - 1) advertises band. 2) not an individual, a role account 3) Account created in May, but this is its only edit. Really, pretty obvious.)
01:05, 8 July 2007 . . OwenX (talk · contribs) (109 bytes) (this is well within the allowed content for user pages.)
01:04, 8 July 2007 . . Calton (talk · contribs) (122 bytes) ({{db-spam}})
01:56, 1 May 2007 . . Losplad (talk · contribs) (109 bytes) (←Created page with 'NO COVER is a rock alternative band from Idaho. Original guitar player Chris Reynolds died on March 2, 2005.')

I'll be the first to admit that the former content of the page itself is of very little value. However, the fact that the page was tagged by an established editor and untagged by three admins before finally being deleted suggests that there exists genuine disagreement as to whether it actually counts as a valid G11 speedy or whether it falls within the scope of acceptable user page content. While this is somewhat outside the usual scope of DRV, I think that this might be as good a venue as any to try and gauge consensus on this issue and hopefully establish some sort of a precedent.

I'd like to see comments here focus more on constructive discussion about whether or not we should speedily delete pages like this one, and less on things like who did right or wrong in this particular situation. Besides notifying the people involved, I'll post a notice about this discussion to AN/I and to WT:CSD. Feel free to post additional notes on any other page whose readers might be interested. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~ CSD is for non-controversial deletions, this was rejected by three admins. I think this should have gone to MfD. Chillum 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted While the deletion was incorrect, I agree with those below who say there is no point in restoring this page. Chillum 16:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion either way. I've restored the page and {{drv}}'d it so you can check its history. Kylu (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As one of the three declining admins, there is no doubt Calton's behavior was deplorable. But I don't see any real value in overturning the deletion now, over a year later. The page should not have been deleted by Kylu, as no one admin should overrule the decision of three others. The page should have been sent to MfD, Calton shouldn't have tagged it four times, but let's keep it deleted. - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no point in overturning the deletion over a year later for a user who has not edited since creating the page. However I would say that if your speedy tag has been declined by a neutral third party you should not re-add the tag yourself because it is obviously not the clear cut case which speedy deletion is meant to be for. If you still feel it should be deleted then take it to the relevant process - in this case WP:MFD. Davewild (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coment - This should have been prodded, which would have worked (more effectively), and in the absence of a PROD the CSD refusal should have signalled the need to take it to MfD. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I cannot see how a one line userpage can be considered spam under CSD:G11. Kudos to Ilmari Karonen and Kylu for bringing this here; this is far more important than just one userpage of an inactive user. This is about policy, community standards, and the actions of one obnoxious, obsessive editor who made it his mission to "clean" WP from what he believes to be the Ultimate Evil, and in doing so chased away dozens if not hundreds of potentially good editors. I don't want to pull the whole AN/I discussion about User:Calton into this DRV, but by overturning this deletion we will be sending him a strong message that he cannot keep playing one admin against another, and that we are willing to tolerate an occasional borderline-spammish userpage in order to preserve a civil, cooperative environment. Owen× ☎ 18:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To give credit where credit is due, I found out about the ANI thread from this DRV. It wasn't my idea to join in the discussion to debate a point of policy, I just simply don't mind assisting in process as long as it improved Wikipedia. :) Kylu (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as per my previous argument - and quite inappropriate in my view that it was continuously reposted as Speedy! I should also add that in my opinion, where possible wrongs should be righted - towards that point whilst it is reasonable to argue that there is no point in overturning the deletion after a year - we as editors/admins do not know how that deletion is still affecting the previous user. For example does s/he use it as an example with his friends as to his view on the unfairness of wikipedia? We just don't know - restoring the page provides an alternative example of what happens here and points to the fact that wikipedia is always watching and always trying to better itself. --VS ^talk 21:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and possibly list at MfD where the desirability of maintaining the page can be discussed in the proper forum, which is not here. It certainly isn't speedy. I assume that the deleting admin forgot to check the page history, because, based on previous knowledge, she's most certainly not the type of person for wheel-warring.DGG (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page deleted unless the user in question objects. Really, this was over a year ago. If the user, or anyone else, had any objections to the deletion, they could have made them then. I see no point in restoring this because of a technicality someone noticed while discussing something else. If the user in question requests it back, then the discussion is merited, but right now I just see it as process for the sake of process. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page deleted. Yes, it's wrong to repeatedly re-tag a page for speedy deletion after it has been declined, but I couldn't agree more strongly with UsaSatsui - this is process for the sake of process. We are talking about a single line (which would have been A7'd in an instant if it was in article space) created 15 months ago by a user who never made another edit before nor since. It's not a Wikipedia user page, it doesn't fit any of the examples of what a user page is for spelled out on Wikipedia:User page, it's just a line about a non-notable band. Feel free to trout-slap some people, but there is no earthly reason for this page to be preserved. --Stormie (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted It's still a speedy and it's still spam. --DHeyward (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - borderline speediable in the first place, and the fact that three admins turned it down should have been enough to indicate to Calton to prod or MfD it. The only benefit in this DR is the discussion which it generates - there's no merit in overturning the decision at this stage. _Gb^T/c 07:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Not clear enough to be a speedy. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and mark with WP:PROD. There have been no real objections to deleting the page, only to the process here, so I think marking with PROD would be fine, and then the page can be deleted properly. Or we could just ignore the process concerns and leave it deleted until someone wants to make something of the draft, which would probably have been a better choice. Mango juice^talk 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only articles may be proposed for deletion with WP:PROD. Chillum 16:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an exception under which it could be, to quote from WP:PROD "The only exceptions to this rule are pages in the User and User talk namespaces which may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia". Davewild (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for that important detail. I have read all the policies, but they change. If it is undeleted then PROD would be a good way to go. Chillum 17:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until this came up I'd never heard of that rule either. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, admin shopping. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn because the deletion was due to forum shopping, aka undue process. Upholding this deletion means that it's okay to forum shop, as long as you aren't discovered inmediately. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and PROD it. Process is important.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 00:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Process is important, but there is no need for bureaucracy. This user hasn't responded to the deletion of his page in over a year, they have not responded here, I do not think it will matter if it is restored for 5 days...it will simply be deleted again. There is no need to go through the motions when common sense tells us this, and on the slight chance the user -does- want the page back, it can be restored easily enough no matter what path we take. It is possible for us to agree that, while the process was wrong, the end result was correct. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. It probably wasn't a great idea to speedy something relatively innocuous as this in user space. However, that said, spam is spam is spam. It might be wise for us to make a policy for user space that user pages must talk about the user, if we haven't already. This wasn't blatant advertising as G11, but A7 doesn't apply in user space, so it truly should have been put in the appropriate deletion procedure (WP:MfD) just like most other things there. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems (some) people are just knee-jerk responding without actually reading what the nominator is asking. The question here isn't "What should be done about this page?", it's "What should be done about pages like this?" To put it simply, no matter what process is taken, nobody cares what happens to this page. Personally, I think a PROD is more-than suitable. This CSD is to protect WP from being a free-advertising site. As the page was not in mainspace, it was likely not-very-highly-trafficked, so it poses little threat there. If there is a possibility that this is someone's userpage, they should be given some chance to defend it, so PROD -> MfD should always be the route (unless the page is an attack page or something more serious than SPAM). In this case, the editor was being disruptive by admin shopping, and they also violated 3RR. There is no reason to undelete this page, as one year of deletion is more-than-enough PROD, so Keep Deleted. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted. I agree that it was unwise to speedy-delete the page after the speedy had previously been declined by three admins; but all that should have happened is it being WP:PRODded or sent to MFD, where the same outcome would have been reached anyway. Despite the mistake in how this page was deleted, there is no actual reason for it to be undeleted; neither is there any apparent demand for it to be undeleted. Process is important, but undeleting this and then putting it up for deletion again would not achieve anything useful whatsoever; it would simply be process for process' sake. Terraxos (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore based on the opinions of three admins. It is not advertising it is more of a description. It would be advertising if, say, NO COVER had information on events they were performing at or albums they were trying to sell. Mentioning that this band exists and that one of the members died certainly isn't advertising or spam Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 17:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse & troutsmack everyone (including myself) for wasting time debating the deletion a single spammy contribution from an obviously abandoned account. This should not have become a cause célèbre for a debate about due process over common sense. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn based on obvious admin shopping. I agree with Frank Anchor the content was not spam NewYork483 (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn based on admin shopping and based on the material possibly being spam depending on how you look at it. Three admins did not believe it to be spam. Also, the rules should be followed even on obscure cases like this, it is still the rules of the website. Baseballfan789 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a rule too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how deleting a one-line userpage improves Wikipedia. This approach of deleting pages based on your own feeling of what's good for WP--as opposed to using policy and community standards--is a very dangerous one. UsaSatsui, how exactly do you propose applying WP:IAR in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenX (talk • contribs)
    - I never said the deletion was correct (It's not). Where i apply IAR is that this has been deleted for over a year, with no objections whatsoever in that time (not even from the user), and it's only coming up now as a side-note to something else entirely. There's no harm in leaving it deleted. That's where I apply IAR. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Taking actions based on one's own assessment of what's good for WP over strict interpretation of policy is the very reason we have IAR. As far as community standards go, in reality each member of the community has their own opinion of the deletion process, deviating to a varying degree from any sort of consensual median. The actual process behind any speedy deletion is performed at an ad hoc basis determined by the assessments of one or two individuals. In this case, the year-old one-sentence blurb would never have survived MfD and its deletion is not in any way indicative of the disintegration of process in the project. Calton acted in the interest of WP and applied IAR to the deletion of a benign and unimportant piece of self promotion (a.k.a. google search term) graciously hosted by WP servers. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Calton applied IAR?! Calton has put CSD:G11 on his flag. It's the only purpose for his presence on WP. Do you really think removing a few megabytes of userpage space which isn't linked to from anywhere really helps WP? The minor benefit from the reduction in storage and traffic is more than offset by the damage of chasing new editors away, and annoying or upsetting many established editors. Calton isn't interested in improving Wikipedia; he is interested in stamping out spam, and he does so with a religious zeal that has nothing to do with practical concerns of cost/benefit or collateral damage. Your claim that he does so under the auspices of WP:IAR is without any merit. Is WP:IAR why he goes admin-shopping? Is that why he calls everyone an idiot--he just wants to improve Wikipedia and has trouble doing so under the current rules? Owen× ☎ 22:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Whoah there, slow down with the loaded questions. I'm not an apologist for Calton's personality or approach, I find his way of dealing with disagreement to be abrasive, petty and arrogant. However I agree with his assessment that this was an utterly useless and likely promotional contribution by a one-time-use account. Most new user accounts on Wikipedia never actually contribute, a substantial portion of them make a few edits and disappear. As long as at least some of their edits improve articles, they have every right to the privilege of a userpage. If these accounts only contribute to their userspace, and if their contributions deal with promoting or discussing a subject that is outside of the realm of Wikipedia's content policies, then deletion is the way to go. A few megabytes here or there aren't a big deal, but after a while Wikipedia's backend needs to be cleared of useless clutter. I am inclined to believe that the potential cost of deleting userpages of users with no mainspace contributions who have not been active in over a year is negligible. Likewise, I've witnessed hundreds of users whose purpose was strictly to promote whatever organization or band or product they have a connection with. These accounts are detrimental to the project, they turn a substantial portion of Wikipedia to myspace or craigslist (except with an artificially inflated pagerank). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In that case, let's amend Wikipedia:User page to state that any userpage of an inactive editor with few or no mainspace edits should be deleted on sight. I'd gladly support such a policy. A simple bot can then take care of the cleanup, without the abrasion and arrogance. But until we do that, all we can go by is the current WP:UP and CSD:G11, instead of loading up WP:IAR with yet another improper usage. Remember, IAR was intended to alleviate the fear of bureaucracy experienced by newbies (check the original version!). Whenever I hear an admin or other experienced editor trying to use it, I know we are dealing with someone who holds his own views above those of the community, and considers consensus a four-letter word. If you are suggesting that Calton, who has been barking at editors here for almost four years, is just trying to avoid red tape by innocently inserting his {{db-spam}} repeatedly until he finds a cooperative admin, then I think you are giving him far more credit then he deserves. Owen× ☎ 00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It could certainly be stated clearer, but I think that between WP:UP#NOT, WP:UP#OWN, and WP:SPAM the message is pretty obvious. Your suggestion of a bot is an approach worth considering, although I'm not sure what sort of script could be used to differentiate inappropriate or spammy material from innocuous userpages. I'm also not advocating for the deletion of all inactive user pages with little to no mainspace edits, since any specific definition of "inactivity" would have to be arbitrary. There have been cases where users come back years after their initial contributions to continue (or begin) working on the project. Anyway, we're talking about spam here, and one tiny piece of it in particular. If you want to dress down Calton and his approach, the thread at WP:AN/I is still active and WP:RFC is always an option. But given no evidence to the contrary, yeah, I think he ran across what he thought was undoubtedly a piece of spam and did not see the point of wasting time on forcing a debate about its deletion. Given the circumstances, I probably would have deleted the userpage had I been monitoring CAT:CSD at the time. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crime against foreigners in India – AfD close endorsed. All other discussions about the content and its best location are an editorial matter – RMHED (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was deleted mainly with the logic it is an anti-India propaganda article. I don't think so, the sources verify these, also the solution merging into Crime in India is not possible now. Crime in India at that time was a small article, but has grew in size recent times, it is not possible to merge this huge information in Crime in India. I believe the article should stay as a separate article. It is true rape of foreigners is increasing in India, I will add more info. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not AFD round 2, no process issues raised. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as nothing to do here. The article was not deleted, it was redirected so the content could be merged to Crime in India. If this is a problem, please seek consensus at the target article's talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closure of the AFD discussion, though the wording of the closure was a bit ambiguous. Close this discussion without action and send the content dispute back to the respective article Talk pages. Turning a page into a redirect is not deletion in the narrow way we use that term here. Whether the content was useful, whether the merger was successfully carried out or whether the page should remain independent are all issues to be solved on the Talk pages, not at AFD and not here. Rossami (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

RuneHQ – Deletion endorsed. Userspace version requested before reconsideration of title protection. – Chick Bowen 14:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm Attempting to make an article about the company RuneHQ (Subsidary of Global Gaming HQ Ltd.(GGHQ) but you proceed to delete the page. Roklykthat (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was repeatedly deleted back in 2006 as it did not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines and protected to prevent recreation. If you think an article can be created that does establish notability through significant coverage in reliable sources then I would suggest creating a userspace version of the article (e.g. at User:Roklykthat/RuneHQ) and then bring it back to Deletion Review. Davewild (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure of the AfD. I'm with Davewild here in that I'd like to see a userspace version before making any further decisions. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral but i agree about the userspace idea from the two above users Baseballfan789 (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 August 2008[edit]

Tekton Apologetics Ministries – requested data provided, come back if the history is needed for GFDL at a future date – GRBerry 00:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This deletion took place almost two years ago. It seems that three articles were deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Turkel, although only one was listed. The article Robert Turkel itself was deleted as a redirect to a nonexistent page, and the article James Patrick Holding was the only one deleted as a result of that AfD, even though it (the article) never got mentioned in the discussion. This looks like a mess, and I would like to know

which one of 1, 2, or 3 was the actual article;
what did the article contain.

This is important because Holding's views are often cited as sources by various editors on articles related to Christian apologetics, but almost universally reverted immediately, but never on the grounds of WP:NPOV or WP:OR. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JP Holding -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of it's deletion, Tekton Apologetics Ministries was simply a redirect to Robert Turkel, and the last version before it was turned into a redirect was just a couple of brief paragraphs. James Patrick Holding was the article which contained actual content. This Wikipedia mirror still has the article, content looks to be the same as the deleted version. --Stormie (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I bookmarked that mirror site. It is becoming clear to me now why the article was deleted, though I think it should have gone through a thorough cleanup instead. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Security-As-A-Service – Overturned. – Chick Bowen 14:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

First off, "The XFD gave me a headache" is never a good reason to delete anything. Second, it's pretty apparent the deleting admin didn't even read the RFD in question (here. This redirect was nominated for deletion, but the link in the RFD discussion pointed to a page that didn't exist yet (the one referenced above). It was unanimously decided that not only should the redirect be kept, but that the accidentally linked page should also redirect to the target page (Security as a service). I created the redirect, fixed some double redirects, and things seemed fine...when the deleting admin comes along, improperly deletes the redirect I created as an R3, closes the RFD as delete against a unanimous consensus, and doesn't even touch the nominated redirect. In short, I ask for an Overturn of the RFD closure and speedy deletion. Note: I would have gone to the admin first, but the attitude of their deletion comments and the notice on the talk page that they do "not help resolve disputes" made me feel that course of action would be moot. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem to be some confusion here, since the page with the RFD notice on wasn't touched even to remove the notice. This is the kind of one which to me would seem ripe for resolving with discussion with the deleting admin, which doesn't appear to have happened. The note about not resolving disputes seems quite clearly about resolving disputes between other editors rather than disputes with themself. I can't see how you can perceive any significant attitude from the deletion comments. It would take < 1 day to try to talk to them. Is this really that critical to the deadline that it wasn't worth trying but was instead worth running straight here and excusing it by making comments which could be read as smears against the deleting admin? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have nothing against the admin in question, I just feel the actions taken here were highly improper, and that discussion would have gotten me nowhere. Please don't read any more into it than that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Without trying you made a judgement that discussion with them would get you no where. You misrepresent the admins talk page note that they don't get involved in disputes between editors to indicate that they aren't interested in resolving disputes. I don't need to read anything into that it's quite clear. It seems quite clear that the person actually unwillinging to enter in constructive debate to resolve a dispute is you, since you prefer to make broad brush assumptions about others. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, because DRV isn't the place for constructive debate at all. And obviously I'm trying to avoid it so much, I notified the deleting admin of the discussion. You can second-guess my motives and intentions all you want, it doesn't accomplish anything. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You mean the same way you can second guess that discussion with the admin wasn't going to achieve anything? If you belive that taking something to DRV whilst stating, based on very little, that the admin in question is unlikely to entertain reasonable discussion and so you'll skip that courtesy is constructive, then I'll give up now. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, I was just explaining why I went "out of process" up front, because somebody is going to ask, and that's the answer. But you know what? My actions are not under review here. This is Deletion Review, and there was a deletion I felt was improper, so I started a discussion here. Would you care to offer an opinion on the actual deletion, or just slam me some more because you don't agree with my reasons? And if the deleting admin thinks my reasons for skipping straight here are unfounded, or that I'm making unfair comments, they can defend themselves without your help, I'm sure. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        While it's not directly pertinent, it's not the job of the individual to defend themselves on a wiki. See meatball:DefendEachOther. Note that when you perform an action on a wiki (like, say, this one) it's rather likely that someone will examine your actions in relation to that subject. Now, to show how this works: My dear IP friend, while I do appreciate your concern regarding UsaSatsui's viewing my (admittedly spartan and currently sterile) user talkpage as rather hostile, I'm afraid it does have the look of being less than welcoming to users at the moment. I would, however, suggest that anyone who's still worth being an admin (or an editor in general, but we tend to tolerate heavy-handedness less from those who have the extra buttons!) should be able to reply civilly to any visitor questioning them on their actions. If I screw up and you let me know, that's fine. I won't go into Evil Rouge God-Admin Mode and start blocking people for merely asking pertinent questions! :) Kylu (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There's no consensus in the discussion for deleting anything (in fact the deletion discussion resulted in the creation of a missing redirect). It appears that the deleting admin misread or misunderstood the discussion, and hence should not have closed it. It would perhaps, have been better to start with a note to them before bringing it here, but since it's here, it should be corrected. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I see no reason n delete. Many users will prefer to bring things here--for some reason they tend to be scared of asking admins directly, especially when the admin has a talk page notice that says "Do not ask me to help resolve disputes (see the dispute resolution process). Administrators are for immediate technical help only." and another "If you're here to request an admin action, consider using the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard instead." These somehow do not seem designed to be encouraging. Now, in practice Kyle is very willing to discuss in detail what he does, but since he archives his talk page almost immediately, it's not all that obvious.,DGG (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Insanely wordy response Hiya. Wow, a ton of assumptions up front that rather fail WP:AGF, but I'll ignore that for now (Oh, and kindly IP editor? You're my new best friend. You nailed the rationale for the talkpage notice on the head!) and just work on the redirects. Neither "Security As A Service" nor "Security-As-A-Service" are useful redirects, they're both implausible under the meaning of CSD R3:
1. Redirects are useful solely to point plausible typos to the correct article. A valid redirect using hyphenation would be "Security-as-a-service" with all lower case (except for the enforced first upper case character), if any.
2. While Help:Redirect allows for alternative case situations to result in additional redirects, this is only useful for situations where we're dealing with a target article requiring capitalization for proper nouns ("Microsoft Windows" for instance), in which case the only neccessary redirect is all lower case. For an active example, type "BUFFALO" in the search bar and hit go, you'll end up at the Buffalo disambiguation page without requiring a redirect.
3. While overturning the deletion makes sense from a process point of view, I don't see how it's furthering the encyclopedia. I'd suggest, instead, creating the hyphenated redirect only and not creating alternative-case variants, since the target article is itself minimally capitalized. <- Closing admin: this is my suggested action.
4. Consensus doesn't mean "outcome of a vote" and isn't limited to the discussion in one section of a page: On Wikipedia, we have to weigh the desires of the entire community in each action, which includes the previously stated consensus as expressed in extant policy pages. See Wikipedia:Consensus, focusing on the phrase "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale." (Don't take my quoting a policy page personally. If you've managed to read every bloody policy page on this site, I'd be quite impressed.)
5. Oh, and feel free to talk to me first next time, even if it's not something I'm directly involved with. As long as the discussion isn't a verbal attack, I'm happy to discuss policies, my actions (admin or otherwise), or just the weather if you'd like. Sadly, I use preview often, so I have to resort to the occasional chatter to keep my editcount up. :D
6. Mr. Goodman? Kylu's not a he. :) Kylu (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Kylu, while it's true that consensus is a majority vote, it's also true that consensus is a product of the discussion, not something tacked onto it at the end. If you had something to contribute to the discussion, that's what you should have done - contributed to the discussion - and, as a consequence, not closed it. Tacking your opinion onto the end of the discussion without the opportunity for counterpoint is not a proper close. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apparently interpreted humor as hostility. I didn't mean to, and thanks for clearing things up a bit...I honestly thought you were being a serious grouch. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh no, I'm not scheduled to be a grouch until 9am Monday. Oddly enough it corresponds with mornings and staff meetings, go figure... Kylu (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure (undelete). The RfD discussion does not support the closer's decision either as articulated in the close or as explained here. The comment above implies that there is a wider consensus (such as a policy page) that was not raised during the RfD discussion which specifically concludes that redirects like this are inappropriate. I am aware of no such policy or decision. (We tend to discourage the creation of unnecessary redirects but once they are created, it's cheaper to ignore them than to add even the few extra lines to the database to delete them. Redirects really are that cheap.) Absent evidence of a wider consensus or policy decision, deference should be given to the consensus formed in the deletion discussion. This closure was outside the normal discretion granted to admins during closure. Rossami (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I am concerned about the closer's first point above that "[r]edirects are useful solely to point plausible typos to the correct article." That comment appears to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and value of redirects at Wikipedia. That is one of their uses. They also help preserve and document the history of pagemoves, consolidate similar topics, support disambiguation, etc. The current search engine now normalizes for capitalization variants and the en. settings for wikilinks normalizes for capitalization of the first character but those are not the only two ways that our readers navigate. Capitalization variants support some of those other techniques. Redirects have value far beyond their ability to help users of the search engine who don't know how to spell. Perhaps I am reading too much into the comment above but I am concerned when I see statements like that from administrators. Rossami (talk)

For: Security-As-A-Service (now undeleted for your perusal):

Page log & revision history: (diff) 04:22, 28 July 2008 . . UsaSatsui (Talk | contribs | block) (35 bytes) (← Redirected page to Security as a service)

The lone revision: #REDIRECT [[Security as a service]]

For: Security As A Service, page history with all revisions are visible. Miscreated redirect, then fixed, then selected for deletion. No significant page history and only one incoming non-Wikipedia space link (which actually should be fixed, but I'll let one of you do it instead for reasons that should be blatantly obvious).

Neither redirect contains significant history documenting pagemoves or support disambiguation. Capitalization variant redirects should not be used to correct overcapitalized words: Instead, proper procedure would be to fix the outgoing link. Assuming that one statement (which is correct in this case, IMO) is applicable to all redirects, everywhere, is in fact reading a bit too much into it.

I'd like to note that five days and 51 edits have gone into discussion of two redirect pages, created in a total of three days, counting all six revisions. Instead of applying WP:BOLD and WP:IAR to delete the redirects and correct the single incoming link, we will have (by the close of this DRV) created ten times as many edits, I'd estimate 30 to 40 times as much traffic and total characters in the database to support the final outcome, and will have added nil utility to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I think process is fine when it supports the ultimate goal of this project, but I think we've crossed that line already. I'll respond to talkpage queries (yes, you can discuss disputes where I'm a party with me, ignore the banner for that! :) but I think we're starting to waste time and effort here now. Sorry guys. Kylu (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:01anthrax2-190.jpg – Kept deleted, as a free alternative now exists. Administrators are reminded, however, that images with a valid fair use rationale that are claimed as replaceable must be given time for proper debate. – Chick Bowen 23:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image meets every qualification for Wikipedia fair use Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) See: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 August 2 and Talk:Bruce Edwards Ivins (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~ Leave deleted, but trout-slap for an invalid I7 speedy deletion. The only I7 criteria which allows instant deletion is "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot)." This image had a source and a non-free use rationale which was not "clearly invalid". Additionally, the nomination at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 August 2 was ~~factually incorrect~~ extremely poorly worded, stating "uploaded image is not the subject of the article in which it appears," when it was being used to illustrate Bruce Edwards Ivins, and the source ([84]) describes it as "This undated photo provided by the Frederick News Post shows Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, a a biodefense researcher at Fort Detrick, Md." --Stormie (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, "uploaded image is not the subject of the article in which it appears" is perfectly correct. The article is not about the image (like Che Guevara (photo) is). The article is about the subject of the image. That makes all the difference between a legitimate fair use and a bogus claim made purely as an excuse to shop around on the Internet. Rama (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll concede that it was just extremely poor wording giving the wrong impression of the nomination, not a factually incorrect statement. I think most readers would interpret "the subject of the article" as Bruce Ivins, and thus "uploaded image is not the subject of the article in which it appears" as "that's not a photo of Bruce Ivins". --Stormie (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was a reason given, and if there was disagreement about it, it needed discussion.DGG (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info: the "fair use" excuse for this image includes the notion that no free replacement can be found. One has actually been (Image:Bruce Ivins award ceremony.jpg), which proves in a totally ironclad manner that the image in discussion cannot be claimed as fair use. Restoration will result in this image being immediately deleted again. Rama (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - irrespective of whether correct process was followed here, the fact that there is now a free alternative settles it that this was ultimately the correct outcome. Incidentally, I note that the image might also have violated NFCC#2, respect for commercial opportunities, as it seems to come from a commercial news source. This alone would have made speedy deletion mandatory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually according to CSD I7, violating NFCC#2 would make deletion "forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader" acceptable. I do agree that there is no call for this image now that a free replacement has been sourced, but the criteria under which fair use images can be deleted immediately, without giving the uploader a chance to respond, are extremely limited, and this image never fell under any of them. --Stormie (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 August 2008[edit]

Prince Chunk – Overturn. CSD#A7 clearly does not apply to this article, and the article certainly asserted notability, citing Guiness BOWR as source as well as a national newspaper. Any deletion efforts for this article should be done through a listing period at AfD. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A notable article that was speedy deleted rather than nominated under AfD so that it could be discussed. DrWho42 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only presume that it was speedied because it wasn't notable. Have you conversed with the deleting admin? Keeper ǀ 76 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, nevermind. Didn't the deleting admin give you a userfied copy already? Where is it? Did you improve it? Keeper ǀ 76 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should research before typing. DoctorWho42, you have been given a userfied version of the article and history in its entirety. You haven't edited it yet. I endorse the deletion as it stands, unless the article is improved beyond what was deleted. Keeper ǀ 76 21:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List: after the deleting admin explained their reasoning I agreed with its deletion, however it has since came to my attention that the criteria it was deleted under (WP:BLP1E - cats are people too?) can not be applied to a speedy deletion. While I do not necessarily disagree with its deletion, I think it is only fair that the article be listed on AFD. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 21:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and anyone can list as required. Article asserted importance by significant coverage in reliable sources making a case for notability, and thus making A7 speedy deletion incorrect. (and I cannot see any other speedy criteria which applies) There is also quite a bit more coverage which can be found here. Whether that coverage falls foul of WP:NOT#NEWS or not is something for an AFD to decide, not by speedy deletion. Davewild (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD if you must but there is not substantial notability. the largest cat, maybe, but not the second largest. If this fits within WP:N on the basis of N=2RS, it shows the true uselessness of that criterion. If I see it at afd, I suppose I will cite back, NOT NEWS. DGG (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than two reliable sources. They were just never added to the article. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 22:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send it to AfD, it can't be denied that this cat has received significant coverage in reliable sources (I read about him in two separate newspapers myself), as Davewild said, "Whether that coverage falls foul of WP:NOT#NEWS or not is something for an AFD to decide." --Stormie (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Afd it per above. Well sourced blp1e's shouldn't be speedied. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Article makes an explicit claim of notability and deletion was out of process. Sure it's not the world's largest cat, but we have articles for plenty of other "near the most" articles, and this claim should be addressed by all editors, not by one administrator who has taken the role of judge, jury and executioner upon himself. Alansohn (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we define notability?

“

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.¹

”

Does the article meet the requirement? Yes. Well, I support reinstating the article as long as you promise not to kick/ban me. Kushal (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the deleting admin, I'd like to say that - first of all, I did NOT delete it as a BLP1E; I deleted it for lack of any assertion of notability. "Fat" is not notable. Even "very fat" isn't notable. This is a cat, not a person; my comment including BLP1E was simply an attempt at analogy. Second, WP:OSE isn't useful here; the article was tagged and I agreed. That was my judgment call. Third, I am not digging in my heels. There is a chance the consensus is that this should exist. I have no objection to the article being recreated; I won't nom it for AfD, I won't solicit for an AfD, I won't canvass if one is opened, and I won't close any AfD that may result. I will, however, enter a reasoned opinion if an AfD occurs. I have deleted over 500 articles at CSD and I have had one or two article resurrected after CSD; I'm OK with being overturned here, even if I don't agree (in fact, fairly strongly disagree). But, it happens, and it will happen in the future. Frank | talk 23:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also alerted the editor who placed the CSD tag. Frank | talk 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which of the classes of items permitted for WP:CSD A7 does this fall in: real person, group, or web content? It's been asked that animals be included in the criterion, and the requested have been rejected by the community because they are not as obvious as most people speedy deletes. This shows why. I will !vote to delete at the AfD, but its hardly indisputable or obvious. DGG (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I believe that this article deletion should be overturned because of its notability and media attention. The article itself is well done, and contains a number of resources and references, as well as an info box. I firmly believe that an article with such qualities should remain. --Sinewaves23 (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD in strongest possible terms As the one who originally put forth the CSD request, let me first apologize if that was not the proper form for this to be taken care of. However, let me also offer this as some additional food for thought. This article clearly lacks any semblence of notability whatsoever. This is because notability is not only the fact that the news story (and let me emphasize that term here) was listed in multiple newspapers. Notability instead requires, by its very definition no less, that the item in question have certain meaning beyond the simple existence of the fact. As has been stated before, this is a fat cat in New York state; nothing more and nothing less. It has not achieved any great feat that will be remembered beyond the next few days at the most. And accordingly, it has not met the absolute minimum standard of notariety that almost anyone would consider necessary for inclusion into this project, which is ultimately an encyclopedia. Finally, let me again apologize. I don't mean to come off as combative, and if I do, know that it is only because of my frustration here. I never saw this as an item that would occupy so much time on the part of so many. And I believe that Frank would agree with me here. Cassius1213 (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't require the item have a certain meaning. The concept that real-world items have meaning is a belief not shared among all humanity. What exactly is the meaning of New Hampshire? What notability requires is that the thing be noted, repeatedly and in reliable sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This is the prime example of an article that should go to AfD. --Smashville^BONK! 17:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Article implies this is the biggest cat alive. Surely that, and the media references, are enough that it shouldn't be a speedy. Didn't I see a picture of this cat in the newspaper recently? Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and I have already heard rational people make fun of Wikipedia for having an article on it. All the more reason, of course, to have a proper discussion. DGG (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over a cat that has received a significant amount of media attention? The heaviest cat alive today? I could imagine criticism about the argument that has ensued from the article's deletion, but surely not for the article itself, given that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, such as villages with a population of 3 and school's that cater to villages with a population of 3. If people are "[making] fun of Wikipedia" for it, are they also making fun of Live with Regis and Kelly, Today, Good Morning America, Fox News (more than usual), and MSNBC? Or the international media that have reported about it? ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 04:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AfD - I believe the article made sufficient claims of notability to satisfy A7. I wonder, though, it doesn't explicitly cover animals, but perhaps it should? Shereth 23:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:First Calv US Army 07 Rose Parade.jpg – Not a Deletion Review matter, please discuss on talk page, or if necessary use WP:Dispute Resolution – Davewild (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Editor Signaleer continues to remove pic claiming it is bias. It is a neuture pic. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image has not been deleted, so this is not a DRV matter. Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution is that-a-way. It appears from context that the article in question is United States Army, where nobody has yet used the talk page. Please begin by discussing at Talk:United States Army. GRBerry 15:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kraak & Smaak – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 00:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

legitimate article Drummerob402 (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

Endorse. Core A3 issue. Nothing but an external link. GRBerry 15:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion consisted of nothing but an external links header and one link. You are free to write another article if you can include content that actually gives some information about the subject. Hut 8.5 15:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No encylopedic content, feel free to create a proper article. Davewild (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A3, no encyclopedic content. With nothing but an external link G11 could apply also. No prejuduce against recreation— Ѕandahl 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Howard Paul – Speedy deletion overturned. – Tikiwont (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why was this deleted? Can I get it back? Truelytruely (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted under Speedy Deletion criteria A7 - it was about a person and it did not indicate the notability of the subject...in other words, it didn't say why this person should have an article. The article can be brought back if you can correct that problem, or you can recreate it, but you will need to provide reliable sources to prove his notability. If you have sources per that guideline and need help sorting them out, leave me a message here, I'll see what I can do. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article DID say why he was notable, and it gave the only sources I have. If some admin didn't feel it was notable enough, surely that should have been discussed, or pointed out. Not just deleted on a whim.--Truelytruely (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The article asserted significance or importance. GRBerry 15:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There are several assertions of importance in the deleted article making A7 speedy deletion incorrect. Davewild (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, sufficient claims of notability to make the speedy improper. Shereth 17:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, asserted notability, mentioned at least one source (New York Times). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn the deletion. I had previously declined even a prod on the article--perhaps the delting admin had not noticed that? DGG (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wahroonga Public School – Deletion overturned as there is agreement that a speedy deletion wasn't the right way to address issues with previous process or the article itself. No prejudice against relisting the article, evaluating a merge or pruning it for undue weight issues. – Tikiwont (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was speedy deleted for lack of assertion of notability. However, article survived deletion review process. If there are problems with the article, it could have gone back to AfD and been improved. Assize (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original AfD closure - it was closed as delete according to consensus by User:Neil. Three hours later, one of the Keep voters (who has also initiated the present DRV) took it to DRV, at which two other Keep voters and two others commented over about a 36-hour period. None of the objections at DRV addressed the closure or the consensus on the original AfD. A search on the DRV closer's contribs reveals that this was the first DRV that this relatively new admin (who had been through RfA three weeks earlier) had closed - I believe incorrectly so, as no issues with the closure were raised. Those considering this situation are welcome to view my talk page and that of the initiator to see the sort of Wikilawyering that has been going on to return this clearly non-notable article which had become a coatrack for some trivial local gripes (I'm not kidding here - three of the references related to an allegedly stinking loo!) and had been abandoned by those who wished to keep it for four months. Orderinchaos 11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Original AfD was: 9 delete (1 duplication, 8 does not assert notability, 5 lack of secondary sources); 2 merge - one of which argues no notability; 7 keep (6 on principle (no reason given), 1 claims refs found justify keeping). WP:DP clearly says "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." There were no grounds given to keep the article, and solid grounds given to delete it. The job of a closing admin is to consider policy arguments used in obtaining consensus, and this is exactly what the original closing admin did. Orderinchaos 11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the pevious AfD and DRV or state of the article, but overturn the speedy and WP:TROUTslap Orderinchaos for using A7 on a school and ignoring that you can't speedy something that's come out the other end of an AfD, even if only because a DRV overturned it. The proper course of action here would have been to renominate the article for AfD, not speedy it. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Process for process's sake. The previous DRV was clearly invalid. Orderinchaos 13:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That still leaves the fact that A7 explicitly excludes schools—and proposed guidelines to speedy schools have fallen flat. Besides, the best way to dispute it would have been community discussion, not unilateral decision. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia's "do no harm" policy, BLP (which was placed onto Wikipedia by the Foundation) and such things take *much* greater precedence than eternally changing wording on the CSD pages. Orderinchaos 18:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how BLP applies much here, as this is about a school, though I can see a single place. And another where the "do no harm" idea applies. But both of those were minor and could have been handled with regular editing. To approach this from another angle, since I go agree that I've relied on process a lot in my previous points, the original purpose of the CSD was to take a load off of AfD and PROD. It was only meant to be applied in cases where the article would surely be delete, and only for relatively uncontroversial cases. One common reason new CSD get shot down is that they're too likely to delete things that might actually belong on the Wikipedia. Given the below, this is far too controversial of a situation for the CSD to really apply. A community consensus on the matter, at AfD, would have been the proper course of action, given the past history. CSD is not set up to properly handle articles which the community doesn't very clearly believe should be deleted. I'm sorry if that doesn't flow very well, but I hope my point is in there somewhere. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn An A7 delete was a blatant misuse of the CSD criteria. RMHED (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Endorse It's been a while since I've waded back into wiki-waters, and from everything I have read and seen in this case it seems a dedicated campaign of forum shopping has been conducted over this article.

Firstly, the WP:TROUTslap comment from User:Lifebaka is neither helpful or does anything to further the discussion. It should be noted that the person you indicated you wished to slap is an esteemed long term administrator, carries significant weight within his country of origin on the Wiki, and additionally has notability outside of Wikipedia having been quoted and consulted by papers of record on matters Wiki. Regardless of his involvement or your views, the users participation is appropriate and his opinions and views carry reasonable weight.

Going to the original article, I'm yet to see anything that demonstrates WP:N for the original article, the cited references were at best trivial, and frankly the article was nothing better than a directory entry where some obscure small references were found on toilets that supposedly weren't in the best state smell wise.

One only has to look at the large body of commentary across AfD, DRV, and other consensus-generating areas where discussions relating to schools have taken place, and one could say that if this article is reviewed in the context of the extensive body of discussion on the topic, it would be unlikely to stand up in all forms seen thus far.

The problems with the article go to the core of the schoolcruft essay, which discusses at reasonable length the issues relating to schools on WP. While including information on schools isn't inherently bad, when done in a scattershot approach and for no foreseeable reason other than being overly" passionate and enthusiastic about a particular school", editors "feel the impulse over a protracted period of time to share their passion with us, their audience, by creating a mini-shrine to their institution of learning and, in fact, almost anything relating to said institution, on Wikipedia." This article is a classic example of the schoolcruft problem for the reasons already discussed and raised in this and other forums relating to it.

As to the DRV, I would question the logic used for the overturn of the deletion. From my memory, the question at DRV is has the consensus of the AfD been correctly interpreted by the closer, and not the seeming logic used in this case if the article should have been deleted or allowed to remain.

On the basis of an unlikely emergence of a revised version of the article that adequately addresses all the concerns raised to date, plus factoring in all points raised to date, I would wholly endorse the deletion of this article, both at AfD and the CSD action taken in light of a faulty DRV decision. It's really the point where a line needs to be drawn under this article and the proponents of it move on to something more beneficial. Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is a trusted admin. But he should know better. The purpose of the trout is to remind him, not as punishment. And it's only in regards to misuse of the CSD. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need "reminding" of anything, thank you. Process will be the death of this thing we call Wikipedia. People seem to forget that policy did not come first - common sense did. That's why WP:IAR still has the status of policy. An article which lacks notability, which contains major undue weight issues which cast the school in an unfairly bad light (all of which, I notice, were placed in the article by the person who has opened both DRVs) and which can never meet Wikipedia's article standards in any state other than a denuded stub should be purged. Otherwise, I suspect OTRS will end up handling this one, and what policy says or does not say will be meaningless as we'll need to think about the actual impact of having such a nasty article on a Top 10 website, google-searchable. Orderinchaos 18:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist The A7 speedy criteria specifically says that schools should not be speedy deleted under that criteria. Even schools which are judged to be non-notable are often redirected at AFD, not deleted so speedy deletion is not ma good idea. The Deletion Review had only the closer endorsing the closure and he does not seem to hae protested the closure of the DRV. Given that the sources were added towards the end of the AFD and this was reasonably judged to have invalidated previous delete opinions. Given that there is a reasonable debate over notability lets send it back to AFD for a decision on notability to be made. Davewild (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the fact it was deleted at AfD. Pretty much noone knew the DRV even took place, as it wasn't advertised anywhere, and "failure to protest" does not meaningfully represent agreement - that much has been established not only as common sense but also by ArbCom in a number of its decisions. You do realise that if this DRV succeeds, an AfD will see it gone *again*, most likely some other user will DRV that *again* per WP:ILIKEIT, and then we'll be back here all over again. I don't see the point in such a waste of everybody's time. The DRV result - not the only controversial one finalised in those 3 days by the same closer (I notice he's neither participated nor closed any DRVs before or since) - should be set aside, and the original AfD result upheld. Orderinchaos 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't advertise DRVs, getting 5 comments (not counting nominator) on a DRV is not bad. I am not convinved that a second AFD will result in a delete. As I said above most elementary school articles that are judged as not notable end in a merge or redirect these days. The sources were added after many of the delete opinions, who specifically mentioned lack of reliable sources and I would want to see those sources discussed, personally I am not sure if they establish notability or not, which is why I recommend relist. (which is what I think the people who contributed to the first DRV should have argued for). I cannot see another DRV occuring if another AFD takes place and if someone did come here using ILIKEIT it would be speedily endorsed. I think the closer of the DRV made the only close possible, based on the opinions made in that DRV. If you felt that was incorrect you should have taken the article back to AFD not speedy deleted it when the relevant policy specifically says not to do this. Davewild (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, DRV was abused the last time to overturn a valid consensus. (As highlighted, not one of the four Keep/Overturn voters last time highlighted any issue with the close, they just wanted to argue the AfD all over again, but under less scrutiny.) ArbCom has given us a mandate to enforce BLP pretty much at all costs, and ignoring all processes. The fact that the DRV nominator on both occasions is the same person who introduced the issues into the article to begin with leads me to conclude that there is no good at all in this. If the article is restored, we are going to need to do a revision purge on it to remove the nominator's additions to the article. As someone who deals with real life people over Wikipedia every day you have no idea how frustrating it is to try and communicate the fact that Wikipedia can damage outside entities, be they people, schools, businesses etc. They see us as a big bully who *wants* to damage them. We really do have to prove them wrong. Orderinchaos 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to just have to disagree I'm afraid, I don't see things in the article that are BLP violation sufficient to speedy delete the article, (indeed am not convinced there are BLP concerns - none of the people mentioned in the article are refered to negatively and everything is sourced) nor was that mentioned anywhere in the AFD, DRV or any of the deletion reasons. If what was in that article deserved a speedy deletion based on BLP then I am astonished and do not think this is what ARBCOM intended or certainly not what the community intends or supports.

To address your other point the contributors in the original DRV felt the closer incorrectly failed to give appropriate weight to the sources added to the article during the AFD. They felt that this should have been taken more into account by the closer and thus he incorrectly judged consensus based on their interpretation of policy. I think this is part of what DRV is here for. You can disagree with but I think it is a legitimate view. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll phrase it another way. Suppose you were a parent researching schools for your child. Would you feel comfortable sending them to this one? And if not, would certain things in this article, not contained in other readily accessible sources, be a factor in that? Then you have to ask, are those criticisms fair or reasonable, do they apply to possibly hundreds of schools and not even just in that state in Australia? (I'm in WA, on the other side of the continent from the school in question.) That's where we start getting into BLP - essentially BLP means "do not write stuff which has real life impacts or potential damage on individuals or organisations beyond that contained within similarly accessible real world reliable sources". The publications being sourced are so-called "throwaway" free papers you get in the local area which are generally not accessible beyond about a year after their publication at the local library, although one point is sourced to the state's tabloid, which often gets criticised here for its lack of balance. I'd note too that Wahroonga is in one of the high-market areas of Sydney - the suburb has a ridiculously high vote for the pro-business Liberal Party compared to other parts of Sydney (71% in 2007). Orderinchaos 19:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the things in the article we are talking about have been regularly mentioned in the schools own newsletter (so parents will be quite well aware of them) and that we can update the article with this recent source -http://www.hornsbyadvocate.com.au/article/2008/06/18/2193_news.html - to provide a balanced picture (there were problems, now being addressed) I think it is possible to write a NPOV article in which this is covered appropriately (not dominating the article but covered to a smallish but correct extent). As an aside (not central to my point) I don't think BLP applies to organisations and am sure I have seen discussions, such as (but not limited to) here where this was agreed. Davewild (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but therein lies the rub - the undue weight issue which I originally highlighted - in that no other article for any other school in Australia contains such information about a school. Are we saying, then, that it is the only school with such issues? I know for a fact that several schools, both private and public, in my own state have very similar issues (at least one much worse) - by covering it at all we're giving it a credibility and weight it simply does not have with regard to the reliable-source coverage. That in turn gives a more than misleading impression as to relativity (the fact it's being covered at all suggests it's notable). The Hornsby Advocate, by the way, is the free throwaway I was referring to. I'm not sure if these exist where you live, but they most certainly do not have the journalistic or editorial standard one would expect of a state daily. Often they just print whatever they're sent from certain sources. I'm not even attacking them - I've found them very useful when I've needed to bring some issue to attention. Orderinchaos 21:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn(added:)and relist the A7 speedy deletion, even though I was one of the "Deleters" in the original AFD. After an article has gone through AFD and been restored by deletion review, it is simply not appropriate to do an A7 speedy deletion. BLP is not a valid reason for deleting the article. If newspapers discuss the number and condition of toilets in a school, who is the "living person" we are protecting? The plumber? The only recourse is to relist it after an appropriate period at AFD, or to edit the article and remove unflattering toilet coverage if there is a justification for the removal of coverage in reliable sources. Please do not huff and puff about how "important" some particular admin is,as in "esteemed long term administrator, carries significant weight within his country of origin on the Wiki, and additionally has notability outside of Wikipedia" and please do not denigrate policies and guidelines. Here "BLP" was just another way of saying "IDONTLIKEIT." If you want to change the rules for CSD, then WP:CSD is the appropriate place. Edison (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that the comments by the other contributor are his alone and I do not make any claim to be above any other editor. In fact, in recent times, I've probably been doing more editing than adminning. Orderinchaos 21:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I gave the impression you had ever boasted in any way yourself. Edison (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was pretty sure you hadn't concluded that, but just wanted to make sure. Orderinchaos 05:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist This is a definition policy violation in using an A7 speedy delete after AfD. Allow the community to make the decision on retention, not a single administrator. Alansohn (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, incorrect. It would be a policy violation if the AfD had concluded "keep". The CSD was entirely in line with the AfD outcome. There is, unfortunately, no process by which completely invalid results at DRV (no arguments presented, closed improperly) can be contested, it's like an "appeal on an appeal". I have already said that if this DRV closes overturn, that it should be sent to AfD for consideration, where I am fairly convinced that consensus will, as it did last time and has on many other occasions, agree with me that random schools in the suburbs are not notable (we're not talking a big state high school or a private school with a long history or a foundation (i.e. first ever school or oldest school operating in present location) or unique thing, it's just School No.3833 amongst many others in a very, very large educational district serving about 1.5 million children. Orderinchaos 21:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far one agrees with you and five disagree. The DRV closure was not so clearly improper as you say, at least not to your peers. Edison (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, everyone who has commented has disagreed with the A7, but there's actually been very little commentary on the background circumstances. That is fair, I suppose, given this *is* a review of the speedy. Orderinchaos 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Doing an A7 speedy after a keep at DRV this way is totally out of order, and seems a deliberate and still maintained defiance of procedure to advance a personal view. Arguing that the keep was at Deletion review, rather than AfD, and so the rule against using speedy in such cases did not apply is among the most extrordinary instances of wikilawyering I have yet encountered. If OiC wants to argue the case, the proper method is to propose a second AfD, not use administrative powers unilaterally. Our tole is not to overturn community decisions we do not like--even if they are wrong. Personally, I havent the least ideas what will happen at a subsequent AfD--there are after all some good RSs talking primarily about the school; the negative criticism is sourced,and is not with respect to persons, so the admin prerogatives with BLP do not apply. DGG (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced, yes - to reliable sources, no. That was always going to be the problem with this one. Incidentally, sourcing does not negate BLP (and I must say this is very weakly sourced anyway, but thought I'd make the point of principle) - I have seen entire sourced articles go the way of the dodo because they malign the subject. Even some of my own sourced work - two or three paragraphs of it with more than 10 citations, all of which was in newspaper-of-record level publications at close to the front page - in a particular instance was removed for that reason, but I had consented to that with the two admins handling that particular issue, as it was a case of "big issue trumps little issue (and pride somewhere along the way)". There is probably going to be thousands of such cases in the future. A final question - you suggest I should indulge in the same sort of petty process-warring that my opponents have indulged in - the question is why? All I'd be doing is setting off an infinite loop of AfDs and DRVs, much as I suspect this DRV has. I wouldn't doubt we'll still be arguing about this particular non-notable school in 6 or 12 or 18 months because of the "keep" voters' refusal to accept the initial umpire's decision and do an end-run to get around it.

Oh, and a 4-1 decision in 36 hours in a non advertised space based on an agreement of the minority in the original case which does not cite any Wikipedia policy or any problem whatsoever with the consensus obtained is not a community decision. If a local council tried to act on a decision based on a town hall meeting convened in this manner, they'd probably end up getting overruled by the Planning Minister for lack of due process. This sort of campaigning and use of process for aims which do not improve the encyclopaedia, at a macro level, is one of the main causes of the sorts of problems that give Wikipedia so many perception problems in the wider world. Orderinchaos 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could this DRV stick to the process issues. I've already been called a wikilawyer on my talk page, and now I'm apparently "forum shopping". I have only gone to DRV twice before this. One of them for this article. I felt that the closing admin incorrectly held there was consensus to delete, particular as there was new content and references. I was entitled to do that. Two users who did not particate at AfD voted overturn, two who did participate voted the same way. I did not stack the DRV. Orderinchaos seems to have the privilege of having DRV2 here, yet I'm criticized for making a DRV turn into an AFD2. If only I had that influence. No wonder I don't bother writing much here anymore. Assize (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, as you initiated both proceedings. I'm more than a bit concerned at some of the content you added, especially given the Foundation's strong emphasis on "do no harm" in a material and practical way. Perhaps also this stuff has come back at an odd time - I've had the unusual situation of dealing with a lot of offline people this week and seeing through their eyes how Wikipedia operates, and if you're a little guy out there who sees all this process-shifting and stuff, and it happens to be about you or your organisation and you're really feeling the effects of being so exposed on a Top 10 website and seemingly being able to do nothing about it, it's a scary and threatening thing indeed. I had thought almost purely in terms of notability back in March when I took the action I did. It would take Blind Freddy not to spot this thing's not going to end very soon as "overturn and relist", so I won't indulge further here and just wait for the inevitable (and highly unnecessary) AfD so we can go through all this again in a different venue with different people. Orderinchaos 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn because I didn't get a chance to comment on this and think it should have been merged to the suburb article as is the WP:LOCAL convention. JRG (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Oddly, I'd actually support this, although a selective merge not including the troublesome components would be necessary. That wasn't the strict consensus of the AfD but would be an entirely acceptable outcome, and one I've supported on other similar occasions.) Orderinchaos 05:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer I think this can safely be closed now - the consensus in this forum at least is obvious, and a decision now needs to be come to in the other forum regarding material issues. Orderinchaos 06:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and deadmin the closing Admin. Speedying an article that previously passed a DRV? That's bad enough, but trying to justify why one speedied an article that passed DRV - that's suggests that WP:ADMIN#Removal of adminship should be followed. Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there's no way this is a useful way to comment. Would you mind striking it, to avoid unnecessary drahmahz? Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'll let that stand. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Admin thinks that it is acceptable to speedy an article that passed DRV. How much clearer can it get? Nfitz (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty cut and dried to me that WP:CIVIL is policy, too. In addition, WP:BURO, which is part of WP:NOT and therefore policy, and WP:IAR which empowers editors and admins alike to do whatever is necessary to improve the encyclopaedia. This runs along the same spirit of both recent and past ArbCom decisions to the same effect - they in effect warn the unsuspecting off crimes against the social order, such as edit warring and wheel warring, but not against genuine efforts to improve the encyclopaedia. If people wish to be ruled by the letter rather than the spirit of the law, they're welcome to feel such, but we are increasingly subject to scrutiny by real people in the community (especially those who are affected by our actions) and, although it appears that at this DRV a fair number of people believe that I acted incorrectly, nobody has been able to allege that I did so wrongly or with malice, as I certainly did not. I think that if someone was crazy enough to send this to ArbCom for comment, my "bit" would still be perfectly safe. Orderinchaos 12:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything here that violates WP:CIVIL. Calling a spade a spade, politely, and recommending the direction this should go doesn't violate WP:CIVIL. Nfitz (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - the criteria for speedy deletions are deliberately tightly written, since they are deletions by a single individual without community consensus, and admins should not seek to push the boundaries. In this case CSD A7 did not apply - article kept at DRV; schools are excluded from A7; some indication of importance. TerriersFan (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Having survived a DRV, is should not be speedied. Speedie deleted articles should be listed on request anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "World Notes THE PHILIPPINES," TIME (Jun. 22, 1987).

[2] Mila D. Aguilar, Journey: An Autobiography in Verse, 1964-1995 (University of the Philippines Press, 1996), 33.

[3] The late Michae, Dictionary of the Modern Politics of South-East Asia (Routledge, 1996), 187.

[4] William Chapman, Inside the Philippine Revolution: The New People's Army and Its Struggle for Power (I.B.Tauris, 1988), 79.

[5] ttp: //www.notgotajobyet.co.uk Notgotajobyet

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]