Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 16-31

< August 1-15 2007	Deletion review archives	September 2007 >

31 August 2007[edit]

Image:Bleach 01 - The Substitute.jpg – Speedy undelete, since it was accidental (a probably legitimate fair-use image was replaced with a non-legitimate fair-use image, and the legitimate one was deleted as a result). Ral315 » 04:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC) – Ral315 » 04:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image was previously used on the Featured List List of Bleach The Substitute arc episodes, where it not only served to identify the subject of the article but was specifically discussed in the article text, since it was an award-nominated package design. It bore a rationale reflecting this.

However, it was later replaced with another image that was used solely for identification and had no commentary (ergo no strong rationale), with the consequence that both were deleted, the original due to its replacement by the newer image and the newer image due to being "unnecessary". I would like the original image to be brought back so that it can be used in the article. --tjstrf talk 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not seeing an edit summary to explain the deletion in the logs. Did the deleted image that you want restored have a fair use rationale? Do you know why it was deleted/have you attempted to contact the deleting admin? At the very least, there seems to be some rationale provided in the edit summary of the upload. I'm leaning towards wanting to restore this. Heather 16:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes, it had a rationale. It was deleted due to being orphaned, which is normally a legitimate reason for deletion, but the image which replaced it on the list was then itself deleted without the original being put back on the page. --tjstrf talk 01:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply x2 What exactly was it a picture of? Is it impossible just to find the image on Google/some fansite and reupload it yourself? - The Norse 03:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a DVD cover, so yes, I could. However I would prefer to avoid having to mentally reconstruct what I wrote as the image description, and by using the formal process I gain a defense against accusations of reposting deleted content. --tjstrf talk 03:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Akatsuki members – Deletion endorsed. This DRV closure is influenced by the current status quo, where redirection and merger have accommodated much of the list's information elsewhere. Some of these merges necessitate the history undeletion of the content for GFDL purposes. – Xoloz 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AfD log for this article has an overwhelming amount of Keeps, but a lot of them are WP:ILIKEIT which is what the Admin wrote as a main reason for deletion. He seemed to completely skip over the good amount of unbiased Keeps and Comments though citing good reasons, precedents and sources though, which alone outnumbed the amount of Delete votes. The article is a sub-page of a notable subject relating to Naruto, one of Wikipedia's most visitited articles and branched off its main page for formatting and length concerns. The Norse 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - Votestacking is sending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. Thirty+ editors who are on the record with a specific opinion about List of Akatsuki members were informed about this current !Vote on their talk page. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xDanielx notified every participant in that debate equally, including yourself, the one who nominated it for deletion in the first place. --tjstrf talk 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Endorse Deletion The page did not aspire to notability standards, as implied by the question of independent sources, and there was no case made for keeping this that suggested otherwise. As a result, the closing rationale is correct: consensus of larger policy trumps individual instances of fan-stacked keep votes. Eusebeus 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and redirection, very well-reasoned closing rationale. AFD is not a vote, and a lot of fans of something arguing for keeping do not trump policy-based arguments. --Core desat 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever read all the "keep" arguments? @pple complain 02:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. - notability is the guiding word here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Noted characters are the main villains of one of the most popular and longest-running anime/manga series of the last decade. I believe someone in the AfD cited a magazine directly pertaining to the characters too. - The Norse 03:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong overturn - in all fairness, this is the most exorbitant stretch of WP:PNSD I have seen. 32 genuine keep !votes against 3 delete !votes should make it fairly obvious that absent sockpuppetry/libel/etc., the article should be snowball kept. In this case, content guidelines which are designed to assist in resolving contentious content disputes were applied to completely trivial and uncontroversial information. Follow the spirit; ignore the letter as appropriate. — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, this was a good close, not that it makes any difference as 80% of the deleted page has been merged and redirected into the main article anyway. ELIMINATORJR 20:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This is true, though the article is rather long now and would probably be better formatted if the characters had their own page. - The Norse 03:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be even better formatted if the huge amount of tangental information that is sourced to nothing but a primary source was ruthlessly stripped out. ELIMINATORJR 16:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a wise editorial action. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that discussion, it seems like most of delete opinions really didn't understand what they were !voting for: The end result was the content being merged, but then parts of it seem to have been split out into an even larger number of individual character articles, so in the end we have just as much fictional content if not more, worse formatting, and nobody's happy.
As for the closure, overturn as a massive violation of the deletion guidelines. Admins are not permitted to discount informed opinions because they disagree with their personal interpretation of a nebulous area of policy, but rather only in cases of bad faith. Can ^demon honestly claim that 18+ of those keep opinions were written in bad faith, i.e. by vandals, trolls, and sockpuppets? --tjstrf talk 09:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Excellent close. I wish more admins paid attention to the arguments of the nominator, and those who participate instead of counting votes. At no point did any of the opposition to deletion provide an independent reliable source for the information in the article, and the nominator was not refuted in his claim that it did not meet WP:V. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, "didn't meet WP:V"? The only time fiction articles have trouble with verifiability is when they include speculation or fanwankery. Can you find one single statement on the page that wasn't sourceable to the series canon? --tjstrf talk 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are primary sources, though. WP:V requires 3rd party sourcing. ELIMINATORJR 22:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Series canon is a reliable third party source for information on elements from within it. Actually, it's beyond even that: it's The Truth. --tjstrf talk 22:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminator, I think you are applying WP:V in a way that is very inconsistent with the spirit, and probably the letter (though the latter is debatable), of the policy. "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." If the publishers of Naruto assert that Kisame Hoshigaki is age 29 in Part I, then that material is not likely to be challenged. Just as "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", trivial and indisputable bits of information should be allowed leniency when their truth is plainly obvious. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. WP:V is quite clear about this - using primary sources is fine, but using only primary sources isn't. ELIMINATORJR 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to the sentence "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This is simply a restatement of WP:N. In this case such sources are all over the place. It is a mistake to suppose that an article of this nature requires sources discussing the subject of lists of Akatsuki members; by that logic we would have to delete list of bridges, and so on -- almost every list and category on Wikipedia. — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was just a list, that would not be a problem - but it isn't just a list, there's a whopping great piece of what is effectively plot summary for each character. ELIMINATORJR 21:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, and kudos to ^demon for reading the unbolded words instead of counting the bolded ones. AfD is not a vote, and substantial secondary sources are required, not a nicety. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, please note that xDanielx has been notifying those who participated in the debate. While in fairness both sides are apparently being notified, DRV isn't a vote either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No outside sources means we cannot determine the notability of this subject. The closing admin made the correct decision in the face of a lot of bad arguments. This "information" does not belong in it's own article or in the Akatsuki (Naruto) article, it needs to go away until secondary sources on these characters are found. --Phirazo 20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Overturn - I specifically gave a verifiable, third-party source that could be used for this info. I believe I am the user referred to by The Norse, above. This also shows up on a Google-News search of "Akatsuki", thus verifying notability. While not meaning to be personal-attacky, it seems that many of those who claim "no verifiable sources" didn't actually search to verify that. Que Irony.KrytenKoro 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your source does indeed cover Naruto, but covers the characters only briefly and in passing. Sourcing which substantially covers the subject of the article, not a parent topic or something related, are required. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also gave a magazine that focuses much more substantially on the Akatsuki. However, I thought the dispute was to establish that there were third party sources, not that the article could be written from only that info - articles on fiction are allowed to use the primary source a substantial amount, so long as they can verify that there are third party sources, yes? So, we know that there are independent, verifiable, reliable third-party sources. What else is the problem?KrytenKoro 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A lot of objections seem to center around the lack of third-party sources. A number of past disputes have centered on the same issues - Spells in Harry Potter for instance. The bottom line is that the general test outlined in WP:N, and restated briefly in WP:V and elsewhere, is not meant to apply to lists just as it is not meant to apply to, say, categories. Per WP:Summary style, it is necessary and proper to fork large sections like these. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, which is much more specific/pertinent to topic than the core policies, says very clearly that minor characters should be forked out, and major characters should be forked out if they would otherwise make the main article too long/messy, which they are doing in this caes. Technically a forked section is being given its own article, but for most practical purposes it can be considered a section of the parent article. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, WP:SS, and WP:IAR were all noted as reasons to preserve the article in the AfD; let's not forgot that we have the option to ignore the letter of policies, especially when they are in borderline conflict with subject-specific style guidelines. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again - it's not a list. There is so much spurious information that it's effectively an article for each character - articles which fail WP:V. If the article merely gave a list of the character's names and perhaps a very small amount of relevant information, then fine (and to be honest, secondary sources could easily be found for that anyway). But read the talk page - no-one is interested in sourcing this article, the topic for today is "whether Zetsu has a jutsu" for example. ELIMINATORJR 22:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in it fails WP:V by any stretch of the imagination. Fail WP:WAF, sure, but not WP:V. Verifiability and reliability is about having your information sourced to accurate publications, there is no source in existence more accurate than the original work for information about the fiction it contains. As regards in universe information, the use of third party sources is not only nonsensical but harmful, as it will lead to the inclusion of information sourced to things like inaccurate third-party reviews. --tjstrf talk 22:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is appropriate -- I would go as far as to say best -- to allow self-published sources to back the content of the article in cases like this. Consider company reports as a similar example: a company reports on its website that it has 645 employees, and some third-party site, say BusinessWeek, sees this and puts on its site that the company has 600+ employees. I think this case is even clearer since the authors of the story have the exclusive ability to dictate who the characters are. If the story writers say that Tobi wears a mask, then he does. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that it isn't purely a list per se in the sense that it does provide commentary on the listed items, but I think my comments still apply. For practical purposes, it can be considered part of the Akatsuki (Naruto) article, split off because of a technicality. This is a case where I feel we should grant the article spillover notability -- if there are no reliable third-party sources giving substantial independent coverage to the forked topic (maybe there are, m I don't know), then that is only due to the nature of how information is organized on Wikipedia and how it is organized on the rest of the internet - it is incredibly rare for reliable sources to write articles which provide substantial commentary on different organizations of information within a narrow topic such as Naruto characters. This discrepancy is precisely the reason we don't require that categories pass WP:N, and that reasoning is why we are able to have a list of bridges article. The precedents aren't as obvious in these less clear-cut cases, but they do exist: WP:SS, Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, and so on. Spells in Harry Potter is a case in point. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's really a distraction from the key topic at hand though, which is that the claim in the deletion summary that the WP:V issue was not addressed is incorrect, since there is no WP:V issue. --tjstrf talk 23:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, we have WP:WAF and WP:FICT for this exact reason—to guard against primary-source-only cruft. If independent sources are not extensively covering a subject, we are giving undue weight by second-guessing them and covering it extensively in the absence of such material. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then redo the AfD on those grounds, and throw the Akatsuki (Naruto) article in while you're at it. I'm not claiming the article was perfect; the issue here is that the article was deleted against process and on completely inapplicable verifiability grounds. --tjstrf talk 00:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I'm split on this but after looking at the whole AFD and this I think the admins blocked out all attempts at disscussion and simply deleted the page because they didn't like it and didn't read all the comments and just paid attention to IP's and new users. And I don't feel like repeating what everyone else said so their posts are mine as well.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 01:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn, ^demon's closure result and his attitude towards keep votes had shown a severe lack of respect for fellows' opinion, ignoring all the relevant arguments and bad-faith regarding all of them as WP:ILIKEIT while he himself did with IDONTLIKEIT odor, blatantly going against consensus. I agree with tjstrf that this article fails WP:WAF, as many articles about fiction on Wikipedia encounter. "The primary argument for deletion was the lack of sources" was one of the lamest reason applied to this type of content. This bad rationale, in negative perspective, can generate a new wave of massive nominations for deleting articles about fiction. The system of characters' bio in Category:Characters in The Lord of the Rings, for instance, many in there are insufficient with sources, but simply "lack of sources" is NOT the reason to delete. @pple complain 02:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The rational the closing admin used was "The primary argument for deletion was the lack of sources". However, it is clearly evident that there were plenty of sources for the article. They just happen to be primary sources. At no point in the closing admin's comments did he cite any of the notability guidelines. This indicates that he did not consider notability a factor in deleting the article. Also, Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters is still an active deletion policy. It appears that the closing admin did not take this standing deletion policy into consideration or explain why it was not relevant. Also WP:FICT has recently undergone a major rewrite. The intent of the rewrite was to clarify the guidelines, which encourages mergers over deletions, and avoid making distinctions between major and minor characters and concepts. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence has been that editors sending previously acceptable list of fiction articles to AfD. Discussion is currently underway to rectify that problem. In the end, I have to agree with @pple that the closing admin's verdict comes off as one big WP:IDONTLIKEIT and was not based on policy or consensus. --Farix (Talk) 02:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (emphasis added) Primary sources only is a perfectly valid reason to delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Third party sources" is only used there because in the vast majority of articles those are the most authoritative type. In the case of fiction however, that is an absurd and contradictory standard: If I have a professionally published book which quotes a line in a play as saying one thing, and I have a copy of the original play script that says another, which source is the more reliable? Clearly the play script. (For a great example of this, think of how many times you have heard what should be reliable third party sources misquote Juliet as saying "Where art thou Romeo?" instead of "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" in her famous balcony speech.)
    There is no verifiability issue with this article. --tjstrf talk 05:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Encyclopaedias are tertiary sources, if the secondary sources do not discuss something in detail then neither should we. Documenting vast swathes of fictional universes from the primary sources is not at all what an encyclopaedia should be doing. Do the fans not have their own wiki? It looks as if they're using Wikipedia to fulfil a role which is rightly that of a fan site. Maybe someone can help them set one up. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing at all to do with the verifiability of the content. --tjstrf talk 08:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Norwegian Americans – Deletion closure endorsed. The continuing debate over lists vs. categories sees yet another incarnation. The relevant question seems to be whether the AfD closer abused his discretion. After discounting the needlessly inflammatory comments of one particular editor, there is a narrow consensus that the closer did not. The DRV nominator's suggestion -- that these matters be considered en masse (perhaps at centralized discussion... again) -- is a sound one, but inconsistent treatment of various nationalities at various AfDs is not, in itself, a reason to overturn. As Carlos points out below, structural problems with the nature of AfD make it impossible to render a complete judgment over such a large group of articles at one time. By strength of argument, and numbers, the original decision stands. – Xoloz 07:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian Americans for all the lists deleted. There needs to be a discussion on the Portal level on these lists, and not deleting or saving them one by one. Compare to:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taiwanese Americans
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgian Americans also deleted by Neil using same rationale to override consensus by denigrating, then ignoring the keep votes. Is this consensus or are admin people driving the process, by picking and choosing what to ignore? Admin people should be impartial and not be driving the process.

The categories exist for the same information, but if you are looking for that Norwegian American scientist, your not going to find him. Having a category is no reason to delete a list that is sorted differently. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted despite non consensus for deletion Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, well-reasoned close. WP:LIST is not a reason to keep anything as it is just a set of standards for list articles, and other keep arguments are based on WP:ILIKEIT throwing WP:IDONTLIKEIT at the delete arguments, which are grounded in policies and guidelines that actually are reasons to keep or delete things. --Core desat 16:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Well-argued close - these unmaintainable lists are unencyclopedic and a mess. Eusebeus 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the google cache of List of Norwegian Americans, it doesn't look to me to be an unencylopedic mess. Kappa 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that does come as rather a surprise! Eusebeus 23:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which established "policies and guidelines" did the closing editor and the "Delete" supporters actually refer to? Please list. In the comment to my keep vote, the editor referred to an essay called WP:ITSUSEFUL. Another such “policy” referred to was the one yet to be created called “Categories are better than lists”, used by Dark_Tea -“This is what categories are for”, Burntsauce-“this is why we have categories”, Corpx -“Replace with category”, JForget - “should all be in categories only“, and pearls of wisdom like: “We don't even list distant family members in this way. Categories completely suffice”. Another “list deletion policy” quoted was one valid for categories, namely “overcategorization” (which is a deletion criteria for categories, not lists, yet at least): “Over categorization. Most are blue links,”. “Far too loose a connection between listees, overcategorization”. None of the other arguments touched on "policies and guidelines" as far as I can determine, but were concerned with ideas such as : “practically trivial” and “WP should not be categorizing on race/ethnicity”. However, Norwegian American etc are not race categories, but a category based on the national origin of the immigrants. As stated by Steve Hart -“I don't think there is consensus to kill lists based on nationalities”. Pia 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and one-month block for the admin who deleted this article blatantly against consensus. The numerous "keep" votes were well-reasoned and "delete" votes consisted of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Above "overturn" votes show the corruption that is typical of DR (i.e. editors covering for one another regardless of the severity of the abuse that may have taken place). Badagnani 00:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 month block?? So admins who close should be punished if you disagree with them or they make a mistake (not true in this case)? Corpx 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Corpx, excessive for a single decision, no matter how poorly thought out. We don't punish people for making mistakes. The implied reprimand of an overturn is sufficient. DGG (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I don't think Neil's summary was a fair representation of arguments by any means, but blocking editors for a small number of (probably) good faith closures seems very extreme. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - These people being of <descent> had very little to do with them attaining notability in their fields, so I fail to see why a blanket list is appropriate Corpx 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A rather idiosyncratic (but unfortunately not very novel) re-interpretation of policy a justification to discount votes on a flimsy basis. older ≠ wiser 02:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closer shows evidence of prejudice against the keep arguments; the nomination for deletion did not even bother to state a reason for deletion. There was NO CONSENSUS--a fact the closer chose to ignore. Hmains 02:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
further info Closer Niel's main page says: "I also think Wikipedia has around 800,000 articles more than it need have, therefore I am a founder member of the Association of Redirectionist Wikipedians"==further indicating Niel's POV pushing attitude toward WP Admin work. Hmains 01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn it is not the role of the closing administrator to decide on notability; but to formulate the community decision. The discretion that is required is to distinguish those arguments that were based on policy and consider only those. As I said during my RfA, about how I would decide if I altogether disagreed with the apparent consensus on what the policy is, the proper course is instead to join the discussion, advocate one's view, and let somebody else close. There are over one thousand admins available for the purpose. Clearly there were no solid arguments for deletion--almost all sad merely that a category was better. The closer therefore discarded without explanation all the ones for keep, saying baldly that they were invalid. To enter an AfD in order to close in opposition to the community's interpretation of policy is to mistake one's role. I would equally call for an overturn here whether I agreed or did not agree with the actual decision. DGG (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - this just looks like another attempt at re-doing the AfD, with most of the same people replacing "keep" with "overturn" for the same reason. Admin discretion was fine, and that's what should be judged here. Most of the keeps did justify Norwegian Americans and not list of Norwegian Americans and a lot of others were just false accusations that the delete arguments were WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So, seems fair, even if I will be accused for being biased. Bulldog123 05:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. The "non-existent" rationales included: “Valid per WP:LIST", as well as rational explanations as to why categorization is a inferior tool in these cases (example: Drieakko-“there is no way referencing article's inclusion in a category. Whenever you need to source that, you also need to start making lists”, Mandsford-“they're all well-sourced, something that is to be encouraged in Wikipedia, with an attempt to explain the connection). Other ignored explanations were references to the inflexibility of categories (“Keep until the software provides category intersections”, “Categories will never be flexible enough to do this”), and arguemnts that the lists in question are not "indiscriminate" and "limitless" (strict criteria is used for inclusion on the list, such as the person's fame/notability, in combination with verifiability/news coverage focusing on his/her ethnicity, and also self-identification by the subject with the population group). In addition, list such as these can easily be further reduced by the introduction of stricter criteria for inclusion. Concerning the claim of "overcategorization", several editors pointed out that this is not a policy applicable to lists. I also want to stress that Scandinavian immigrants, as well as other groups listed for deletion here, are not “loosely associated items”-Identity based on heritage or roots is not considered a “loose association” by a lot of people, as evident by the majority vote "Keep" in this instance. Pia 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On a similar level, for articles about individual cities or towns, we include a "Notable residents" section, as we should. When this section grows too large for the city article, this data often gets moved to a separate article, often broken down by occupation. Notable Americans of various national origins (Vietnamese Americans or whatever) are a similar case. When there are too many to list in the Vietnamese Americans article we move to a List of Vietnamese Americans, of course meaning "List of notable Vietnamese Americans." The fact that some of these lists have been deleted on flimsy grounds ("I don't think people should identify with their nations of ori0gin because everyone should just be *American*!"), and that the data was not merged into the "[X]-Americans" article, but simply deleted forever, shows bad faith on the part of both the AFD nominators and closers, as it robs researchers who rely on this valuable data. The fact that one can now go to the Norwegian Americans article and find nothing about the many notable Norwegian Americans throughout the United States' history shows that the deletion proposal, as well as the against-consensus "delete" close, had a punitive motivation, blanking the data forever (rather than merging) in order to "teach a lesson" to the editors that would even deign to maintain that such information has an encyclopedic value for our users. Badagnani 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Admins personal view should not be the deciding factor in AfD.Inge 10:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, agree with Bulldog123. ugen64 19:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per AfD consensus. Neil's interpretation of the discussion seems very idiosyncratic to me; he certainly didn't do any justice to the Keep !votes that were voiced, and while a couple of editors who favored deletion voiced reasonable concerns, they were not based on any policy and the majority of editors found them uncompelling. There are perfectly valid reasons to prefer lists over categories in cases like these (organization, description, etc.); I see no reason to ignore the consensus which supported retaining the list. — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all - Please stop the attacks on Neil's judgment. Everyone has opinions on Wikipedia issues. Just because he chooses to express his opinions elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean that he is "POV pushing". Is any admin that has opinions about the general direction of Wikipedia not allowed to close an AFD? Should someone who says that they are an inclusionist not be able to close an AFD as a "keep"? Accusations of "prejudice" and the like should be ignored with regard to this DRV: argue the AFD and the closure - not the editor! Wickethewok 04:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More admins covering for one another regardless of the severity of the abuse that may have taken place (which in this case was truly egregious)--not to be tolerated! Badagnani 07:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your response is to attack more people? Great... Wickethewok 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The problem is that Neil used his 'judgment' to determine which arguments he would accept as valid (all those indicating 'deletion') and which arguments he would reject (all those indicating 'keep'). Had he not used this arbitrary judgment to justify his decision, his judgment would not be questioned here (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgian Americans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian Americans. There is also the fact that the deletion review process says very little/too little about what constitutes valid arguments for overturning a decision so anything and everything gets thrown into the pot. And the matter that there are virtually no guidelines on when lists should be kept or deleted which results in deletion debates that just go in circles instead of advancing WP. See User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines Hmains 20:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could have chosen not to participate at all in the popular culture AfD debates, and instead close borderline ones in accordance with my opinion, an opinion which I truly think soundly based in policy. I've never even considered doing that--I think it would have been clear misuse of my position. I do not have the right to decide for the community, just to interpret what the community decides. DGG (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid close, list is potentially vast and undoubtedly indiscriminate - a collection of loosely associated information. And trout-slap Badagnani for the comment above. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Valid close. The keep votes did not address the key concerns, nor did the majority of them provide justification. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (my) deletion. I note Mr Norton did not inform me of this discussion. Some (not all) of the "keep" arguments failed to address Wikipedia policy on any level. With those mainly discounted, the consensus, rooted in policy, was to delete. If Badagnani has any issues with my conduct as an administrator, he is welcome to pursue those via WP:RFC. Neil ム 10:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment So we just get more of the same from this closer: accepting the 'delete' article comments without question while critiqueing the 'keep' comments and dismissing them (not enough good ones--counting the votes). How can we get a neutral party who will critique the delete arguments and see whether they fail in most instances to go beyond Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? Hmains 20:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that is what a closing administrator is - a neutral party. I closed a deletion discussion as best I saw fit, using that very link you provide to reinforce my judgement. You may like to note I have closed similar discussions as "keep". administrators judge each discussion on its merits. There is no nefarious scheme afoot here. Neil ム 12:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Isn't this the editor who says, on his own user page, "I also think Wikipedia has around 800,000 articles more than it need have, therefore I am a founder member of the Association of Redirectionist Wikipedians"? The close decision was unarguably against consensus and the closing editor was/is not neutral. Editor's failure to address these issues calls for one-month block for abuse of admin powers to be raised to two months. Badagnani 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Badagnani, I have already told you on your talk page to file an RFC if you have a concern with my capability or my "abuse of admin powers". I am unsure what bearing my views on my talk page about redirects have to this discussion. Please try and focus oin the issue at hand, as your ludicrous over-reaction is unhelpful, and probably not winning many people to your cause. Neil ム 12:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion so this is a damned if you do (more than one nominated together) that actually had consensus to delete, but also a damned if you don't review (all the lists weren't listed together) so maybe an inconsistent result is achieved, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a weak argument to keep this. The confusion of keep votes was that many couldn't articulate what was being kept: ethnicity lists? nationality lists? how Norwegian, Swedish, etc. must one be to qualify. So counting votes as some would have done makes no sense at all. These lists are fundamentally flawed and until someone can figure out an encyclopedic, NPOV, NOR, and BLP-compliant way to make these work out they should go. Carlossuarez46 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. No justification offered by the closing editor and no consideration/courtesy extended to the extensive rationales offered in the majority of the keep votes. It is very discouraging to see the policy adhered to by most closing editors so blatantly ignored (i.e. at 'no consensus', with no evidence of policy violations--as in this case, no violation of WP:LIST---the article is usually kept by default), in this random fashion, with no rational offered. It would have been better to take the discussion to at the Portal level (as suggested by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), instead of attempting to muscle through a non-community approved precedence here for the proposal Wikipedia:Overlistification and to justify blanket deletions of all "Lists of XXX Americans". Pia 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a discussion on whether or not to delete an article not be carried out on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? Neil ム 12:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The arguments for deletion were no better based in policy than those based in keeping. Admins who are closing discussions need to weigh both sets of arguments against policy, not just one. This close is outside the range of reasonable administrative discretion. There was no consensus for deletion, and the discussion should have been closed that way. GRBerry 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with GRBerry. I was very surprised at the Neil's deletion conclusion when he just ignored all opposing votes by established editors as not having "any justification". And that's it, no more reasoning. That kind of summary is unprofessional and ignorant. Whatever discussion can be played down by saying it has "no justification". People in administrator positions need to do better than that, or concentrate on other issues. --Drieakko 17:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Smaller nations make a significant public showcase on the heritage of notable Americans if they can trace any part of it to their own ethnicity. Usually their national media offers tremendous amount of attention to these people. That ALONE is enough to justify the notability of the article and its contents, whatever OPINIONS there exists whether that kind of attention is important or not. We can take Pamela Anderson as an example. Her great-grandfather was a Finn. Just for that fact, she was paid over 100 000 USD to visit her distant relatives in Finland this summer, which caused a media frenzy in Finland, all following what she was doing and whom she was meeting. IMHO, as the deleted articles provide good references how the ethnic background, even partial, of notable Americans becomes a notable fact in the media by itself, that is sufficient to justify the existence of the article. --Drieakko 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Overturn I hesitate to invest any more energy on this since the explanation for deleting was so dismissive of the plain consensus that the process comes off as just a pro forma pretense. As others have accurately stated, the votes to delete barely bothered to write a coherent subject-verb sentence, let alone form an argument or address the merits of these particular lists, as opposed to just being generically anti-list. And the admin's explanation accordingly stated no reason at all for deleting. Literally, no reason whatsoever. It couldn't be more obvious that there was no decision to make, just opposition to dispose of. Whatever the merits of deletion, the process stinks. And in further putting people off of the project, it is destructive of more than just these three articles. At a bare minimum, somebody other than the existing admin should go back and do a less amateurish job of reviewing the deletion discussion and extend the courtesy of actually addressing those of us who took the time to weigh in. -Langrel 20:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"amateurish" job? If you want to see an amateurish job look at 90% of closes by admins. Neil actually went into great detail with his close, even if it didn't suit your opinion, it tried to find consensus for the list when there was just consensus for an article. This DRV isn't a second AfD but an analysis of Neil's close. Bulldog123 05:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that: a) vague references to admins' actions elsewhere have no relation to this case; b) Neil did not went into any detail at all; c) Neil did not try to find any consensus. --Drieakko 06:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

HAL 9000 in popular culture – Slightly speedy snowball endorse. I also would have liked to retain the article, but admitedly the AfD was procedurally sound, and the overwhelming consensus says endorse. – — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A long list of references to HAL in popular culture was moved from the HAL main page to a page of its own and then deleted, apparently because the references were uncited. This seems ridiculous, as each reference clearly has its own citation (e.g., a reference that HAL was seen on a particular episode of the Simpsons can be verified by watching the cited episode of the Simpsons--if only all Wikipedia data points were so easily researchable!). I believe a close reading of the history of the main HAL page and the HAL in popular culture page reveals a large bias against this sort of "trivial" data. As a student of popular culture and how information can take a life of its own, I actually found the bulleted list to be fascinating. Trivia or not, since the content doesn't violate any of the three primary rules, I believe the article, either as a stand-alone page or as a section on the HAL page, should be restored. If not, please do a search on "in popular culture" and decide what the difference is between this article and the many, many articles of the same ilk. As it is, I believe deleting data that can be clearly used to create information/knowledge/wisdom shows an odd, non-objective bias on the part of Wikipedia editors. I'm referring to these deleted pages:[1], [2] (Note: I personally don't care if the article is spun on its own page or not.) Here's an example of a Wikipedia page devoted to the same kind of content that got deleted: Wikipedia_in_culture. 71.198.224.245 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Consensus on the AfD was unquestionable here, and there is no basis upon which to overturn the deletion. You may disagree with the rationale provided by those who participated in the debate, but in the end community consensus said "delete" and it's the community that makes the decision. I've also fixed this nomination to reflect the deleted article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, consensus was clear, nomination is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is not a valid reason for undeletion. --Core desat 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Telling somebody to go watch a TV show or movie to prove a contention is the epitome of original research. Corvus cornix 17:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The AfD closure was not decided because of a lack of references. This article was deleted because it wasn't really an article, it was a trivia dump masquerading as coherent content. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I was going to make the same point as Corvus cornix, but Corvus cornix already did it for me. Heather 22:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus was clearly achieved and close was correct. The purpose of DRV is not to re-argue the merits of a page once it is closed, but to review potential improper AfDs. This one was completely proper and the concensus was unquestionable. Smashville 22:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let's put it this way...AfDs are not a vote. However, of the responses: 11 were for delete or merge, 2 were for a "weak keep" because there was no place to transwiki it to. No one gave the article a full endorsement or anything stronger than a weak keep. Smashville 23:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (reluctantly) The close was reasonably based on the arguments presented. I personally think the article could [possibly be defended, but it was not adequately defended, nor was it improved during the discussion. (The Afd was in April, and few had yet come to understand the importance of such articles and join in the discussions). The appropriate course is to rewrite a sound, sourced article--the deleted article was not really sourced adequately, and the subsequent debates have clarified what is needed.DGG (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid we can't do that. The way to deal with bloated "in popular culture" sections is to prune them to a few notable examples, not split them out into a whole new article which thus becomes a list or repositories of loosely associated topics. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little puzzled--i didn't ask that DRV do that now. (As for the future, we'll see about that.)DGG (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm puzzled. Did you think Dave meant you? It doesn't. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Right. I really prefer being called David, in any case. :) DGG (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - AfD discussion was clearly interpreted correctly. --Haemo 00:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. AfD closed correctly. Crazysuit 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit, Guy made the joke I was going to. But endorse deletion nonetheless, I don't see any abuse of discretion here, and What about something else? is neither a valid reason for keep nor a valid reason for undeletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not even a close one. Carlossuarez46 21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kerry Marie – Deletion endorsed. Keep arguments in the AfD at issue were based entirely on the claim of subject having won a notable award within a sub-genre. Besides that basic claim, keep arguments were spare, without elaboration. In closing, the administrator investigated the question, and found evidence (presented hereinbelow) that the award was non-notable. This is something administrators ideally wouldn't be asked to do, because it is hoped that keep commenters will support claims with arguments of some kind. Where that argumentation is absent, however, as it was in this instance, it is difficult to call such an investigation an "abuse of discretion." The case made by Fram is so compelling that -- had the AfD been closed as a "keep" -- I would expect Fram's argument, made at DRV, to have resulted in an overturning. By strength of argument, and of numbers, the decision stands. This is without prejudice, as always, to a newly written, reliably-sourced draft with clear evidence of notability. – Xoloz 07:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus to delete at the AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Marie (3rd nomination) Epbr123 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's rationale: Indeed, but I disregarded "keep" opinions genre "Keep: plumper of the year!" and deletes like "complete nobody" (since that's the one thing that can hardly be said about her :-) ). The award is not notable, and since that is her only claim to fame, she isn't notable either. "Plumper of the year" and "Kerry Marie" gives 26 Google hits[3], many of them about winners of other "plumper of the year" awards, and just mentioning her in passing. "Plumper of the year" plus "xl magazine" gives a whopping 9 Google hits [4]. How is this award notable? It's not like she's won a Hot d'Or or something similar. WP:PORNBIO clearly states that it has to be a well-known award, and this one isn't. Policy (well, in this case, the notability guidelines) trumps consensus, and so I ignored the consensus and followed the few reasoned comments. Fram 13:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 3 states, "Performer has been prolific or innovative within a specific genre niche". Plumper of the Year may not be well-known compared to AVN, but it is still probably a top award within the bbw genre. Epbr123 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you draw the boundaries narrowly, you can argue pretty much any award is a "top award". And, anyways, that's immaterial, since I'm not seeing any evidence that it IS a "top award within the bbw genre". --Calton | Talk 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If you draw the boundaries narrowly, you can argue pretty much any award is a "top award"." Explain, please? And where's the evidence that it isn't a top award in the genre. How many google hits come up for the other bbw awards? Epbr123 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but did you seriously ask me "And where's the evidence that it isn't a top award in the genre?" You might as well have asked me, "Where's the evidence it isn't obsequious, clairvoyant, or purple?" Hint: Evidence? Not the job of MY side of the argument. I prefer my own arguments to be fact-based, not faith-based. --Calton | Talk 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Plumper of the Year has 734 google hits, and I can't find any other bbw awards on google. There's the evidence. Epbr123 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits aren't a reliable source. --Core desat 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to Fram or me? He insists the award isn't notable due to google hits. Or does that rule depend on which side of the argument you're on? Epbr123 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the reasons why I deleted it instead of just following the consensus. "Plumper of the Year" indeed has 734 google hits, but there are different magazines and websites who award the title to different people. (warning: following links may not be suitable for work or minors!): the second hit is from the IMO much better known bbw magazines "Voluptuous" and "Score"[5], just like e.g. the ninth one[6], the fourteenth (an IMDb link)[7], etcetera. In fact, there are 553 hits for "Plumper of the Year" and "Voluptuous", and only 13 for "Plumper of the Year" and "XL magazine". So it looks to me that while there is a little known award called "Plumper of the Year" from Voluptuous; there is also another little known award from XL magazine with the same name. And even more damning, there are only 40 distinct Google hits for both awards combined[8], making it still clearer that this is not a "well known award" as defined in WP:PORNBIO. Fram 19:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are just 41 google hits for "plumper of the year" when you exclude the repeated entries. Corpx 20:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't eligible for a Voluptuous Plumper of the Year Award because she was working for Score's BBW magazine, XL Magazine. To add to her notability, she came 3rd in the 2003 Voluptuous Model of the Year Award [9]. Epbr123 20:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has become rather risible. Eusebeus 23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I would have argued for deletion, but based on that discussion, it should have been closed as a keep. It is the judgement of the discussion participants as to whether or not the award Marie won is a notable one per WP:PORNBIO. The consensus numerically was to keep, and policy wasn't particularly strong either way as to justify reading it as a "delete". Neil ム 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no keep arguments provided any reliable sources showing that she met WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO. The only sources provided were her website and a non-notable porn magazine, which could only support the argument that the award itself was not notable. --Core desat 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I might have argued for deletion here, myself, but the consensus of the !voters was that the awards she won do indeed satisfy WP:PORNBIO. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I think the closer exercised good judgment on this. AfD is not a headcount! A host of Ilikeit votes were gussied up with claims that the subject passes the standard at pornbio, even though that is clearly not the case given the evidence provided. Policy - the result of consensus at a global scale - trumps the consensus of a handful of votes that disregard those standards. Eusebeus 15:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not clear that she doesn't pass pornbio. There is strong evidence that she is prolific or innovative in the bbw genre, and possibly the big-bust genre as well. Epbr123 16:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If so, then that evidence must be presented. None was during the AFD. --Coredesat 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Umm, Plumper of the Year, maybe? Epbr123 18:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Evidence? In a reliable source? Asserting notability makes something pass A7, but not an AFD. --Core desat 18:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So you want a reliable source that she won Plumper of the Year and is therefore a top BBW model? How about XL Magazine? Epbr123 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The article needs to be citable. Simply saying that it was in the magazine doesn't help. Besides, that magazine was determined to be non-notable, which means any award it gives is also non-notable. --Core desat 19:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How many times do I have to explain this? The award doesn't have to be notable. It just has to be shown that Kerry Marie is one of the top BBW models. Epbr123 20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This is circular reasoning. You're saying that she's a top model, but that's only based on the award. The award is not notable, which means her "position" as top model is with a non-notable group. If this is her only claim to notability, she is therefore not notable. -- Kesh 21:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Not according to pornbio criteria 3, which I hope you've read. Epbr123 21:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Good closer judgment. --Calton | Talk 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Even though I voted keep in the AFD, the Plumper of the Year award does not look very notable and not many reliable sources provide coverage to the winners, so I think this was a good call Corpx 19:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn - I think notability is borderline per WP:PORNBIO, but in all tree AfDs there was a strong consensus for keeping. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Even if the supposed award was significant (which it isn't), there are insufficient substantial reliable sources from which to write a proper, verifiably neutral article. The AfD was closed well within the normal limits of discretion. I think this article belongs on Boobpedia (note to self: check for new spam to that site). Guy (Help!) 22:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the lack of a consensus to delete within the AFD. Balancer 05:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, and get rid of PORNBIO in general. This is the exact type of lawyering those subguidelines cause. "But she won an AWARD, so she has to be notable!" The sub-guidelines indicate when it's likely substantial independent sourcing exists. If in reality it still doesn't, in reality it's still got to go. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's independant sourcing here: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Epbr123 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Warning Above links are most certainly NSFW for anyone considering reviewing them. However, I see no real indication that any of these sources is reliable (or really unaffiliated for that matter, they seem to be selling her stuff). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which ones are selling her stuff. Why are they all unreliable in your opinion? What would be reliable, a tabloid newspaper? Epbr123 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Almost all of them are selling her stuff, or are there to push links to sites that are, with the possible exception of IAFD. None of them have any type of provenance (non-pseudonymous identification of the author of the piece), so none of them are reliable—we don't even know who wrote it! Knowing who the author is is a very basic gauge of reliability. With regular adult magazines, say Playboy or Penthouse, I imagine there are byline credits to articles. We know who the author is, we know it's been fact-checked (at least insofar as such publications do), and a real, named person whose credentials can be checked is taking responsibility for any errors or problems with the piece. None of that is present here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I fail to see any of them selling her stuff. Having a named author isn't a reliable way of judging whether a source is notable. www.bbc.co.uk doesn't give the author of any of its articles. Epbr123 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Please tell me you realize the difference in reliability between the BBC and porn sites. As to selling stuff, the first "source" has a link at the bottom labeled "And even more...Kerry Marie!" which leads to a paid website, second one has a "best sites" link (so theoretically they're not selling her stuff, but certainly selling something), third actually doesn't seem to be but provides very thin information (though it does list several videos complete with "Buy now" links), fourth has a referral link to her site, as does the fifth, sixth has a link to her site with, even, the price, and the seventh has a ton of affiliate links. They're not there as neutral, unbiased parties, they're selling stuff. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Still waiting for some evidence that the stated sites are unreliable. Wikipedia gives links to performers personal websites. Does that mean Wikipedia is selling stuff? A biography of Kerry Marie would be incomplete without a mention of her website. You raised some very spurious points above. The price of her site was mentioned as it was a review of her site. Epbr123 09:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You just got it. They're just paysites, which aren't reliable sources. --Core desat 12:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmmm. Not even Seraphimblade was suggesting they were paysites. You didn't even look at the links, did you? Epbr123 13:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Never mind, they're stores. My point stands. --Core desat 22:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they're scientific journals. If you're going to make up rubbish to prove a point, so am I. Epbr123 22:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn This is a review of the closing decision, not an AfD discussion. The overwhelming consensus at the actual AfD discussion, for the third time, and in opposition to the closing decision, was Keep. Indeed, no coherent Delete arguments were presented at the AfD. This looks like a case of "keep nominating for deletion until you get a Delete decision, and if you can't get that, then a sympathetic closing admin." Dekkappai 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Zombie Powder Vol. 01 cover.jpg – restored and in use again – GRBerry 17:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image was deleted in process due to being replaced by another copy of it, however the new one is of no better utility and lacks a fair use rationale, which I believe the old one possessed. I was inactive for a while, so I did not catch this deletion being announced on my user talk. I would like the image and its description page to be restored if that is at all possible. tjstrf talk 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, definitely not orphaned fair use, was being used in Zombie Powder and contained a fair use rationale. --Core desat 05:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore; this does appear to have been an out-of-process deletion, as the deletion summary claims I5, which this wasn't. Heather 12:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have gone beserko and restored it, I don't imagine this would be a problem. Please make sure the image is used, though. Neil ム 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 August 2007[edit]

Airline complaints – Overturn, and relist at AfD. The undeletion supporters are correct in the objective observation that several deletion commenters apparently failed to notice the formal nature of the complaint process -- the article might need a better title, for this reason, but it is worth noting that all content was sourced. With proper supporting text describing the form and supervising authority for airline complaints, this could make a solid article. The lack of clarity in the deletion reasoning allows this DRV to succeed based on strength of argument. The request to delay relisting for two days, to allow improvement before AfDing, is reasonable. – Xoloz 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The decision was probably made based purely on the number of votes for deletion, not noticing that all of them stated exactly the same: synthesis of sources, however, no-one brought a single example to prove this statement. Thus the decision for deletion should receive more attention and consideration. Addition, there is a separate article on "Critisism on Wikipedia", is wikipedia more important than aviation? (mentioning here, because this wasn't mentioned in the deletion discussion, and a decision to delete an article should not be made without proper comparison.) -- 195.50.215.56 21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion Look at me, I'm agreeing with an ISP! (Technically not correct, but it rhymes.) Anyway, the article was referenced and was not a synthesis of sources. There was no supporting arguments for the synthesis of sources claim. The Keep reasoning was stronger and was the rough consensus. The closer appears to have interpreted the discussion incorrectly. Substantial new information not available during the AfD. The nomination claim of Non-notable subject is not true as there is plenty of WP:RS material available in the books at Amazon search and some at Google book search. There no doubt is tons of material on the topic in newspapers. The article was not a list of airline complaints as implied in the AfD nomination, but it went into regional differences in airline complaint procedures and remedies. There are other areas in which this topic can expand into. The article was well written, well source. The editors working on that article seem to know what they are doing and seem capable of providing Wikipedia a good article on the topic. I think the deletion was a misunderstanding. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
195.50's arguments in the AFD are correct, in order for this to be a synthesis, the article would have to be drawing some sort of conclusion. The people arguing WP:SYNTH never seemed to explain what they meant, and might not have even understood the article was about a complaint process, and it wasn't just a compilation of common complaints. Where do we go from here? I'd be inclined to relist in the hopes of a more clear discussion... a lot of things were apparently wrong with the first one. --W.marsh 22:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Sidarthian and the IP editor pointed out in the AFD, the "SYNTH" and "How To" arguments in the AFD were not explained. Looking at the history of the article, I can't comprehend why they were made. Strength of arguments isn't just about the more important policies, they also have to be reasonable arguments. Looking at the numbers, we have a new user, 2 IP editors, and one established editor on the keep side, and multiple established editors on the delete side. So I can see why the closing admin might have closed it this way; but I do think the arguments on the delete side were ~~just wrong, and that the wrong result obtained~~ hard to understand on their face. History restored behind the usual template, for non-admin reviewers. GRBerry 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Update: well, I'm glad now I didn't bold an opinion. The closer's thought process is within the range of reasonable administrative discretion, so I am willing to endorse the close and deletion. GRBerry 02:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's thought process - admittedly a difficult decision, the question being whether this article was only an original research essay (using WP:SYN to create sources) on airline complaints, which is what the delete opinions were claiming. Here's how I broke it down - Paragraph 1 states "This may be due to passengers being more forgiving since 9/11. However, there is also criticism about whether the number of official complaints truly reflects the experience passengers are encountering . . ." One source states that airline complaints are stagnant[17], a second says passengers may not know how to file complaints[18] and a third states that complaints were up in 2005[19]. The second paragraph is based on the opinion that Europeans have more rights than Americans and sites as a source an article on new rights in Europe[20]. Would I have voted to delete rather than rewrite if I was giving a opinion rather that closing? My personal opinion (which really has little to do with this review) is that what's left of this article after removing the OR portions is not very useful, and it would be more practical to have this subject be addressed within other articles (such as Air travel). Regardless, in my opinion as long as the delete opinions were valid, they overruled the relatively week keep support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citicat (talk • contribs) 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Airline complaints are... complaints about airlines. Which adds little to the sum of human knowledge, and says nothing that is not obvious from the title. That, plus some factoids on which airlines get complained about, is pretty much all this article was. The identity of the complaints body might just make the cut in Airline, I guess. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Delete Completely agree with the above. Clear consensus to delete based on strong arguments that referenced wikipedia policy. No problems here, in other words. Eusebeus 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Write an article on the Aviation Consumer Protection Service and the various departments of other countries. However: The closing admin should have given a better rationale, or, one at all. Corvus cornix 17:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why? CitiCat^♫ 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When closing a non-obvious consensus close, explaining the reasoning can help people understand and accept the decision. GRBerry 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Deletion - I've made my position clear numerous times regarding why this article should be kept, so I won't rehash them here. I will, however, respond to the Closer's (Citicat) statement above. Regarding the citations you've noted, they seem clear to me. The third one states airline complaints soared in 2005, the first one says they've stabilized since, and the second one brings up a valid point that perhaps people do not know how to complain about airlines, so the overall numbers of airline hassles could be greater than reported via complaints. If this is something that isn't clear in the article, it can be easily clarified, but the sources aren't contradicting themselves, they're simply referring to different dates. As for the sentence mentioning that passengers were more sympathetic towards airlines post-9/11, Alin Boswell, a union leader for US Airways attendants, said this year that flying had changed since immediately following the 9/11 attacks, when flights weren't full and sympathetic fliers were patient with airline employees.[21] So I can see why an editor knowledgeable in this subject matter would have written that (although Boswell then states that sympathy is over, so I would agree that that sentence can be removed as it's no longer relevant). The point is that this article is well-written, well-cited, and has a lot of room for growth (and improvement!) as there is a lot of information available regarding airline complaints (as any Google search on the subject matter will reveal). Furthermore, GRBerry's original impression regarding this article is evidence that it deserves further and closer scrutiny as it is not patently obvious that it's a candidate for deletion. I, for one, am willing to commit to improving this article and keeping it up-to-date. If you're still adamant about deleting it, give me an opportunity to rewrite and improve it and then see if it's still worth deleting. At least we've moved beyond WP:SYN as a reason for deletion.--Sidarthian 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're referring to me or people in general, but I'm not adamant about keeping it deleted. I'm close to the fence, and have no problem if the decision is to overturn and improve. I just evaluated the opinions given in the AFD. CitiCat^♫ 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion, agree with DRV nom. ugen64 19:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, preferably after a grace period so that small improvements may be made. The !votes were split exactly 2/3, which traditionally is considered the exact AfD borderline - so I think it would have been fair to close this either way. To put it bluntly, it looks like some of the participants only read the title of the article without understanding the subject. The article is not a list of complaints about untasty food; it regards a unique, formal process comparable to the Better Business Bureau (though not based on a single agency) and analyzes the results of that process. If some of the participants were indeed misguided about the subject of the article, hopefully this can be fixed with clarification in a second AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Darkbattle – This is a contested prod, and has been restored. – SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was removed wrongly, it is based on the web site www.darkbattle.com, which has a large fan base. The Wikipedia article explained history regarding the game and what the game is about. The article has been a big source of documentation for darkbattle the online game. 88.144.43.44 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This is a review of the 01:15, 1 July 2007 deletion by SchuminWeb ( reason given, "Expired PROD, concern was: No assertion of notability (WP:V), no independent references (WP:V), as far as I can tell just another unnotable online game.") -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note For DRV procedures after a PROD delete, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Contested prod —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreferee (talk • contribs) 15:37, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Removed as expired PROD, no need for deletion review, can be re-created. DGG (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kurt Hellmer – Close as moot. The article has been recreated and is at a more then acceptable standard. There is clearly no reason to send it to AFD. Further discussion of the original speedy is a waste of resources and time – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

In my opininon, improper speedy deletion, full content of the article at the time of deletion was "Kurt Hellmer was a New York literary agent who represented, amongst others, Friedrich Dürrenmatt." (plus {{stub}}). Dürrenmatt was a clearly notable author. Since in my understanding of the publishing world, literary agents can only be considered notable if they represent notable clients, this is a case where notability is inherited. The deleting admin disagrees. This has been brought up at Village pump (policy), where at least one other admin has expressed the opinion that this was an improper speedy. Dsmdgold 02:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my own speedy deletion. Assuming for the purposes of this discussion that the one client listed is notable, I believe my deletion of this article was proper. WP:CSD#A7 calls for the deletion of an article about a real person when it "does not state why its subject is important or significant". The fact that an agent had one notable client for an unspecified amount of time is not a statement why the subject is important or significant. Otherwise, every agent who has ever represented just one notable author, even for a day, meets the criteria, even if there is no reliable source that even mentions him or her, a conclusion I cannot support. Finally, it should also be noted that this article carried a {{db-bio}} when I deleted it. -- But|seriously|folks 02:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that "every agent who has ever represented just one notable author, even for a day" has an assertion of notability and an article on them would not be eligible for speedy deletion via A7. Many such articles would be eligible for deletion through PROD or AfD. failing to meet WP:RS is not a speedy criteria. (Butseriously folks in correct, the article also carried a db-bio tag, my apologies.) Dsmdgold 02:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strongly disagree with that. Most authors and performers have agents, and most such agents receive pretty close to zero coverage outside of the specialist trade press - they're not even listed in the credits. Notability is not contagious in that way. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, there's not much of a claim there, it'd be very much helped by an addition of references or further information for why this agent is worth any more than a mention in the author's article. For biographies, we need sources that talk about the person. We can't have articles, especially about people, with no sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand BLP concerns, but I will note, for what it is worth, that Mr. Hellmer is a was. Dsmdgold 03:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I disagree that that is a claim to notability. Notability is not inherited. No, a literary agent doesn't become notable by representing somebody notable. They become notable for Wikipedia purposes when there are independent and reliable sources about them. This may or may not correspond to representing somebody notable; it likely has a strong positive correlation but is something different. GRBerry 03:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, these are arguments for AFD. A7 is just about whether something asserts importance, not whether it meets WP:N or whatever. Asserting a meaningful connection to someone notable is a claim of importance. --W.marsh 12:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see the article as having made a claim of notability, so I continue to endorse the deletion. Most of the bulk of my text was intended to correct a misrepresentation above of what notability for literary agents is. I don't see even a claim of notability in the text of the article. GRBerry 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A claim of notability is a claim of working with or for notable people in some meaningful capacity, so there was a claim of notability. Whether that meets "what notability for literary agents" is not something CSD was intended to address, merely whether it asserts it or not. --W.marsh 17:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – (I would note that I am the creator of the entry in question.) It was, I believe, an error to speedily delete the newly created entry. Granted, it required further sourcing to appropriately support the statement re representation of Dürrenmatt – and would, given time, have had such as well as the addition of similar statement and sourcing as to representation of Frisch, at the very least, as well as, in the fullness of time, with the potential contributions of other editors, possibly other information and sourcing as well. The act of speedy deletion, however, rather than allowing for any such possibilities instead effectively precluded them, and the statement made that the entry failed even to assert the notability of its subject is in my understanding inaccurate – to assert that an agent represented major authors is clearly, in my understanding, to have asserted notability. These matters might, I believe, sensibly have been given more than a moment of Wikipedia's time and, if necessary, further consideration in considered review. To, instead, have simply hastily nuked the freshly-created entry with the observation that no claim was made as to notability was both inaccurate and inappropriate, an error in judgement, however sincere and well intentioned on the part of But|seriously|folks , and, it seems to me reflective of a personal judgement on his part, rather than any established policy, that an assertion of notability as to an agent which took the form that the agent was consequent because his (in this case) or her authors were of recognized importance, was not, in fact, an assertion of notability at all, but, perhaps, a claim of inherited status – a position with which I strongly disagree, and which it seems to me ought be discussed, if necessary, but certainly not invoked as justification for speedy deletion. AtomikWeasel 03:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that unlike other deletion processes, speedy deletion is never a bar to recreation of an article in a way that addresses the reason for deletion. As such, you have always been free to recreate the article (as I implied in response to your initial inquiry to me back in July) as long as you include the missing (IMHO) explanation of significance or importance. Citations to WP:RS are preferable, but not required to get past speedy deletion. -- But|seriously|folks 04:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appreciate your thought, and, as I indicated at that time, it's quite possible to locate reliable sources that refer to Hellmer as having been the agent of Dürenmatt and Frisch. The question, or the dilemma, it seems to me, is as to the question of whether or not having represented two very significant figures (and, yes, for many, many years, as is demonstrable from cites over time) establishes notability. It seems to me, as I've said, that it does, and I presume similar reasoning lies behind this long-extant entry for Harold Ober, which is cited at literary agents. If, though, the view of the community is that having represented very significant clients doesn't establish notability, but is merely a claim of heritability, as for a relative, an accountant, a cook, or gardener, rather than addressing the fact that an agent is important if they represent important clients, because that is what an agent does, and if you represent major clients you're a major agent, then WP will have very nearly no listings for any agents who aren't also notable via some other element such as also being authors or murderers. This, as I see it, is the dilemma here. AtomikWeasel 04:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you are saying, but I think it's different from what the article said. I am not taking the position that agents cannot be notable based solely on their service as agents. I am just saying that such notability is not automatic. If an agent had a long history of representing notable authors, I would think there would be an ample paper trail of this in reliable sources (such as biographies of the authors in question and perhaps articles in journals and other periodicals), so their articles should be resistant to not only speedy deletion but also AfD. Contrast this to the article in question, which connected the agent to a sole notable author and unnamed others of unknown notability, all for an unstated period of time. -- But|seriously|folks 04:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a bit of googling, and I believe I can source references to Hellmer's having represented Max Frisch, Friedrich Durrenmatt, and Jane Rule, at the least, and clearly for a number of years. The standard text for many years of Dürrenmatt's The Visit, for example, long listed Hellmer as his agent. In the case of Jane Rule I have a cite which refers to his having represented her as an author when publishers were resistant to publishing works with lesbianism as their subject in the early 60s. Also, it seems I can source references to Hellmer's having been a member of the German exile literary and political community in New York who fled from Nazi Germany. Is this sort of thing likely appropriate, then? I'm trying to get a handle on this. It seems to me, though, that the key issue, in a way, is whether or not representing major authors is in effect what establishes notability for an agent (so long as adequately sourced by WP criteria, of course.) AtomikWeasel 05:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, but allow recreation of sourced article. I would be more amenable to the idea that saying "Agent X represented Author Y" equates to an assertion of notability if it weren't what agents do, most of them unnotably. That's not to bar new information that is being found, but the deletion does not seem improper to me. An assertion of notability needs to be a little less vague, something like "X represented several of the most famous authors of his time", even, or "X was the long-time literary agent, editor, and friend of Author Y; their letters were collected and published in 2006". That sort of thing. --Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On DGG's request, and having reread A7, I'm reconsidering my argument. The crux of the problem is that this article (using the CSD language) "states why it's important", so there's a borderline case for kicking it over to AFD instead. The counterargument is that it's such a small, unreferenced stub that there was little loss in the deletion. DGG's concern seems to be broader policy, though, and I'm in agreement that we can't let admins start applying policy based on their own views of notability. Given that there is a slim field of editors who might understand the notability argument here, associative or not, admins should be duly cautious with material in fields where their familiarity is light. This would be a more substantive dispute, and I would have substantive objections, if there had been a more substantive article to begin with. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion without prejudice against the creation of a proper article with references showing real notability. Notability is not contagious, so the speedy was more-or-less proper. The best solution might be to userfy a copy if someone really wants to try to fix this up and make it acceptable. Xtifr _tälk 06:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also endorse the new rewrite which should make this discussion academic, since it clearly addresses the original reasons for deletion. Xtifr _tälk 11:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, and endorse the deletion (without prejudice, per xtifr). >Radiant< 07:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, without prejudice for re-creation of the article. Admins don't have time to research CSD nominations (there are more than two thousand articles deleted from Wikipedia every day). Let's give the admin credit for doing the right thing, and acknowledge that material exists to write a more substantial article, and look forward to seeing what the improved article looks like. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe admins wouldn't have so many deletions to make if they applied what CSD actually says, rather than guessing what the result of an AFD would be? --W.marsh 12:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Totally out of process, simply not a speedy. Any good faith claim to importance is sufficient, & this qualifies. Speedy is not for judging notability, its for getting rid of the articles where there is no claim to notability at all. The place to judge notability is Afd, or in reasonably straight forward uncontested cases by Prod. I am amazed to see several respected eds. above willing to completely ignore the wording and the purpose of WP:CSD. I urge them to reconsiderDGG (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion being a notable someone's hired help (a literary agent, spin doctor, dentist, ob/gyn, lawyer, maid, gardener, whatever) does not cause the notability to be transfered. A <pick a job> with a notable customer/client/employer is no assertion of notability - nor could it be - otherwise every employee of Wal-Mart, McDonald's, government (any of them), is notable because they have a notable employer. Carlossuarez46 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV isn't supposed to be AFD... we're only reviewing whether the deletion (in this case, a WP:CSD deletion) was appropriate. --W.marsh 18:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That isn't an AFD argument. He's saying what many of us are saying: "X worked for Y" is not an assertion of notability at all, so the speedy was not out of process or inappropriate. You're welcome to disagree, but please don't mischaracterize the argument. Xtifr _tälk 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's one of the most basic claims of importance there is, though. "Joe plays baseball for the New York Yankees", "X is a movie staring Jack Nicholson"... a connection to a notable person or group is a basic claim of importance. It's about the claim, not whether it's actually important enough. --W.marsh 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Those are explicitly listed as exceptions to the general rule at WP:BIO. Trying to argue that a general rule is not a rule because we have some explicit exceptions listed somewhere is disingenuous. Notability is not generally contagious, and demanding an AfD for every article that says "Joe worked in the mailroom at Microsoft HQ" or "Bob was a greeter at Walmart" is simply unacceptable. Since an A7 deletion is invariably without prejudice, this is not a problem in practice either. I'm generally an opponent of bad A7s, and there have been lots of bad A7s in the past, but I disagree that this was one. Xtifr _tälk 20:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What WP:BIO says should have no impact on a speedy deletion, since WP:BIO is not a criteria for speedy deletion. At any rate, I'm not really sure what a stub article on this guy could possibly say then, to satisfy this crowd. There aren't awards for agents... the only way they're notable is by representing notable people. When it's impossible to figure out how an article on a notable person could be written such that the people wanting it deleted would be satisfied, then the people wanting it deleted would seem to have an unreasonable expectation. --W.marsh 20:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, I'd point out that I don't think the action to speedy delete was ill-motivated, ill-advised, or outrageous -- I simply think, with all respect, that it was an error of the sort that even the best will on occasion make when making multiple, often of necessity hasty decisions -- I'm reminded of the Pentago official who, when criticized for a decision someone argued was both in error and with consequences, simply said 'I make a lot of decisions, I make a lot of mistakes.' Even if one is a good decision maker, it will happen. So, while I disagree with the decision to speedy delete, I don't mean that disagreemen to suggest in any way criticism of the admin who took that decision. That point made, granted I'm not infinitely experienced in Wiki-ways, but it seems to me it was an error in this particular case to speedy delete. A minor error, but an error, which is, I would hope, addressable by re-creating an improved entry. It does seem to me, though, that arguments some have made here that a literary agent is a mere factotum or hireling are very wide of the mark, and are analogous to saying a major league baseball player is some guy who gets paid to throw a ball around and why would that be notable? In any case, I fail to see how these are arguments appropriate here, as this is, as I understand it, a discussion as to the appropriateness of the decision to speedy delete, which hinges on whether or not a statement of the form 'Joe plays baseball for the New York Yankees' as offered in example above is in fact an assertion of notability. It seems to me that it is, and that the misunderstanding here may well stem from the fact that most folks simply assume it to be obvious that to be a major league baseball player is 'notable.' There is indeed, I would agree, an act of interpretation here, but I think that's inevitable. Personally, it seems to me to reek of promotionalism when entries begin by asserting notability by making statements that seem to 'reach': 'Bob Smith was the greatest Bozo-the-Clown performer ever, and is famous for the role.' I'm inclined to avoid that. It seems to me that, as with the ball-player example, it ought suffice to say 'X was an agent for Y and Z' [Y and Z being linked as notable, having entries]. AtomikWeasel 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Speaking as the child of a former literary agent, I think I can say with some authority that being a literary agent, even for someone notable, does not make a person particularly notable. Writers (and baseball players) are notable because they get noted; literary agents are usually behind-the-scenes people who rarely get much coverage by reliable sources. What literary agents do is important, but important is not the same as notable. Xtifr _tälk 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse BsF's actions were correct. Eusebeus 20:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion - WP:CSD#G4 Recreation of material deleted by 04:53, 29 June 2006 Quarl [22], WP:CSD#A1 Very short article (here, one sentence), and WP:CSD#A7 No assertion of importance/significance. At three valid speedy delete reasons, it's not a speedy delete record holder, but it's enough reasons to not throw it back into the waters of lake Wikipedia. If someone knows the speedy delete reasons record holder, please post on my talk page. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No G4 on prior speedies, and A1 only applies if it also provides little or no context. So I don't think either applies here. -- But|seriously|folks 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one sentence did not include a set of facts or circumstances that surrounded his representation of Dürrenmatt and others and certainly did not contain enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub. I assumed others would see this on reviewing the one sentence, but I should have posted my thoughts. I still think A1 applies. However, no G4 on prior speedies is correct. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A1 doesn't say anything about requiring more than one sentence. In fact it specifically says it's not about the amount of content, just the amount of context. --W.marsh 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Sorry, W.marsh, "This guy was an employee of someone famous" simply does not constitute an assertion of notability. Deor 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you have to make it personal? I take offense to that. --W.marsh 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't trying to be personal; I was responding to your specific remark that "A claim of notability is a claim of working with or for notable people in some meaningful capacity, so there was a claim of notability," with which I disagree as a blanket statement. I'm of the opinion that what constitutes a "meaningful capacity" has to be taken into account when one evaluates whether "X works for Y" is to be construed as an assertion of X's notability, and I think Butseriouslyfolks was well within the bounds of admin discretion in concluding that in this case it didn't. I apologise for offending you. Deor 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe I read it the wrong way. Thanks for understanding and meaning well. --W.marsh 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find the persistent observation that a literary agent is a hireling to be patently absurd, and the fact that it is, indeed, persistent, to be reflective of Wikipedia's limitations. That said, then, I think the overall tenor of the debate here is sufficiently anti-intellectual that I'll not attempt to re-create the entry. Let Wikipedia confine itself to its preferred topics. AtomikWeasel 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a Comp. Lit./English Lit. double major who grew up reading The New Yorker I don't think my bona fides are really an issue. Hard cases make bad law, they say, and this wasn't a good article. I doubt any general conclusions of the sort you're leaning toward can be drawn. A good article on Hellmer may well be justified, if it can be sourced. The sentence under review was not even, to my reasonably well-read eye, much of an assertion of notability. As to your argument that literary agents are notable based on their client list, I allow that as a truism, but in more precise WP:BIO terms they are notable because their client relations get written about. There are easily half a dozen agents from the mid-century period with encyclopedic significance. Hellmer may or may not be one of them, but without sources, who can tell? --Dhartung | Talk 05:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the meaning of that phrase is that to make policy on the basis of accommodating an atypical instance is wrong. As applies here, to ignore the policy on the criteria for CSD on the basis that this article that ordinarily qualifies for a pass at A7 is in fact an inadequate article, is one of the bad cases. The safer course is to follow the good law, and let this be deleted at AfD. DGG (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. G7 does not say not notable in the specialized meaning of having no independent reliable sources, it says: no assertion of importance/significance. Being an agent of a major author is an assertion of significance. It may not be enough, but that is for AfD to decide. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it an assertion of significance? Is being a greeter at Walmart also an assertion of significance? And if not, where do you draw the line? In general, being an associate, employee or business partner of someone or something notable does not by itself constitute an assertion of notability (notability is not contagious). There are exceptions, as with ball players, but those exceptions are generally well-known. In specific, most literary agents, even agents for notable people, are not notable, and do not constitute a reasonable exception. Either we force "greeter at Walmart" to be a sufficient claim to force AfD (an unacceptable choice IMO), or we admit that this was within the bounds of admin discretion and was a reasonable deletion. I see no possible middle ground. Unless you have a bright-line distinction you'd care to proffer? Xtifr _tälk 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The line I draw, is as follows. If true and verifiable, would this claim, in and of itself make some one notable? Are there other examples of people who are notable for substantially the same thing. There are undoubtably notable people whose sole claim to fame is that they are agents of famous authors, musicisns, actors, etc. However, there is no one whose sole claim to fame is being a Wal-Mart greeter who is notable. To argue that because one business relationship cna cause notability then all business realtionships must cause notability is a red herring. Dsmdgold —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmdgold (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion but without prejudice to recreation. An AfD would have been the better choice, but I think the admin was able to choose under the rules. Let's face it, a one line article is not hard to recreate, with proper assertions. I think the notability of literary agents does need asserting; some are, most aren't. Johnbod 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list on AfD per DGG. An assertion of notability was made; whether it was sufficient is a question that should be brought to the AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As I understand it, per previous discussion, it is not inappropriate to re-create a more substantial version of the entry without waiting for a conclusion as to this particular debate. I am, therefore, doing so. AtomikWeasel 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And nicely written it is! I don't think anybody will challenge it now. This debate should probably be closed as moot. -- But|seriously|folks 01:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. It's appreciated. Wikipedia is a difficult process, at times, I think, for all of us, but I've enjoyed working with you, and I'd hope it has indeed resulted in a useful entry. AtomikWeasel 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased you've chosen this route, in which the entire community benefits from an improved article. (I consider improving articles on the chopping block to be one of the nobler callings on Wikipedia, and practice it often.) Kudos! --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak overturn, though it hardly matters at this point (and thanks to AtomikWeasel for making it so). I believe this case, precisely because it's a borderline case, highlights the reason why CSD A7 needs to be interpreted strictly. Specifically, the problem is that neither I, nor, judging from his comments, Butseriouslyfolks, is actually familiar enough with the subject area to properly evaluate the degree of notability that working for a particular notable author might imply for an agent. Even though some assertions of notability are clearly and indisputably insufficient ("is a greeter at Walmart") or absurd ("owns a cottage on Mars"), and as such may, in my opinion, be safely ignored, many perhaps questionable-sounding claims may in fact turn out to be evidence of actual notability, and it's not generally possible for an individual admin to judge that. In this particular case, the article did contain a claim that may have constituted an assertion of notability, even if it lacked the context that would allow a layperson to evaluate the significance of that claim, and as such it should not have been speedied. The time it would've taken to PROD the article or send it to AfD instead would hardly have been prohibitive, especially compared to what has since been spent on this debate. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strict how? If we don't have clear-cut rules, how is it possible to be strict? Where would you draw the line between this and the Walmart greeter? We've had problems with A7s in the past where admins have not been familiar with the topic, but in this case, someone who is familiar with the publishing industry (like me) would not consider "X is an agent for Y" to be an assertion of notability. So what basis do you offer for claiming that it is a borderline assertion? Or do you think we should clutter up AfD with the Walmart greeter articles too? If you can't explain how to distinguish the cases, how can you ask for them to be distinguished? Xtifr _tälk 21:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The line should be drawn where the deleting admin (or whoever tags the article) is absolutely sure that the claim could not be considered an assertion of notability. If you are indeed familiar with the industry and can say for certain that merely representing Dürrenmatt does not make an agent notable, then I wouldn't, personally, have a problem with you having deleted that article — although if I didn't know about your familiarity with the field I might. This does not change the fact that, a) Butseriouslyfolks does not seem to have possessed that kind of special knowledge that would've allowed him to make that determination with certainty, and b) even if he had, the criteria for speedy deletion are defined specifically so that admins, or those reviewing their actions, should not be required to possess such specialized domain knowledge in order to determine whether an article meets the criteria or not. This is why A7 merely requires an assertion of notability; where a possible assertion exists, putting the article on AfD (or PRODing it) will allow multiple people, hopefully including some who are familiar with the subject area, to evaluate the significance of that assertion. The difference with the Walmart greeter example is that everyone knows, and knows that everyone else knows, that being a greeter at Walmart does not make one notable; in this case, some people have suggested that being an agent for Dürrenmatt might in fact possibly make one notable, or at least that they weren't sure, which implies that this was not a valid A7 speedy — even if the deletion, at the time, might perhaps have been justifiable on other grounds (though I personally don't think it really was). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is because I have no special knowledge in the topic area that I believe articles should explicitly assert their subjects' importance / significance to survive A7. -- But|seriously|folks 02:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Firstly, thanks to those who feel that the Kurt Hellmer entry is now satisfactory. Secondly, I have a thought, or a suggestion, but please bear in mind that while I'm not a complete newbie, and have some feel for Wikpedia processes, I wouldn't for even an instant pretend to have a deep or subtle grasp of the intricacies and problems that are intrinsic to this process. As I understand it, a significant number of new entries must be rapidly screened by admins, who are volunteers, providing their time and energy to the project. They are, I believe, in most cases sincerely dedicated to the effort to build a better encyclopedia, but they are also forced to make quick decisions, with little available information. This is, I would think, inherently very difficult. Another element is that new entries, particularly if they are created by newbies, may be imperfect because they are created by newbies, and they may be hurt or offended by rapid deletion in a process that, as newbies, they little comprehend, and which feels to them like a slap in the face. Again, I don't see this as anyone's 'fault', but it's unfortunate, imho. One thought I have, and I frankly don't know if it makes sense or would help in practical terms, is if, perhaps, admins might have available a sort of limbo, an additional option, where in effect they might, by so categorizing an entry, be saying something like 'Look, this seems dubious to me, but on the other hand there might be something I don't know, or which might not be obvious, could the matter be clarified or improved.' In other words, might it make sense for an admin to have the choice of simply speedying in the present form, moving to AfD process, or selecting an intermediate option where, perhaps, bots would notify anyone who had created or contributed to the entry that it had been placed in 'limbo' status, but that they might present their thoughts to the admin who took action. I know that that's more or less possible now, by first speedying, then having dialog go back and forth between user talk and all, but might it make sense to create a structure that would offer admins doing the very difficult work involved in patrol an intermediate option, where, perhaps, they might place an entry in limbo with a sort of note, saying perhaps 'This doesn't look like an assertion of notability to me, but I'm not absolutely certain.' You folks have more experience with these issues than I, so I'm not saying this is the solution or the way to go, but I thought I'd float the thought out for consideration as it seems to me all are struggling mightily with the dilemmas posed by this sort of issue. Any thoughts? (If this suggestion makes no sense in practical terms, feel free to say so, as I say I'm not widely experienced with these considerations and it may be I'm wide of the mark – I'll take no offense, I assure you.) AtomikWeasel 03:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD is an option similar to what you describe. I agree, as I think most editors would, that speedy deleting articles created by news users is generally unwelcoming (though a friendly message always helps) and if the article may potentially be notable it's best to prod it and open discussion with the creator. I think the speedy tag is used too much and the prod tag too little, though other editors might disagree there. Also note that any editor can tag an article for speedy deletion, prod an article, or nominate an article in the AfD forum; the options aren't restricted to those with admin tools. Hope that clears things up, — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list as AFD per User:DGG's comments. Probably worth deleting, but not IMO a a speedy. Balancer 05:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 August 2007[edit]

User:Rickyrab/New Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense – All deletions endorsed. It is clear from the consensus below that -- process issues aside -- a profound sense of editor-fatigue has created a consensus to keep these items deleted. Given the extensive history of controversy surrounding these pages, arguments in favor of a final disposition of these matters (perhaps at the cost of process) are not without merit. This conclusion would not be possible, had not the community already been given ample opportunity to discuss BJODN in many fora. To the disappointed minority who wished to see discussion of the older user-archives, I offer my personal sympathy, but the community judges otherwise. – Xoloz 15:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Improper and premature MfD closure by User:Radiant!. I am also nominating these other pages for DRV:

User:Keegan/Sandbox/Donald BJAODN
User:MichTheWeird/BJAODN
User:Rickyrab/ April Fool's BJAODN
User:TenPoundHammer/BJAODN and all of it's sub-pages.
User:WindFish/BJAODN

Although I fully acknowledge that Radiant! was acting in good faith, I believe that consensus was determined incorrectly. Firstly, the MfD should have been allowed to run its full course; there was no valid reason for speedy deletion. Secondly, although little can now be done about the outcome of the BJAODN MfD and DRV, I don't think the consensus there was sufficiently strong (if it existed at all) to justify eradication of anything related to BJAODN; there was a substantial body of opinion arguing to Keep. Thirdly, I draw attention to User:TenPoundHammer's comments on the MfD: I created my personal BJAODN just for humor's sake -- I didn't even know until just now that the existing BJAODN had been put up for MfD. These pages are clearly not an attempt to circumvent community consensus; most of them pre-date the BJAODN MfD and are innocent personal collections of humour. Therefore, I disagree with the closing rationale. Walton^One 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I rewrote my nomination statement, as I was informed that the original statement was needlessly inflammatory. It can be found here. Walton^One 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer A relisted MfD cannot lead to an overturn of Radiant's speedy delete of the pages since only a DRV can do that. Thus, this DRV is a review of Radiant's speedy delete of the pages. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer Please note that many of the endorsements below state the speedy delete is justified for all pages because all pages are an attempt to circumvent the BJAODN MfD. As most of the pages under discussion predate that MfD by years, that is factually incorrect. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong endorse. BJAODN has been discussed to death, several times, and the outcome was the reasonable close by Phil Sandifer, here, which was recently upheld at the admin noticeboard and here at deletion review. Making an end run around this community consensus to create Yet Another Attempt at BJAODN is really inappropriate, and I don't see how alluding to the Grand Admin Conspiracy is any help. >Radiant< 12:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I especially like the view that I'm in a small clique of admins despite not having adminship. — Moe ε 00:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If Walton is truly interested in having these pages undeleted (rather than using this forum as a soapbox), I strongly suggest that the above statement be rewritten. Lashing out at "...a small clique of admins..." and threatening to leave take the focus off the reasons for undeletion. Chaz ^Beckett 12:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and note I haven't had anything to do with the deletions of BJAODN. Community consensus said the pages should be deleted for the most part. Circumventing that ruling by hosting the duly-deleted content in userspace is not appropriate. Neil ム 12:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at MfD. While I believe Walton One's DRV nomination is needlessly inflammatory, I do believe this close was improper. If one reviews the discussion, and looks at the history, you will see most of the pages under discussion pre-dated the BJAODN controversy, and as such, were not attempts to bypass anything. Some did (Rickyrab's, to be sure), but not most of them. I even called out a few pages that appear to have nothing to do with BJAODN. Maybe they should be deleted for other reasons, but that's not what the close indicated, nor does it appear to be consensus in the MfD. Indeed, discussion so far was equally for keep. Applying a judgment for one page to other pages that have no relation seems very wrong to me. I had informally asked Radiant! to review this (on his talk page), but unfortunately, Walton One decided to peruse an attack instead. While I deplore Walton's behavior, that doesn't make the close right. • Note that I believe Radiant! was acting in good faith; the MfD in question was modified during the discussion, so the discussion is quite confused. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The MfD was a reasonable close. The scope of the MfD includes these pages. Therefore they were validly deleted. --Deskana (apples) 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the pages were not mentioned in the original MfD, the users should have been given some warning so they could make an offline copy if they wanted to. Carcharoth 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If people want offline copies, they're welcome to contact an admin and ask for the wikitext to be e-mailed to them. It doesn't make the deletion less valid because they were not informed beforehand and did not have chance to save a copy offline. --Deskana (apples) 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I never said the deletions weren't valid. I'm just suggesting some courtesy. Carcharoth 13:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - why not point any editors who are attempting to archive BJOADN towards the off-site copies of BJAODN? If, on the other hand, these are small, personal collections of new stuff (or combinations of new and old stuff, or old collections forked from BJAODN), then explain the GFDL concerns to them. If there is proper attribution of the items in the collection, fine. But any such userspace collections are likely to (a) grow out of control and (b) not be very easy to find and check. I suggest putting something in a policy or guideline along the lines of not using userspace as an archive of deleted material, with the usual exception of articles from AfD that are being worked on. Also point out that it is better to link to funny stuff, rather than copy it over. If it gets deleted, tough. Carcharoth 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:UP presently says, "this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content." >Radiant< 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~. I did not (to my knowledge) delete any userpages in the course of the BJAODN close, and I would not have felt comfortable interpreting the consensus of that discussion as saying that userpages could be deleted. On the other hand, I see no value in these pages and am unable to support their restoration either. Phil Sandifer 14:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify that I completely support torching Rickyrab's page, which was pure disruption. Phil Sandifer 14:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; there is no consenus at the MfD to delete (and as far as I can see, no claim of such consensus here). If these are in fact old collections, just named for the longstanding WP page, I see no reason to delete them at all (GFDL violations should be shown; they haven't been). I endorse Carcharoth's suggestions about talking to users before deleting; in fact, I think I'll suggest that at WT:MfD; although I think his proposed policy language would make such conversations less likely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - any users wishing to create new versions of BJAODN must go through deletion review prior to creating the pages. The MfD closure for BJAODN covers deletion of all BJAODN pages except for Wikipedia:Silly things. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Attempting to have new versions of BJAODN because you didn't like the result of the prior MfD is not the way to behave. --Durin 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop beating the dead horse already and endorse. The pages were WP:POINT and the rationale to delete them exceeded the need for a groupthink.--WaltCip 19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the DRV rationale is invalid. If the rationale is for the restoration of BJAODN, then the DRV should address BJAODN itself, not the userfied pages.--WaltCip 19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong endorse. Trying to get around community consensus in MfD and DRV and that very well-done closing rationale by Phil Sandifer by hanging on to this in one's userspace is not the way to go. Please, let's let BJAODN go already. Grand master ka 20:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
relist separately. Radiant! moved too quickly, and to close as a speedy delete for all the pages was not appropriate. The orig nomination (Rickyrab) was for a page where the tile and introduction were deliberately provocative, but the actual contents consisted of links to less than a dozen individual edits in article edit histories. I don't see how mere links to material in WP are a violation of anything applicable to user space. A WP article can't consist of WP links, but a user space page can and a great many do. Of the others, Keegan consists of one bio article that, If the person is real, probably is a BLP violation & thus unsuitable even for user space--and if not, is harmless.

Mich is a page from 06 & before, most of the jokes are stupid, but the edits are attributed. Windfish is from 05, not edited since, 2 jokes, both his own. 10PH is from July 07, mainly a list of deleted pages he apparently disliked, some of which were simply lists deleted in the recent list deletion flurry of activity. i do not see how all of this can be decided in a single MfD, especially when most of them were added in the middle. doing it this way was a mistake. Personally, I do not particularly care for such pages, but some are simply unfortunate uses of a now rejected title. DGG (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion of Rickyrab's page, definitely appears to be an attempt to subvert consensus in MFD and DRV given the user's history in dealing with the BJAODN issue. Something being in userspace doesn't give it more leeway just because. --Coredesat 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Changed argument, overturn and list the other pages that were deleted, as they're too old to have been covered by this MFD. Still, keep Rickyrab's page deleted. --Core desat 08:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse of speedy delete - I nominated BJAODN MfD#6 with a specific purpose: "The purpose of this MfD is to end BJAODN as an ongoing project." That goal was there from the beginning and throughly considered at that MfD. Phil Sandifer close that MfD stating "this is ... a close with predjudice against recreating any part of BJAODN." This not only resulted in deleting pages, but specifically ended BJAODN as an ongoing project. Ryulong's list identified many of these pages throughout Wikipedia and was part of that MfD. However, it was likely that there were more pages located throughout Wikipedia:Namespace given that the project lasted seven years and hiding BJAODN pages throughout Wikipedia:Namespace would seem consistent with that project. That is why the nomination specifically sought and the close specifically authorized the deletion of the then-identified and future-identified BJAODN-type pages no matter where they occure within Wikipedia:Namespace. 113 unique editors participated in BJAODN MfD#6. For BJAODN to be revived as a project, there would need to be a similar community wide participation and any MfD or DRV would need a similar community wide participation to overcome any speedy delete of BJAODN-type material. This is nothing more than an attempt to subvert significant consensus by reviving that project. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Let this rubbish die. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As the one who nominated it for deletion to begin with.. — Moe ε 23:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn those that existed prior to July 2007. They need to be relisted separately. Radiant's deletion summaries amount to G4 against the BJAODN MFD#6, but the closer of that MFD says here that 1) these pages weren't nominated therein, and 2) he wouldn't have applied his close to them. So Radiant's actions are clearly wrong for those pages existing prior to July. DGG's explanation of why the issues relevant to each of these pages are different is convincing, and is the reason that they should be separately listed and evaluated. This discussion appears to be focusing far too much on one particular user's pages, and ignoring the others. Group noms of differing content don't work well, either at MFD or DRV. GRBerry 03:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking out previous !vote and agreeing here - Delete Rickyrab, keep others. Phil Sandifer 13:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Clear cut case of the recreation of content that should not be recreated without a proper change of consensus. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Endorse I endorse the deletion of User:Rickyrab/New Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense as an attempt at recreation. Relist the others, but please do it separately: they are not the same things. User:Rickyrab/ April Fool's BJAODN and User:Keegan/Sandbox/Donald BJAODN are copies of joke articles, not sure if they were ever actually deleted before; the others are like BJAODN was but small personal collections... but they may border on users boasting of their own vandalism. There are issues which may necessitate those being deleted, but I really don't think the BJAODN deletion covers them. Mango juice^talk 14:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, BJAODN is finished. Moreschi ^Talk 08:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore user subpages created prior to July Nowhere in the BJAODN closure is there a prohibition on keeping a small personal collection of funny edits. BJAODN was shut down as a centralized process, it was not an absolute ban on any remotely BJAODN-like material in userspace. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tears. Why, humanity, why? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly that can be seen as a endorse or overturn :) — Moe ε 21:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for clarity, it's "oh my, I just woke up and the nightmare isn't over after all." Completely wrong forum for this sort of conclusions, I know and I apologise. But since we are here, all I can recommend for DRVery is Do the Right Things. Do we absolutely need any more BJAODN drama? Why has comedy become a nightmare? Why are we being tormented so? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I see many pages being lumped together here with no clear evidence as to what is or isn't duplication of previous BJAODN content. This may mean that some of the content here has nothing to do with any of this, and is merely being deleted because someone is on a misguided crusade to remove all mention of silliness from the project history. Certainly I don't advocate recovering BJAODN itself by posting it to some other page of wikipedia:en: (as that's about as sensible - and as volatile - as backing up key data to a RAMdisk) but the net is being cast far too broadly here. If you must go on a deletion spree, obtain consensus *first*... one page at a time. Sorry. --carlb 05:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shemale – Recreation permitted. It appears there is sufficient evidence (and editorial support) below for a new article, which may always be reviewed at AfD after creation. Strictly speaking, because the redirect was not protected, this DRV was unnecessary, but the consensus now exist. The supporting editors may move the information at their convenience, with the expectation that a new AfD is likely. – Xoloz 15:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am posting for deletion review under point that new information came to light after deletion. Shemale term has its own meaning and place apart from usage as derogatory. I have added 2 new refs one being from mit.edu which is WP:RS. I have proposed different lead section for deletion review here Talk:Shemale/DRV proposal. During AfD, term was believed to used only as derogatory to transwoman, and original meaning was either not known or no ref was available. It has also editor bias since it is derogatory to some people of a wikiproject. But in an uncensored encyclopedia, shemale deserves seperate article, and valid academic refs can be found by google search (shemale "secondary sex characteristics"). Lara_bran 09:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This is a review of the "Merge and redirect" to Transwoman close of AfD #1 dated April 25, 2007. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Some reports on this article include (1) April 25, 2005 RfI post, (2) January 5, 2006 RfI post, and (3) April 16, 2007 AN post -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth that seems more like information you can add to the existing article rather than making it a standalone article. In any case, a redirect is an editorial decision so there really is nothing to review at DRV - discussion on the article's talk page is a more appropriate venue. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is scope for an image, also the term is popular in porn industry and also gamers. I think article will expand. Lara_bran 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation It could justify a separate article. The terms seem to be distinct, and it is now adequately sourced.DGG (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, but my understanding is that "shemale" (usually "she-male" in porn, but contracted to "shemale" as a gloss on "female") primarily differs from "transwoman" by being considered derogatory. Its omission from the latter article means its near-complete omission from this entire encyclopedia, which seems incorrect. If it is to be merged the information should be there; if it is not merged it should be properly distinguished (rather than just defined, as the definition will be confusingly close to transwoman for most people). --Dhartung | Talk 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwoman is different from shemale, and i have removed "why (addressing as)shemale is derogatory to a transwoman" points(3 of them) from earlier version, due to lack of ref. In the net, its difficult for anybody to find ref for shemale(try), i could, only because i knew it beforehand. An entry in wikipedia would be hence justified. Also it redirecting to transwoman is rather wrong which i dont wish to elaborate much, without demand(transwoman is mental state, not necessarily ~~hormone~~physical characteristics imbalance). Thanks. Lara_bran 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Shemale is a transexual Intersexual than a transgender. (transwoman is transgender)~~ (wrong statement)Lara_bran 04:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I understand some of the issues. The point is that the article, if the AFD is to be overturned, must show this in a substantial and referenced way. If "due to lack of ref. on the net" we can't do that, and nobody is willing to research in print sources and the like, then our article would fail WP:V, a core policy. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, 'Transwoman is different from Shemale' in that 1. 'Shemale' is derogatory where transwoman is not, and 2. 'Shemale' is a derogatory term used to refer to a subset of transwomen - those who still possess male genitalia. That's the extent of the difference that I've seen cited. In what other, referenced ways do the two terms differ? What is the distinct difference in meaning? You struck out your only contribution of such information directly above as being in error, and have not factually demonstrated this 'distinct meaning from transwoman' here. I think you'll find that it's a simple fact - whether in porn or otherwise, the word 'Shemale' is a term used overwhelmingly as a derogatory reference to transwomen - specifically, those with male genitalia. And if you do decide to provide the information to which you allude, please include links to the source. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation - due to substantial new information that came to light after deletion. In this situation, a normal way to proceed would have been to add you material to the Transwoman artice and then seek to spinout a 'Shemale' article through discussion at the Transwoman talk page. But, since you are here, your Talk:Shemale/DRV proposal contains substantial new information that came to light after deletion to justify recreation over the close of AfD #1. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As for spin out, there is actually no place for shemale in transwoman. Earlier there was confusion about definition of shemale itself. Two articles overlap only there in its derogatory usage, which im not sure why, and could not find out also. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consensus need not be wise consensus. : ) Anyway, under the circumstances, your DRV request is appropriate. Since you are at DRV, DRV can provide a definitive answer. We are already discussion the matter and it would be pointless to send this to the transwoman talk page from DRV. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate immediately. "Shemale" is not even discussed in the target, a wonderful example of wikipedia's "leave 'em guessing" attitude. From the talk page, it seems that the editors of transwoman agree that there is not place for "shemale" in the article, so this should either be a standalone article or merged into something more appropriate. I think a list of terms for transgender people or something like that is needed. Kappa 09:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect it to be misleading comment, since this is not a valid reason. And this invalid reason is supported by another user User:SatyrTN blindly, who belong to wikiproject lgbt studies. This seems like a conspiracy, like strawpuppet usage, giving void reasons opposite to their actual motive. Also notice Kappa's overrection in below comments. I am really sorry if it were otherwise, since im assuming bad faith, speedily close DRV if im visibly wrong, maybe myself biased. Lara_bran 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are saying it is acceptable to have a redirect to an article which doesn't talk about the topic? You think readers will just guess that "shemale" is supposed to be a synonym for "transwoman"? Kappa 01:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are right, but this your problem can be solved with merge(merge was there in afd but not implemented). And merge does not need DRV. I am sorry for keeping you in gray region. Lara_bran 06:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I thought that the article was merged, but the merged material has since been removed. In any event the term "shemale" used to be discussed in this article, but that is no longer the case. Kappa 11:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain redirect and resolve issues at Transwoman. There is no difference between a 'shemale' and a 'pre-operative transwoman', except that the former term is unacceptable in everyday use to describe such a person. There is no reason for a separate list that includes derogatory terms for transgendered people on WP, but this term's derogatory usage (both inside and outside the porn industry), as well as the first use of the term in Janice Raymond's "Transsexual Empire: Making of the She-Male" (which was highly derogatory) are definitely noteworthy and encyclopedic. The 'gaming' use folks mention is, in my opinion, not enyclopedic (and certainly not encyclopedic enough) as to justify an article rather than a redirect. The best approach, as mentioned, is to re-introduce this encyclopedic information by resolving the content issues on Transwoman. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to provide some evidence that "there is no difference between a 'shemale' and a 'pre-operative transwoman'". I'm sure such evidence would be helpful in resolving the issue. Kappa 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without appearing to avoid your request, I've already patiently done so repeatedly (for example in a number of the links provided above, both before and after the deletion review, by jreferee). However, here is but one of those conversations with a series of anons and other single-role accounts pursuing this matter ad nauseam, [23], [24]. I'll include some more as needed. Most importantly,I don't think a pained restatement of the numerous arguments that led to the deletion is called for when an editor is seeking to undo a merge/redirect - especially when the rationale centers around an inability to resolve the issue on the merge target page as it does here. In this case the onus is on the nominator to post the 'new evidence that allegedly came to light since deletion' to this review. I'm looking forward to seeing it because so far, I'm having trouble finding (to say nothing of assessing) this 'new information'.

So far, over the course of months and months of endless repetitive debate, there has not been a single piece of evidence presented that establishes a valid, notable and non-derogatory use of the term 'Shemale'. Given that the overwhelming use is a plainly derogatory term (including in pr0n, where the term refers to a pre-operative male-to-female transsexual, in other words a 'chick with a dick', as the article once clearly stated), these 'manga' and 'gaming' references may command entire chapters for the 'Shemale' article on ED or Uncyclopedia, but they aren't notable or encyclopedic enough to justify a reversion of the merge on WP. The term is plainly derogatory slang as numerous dictionary and glossary cites establish, and is overwhelmingly used in reference to a transwoman who possesses 'male' genitalia. This is also an uncontested fact. These two central facts, the facts that underly the 'merge-redirect' to Transwoman, have not been credibly questioned to date. However, I'm hoping for a presentation of the supposed 'new evidence, since I always try to keep my mind open to new possibilities. -- 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

- - Transwoman and Shemale are different. Transwoman is just a mental state, and vast meaning, which covers shemale, but not whole of shemale. I had not even been to transwoman talk, since they are different. Also shemale is more searched and known than transwoman, it redirecting would be advertising transwoman. Shemale has specific biological definition, not mental, and differs. Lara_bran 03:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for your uncontested fact, i wish to tell that shemale is not limited to its derogatory usage, that is just a side use of the term, during last afd article was edited to show that that is the main and only usage of term shemale. This was possible because ref for original definition was not available then. Not just ref, hardly anybody in AfD knew the original definition of shemale. Lara_bran 04:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, 'Shemale' is a pejorative word popularized in pornography used to describe a subset of a Transwoman (a biological subset, those with male genitalia), and has been cited from multiple sources to be a highly derogatory term. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - shemale is not just "subset" of transwoman, shemale can be and intersexual also. Intersexual is not transwoman, but intersexual are rare due to they make surgical operation on child to make it either male or female. So adult intersexual shemale maybe a rare case, but that is definitely not transwoman. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then that's obviously the rare, and not the predominant use. And such a rare case thus proves the rule: just because a female-appearing person who has male-appearing genitalia looks that way for genetic reasons, rather than gender reassignment, doesn't alleviate the derogatory nature of the attack or limit its scope - calling an intersexual a 'she-male' would seem to me to be no less pejorative than calling a transsexual a 'she-male'. In any case, you need to actually demonstrate your view with valid citations. I've established that in it's main English-language usage, 'Shemale' is a pejorative word popularized in pornography used to describe a subset of a Transwoman (a biological subset, those with male genitalia), and has been cited from multiple sources to be a highly derogatory term. The previous VfD was that the term does not warrant its own article on WP, and the decision was to merge and redirect. The merging takes work, and you should bring your content in a way that improves the Transwoman article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And forward a link to the reference you claim represents the word's 'main usage'... I'm keen to see exactly what you're talking about. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As for pajorative meaning i dont think it is pajorative to shemales. It is pajorative only to rest of transwoman who are but not shemale. If this is true, since both your nor my claim about pajorative usage is verified, it is not derogative for genetically shemale people. Earlier AfD since orig definition was not known, everyone thought its used only as pajorative way, in my view shemale is not pajorative to shemales, but it is pajorative to rest of transwoman like crossdresser etc. shemale is not pajorative to shemales, but it is pajorative to rest of transwomen. Lara_bran 07:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment on wikipedia editor bias(derived from above statement): These rest of transwoman, who dont have biological disordance, but only mental "disordance", want the advertisement of shemale by redirect, but they dont want the term used against them. I noticed strawpuppet like(showing to be opposing own cause and accomplish) during last afd and article edits during afd, to camouflage original meaning and exaggerate pajorative meaning. Also in talk:transwoman, which i visited after DRV nomination(maybe a mistake), such effort(exaggerating pajorative meaning) is clearly seen. Lara_bran 07:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am having real trouble understanding more than a few words and phrases of your argument, except to say that you're wrong about the 'pejorative' use of the word not applying to 'shemales'. Utterly, flatly wrong. The term 'shemale' is OF COURSE derogatory, as I've cited more than a half-dozen times.'Genetically shemale people'? That's a nice chunk of OR. Show me a single citation of a notable source using that language. And with all this silliness you still you haven't provided a single citation to validate your (very poorly-worded) claim. And as far as 'discordance', etc., I think you'll find that a person appearing as a female would not identify in public as a 'shemale' at the DMV, at a job interview, etc... the term is derogatory. In any case, if you can demonstrate that yours is a viewpoint that represents a notable or 'due weight' point of view, WP requires that you provide cited sources to substantiate your views. You have to do this, if you want your views to be incorporated in WP article space - to say nothing of overturning the 'merge redirect' that the prior participants elected - and you just haven't done so. Right now, I think your argument is largely incomprehensible, but what pieces I can glean are themselves examples of bizarre editor bias and original research. So, I must flatly state that I see your argument as currently baseless opinionating, without basis in actual cited fact. Last, and I mean no offense by saying this - you may want to see about getting some help with grammatical construction if you expect English-speaking people to fully understand your posts to en.wikipedia.org.
        
        I'm heading to the beach for the long weekend so replies may be few and far between. Maybe you'll use the time to craft a cohesive, comprehensible and cited argument for why your view should be that upon which an ostensible WP encyclopedia article on shemale should be justified, given the DRV. I do hope so, I've been asking for the fabled references/links to this 'new, main usage of shemale' since I got here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You can refer to lead section of Talk:Shemale/DRV_proposal. 2 different and new refs for definition of shemale, other than earlier reference.com and dictionary.com references which are rather non-academic. I wish to mention that both my and your comment are not verified, we are not sure shemale is derogatory to whom. Is it to all transwoman(your claim), or to rest of transwomen who are not shemales(my claim) or to the whole mankind(sombody's claim). I will try to improve my english, but i here tried to structure my comments into layers like who want broad view may skip what i wrote inside brackets. ****Lara_bran 08:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I have demonstrated my views with outside citations. So far, you have not, since I don't see anything new on that page that wasn't there at the time of redirection. Are you talking about the Davey Crockett reference and the Janice Raymond reference? If so, I think you'll find I researched and supplied each of them to the original Shemale article before it's merge/redirection. Are you talking about the reference to Anime/Manga? If so, I hardly think that usage is notable enough to validate overturning the redirect and restoring an article for a plainly derogatory term (as is well-cited). If it's something else, please repost those specific references in the next post.
        
        The decision was merge/redirect' last time, and if you want to overturn that, you're going to have to articulate and demonstrate your position a lot better than this. Again, You should merge the content there of value into Transwoman (as I already said on this page) and stop this silliness (and yes, this is now silly), unless there is something actually NEW. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 08:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have no further replies to you, agree 2 points are yet to be verified namely 1 shemale is derogatory to whom? and is it term's primary usage? and 2 how this is related to intersexuals. But added new ref's clear the specific biological definition, which was not known or ambigous during afd. I leave it for third party to decide, not just because you are turning discussion to personal. Lara_bran 09:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You still haven't provided a single link in this discussion to a specific source that points to your view. The links in that section all support the pejorative definition. What specific link validates your claim, please? And if you have no replies, I won't ask again. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above - let them fight it out at the Transwoman article and maintain the redirect. This seems like a content issue, not an article issue. Eusebeus 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are suggesting that shemale should continue as a redirect, but whether or not it is mentioned at the target is up to editors of that page. Next time I get fucked over by a redirect which leaves me none-the-wiser I will know who to blame. Kappa 21:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Presumably Kappa the next time you are fucked by a redirect you will be too busy languishing in the afterglow to give a damn who's responsible. Eusebeus 22:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I will remember it's the fault of people who don't give a damn about their readers. Kappa 01:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ignoring the hostile and personal nature of your comment, I'm saying that the redirect should persist and the content issues worked out as per long-standing WP process. On WP, EVERYTHING is ultimately up to editors of each page. This topic (an overwhelmingly derogatory term unworthy of a separate article) is no exception. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm largely in your same camp here, but I take issue with your claims (here and in the AFD and some of the earlier points brought up by Jreferee) that the word is "overwhelmingly derogatory". I think, from my standpoint (and I know my pr0n and I've been socially to drag shows, pride fests and the like) that the overwhelming use is by people who have no idea there's any other term. It may be taken as demeaning, and it may have been repudiated by the serious TG community, but we should be clear about speakers in either case. Who is using it derogatorily, and who is objecting? If we can't state that clearly we're perilously close to either personal opinion or original research. --Dhartung | Talk

I appreciate the question and I share your interest in discussing the issue as clearly as possible. Here's my view, as cited by numerous valid, notable sources as provided in prior conversations and repeated in the links above. Wikidictionary lists it as "(pejorative) A male-to-female transsexual or transgender person." [25]. The Webster's New Millenium Online dictionary cites list the term as "derogatory slang for 'a genetic male who has both male and female characteristics; a male who has undergone surgical feminization" [26], and wordweb as 'sometimes offensive, referring to a transsexual in the porn industry'. [27]. There has so far been not a single valid cite to demonstrate when the term is not offensive. I'd love to see one, as I'm open to changing my mind, but none have been presented.

As far as 'who' is objecting, the dictionary links do not specify, nor qualify, 'who' is being offended, but I believe it is not 'original research' to conclude that a derogatory term used to describe 'a transsexual in the porn industry' is offensive to transsexuals. Thankfully, my opinion isn't the only basis for this conclusion - it has been independently cited that the term is "a sexualized term popularized in pornography for a transgendered woman who has not had surgery.", and is "Often considered highly offensive." [28]. In all of the prior article's citations and in the vast preponderance of practice the term is used not to describe 'gamers' but transsexuals (transwomen, specifically). So it's not WP:OR, it's been cited and shown that transwomen are the people to whom the word 'Shemale' is 'overwhelmingly derogatory' when used.

As far as 'who' is using it: Using a derogatory term for such a person - ignorantly, knowingly or not, in pron or not - is still derogatory and as unacceptable on WP as any other slur. The number of people who employ slurs (both those aware of and those ignorant of their nature), whether at clubs, in gaming, etc. doesn't alleviate or reduce that term's derogatory nature. Most importantly, in the overwhelmingly common usage (to refer to transwomen with male genitalia), whether used in porn or not, whether self-assigned by porn stars, marketers or not, the term when used to apply to a transwoman is 'incredibly offensive'. [29] One drink or three, big club or small party, sidewalk or runway, referring to ladies like this as 'Shemales' is significantly more derogatory than 'Transsexuals' (or, better yet, 'Ladies')

So if it is demonstrably 'highly offensive' to refer to transwomen as shemales, and if this is the overwhelmingly common use of the term, the information I provided above can be integrated into the 'Transwoman' article to the extent that it explains the predominant, cited view of this term. Maybe a link or two (and perhaps Janice Raymond's popularization of the term in 1979-1984, but probably not the earlier 'masculine lesbian' usage, which is no longer used) would suffice to complete the merge.

At this point don't believe there is a credible controversy about whether the term is derogatory, as I have not seen a single citation establishing an inoffensive use of the word 'Shemale', but I welcome such evidence. I hope I've answered your questions, but if not I'm perfectly happy to continue the discussion, dig up the links for discussion (again), etc. Thanks. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - If everything is up to the editors of each page, why are you insisting on a redirect instead of actually leaving it up to these editors? Kappa 01:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on traffic - After this merger, transwoman viewer traffic increased, and you can notice vandalism reverts. Which have started from month May, after afd in April 25, meaning that many people have come to learn about shemale, but are told of transwoman, and deprived of its true meaning. If you see older history of Transwoman there is hardly 10 edits per month. Lara_bran 09:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree this is not reason for recreate, but it is to give general idea that shemale gets 100 times more traffic than transwoman. Lara_bran 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse status quo and speedy close, this seems to be a contentious extension of an ongoing content dispute; there has been little discussion about the AFD decision itself aside from hostile comments between a couple of editors. Since nothing has been deleted, the discussion should continue at either Talk:Shemale or Talk:Transwoman, but not here. Every possible solution here is editorial. --Coredesat 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree i should have been to talk:transwoman, where i dint even been once before DRV nomination. But the said afd, not a single commenter knew the proper meaning of shemale, this came to light only after afd closure. Lara_bran 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect. The principle objection to the redirect appears to be that people looking for shemale are told that the preferred term is transwoman. I fail to see how this is bad. The fact that activists dislike the term is hardly an argument for forking it, Wikipedia is not, after all, censored - overused though that argument may be I believe it applies here, in that we are being asked to have a separate article in order not to have to mention a pejorative term. If a pejorative term has widespread recognition, it should be noted, if only to point out that it is considered unacceptable. All of which boils down to this: the challenge to deletion lacks merit, as it fails to address the deletion rationale (nobody argued that the term did not exist, only that it is a neologism for something we cover much better at a better title), and what remains is a content dispute. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew scientific meaning of term and i have seen a shemale in porn video. But i was badly unaware that it is pejorative. I still think that it is pejorative only to limited people, only when used against transwomen, i think it is only against non-shemale-transwomen. But in a censored world, pejorative words, in any definition, they first bring to notice that the term is pejorative, they rather exaggerate. Term is basically not pejorative, term's side use is use as pejorative. Lara_bran 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- quoted:"in afd, nobody argued that the term did not exist", but everyone thought shemale's main usage is pejorative, and also thought that shemale has no definition other than pejorative(due to lack of ref). Also mind you, 99% of traffic which comes here, and 99% of world population(including me) does not know that it is used as pajorative. But much more people have seen a shemale in porn videos. Lara_bran 14:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are simply incorrect. Those are not two different definitions, they are the same definition and it is the same usage. The derogatory nature of a 'pejorative' phrase (in this case, 'Shemale') is not reduced or 'compartmentalized' simply because that term is popularized by porn. You haven't demonstrated the non-derogatory use of the word 'Shemale' at all. Stop arguing against the 'redirect' and work on the 'merge'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your citation which says "sometimes offensive" demonstrates that is is not always offensive, ie it has a non-derogatory use. Also the definitions you have given do not match the definition given at transwoman. Kappa 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, and so while one of the half-dozen citations I provided may say 'highly derogatory', and another merely 'sometimes derogatory' (and woefully not qualify under what conditions it is not derogatory), the commonality between the range of citations is the predominant (derogatory) quality of the word. I don't doubt there could be non-derogatory uses out there - as I've repeatedly said, I'd welcome any evidence specifically explaining non-derogatory uses of the word - but alas, not a single reference link has bubbled up during this whole affair, so there's no new usage yet for anyone to consider. . While it's unlikely those uses predominate over the common, derogatory usage, it's important to keep an open mind. As far as the content at 'transwoman', I'm not an editor of that page so I can't speak to the content there. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you can't speak to the content there, you have no business insisting that anything redirect to it. Kappa 01:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Nonsense. I needn't have been an editor on that page to recommend maintaining the redirect and merge. Do you require everyone who participated in the original redirect decision and this discussion to have been an editor there? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Try to follow the discussion. I didn't require to you have edited the page, just to have looked at it and noticed that it doesn't mention the word "shemale" and that the definition it gives of "transwoman" does not match the the definition you gave of shemale. This is something you don't care about because you haven't edited the page? Kappa 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - They simply overinflated explaination about pajorative usage during afd. Compare first and final versions during afd: [30] and [31]. That too taking from unsourced user page(of an inactive user), as per afd. Lead section was filled to describe pajorative usage by the same above user User:RyanFreisling(Not because of bad faith, but because no ref was available). There was not even mention of male genetalia in the article, during and till afd, which is now confirmed with new academic refs, see history of shemale, thanks. Lara_bran 06:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - EXTERNAL REFERENCE LINK, PLEASE. Comparing those two page versions does not demonstrate any new information, it merely points out (again) that this is a content dispute, inappropriate for a DRV. And you still haven't provided this magical 'ref' you keep mentioning (in terribly broken English, which makes following your argument even harder than it would be otherwise). I've asked you a half-dozen times and you still haven't done so. Regardless, as Guy said above, yours is a content dispute, so stop fighting the redirect and deal with the merge of whatever information you claim 'changes everything' on Transwoman, as you have been repeatedly advised and have never done. In any case, I'm out for the day and in passing, it's my fervent hope that you will stop baselessly challenging the redirect while refusing to cite your views, and will begin the process of content edits to Transwoman in good faith and hopefully, with actual citations. Good day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Permit Creation per Kappa above. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change redirect to transexual (This is suggestion, second option, my vote is recreate) - Every ref states that shemale is transexual. And no ref says it is transwoman, but saying nothing does not necessarily mean it wont belong to transwoman, but all refs consider transexual more proper than transwoman. Transexual is biological, but transwoman is mental. So if you think shemale is not notable then redirect and merge it to transexual, not to transwoman. Lara_bran 06:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transexual is a typo of transsexual - I can't see any point in redirecting there. In any case, it may be advisable to keep the term "shemale" out of the transsexual or transwoman pages as that's a bad word in those respective communities. "She doesn't want to be a male", that's the whole point. The longtime association with porn also makes this an emotional issue. If there is use of the term as anything other than a pejorative or a pornographic reference to transsexual women, then recreate some sort of page at shemale just to keep this out of the main transwoman article. --carlb 04:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This mit.edu is an academic reference, not pornographic reference. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And like all the other sources it reads the same:

"shemale: A term, usually derogatory, used most often in the porn industry for a pre-op transsexual who has already developed breasts but still has an intact penis."

Exactly the same as the predominant definition, that you tried to posit as a 'side view' days ago. Besides the fact that it disproves your original argument, I don't see how you justify a characterization of this source as an 'academic', rather than a 'pornorgraphic' reference, given the phrase 'used most often in the porn industry' in that very cite - except if by 'academic' you mean it's on an .edu web site... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:DailyShowClinton.jpg – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blatantly improper deletion, clearly violating policy. There were multiple objections to deletion in IfD and action taken, by way of improvements to article, to further support value of image. There was clearly no consensus to delete as required. The Wikipedia policy for deletion discussions is very clear: "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept...." The guideline for judging whether the determinitive consensus exists is equally clear and emphatic: "When in doubt, don't delete." In explicit violation of our deletion policy, which calls upon the admin to conclude whether or not consensus to delete was reached in the discussion or not, closing admin imposed his own judgment about the image as rationale for its deletion.—DCGeist 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the full paragraph you're citing - it clearly explains that consensus is not a headcount. Endorse per NFCC. >Radiant< 09:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. Now you do the same. You've raised the strawman of "headcount." The term is "consensus." Consensus to delete is arrived at or not via the discussion. Admin by policy examines whether consensus to delete was reached in discussion. If it was, image is deleted. If it wasn't, image is kept. If in doubt, image is kept. That's the policy. It's not terribly ambiguous. Like I say, you read it.—DCGeist 09:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd just get off your soapbox for a minute and stop attacking people, you could look into how deletion debates (and review thereof) usually work. Policy can and does override opinion. Quite frequently pages are deleted if a majority wanted to keep them (or vice versa), because the minority side had solid arguments and the majority did not. That is precisely what happened here, and it is how Wikipedia works, regardless of how you choose to misinterpret policy. >Radiant< 09:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(From deleting admin) The image violated NFCC #8. The image was insignificant to the article. The caption on the image was "Bill Clinton on The Daily Show, August 9, 2004." The text in the article was "In one notable 2004 interview, former president Bill Clinton appeared on the show to discuss his autobiography, My Life. In the course of the interview, Clinton discussed the attacks on presidential candidate John Kerry's war record and the admissions of fraud by and no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton, the company closely associated with Vice President Dick Cheney." The image is not needed to understand the text and the text nor caption provides any sourced critical commentary as required for screenshots. I had no doubt that the image should be deleted to satisfy Wikipedia policy on images. -Nv8200p talk 12:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - good policy-based action. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The image did not meet the non-free content criteria, so it was deleted. A deletion solidly based on relevant policy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion image deletion was soundly based on policy. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 17:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm...seems to be a mantra here about policy. I'm glad we all agree policy is so important. For those confused or bemused by this discussion, I'll quote the relevant policy in full from the policy page that describes deletion policy:

Deletion discussion

Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after community discussion. This includes contested speedy or proposed deletions. Here, editors who wish to participate can give their opinion on what should be done with the page.

These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate.

And here's the guidelines on how to apply that policy, from the guideline page on deletions:

Deciding whether to delete

Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below)

Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.

As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it.

When in doubt, don't delete.

All clear? Our policy is that the closing admin doesn't decide whether the image adheres to image policy; the discussion decides that. All the admin decides is whether consensus to delete was achieved in the discussion or not. Clearly there are several admins who would like more power than they are entitled to under policy. Clearly there are several admins who have simply arrogated such power to themselves. Clearly there are a substantial number of people, admins and others, who would like policy to be different than it is. Fine. But for now, the policy is clear. It is confirmed by the guideline. In this specific case, I undertook a set of actions directly and explicitly responsive to the image policy concerns raised by the nominator. I expressed my belief that the concerns were thus addressed and the image should not be deleted. The nominator disagreed. The sole other party who weighed in did agree that my actions satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised. Discussion thus clearly did not produce a consensus to delete. The subsequent deletion thus clearly violates our deletion policy, quoted above.—DCGeist 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you don't understand how xfD closures work. It is not the closing admin's job to count heads, they have to weigh the strength of argument. If the vast majority of the arguments are against policy, then they can be rejected, or counted to a lesser weight than those whose arguments are policy-driven. That's what happened here, as has been explained to you. Deletion is not a vote. Endorse deletion as per policy. Corvus cornix 20:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, CC, I understand very well how all consensus-based Wikipedia processes work. Just like FAx processes, for instance, xfD discussion processes are consensus-driven, not admin-driven--even more so, because there is very explicit policy for admins to follow in closing deletion discussions. And once again, the strawman of "count[ing] heads" has been raised. You know as well as I do that the operable term is "consensus." You create more strawmen when you talk about "arguments against policy." We are discussing a case in which the nominator raised concerns based on policy, and I took steps to directly address those concerns, explaining how explicitly. Third participant agreed that my actions addressed the concerns. Fantasies about "arguments against policy" have no place in this debate. My position has been very simple: policy on IfD discussion requires that consensus to delete be reached in discussion for proper deletion to take place. My position is based on the clear language of policy. Jreferee, below, is now only the second participant in this debate to review the matter according to our actual deletion policy.—DCGeist 02:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The closer interpreted the debate correctly. A first editor argued that the image violated NFCC #8 and should be deleted. A second editor argued that the image did not violated NFCC #8 and should be kept. A third editor offered no argument. The reasoning supporting the deletion seems more sound. It was reasonable to conclude that this was the dominant view of the group so as to be the rough consensus of the group. Thus, the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first endorsement of the deletion that acknowledges and respects the clear language and spirit of the deletion policy. Obviously, I disagree with the conclusion Jreferee reaches, but Jreferee stands out for not relying on a contentless declaration equivalent to "You're wrong!" and for not pretending that our policy is something other than what it is. Thanks. Evidently, there will not be a decision to overturn in this case; in the time remaining before this discussion is closed, I wonder if anyone else will join Jreferee in reviewing this matter according to our actual policy.—DCGeist 02:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Classic_gun_pose.gif – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blatantly improper deletion. There were multiple objections to deletion in IfD. There was clearly no consensus to delete as required. One of the editors (User:Eleland) involved in the debate improved the content of the article (Pulp Fiction (film)) to demonstrate the importance of the image. In arbitrarily overriding the clear rules of procedure here, deleting admin rested his case in part on a couple of highly arguable assertions: (1) "The notion this image is iconic is unsupported by references." No references were asked for; they could have been provided if anyone felt there was an issue. Is is likely no one felt there was an an issue because Eleland included the inarguable fact that well-known artist Banksy created a parody of the image--difficult to imagine if it was not iconic. (2) "The statement that the weaponry in the image is a central aspect of the film is also unsupported." Incorrect. The importance of the weaponry used by the two characters seen in the image weilding their guns is clearly stated in the article. Furthermore, the result of admin violating our rules is that the article now contains no image of its top-billed star, John Travolta.—DCGeist 02:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(from deleting admin) (1)There was no assertion. It is a fact that no references were provided to support the claim that the image is iconic. The fact that a "pseudo-anonymous English graffiti artist" created a parody of a pop culture image does not make the image iconic. Banksy is not mentioned in the Pulp Fiction article. (2) Yes, the importance of the weapons is stated in the article, but that is original research and opinion unless citations are provided. If reliable, significant sources can be cited to support the statement that the image is iconic or the weapons are central to the film, I'll gladly reconsider the deletion, otherwise, the deletion should stand. -Nv8200p talk 03:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion per WP:NFCC #3, using as few non-free images as possible. The article isn't significantly improved by adding this image. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 03:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review above. We're not here to give our opinion on the image and its value to the article; we're here to review the process by which it was deleted. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant rules of procedure (Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators, Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators), examine the specific course of events in this IfD process, and revisit your vote in that light.—DCGeist 03:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless, can you address the issue he raised? Remember these processes are *not* a vote. The admin likely deleted because he thought the policy trumped whatever arguments were given. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nowhere have I suggested the process is a vote. If you do not know it already, please learn the relevant, very clear language on the policy page: "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." Could you please address that?—DCGeist 03:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - look at your above statement. " ... events in this IfD process, and revisit your vote ... ". Thats why I mention it. Secondly our image policy (WP:NFCC trumps some guideline. Want the policy changed, raise it up on the policy talk page. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. I haven't asked to change any policy. Maybe you will, when they're clarified for you. There's an image policy--and we debate in IfD whether an image meets that policy. And then there's a deletion policy--which you don't seem cognizant of, even though I just quoted it for you; it's not a "guideline"--which tells administrators what to do at the conclusion of that debate. There was no consensus that the image violated the image policy as required for deletion. It is clear that the deleting admin violated the deletion policy. If you believe the clear language of the deletion policy should be changed, you've got your own advice to follow.—DCGeist 04:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How am I putting words in your mouth? Secondly note that WP:DGFA tells admins to use common sense. The image violates WP:NFCC. Admins often choose to do something that is not in line with the strict numeric !vote count, this appears to be an instance of that. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also please note that non-free content cannot be edited, we simply don't have the permission to edit it! ;). There are many cases where admins don't always go with the strict !vote count, please remember that. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        (1) You put words in my mouth the first time when you implied that I was suggesting that the IfD process was a vote. I never made anything close to such a sugestion. You put words in my mouth a second time when you wrote, "Want the policy changed, raise it up on the policy talk page." I have never come close to suggesting here that policy be changed. I seek to have the clear language of the deletion policy respected and abided by.
        
        (2) You point out that the guideline tells admins to use common sense. But common sense about what? Let's look at that guideline:

Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below)
Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it.
When in doubt, don't delete.

It is very clear, both in the context of its own page and in relation to the policy page, that in cases of deletion discussion (such as the debates on IfD) the admin is guided to use "common sense" in determining whether a consensus to delete has been reached or not. The admin who closes the discussion is not invited to decide on deletion/retention based on his own assessment of the image's adherence to the image policy. Nowhere. That is what the debate is for. The closing admin's job is to determine whether consensus to delete exists or not and act accordingly. Period. That is policy. Clear?

(3) Actually, non-free images can most certainly be edited in certain ways--appropriate cropping is the primary example. However, to focus on the pertinent issues here, in the future, I will quote the relevant policy from the deletion policy page thus: ""The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept...." Good?—DCGeist 05:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DGFA tells admins to "use common sense" when deciding to delete. I still endorse because I feel the admin used common sense. Also from that guideline, "some arguments override others" so the argument that the image violated WP:NFCC points 3 and 8 overrid the unverified argument that the image was iconic. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 03:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see point (2) above Closing admin is not invited to use his "common sense" about whether or not the image adheres to the image policy. That is what the discussion is for. The admin is guided to use his common sense in determining whether or not consensus to delete exists or not. This is Wikipedia's deletion policy. It was clearly violated here.—DCGeist 06:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, deletion debates are not decided by headcount, and whether the image adheres to image policy is very much relevant, and can be an overriding argument even if a hundred people like the image. DRV nominator clearly misunderstands deletion policy in this area. >Radiant< 09:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, you've raised the strawman of "headcount," just as Eagle 101 raised te strawman of "vote." The term is "consensus." Consensus to delete is arrived at or not via the discussion. Admin by policy examines whether consensus to delete was reached in discussion. If it was, image is deleted. If it wasn't, image is kept. If in doubt, image is kept. That's the policy. It's not terribly ambiguous. Here it is: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion. Here's the guideline. Read it, learn it, remember it.—DCGeist 09:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's funny you should say that. Why don't you check who wrote that? >Radiant< 09:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please say you're not claiming authorship of Wikipedia guideline content to make your case about policy. Please.—DCGeist 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather, I am pointing out that your allusion that I might not understand policy, or might not have read it, is absurd. >Radiant< 11:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Consensus does not trump policy. Neil ム 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is policy. According to our deletion policy, consensus in deletion discussion determines whether image policy has been violated or not. Per our deletion policy, in order to delete, consensus to delete must exist. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion.

Wrong. Read it again. Neil ム 13:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - good policy-based deletion decision. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion. In this specific case, I directly and explicitly rebutted the policy concerns raised by the nominator. The third participant in the discussion raised other policy concerns. The fourth participant took action to directly address those concerns. The fifth participant also supported retention of the image; admittedly, this participant didn't make much of a case, though the one-word argument is relevant to policy. At any rate, even discounting the fifth participant, the discussion clearly did not produce a consensus to delete. The subsequent deletion thus violated our deletion policy.—DCGeist 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore In this particular case, the admin stated that the policy was that iconic use needed to be proven by references., The relevant WP:NONFREE policy page has no such requirement. Closed wrongly because of mistake in policy--and unsupported by the consensus in the discussion as well. . DGG (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere did I state that the NFCC policy said that iconic use needed to be proven by references. You making an assumption. Also, to state that the image is iconic without references is original research and violates WP:NOR. -Nv8200p talk 03:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unless I misunderstand, you say so right above, that the assertion cant stand because its OR without references. OR applies to article content, not justification for articles or images. DGG (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. If you look at the requirements for Iconic images, you will see that it is not a subjective status. Rather, it requires reliable sources to establish an image as iconic. Since the iconic image claims in the IfD discussion were based on Wikipedian's personal opinion rather than being supported as the subject of reliable source commentary, the reasoning supporting the deletion seems more sound. It was reasonable to conclude that this was the dominant view of the group so as to be the rough consensus of the group. Commentary The likely iconic images for Pulp Fiction are at Pulp Fiction movie posters and memorabilia at MovieGoods. In the hard print newspaper article Hagestadt, Emma; Hirst, Christopher. (November 29, 2003) The Independent 50 best books to buy for Christmas Section: Features; Page 4, they discuss "CINEMA TODAY, EDWARD BUSCOMBE" in which they write, "This epic survey of post-1970 cinema is possibly the most addictive film book ever published. Wherever you open it, your eye is struck by an iconic or striking image. Uma Thurman projects a sultry stare from the poster of Pulp Fiction." That image already is in the article so it seems the article already has the iconic image of the movie Pulp Fiction. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query There's a lot to deal with here, all of value. Let me take it one step at a time. I accept on principle that in the context of Wikipedia images, "iconic" is a term of art and needs support beyond personal opinion. However, the link you provide--Iconic images--does not actually describe any "requirements." Did you mean to link to something else? Assuming there are no specific requirements, the general requirement would be the claim must be verifiable and attributable. Which means that reliable sourcing must be produced if a challenge is made to the claim. Agreed?
Turning to this specific case: In the IfD, we find my claim that the image is iconic. Quadell, supporting deletion, counters, "If the image itself were iconic, you would think it would be discussed in the article." Eleland, supporting retention, takes action and adds a mention of the image's iconic status to the article. Now, I concede that it would have been smart for Eleland (or myself) to add a citation to a reliable source at that point. On the other hand, after Eleland's action, no one in discussion challenged the claim of iconicity. I ask you, as a matter of proper process according to policy, should not Nv8200p, in essence challenging the claim, have done so as part of discussion, allowing a response, rather than closing discussion and deleting on the basis that he did?—DCGeist 03:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requirement perhaps is too strong of word since most policies and guidelines are phrased in a kinder way, which is a feature unique to Wikipedia. The IfD could be considered the challenge. A need for reliable sources was more by logic (e.g. who decides something is iconic). A majority would agree that iconic be determined objectively. However, some may feel that Wikipedians should subjectively decide the issue. It can vary from XfD to XfD. The time to close that IfD had passed, it is presumed that everyone who wanted to comment did so, and Nv8200p stepped forward to close the discussion, which was reasonable. XfD's are tricky and to some extent an art form. AfD is where you can best learn the XfD system. Consensus usually trumps policy but is representative of policy in most XfD cases, WikiLawyering is disfavored, and civil is taken very seriously. Kindness, genuineness, and sincerity can turn editors at XfD and DRV in your favor even when policy is not whereas challenging everyone or posting less than friendly comments is a certain way to lose. You started this DRV with '"Blatantly" improper deletion' and 'admin "violating" our rules', which are not kind ways of saying something (if you want to see just how kind someone can be, check out this editor's posts). We can have differences of opinion and still be kind to each other. For example, your comment to WaltCip (below) is not the Wiki way. Most experienced Wikipedian's would have assumed that WaltCip had some basis for concern, even it his statement was off, and may have posted something like "I appreciate your comments and will look further into your concerns." Then they may read though troll-feeding and harassment to see whether there was room for improvement. If there was, they would make the change. If not, they would privately chalk it up to a misunderstanding and move on. A trick to all this is not to be caught up in content and to be kind no matter how the other person acts. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jref, first off, I do admire your kind and thoughtful approach. I'm, however, afraid I believe you are grievously mistaken when you assert that "most experienced Wikipedians" would have responded to WaltCip's special discount offer by expressing their appreciation and reading up on trolls and harassers. Honestly, it's a sweet thought, but I don't believe even you believe it. My response was both temperate and jocular--the best Wiki way. And Li'l Walter can come over to my place for pi any time.

Rebuttal: Your comment neither addressed my issues nor even answered my concerns. Mass-messaging to every voter who endorses a deletion is indeed trolling.--WaltCip 02:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of your response is focused on winning and losing and currying personal favor in order to achieve certain outcomes even when Wikipedia policy would indicate otherwise. Your concern, in other words, is politics. That's fine; it's a profession that on rare occasions is even honorable (see my heroes William Proxmire, Lowell Weicker, and Ted Weiss). It really does seem as if you're trying to help me in a certain way, and I appreciate the thought, but as it happens I've done a lot of real-life political work and I've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia and I do have a sense of how things operate. Back to the present issue, I'll attempt to rephrase my query—not really addressed—for clarity...
(1) The admin was under no personal pressure to close the discussion. (2) He could see that there were several people supporting the retention of the image and at least one clearly willing to take active steps to bring the use of the image more into line with policy. (3) Feeling that the claim of iconicity--which was raised after IfD had begun--should be challenged and sourced, should he not have raised that in discussion, rather than raising the absence of a cited source only in the process of deleting? The evidence of what he did suggests that he in fact did not base his decision on a common sense assessment of the consensus in discussion, but on his personal assessment of the image's adherence to NFCC. Politics aside, that is a violation of deletion policy. It could have been entirely avoided if the admin had raised his concern in discussion. While five days had passed, there was on the one hand no emergency here, there was on the other hand an evident readiness to address concerns, and there was on the third hand (ahhh...) nothing at all close to an unmistakable consensus to delete, if anything the contrary.—DCGeist 05:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discount DCGeist's comments as troll-feeding and harassment.--WaltCip 00:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relax and have some pi, kiddo.—DCGeist 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop harassing the debaters with "Please read this policy" and I'll think about it. You only need to get your message across once.--WaltCip 22:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WaltCip, no need to make this personal. Please stick to the merits of the arguments, thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per WP:NFCC criterion 3, based on its position in the article it was merely decorative and unnecessary. --Core desat 09:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 August 2007[edit]

Ronen Segev – Converted into protected redirect, with consent of Jimbo. – Xoloz 01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This should be fairly straightforward, hopefully. The page was apparently the victim of repeated attempts to insert a barely notable, unflattering incident into the bio. Since the article was a stub there were both WP:UNDUE and BLP issues. It survived an AfD in January, but was speedied & protected in June by Jimbo Wales after an OTRS request (#2007011710000088). I rescued the uncontroversial, cited content via a WP mirror and placed it in Ten O'Clock Classics, an organisation Mr Segev co-founded, where it subsequently proved useful. Anyhoo, I posted at JW's talk page the other day to request that instead of being a protected deletion, could Ronen Segev be a protected redirect to Ten O'Clock Classics? He seems amenable to the idea (see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Deletion/protection of Ronen Segev), but since I suspect he doesn't do much in the way of sysop housekeeping these days, I said I'd just bring it here. Cheers. --DeLarge 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although you might consider also redirecting ronnie segev, since that's how he is commonly known... -- newbiez12345 23:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make protected redirect to Ten O'Clock Classics - Seems like a reasonable solution and gets it off Jimbo's desk. Thanks for keeping an eye on this issue. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy close – Restoring talk page since main article is already restored. No DRV is actually necessary here; the nomination was only possible because the article was undeleted with no notification to the deleting admin. – — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The talk page has claimed to be delted for a page that does not exist per WP:CSD#G8, but the main page did exist at the date of deltetion of, 29 June 2007 this page needs to be restore so I can contest a new PROD on that page. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by deleting admin. If you check the deletion logs, you notice I deleted the article at 14:10, 29 June 2007. The talk page was deleted at 14:11, 29 June 2007. Therefore, G8 applies. All I wish to know is, why did the article itself get restored without any consultation with the deleting admin (myself). I find that to be in bad taste. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion valid at time CSD G8 did apply at the time per ^demon. However, the page should now be restored as the article has been. GDonato (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neapolitan Wikipedia was improperly deleted citing WP:CSD#A7: all wikipedias are clearly satisfy website notability criterion 3: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators,": if someone tell me that wikimedia is not respected or depends on neapolitan mafia, then I will eat my beard. `'Míkka 21:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This DRV refers to the talk page not the article. GDonato (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire – AfD closure endorsed. – Xoloz 01:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arguments to keep are a stone's throw from WP:ILIKEIT and do not address main issues of lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. Assuming AfD really is not a vote, arguments to delete that point out the article's failure to meet basic policy/guidelines without sufficient -- in this case, much of any -- refutation should lead to that article's deletion. --EEMeltonIV 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure—for fiction in general, it's good to review other options before AfDing or PRODding articles; this is one of the compromises that allowed WP:FICT to be accepted despite its strict standards. Some time should be given. — Deckill er 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure and delete Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire - Closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Consensus seemed clear on delete and the reasons for delete. Unlike most Wikipedia fanfic AfDs, there was no outpouring of Keep during the eight day AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse my closure. Deckiller expressed an opinion which is the same as my thoughts on the matter, and I don't think there was a solid consensus on the matter (except for the two sub-nominations). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also note that I think this is an improper use of DRV (which means "deletion review" not "I didn't get deleted the article I wanted deleted at AfD, so I'm going to run another pseudo AfD here to see if I can get it deleted outside the established system" review). DRV is for review of deletions you disagree with, not attempting to run another AfD. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Please assume good faith and take a look at the portions of the DRV page that point out, for instance, that DRV can also be used for reviewing the retention of articles. My rationale at the top of this note did not reiterate the argument I made at the AfD, rather that I believe the decision at closure (i.e. the process, which DRV focuses on) did not reflect the sum of the (non-)arguments. --EEMeltonIV 03:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you read an implication of bad faith into my comments, I apologize. I was merely expressing concern that you were basically running another AfD here since you obviously disagree with my decision against your opinion in the AfD. Given the discussion here so far, it appears that even here the opinions are ambiguous, so I am even more firm in my belief I made the correct decision. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire and Moff - Endorse deletion of Supreme Chancellor (*catches breath*) The overwhelming bulk of the interventions to the debate had well argued arguments for deletion based on policy. There where three pages for deletion, and closing admin proceed to implement I solution proposed by a single editor and seconded by no one. It makes no sense to delete Supreme Chancellor but not the other ones: closing admin ignored the bulk of the editors to concentrate on one proposal only - which failed to gather consensus - a travesty of what a debate seeking consensus should be.--Cerejota 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only matter being reviewed is Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold, with some regret. Most of the arguments--on both sides--are unhelpful. Notability in itself isn't a criterion for deletion; failure to meet that standard or WP:FICT would imply a merge, not a delete. If material can't be merged anywhere then it isn't encyclopedic, but only one editor asserted that (Burntsauce) without explaining why. A digression on fancruft: any editor who cites fancruft as a reason for deletion is arguing, in effect, that said article does not meet the notability standards, is not properly attributed, and does not contain any material that could merged. There was clearly no consensus on the latter point, and editors in this case are obligated to explain why this article fails on those counts. That being said, those who would keep the article mustered few positive arguments--liking the material isn't sufficient, and vows to cleanup and source the article are usually the first step on the path to the second AfD (wherein the article gets deleted). Now, the important comment was left by ChunkyRice, who correctly asserted that, as it stands, the article is original research and completely unsuitable. It's also an open question whether a proper article can be written on a topic where the actual canonical sources either disagree or are undermined by on-screen inconsistencies (which suggests, strongly, that the matter should be covered in an article dealing with the films themselves). If it had been up to me I might well have deleted it for being such an ugly violation of the attribution policy, but given the confusion in the debate, and the fact that this was the article's first direct AfD, I can't really fault Nihonjoe closing it no consensus on the main article, and merging Moff into that article. Supreme Chancellor I've redirected to Galactic Republic#The Galactic Senate. Mackensen (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. However, I have a feeling there might be potential for real-world information out there, and if not, then a 1-2 paragraph explanation of ranks might be appropriate in the Galactic Empire (Star Wars) article. — Deckill er 05:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems a possible outcome and there's nothing in the current outcome stopping you from merging. Mackensen (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete (the two not deleted) Because none of the keep voters provided any sort of real world notability. Notability should be a reason for deletion, for otherwise we'd be flooded with material that some editors think is important, but cannot back it up by coverage from independent, reliable sources Corpx 07:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, deletions arguments such as "it fails to meet the manual of style (WP:WAF)" are clearly not relevant. Reasonable call by closer. >Radiant< 09:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Mackensen. Poor arguments on either side, but no real consensus emerged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Personally, i would delete the article, but the discussion clearly had no consensus, so such was the correct close. DGG (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Media Publisher – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wow, what a frustrating process this is! This page was nominated for deletion a month or so ago, I exchanged some messages about it on this board, and an admin ended up closing the debate and reinstating the page. Now I check back and it's gone again! I can't find any more debate, and since the page is gone there's no Talk page. What happened?? EricAlderman 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note. This is a review of Media Publisher AfD#1 since it was the last deletion event. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was previously deleted via the Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion method which works by unanimous consent. Any objections and it is withdrawn or restored. However, since then there has been an Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Publisher in which a consensus was formed that the company does not meet our notability guidelines for inclusion. (For the record, I endorse the deletion as proper. Eluchil404 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - the closer interpreted the Media Publisher AfD#1 discussion correctly. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for explaining the process -- after I posted the above, I did find the page you refer to with the archived discussion. Unfortunately I had not checked the AfD pages during this period and so did not have an opportunity to respond while several people voted for deletion and "consensus" was reached. I have read the notability page quite carefully. Can I ask for the basis of the objection of lack of notability? Is it because a) the coverage is not "significant", b) the sources are not "reliable", or c) the sources are not "independant" of the subject? In terms of "significant coverage", the standard is "more than trivial but less than exclusive." Most of the links provided as sources fit that definition just fine. The standard for "reliable sources" are those with editorial integrity. Again, the websites and periodicals quoted met that bar. Finally, none of the articles cited lacked "independance" of the subject; they were articles in magazines, not ads, press releases, etc. Also: what exactly is meant by the comment "another small company", or using 165 as some magic number about Google hits? Is there some set of unwritten rules somewhere the rest of us should know about? EricAlderman 06:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say because the articles only mention Media Publisher in passing. The articles aren't about Media Publisher specifically and only seem to mention it in passing. This is kinda discussed in the primary criterion of WP:CORP. How I typically interpret this is that a significant amount or fraction of text should be specifically about the object/company/person in question. For example, a review of a Media Publisher product or a few paragraphs about what they or something. There are no magic or unwritten rules (or shouldn't be at least). I just think that the articles in question are good sources of information, they just don't give enough information about Media Publisher to be able to write an article about them. Wickethewok 15:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- but again, you're using a new phrase to define the significance of the coverage: "in passing". the primary criterion of WP:CORP actually just refers to the references not being "trivial", which by the definition given they certainly are not. EricAlderman 17:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually says "Trivial or incidental coverage", and I think this coverage can be considered incidental as it only has passing mentions of the company. Anyways, the sum of the information of the articles about Media Publisher is...

VBrick in the first quarter plans to ship a video encoder appliance with integrated management software from Media Publisher Inc. After it’s been installed centrally and at remote locations, the appliance can digitize, compress and decompress video feeds for WAN transmissions. Media Publisher CEO Rod Bacon says massive video broadcasts of events to PCs will be possible. “We all see that having large-scale events is the golden chalice,” he says. The goal is 100,000-plus seats. “That’s pretty challenging,” admits Howard — especially over a WAN.
...says Steve Pattison, vp of marketing and business development of Media Publisher, a video-on-demand and Web-casting company
But now that it has a software platform from Media Publisher to manage the video content and broadcast it over its network, it's looking to do more fast-turnaround video, such as analysts commenting on market events for investment advisers and even VIP customers
The university pushed an e-learning initiative based on Media Publisher's video and web conferencing technology to help students with housing and transportation issues.
Lamar administrative staff use a number of web conferencing applications, including Media Publisher, whose logging capability can generate reports that show who has looked at an archived video training segment and for how long.

I just don't think anyone can write an article based on a couple short mentions from a few publications. Wickethewok 00:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reality film – "No consensus" closure endorsed. – Xoloz 01:45, 2 September 2007 (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 closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reality_film misinterpretated the debate as "no consensus." There was a consensus to delete the article because it's about a neologism. Pixelface 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. AFD showed consensus (which would have been 7-4 if someone had told me about the AFD), and the majority's arguments were based on policy. The article's sources are gamed, and no two use the neologism the same way. Endorse closure as no consensus Per Arkyan and to avoid a fuss. The article is as good as it will get, and it can be deleted in a month when it doesn't improve. THF 14:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC) (changed 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, I believe that there are no valid reasons to question the actions of the closing admin. If he came to the conclussion that there was no consensus then let it be. Tony the Marine 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. There was clearly no consensus to delete in this debate. Don't forget that a "no consensus" closure does not preclude future nominations. If no one seems interested in improving this article and it still appears to be in a "poor state" just nominate it again in the near future rather than bring up a DRV. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and endorse closure. There was no consensus to delete, and we now have two more votes, one delete, one keep. The concept of "Reality film" as a film that has sprung from reality television is a much-discussed genre/idea/film descriptor that it merits an article, at least one given the opportunity to flourish. This DRV was brought almost immediately. What's the rush? What's the harm? It's not a BLP or controversial topic; it's about movies based upon reality television shows. --David Shankbone 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure; I would also have endorsed a keep closure. The delete arguments are weak, and can mostly be fixed by editing. The arguments about WP:NEO are misguided here, because this article is not about the term but rather about what the term refers to. We should avoid using a neologism as an article title... if there is a better title. If not, the neologism may be the best we can do. Mango juice^talk 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my closure, ~~I wasn't notified of this DRV~~. AFD isn't a vote, and I didn't see any consensus to do much of anything. --Core desat 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure per Mangojuice. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 23:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure – Substantial new information available, only a small sampling of which includes:
- Goodwin, Ty. (August 15, 1992) Los Angeles Times U.S. Designers Want to Alter Oscar Pattern. Movies: Some say the academy overlooks costumes for "reality" films in favor of those in period pieces. Their proposal? Create two awards." Section: CA-Calendar; Page 6
- Moore, Frazier. (January 20, 1996) South Florida Sun-Sentinel Reality films are really bad. Section: Lifestyle; Page 3D
- Goodman, Tim. (July 15, 1997) San Francisco Examiner CNN decides to stick with reality film cameos banned after "contact". Section: News; Page A1
- Bark, Ed. (March 28, 1999) The Dallas Morning News LifeTV: Reality films are fiction, but we may be headed that way. Section: The Arts; Page 1C
- Barney, Chuck. (April 4, 1999) Contra Costa Times As Seen on TV – Reality films assume we'd like to watch. Section: Time Out; Page C1
- Koshie, Nihal. (November 21, 2001) The Times of India A koole obsession with reality films.
- The Gold Coast Bulletin (May 23, 2002) Reality films made in Mexico. Section: Entertai; page 4.
- Kettmann, Matt. (January 25, 2007) Santa Barbara Independent Reality film-making. Volume 21; Issue 54, Page 43
-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of these sources refer to the term described in the article, and many of them have single quotemarks in the headlines and don't use the term again at all. Including these would violate WP:NEO, which is why the article should have been deleted in the first place: there are no sources non-trivially discussing phenomena in relation to this term. Still, endorse closure, "no consensus" was the correct read of this AfD, and editors are certainly free to discuss a merge. Cool Hand Luke 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only listed some of those that use the term in the headline. There are hundreds more that use the term. Also, the term does not define how it is used in the reliable source material. The relm of reliable source material defines the term. There is a significant amount of reliable source material that makes use of the 'Reality film' term. The reliable source material understands what that term means and the Wikipedia article is there to bring that out. Deleting the article will not assist in bringing out the reliable source material uses of that term. In any event, the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and endorse closure Antonio Martin 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and endorse original closure That's one hecka well-referenced "neologism." Let's not spend any more time on proposing to debate a well-referenced and well-researched and well-written article when there's so much crap out there needing attention. KP Botany 17:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Within a Deep Forest – Unprotected, redirected to allow for reliably-sourced rewrite. – Xoloz 01:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Much more notable now than when deleted. 30,000+ google hits. There are also articles relating to this at Knytt and Nifflas that pass notability guidelines, so this should too. Phyte 13:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This is a review of the 21 June 2007 delete +cascading protection. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can supply us links to the articles it might help matters. JoshuaZ 14:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear. I meant that those WP articles (Knytt and Nifflas) are related subject matter to Within a Deep Forest and are of similar notability. They have a place on Wikipedia, so I think this should too. Is that a bad undelete reason...? -Phyte 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, there are references at gamespot, mobygames and download.com, so allow creation. Corvus cornix 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse cascading protection Neither the adventure game Within a Deep Forest nor its creator, Nicklas Nygren, have been the subject of multiple reliable sources independent of WaDF. Does not meet notability. But see Western Australian Dairy Farmers (WADF), Muslim Wadf (a religious trust), Weston Area Development Framework (WADF), and Western Air Defense Force (WADF). -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to Nifflas for now. Allow creation IFF external sources can be found. If this game is as famous as is alleged here, that shouldn't be a problem. >Radiant< 09:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Caitlin Upton and Lauren Caitlin Upton – There is consensus below that the issues concerning biographies of living persons compliance are reasonably in dispute. Per the recommendation of the ArbCom, the article Caitlin Upton (for which this request was brought) will be restored, protected blank with history available, and listed at AfD. Suggestions for potential improving revisions to the article may be made during the AfD at the article's talk page. – Xoloz 02:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This needs a full discussion. It appears to have been speedy deleted without an AfD. Miss Teen South Carolina, 3rd runner up for 2007 Miss Teen USA and a huge internet sensation (over 2 6 7 9 10 million youtube hits) due to her interesting answer during a Q&A. Was the primary subject of multiple secondary pieces by reliable sources like The Guardian [32], People Magazine [33] and a host of other TV and print media (Google news search). This is NOT a private individual, either before or after the speech. An embarrassed one, maybe, but not private. --Oakshade 07:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This is a review of Dweller's 15:19, 26 August 2007 speedy deletion of Caitlin Upton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since Caitlin Upton was the only article posted before the !votes started. The remaining articles above were added to the nomination well after editors !voted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Today, August 28, 2007, she is in the news "Miss Teen South Carolina makes her mark with flubbed response to geography question." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List at AFD per recent incident, but I'll venture a guess (and argue there) that it'll get deleted per WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 07:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect and await an explanation of why "BLP" was cited. Winning a state beauty pagent, and finishing high in the US beauty contest, makes the person a notable person. As in the nom, several sources are present. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion This article was deleted by user:Dweller, but I deleted the same text the previous day. I would suggest that being the third runner-up in a beauty contest is not notable. Whether she is a youtube sensation, given that this is not mentioned within the article, is wholly beside the point. A version of the page does, indeed, comment on an allegedly fatuous answer she gave to a question on live television. If everyone who had made a stupid comment on live TV were to deserve an article, I venture to suggest that even wiki's large capacity servers would be overwhelmed. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ghyslain Raza (see Star Wars kid) is in a similar position, yet his remains? Tdwinz711 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Star wars kid is not a bio, nor should it be. Some 'incidents' are noteable enough to have their own articles, however these are specifically not bios and should not be written as such. Some incident's are not noteable enough to be mentioned at all. Finally, some 'incidents' are noteable enough to be mentioned in wikipedia but not in their own articles. She appears to fall into this category. The incident is mentioned on the Miss Teen USA 2007 and is likely to remain but there is still no call for a bio article solely because of the incident Nil Einne 22:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But these are not criteria for speedy deletion. --Oakshade 17:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-notability-bio is. But let's just put it to AfD and get a consensus. Really, keep or delete, either is fine with me. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you're confusing not having an assertion of notability (CSD 7) with a users opinion of non-notability, which in itself is NOT a criteria for speedy deletion. Yes, that's what this DRV is about, it should go to a full AfD, but it shouldn't have been speedy deleted without a discussion. --Oakshade 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not actually confusing the two aspects, because when notability is asserted it is still necesary to form an opinion as to whether the assertion is justifiable. To take a gross example, I could write an article about some wholly insignificant person, and say "This person is notable". That would be an assertion, bit a wholly unjustifiable one. So opinion does play a part. But, as we all seem to agree, let's go to AfD. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - She was just a guest on The Today Show [34]. --Oakshade 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I am, however, favorable to seeing if we can put together an article that goes beyond naming her profession and one embarassing incident. WP:BLP and many recent precedents support the decision Dweller made, but BLP does not mandate deletion if a well-written, compliant version is available. But so far I'm not seeing evidence of that. Right now, there are no reliable sources. Yes, there was no AfD, but for a case like this, we should debate the inclusion here in DRV rather than undeleting solely on process grounds (again, many recent precedents on that point, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Mangojuice^talk 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now over 200 reliable sources that have written about this topic. You are referring to a version that was deleted almost immediately after it was created with zero chance for anyone to cite the reliable sources in the article. I see nothing about this topic that fits the WP:BLP case for speedy deletion. And I very much disagree that a DRV is a place for AfD discussions (usually people argue the opposite here). --Oakshade 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comment stands. If we can put her embarassing answer into proper context and not give it undue weight, I think it would be okay to have an article. If all we can do is name her and then point out one embarassing moment, it's not an appropriate biography. Perhaps we could cover the issue at List of internet phenomena or somewhere similar. And you might want to remember about unique Google hits: there are only 15 in that search [35], many of them give trivial coverage [36], for instance. Those that don't focus exclusively on her embarassing moment and don't even provide any other information we can use. Mangojuice^talk 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - 15 unique secondary sources is quite a lot (probably more have been added) and much more than many other topics have about them. That's exactly opposite of your stipulation that "there are no reliable sources." And this isn't an AfD discussion, it's to discuss whether this speedy deletion was appropriate which I don't believe it was. --Oakshade 21:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is Ghyslain Raza (see Star Wars kid) considered in context? Tdwinz711 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, since the article is about the internet phenomenon and its fallout, rather than purporting to be a biography. Mango juice^talk 14:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'd suggest that, in view of recent DRV practice (see, e.g., List of sportspeople by nickname, Ward Churchill misconduct issues), there seems to be a consensus for our considering, in situations as this, only whether BLP counsels/mandates deletion, and where BLP speedy deletion is overturned, for the article's history's being restored, the article's being blanked, and the issue's being listed at AfD for consideration of both BLP and general (e.g., notability, verifiability) concerns (which is, I gather, basically Sjakkalle's suggestion). Joe 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and list at AfD It is ridiculous to believe that the winner of a state beauty pageant has anything resembling a strong BLP right. At the point where there are literally hundreds of reliable sources that discuss the matter. There may be a concern with Wikipedia is not news but there's no reason not to have that discussion at AfD. JoshuaZ 18:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10 and WP:BLP. - Overturn and list at AfD - Does not meet speedy delete criteria. She has been in the news since December 2006 due to Miss S.C. Teen USA and Miss Teen USA pageant. There could be a decent biography written on her. If Wikipedia can't handle these incidents, then we need to change businesses. If more than three or four sentences in that biography are devoted to today's TV flub, please feel free to trim down to size per WP:BLP. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC) This DRV request for the speedy deleted Caitlin Upton article was posted at 07:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC). Five hours after the DRV request, ChesterCharge (talk · contribs · logs) created Lauren Caitlin Upton at 12:39, 28 August 2007. It was speedy deleted 12:50, 28 August 2007. Westonma (talk · contribs · logs) then created Lauren caitlin upton seven hours after this speedy deletion at 19:56, 28 August 2007. It was deleted 12:50, 28 August 2007. Given the BLP problems of the article, the relatively little pre August 28, 2007 reliable source material available, and these Wikipedia procedural violations, an article on this topic is not maintainable by Wikipedia at this time. Please repost DRV request in a month or two. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So keep it deleted as a punishment? There are plenty of sources so I don't see why an article isn't maintainable, other than drive-by BLP deletions every few hours... but that's a problem with the admins, not people actually adding content to the article. --W.marsh 19:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is 100% content issue and nothing to do with the article topic. Per BLP, any unreferenced material in any biography needs to be removed, but that doesn't magically make the entire topic's notability or assertion thereof non-existent. You're advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater or the "let's kill it in order to save it" mentality. It would only take a short time (likely very short) for that unreferenced content issue to be resolved. --Oakshade 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above. Are we here to provide information, or to advance a biased and unprofessional view of what journalism should be? I always thought it was the information thing... maybe I'm naive. At any rate, our goal should be finding better ways to provide that information, not just whisking it under the rug at all costs. 6 million people have viewed this on YouTube in the past 2 days, and many come to Wikipedia for encyclopedic information on what they just saw, but find a blank page no one can edit? We're derelict in our duty to provide information here. Note that I've deleted a weird article that appeared at Lauren caitlin upton, most of which was a copyvio or seemed to be. --W.marsh 04:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the Lauren Caitlin Upton version, submit to AfD as needed. BLP is not offended as damaging claims are sourced. We look bad when we summarily delete in-the-news articles under less-than-perfect rationales. Neither A7 nor BLP justify the deletion of this article. -- Y not? 05:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/Unprotect Frankly this is a little upsetting that this article was protected before a proper AfD was ever done. No offence but I know that there are contributors out there who are die hard against any articles having to do with internet celebrities but frankly that is how our world makes its celebrities these days. Lauren Upton not only deserves an article for being Miss South Carolina Teen USA but also for being 3rd runner up in a national beauty pagent but she also is even more deserving of an article because of the publicity she has receieved on countless National and yes International media sources. I will list links to references that could be used in the event her article is unprotected, note they come from all over the World.Her Official Bio, FOX, Boston Mass, USA,New Zealand,UK, New Zealand, France, Canada, [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], There are plenty more references...actually there are THOUSANDS more but I don't have the time for them all. I just want people to recognize whether you like to admit it to yourself or not she is indeed notable and is deserving of an article. If this article is unprotected it should still be semi-protected to ease off of vandalism obviously. I do stronly believe that a very well sourced article can and should be created.--Joebengo 05:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - we are not here to write about people who are notable solely for making fools of themselves. Merge the content to somewhere else, if you wish, but one-idiotic-incident does not viable notability make. Moreschi ^Talk 10:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She had other claims to notability... have we gone so far down the BLP slope that because someone does something we deem embarrassing we delete their article without discussion? We can write a decent encyclopedia article here given the volume of sources... that's all notability required until BLP got dramatically rewritten in the last 6 months. --W.marsh 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Wikipedia is not a repository for trivial news events. Eusebeus 12:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have articles on many Miss Teen USA delegates from over the years (Category:Miss Teen USA delegates). Winning the state title seems in this event seems to be claim of importance accepted at AFD, especially if one goes far in the national competition. It seems like this article was deleted only because she got more news coverage than the other ones.. I find it hard to believe that even the current BLP was intended to justify deletion, let alone speedy deletion, of people who meet inclusion standards but got some potentially embarrassing press at some point. I'm not sure if people endorsing the deletion realize this is not just someone from Youtube but that there is independent notability... or if we're trying to set a new even more extreme precedent for BLP allowing the deletion of articles on notable people if they do something we think is embarrassing. --W.marsh 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winning the state title seems in this event seems to be claim of importance accepted at AFD - That would actually seem to be "no, it's not":

--Calton | Talk 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: it's funny how you say that "[w]inning the state title seems in this event seems to be claim of importance accepted at AFD," considering that you participated in the DRV seeking to overturn all of the above. --Calton | Talk 17:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in hundreds of DRVs... believe it or not I don't really remember how most of them turned out off the top of my head, I don't follow them that closely. As for the AFDs... a lot were closed due to lack of sources, which isn't the case here. I just don't understand this obsession with getting rid of articles where we have plenty of sources... way too anti-content for me. --W.marsh 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really remember how most of them turned out - And yet you felt entirely comfortable making a bald factual assertion not actually based on the facts. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, court? I don't want to further respond to this kind of abuse. --W.marsh 01:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that you were not only wrong but should have known so is "abuse"? Using actual evidence makes this a courtroom? --Calton | Talk 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - If this article is going to be deleted, then so does the article about Ghyslain Raza (see Star Wars kid). There is not more to discuss other than the fact that he has an article about him, so should she. He is famous because he was was made a fool of. He had no accomplishments prior to this, unlike her who had won the South Carolina Miss Teen USA. The end result, if her article is to be deleted, so should his. Claim that one-idiotic-incident does not viable notability make, but Ghyslain only had one-idiotic-incident. End all arguments Tdwinz711 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of this, Your Lordship, before banging down that gavel. --Calton | Talk 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Mr. Know-It-All I have, have you read of this, or this, or this? All of which has been argued here. The point is, people are claiming that she is not notable, however I argue that she is notable. Since "notability" is a subjective term (see this) I was merely referencing another article that can be used as a comparison. Subjectivity needs reference points, agree? Also, you should read the introduction to that essay as it makes the statement "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." But then again, that is me reading the whole thing and not just the parts that I believe apply... Tdwinz711 19:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...have you read of this, or this, or this? - No, M'Lord, I haven't, but since they have no bearing on what passes for your argument nor on your declaration of unconditional victory, I'm not seeing the point here. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really doesn't need any further discussion. It should be allowed plain and simple. If you disagree, just search Wiki for Star Wars kid (as someone else put on this page). The integrity of the administrators (or internet bullies) are at jeopardy. Blahblahblah98 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, can we say Tara Conner
Endorse deletion - Winning a state-level beauty contest is pretty meaningless, and one silly incident isn't sufficient, either. --Calton | Talk 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that opinion does not make the article a candidate for speedy deletion. This is not an AfD but a Deletion Review regarding the speedy deletion. --Oakshade 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, either, and those who enjoy process for its own sake may want to sign up at their local law school's moot court instead just to keep in practice. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're citing regulations, policies and guidelines all over this board but now you're using the bureaucracy argument. It's becoming pointless to even respond to you now as your arguments are self-contradictory. --Oakshade 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mind pointing me to those "regulations, policies and guidelines" I'm citing "all over this board"? Hint: making up hypocritical arguments and attributing them to your opponents to demonstrate their alleged hypocrisy is really not a road you want to be going down. Nor are handwaving and bureaucratic wikilawyering really effective rhetorical techniques. --Calton | Talk 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh... Perhaps this doesn't quite fit the speedy criteria but I'm pretty sure it will end up being deleted on AfD. Borderline notability + mild BLP concerns usually mean deletion and while I have no objection to listing at AfD, I'm not sure there's any point to doing so. Pascal.Tesson 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and recreate She is clearly notable. what she said will be referenced for years (yes i know about WP:CRYSTAL but im basing this on similar things in the past). After the incedent, she appeared or will soon appear on news/talk shows. She deserves a page or at the very least a redirect and a section about her in the Miss Teen USA pageFrank Anchor 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion this would not have survived afd and to go through the procedure just to confirm that seems wasteful. Carlossuarez46 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - she is not notable for winning the local pageant (as confirmed by deletion of other such winners in the past). Even though her stupidity made it to the media, this wave of interest will be over in no time, so Wikipedia is not news applies here. Also, it's covered in the Miss Teen 2007 article.--Svetovid 21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is covered at Miss_Teen_USA_2007#Final_Competition, why not just make this a protected redirect there? Right now, probably thousands of people are looking for information and just getting a redlink. Seems better than nothing. --W.marsh 21:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD. I am not necessarily in favour of keeping this article but I think it is worth sending it for a proper discussion. I am the original author of the article and voluntarily requested its deletion following the deletion debates and subsequent deletion of a number of articles on other Miss Teen USA 2007. Straight after the pageant I was still of the belief that she was not notable but as the saga has continued and a number of international news media have covered her and she has appeared on the Today Show, I have mellowed quite a bit. There is precedent that an article a non-state winner who became notorious for quitting America's Next TOp Model was kept because of the combined notability of all these things (see Blnguyen's comment at that AFD) and I think that applies here. At the very least, it deserves a full discussion at AFD. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Note, I am the admin who salted this article. Following the outcome at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 16 all 51 articles for the contestants of Miss Teen USA 2007 were deleted, based on insufficient notability of the state pageant winners. The old link to all these articles can be seen by admins who can view the deleted versions of Template:Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates, specifically this version where you will see redlinks for all of them except the eventual winner, which was rightly recreated. Now that being a state winner alone is established to be insufficient for notability, there must be sufficiently additional notability to permit the article. In my opinion one viral video does not meet this standard. Given the BLP concerns and vicious vandalistic history we have seen to date at this article, I think that it should stay deleted and possibly re replaced with a protected redirect. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the other pageant candidates articles got deleted doesn't make this one a candidate for speedy deletion. And this individual, not any of the other contestants, has multiple (many in fact) secondary sources written about her. Your viral video opinion is an AfD opinion, not a reason for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion for BLP concerns is moot as this is not a private person; As long as the content follows the strict WP:BLP guidelines (everything verified, etc.), as with any public individual, there is not a reason to speedy delete this article not to mention salt it. If there is a BLP violation, then the violating content should be removed, not the article speedy deleted. --Oakshade 23:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because the other pageant candidates articles got deleted doesn't make this one a candidate for speedy deletion - If she's part of the same group, yes, it is, since that was the whole point of the group nomination. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This person wasn't included in that group nomination (so we automatically speedy delete similar articles to others that have been deleted?). Besides, this individual has arguably much more verified notability than any of those. --Oakshade 01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - FYI - the group nom was a test case that convinced the original creator and other contributors to the articles to themselves nominate the remaining articles in the category, which led to some {{db-author}}s. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        To elaborate: I picked 4 of the 49 articles and nominated them separately, then afterwards added -- for official process's sake -- a group of others which I had PROD tagged earlier but which had had their PROD tags removed. Note also that the header title is "Canden Jackson and other Miss Teen USA 2007 contestants". Short answer: yes, she was -- inherently -- part of this group nomination. --Calton | Talk 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletions - there is an outstanding precendent that we don't leave articles like this lying around - vios of A7, G10 and BLP. One youtube video doesn't make you notable. Process is pointless for stuff like this. Martinp23 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Notable enough as a statewide pagent winner and an internet meme/news story to at least deserve an AfD (on which I would argue for a keep, BTW). This is not a case of A7 and BLP is satisfied with ample available sourcing. Any article should be protected for a while, however. youngamerican (wtf?) 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, BLP is there to protect people from libel, not public figures from their gaffes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. While the viral video seemed trivial to me at first, I've seen it referenced as a particularly poignant and ironic example of the American education system and the Pageant itself. Along with other factors mentioned by others, I think there is sufficient notability for the article to be restored. Desspec 00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that makes the video/speech notable but not her per se. And that's why we have Miss Teen USA 2007#Final Competition that covers it. It probably should have its own section in that article named accordingly.--Svetovid 09:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and desysop admins who speedy-deleted. 8,140,556 views, hundreds of articles and counting Pajluvah 04:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC) — Pajluvah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The video is now the 59th most viewed video of AlL TIME, and thats all within 5 days which means it is only going to go up from here.--Joebengo 12:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS are rather clear on this, though the subject's apologetic appearance on the Today show makes it a closer question. Redirect to a paragraph in Popular YouTube videos or some equivalent article. THF 14:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E applies to "essentially low profile" persons which this person was not even before being a youtube sensation. Your WP:NOT#NEWS opinion is not a reason to speedy delete. A reminder, this is a review of the speedy deletion without a proper AfD. --Oakshade 16:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that the original deletion of Caitlin Upton wasn't exactly a "speedy deletion without a proper AFD". I requested speedy deletion of the original article (in June/July, prior to the pageant) because of the "delete" decision in the afd and subsequent deletion review of Shauna Sabir, among others. Had it not been for those afds, the article would still exist. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It had been recreated since then when circumstances very much changed, ie multiple secondary sources about this topic. It's that recent speedy deletion is what's at issue.--Oakshade 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. There's at least enough doubt here to knock this out of the speedy realm. Personally, I think her gaffe is embarrassing, but not serious enough for BLP. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Millions of views online, most popular video online for quite a while, multiple TV appearances, and a beauty pageant runner up. She's notable enough. Vptes1 03:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, WP:BLP1E and would not survive AFD if sent there (WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:CRYSTAL, etc.), but meh, if this is overturned this should immediately be listed. --Core desat 09:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... would not survive AFD'" is a pure WP:CRYSTAL statement. WP:BLP1E applies to "essentially low profile people" in which someone who, as already Miss South Carolina Teen, willingly participates in a nationally televised national beauty contest is not. WP:NOT#NEWS is not criteria to speedy delete an article. --Oakshade 16:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll withhold my delete argument until this is listed on AFD and deleted like the rest of the beauty pageant contestant articles. --Core desat 19:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. How did this ever become a speedy deletion candidate? Surely protection of privacy can't apply here - she was the winner of a state beauty pageant and became famous for making certain statements on national television. She is a public figure, has been referenced in many recent news articles, and will not be irreparably damaged by the documentation of the incident that brought her notoriety. What is the rationale for protecting the page, exactly? --Soultaco 17:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (edited for minor errors)[reply]
Without casting a vote, reccomend Redirect to Miss South Carolina Teen USA until consensus is reached or she becomes famous enough otherwise. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, admins are expected to use common sense when applying WP:CSD. ugen64 19:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of universities that offer the PPE degree – Deletion endorsed – Daniel 02:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

First off, I disagree with the closer of the initial deletion debate who found that "consensus equals Wikipedia is not a directory." Review the debate yourself and I think you will find that the comments are rather mixed in their support the of deletion. I also disagree with the deletion itself. While Wikipedia certainly isn't a directory it does contain numerous lists of notable items which pertain to an entry including the List of library and information science programs, which is obviously very similar to the PPE list (disclosure: I did recently update the library programs entry). I would also argue the sheer utility (which several members argued in the initial debate) of the PPE list. PPE is an unusual major and, as such, no list of programs seems to exist on the internet. As many of the PPE programs are small, not very well publicized, and, at times go by other names, Wikipedia is ideal for the creation of a PPE list. Individuals either participating or interested in participating in a PPE program will naturally find the PPE entry and list and would likely contribute the programs they know of. Furthermore, the frequent additions of program information to the main PPE entry (which is exactly what I did) indicates there is a definite interest in a PPE list. The deletion of this article has not merely destroyed unique and useful information but has prevented and continues to prevent the creation of such information. -- Patrick Mhnin0 06:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion As I think List of Universities that offer ____ degree is directory level information. Also allow for merging if anyone wanted to merge Corpx 07:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - AFD seems valid - only the above editor !voted for a keep. The rest seem to agree that the article should not exist in its a current form. List of library and information science programs is definitely a directory too and should be gotten rid of. Wickethewok 15:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse, there wasn't any clear consensus to the AfD although I agree with the decision to delete. It might have been beneficial to relist this for some more opinions, though. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Mhnin0, just because similar lists have not yet been deleted is not a reason not to delete. --Orange Mike 13:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion -- The information should have been posted in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics instead of creating a separate list since it was unlikely that the article would comply with Wikipedia:Lists (WP:RS's are not going to go on and on about how some university "offers" a PPE degree or how brave, bold, insightful, etc. they are for offering a PPE degree. The closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. Allow for merging into Philosophy, Politics, and Economics since the list is small and, as the DRV nom points out, VERY useful. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion clear call to me. Carlossuarez46 20:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Croatophobia – Deletion endorsed. – Daniel 02:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many will say that this is typical nationalistic story. In the end this is true but my problem is that wikipedia must be neutral because of what it is not possible that she has article Serbophobia and not Croatophobia. Both words are created during or after Yugoslav wars. To show examples of Croatophobia I am giving this 2 links which has been in article (I have forget others..): [47] (Croats do not exist but they are catholic Serbs) and [48] (on Croato-Serbian) order to Serbian media for not writing Croat forces but Ustaša hordes. Better sources are in new article deleted yesterday but...Article which is deleted yesterday is similar to article deleted before bit it is different article !! To say simple my position we need to have both articles or both must be deleted. Any other solution is POV.Rjecina 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is a review of the 27 August 2007 Speedy Delete.

Note - This newsarticle uses "Croatophobia", as in "None of that has been altered by the fact that in the meantime France, under the leadership of President Chirac, has also distanced itself from the Yugoslav complex, with its pronounced Serbophilia and elements of Croatophobia, which had its roots in the anti-German movement created in 1919 in Versailles." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - "Croatophobia" does not seem to be a term that is used by pretty much anyone and certainly not defined by any reliable sources. Wickethewok 14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - if you think that Serbophobia suffers from the same problems, that's an AFD issue not a DRV one. Carlossuarez46 17:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion per Wickethewok and Carlos. JoshuaZ 18:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, if Serbophobia has the same problems as this article, AFD it. I see no problems with the various AFD closures associated with this article, and I would like to have been notified of this DRV. --Core desat 22:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - these types of articles should be deleted if there are no real sources and no real story behind them, which is this case.--Svetovid 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lynette Nusbacher – Deletion endorsed. There is consensus to keep this article deleted, and this decision also comes into effect. – Daniel 02:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

(debate blanked as a courtesy to the subject)

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

27 August 2007[edit]

Seth_Sieunarine – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 00:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just realized that you deleted the page "Seth Sieunarine". Though Seth has not done much acting anymore, he did in fact appear on two episodes of "Family Matters" when he was younger, and he continues to advertise for his country of Trinidad and Tobago. I understand that he has not done a whole lot in the acting career but I ask that you please not delete his page from wikipedia as he continues to be a model and icon for his home country of Trinidad and Tobago. Thank you! 65.95.76.52 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Regardless of how the folks in T&T respect this fellow, his role as a television actor was trivial, and fails notability criteria. Shalom ^Hello 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Still no sources. Valid AFD that was closed 2 days ago. Wickethewok 14:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion subject isn't notable enough for inclusion. Plus, the only participants at the AFD supported deletion. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 23:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Colemak – Deletion endorsed; however, article unprotected to permit sourced rewrite. – Xoloz 00:23, 1 September 2007 (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 new and increasingly popular keyboard layout, an alternative to QWERTY and Dvorak, was deleted in November 2006 on grounds of non-notability and subsequently salted after being re-created without further discussion. Since then it has recently been added for inclusion in forthcoming versions of X11 [49] and Ubuntu [50]. Usage figures are hard to verify but it has an active user forum with just under 200 members[51] which is pretty popular as far as alternative keyboard layouts go. Qwfpg 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation The concerns raised in the deletion discussion were lack of notability because the software was very new at the time. A year has passed, and the nominator has brought multiple references to demonstrate that notability has arrived in the last year. Shalom ^Hello 22:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to me that Colemak's claim to notability rests almost entirely on its inclusion in Ubuntu and X11: practically all other references to it that I can find are personal blogs and self-published articles that do not meet WP:RS. This may be sufficient however (I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt), though others may think that more coverage is necessary for it to conform to WP:N. Usage statistics are not generally a factor for consideration in deletion discussions. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any secondary sources? Whatsoever? That it will have an xkeyboard configuration distributed with X11's reference implementation would be pretty underwhelming even if an independent third party had noticed that and written about it so we didn't have to resort to a bug report of all things. And the forum participation is meaningless; even way back when this was a criteria for inclusion via WP:WEB, we required 5000 members. —Cryptic 21:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Colemak website has some links to various "media coverage" items[52] though three of them are in Japanese and I have no idea what to make of them since I don't read Japanese. The others don't look too promising though: Slashdot, Barrapunto (the Spanish version of Slashdot) and Metafilter. There is also a research paper by a bloke called David Piepgrass, although this looks like some kind of undergraduate dissertation and I have no idea whether it has ever been published anywhere other than his personal website. The most notable person to mention it has been Matz of Ruby fame, though again I've no idea whether he is actually using it (which would mean a Colemak article could potentially have a "Notable users" section like the Dvorak article) or just mentioned it in passing. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this be allowed for re-creation, and see what the requester can do with the article. Worst case, it has to go through articles for deletion. As this is a keyboard format, the inclusion of it into several high profile linux items is notable (in my eyes), and I'm sure that if someone searched the ubuntu formuns and developer lists, one might run across more sorces as to why its notable. (someone had to convince the ubuntu people to include it. Worst case is the article has to be re-deleted, no biggie. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- How difficult is it to get something like this accepted by Ubuntu or other open source projects? I would have thought that it would be fairly easy -- any competent developer could submit a patch to the issue tracker, and provided it doesn't break anything and they can see it has at least some kind of a following and it is GPL compatible, my guess is that they would simply say "Why not?" rather than marking it as wontfix. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 09:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That you are correct, but my main point here is that this article won't promote any company or person, nobody really stands to gain much of anything. I feel as an encyclopaedia it is worth while to let this person make a new article (its a year since last deletion) and if its still not up to spec we can re-delete it. I see from the google search of this there is about 70,000 hits or so, not all that impressive, but a few of those hits look like they at least describe what this is. I view this topic is similar to some obscure file format, we probably have an article on what the format is, even though nobody uses it, and it helps someone. (of course this thought process really should not count for much here, but in short I would say allow recreation, and see where it goes). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 16:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion until they add, oh, about four 0's to the number of interested people. Wikipedia is not the place to boost some Great New Thing, it's the place to document things that are already and provably significant as defined by independent external sources. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That you are correct, but going by what I saw with several major linux programs adopting it I thought that it might have reached that threshold, and thus was worth letting someone recreate it and stating their case in an article. Worst case is we have to re-delete it. In any case it is very borderline, and I can definitely understand the argument to wait longer. (You should also note that the deletion was done approx. 1 year ago, this is a request to recreate an article that was deleted a long time ago, not an argument to contest a deletion). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tourettes Guy – Keep deleted - this is the fifth DRV, and nothing has changed since the last four in terms of notability. MessedRocker (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AfD for this article was over a year ago and since that time Tourettes Guy has died in an automobile accident, a petition (which can not be linked here because of spam blocks) with over 11,000 signitures agree that Tourettes Guy is notable to be on Wikipedia. I have been an editor on Wikipedia for over a year now and I would compare TG with other internet personalities such as Numa Numa, Maddox, Ask a Ninja, Leeroy Jenkins. The tourettesguy.com web site consistently gets over 300,000 unique visitors a month and although this is not a significat amount of hits that is not what is being claimed as his notability, his notablity comes from the thousands of viral video downloads on various different websites. If all that isn't TG was quoted on Conan O'Brien, and was featured in a commercial on MTV. Furthermore I would like to add that according to Alexa.com here the tourrets guy's web page is listed in the top 100,000 web pages on the interent. With all things considered there are plenty of references for TG and he is obviously an internet phenomena. Please take the time to review this issue and not take it lightly, a petition with over 11 thousand signitures is more than enough to at the very least unprotect the article for recreation. --Joebengo 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the age of the deletion debate, there certainly may be new sources by which to write an article. What I would suggest, however, is rather than point to Alexa statistics (which aren't really usable as an indicator of notability) or claims of internet petitions (which aren't usable to establish notability, either) is that you create a referenced version in your userspace for review, and if it is up to snuff, it can be moved into namespace. You haven't really provided any good reasons for overturning the deletion, however, so at this point my recommendation is to endorse deletion and leave protected for the time being. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion until reliable sources, not Alexa rankings, are presented to fulfill notability standards. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted and salted unless sources are provided. I don't really see very many good reasons for overturning in the nomination since it appears to be based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Core desat 21:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion No coverage (in other words, more than a one-line reference) in reliable sources, no article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - No reliable sources on which to base an encyclopedic article on. Wickethewok 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep deleted We need reliable sources, not Alexa rankings. I'd be willing to change my opinion if reliable sources can be presented. JoshuaZ 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, not notable in life and not likely to be notable in death or likely that new sources will emerge. Noting all incarnations:
Tourette's Guy
Tourette's guy
TourettesGuy.com
Tourettes Guy
Tourettes guy
Turrets guy
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourettes Guy
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourettes guy

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per every one of the many other debates, which were usually unanimous or nearly so. STILL no reliable sources, just like every other time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, still no new information, still no sources. Take it to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion "internet phenomenon" is an arbitrary and meaningless term and it's difficult to imagine a version of this article that wouldn't qualify for WP:CSD#G10 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Cher_in_hell_on_wheels.JPG – Deletion endorsed. Commenters should note that the "deletion instructions" cited by DRV nominator are not policy, and are subservient to WP:NFCC. Fair use is a legal concern, and Wikipedia will not permit a "consensus" that would violate the law. – Xoloz 00:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe this image was improperly deleted in contravention of the following primary and emphatic instruction in Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In fact, two objections to the image's deletion were raised in IfD and there was--I believe it's more than safe to say--no consensus to delete. In addition, it was never claimed--neither at the point of nomination nor deletion--that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction.—DCGeist 18:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Admin clearly deleted in contravention of two of our fundamental procedural guidelines, then offered only a personal opinion in explanation. This sort of behavior should no longer be allowed nor encouraged. Badagnani Badagnani 19:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (as deletor). DCGeist brought this to my attention on my talk page before listing this here, and here's a mildly reworded version of what I said there: The image was nominated for deletion for failing NFCC #8. There were "keep" comments that referenced various aspects of the images, but no comments that gave any clear reasoning of why anything shown in the image was (a) important in the article, and (b) depicting information that could not be portrayed by words alone. Several comments defended the use of screenshots in general, and I think a video screenshot could pass NFCC #8 in this article, but the screenshot chosen does not. (Nothing in this screenshot was mentioned in the article.) Of the comments made that adequately considered NFCC #8, none argued in favor of keeping the image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I understand the complaint that editorial usefulness is in the eyes of the beholder, but it seems from the discussion that the relevant article can manage without this NFCC item. Shalom ^Hello 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There is no sourced critical commentary on the image included in the article or real discussion of the screenshot, which causes the image to fail NFCC #8 for lack of significance to the article. The NFCC policy does trump the deletion guidelines. -Nv8200p talk 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact This review is based not on the question of deletion guidelines, but on a contravention of deletion instructions. Something different.—DCGeist 08:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page you are quoting from was a feeble attempt to condense the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Look at the article history. There are only a few contributors and an insignificant amount of discussion on the page. That page does not have enough weight to circumvent the NFCC policy. -Nv8200p talk 15:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per my explanation in the August 25 review where this came up, I did look at the instructions' edit history. Even more significantly, I looked at the prominent manner in which the primary IfD page links to the instructions:Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Instructions_for_administrators. Not so feeble.—DCGeist 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators were poorly derived from a guideline. The reason to delete was based on policy. -Nv8200p talk 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OverturnI'm really disturbed to see that contributions to debates in the Image Deletion process may not be taken seriusly. I believe the policy is that an image is not to be deleted unless there's no objection to its deletion or unless there's a consensus to delete based on contributors' judgments as expressed in the debate. That policy seems to have been contradicted here. Pretty clear-cut, I think.DocKino 21:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. This may just be my interpretation, but I'm pretty sure the "no objections" thing refers more to free images, whose retention is solely reliant on editorial discretion. Non-free images have to meet WP:NFCC in addition to this. The deleting admin made a good policy-based call. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Bjlata1.jpg – Deletion overturned. There was a remotely reasonable rationale offered for fair use; I don't think I would have accepted it, had I closed, but it was not an absurd argument. Consensus below is that IfD closer, as a participant in the debate, was not in a position to close. – Xoloz 00:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a similar case to that above, but even more significant. I believe this image was improperly deleted in contravention of the following primary and emphatic instruction in Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In fact, many objections to the image's deletion were raised in IfD and there was clearly no consensus to delete. In addition, deleting admin had participated in the discussion and entered a vote; deletion thus contravened the basic deletion guideline: "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."

In deleting, only a personal opinion about the content of the debate was offered as rationale--"Many people offered spirited defenses of this image, but no one was able to explain what encyclopedic information this image conveys that could not be conveyed by text alone." Deleting on that basis obviously values an administrator's personal opinion about a subjective matter over the clear language of the instruction (and, obviously, over the opinion of most of those involved in the debate). In addition, it was never claimed--neither at the point of nomination nor deletion--that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction.—DCGeist 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Admin clearly deleted in contravention of two of our fundamental procedural guidelines and actually voted him/herself in the debate, then offered only a personal opinion in explanation. This sort of behavior should no longer be allowed nor encouraged. Badagnani 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (as deletor) - This wasn't an easy decision, but here is my reasoning. Of the people who stated that the image should be deleted, all gave the same reason: the image doesn't pass WP:NFCC#8 (i.e. it doesn't give important encyclopedic information beyond what can be portrayed through text alone). Five people stated this, including four who are have dealt extensively with our non-free content policy for at least the last six months. The fifth was a new-ish user who has !voted "keep" on nearly every other image deletion debate he participated in, but stated "I am in favour of interpreting WP:NFCC#8 generously, but I can't stretch it enough to cover this example." Of those who argued that the image should not be deleted, different reasons were proffered. Charcorath said that the way he looked then is different from the way he looks now, and that this is notable. (In response, it was noted that there was no sourced commentary on this difference in appearance in the article.) Cricket, the uploader, explicitly disagreed with the previous "keep" reason, but advocated keeping the image because it showed the subject at a notable concert. Two other users seemed to agree with Cricket in this. (Several users countered that nothing in the image indicates what particular concert was shown.) One user seemed to advocate keeping the image merely because it was used in a featured article, which I deemed irrelevant. Among those advocating "keep", all were relative newcomers to our policy, and had not dealt extensively with these issues for more than a week or two at most. This doesn't invalidate their opinions at all, but I think it's reasonable to put more weight on comments from those who have shown a long-standing interest in, and understanding of, our policy. In the end, it was a borderline case, but I believe I made the right call. It wasn't my "personal opinion" that the image doesn't show encyclopedic information beyond what can be conveyed by text; it was that no "keep" advocate offered any explanation of what encyclopedic information this picture shows that couldn't be conveyed by words alone. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having actively participated in the discussion and, indeed, cast a vote to delete, why did you not recuse yourself from closing the discussion and deleting the page, as guidelines clearly suggest?—DCGeist 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there's a backlog, and there are very few admins willing to do the thankless task of processing ifd deletions. Having a closer who didn't vote is ideal, certainly, but it's just a suggestion, not a requirement. If I'd nominated it, or if I felt I couldn't analyze the discussion dispassionately, I wouldn't have closed it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The wording of the text starts out with "As a general rule. . ." Quadell does not make a habit of deleting images in which he has been involved in the discussion. Leeway has to be granted at times to clear out backlogs when other admins fail to act, in order to keep "the wheels of progress moving forward." -Nv8200p talk 14:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get carried away and try to close this DR yourself (and please don't canvass any of your friends, either, which I've seen before on more than one occasion). We must adhere to our own rules. Your total lack of contrition in your response above for this very bad deviation from our own rules is disturbing at best. Thanks. Badagnani 21:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't close this DR, and I haven't canvassed anyone (and won't). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and let somebody else close. Once one has particpated in a dispute, there is no way to ensure the best of us can always be objective in judging the result. That's why we have the rule, and with 1200 admins, there is no reason to ever have any exceptions. Relist, and let someone else close. DGG (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is a minimal difference between "voting then closing" and simply "closing". Unconsciously or not, you are inserting your own judgment into the decision (i.e. if it's a close call between "no consensus" and "delete" - which it wasn't in this case, incidentally - someone who would have voted "delete" in the argument will be more likely to delete, and vice versa). Quadell was not highly invested in this argument (he made only 1 comment, the vote to delete), which is what the rule was meant to stop (an admin closing a debate in which he was heavily involved - not the case here). The debate looked relatively straightforward to me, and therefore while this decision might be more "controversial", it wasn't a "wrong" decision. And finally, this looks like a case of sour grapes on the part of the nominator - would he have been so keen to point out this technical policy violation had Quadell closed the debate with "no consensus"? ugen64 06:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howzat? "Sour grapes"? Sweet! Great job making this debate personal, Ugenny ol' sport! I took this to deletion review because (a) I believe the image serves/served a valuable purpose on Wikipedia and (b) I believe it was improperly deleted per our rules. If I believed only (a), I would not have brought this matter here because I would be flouting the clearly stated rules of this review process. If I believed only (b), I would not have brought this matter here because I would be flouting the spirit of WP:POINT. Clear enough for ya there, buddy? Great.

Now, as for your other observations: You've focused on the guideline, when the primary issue here is the clear and emphatic language of the administrators' instruction. Next: If you're going to tote up the deleting admin's contribution to the argument to make a point, please do take the effort to make a correct count--there was not "only 1" such "investment", but 2: [53] and [54]. (Yes, I know the admin forgot to sign the second one--but then I didn't try to score points off the number of his comments. That's your game.) Moving on: As you examined this debate that looked so "straightforward" to you, did it or did it not look very straightforward to you that there were multiple objections to deletion and no consensus to delete? Finally: "Technical policy violation"? Ahhhh. As opposed to what other sort of "policy violation"? How about a "substantive policy violation"? That's what I'd call this one. But I gather you don't believe any policy violations are substantive, just li'l ol' technical hiccups. God forgive you if you ever dare quote policy to anyone when it happens to suit you, chuckles.—DCGeist 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's keep this friendly as long as possible, please. I have no doubt that this DRV request was made in good faith, and I think this would all go smoother if we don't take these comments personally. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The DRV nominator is placing a guideline over policy. -Nv8200p talk 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OverturnAgain, how to interpret this policy of image value is open to interpretation. That's why we have a debate on it. And that's why we don't delete unless there's a consensus to delete. if the admin's opinion was all that counted, we wouldn't need a process at all.DocKino 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. This may just be my interpretation, but I'm pretty sure the "no objections" thing refers more to free images, whose retention is solely reliant on editorial discretion. Non-free images have to meet WP:NFCC in addition to this. The deleting admin made a good policy-based call in regards to NFCC#1 and #8; I don't see any problem in his having commented in the discussion. His opinion on the image would presumably have been the same whether or not he had commented on the image prior to deciding in favor of its deletion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your interpretation makes no sense. There has to be consensus whether non-free image meets NFCC or not. It is not up to you to decide it.SuperElephant 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Quadell's analysis of the given arguments is convincing, and I am reassured that, though he participated in the debate, he was able to critically analyze the debate. I may or may not disagree with his decision, but I do not think it would be appropriate to overturn. --Iamunknown 15:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - this is part of a pattern of behaviour on Quadell's to delete images after participating in the discussion. Guettarda 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to several other IFD discussions that Quadell has participated in and closed to support your statement of a pattern. -Nv8200p talk 04:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I (perhaps naively) didn't think it would be controversial for me to close this debate, despite having participated in it, since I didn't voice a particularly strong opinion and didn't have anything invested in the outcome. I see now that several users have seen it as inappropriate, and I won't close deletion nominations in the future that are at all controversial if I have participated in the discussion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

RSC Equipment Rental – Undeleted to user's userspace. Hopefully they will do something good with it. – —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like to correct it Areesssea 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic deleted the article suggesting it was "blatant advertising". This was not my intent. I've not been able to reach Cryptic, and I'd at least like the chance to update the content to steer it away from an "advertising" feel. Thanks, Areesssea 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation and possibly provide the previous article to the requester above as the starting point for a rewrite. RSC is a large player in the equipment rental industry, with more than 500 outlets in North America; it's listed on the NYSE (had an IPO earlier this year) and had revenues of upwards of $1.6 billion last year. I'm fairly sure it's notable enough for an article. I can't see the previous version, but it sounds like this may have been deleted quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation Any company on the NYSE is notable; certainly this one (NYSE code: RRR). Here's the proof. Shalom ^Hello 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This deletion was done back in october 2006. Of course if you can write a better article you are more then allowed to do so, you are encouraged! I will undelete the page to your subspace if you would like to have it. The article will need some verifiable/reliable secondary sources, and a bit of a rewrite to make it a proper encyclopaedia article, and I wish Areesssea luck with this. The page has been moved to User:Areesssea/RSC_Equipment_Rental. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 August 2007[edit]

Child pornography – Please email ArbCom if you wish to contest this deletion – WjBscribe 15:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

On 22:07, 28 May 2007, Phil Sandifer deleted all existing revisions of this article and restarted it as a stub, allegedly because "months of edits... contained a keyword used to search for child pornography, labeled as such". Sandifer asserts that "Because of the GFDL's requirement for article history" he "could not keep a current version with that line deleted..." Talk:Child_pornography#Restarted. However, instead of deleting all revisions of the article, Phil Sandifer should have only deleted the first revision containing the offending keyword, and all versions subsequent to it, preserving all previous revisions, and their GFDL-required attribution. The hard work of the numerous users researching and writing this article should not be gratuitiously destroyed. KevinJames9872 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn looks like a very stupid thing to do. But is DRV the right forum for this? Grue 18:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Issues of whether DRV is the proper forum to review this matter (or, indeed, of whether the deleted revisions met any CSD), are far less important than the substantive question of whether all revisions of the article prior to 22:07, 28 May 2007 should remain deleted. KevinJames9872 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think anyone with a bit of common sense will agree that it is inappropriate to nuke the article because of the single word contained within it. What was wrong with having it in deleted revisions? The mind boggles. Grue 18:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per nom. ugen64 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, every revision including and before 23:56 25 January 2006 should be restored. ugen64 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is correct that only revisions subsequent to this time contained the keyword, I would not oppose undeleting the history prior to that point and merging it into the current article. WjBscribe 19:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn DRV is appropriate here, as it amounted to deleting the article. DGG (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse. Wikipedia should not assist people in searching for child pornography. The article contained too many revisions including the term. To remove only those would have been impractical and would have caused GFDL problems (as revisions that added content, and kept the problem term) would also be lost. I cannot say strongly enough that undeleting these revisions is totally unacceptable. We cannot allow ourselves to be hijacked as a conduit for codewords that would enable someone new to find material on child pornography. WjBscribe 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore everything before the first insertion of that child porn search term, with every edit made thereafter kept deleted -- we could go through each edit and find the term, but that's infeasible. However, by keeping everything before the first insertion, at least some hard work gets to stay. MessedRocker (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion but possibly restore all history up to first insertion of search term. I endorse Phil's reason for deleting the history (I would've done it myself if I'd known about it), but I see no reason why the history prior to the insertion of the term can't be restored, per Messedrocker. --Core desat 19:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have too much of a problem with this option but are we sure that we can accurately find the first revision that contained the problematic content? WjBscribe 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might take some digging, but it can probably be found. If we can't, though, the stubification is good enough that it could be left alone. --Core desat 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Coredesat... only if possible though. Better to be safe than sorry. Majorly (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, undelete all prior revisions - I find the original action treading on rather shaky ground as per WP:NOT#CENSOR. Objectionable, offensive, perhaps downright distasteful - but still encyclopedic. The only argument I can find for not including the word of doom would be that including it somehow violates the law in Florida. --Action Jackson IV 20:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all revisions and wtf. Since when is "contains a (perfectly legal) 'codeword'" a criteria for speedy deletion? Wikipedia is not censored. Sure, including the term is in poor taste; by all means remove it from the current revision but leave the history alone. Evouga 20:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm actually there is also "basic common decency" and "wikipedia is not a platform for facilitating pedophilia". The presence of codeworks that facilitate people obtaining images generated though child abuse is abhorant. Our not censored policy is not a suicide pact. WjBscribe 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough I don't see those on WP:CSD either. Evouga 20:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case lets ignore those! Lets act totally irresponsibly... Admins are charged with making judgmental calls beyond the letter of the criteria - they are not robots. In this case, Phil showed a lot of Clue and acted in the very best interests of Wikipedia. WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are policy for a reason... WjBscribe 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. This is the wrong forum for this and should go to arbcom - I will respeedy this if overturned through any other forum. Phil Sandifer 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but I am looking through the revisions to see where it first appeared. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The content first appeared in the following revision:
20:14, January 25, 2006 . . SPUI (Talk | contribs | block) (Commercial production and distribution - merge from Child pornography search terms, as that's going to be deleted)

Of the 1385 deleted edits, about 450 were made before this addition. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opened inappropriate closure by related party. From WP:AC - "it [ArbCom] is a last resort". The closing reasons in full from User:Phil Sandifer were "Because of the reason for deletion, this is not a matter for deletion review, and certainly not one to consider on the listing of an obvious sockpuppet. Please appeal to the arbcom or not at all. However, if somebody wants to restore to the January 2006 version mentioned by SPUI, I will not overturn that. Phil Sandifer 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC) – Phil Sandifer 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)" -81.178.126.124 15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I'd also like to prematurely say that I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone. Please feel free to do a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser on me if you don't believe me -81.178.126.124 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly endorse. Normally I strongly oppose this kind of heavy-handed unilateral action by admins; most deletions (except for legitimate CSDs) should take place only with discussion and consensus. However, as said above, Wikipedia should not help people to search for child pornography. This is a fundamental ethical question, which, IMO, is a sufficient reason for circumventing normal procedures. Walton^One 15:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: Per [55], further dispute of this deletion should be addressed to ArbCom. Revisions prior to the first that contained the term may be restored. WjBscribe 15:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense - This went from DRV to MFD to DRV again; no more ping ponging between DRV and MFD. The issue of the GFDL was invalid during the nomination closure. The main reason for closing was it became a shrine to vandalism, and those arguing that WP:ILIKEIT aren't going to gather enough consensus to overturn this deletion. The deletion, was to say the least, a very tough decision by the closing administator. In addition, the issue of the page title can be settled elsewhere. — Moe ε 01:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is not to rehash the arguments over whether BJAODN should exist or not, but a very specific question about whether the MfD closure was proper and in accordance with consensus. I believe it was not - firstly, it is very clear on reading that there was no consensus of any kind, even those that agreed on one position or another weren't agreeing with each other. Furthermore, the unilateral decision to move the main page to "Silly Things" by the closing admin not only did not have any consensus, but wasn't discussed or even raised, and smells somewhat of ruling from above. I would not have acted had this not become the basis of a potential move war, using the MfD closure as a basis to proceed in a direction which the community would not have even anticipated. I think everyone said what they had to about BJAODN in the original MfD, so there is no need for this to become yet another debate about it, and once debate is concluded here, that matter can hopefully be put to rest. Orderinchaos 15:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should surprise nobody that this was one of the hardest closes I've ever done as an administrator. And, as Orderinchaos points out, there were elements of the close that did not come up in the MfD - the list of pages spared was entirely my own, and the moving of the page in order to forcibly deprecate and make the point that BJAODN as we know it ought not return was not proposed by anyone. However, as I said in the close, there was no possibility of a close that would satisfy everybody, or even necessarily satisfy most people. I do believe that I closed the MfD in a way that gave proper respect to all factions of the community on this issue. In a case as vexed as this, that is as close to consensus as can be hoped for. Phil Sandifer 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, while I voted keep, I can see that the most ideal close involves losing most of the pages, and the option to salvage the "special" ones was a good call. Orderinchaos 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. Seeing as that seems the easy way out of more drama. Moreschi ^Talk 15:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN this deletion review — oh, wait ... Cyde Weys 16:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dis-Endorse Close - Overturn and Relist Twenty Years 16:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reasons for wanting this? --Cyde Weys 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apart from the fact that i think without it, wikipedia is losing all sense of charm, no, not a single reason. Twenty Years 16:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia though, not a charmpedia. I don't see what a sense of charm has to do with it. It was established during the MFD that the existence of BJAODN was having negative repercussions on vandalism. Anyway, the "best of" subpages are still around, and those are much higher quality than the original spread out subpages anyway. --Cyde Weys 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Encyclopedia" is a one-word descriptor. Let's not give too much weight to a single word, which cannot possibly facilitate the retention of 2 million very different articles. BJAODL was the only page of its kind, and policies, mission statements, etc. generally are not modified to account for single pages; making the occasional exception makes much more sense. The page was also located in Wikipedia-space, and you will find close to zero articles in Wikipedia-space which would be found in an encyclopedia. — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Something being the only page of its kind and being in project space does not make it immune to deletion just because. --Core desat 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't say that it did. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, close this Ah, the inevitable has come but there is no way this will turn into anything other than a nasty, ugly mess of no consensus. GDonato (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should we endore a close that violated policy, this "silly things" wasnt even mentioned in the MfD, yet content from BJAODN was moved from there to "silly things"? Twenty Years 16:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because we're the cabal - oops, sorry. More seriously, perhaps because the close violated no policy? Moreschi ^Talk 16:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So where in the MfD was "Silly things" mentioned?Twenty Years 16:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that's the only thing that concerns you then perhaps WP:RFD is more suitable. Do you disagree with the colsure of the MfD as "basically delete"? GDonato (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree with many things, but this is low on my priority list, i just liked the page. Twenty Years 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. For the record, Sandifer scooped me on closing that MfD by just a few minutes. My close would have been similar: I would have acknowledged that the community expressed very significant concern over the copyright issue (which Sandifer dismissed) but otherwise, action-wise, I agree with Sandifer on all the important points... and we have to realize that, as he said, no close was going to satisfy everyone. Mango juice^talk 16:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure GFDL violations and a shrine to vandals -- this kind of stuff is more important than "we need moar humor". Also, while I disagree with the renaming to Silly Things, I think that was done independently of any MFD. MessedRocker (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse BJAODN is an oasis for GFDL vios, and seems to be something of an apex for vandals if they are included. It needs to go. –Animum 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure Whoever closed it knew full well that whoever closed the MFD would be immediately reviewed here on DRV. Phil's closure while not 100% what I wanted, does do the job. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we doing this again?? --ST47Talk·Desk 17:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - I presented my reasons for believing that whilst GFDL was not a concern, BJAODN was sadly, best let go of. I felt that User:Phil Sandifer's closing statement was a good reflection of the matter, and acknowledge many liked those pages, and community fun is a Good Thing. This review is not about BJAODN but about the process though. There are only two issues here at DRV that I'm aware of:

First DRV concern: The purpose of process is to ensure matters have a good hearing, and that the community has at least spoken enough to have some representative sense of the views. With some 8 or 10 discussions, and much activity over the last 2 weeks, there can be little doubt that the majority of those who track BJAODN or are interested in expressing an opinion have had good chances to do so, and those who wished to have spoken. If not all, then surely enough to be taken as reasonably representative of the community in their views. This was after all the 2nd listing in that short time after the mass deletion and 1st DRV of 14th August. So the first thought is, the community (or a large part of those who wish to) has stated its views and had fair chance to do so. The raw views posted at MFD are probably fairly comprehensive and representative, and the views listed there probably do represent the range and the balance of views in the community. So my first thought is, I don't think another xFD is needed to obtain more or different views. I think it's likely we have successfully obtained wide and representative consultation.
Second DRV concern: is the close a fair one that is based upon and takes into account the full range of MFD comments left by these editors? And here I think it is. The close is a good one; the issues in discussion do come down to personal like on one side, and consistency with Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on the other. It's a tough call but concerns over possible negative impacts of BJAODN on the project (glorification of vandalism etc) sadly probably do override the keep views of the humor pages, as the closer says. If there was a strong majority of keep/like at MFD, then I would say there was a doubt - but in fact upon checking I find there isn't. For whatever reason the (slightly stronger? much stronger? stronger either way) view on the MFD seems to also be leaning towards deletion, and these often cite and reflect editors' concerns of genuine issues - GFDL, promotion of vandalism, etc, as well as a fair number of IDONTLIKEIT. Clearly a number see them as non funny and a problem/embarrassment/policy issue for the wiki.

Conclusion: the MFD has surely been seen by enough of the community for the views stated to represent communal views. Those views lead to the closer's accurate comment: ILIKEIT vs. concerns over impact on the the project (whether vandalism incitement, policy/gfdl issues, or poor/embarrassing reflection on the site). The closer has (probably wisely) set aside GFDL !delete concerns as being outside the community's expertize, and instead balances concerns over possible negative impact on the encyclopedia against humor value... and there is no strong majority of KEEPers to set against this, as might be relevant to (what is at the end of the day) basically a set of community humor pages. In fact there seems to be a majority for deletion. Probably poorly worded here, but that's the view I obtain of this close. BJAODN has borderlined it a few times; the consensus seems to be based of good quality wide consultation, and a conclusion that in the eyes of the community the concerns are real, significant, and enduring. To close on a basis that "it's good humor" doesn't outweigh that, seems a reasonable view. So for me, I endorse. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, make it stop!! - I mean Endorse closure. While I'm not sure about the move to Silly Things, I could care less about that. The closure though was quite good. It took into concern the thoughts of the deleton advocates and kept some parts intact to appease the keep-ers. End this now (not immediately, but with this DRV), so we can finally move on. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, particularly the move to Wikipedia:Silly things (who capitalized the T?). Time to set things aside and move on. --Dhartung | Talk 17:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect the T is capitalized because, in contrast with how we normally name pages, capitalizing it is a Silly Thing. --Cyde Weys 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse much of the close, but undelete the Wikipe-tan Temple page, the Poop Egg page, and other special pages that are better off in categories other than BJAODN. Wikipe-tan Temple and the other special pages are examples of Wikipedia humor and belongs in a Wikipedia humor section, not the trash bin. Also, include a link to bjaodn.nicholaswwilson.com on the historical BJAODN page. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the closer failed to take into account that there were no valid arguments for deletion except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Grue 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "It encourages vandalism" is not "I don't like it." Phil Sandifer 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT isn't a good reason to undelete though. --Cyde Weys 18:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Please tell me we are not doing this again. Valid close, good reading of the debate. It "encourages vandalism" trumps "I like it". I also think there are GFDL reasons that should be taken into account and think the closer was wrong in not factoring those in, but as those also point towards deletion that only further vindicates the outcome in my opinion. WjBscribe 18:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Main page encourages vandalism. Let's delete it too. This is a very weak argument, and shouldn't be used to delete popular metapages. Grue 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly endorse deletion. Grue's argument is a very good one, though. Whether I like it or not is not important here: process was valid and followed properly. --SunStar Net ^talk 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn if there is one thing clear at MfD, it's that there is no consensus at WP about these articles. We await a genius who can figure out how to solve it this one.DGG (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I knew this was coming. The close was very well-reasoned and I see nothing wrong with it. The vast majority of "overturns" are WP:ILIKEIT, and the fact that BJAODN encourages vandalism does not equate to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let the thing stay dead; after all, I thought we were here to create an encyclopedia? --Core desat 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion While true copyright problems clearly trump any numbers, Phil is right that MfD is a lousy place to evaluate them. On the other hand, I fully agree that WP:DENY trumps WP:ILIKEIT even in project space. I don't think that a general DRV is the best place for dealing with exceptions or minor issues such as renaming. It is better to hash those out at individual talk pages. Eluchil404 20:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above... Majorly (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Overturn. Leave the deleted content deleted, but remove the prejudice against restarting BJAODN with proper attribution. The GFDL concern was the primary non-essay (WP:ILIKEIT and WP:DENY) objection to BJAODN, and there was no consensus against restarting BJAODN if this concern were addressed. Evouga 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Saying that moving the page to "Silly things" was required by the MfD is stupid, but resolving the name issue doesn't require DRV. -Amarkov moo! 21:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse overall; reserve the right to DRV individual subpages later. I think the closing admin did deviate from typical process somewhat, but that is perfectly fine, and in this case, I think it was for the better. I think he did very well to cut through the GFDL/copyright debate (which was very confused), and correctly identified the real problem: BJAODN had become a "monument to vandalism", and that was Not Good for Wikipedia. I think his overall decision (delete most of it; rename to highlight) was the best overall decision for Wikipedia as a whole. A good compromise leaves everyone equally unhappy; this is it. • I put in the "reserve the right to DRV individual subpages" bit because I think there may be some stuff worth salvaging, but this is not the time or the place for that discussion. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Empornium – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against a reliably sourced, NPOV rewrite. – Xoloz 03:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I realize there was probably consensus to delete the article, but here some sources giving significant coverage - Link1, Link2, Link3, Link4 Corpx 05:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As deleted, the article contained no sources. A rewrite with sources might fare better, and the addition of sources to address the cause for deletion should exempt it from CSD G4. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources brought up in the latest AfD were thin; Corpx's are slightly better. However, since it seems there is no coverage of Empornium not related to the Targetpoint takeover/controversy, I'm dubious that there will be enough to really write an article. That said, if someone wants to try, I would suggest trying in userspace first, and starting from scratch to ensure verifiability (the former version seems to have included lots of stuff not in the sources). Mango juice^talk 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn it seems clear that this article was deleted simply by attrition (3rd time lucky). Several sources were presented over the course of 3 AfDs, so there's no point in keeping it deleted. Grue 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, consensus at AfD was clear, and at least three of the "sources" brought up are from p2pnet. I see no indication that p2pnet undergoes fact-checking or editorial control, or meets any other standards of a reliable source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - no reliable sources, no article. Moreschi ^Talk 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, but feel free to recreate the article for which the deletion arguments are not valid without having a deletion review. Atropos 23:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edison Medal – Restored by deleting admin – Joe 05:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to have been deleted with zero discussion. There were over 50 incoming links. I only discovered it when a redirect I created to the article was being deleted. Speedy deletion is becoming a back door way to delete articles without any oversight or consensus at all. No discussion is required, and no oversight is in place. There needs to be some sort of review or you need to have at least three admin people vote to have a speedy. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as moot. Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs), the deleting administrator, has restored the article, and his comment at Talk:Edison medal implies he is content for the article to remain. Speedies are tolerated, in part, because they are easy to reverse. Richard should comment at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy if he is not happy with the current deletion process. EdJohnston 03:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's true, but it should be said that in this case deletion was plainly inconsistent with CSD; medals, except where articles about them exist exclusively to advertise a sanctioning body/company, are not A7able. Joe 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Current Opinion in ... – Withdrawn; nominator should in any case use WP:PROD or WP:AFD as those two places are where non-speedies are re-considered. – Splash - tk 01:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Splash - tk 01:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reasons for deleting it were completely ignored--all were created as ads by single purpose accounts over a period of two days, main article listing all exists. KP Botany 00:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

I didn't decide to "Keep" I decided not to speedy delete. There is a world of difference. Yes the sub articles were created by the company, but note that the main article was not. Even though a spammer created the page i felt that they might still be useful to the encylopedia. It seems silly to speedy delete pages a year after they were created. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question What difference does it make if the crap was not detected for a year? It doesn't make it legitimate. It was only caught because Elsevier just did the same thing with another series of journals today. That they got away with it once, and it was only caught when they proceeded to do it again does not change it from an advertisement to a real article. The articles themselves don't assert their own notability--which is probably why they weren't caught for so long. KP Botany 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - this is not the place to appeal the removal of speedy tags - the editor should, if they wish, pursue deletion by means of a Prod or AfD. TerriersFan 00:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually Theresa Knott said I could appeal, and so does the Speedy page. What is our alternative source for saying otherwise? KP Botany 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - All I wanted you to do, was take it to AFD. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - there is an appeal here against the speedy deletion of an article not against the removal of a speedy tag which happens numerous times per day. As I say above, either Prod them or take them to AfD, as you judge appropriate. TerriersFan 00:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why take it to AfD when I can have the deletion reviewed? The article's are so useful that even though they contained content of issues a year old, no one noticed. It's the April 2006 issue of Current Opinion in Cell Biology, for example, that has an article on "Cell division, growth and death," not the April 2007 issue, which leads off with an article on "Cell regulation: Cellular signaling." Why make me argue for deleting them, when the editors didn't bother to do anything but add them, added the same text to a bunch of articles, and no one has noticed that it has articles over a year old listed in the articles? And I'm not protesting the deletion of the speedy tag, but rather the failure to speedy them. Theresa's argument is spurious, there is no incentive to keep crap on Wikipedia due to age--old stuff that should have been caught earlier is deleted all of the time. This is just an attempt to give a spammer a break--an obvious spammer that used sock puppets. I notice no administrators care about all the sock puppet accounts that went into creating this articles, just about making me do tons of useless work to delete them.KP Botany 01:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for reviewing deletions. There has been no dleletion or even a deletion debate. All that happened was that I renmoved some speedy tags you added. And quite frankly you constant statement that I want ot give a spammer a break is bloody rude. I've blocked more spammers than you've ad 'ot dinners.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your only evidence that you offer that these are not spammers is the length of time they have been up on Wikipedia. But there is no criterion on Wikipedia anywhere that something that should never have been on Wikipedia in the first place (generally candidates for speedy deletion) should be kept because it has been there for a long time. It didn't gain anything by being here for longer than it should have been, except for possibly more free adverisements for the spammers. KP Botany 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the reason you didn't send it to AFD is you can't work out how to do it. If you weren't being to nasty to me I'd help you do it, but I'm not going to discuss it here at deletion review. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You told me "If you feel that strongly about it ask another admin for a review."[56] And now you're insulting me here and on AN/I for not being able to do an AfD. I know that AfD is NOT where I get "another admin for a review," this is where I get another administrator to review a deletion. You misdirected me and are now mocking me for following your misdirection, so to come up now and tell me that if I had been nicer you would have helped me is not something I choose to believe. KP Botany 01:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 August 2007[edit]

Damian_Smith – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 14:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Work_In_Progress PatA51 19:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Carlossuarez46 (Talk . Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PatA51 19:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion; valid A1, preceded by a valid G12 (copyvio) the day before. Nothing to restore. Heather 01:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; nothing but a wedge of plot summary with no context. ELIMINATORJR 16:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion Note: the initiator didn't notify me of the DRV. Carlossuarez46 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Oneill.jpg – Restored. Public domain; unanimous Keep in Ifd; per Drv – KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

(1) This image has been in the public domain in the United States since 1962-63 because its copyright expired 28 years after its original publication date (1934), and thus is available for use by anyone including Wikipedia.

(2) This image has been in the public domain in the European Union since 2004, because the copyright expired 70 years after its original publication date (1934).

(3) The virtually unanimous consensus was to KEEP this image, and it was arbitrarily deleted by the closing administrator without regard to any evidence presented supporting its public domain status. The Image-for-deletion proceeding was closed with the words "Deleted, evidently not a free image." It is not a "free-licensed" image, but rather, a public domain image, to which no person or organization presently holds rights to control under copyright law in the US and the EU. Kenosis 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and reupload as fair use. It's likely not in public domain, there is no proof that the copyright wasn't renewed in the image, and the image was created after 1923. Also it's 70 years after the photographer death date, not 70 years after publication for the European Union, and there is no proof of that nither. A good fair use rationale can be used for the image though as the subject is long dead. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. Even if 70yrs.p.m.a. were the correct standard, this image is public domain in the US for over 40 years now. But, photographer's actual identity must be publicly disclosed according to EU law, otherwise it's 70 years after publication. You can't keep an "author", the natural person who took the photo, secret from the public, but rather it must be disclosed, so it's 70 yrs. after publication. The source of the now-deleted images, with the long obsolete copyright in the USA and recently obsolete copyright in the European Union, is: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1936/oneill-autobio.html ... Kenosis 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It' a shame that the comprehension of copyright law and the capacity for logical deduction are so scarce on WP. Jim62sch 19:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's unfortunate there are so many misconceptions and myths about the basics of copyright and public domain, etc., that work their way around the wiki. But this can change quite readily, given adequate focus and some additional time. At present, public-domain material (read that: "free material available for use by anybody who wants to in whatever way they want") is often squeezed out quite unnecessarily, while "free-license" is oft-mistaken and oft-misrepresented, and also very commonly has more restrictions on it than either public domain material or "fair-use" of copyrighted material. IMO that's the shame at present. Logical deduction, on the other hand, depends on the information input (I'm reminded of the old saw about "garbage in -- garbage out" that was oft-quoted in information technology circles for quite a number of years). Here, I think it's mainly only a matter of straightening out the facts and copyright rules so more WP users are aware, especially as regards the requirement that US copyright renewals of the 1923-1963 publications be registered in order to extend copyright beyond 28 years from date of original publication -- today those records are online for most everything important to us in WP for that time period as regards still-photography images. And, as a practical matter, virtually no one renewed copyright to individual photographs back in those days, because the emphasis was more on who owned the photographic "negative", unlike today. As to the 70yrs.p.m.a. mistake w.r.t. non-attributed and corporate works-for-hire where there's no publicly disclosed natural person as the author, I suppose I'd say "D'oh"-- I'll readily admit I've been at least equally well fooled many times in the past, at least until I was familiar with the appropriate information in order to correct the situation. Myself, helping to correct the situation is about all I aim to do here. ... Kenosis 02:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as obviously in the public domain unless credible evidence of renewal can be found, and flagrant disregard for consensus by the closing admin. Evouga 18:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Per EU regulations, as a pseudonymous or anonymous work (i.e., a work of what in the U.S. is called "corporate authorship," in which the actual individual executor of the work was not disclosed), prima facie the work has been public domain in the EU since January 2007. More significant, given the location of Wikipedia servers, is its status in the U.S. Per the evidence of the Nobel organization's own site, as confirmed by a search of copyright renewal records (see original IfD proceeding), the weight of evidence clearly indicates that the original 1936 copyright was not renewed, meaning the work has been in the public domain in the U.S. since January 1965.—DCGeist 18:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn This is clearly in the public domain under both US and EU law. JoshuaZ
Overturn As I've pointed out elsewhere there is absolutely no evidence (as in none, nada, zilch) that the image is not PD; in fact all evidence supports the fact that it is PD. There is clearly a need on WP for some training in copyright law. Jim62sch 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There's something to be said for assuming the worst case scenario in matters of copyright law, but if nobody can find evidence that copyright was renewed... -Amarkov moo! 20:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, as nominator. The standard of proof being asked, in order to satisfy at least some WP users that it is in the public domain, is stricter than the standard that applies to convicting and executing an accused murderer. Plenty of evidence was offered in support of its public domain status, and no evidence was offered in support of a continued copyright beyond 28-years in the United States (i.e., 1963 expiration of copyright in the US) or beyond 70-years in the European Union (late-2006 expiration of copyright in the EU). ... Kenosis 21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you correctly recognised the beyond an unreasonable doubt mentality. Jim62sch 22:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn both on procedural grounds (although involved in the deletion debate, Quadell closed the debate and deleted the image despite there being a clear consensus to keep) and on the factual grounds raised by Kenosis and others - we don't use "absolute and complete certainty" as grounds for any decision (certainly not in the case of allegedly GFDL images uploaded by pseudonymous editors). An excellent case has been made that this image (and others like it) are PD. Guettarda 06:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wow, I hadn't noticed that Quadell had been involved in the discussion. Sigh. JoshuaZ 14:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inkulab – Deletion overturned. The first AfD (in which commenters admitted confusion) based its decision on a mistaken assumption regarding the author's alternative names; therefore, this is a case of clear error. Relisting at AfD is by editorial option. – Xoloz 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Misunderstanding of the alternate spelling of this Tamil writer's name. The article itself said that his name is also spelt as Inquilab and Ingulab, but the people who discussed on it seemed to be missed this point. The references contained published journal article and many news articles. Unfortunately I am not able to get into the article to get the sources and list it here. But what is heartachening is that if a journal can accept a paper on commentary of Inkulab's play how come he be considered as not so notable? ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 13:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion That's just one link and I do not think it gives "significant coverage" to give notability to undelete this article. While it does review his play, I just dont feel like that's giving "significant coverage" to him Corpx 15:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the links. The original entry had a few news articles too. I do not have access to view them. Moreover in the discussion page it was indeed mentioned by someone that Tamil language is not well represented in the English media. When Inkulab/Inquilab is mentioned in the English news, he is never given an introduction on who he is or anything and JUST GETS mentioned. It is pretty obvious given that he needs no introduction that he is well known. His works often make to the English media too[57], [58] and a few more mentioned in the earlier wikipedia entry. I would ask for reasoning here that if he is not prominent would his opinion actually matter in showing clemency to assasins of a former Prime Minister of India. His opinions are often mentioned in the English media without being introduced formally on who he is. [59]. Cheers! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for the above mentioned reasons ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 09:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your position is already clear as the nominator :) Corpx 14:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the reasons mentioned above are legitimate.Wiki Raja 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propellerhead Software – Overturned, rewritten articles that address the original reason for deletion are ineligible for CSD G4 – Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am placing this here because I am getting nowhere with it, and wanted to bring it to the attention of a larger group of people.

Over the past week or so I have been working on Propellerhead Software. This page has repeatedly been created and deleted, but as far as I can tell, in the past it HAS been a rather poor article.

However, on August 12th I recreated this article and worked hard on it over the next few days. I created what I believed was a relatively good article. However, on 23rd August it was speedily deleted, which I believe was unfair, because this could only happen because it had been speedily deleted before. Reason G4 was given, but this states that articles which are substantially identical to the original can be considered for speedy deletion. I requested that the page be restored to give me a chance to add some references. It was and I did this, making what I thought was an excellent article.

The reasons given for the deletion were lack of notability, lack of sources, and advertising. However, I addressed all of these points:

Notability - the company is very well respected and their software won a major award as I referenced in the article. The company developed software with Abbey Road studios, and this was also referenced in the article. Their software features a regular user technique section in Sound on Sound magazine, and again, I referenced this in the article. One user said "check Google" on the deletion log, and when doing so, Propellerhead Software come up in the first six searches, and in nine out of the first ten.
No sources - as mentioned, I thoroughly referenced the article.
Advertising - I do not work for or have any association with Propellerhead software, other than I buy their products and enjoy using them. I considered the article to be well written, non biased and informative.

However, on 24th August the article was deleted again and salted - despite adding these references. I just now found a second deletion nomination (which was cleverly hidden from the article and therefore I couldn't see it). The references I had cited were, apparantly, trivial and not reliable. I do not understand how references from: a major award[60]; arguably the world's most famous recording studio[61]; and Europe's largest selling music recording magazine[62] can be classed as trivial and non reliable.

I have tried to get the article restored but nobody seems to be listening to me (not even taking notice, let alone arguing with me).

What really makes me upset is that this article has only been deleted because it was deleted BEFORE. If an article of this standard which hadn't been deleted before was created now it would simply not be deleted. There are thousands of articles on here that do not cite references and are left well alone. The Steinberg and Digidesign articles are poor and have no references, and Ableton only references offical website and even forums. There has never been any question that these articles be deleted.

The article I made was well referenced and well written, the company are well respected and make excellent software. I believe the article deserves a place on Wikipedia.

I request that a few admin look at the article I made just before it was deleted, check its quality and references and restore it, and tag it so it cannot be speedily deleted again. At the very least, I would appreciate an admin copying the article code into my userpage so I can work on the article until it's agreed it can go back on.

Thanks--Mrtombullen 10:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support keep We have way less notable companies in wikipedia. This company is a leader of its sector, and everyone who works with electronic music knows about their products or uses them. They created the first true GUI analog synth emulator, "ReBirth RB-338" (article exists since February 2004), which alones guarantees them notability. Reason (software) is dominant player in its market. I see no reason why this highly notable company is not kept. Thanks! --Cerejota 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS notwithstanding, I can't see how this is by any stretch of the imagination blatant advertising. It's possible that it's not notable, but that's a matter for a non-speedied AfD. See the cached version. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list on AfD. You can't substantiate any of the "popularity through internet forums" without referencing the forums themselves unless you had a third-party article explicitly saying so. In fact I'd just reduce that to a sentence or two. But I don't think it's G11 material, so let it run through the process. The Sounds on sounds article seems to be a good source. ColourBurst 00:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. I salted the deleted article, on claims on the most recent AfD for it that represented the re-creation of a deleted article. Upon reviewing the text itself, it did not seem irremediably awful in style. There is a question about the independence of some of the given references, but not all of them. That "other crap exists" is in fact a good argument to keep an article, given that the application of precedent through analogy is what "consensus" is all about, and the point that this is the business that makes software that has had an article since the early days of Wikipedia suggests that it too belongs, and that perhaps these several articles might be profitably merged. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same Propellerhead of ReBirth RB-338, Reason (software) among others? If so, Overturn strongly. Well known software company. -81.178.126.124 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is. Overturn ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of British Chinese people – Both closures overturned; resubmitted to AfD. Personally, I commend Sandstein for his boldness, but it is not clear that admin-overturning of non-admin closures once they have come to DRV is something contemplated by deletion policy. As it is, this has created a little confusion, and neither closure is endorsed by consensus below. More discussion is the best option, for the sake of clarity. All non-admins are reminded to make only simple, non-controversial keep closures. – Xoloz 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was closed by a non-admin, essentially citing WP is not paper, while I believe the consensus was to delete this list Corpx 06:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedily overturned the closure per WP:DPR#NAC, which provides that non-admin closures "are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator", and re-closed the discussion as delete. See my rationale in the discussion. Now, feel free to review this... Sandstein 06:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Sandstein's deletion. This was clearly out of bounds for a non-admin closure. (I do them, but primarily speedy deletions that have left an orphan AFD.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, improper non-admin closure of a contentious AFD citing a part of WP:NOT that isn't a reason to keep an article (otherwise nothing could be deleted). --Coredesat 07:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree it is improper non-admin closure. But do not agree the article should be deleted. Chineseartlover 18:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - There was no consensus on deletion, and the arguments for deletion were, for the most part not valid: content issues not related to notability of the topic. I think those who voted keep clearly had a stronger argument: the Chinese-origin population of Britain is notable on its own. This is not a vote. Thanks!--Cerejota 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse/categorify per above, and the fact that a category serves all the same functions as a list, and is far, far more elegant. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from original discussion Lists can do a lot more than what Categories can do. Lists can organise these people by occupation, and make short mention of why the people are notable. We can also have red links in lists. Categories cannot do any of the above Chineseartlover 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Subcategories. And redlinks in lists aren't terribly useful, since all they really say is "there exists a person called x. He is a British Chinese person." David Mestel^(Talk) 21:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Catergories and Lists both have their function. Wiki's Policies accept that not all list should be converted to Categories. Eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_characters_in_Pirates_of_the_Caribbean should not be converted to Categories. Red Link has a clear function in Wiki, it invites other people to add to the article when the original contributor do not have the full resourse to do so. Chineseartlover 00:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So instead of putting people in Category:American actors and Category:English Americans they would be in Category:English-American actors? Kappa 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We should probably get started on this categorization. This guy Michael Chan, Baron Chan was a "Singaporean-British physician and politician, of Chinese descent." so we need Category:Singaporean-British politicians and Category:Singaporean-British physicians for him, right? Do you think we should subcategorize by Chinese descent as well, since not all Singaporeans are ethnically Chinese? Kappa 09:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - There was no consensus on deletion, Previous AFD of similar pages have resulted in "no consensus", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans, Also a simlar AFD for the Bristish Asians came to the same conclusion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people. It is therefore something we need further debate rather than DELETION. Furthermore, there are many similar list of people in differnt countries according to the nation origin. In the US alone, there are 58 pages: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_American_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin , showing there is a clear need of such pages. Chineseartlover 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The mere fact that a group is notable does not automatically mean that a list of members is encyclopedic. With regards to process, consensus was not sufficiently clear for a non-admin closure and delete is within discretion given the weight of arguments. Eluchil404 21:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Very useful. Thankyoubaby 21:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL --Coredesat 22:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean the bit of WP:USEFUL which says 'For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."'? Kappa 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deletion absolutely no consensus on deletion, and no particular policy-based reason for deletion here (though categorization is an alternative). ELIMINATORJR 00:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion; retain as no consensus. Sandstein's preferencing of arguments seems rather partial to me. WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO are perhaps two of the most generic policies cited in AfD debates (excluding articles which fall under the specific examples of what Wikipedia is not). Wikipedia is not a distributor of all information, but that does not mean that Wikipedia cannot contain information. The closing arguments Sandstein noted are essentially useless without being supplemented by article-specific ones. Valid WP:OCAT concerns were voiced in the AfD, but whether a list constitutes overcategorization is strictly a judgment call and should be left for the community to decide. — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - Closing editor seems to have cited both WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO as reasons to close as delete, but I fail to see how this list fits the description of either, or how it is like any of the examples given in either policy. This is not a catalog or a phone or address directory, it's not a travel guide, it's not an indiscriminate list of information, etc etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list at AfD. I agree that the non-admin closure was improper, but I also don't believe there was a consensus to delete, based on both this DRV and the AfD. I suggest the closing admin on this DRV overturns the deletion and re-lists the article at AfD to get broader consensus. Walton^One 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate why it was improper? Thanks!--Cerejota 04:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, non-admin closures should only take place when there is an overwhelming and clear consensus to Keep, or when one of the speedy keep criteria applies. This AfD did not have a clear consensus - far from it - and should have been left to an admin. Having said that, there certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, so Sandstein's speedy reversal of the decision was equally inappropriate IMO. Walton^One 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that I will have it in mind in the future, and apologize. However, I must strongly agree the deletion was very bad, as seems to be the opinion of a number of editors. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion There was clearly no consensus to delete, nor is there any consensus that this list violates WP:NOT#DIR or WP:NOT#IINFO. Simply asserting that something is a "directory" or an "indiscriminate collection of information" does not make it a violation of policy (any more than simply citing the policy that "Wikipedia is not paper" means that an article must be kept). DHowell 04:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Tdimm2.JPG – Deletion endorsed. The deletion guidelines for administrators are guidelines, meaning that they are -- in fact -- subservient to policies, like WP:NFCC. This DRV nomination fails both on strength of numbers, and of argument. – Xoloz 15:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did not reach consensus, the image was listed for deletion here and three users clearly said to keep, while only one was for deleting it, yet it was still deleted. A featured article on another pop song ("Hollaback Girl") features four images of the video or performances, and this article can't have one?? The image also had a fair use rationale section. Thankyoubaby 05:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(From deleting admin) The argument to keep was that there was commentary in the article on the image. There was none. The image caption was ""That Don't Impress Me Much" video" and the only mention of the image was "It depicts Twain walking around in the desert, in her infamous leopard skin outfit." That was adequately conveyed by the words alone and the use of the adjective, "infamous," was an opinion and unsupported by any citations. The way the image was used failed WP:NFCC #8 and was deleted on policy grounds. -Nv8200p talk 12:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. For clarification, Hollaback Girl contains only one non-free image of the video, and the screencap there is clearly strongly supportive of the accompanying text. I wouldn't object to a different screencap to capture the style of this video in a matter similar to Hollaback Girl's non-free image. This was just a singer closeup. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the desert and her costume, which is being discussed, "Hollaback Girl"'s is Gwen Stefani in a car, I can't see how that is more "supportive". Thankyoubaby 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion Image was improperly deleted. Deleting admin contravened clear and emphatic language of Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In this case, two objections to the image's deletion were raised on the basis of its value (a fundamental criterion, per NFCC#8) and there was obviously no consensus to delete. It was claimed neither at the point of nomination nor deletion that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction. In deleting, admin improperly valued his/her personal opinion about a subjective matter--the value of the image to the article--over the clear language of the instruction.—DCGeist 16:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free content criteria policy has to be given priority over the deletion guidelines. -Nv8200p talk 03:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you'll excuse the inevitable humor of the phrasing, the policy for determining whether the policy has been satisifed is expressed in the administrators' instructions, which have a weight beyond those of guidelines.—DCGeist 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page you are quoting from was a feeble attempt to condense the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Look at the article history. There are only a few contributors and an insignificant amount of discussion on the page. That page does not have enough weight to circumvent the NFCC policy. -Nv8200p talk 15:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the instructions' edit history. Even more significantly, I looked at the prominent manner in which the primary IfD page links to the instructions: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Instructions_for_administrators. Not so feeble.—DCGeist 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators were poorly derived from a guideline. The reason to delete was based on policy. -Nv8200p talk 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion per consensus in IfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - No consensus for such and this represents another example of improper admin behavior and flouting of our own policies. When is this going to end? Badagnani 07:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It will never end, admins will always make mistakes, admins are human too. Of course assuming that all admins are maliciously ignoring our own community set policies is going a bit overboard. Most likely the admin who did the close thought he/she was doing it per our policies, and doing the action in good faith, remember these discussions are not a vote, admins are charged to figure out the stronger argument, and they don't always get it right... but they close 100-200 articles for deletion debates daily, more then 500 speedy deletion canidates daily and end up with about 5 improper decisions. (as measured by a very unscientific average of what goes through DRV). Thats really not that bad of a hit/miss ratio ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to note that I do endorse this deletion, policy trumps, want the policy changed, go to the policy's talk page. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correction Neither I nor anyone elsewho has voted to overturn has called for a change in policy. We want the policy enforced. Here's the policy, once again, for your benefit straight from the deletion policy page: "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate."—DCGeist 04:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What you are referring to applies in the case of deletions based on discussions of notability, etc. If the article or image violates U. S. Law or Wikipedia policy, the admin will delete it even if there is no consensus. Based on numerous previous discussions and DRVs, the image failed the current WP:NFCC policy as currently written and also the screenshot tag requirement for critical commentary. -Nv8200p talk 12:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, Nv8200p, that's simply wrong. That's not policy. I really have to ask you as an admin who wants to participate in closing deletion discussions and deleting images to refamiliarize yourself with the deletion policy. Please reread in particular Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. There is absolutely no distinction drawn between "deletions based on discussions of notability" vs. those based on "Wikipedia policy"; admins are not directed to abide by consensus in one case, but essentially make the determination themselves in others. You may have been led to believe it's true; several admins have been acting as if it's true--but it's not. It is quite evidently not part of our deletion policy. (Remember, for the extreme legal case of blatant copyright violations, policy provides for a special process.) Consensus is determinitive in all deletion discussions.
      - Here is the deletion policy: The discussion determines by consensus whether the image adheres to Wikipedia image policy--the discussion may center on an image's notability, on whether an image is obsolete, on whether it has been legitimately tagged, on whether it is of sufficiently high visual quality, or anything else covered in Wikipedia image policy. If no consensus to delete is arrived at in that discussion, the image is not deleted. The admin who chooses to close does not get to determine on his or her own whether the consensus or lack thereof is wise or correct, simply whether consensus to delete exists or not--not by "headcount," not by "vote," but by a common sense reckoning of consensus just like anywhere else on Wikipedia. If there is a discussion and consensus is to keep, obviously the image is kept. If there is a discussion and no consensus, the image is kept. If there is a discussion and there is doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete or not, the image is kept. That is the deletion policy as expressed on the policy page and underscored by the guideline. That a culture of violating the policy has emerged does not legitimate such violations.—DCGeist 15:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per Nv8200p's rationale and comments here. The use of non-free content is constrained by policy, and IfD cannot override that. The only way to have non-free content kept is to demonstrate that it is being used in accordance with policy. No such case was or has been made for this image. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you've written is (like the previous defense statement) simply not true. A case was made in IfD that this image was being used in accordance with policy, clearly responding to nominator's NFCC#8 concern. User:Jheald made it: "Keep. Appropriately illustrative of setting, styling, and odd leopard skin outfit, discussed in the article." Another case was made in IfD that this image was being used in accordance with policy. User:Knulclunk made it: "Used commentary as permitted by WP:NFC#Examples of acceptable use: Film and television screen shots:"For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Keep for video commentary only." User:Thankyoubaby also voted to keep, clearly agreeing with the case made by Knulclunk. You may not be impressed by the cases made that the image was being used in accordance in policy; you may disagree with them. But please don't misrepresent the facts by saying they weren't made. The consensus, based on the arguments made in discussion, was clearly to keep the image. Closing admin thus violated Wikipedia policy by deleting.—DCGeist 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, none of the numerous one line comments discussed why the presence of the image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding or why the image could not be replaced by text that serves a similar function as required by NFCC policy, item 8. -Nv8200p talk 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query OK, I think we're at least talking in the same room here. If I'm interpreting your point correctly, you're saying that in judging whether consensus to delete existed, you discounted Jheald's and Knulclunk's statements because they did not address nominator's NFCC#8 concerns. Now let's take each statement, applying common sense. I'll just examine Jheald's in this query.
When Jheald writes, "Appropriately illustrative of setting, styling, and odd leopard skin outfit," isn't it common sense to conclude that s/he is arguing that the image significantly increases readers' understanding of that setting, that styling, and that leopard skin outfit? When Jheald points out, "as discussed in the article," isn't it common sense to conclude that s/he is pointing out that the text underscores the significance of these matters to the topic? Isn't it reasonable to conclude that Jheald believes that omitting this material would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic?
As another way of phrasing my query, would you not have discounted Jheald's comment if it had been phrased thus: ""Appropriately illustrative of setting, styling, and odd leopard skin outfit that significantly increases readers' understanding of these matters. The significance of these matters to an understanding of the topic is discussed in the text. Omitting the image would be detrimental to understanding these particular matters. While the text of the article can explain the significance of these matters, it cannot make the reader fully understand them in the absence of the image. Use of the image thus adheres to the requirements of relevant Wikipedia image policy for non-free content--item 8"? Or would you still have discounted Jheald's position in deciding whether consensus to delete existed?—DCGeist 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll, it's better, but you can throw in as many "significants" as you want, but that don't make it so. Look at this article. Paragraph 7 provides cited critical commentary about the image on the right and the caption of the image ties the image back to the text. -Nv8200p talk 03:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a superior article. (Though it does have a photo captioned "Iconic publicity photo of Anthony Perkins" without a reliable source. Shall we IfD that?) But the point here is what your job is when you elect to close an IfD discussion. Policy makes it clear that's it not to decide who's right and who's wrong, it's to decide what the consensus, if any, was. Because consensus is not based on a simple headcount or vote, you may be called upon in certain cases to weigh arguments a bit more or less heavily, but in general, one participant's voice is no more or less valuable than any other's. I simply cannot see how you could reasonably conclude that Videmus Omnia's lone argument in support of deletion clearly outweighed Jheald's and Knulclunk's more substantial ones for retention (I am entirely discounting Thankyoubaby's keep vote). I have to say, in other words, that I believe you did not base your deletion on a reasonable assessment of the discussion and the consensus it reached. I believe the evidence--including the wording of your rationale and even your response to my query here (and I do appreciate you responding)--demonstrates that you based your deletion on your own assessment of the image's adherence to NFCC, in violation of deletion discussion policy.—DCGeist 03:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "iconic" image of Anthony Perkins should go to IFD. Please nominate if you want to, I did not take the time yet. -Nv8200p talk 13:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 August 2007[edit]

Tristan Tondino – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 12:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON Joseane 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseane, take a look at the help pages. If there is substantial discussion of this artist in national press, then get the citations to it. You can always create the article as a draft on your user talk page (user talk:Joseane) until you believe it passes the deletion guidelines and then move it to article space and come to DRV with your reasoning on why this is a new article that has none of the faults of the deleted ones. Geogre 13:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - The entire page was blank when this was created. There was nothing on the page whatsoever aside from an attempt at a hangon tag and the user's name. Smashville 16:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (That was just the latest one. It appears that the contributor really is floundering when it comes to creating a page and isn't quite getting the hang of the standards. There were multiple attempts before. Hence my attempt at being nice.) Geogre 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, per this argument. Also, the user requesting undeletion is rather new (yes, Joseane has been editing since 2006, but the user only has 100 edits) and so I would encourage a more experienced editor, i.e. even more experienced than I and who better knows all the policies, to perhaps help provide this new user some mentorship on AfDs and deletion reviews as well as article creation. Joseane seems motivated and I think additional, constructive guidance will be helpful to that user. If anyone does decide to do so, please remember that Joseane is new. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Sorry, a user being new doesn't overrule a unanimous AFD, in my opinion. --Core desat 08:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: I had thought it unnecessary to formally state this, but I guess not. Obviously, the user can get a mentor and craft the article in user space, but the deletions were just. Geogre 11:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The people who wish for this to be deleted, should leave a note on the user's talk page as to why (not a boiler plate message). It might give us another constructive user if you are able to explain what is and is not acceptable into this encyclopaedia. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nextgen – Overturned by JIP, if someone wishes to AFD feel free to do so. – —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The creator of the article left this message at my talk page:

Hello, I was just curious as to why my article NextGen was deleted. This article was a start to the Next Generation Air Traffic control system being implemented within the United States currently. It is a multi-billion dollar project underway transitioning the current ground based radar system into a high tech satellite controlled system. It was not spam, unless it was hijacked without my knowledge, and should have offered no conflict of interest.

The article should perhaps be restored as not intended as spam. JIP | Talk 04:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks real, substantial, and unlikely to be spammed. [63] --SmokeyJoe 10:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore as deleted on incorrect grounds. Golfcam 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Definitely not spam. Abberley2 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, unlikely to fit spam criteria. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above, but rename to NextGen. While I know this currently goes to a dab, that dab doesn't disambiguate between anything actually called "NextGen" (so, perhaps a "for other uses" message on top of the NextGen article leading to the dab would suffice). -- Kicking222 01:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted per unanimous opinion above. JIP | Talk 12:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ken_Stein – Deletion endorsed. Fairly clear-cut case of CSD A7. – IronGargoyle 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

invalid speedy deletion - The exact reason for deletion was "00:03, 24 August 2007 Jaranda (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ken Stein" (CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance)"

The article was about an American actor with five feature films (plus one in production), one major music video, and 20 stage productions in their career. If they're significant enough to be listed on IMDB and have newspaper articles written about them, why are they not significant enough for wikipedia?? I would have used the "hangon" tag to argue the point, but Jaranda kept prematurely deleting the article without giving me the opportunity. KennethStein 01:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As deleted, it specified that the role was uncredited, and didn't make any mention of newspaper articles. Many people have imdb profiles who don't have enough information available about them to write an encyclopedic article. If you can turn up reliable secondary sources that document the notability of the subject then we can have an article. Also, it appears that you're writing about yourself. I'd recommend not doing that, and reading our policy on conflicts of interest. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the written biography stated that the first role was uncredited. But, the filmography actually listed four additional roles. The criteria listed on the "Criteria for notability of people" (WP:BIO) state: Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. Clearly, at least three of the roles would be cosidered "significant". Granted, an "uncredited" role would not qualify as significant, but four other roles were listed, in addition to the uncredited one. The article was deleted before it could be edited to include any additional information to demonstrate significance. If there is question about notability, that is more appropriate for research via AFD, not speedy deletion. KennethStein 00:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion WP:BIO requires entertainers to have major roles and a fan base. You have neither. Sasha Callahan 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must dispute that. What you are stating is factually incorrect. The "Criteria for notability of people" (WP:BIO) require a "significant" (not as you state "major") role OR "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" they are two separate criteria. They are not both required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennethStein (talk • contribs)
  - Okay, you don't have either a significant role or a large fan base. I still endorse deletion Sasha Callahan 01:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clearly, you are uninformed with regard to cinema if you would state "you don't have either a significant role...". You're making an arbitrary judgement based on your opinion, without having seen any of the films in question. (One could theoretically argue that, by definition, any credited role is "significant" - thus the reason is that it's a credited role). Others would argue that any character that has a unique impact on the storyline would be considered significant. But, by the very nature of opinions, what one person considers "significant", another might not. KennethStein 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you feel your so important to the world of film, go start a Ken SteinPedia. Sasha Callahan 01:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If you are incapable of rationally debating a point of contention without making sacrastic personal attacks, then perhaps your opinion shouldn't be voiced in a public forum where it is subject to a counter-argument.KennethStein 01:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps we shouldn't call a user "uninformed" because she disagrees with you. You need to realize that you do not meet this projects criteria for notability. You've played yourself, a courtroom observer/bar patron, and dancing/laughing student. You're a glorified extra. Bye-Bye Ken Stein on wikipedia. Sasha Callahan 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Uninformed" was a statement of fact. The comments you made clearly demonstrate an unfamiliarity with regard to the entertainment industry. You're no more qualified to be debating cinema than I would be debating the historical significance of the Crimean War or particle physics. You might have a leg to stand on if you could refrain from personalizing the debate and keeping the debate professional and polite. The thinly veiled and openly sarcastic insults have no place in a debate. I could refer to you as a "glorfied housewife," but that really would just be mudslinging. You want to debate rationally, I'm all over that, but I have more respect for others who might read this than to resort to your (obviously limited) level of discussion. KennethStein 02:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Only after looking at your profile, did I realize you were 16, which explains your immaturity. Perhaps my time would be better spent debating someone who [I don't know...] has a drivers license, or has actaully graduated high school, or for that matter, can simply vote... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KennethStein (talk • contribs) 02:11, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
        
        I suggest you both please mind the civility rules. Ken - people of all ages are welcome to participate; Sasha - chill out, no need to personalize this debate. I think you guys both need to ease up on the ad hominems. Wickethewok 14:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suggest both of you read WP:NPA in its entirety, and follow it. Thanks. —Kurykh 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Endorse - In addition to complete lack of notability, article is autobiographical Smashville 02:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - There's 4 "Ken Stein" listings at the imdb, I assume this is Ken Stein (IV), since I is a director, II is a crewman, and III is dead? If so, minor billing in a porn film, 2 uncredited roles, and 11th billing as a ghoul in an indie silent film is pretty insignificant in terms of notability. Tarc 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I do not believe speedy would have been a mistake or error of process. The subject's IMDB credits state the case clearly. An actor of genuine stature would be able to assert notability amply in the opening paragraph, and not simply reposting a deleted bio, nor try to build a Walled garden of films he's appeared in in unnamed roles. Even if the films he's appeared in were notable, he may still not be. And I don't think he is notable. Ohconfucius 03:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The trouble I have with defining "significance" is that is is largely based on opinion, and often by people the least qualified to determine it. For example: Tarc states (incorrectly) "...and 11th billing as a ghoul in an indie silent film is pretty insignificant in terms of notability...". If he knew how to read IMDB, he'd realize that "ghoul" is the second of two roles in the film, with "Minister's Henchman" being the bigger of the two. Not having seen the film, it's easy to assume that with a non-descript name like "Minister's Henchman" that the role is not "significant". But would one say the same of "Number Two" (Dr. Evil's henchman) in Austin Powers? Perhaps. Perhaps not. One could reasonably argue that Robert Wagner's role was significant, while another could probably argue the opposite. Some people would define "significant" as any character that has a unique impact on the storyline. That's the trouble when people start opining, especially regarding a subject about which they have limited or no knowledge, you often get lost in the "my opinion is right and yours isn't" debate, which is, of course, unwinnable. Another issue is then the dozens or hundreds of articles regarding people (for example: Michael Paré), whose "notabilty" is debatable. Why does he get a page, and someone else not. Of 100 people on the street, how many would recognize the name? I suspect not very many. But when you say "the guy from Eddie and the Cruisers" or Hope Floats, then they go "Oh yea..." does that make him "notable" or the role "significant"? KennethStein 04:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can read just fine good sir, but can you answer a question? This is what appears to be the official movie poster. Which one are you? Tarc 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to Tarc - To my knowledge, that's not the official movie poster, that has yet to be released. I am not pictured there, although I can be seen briefly in the teaser-trailer. Perhaps ironically enough, while the four actors in the middle are lead/suporting actors, the ones on each end of the photo are extras (possibly "featured extras"). (Perhaps I should have stated "interpreted IMDB", I was not attempting to impugn your reading ability).
On another note - Because the film is still classified as "in production" the credits are subject to change. I may wind up 3rd or even 33rd in credits order. My understanding is that I'll actually have 3 seperate acting credits in the film (because I have 3 different roles - two of which are in heavy makeup/prosthetics as ghouls). There are several methods for determining the credtits order for a film: 1. In order of prominence in the film; 2. In order of appearance in the film; 3. Alphabetical order; 4. (I've even seen) Indeterminate or random order.208.101.170.165 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a poster hosted by the production company used to advertise the film, that if pretty much what I'd call "official", and if you aren't even in that.... it seems like you're a minor character in a movie that itself is having questions of notability over in its own AfD. Maybe someday this'll come out different, but for now I gotta go with an endorse delete. Sorry. Tarc 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Tarc - I'm not sure why you keep referring to a photo on a webpage as a "poster", it meets no definition of "poster" that I'm aware of (perhaps you can enlighten me...). I've already made it clear that my character is a supporting role. I never claimed to be one of the leads, or that I'm going to be accepting an Oscar this coming March. The point of the debate was whether the role is significant, which is one test for determining "Criteria for notability of people" [Entertainers](WP:BIO), which reads: "Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.". It doesn't say "Lead Role" or "Top Billing" or "in the 1st ten credits listed" nor does it define "major" or "minor" characters - it says the role must be "significant". By definition, a suopporting role is considered significant. 208.101.170.165 18:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the same as Michael Paré. Just because he's not a household name doesn't mean that he's not significant or notable. He had a regular supporting role on a major primetime network TV show. And the lead role in a major motion picture (albeit a flop) in the 1980's. Smashville 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Clearly not notable and COI issues to boot. Sasha Callahan should take it easy though. These COI posters will get pissed a lot but antagonizing them just makes it worse. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - an "interest" is not the same as a "conflict of interest". A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests.
- It should also be noted, that there is no rule against someone creating their own page or editing their own article. It is only advisable to use caution when doing so. The idea is to maintain a tone of neutrality or impartiality. Which is why it a simple statement of verifiable historical fact should be OK, while critical praise or salutations would not be...KennethStein 04:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is refering to the Wikipedia policy about conflicts of interest. Atropos 05:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion Even before we get into the significance of the roles in question, it would seem that even the films themselves are not notable, in that they do not follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (films). Now, that being said, if it were necessary to travel into the world of "significance" I'd be willing to wager that the two uncredited roles are not significant (although I may be wrong), and that the role in the pornographic film, even if it was a significant role, was not in a notable film, due to the simple mass-production of pornography. In addition, the fourth film is indeed not notable, so signficance is not even subject to question. All in all, I have no quarrel with the manner of the initial deletion, and no evidence of misconduct/misplaced judgement, so I see no reason to overturn the decision. Calgary 07:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Arbitrary judgments on significance aside, there are no independent reliable sources discussing this individual and thus fails WP:ATT/WP:V/WP:OR. Wickethewok 14:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11th credited in the cast of what he considers his magnum opus, the only film produced by the production company, according to imdb, and it hasn't even been released yet. If it becomes a huge cult hit and the actor becomes a cult favorite and there are lots of commentaries about him in reliable sources, then relist, but until then, endorse deletion. Corvus cornix 16:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to Corvus cornix - LOL. I don't recall ever using the term "magnum opus" (I don't even know what that is, but I may have to file that away for my press interviews...). Yes it is the first film for Michael Pleckaitis's production company (RevScope) but it's not his first film as director, it's his 4th. Google him. There are plenty of results. 208.101.170.165 16:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, not even barely notable. Fails WP:BIO via reliable sources criterion. Although accomplished as a creative professional, has not reached the level of notability necessary for a Wikipedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. My sister has an IMDB profile, and she ain't notable either. Roles such as "laughing student","henchman" and "courtroom observer" argue that this individuals career thus far has been as an extra, nothing more. Not everybody in the movie business is notable. Reso lute 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No ass ertion of notability; clearly an A7. Carlossuarez46 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion this is pretty cut and dry. Ken, learn a little about wikipedia policies and you'll see there is currently no room for an article about you here. Sethie 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over-turn deletion, list at {{afd}}
- Well over half the views expressed here are out of order. {{drv}} is not {{afd}}. If my reading of the rules for {{drv}} is correct, when an article is listed here on {{drv}} the discussion is not supposed to focus around whether or the article in question belongs on the wikipeida. The only points that are in order here are points about whether the wikipedia's rules on deletion were followed. User:KennethStein says he tried to put a {{hangon}} on the article, but he was prevented by User:Jaranda. The deletion log does show that did delete the article twice, just three minutes apart. The record also shows no attempts on Jaranda's part to contact User:Kenneth Stein. I think what should have happened is:
  1. Jaranda should have seen that the offencder was a new contributor, and left a note, something like: Did you realize you just recreated an article that was deleted according to WP:CSD? Did you realized that any administrator is authorized to eliminate such recreations on sight?"
  2. KS should have explained to Jaranda, what he wrote above, that he was in the process of address the concern about signficance when the article was deleted out from under him.
  3. Jaranda should then have restored the article. The policies don't state a fixed time between when a nominator placed a speedy deletion notice, and when an administrator can come along, note that there was no {{hangon}}, and delecte the artcile Given that there is no deadline it would be completely unreasonable for Jaranda to assert that KS's attempt to place the {{hangon}} were three minutes, or less, too late.
  4. I have no problem if Jaranda noted to KS that the article in question seemed autobiogrphical, and warned that special rules applied to autobiographical articles. I have no problem if Jaranda told KS to read the relevant rules on articles about one's self, and warned KS that they were going to check back in 24 hours, and that they would initiate an {{afd}} if the article didn't comply with policy. In fact I think this would have been the responsible thing to do.
- I am going to repeat that all the arguments above, about whether or not the article merited inclusion are out of order. Only argument as to whether the wikipedia's policies were followed sensibly are in order.
- P.S. If the aritcle is restored, and listed for {{afd}}, I would like to suggest that participants here give KS 24 hours to read the policies on contributing to articles about yourself, and do his best to dig up references that support significance.. I suggest giving him 24 hours to do his best to come up with a draft that he thinks has a fair chance to withstand {{afd}}. When he got a 12 hour block recently, the note on his talk page told him it was not a punishment, just an opportunity for him to cool off. I think it would best serve the wikipedia if we were gracious. If, even after 24 hours, we still think the article isn't viable, nothing prevents us from being tactful in how we express that opinion. Geo Swan 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note: While this was a valid deletion (hangon is not a requirement, admins don't have to read the arguments from the hangon request, but they often do), the deleting admin should have been a bit better about informing the new user. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also point out that notes on the merit of the article here as pertains to speedy deleted articles is not entirely bad. See the case of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EasyProjectPlan, in which I pointed out to the creator our basic content standards, at the drv, and later when it moved to AFD, the creator requested deletion. The point being is that if something gets speedy deleted, and the creator is unable or unwilling to make the basic improvements to meet our verifiability policy or any other policy, leaving it deleted is often the best thing to do, as long as there is the possibility to recreate a version of the page that does meet our policies. (this is only a good idea to do in cases where at DRV its blatantly obvious that it does not meet any policy). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 August 2007[edit]

The Millers – Speedy deletions overturned; listed at AfD. – Xoloz 09:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also At Last (band). Same reasons as for my DRV request yesterday on The Duttons and some other America's Got Talent Season 2 top ten competitors, except I had missed that these two top ten from season 1 had also been speedy deleted. Invalid speedy deletion. Making the top ten on America's Got Talent gives at *least* an assertion of notability. Whether that is enough notability for the article to remain is an issue for AFD, but IMHO it is definitely enough to invalidate speedy deletion. The Millers survived one AFD already as a Keep, further invalidating speedy deletion. The deletion of At Last mentioned it being advertising SPAM, which I fully dispute. It was a fairly typical stub article on a reality TV show participant group, assembled by a number of editors over the course of a year. If POV stuff had crept in, that is reason for cleaning it up, not for speedy deletion. It simply is not SPAM. The remaining reasons given for speedy of them both, lack of references and lack of secondary sources, are both once again issues for AFD, not valid criteria for speedy deletion. TexasAndroid 16:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and (optionally) list at AfD per TA, who very well explains why speedy deletion was inappropriate here (especially relative to The Millers), and consistent with the DRV on The Duttons infra, which seems to be on all fours with this one. Joe 19:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and List view - I don't see either article being an A7 nor a G11. Bridgeplayer 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion per above. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore Not spam, not a speedy. Notability implied, even if disputable. Golfcam 14:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per nom. Abberley2 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Permanent_North_American_Gaeltacht – Deletion still endorsed. Prior DRV just closed yesterday -- no substantial new information here. – Xoloz 15:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

sources Danjdoyle 15:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Now home from university, I have access to my sources on this. The letter recieved from Éamonn Ó Cuív, Irish minister for Rural and Gaeltacht affairs states: "29 May 2007 Dear Friends, I would like to congratulate the Canadian people for establishing a Gaeltacht in Canada, the first outside of Ireland. I wish every success to your work and I hope that it will grow and develop." (found in "Searmanas Oscáilte Cumann na Gaeltachta" page 7, given out on the official opening). I feel this is all the confirmation needed, as he is the person in charge of Irish Gaeltachts, and even he states firstly that the Canadian one is a Gaeltacht, and secondly, that it is the first of its kind outside of Ireland. I move to have this page re-instated.[reply]

Speedy close. This was closed on Wikipedia:Deletion_review#17_August_2007. A letter is not a reliable source. Corvus cornix 15:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

EasyProjectPlan – undeleted and listed at AfD by deleting admin – —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Angellp, as you are the one creating the article, and presumably know about this product, you are the best person to find reliable sources on this article. We require articles to assert why they should be in Wikipedia, this means make a claim, this software is the number one or number two out of 20 solutions... and then back up you claims with reliable sources. This is not an unreasonable request, otherwise Wikipedia would be filled with all sorts of garbage. For example, the IRC bot I just programmed yesterday does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of how interesting and useful I think it is. A one line article with a link to the (your company's?) site is not up to what we want to have in Wikipedia, we have a goal to write the best Free encyclopedia. In short, even if its undeleted here, it will be undeleted based on process, not on the value of the article, therefor if you really want this page in Wikipedia, please supply a few secondary sources, that are not related to the company website.

Another note: CAPS AND BOLD do not make a good argument either ;). I have no real opinion on the value of the software, but by whats up now, it does not seem to be all that important. (I'm judging by information that has been verified by reliable sources.

To whoever closes this, I understand the arguments I'm making here are not really fit for DRV, but if the improvement to the page can be made now, rather then waiting for us all to take it to yet another ~~hoop~~ process, why not ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure, but you have no sources asserting that its notable or that those facts are true. Look at your second fact, how many companys are recognized by the US government? Do you even have proof somewhere that this is true, or do I have to trust the company website? The third fact is also unsourced, though I'm sure its very easy to look up. In any case just because someone took a copyright on something does note make it encyclopaedic. Do you have any clue how many copyrights are granted by the US government yearly, if we had an article on every copyrighted product we would have 10 times the size of the current encyclopedia, and the vast majority would not even be that notable Finally just because the US government "recognizes" a software product does not make worthwhile of entry, and in any case its not sourced. Is this even notable enough to show up in say a trade magazine? How about an online review by a reputable reviewer? Usage statistics from someone other then the company that makes it? That is what I'm asking for. Even just one of those. So lets look at this... you have asserted 4 facts, I'm willing to take the company's word that its an 'Excel based Project Plan', but the other 3.... can we have some external references? You need to establish a claim that this is a widely used product, or has garnered sufficient attention. Again not every product distributed by every company is put in Wikipedia. I look forward to some sources asserting usage and reviews, along with secondary sources, or even primary sources on the last 3 facts. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note to author: discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_23#EasyProjectPlan —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AngellpPezzullo 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, there is no reference to anything but the company site and that is not a sufficient reliable source. Second, there is nothing wrong with having a link to your site and I never said otherwise. The problem is that it is the only link. Third, the Microsoft Project article is irrelevant -- see Other Stuff Exists. Fourth, there is no claim in the article that it is number 1 in the world. Such a claim might cause it to survive speedy but would have to be backed up by sources. Again, not WP:RS and WP:V. Fifth, there is no argument that the software is trivial and I never said as much; only the sources that seem to exist on Google are trivial. Sixth, a mere listing on Amazon does not make the product notable. Seventh, a copyright has nothing to do with notability. If the author had provided even a claim (assertion) of notability I would not have deleted in the first place. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion. This article was tagged by another editor and I speedied it. It was then recreated in essentially the same condition by User:AngellpPezzullo. Another user tagged it again and I deleted it again and this time salted it. The article bears no resemblance to Microsoft Project. I am unsure what he means by it being in the exact format. The listings on Google were all trivial additions at shareware sites. This article had no assertion of any notability and possessed only one reference which was a link to the company website. I stand by my decision that this is nothing but a spam entry. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 15:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overthrow and list at AfD The full content was "'EasyProjectPlan (or EPP) is an Excel based project management software program developed and sold by EasyProjectPlan LLC which is designed to assist project managers in developing plans, assigning resources to tasks, and tracking progress. EasyProjectPlan v1.0 was released and copyrighted in 2006." The reasons given was only db-corp. This is a clear error, as A7 does not apply to computer programs, & this is an article for the product not the company. As for G11, it seems to be s straightforward listing, without any of the praise of the product that characterises spam. I don't think it fits. I don;t think the product is notable on the information given, but Speedy does not mean "non-notable" it's time my colleague admins learned to use correct reasons. If it is suggested that the scope of speedy should be expanded, that's another matter but i expect us all to follow the existing rules. DGG (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: It's quite a technical reading to say that programs are not including in A7. The point to A7 was anything, biography, song, etc., with no assertion of notability, but computer programs were not explicitly mentioned. This is the "WPNOT Freshmeat.org" principle. Think of all those game mods and shareware programs that are routinely deleted at birth. Surely all of those do not need to go to AfD? The article conveys little information, and the fact that a company made their HelloWorld front end with Excel is really not close to a questionable case, unless we have some indication that this is the first, the most popular, or infamous ... something than merely being for sale. Geogre 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanation It is not by accident that software isn't included--the proposal has been made several times and always rejected by the community. The reason is that the notability or non-notability of software is often not at all evident to non-specialists, and it is therefore not safe in having a single admin delete it--even with the best will in the world. In this case it seems obvious to anyone who has worked with project software or Excel that this product is highly unlikely to be notable, but if we made a general rule for programs, it would be applied wrongly as well. On the other hand, for people there are about 100 articles a day saying things like "Kristina is the most beautiful girl in the whole world. Period." (real instance from today's list)--and there can be no doubt at all about deleting something like that.DGG (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my practice, I believe that discretion is necessary in these cases and DRV is the appeal. With this one, the fact that it was an LLC's front end to Excel was a pretty clear giveaway that this is not actually an application but rather an adaptation. It is like creating a db off Access and selling it -- there are tens of thousands -- because Access allows you to do that. A first order versus second order software is an easy distinction in the absence of an assertion of notability. Thus, if any of the popular (?!?) roll outs were listed, the article would surely say something like "most popular back office in the financial industry" or something else that would be an assertion of notability. Thus, if I see "modification of an application" and "no assertion of notability," I don't think it's a stretch at all to say, "Not much different from Kyle is the Greatest." Geogre 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, I've used such software & developed such macros myself, & I agree with your evaluation. But that's not the point. DGG (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and AFD. Software isn't covered under A7 and it is not an advert, therefore there hasn't been a valid deletion. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and List view - I think that it is fully correct to take make a "technical reading" of the A7 criteria. Speedies are deletion without consensus and therefore should be confined to pages that clearly fall within the criteria that the Community have decided upon. Bridgeplayer 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. CSD A7 only has consensus in its strict form. Evouga 05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Question Since the general consensus here and at this point is that it should not have been deleted as A7, is there any reason why I cannot un-delete now and list at AfD? --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 22:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I know how to program, I understand this space, and also the problem of spam. There are two issues here, 1) Is this a legit product that can substantitate it claims by references other then its own link? If its not I would say that JodyB did a great heads up deletion of advertising, though if I were JodyB I would have explained to the author what is expected as far as reliable sources. Microsoft has a page because that product has been reviewed and has had 3rd party commentary by folks not affiliated with microsoft. That should be the standard for any company service or product, we should be able to find that a) its actually used, and that there are multiple reliable sources asserting its merit, otherwise its potentially false information and claims and at worst just a promo piece. (The link goes to the promotion). JodyB, you did well I think, but you might want to contact the authors of these types of pages and explain to them what is actually required, in this case the author *really* wants this article in, and as such it should be checked for conflict of interest issues, and the overall use of the contribution to the encyclopedoa. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondary note to the author: Generally in this forum and any other wikipedia page, ALL CAPS is discouraged, and does not help your argument, just a heads up. Just so you know the main problem with this article as it stands is the lack of sources. The company website is not a source. See our guidelines on reliable sources. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have un-deleted the article and listed it at AfD for community wide discussion. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 19:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:MargaretWilson.jpg – Image undeleted; listed at IfD to address whether portrayal of all three women while in office constitutes a claim of being irreplaceable, a matter the deleting admin apparently failed to address. IfD will also allow more eyes to examine the question, but it is the new argument that provides grounds for reconsideration. – Xoloz 09:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The image was deleted while a discussion on whether it met fair use criteria was ongoing on the talk page. gadfium 05:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. This image was replaceable under WP:NFCC#1, in that it depicted three living individuals. I understand the original argument that the image was historic, but the people weren't doing anything historic in the photo - they were standing in an office looking at a camera. The photo is replaceable for encyclopedic purposes by free images of the three people depicted. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. A strong case has been made on the image talk page that this image captures a unique moment in New Zealand political history, which cannot now be recaptured with a free image. Tyrenius 07:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarification, what information was contained in the image that can't be conveyed with text or with free images? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Tyrenius. Dominictimms 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The real question here is whether or not its use met our policies on non-free content. This involves checking its usage on articles. If this really is a unique moment, and is explained as such in the article its in, please by all means consider keeping this non-free image, if it is not being used in the article to significantly enhance the article then it should remain deleted. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Image should not have been deleted. Deleting admin closed debate in which consensus to delete had not been reached by announcing that there was no "compelling need" to show the three people in the photo together. As gadfium had clearly explained at the beginning of the debate, the image is crucial because "it shows three of the key figures of the Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand together, at a unique time in New Zealand's history when all three positions were occupied by women." What makes this moment in history unique and notable is precisely the fact that those three people could all appear in one photo together, all while they held powerful positions. Individual photos of the three people would not come close to conveying the exceptional nature of that historical moment.—DCGeist 17:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given the opinions of the users above who debate the image's replacability per WP:NFCC#1, I think it might be worthwhile to undelete for relisting at IfD for wider consensus. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You would be free to re-list when and if its undeleted. Again the core question is not the image itself but the use of the non-free content. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously I felt the image was replaceable or I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as deletor. I followed proper policy in deleting the image. I believe that this image shows no important encyclopedic content that could not be adequately portrayed with a combination of free images and text. A few people disagree with the outcome of the decision, but that's not a valid reason for DRV according to the instructions on this page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

fring – Speedy deletion overturned; listed at AfD. – Xoloz 09:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

new article - Have been editing an article for the fring page on my user page, please provide help getting it listed. Let me know what I need to add or remove so the page is useful for users. Goplett 09:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Actually, it's been deleted 8 times in the past although I am not sure they were all identical. This one was deleted in March and is just now coming here? The deletion was appropriate as it was spam.--JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 15:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List at AfD the first paragraph of content was:" "fring" is a native mVoIP (mobile VoIP) network founded by veterans from the mobile and internet industries. It is the first peer-to-peer voice over Internet Protocol solution specifically conceived and designed for the mobile domain "Mobile VoIP means business". ZDNet. Retrieved 2007-03-12.. fring provides peer-to-peer mVoIP allowing users to make free calls over mobile and cellular networks." The rest of the article contains some spam but it could easily have been truncated, and thus not a valid G11. DGG (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD: Yet another program, but it makes claims for being important, and it has references to discussion, although that discussion doesn't seem very substantial. I wouldn't take a bet on the AfD outcome, but it's not a CSD. Geogre 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AFD, per Geogre. Doesn't seem to meet A7 or G11, which are the only two obvious CSDs (CsSD?) relevant here. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: My suggestion here is to simply restore and remove the content considered spam. If someone really wishes to AFD the page they can do it themselves. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD G11 is used for articles which are used to exclusively promote an entity (ie it is ad copy); having a neutral third-party reference, IMO, disqualifies it. The spam can be cut from the article. ColourBurst 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 August 2007[edit]

Josh Warner – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 03:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original consensus for the deletion review(see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josh_Warner_(second_nomination)) was that there were not enough independent sources to keep the Josh Warner article on WP. Last night, episode 3 of LA Ink aired. In this episode, Kat Von D went to visit "World famous Los Angeles jewelry designer, Josh Warner" to have pendants made for her staff. Josh Warner and his work were then featured on the show. Does anyone think that this is enough to bring the article back? Shaunco 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video at www.tlc.com/fullepisodes Episode 1, Eric Balfour scene was filmed at Josh Warner's studio; Episode 3, Kat asks Josh to make custom LA Ink pendants for her team. Shaunco 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a mere promotional appearance of no real significance, and all on a basic-cable show. I'll betcha that he's listed in the end credits under "Promotional consideration by". So no, not even close. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he was listed in the credits as "Special Thanks To". Shaunco 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Still no sources available from which to write an encyclopedia article. Appearing on a cable TV show does not indicate anything. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse retention Best thing to come out of Virginia since Washington. 69.143.236.33 07:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid AFD and nothing new here that can be considered notability. --Core desat 09:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Charles Pearce – Keep close endorsed – WjBscribe 15:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article recently survived AFD, in my view on mistaken arguments for notability. The Keep votes, and the closing decision, judged notability based on his appearance in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. A full entry would be undeniably notable: but he only gets four lines in the 90-line article on his son, Alfred James Pearce (which is nothing unusual, as all articles in the ODNB give brief mention of subjects' parents). As WP:NOTINHERITED says "notability is not inherited up, from notable subordinate to parent", I don't think this small ODNB coverage automatically confers notability. Gordonofcartoon 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse retention His own place in medical history appears to be fairly substantial. We wouldn't delete an article about 21st century author of several books about a controversial issue who had also been tried for his life in connection with that same controversy. His connection with his son is not used in the article to make a claim for inherited notability , so it is irrelevant whether or not it would be legitimate to so use it. Carina22 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't tried for his life; and it wasn't in connection with the same controversy (i.e. vaccination). As I said, editors arguing on mistaken information.

Manslaughter wasn't a capital crime in 1849. Working-class people convicted got transportation or a couple of years hard labour; but doctors convicted around that time got very lenient sentences: a year or even only several months in prison, without hard labour. This comes from refs 20 and 23 to Doctors charged with manslaughter in the course of medical practice, 1795-2005: a literature review. Gordonofcartoon 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse retention. He may not be exceptionally notable, but he is notable enough. A book published in 1850 included a 60-page regurgitation of his trial, showing that the movement considered the trial of Pearce an attack on homeopathy itself. The case was covered by the London Medical Gazette and the Journal of Health and Disease as well. --Dhartung | Talk 02:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! At last, some good information that wasn;t present at teh AFD. Gordonofcartoon 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my own keep closure at AfD. As I tried to explain to the DRV nominator, his disagreement with the consensus interpretation of the significance of the ODNB is no reason to overturn the debate. The matter was fully considered, his position was distinct minority, and deletion was in no way compelled by policy. No other reasonable close of the AfD was possible, under the circumstances, and no new arguments are raised in the DRV nomination here. Xoloz 10:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if you, or any of the others who voted Keep on its signifcance, have actually read the entry. Which bit of what I said did you not understand? Everyone in ODNB's parents are mentioned, whether they're surgeons, seamstresses or streetsweepers. Their notability has to be determined independently, on its own merits.

Yet there was no sign of that happening. The decision was made purely on his presence there (even though you tried to fob me off with some yarn about your closing statement to that effect being obiter dicta - see User_talk:Gordonofcartoon#Pearce).

Arguments also were made on the basis of embroidered details, continuing even here, like inflating the coverage (the reality of "four lines" in the ODNB mysteriously grew to "a paragraph") and inflating the seriousness of the offence (as above).

If ultimately you're saying that it doesn't really matter because there was a consensus anyway, it just boils down to majority vote. I wasn't aware that was policy for AFDs. Gordonofcartoon 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one's arguments are poor enough, majority vote alone is enough to defeat them, yes. Yours are. Xoloz 15:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus does not mean majority vote, but consensus is how we decide things. See Deciding whether to delete. For example, This AfD that I nominated is going to be a keep because of consensus, even though policy says it should not be kept. Usually consensus and policy match up, but occasionally they do not. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse retention Given the above information, there isn't any reasonable doubt about his notability, which renders the nominator's point about his son irrelevant. Dominictimms 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep: The people who opposed vaccination are kind of important. The DNB, and I say this as a fan, has a conservative bias from its 1898 positivistic beginnings. For the most part, that conservativism is inherently good and something we should emulate, but History has changed, and cultural history and the discontents of a historical moment are more interesting to us today than they were in 1900. As the article stands now, it's ok. More primary research would be nice, but that's not our job. Geogre 21:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original closing decision since the closer interpreted the debate correctly. Here's something you may want to ponder. Charles Pearce may not be notable, but the topic is Wikipedia:Notable. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doug_Rokke – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrongly Deleted, no reply from deleting admin. If you will not restore, please email me a copy. I believe the discussion about Doug Rokke's background on the page to highly relevant, because Rokke makes some controversial claims about his qualifications and portrays himself as an expert on depleted uranium munitions, which is a controversial subject. Thank you. Jim hoerner 21:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jredmond ] Jim hoerner 21:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a speedy delete as I can't find the AfD discussion? If it was a speedy it sounds like it probably should be overturned. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The deletion log calls the page a thinly veiled attack. And I agree that speedy deletion criterion G10 applies. Whatever his level of notability, any article must be well cited to reliable sources and refrain from unsourced negative statements. Eluchil404 03:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, looks like an attack page to me. --Core desat 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At [ http://web.archive.org/web/20060913000000/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Rokke ] Web Archive shows a version that seems rather unbiased, but I think there were more recent version that were much better. Why delete if reverting to a previous version is more appropriate? Wiki says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."

If you will not reconsider, could you please email me the article? Thank you Jim hoerner 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though undocumented, it is simply negative and controversial rather than downright libel, and I do not think it will be misused, so I have emailed the article. Probably it could be used if every statement were sourced & the judgemental aspects removed. DGG (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you DGG. There are many web pages out there that reference this wrongly-deleted wiki page. I have no malicious intent, but I cannot help it if Rokke is controversial. The censors, I mean admins, can do what they want. Best regards, Jim hoerner 03:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

North Carolina Tigers – This DRV isn't the place to request relisting of articles not directly at issue (ie. "all the other teams in the league"); anyone wishing to AfD those may do so editorially at any time. The only relevant issue here is the request to unprotect the NC Tigers redirect. Per Geogre, and bearing in mind the userfy comments also, I would suggest the DRV nominator compose a possible article for the team in his userspace, and return to DRV with it. Only with that evidence in hand could editors truly evaluate the merit of undoing the redirect. Userfication of the deleted history would not be very helpful in composing an encyclopedic article in this case: start afresh please. Endorse status quo without prejudice. – Xoloz 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to have the Protected redirect removed from this project, I am a member of this team and would like to make edits to the project and since other teams in the league have their own project pages, we should have the same ability. SpaceCowboy9 11:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permit re-creation The AfD was over a year ago. It can of course be argued that the other pages should be deleted also,and in fact the deletor proposed "so this may be a litmus-test for similar AFL related teams - WP:AFL". Those other article, however, seem never to have been challenged, and a least a few have been improved beyond the stubs they were at the time. The last version of this article was not a stub . And I am not satisfied by the arguments at the AfD, which do not seem to confirm to the usual highest national level rule , and i think the result might well be different.DGG (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Tigers which is a valid AFD, without independent, reliable sources out there 2,000 google hits, nothing much other than the own website [64], I would have endorsed the Redirect, but because the AFD was over a year ago, Relist in AFD with the rest of the teams in the league. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist all teams in league Seems like most of the articles should go. If some of the teams are more notable than others list them separately. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy view. The nominator's AFD rationale was excellent. I am happy for the article to be userfied to enable a sourced version to be created if the appellant considers that he can establish notability but I see no basis to allow recreation at this stage since I am highly sceptical about any notability for Aussie rules football clubs in the US. The concept, suggested by others, of listing all the other teams has much merit. Bridgeplayer 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo: I really, really, really, really don't see the advantage to userfication. One of the things we're not is a free web host. I'm not accusing anyone when I say that, but, let's face it, "Because I'm on the team" is more of an Angelfire rationale than a DRV one. I can't see any indication whatsoever that these clubs are doing more than providing an admirable fun and social outlet for their participants and fans. Geogre 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, I don't want to appear argumentative, but I don't see the problem with userfying. As I say above, I very much doubt if a notable article can be produced but if an editor wants to try why not help them, it's not as if we can stop them working an article up from scratch in their sandbox (nor should we IMHO)? If it hangs around in the user space too long and it is thought that it is being used as a free webspace then that can be dealt with at the time. Bridgeplayer 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the appellant's (?) (nominator's?) argument. He essentially said that he wanted to add to it because he's a player. I'm not trying to indict, and I don't want to be mean to anyone who plays Aussie football (obviously tougher than I am, as I find Checkers to be a violent sport), but that reasoning is private reasoning and not article-building. I never have a problem with sandboxing an article before putting it in article space, and I've actually helped someone in the past who was doing a very borderline anti-Zionist Jewish group, but that didn't seem to be the reasoning. Additionally, I cannot imagine, literally, how a passing article could emerge without some really significant change in history. If I were trying to file this information, I'd say it would be a section entitled "In the US" in the Australian rules football article, in a section of that for "leagues in the US." I'd be happy to be wrong, but, in this case, I don't see how I could be. Geogre 12:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Jameskim-people.jpg – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Consensus not reached on deletion In the discussion for deletion there were more people wishing to keep the image than to delete it, consensus was not reached. Rugz 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The IfD is here. There were two delete !votes, both extensively argued and from experienced admins; and two keep !votes, one by the uploader User:Rugz, and one by an IP, 64.111.46.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who didn't make any substantive arguments and who suspiciously looks like a meat- or sockpuppet of Rugz, sharing with him the same interests in precisely the same two articles, James Kim and Not From Space. By the way, IfD is not a vote. Same goes for the next case just below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And see below. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - especially at IFD, administrators should be making decisions based upon a balance of policy and consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no procedural problems with closure. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:James-kim-techtv.jpg – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 04:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

(restore|cache|IfD)

consensus not reached on deletion In the discussion for deletion there were more people wishing to keep the image than to delete it, consensus was not reached. Rugz 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the admin who closed the case. Actually, two users said that the image should be deleted, and only Rugz said he thought it should be kept. (An anon that made few outside edits also chimed it with a vote and no explanation, but I ignored that.) Rugz' reasoning was that it's a screenshot, so it must be okay. The other commenters reasoned that ~~it's a photo of a living person, that~~ it doesn't show anything that can't be adequately conveyed with text. It was really a pretty obvious decision. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry for correcting you, but that was actually not quite what Angr and I argued. Because incidentally he isn't a living person; the whole article is actually about his death. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Oops, my mistake. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On today's main page is a featured article about Jake Gyllenhaal which includes a screenshot of Gyllenhaal in the movie Donnie Darko, please explain how this is any different than showing screenshot of James Kim on TV show. The fair use info on the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donniedarkoskelcostume.jpg should also be in question using your rationale. Rugz 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per my reasoning on the entry above. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no procedural problems with closure. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Image is valuable per NFCC#8. It gives us important information about Kim's appearance on the show, the appearance of the show itself, the style of dress and demeanor of correspondents on such a show at the relevant point in media history. Some of these points are directly relevant to the topic of the article, while others are the sort of supllementary information that can only be conveyed visually and which readers of reference works find valuable for historically and culturally contextualizing specific topics.—DCGeist 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Capital IQ – Article to remain deleted as a copyvio. Despite a faulty rationale at the time of the speedy deletion, evidence contributed late in the debate demonstrates this is a copyvio, meaning its restoration is prohibited by policy. A new sourced, non-copyvio draft is welcome at any time. – Xoloz 04:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was speedily deleted on August 12th, with an edit summary of "(CSD A7 (Corp): Article about a company that doesn't assert significance". According to the deleting admin this occured after it was tagged by another user for speedy deletion citing that same criteria. I feel that this deletion was out of process because

1. The speedy deletion criteria referenced states the following: "If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." The Talk page for Capital IQ contained statements from several users indicating their belief that the company was notable, and I feel that this is sufficient evidence to indicate that deletion of the article would be "controversial" and therefore should have been listed at AfD.

2. The notability guidelines referenced include this step related to dealing with advertising in company articles "Delete the article, by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead." While it does not directly relate to this article I believe that it demonstrates a consensus that, unless articles are blatent advertising, they go to AfD.

I have asked the deleting admin to review their decision but there has been no response to my most recent request (3 days ago), which is why I am raising here. I would ideally like to see this article restored and listed at AfD, as that would at least allow myself and other interested editors to address the notability concerns. If it is then deleted by consensus, I'm willing to accept that decision. My concern here is that an article with some decent content concerning a company with the potential to be notable was deleted without discussion or any attempt to get interested editors to address the concern (such as with a {{Notability}} tag). Richc80 04:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation as Capital IQ (a division of Standard and Poor's is almost certainly notable enough to easily pass WP:CORP with a properly written and cited article. But I don't see how this step is currently prevented. The article has a history of poor implementations, it seems, so it isn't surprising it keeps getting speedied. In any case, the primary concern in a speedy is the criteria, not how much people are going to object, and I don't see a process issue here with Jaranda (talk · contribs)'s deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If, as pointed out below, the deleted article had a clear assertion of significance, then my vote is also overturn. --Dhartung | Talk 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Overturn ~~Overturn~~ - Significance was clear in the article, speedy delete was too speedy. There is some copyvio~~, but that can be removed quickly~~. No need to list at AfD since sufficient reliable source material independent of Capital IQ avaialbe to develop the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Further comment - The copyvio could have been removed quickly. Now that the article is deleted, the admin restoring it will be the one posting copyvio material on Wikipedia. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It is doubtful that the deletion was procedurally correct. The subject matter appears to be notable. Dominictimms 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse deletion~~ Neutral Without being able to view the deleted article myself, I must default to a view that our rigorously vetted admins will make the right calls on these decisions most of the time. - Crockspot 17:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you can view the article; click on the cache link above. Bridgeplayer 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I didn't realize that. After review, I'm not satisfied with the sourcing, and copyvio may still be an issue, so switching to neutral. - Crockspot 19:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn view - this is a good example of pushing a speedy well beyond the intended boundaries. A7 is intended for vanity articles, obviously NN groups and organisations etc. not for the subsidiaries of highly notable corporations. Bridgeplayer 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion I deleted it maybe the wrong reason, but there is a copyright concern which the whole history has and thus it can't be restored, also it wasn't a contervesal deletion, there was nothing on talk page, no protests etc. A recreation is fine as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to disagree with you, but there were comments on the Talk page, as shown by this cached version, from users regarding the notability of the company. One user even asked to be notified if the page was to be speedily deleted, which did not appear to happen this time around. Richc80 00:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn You mentioned no copyright concern in the deletion rationale; like everyone else, I can see no other reason for speedy in the article. DGG (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I would have overturned my deletion, I was about to before the DRV (couldn't earlier as I was busy) but the copyright concern Jreferee mentioned is a valid concern though, there is no point in having the article recreated and deleted again, as the whole history is affected. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand correctly the concern with restoring the article now is due to a copyvio. Would it therefore be acceptable to start the article over again using the previous content minus the section that is a copyvio? If so is there a way to get the code from that previous version so that it does not have to be retyped? Richc80 12:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, explain this to me. The deleting admin didn't mention the copyright violation when initially deleting, and therefore it can't be deleted as a copyright violation? Hogwash. It's copied from https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/Brochureware/CIQPressRelease.aspx?pressReleaseId=6. Endorse deletion, it's a copyvio. Corvus cornix 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Maybe nn, but doesn't deserve some Speedy Gonzales foolery. I'd prefer to take this through a full VfD (or whatever they call it these days), lest we end up like User: NedScott. 69.143.236.33 07:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion We can't restore a copyvio because the copyvio involves a possibly notable subject. It makes no difference that the deleting admin deleted on an alternate basis: this is not a court of law in which every possible conceivable reason must be raised and articulated or be waived. As we know most articles are speediable on multiple grounds and so a spammy article about a non-notable company that gets a G11 deletion comment needs also to show not subject to A7 otherwise the moment it gets restored it'll get so tagged and deleted and we'll have wasted a lot of effort for nought. Common sense, folks, please. Carlossuarez46 23:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Duttons – Speedy deletions overturned; listed at AfD. – Xoloz 04:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also Sideswipe (performers) and The Glamazons (US). IMHO improper speedy deletions. Making the Top Ten on America's Got Talent is at *least* an assertion of notability, making A7 deletions invalid. The Duttons have already gone through one AFD with a no consensus result. IMHO these should be deleted through AFD or not at all. TexasAndroid 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The initial afd for The Dutton was improperly closed no consensus. Consensus was there to delete at that time. None of these articles had valid references, secondary sources of any kind. None of them had any claim to notability outside of America's Got Talent. The closest claim to notability The Duttons have is a pair of self produced television shows. Self produced tv does not equal notability per WP:BIO guidelines. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not that they would survive AFD. I don't know that they would. My argument is that it only takes an "assertion" of notability to invalidate A7 speedy deletion, and that their appearances on AGT satisfy that assertion. Whether they truly meet the requirements, and all your other points, are issues for AFDs to decide. Once the assertion threshold is past, A7 speedy is no longer valid. All IMHO of course. - TexasAndroid 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AFD view - each of these articles has at least a slender assertion of notability which is enough to avoid an A7. The lack of sources will, no doubt, be influential at the AFD but is not pertinent to the speedy process. Bridgeplayer 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A7 was not the only deletion criteria of The Glamazons or for Sideswipe, those were primarily deleted as G11 advertising. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G11 is aimed at quickly getting rid of spam. These pages are not obviously written as adverts so G11 is not applicable. The speedy process, since it allows deletion without consensus, should only be used in obvious and straightforward cases. Where, as here, there is room for doubt as to the appropriateness of speedy deletion then it should be listed. Bridgeplayer 16:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list - The Duttons had a prior AfD closed in its favor. G11 advertising seems reasonable, but the articles have enought in them to be just above advertising (not by much). -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The initial AFD was improperly closed as no consensus. There were 4 rationalized deletes, 2 keeps from regular users with valid albeit shaky rationales, and 1 keep/merge from an anon ip. By my count thats 4-2... not a no consensus. Closed by a new admin who'd had the mop less than a month. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but we don't overturn AfD closures with which we disagree or that we think to be plainly wrong (for my part, I'm not certain that I think The Duttons' AfD to have been wrongly closed, and I would observe that closing AfDs is one area, inasmuch as it is not at all technical, in which one's being an inexperienced admin is no grand problem; in fact, I'd suggest that a newly-minted admin, having recently had his sense of judgment and conversance with policy examined at RfA, is more likely than an older admin to command the community's confidence relative to his closing AfDs—one's capacity to close RfAs properly, at the very least, does not necessarily grow as he gains sysop experience) simply by reversing them; that's why we have DRV. Joe 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A claim of notability was implied (the last thing we want is every article to start "X is notable because", which is not how good reference works are written. Dominictimms 14:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. The assertion to notability may have been slight but it was there. Whether or not they are sufficiently notable should be up to an AfD to determine. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD - Survival of a previous AfD discussion precludes an article from being speedy deleted. So the Duttons was an improper speedy. Might as well relist the other two along with it. It gives the community a chance to build consensus. - Crockspot 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 August 2007[edit]

Bolognaola – Speedily endorsed. Clear patent nonsense. – Krimpet 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

not nonsense Silverbaxent 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion of this nonsense "definition" that does not produce even one google hit! -- But|seriously|folks 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. -- But|seriously|folks 21:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion. This article did not present this as a neologism, or a slang term; rather it explained it as an actual medical "condition" which could be "diagnosed". Obvious hoax, and thus speediable as nonsense — if this was actually a slang term, then the article about it should not portray it as a medical condition. --Haemo 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Asayab al-Iraq al-Jihadiyah.jpg etc. – Deletions endorsed. – Xoloz 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

These Iraqi insurgent group logos were speedily deleted out of process. The deletion reason given was "Nonfree image only used in gallery in violation of WP:NFC" which is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. The images had been used in Iraqi insurgency where they met the significance criterion by allowing people to identify the groups from their logos.

Please note that the `WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use policy states that, "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements normally fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and is thus unacceptable." (emphasis added.) In this case the criterion,

"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. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function."

is met, because readers would not be able to identify the groups from their logos if they were not arranged in a group for the purposes of identification (which {{logo}} explicitly allows for non-free logos) in the article which describes them.

Furthermore, I have doubts about the neutrality of the deleting admin because he asked on Talk:Iraqi insurgency, "why give them an air of legitimacy by including their logos here?" Finally, the suggestion that Iraqi insurgent groups would take legal action against the Foundation because of the use of their logos in an article describing them is preposterous, and a clear example of m:Copyright paranoia. ←Ben^B4 15:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Image:Asayab al-Iraq al-Jihadiyah.jpg was uploaded 19 June 2007 and tagged 18 August 2007 with Template:Di-no fair use rationale. The statement "To be used for identification and/or critical commentary in articles such as, but not limited to, Iraqi insurgency, Mujahideen, Islamic Army in Iraq, etc." was added as the Fair use rationale 19 August 2007 and the tag removed. The image was then tagged 19 August 2007 with Template:di-orphaned fair use. The 19 August tag was removed 21 August 2007 and readded an hour later. The uploader was "no rationale" notified 18 August 2007 and Orphaned non-free image notified 13:35 19 August 2007. The image was deleted 14:10 21 August 2007, with the reason given "Nonfree image only used in gallery in violation of WP:NFC". Here is a link for the images and media speedy delete information. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe I added a valid fair use rationale to that image after it was tagged and before it was deleted. ←Ben^B4 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the above DRV note to include your fair use rationale post. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, let's put aside any question about my neutrality. Note that I don't have any prior edits to this article. My comment about the "air of legitimacy" has been taken out of context. The full sentence was: "Second, to those who claim these groups have no rights, why give them an air of legitimacy by including their logos here?" This was in response to the following summary from the last of several edits which reinserted these images into the article: "use of copyrighted material?? terrorists have no coypyright in american law!!". Notice too that I am calling them groups, not terrorists. I am an American, but I think I am being completely neutral.
As far as the nonfree image issue is concerned, it is my understanding that galleries of nonfree images are almost never acceptable. The fact that an image has been relegated to a gallery is a strong indication that it is not germane to the article. One would expect a significant image to stand alone in an article section surrounded by the text that makes it significant. These images were in a gallery under its own heading containing no discussion whatsoever, just the name of each group. Since the gallery had been deleted by at least two different editors citing WP:NFC and WP:NFCC but reinserted no less than six times, I assumed that removing the gallery from the article would lead to yet another disruptive revert. So I deleted the images that were not being used elsewhere. I left intact all of the images for groups that had their own articles.
Aside from WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, we are also bound here by the Foundation's licensing policy resolution, which requires us to keep nonfree content to a minimum. The proposed usage of these images is contrary to that binding directive.
I can't imagine anybody saying, "I didn't fully understand this article until they added the group logos, but now it makes more sense to me." Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it is clear the images do not increase understanding of the article on the insurgency in any way and cannot be used here in this way. -- But|seriously|folks 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that I considered protecting the page to stop the edit warring, but I felt the deletion of these images was a less restrictive course. -- But|seriously|folks 15:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the deleting admin fails to respond to the fact that the images were deleted out of process. There is no reason his concerns could not have been raised at IfD. The suggestion that being able to identify an insurgent group from their logo does not increase readers' understanding of the groups is absurd, and the deleting admin's comments to that effect are disingenious becuase I just explained to him that I was recently trying to identify the source of a video posted on the web with a logo and Arabic text which I do not read. ←Ben^B4 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disingenious. I just don't agree that that entitles us to include this gallery of nonfree images. The same argument could apply to Major League Baseball, National Football League, National Hockey League and Premier League, but those articles don't have galleries of team logos. -- But|seriously|folks 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How often do readers come across videotape of baseball games with logos but no other indication of who's playing that they are able to read or hear? ←Ben^B4 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably happens to the insurgents all the time! -- But|seriously|folks 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that the deleting admin has claimed that he would not be opposed to the use of the logos in individual articles about the groups, which I am willing to create, but his out-of-process deletion has made that an impossibility. ←Ben^B4 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than willing to undelete the logos to be used in individual articles about the groups, as long as we have an understanding that they are not to be used in a gallery in the insurgency article. -- But|seriously|folks 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy deletion - Per NFCC non-compliance, images uploaded after 2006-07-12 and used in no article may be deleted 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor that the image does not comply with the NFCC policy. WP:NFC has a similar procedure. The image was deleted 48 1/2 hours after notification. Although there is a 7-day exception where fair use is claimed, the added statement "To be used for identification and/or critical commentary in articles such as, but not limited to, Iraqi insurgency, Mujahideen, Islamic Army in Iraq, etc." appears to be insufficient as a fair use claim so that the 7-day exception does not seem to apply. The speedy delete after 48-hours notice appears justified. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images were used in an article, even if they were the subject of an edit war, just today. And why is my fair use claim insufficient? ←Ben^B4 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, images were in clear violation of WP:NFCC. And you're not helping your case by appealing to the fallacy of copyright paranoia. The reason we avoid nonfree images is because we're a free encyclopedia, not because we're scared of getting sued. —Angr 22:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn "fair use was claimed" if it is insufficient as a claim, that's for IfD. DGG (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The images were orphaned, and, even when used, were a clear violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use. Their use would be valid in articles about the specific groups (see one logo that was preserved in Al Qaeda in Iraq) but not in a gallery of non-free logos. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ironton Tanks – Copyvio deletion overturned, after copyvio text (only a small part of the article) was removed. – Xoloz 00:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am interested in your reasoning behind deleting my page on the Ironton tanks. You first deleted the page as being insignificant. This is a team which has great historical significance in the heartland of pro-football befoer the NFL. The team beat NFL teams over and over and can easily be called the best team to not convert from Ohio football to the NFL. The hall of fame is in Canton, a team they played many times. Then you state it reads like a copyright violation. This page is solely my camera work with only the words from the historical marker, a referenced (maybe not properly) piece on the coach who beat the bears and giants, and another referenced piece on the best player Glen Presnell. You also state it is not an article. I read the help file, looked at many expamples including you pages. It seems to fit any definition of article on the wiki help page or examples thereof. Can you explain your objections and how to fix them? Thanks BMcC333

I sent this to the admin responsible for deletion as an email, after posting it on his talk page. The Ironton Tanks are one of the most legendary teams in football history and this is my 1st attempt at an article. I am happy to take any criticism to improve the page, but there is no doubt they deserve entry in any encyclopedia or reference work. Thanks for your help. BMcC333 14:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Comment Hi BMcC333. Where did you get all that information for the article? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Reading like a copyvio (which I agree with) does not make it copyvio, so overturn. The article text probably is more due to the creator being a new user rather than a copyvio. There is enough reliable source material to create a Wikipedia article on the topic, so do not list at AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I can't see the original versions of the articles, I can't tell what their content looked like, but the second deletion was due to the fact that the article "looked like" a copyvio. There are a number of Google hits which indicate that the Ironton Tanks are notable, so I will !vote neutral, but allow creation. Corvus cornix 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, however the text taken from the 2002 historic marker (and probably from this page) must be deleted. I believe the image is also a copyright violation due to the included text. -- But|seriously|folks 17:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't respond to wikipedia emails, and if the article it's at least part copyvio, it should keep deleted but allow recreation, please see many of wikipedia guidelines for writing an good article, subsections that say greatest team ever are a no-no and makes any admin thinks copyvio instantly. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I did type the words from the sign off my picture, not the ohio link provided. Is there a way to show this picture with a reference to them? The 2nd point is about my catch line "the greatest team that ever was" and that it is their real claim to fame over all the other good ohio semi-pro teams that did not make the NFL. If you look at the Lions NFL page, they bascially claim beating the Tanks in 1929 is what sent them on their way to the NFL. A book on the tanks also makes this claim in the title "When the Tanks were Tops" but I did not want to steal his words. Does this vote mean the original will be put back? I did not save a version in notepad as suggested. Would it help to reference either of these sites to back up this claim, or is there no room for a team slogan in wiki? If admins don't respond to emails, why is that a suggested method? It was not easy to figure out how to paste to the talk page. Best regards. -- BMcC333 (talk · contribs · logs) 20:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaranda, I'm much less experienced than you here, but I do think admins have the obligation to respond to good faith emails about wikipedia. DGG (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check my email in about a week as well, I read it yesterday as it gave a clear reason in the email topic (most of the emails from wikipedia I get are vandalism, and I also gotten viruses from it, so I don't really check them because of that). Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the advice. As I did not save a copy which will reload, can it be restored? It seems overturn has won the debate here. I am glad everyone agrees they are significant, and this is an article, so the issues of the sign and catch line are things I would like to satisfy everyone on, even of the page is restored as it was. My comment on the sign issue is that they did not invent that data, nor reference it. I am sure they would argue it was common knowledge, at least in Ohio. The sign picture tells that the town has invested recently (2003) in preserving the tank legend. I could easily rewrite it and reference one of the tanks books or just reference the Ohio historical page where they print the text. I also think my version of the book title when the tanks were tops makes the article more lively. Perhaps a question mark would make the statement "The best there ever was" ? not appear that I am trying to sneak an unsupported claim into an encyclopedia. (BMcC333)

Ok, I think we can put this case to bed. I referenced every detail in the article and went and hunted down references for things I knew as common knowledge. I references the Ohio Historical society for the sign, the same as the public TV station in the link above. I changed the best there ever was to a question instead of a declarative statement. Please message me with any suggestions or criticisms if my newbie status let me down again. I think the article is much improved due to the initial criticism. Best regards to all! (BMcC333 8/24/07) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironton_Tanks

Restore as requested. It was a misjudgment to deem this non-notable.

Jaranda, why did you mark the page in need of wikify? I moved the historical markers to the picture gallery and kept the word History as a subject title. Shouldn't these type decisions be talked about on the page's talk page? I did just ask to be contacted with any criticisms. When discussing a 75 year old defunt team, everything is "history" and this type of redundancy does not make any sense to me. This paragraph specifically deals with the legitimate claim that the tanks were the best team that did not become an NFL team. There really is not even a close second. Labeling it "History" confuses the specific topic being addressed. It is now well referenced and was only labeled as a question for debate, not an absolute fact. What other non NFL team ever beat the bears and the giants in their history, much less the same year??

I am concerend about any non-standard wiki format, but the only format violation I can see from the help pages is the lack of bold letters to the 1st line, which I corrected. How many pictured to include seems arbitrary and can be debated. Given that I probably took 50 or more. I tried to include unique views, and fits one of the inclusionists favorite phrases, this isn't made of paper.

Abberley2 21:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Camp Washington Chili – Speedy overturn; clearly claims importance. – Mango juice^talk 05:43, 21 August 2007 (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 without any notification to me, the creator. I provided a reference by form of the Cincinnati Enquirer, but am prepared to also use other references from books to add further credence. The parlor is mentioned in How We Talk: American Regional English Today by Allan A. Metcalf published by Houghton Mifflin, in The Taste of American Place: A Reader on Regional and Ethnic Foods by Barbara Shortridge, published by Rowman & Littlefield, in Best Food in Town: The Restaurant Lover's Guide to Comfort Food in the Midwest by Dawn Simonds published by Emmis Books. More can be provided if necessary. (Mind meal 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

overturn article asserted importance so A7 didn't apply --W.marsh 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - They won an "American Regional Classic" award, so A7 didn't apply. As for using references, the more you use in the article once it is restored, the more likely the article will stay on Wikipedia. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the article appeared to be about a single restaurant, which is obviously normally non-notable. Having seen the refs above, particularly the non-food one, I'm happy to restore pending those refs being added. Jimfbleak 05:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Bambenek – deletion speedily endorsed, as no new data offered and this is attracting BLP inappropriate edits – GRBerry 04:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2|DRV1|AFD3|DRV2|DRV3|DRV4|DRV5|AFD4)

Subject has been dubbed one of the worlds must trusted information security researchers (http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/25279/info), has been given awards by the DailyKos (http://www.dailykos.com), Eschaton (http://atrios.blogspot.com), and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (http://www.isi.org). He is on the board of several prominent political action committees, is a known political figure, and routinely gives invited talks on information security and other academic issues. He's published widely online and in print. Just Anoter Fanboy 04:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion, Salt every iteration of John Bambenek, Ban User, Censor all content. John Bambenek is a (BLP refactored attacks out), the only thing notable is his persistence in this vain attempt to get an article in wikipedia. -- Prairie biker 04:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. This Log Cabin Republican is non-notable... doesn't merit a wiki entry. I cite WP:BAMBI username BLP refactored 04:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, somehow, among the three non-blog links provided, none goes to a page mentioning Bambanek. Why I am I not surprised? I see nothing to change the prior discussions, most significantly AFD3 and DRV2. GRBerry 04:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 August 2007[edit]

Etuvluk River – The article has been recreated, so this debate is moot. Please take further discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etuvluk River. – Picaroon (t) 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've never seen such a disregard to consensus and procedure. This page is currently up for AfD and 7 of the 9 votes are for "keep" with all supporting their reasoning. But somebody came along and speedy deleted this article. I don't even know who deleted it. This needs to be restored and the AfD in progress needs to resume with an existent article. Here is the current AfD. --Oakshade 04:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate Restoration and Relist at AfD. The deletion was done by Geogre, who was himself discussing in the Afd, and who would have done better to confine his views to the AfD discussion. I suggest he seriously think about reverting himself. I'd simply revert it except I'd been engaged in the discussion also. DGG (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as a valid CSD A1 speedy. Geogre's discussion in the AfD was to say "speedy delete" at the same time that he speedy deleted it, which doesn't really seem to me to be inappropriate. In any event, I'm uncertain how an article whose entire content is "The Etuvluk river is a river in Alaska" is not a valid speedy under A1. That's not an article. It's barely even a sentence. Nandesuka 05:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation as Etivluk River, apparently the correct or preferred spelling (which was inhibiting WP:V). It's on maps under that name, e.g. here using microsoft VE (labels), and in the USGS system here (if that is a permanent url). I somewhat object to the process here as editors were demonstrating its existence using the other spelling, but it amounts to a fresh article either way, so as long as we can get Geogre or whomever to stand aside things should be fine. --Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this version deleted since the article is so empty that it is virtually a non-article, worse than a redlink since it fools the reader into thinking there is an article when there isn't. Allow recreation by all means since rivers are perfectly notable geographic features. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the person who deleted it: It was a 100% A1 speedy delete. Since there was an ongoing AfD, I went there to explain my rationale. I did not take part in the debate. I hate short circuiting AfD, but there was nothing debatable. I was explaining my action and taking time out to holler a bit at the people at AfD. That might have been impolitic, but people were, again and again, talking "notable!" at AfD and missing the fact that it's not about "notable" in these cases. "Notable" is an assessment of a topic, not an article. A notable topic could have an invalid article, and a non-notable topic could have a gorgeous article (and they often do). The article as it was was a textbook example of an A1 speedy delete: restatement of the title and a link. Did you know that the Etuvluk River is a river? Could there be a valid article? I suppose. Was there one? No. Obviously, I believe in keeping this version deleted and not giving glory to the author of such a semantic nullity, and, as with all other speedy deletes, there is no prejudice against a fully formed article on the same topic. Geogre 11:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and improve. Mowsbury 13:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Festoon with persimmons A silly vote for an extremely silly situation. Not one but two lengthy debates over a six-word article. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia look bad. If some of the effort spent debating this was put into actually improving the article, it would probably be in fine shape by now. If nobody is willing or able to improve it, it should remain deleted as inherently unexpandable. In either case, reams of discussion over six short words is ludicrous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion. I'd also question the reasons given by the nominator. The action seems to be in accordance with policy, as WP:DP clearly states that "Pages on proposed deletion or deletion discussion (see below) are still subject to speedy deletion, which overrides the other process." Per Geogre, Nandesuka, and Sjakkalle, it is difficult to see how the stated criterion could not apply. I see no problem with recreation under the original title (if sufficient material can be found for a proper article), or with a different spelling. Jakew 14:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - since most agree this is fairly silly, I've gone ahead and re-created the article (with some more useful information). Sorry if I short-circuited this discussion but .. the correct course of action seemed rather evident. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

eComXpo – Keep closure endorsed. – Xoloz 04:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

In spite of the majority of editors supporting "keep", this article is in clear violation of the notability criteria required by WP:CORP and of the WP:SOAPBOX prohibition against advertisements. This is not a vote, and the closing admin should have weighted policy-based arguments, and not simple "keeps", and if he did weight policy, then I believe he erred Two re-publications of press releases as filler, corporation blogs, and self-published press releases are not reliable sources for purposes of WP:CORP notability. --Cerejota 04:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, The original, successful, AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EComXpo was clear on the lack of notability, and the editors set forth that the criteria.

Since in effect that AfD was overturned (without process), and notability criteria is still not met (there is no secondary source celebrating the passing of this event), I think this "keep" was further in error. If Wikipedia starts reporting every little commercial event in which 8,000 people participate, it will get full pretty quickly. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem Cerejota? The old article did not include the references the new and independently created one does (it could not have, because the conference got only the attention by the larger and more established media after it was deleted the last time). Multiple editors in good standing acknowledged the quality of the sources and the notability of the article. All your arguments made in the AfD discussion were either addressed (you might noticed the addition of more and better reliable sources and the removal of less reliable ones) or proven incorrect (e.g. your statement about the reliability of blogs as sources). After you saw this happen, did you start with your ridicules COI allegations against me. I have to wonder if COI applies to you in a different sense. You seem to want to be "right" at all cost, no matter what that you became unable to see what is actually going on and to stop for a moment to consider the option that you might be wrong this time. I have not looked at the first AfD for the article, which is for me completely irrelevant, because that was over one year ago and I was not involved with it at all. If you were participating in that discussion back then, you might have been right, fine, but that does not mean that things do not change. I find your behavior very disruptive and I would like to spend my time at Wikipedia for more productive and constructive things. I don't know Wikipedia well enough to know, why there is no reference to the AfD discussion anywhere in the article or its talk page and why there is a deletion review for an article that was not deleted. That's something new for me, but I guess I will have to spend the time to figure that one out. Use your energy for something good, for example improving the article, change some of the wording you consider "advertising" or create new articles or expand and improve other articles you prefer. Thank you. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, figured it out with the review. I also checked the old AfD. Thanks for the link. You do not want to compare that previous AfD with the detail and participation of the last one, don't you? If I misunderstood you there, please let me know. Anyhow, I added the "oldafdfull" template to the article's talk page for future reference. I added it for both AfDs. Other editors will might find it helpful in the future. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your long personal attack. I am sure that in your mind it is very helpful. However, I remain convinced that the lack of secondary sources that establish notability as per WP:CORP is problematic. And I do not edit the article because I have no interest in engaging in an edit war: my edits would consist in removing all press release material as primary sources. I just want the community to express their opinion that WP:CORP is dead letter, and that two minor re-workings of press releases as filler along with primary sources of the worse kind constitute acceptable wikipedia content. It does count as a surprise, however, if that is the case, so be it. WP:CORP requires secondary source verifiability, and none is provided. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Admin closed properly. If you feel the article still should be deleted nominate it again in a couple of weeks and address your concerns there. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the article has a variety of secondary sources which are considered sufficiently "authoritative" for the purposes of commenting on web businesses. I see nothing wrong with them, nor did the large majority of AfD participants. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse admin closure. I'm not sure what the vendetta is that Cerejota has here, but s/he is bordering upon tendentious editing at this point and needs to WP:CHILL. Please note that I am the person who nominated this for deletion after it was improperly listed for speedy deletion (the new article was not a repost of previously deleted content). Although WP:AFD is not a preferred venue for cleaning up articles, I will say that this one surely benefited from it and I fully support the outcome. RFerreira 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say his "vendetta" is an anti-spam "vendetta", especially since it's still pretty much indistinguishable from such. --Calton | Talk 05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your understanding of the matter. This is not about the involved editor or the corporation, but about stopping spam. Have any of you actually bothered to read the article? Thanks!--Cerejota 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Admin interpreted the discussion correctly. And I agree with the above. I'm not sure what the vendetta is that Cerejota has here, but s/he is bordering upon tendentious editing at this point and needs to WP:CHILL. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close view - the consensus was clear and the admin closed correctly. Bridgeplayer 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Little sign of real-world notice or impact, ludicrously thin sourcing -- despite months of demands -- and overwhelmingly spammy content makes me wonder how this was kept in the first place, especially given how many of the "keep" votes seem to be essentially faith-based or blinded by the pure number of references rather than their actual quality. --Calton | Talk 05:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the community is endorsing spam if this is not deleted. There are no secondary sources for notability and/or verifiability. And I can't understand how WP:IAR applies in this case. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest editors examine older versions of the article before judging its merits. Editors, in particular Cerejota, seem to have worked very hard to add obtrusive templates, tag trivial claims, remove material where possible, and so on. Loosely speaking, the edits have been defensible in terms of policy, but I think the blemishes have been exaggerated in a rather POV fashion. I'll work on cleaning up the article in the mean time. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure but relist or delete anyway, I don't believe the closing admin abused discretion. At the same time, however, this seems to be one of these deceptive articles in which an imposing-looking list of "sources" is presented. Really, most of those are articles about online trade shows in general, mentioning this specific site only in passing, or are reprinted press releases or blurbs. None are substantial enough to support an article, even put together. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I am understood as thinking the admin did a closure against policy. I must state that I think he acted entirely within the discretion of an admin to do so, and didn't violate policy himself. However, I fully agree with your comments: the article is a walking policy violation, and is spam. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim, as written there may be some POV issues and promotion, but that is not relevant to the determination of whether or not a topic is notable. Notability is not a judgement as to the quality of the article, but the suitability of the topic for inclusion. Being noticed in mainstream media fits the definition of notability at both WP:CORP and WP:N, which are notability/inclusion guidelines -- not pertiennt to content. Improving the quality of content is another issue not pertinent to AfD, since poor content is not a specific reason for deletion. --Kevin Murray 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep. This is no more "spam" than any of ther other hundreds of articles in Category:Trade shows. The only difference being that unlike the vast majority of all the others, this one actually contains a decent set of reliable third party sources in addition to the primary ones. --Sodium N4 06:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep This discussion has been brought to the talk page of WP:CORP, by the nominator of this review. I looked further into the issues and feel the article meets the standards for CORP, which are not meant to be zealously rigorous. There seems to be a peculiar agenda here making a mountain out of a molehill. --Kevin Murray 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 August 2007[edit]

Julia Earl – Article to remain deleted under CSD G10, at the very least. – Xoloz 06:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A discussion was under way on the talk page of the Julia Earl article, when someone named Phil Sandifer just outright deleted it. Can he do that?-Notfromhereeither 04:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the above from yesterday's log.--Chaser - T 21:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a straightforward BLP case. However well-sourced this article was, it was still a it piece created to pursue a small-town scandal. The subject had no notability beyond a local scandal, and the article existed purely to document that scandal. Deletion was absolutely the right call. Phil Sandifer 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, he can do so as a speedy deletiom. Having read a cached version of the article the other day on google I support that speedy, SqueakBox 21:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil's referring to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which says we are responsible for taking ethical and legal care in writing articles where all negative criticism about living people is well sourced, and that those people be clearly notable.--Chaser - T 21:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment In this case she is far from being a public figure which is itself a BLP concern, and what makes it, IMO, an obvious speedy candidate, SqueakBox 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not being a public figure is not a speedy deletion criterion. Anything that doesn't meet the CSD is far from "an obvious speedy candidate." This notion that anything vaguely associated with the "BLP" power-word is speediable is a deleterious innovation that needs to be quashed. The legal justification for this is likewise non-existent. There's nothing in U.S. law that prevents writing about people who are not public figures. If the servers were under Japanese jurisdiction, this might be different. deranged bulbasaur 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted -- My conflicts with Sandifer over the wholesale & permanent deletion of relevant, sourced content from Justin Berry have stretched over the past few months. He and I differ radically on the question of his using admin tools to enforce his view in what boils down to a content dispute and on his refusal to enter into any consensus-building process, on or off-wiki regarding his permanent deletions. It's clear that aside from our common interest in writing the best encyclopedia we can, our views couldn't be more divergent.
All that being true, he was right to delete Julia Earl. Earl is a minor local figure whose apparent misfeasance or malfeasance in office to not rise to the level of encyclopedic content, especially in light of the increased deference given to the subjects of biographies of living people.Bottom line: regardless of our significant disagreements, I agree 100% with his action in this matter. Was this article the subject of an OTRS request? --Ssbohio 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I make a general habit of not answering that question, simply because answering in some cases makes it so that any time I don't answer due to privacy concerns, my declining to answer is itself an answer. Phil Sandifer 22:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly understandable. It's just that when the article still existed, the PROD tag referenced an OTRS #, if I recall correctly. If I'm right, then the information was already published. Even still, your position makes sense except for its lack of case-by-case judgment. For example, the existence of Justin Berry's OTRS contacts with the Wikimedia Foundation have been disclosed on his user page. --Ssbohio 00:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's evidently a case of someone wanting to confirm his real-life identity to prevent a Stephen Colbert-like block on his account for impersonating a real-life person. In the case of articles, real life people are trying to stop the dissemination of information about them. The situations are opposite.--Chaser - T 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ssbohio, I did that with that person's full and prior knowledge and consent in order to stop the allegations that he was an impersonator and the suggestion that his account ought to be blocked as a WP:USERNAME violation. As Chaser points out, there is a big difference between doing this and answering questions about BLPs. Basically, I agree with Phil's position regarding OTRS questions. And I think he should be commended for having the integrity and courage to deal with these articles the way he believes is right and not allow others (usually people with vested interests, from what I have seen) to pressure him or sway him from doing this. Sarah 14:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Overturn This speedy was blatantly out of process. The given justification is nowhere to be found in WP:CSD. Allow me to quote from the relevant portion of CSD g10: "This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced"(emphasis added). The deleting admin admits in his first reply in this very review that the article in question was sourced. If there is an issue with the article that does not fall within the "enumerated powers" of speedy deletion, let it be addressed through Afd. The admins personal opinion (which may well be entirely reasonable for all I know) of the article's suitability as an encyclopedic topic has no bearing, because speedy deletion on those grounds is impermissible. deranged bulbasaur 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair point, but I think this is still covered by policy at WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. ArbCom endorsed summary deletion in BLP cases.--Chaser - T 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy says nothing about speedy deletion. As for the arbcom ruling, they are not a policy making body. Arbitration serves, as one would expect, a judicial function as part of dispute resolution. They do not have, and have never had, authority to legislate from the bench. Their decisions are also not binding, and are thus confined to the circumstances of the matter at hand. It's important that they do not make policy, because arbcom is not a community process. Two entities are entitled to make policy for us: the community and the foundation. Neither has authorized this, else it would be written into the CSD. If arbcom members want to change the CSD, let them propose it on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion like anyone else. That said, I don't think arbcom intends to overstep its authority as I have described, so let's not wield their rulings in a way that would seem to make them do so. deranged bulbasaur 11:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ArbCom's not a court. There is a happy medium between ArbCom decisions as binding precedent akin to policy and ignorable statements whose applicability is limited only to the case and participants then at hand.--Chaser - T 17:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bulbasaur: no, arbcom decisions are binding - that's the whole point of arbitration. What this means is that their decisions aren't binding on themselves. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted The article should have never existed. As non-notable, it should have been speedily deleted. Attempting to undelete it because of a dispute with an admin is rather idiotic. In order to justify undeleting the article, someone should make an argument for notability. -- Kainaw^(what?) 12:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award deleting admin a trout for lack of clarity in the deletion summary; BLP or G10 should have been mentioned. Keep deleted because this fits WP:CSD#G10 (I note that it does not fit WP:BLP because it is sourced; an BLP by its explicit terms only authorizes deletion of "biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to" [emphasis added]. GRBerry 14:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing that would give the false impression that I am in any way willing to learn which CSD criteria are which. Phil Sandifer 15:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...surely you've got that the wrong way around: G10 only allows deletion of bios which are unsourced, but BLP and the BDJ arbitration case allows bios which are insufficiently notable and negative in tone to be speedied. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I don't have it backwards. WP:CSD#G10 says "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to." The operative sentence is the first any page with no purpose other than attacking can be deleted under G10 regardless of sourcing; the second sentence is merely an example. WP:BLP, on the other hand, only includes the sentence I originally quoted and only authorized deletion of unsourced negative articles. The only articles that can be deleted under BLP that can't be deleted under G10 are those that are unsourced, negative in tone, but also have a purpose other than attacking the subject. GRBerry 04:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Whether the original deletion was covered by G10 or not, this article about local scandal won't survive AFD. Given BLP concerns, there's no reason to drag out the process.--Chaser - T 17:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted A7 or G10 or BLP could all apply and unlike a court the deleting admin doesn't have to make his case multiple ways to stave off an overturn. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to be picky, but neither A7 nor G10 apply: a description of news coverage is clearly at least an assertion of notability, and G10 only applies to unsourced articles. BLP does indeed apply, though. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, but relist if anyone really wants to: the BDJ decision allows BLPs to be speedied pro tem., but doesn't preclude AfDs on them (but leaves the article deleted until there's a consensus to keep). I personally think that another AfD would be a bit pointless, because I'm sure it would result in delete, but there we are. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - All actions were intact. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this anti-content, anti-consensus decision. --W.marsh 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Anti-content when it is inappropriate" is at the heart of making wikipedia into a viabl;e 21st Century product while "pro-content whatever the cost" is at the heart of what has the potential to destroy wikipedia, thus content for content sake is one heck of a dangerous argument, SqueakBox 22:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Product? --W.marsh 22:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. We need a good product that doesnt promote POV where it will hurt people and in no way tries to out anybody living. That is my goal, and I am glad to say I am not alone. I am intrigued that its the long term users who are most sympathetic tot he "we must do no harm" approach especially when dealing with non-public figures, SqueakBox 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I guess long-term users tend to be here to help gather verifiable information without adding our own POV through selective exclusion. --W.marsh 23:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It isn't "selective exclusion". It is "non-notable exclusion". I've had articles written about me in newspapers in Kansas City, 29 Palms, Honolulu, and Charleston. So, should I have a Wikipedia article about me? Absolutely not. I'm not notable. The woman in the article being discussed here is not notable either - even with 20+ articles in her hometown paper. There must be a cutoff for notability or Wikipedia will slide down the slippery slope and become another MySpace/Facebook where every person on the web has their own Wikipedia article. -- Kainaw^(what?) 01:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, Wikipedia is not paper... there's no real need for a cutoff to just save space, contrary to popular belief. The problem is the cutoff seems to kick in when our editors (who have no training in this kind of thing, and may or may not be people who even have experience in writing articles) deem the article is too negative (usually taking their own political POV into account)... if it's just an article about someone whose accomplishments we deem positive then we keep it, even if there's no more actual information to cite. Inclusion is pretty biased right now. Shortcircuiting consensus is like pouring salt on the wound, and some people seem to love doing that. --W.marsh 02:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Quoting from WP:Notability: "Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events8. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest." The topic here only contained a short burst of local news coverage. It is not notable. It has nothing to do with being negative or positive. It has nothing to do with editors wanting to pour salt on wounds. It is clearly not notable and therefore should have been speedily deleted. The only reason it was reinstated is because someone wanted a negative article about the person to be put back up - which it was - and then deleted again due to non-notable status. There is no way to rationalize that Julia Earl was anything more than a short burst of local media attention. Therefore, any argument against the speedy deletion is actually an argument against the guidelines of Wikipedia - which does not belong here. -- Kainaw^(what?) 18:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G10. "Julia Earl was the superintendent of public schools and here is why everyone should hold her in contempt" is not really a biography. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; WP:BLP, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mango juice^talk 05:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid G10 and serious BLP concerns abound. --Core desat 10:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and endorse Phil's rationale. Sarah 14:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the method but concur with the conclusion. No, I don't think this gets into scandal, libel, or slander -- especially not in a way that could not be handled with simple edits (that anyone could make). However, it's just a localism. There is a school board member being recalled in every school district in America, a superintendent being questioned in every state, an allegation of impropriety everywhere. What's special here? In addition to the charges being merely charges, this is one of those things where there is nothing notable, nothing encyclopedic, nothing that wouldn't be a quarter page column in a local paper and then go away. An AfD would clobber the article, and it's borderline on A7. Since it's not a biography, but rather a news account, it is, quite simply, not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Therefore, keep deleted, but no, Phil's deep love of IAR method was not appropriate. Geogre 14:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse following Georgre's logic. But in addition I would have speedied as Attack, since that was clearly the purpose , and the encyclopedic value was trivial. BLP, as GBerry says, does not apply. I agree with his interpretation of the provisions. DGG (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should remain deleted (per CSD G10), but do not endorse BLP/IAR deletion, per GRBerry. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bellypunching – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 06:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

While this fetish is not found in any academic journals that study human sexuality, nevertheless I believe a preponderance of evidence, manifested by even a cursory internet search, demonstrates that there is a phenomenon such as this, among hundreds of people all over the world (one of many examples is the entry on the Dutch Wikipedia -- and these are just the people who bother to post to forums, erect websites, and some commercial sellers who sell products catering to this clientèle. I know that sometimes topics relating to alternate practices in human sexuality can evoke an emotional response of bewilderment or repulsion, but in the context of an encyclopedia I assert that one must remain balanced and rational, descriptive, not proscriptive. Previously, this article has been deleted due to moral objections, masquerading as technical violations. One must be anthropological about the gathering of knowledge relating to human practices.
It's ludicrous to ignore a fact because it offends one's taste. The purpose of WP:VERIFY is to resolve disputes between parties who disagree on the nature of some piece of info, and sometimes whether or not some piece of info actually exists. But we don't need a citation for whether the sun exists; therefore the only rationale for not having this particular article is if people really believe this sexual fetish doesn't exist, or is a hoax; this despite the hundreds of entities mentioned above. If you really believe this fetish doesn't exist, I can only chalk it up to willful ignorance.
The (mis)use of WP:VERIFY here manifests systemic bias (as regards sexual morality), and violates the spirit of gathering human knowledge and experience, the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Brokethebank 17:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dismiss request, otherwise endorse previous deletions. The AfD was a year ago, and the last speedy deletion (a correct G4) dates from June. The AfD is too old to reconsider here, but if we are considering it here, it was correctly closed as a delete. The article had no reliable sources, and AfD consensus as well as the closing admin recognised that. WP:V is not negotiable. The correct approach to restore this article is writing a well-sourced version of it in user space and then bringing it to deletion review. Sandstein 17:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I usually support articles on this general subject, and I well know the difficulty in sourcing them. But some conventional source will be necessary, and the problem would be the same regardless of the nature of the article Has nobody ever written about it in alternative newspapers? Some of them would be considered Reliable sources, & with such sources an article could stand. The prior sources were essentially YouTube videos. V is not negotiable, but the interpretation of what counts as V is a matter for consensus, which can change. Personally I am perfectly open to accepting widespread YouTube and MySpace use of a theme as V for N, but this would be a major policy change from the present--and my guess is that such a suggestion is unlikely to succeed in getting consensus.DGG (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedies for previously afd'd subjects where the subject notability remains constant should remain deleted, SqueakBox 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I couldn't find any sources and you would need at least one to get this article off the ground. If people get off from Moe punching Curly in the gut, Wikipedia would be proud to host such an article if there were reliable sources to support such an article. If you think Wikipedia is deficent in hosting material that offends one's taste, you're not looking hard enought. Follow the images and you'll find plenty. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - materials appears to have been deleted in accordance to policies. Deletion review is not a second chance to make an argument. --Haemo 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Junkyard Jane – speedy restore as contested WP:PROD. – Sandstein 17:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was tagged for deletion on the basis of notability, and deleted when the prompt expired. The original tagging was frivolous as the notability is well established in the article. This article covers a musical group which has achieved national notability for their creative work, and influence on other musicians.Michael J Swassing 17:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

George Griswold Frelinghuysen – Deletion overturned. In light of new evidence produced at the very end of the discussion, I will exercise discretion and suggest relisting at editorial option only. – Xoloz 06:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

deleted with just three votes, two to delete, and one to keep Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist in order to generate a consensus. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore The president of the 4th largest brewery in the United States is notable. Carina22 16:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That argument belongs in an AfD, not in a DRV discussion. We only discuss procedural issues here. Sandstein 17:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen, that simply isn't true. Mowsbury 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, given that there was no substantial discussion, only assertions that the subject is or is not notable. See WP:JNN. Sandstein 17:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist there was inadequate discussion--and the subject was President of a major company. it was 80 years ago, but notability is not lost with time. DGG (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist While he is not as notable as other Frelinghuysen relatives (quite the prolific family), he still attained sufficient notability in his day to retain it in ours. If he were just a patent or corporate attorney for the brewer (as he started out) I wouldn't object, but he was its president, an achievement no doubt assisted by his marriage but not solely a product of it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore without relisting. The deletion did not reflect a consensus, and he is notable. Mowsbury 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Page was restored and userfied to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/George Griswold Frelinghuysen. Something is wrong with the bit added since then; how can he have gotten divorced two years after his death? Clean it up, then hold a new AFD. Standards may well have changed in the 2 years since that AFD. Actually, sourcing the rest of the article might be enough in and of itself to escape G4; the article at the time of AFD was not sourced, and we normally consider sourcing a significant difference in an article. GRBerry 15:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your confusing him with his cousin, his cousin got divorced two years after his death. The article in the NYT is about the cousin's divorce but discusses the whole family. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, if afd is not a vote, why is everyone (mis-)citing the "outcome". Counting the nominator the vote was 3-1 to delete if we care about numbers which is more than the 2/3 that some editors have advocated for deletion. There are over 100 articles each day on afd, if we need some # of people to chime in on each to have a consensus there will be no deletions, which I suspect may make some people happy. Carlossuarez46 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the validity of the original nomination for Afd is also in question, since the nom said "President of the P. Ballantine & Sons Company, whatever that is",including the link! I think that shows bad faith or recklessness. Deletion Review exists to remedy things like that. I'll join AfDs where there arent enough votes, and I think there's a clear position, delete or keep. -- DGG (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using that logic if one person votes delete, then there is 100% consensus. There should be a minimal number of votes to determine consensus. Also, there is the problem of people reading the deletion comments and not reading the article itself to make determinatons. Saying the process is not a vote is an Orwellian oxymoron. It is always used when the admin person wants to over ride consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore/relist Insufficient consensus. The late argument for notability was not rebutted in any way (and appears to be correct). Discussion should have been extended. Dominictimms 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at AFD there was no consensus to do anything. It needs to be relisted so clearer consensus may be established. Sasha Callahan 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per substantial new information. Let's see, there is the George G. Frelinghuysen Arboretum using old George's 1891 stately green-and-white mansion built by Rotch & Tilden. That Arboretum now is the headquarters of the Morris County Park Commission. George was the son of Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, who served as secretary of state under President Chester A. Arthur. George Frelinghuysen became a successful patent lawyer, banker and insurance company board member. Following his marriage to Sarah P. Ballantine of the Newark-based brewery firm family, he became president of P. Ballantine and Co. This substantial new information establishes that enough reliable source material exists to develop this article so that the topic meets WP:N. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 August 2007[edit]

Yiffstar – Speedy deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 09:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to the original deletion history of this page, the reason the Yiffstar Wikipedia page was deleted the first time was solely due to lack of reference notes within the page. The old page was used for a framework and some of the old information was kept as it had not changed, however, pertaining references were placed accordingly in the new and updated text to correct the original reason for deletion, the old content was updated including corrected statistics, new areas of the site were added to the entery, defunct areas of the site were removed from the entery and some parts of the article (such as the forums section) were completely rewritten. With new content, and the old reason for deletion corrected, the entry should not have been deleted. Also, the entry was deleted within two hours of page creation - this is not substantial enough time for more information to be added by other users ESPECIALLY as there has been an open invitation on Yiffstar for it's users to come help create and update the Yiffstar wikipedia page. If you still refuse to allow the page to stand, can it be left up temporarily for a couple days so the updated statistics and references can used to update another wiki? -- 68.229.113.31 (talk · contribs · logs) 23:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - The article was deleted eight months ago at AfD, recreated by Lamoxlamae (talk · contribs · logs) 18 August 2007 (UTC), then WP:CSD G4 speedy deleted an hour later at 18 August 2007 by Splash. This deletion review addresses whether WP:SPEEDY justifies the 18 August 2007 speedy deletion by Splash. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because it was an entry about a website that (despite being quite long) was not able to assert any notability at all. The relevant guidance on this point is found in this document. I'm not quite sure I understand your request; but probably not, no, as Wikipedia isn't a holding place for other websites, if that's what you mean. Splash - tk 23:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know this is not a holding site, but if the page stays deleted I just wanted to save the research data on the statistics and reference pages so it could be used to update another site that I found after the deletion and is out of date. It took hours to collect all the updated information and to find the correct reference links and it would take hours to repeat it. I have put the request in for a temporary restoration.
  - Very well, I have put your last revision of the article at User:Lamoxlamae/Yiffstar. (Note to admins: this revision had only ever been edited by the user in question, and so I have left the history deleted to avoid great complications). Splash - tk 00:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment; don't we need an assurance that the Wiki that this material is being moved to is compatibly licensed? A surprisingly large number of Wikis aren't. Heather 16:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please note the detail of my comment previous to yours: the sole revision that Lamoxlamae has access to was written entirely and only by that user. S/he owns the copyright, and is free to (re-)distribute it under any licensing terms they choose. Splash - tk 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Once it's been posted here, Wikipedia owns the copyright, not the contributor. See WP:COPYRIGHT. As such, if something is being moved elsewhere, we need to know that the destination uses a compatible license. Heather 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:COPYRIGHT says the exact opposite of what you claim; a user submitting material they have created themselves retains the copyright, they simply cannot revoke wikepdia's right to use it under GFDL. SamBC(talk) 12:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You are incorrect, sorry. You retain the copyright to your own work, and, as the name of the Gnu Free Documentation Licence implies, you license it to Wikipedia - you do not transfer the copyright. You may therefore license the same material under any terms you choose in other circumstances. If, otoh, someone else wants to use material they find on Wikipedia they must either a) use it compliantly with the GFDL or b) obtain some alternative licensing terms from the author(s). Indeed, as SamBC points out, the first sentence of Wikipedia:Copyrights says precisely this: "The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations". Splash - tk 12:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion FWIW, although it looks like the user requesting review may have already resolved the situation to the point where this could be closed. No evidence that the AfD discussion was closed inappropriately or that consensus was not reached, nor have the concerns of those editors !voting to delete been addressed. Heather 16:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment among the reasons for deletion was "While this site is notable by furry community standards, I don't think it's remarkable enough in Wikipedia's standards - the user community is sizeable but not that sizeable. " --and a deletion on that basis is totally opposed to WP policy. Other arguments were that similar pages had been deleted, equally irrelevant. But a stronger article should be written first before resubmission.DGG (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for letting me know this! I will post a copy of the current version of the Yiffstar article on the Yiffstar community forums and we will try to make a stronger rewrite. What problems did you see with it? Feel free to take discussion of the article to my talk page so that the page may evolve closer to Wikipedia guidelines so that it may be allowed to stay next time. The current version is up at User:Lamoxlamae/Yiffstar (thank you Splash) for reference. Lamoxlamae 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. The editor who initiated the DRV was not, I believe, challenging the AfD, but questioning my speedy deletion - this being the last and most temporal of the deletions. Also note that I did not close the AfD when it occurred. I cannot imagine otherwise why there'd have been a ntoe on my talk page about this. Splash - tk 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion - Splash applied WP:CSD G4 correctly. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WritersUA – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 09:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WritersUA (formerly knowns as WinWriters) is part of the technical writing community and provides a unique and valuable service that transcends the for-profit elements of the business. The WritersUA web site is highly regarded within the software user assistance community. References from numerous notable people within the profession can be provided. In addition to a wealth of original content, WritersUA offers industry surveys on skills and salaries and provides a resource directory that is much valued by the UA community. All of that is free to the public and provided without vendor advertising. The single for-profit event is a conference that has been held for fifteen years. In that time it has attracted over 8,000 people from around the world and is one of the very few gatherings of people specifically interested in improving software documentation. Resource Directory, 2007 Salary Survey, 2007 Skills Survey - Contact: Joe Welinske, (email address removed) Joe Welinske 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question, The process does document does not provide us with any guidelines as to where/what/when you needed to have references. In the challenge I said I could provide numerous references. Do you want them now? How many? What types? Where should I deliver them to the reviewers? We can provide references from academics, corporations, professional societies, notable experts, etc. Google has 20,000 references to our organization from sources all around the world. Most of the hits are referencing original articles that have contributed to the knowledge-base of the user assistance community. Over 800 hits reference survey results alone. Most of the hits referencing the annual conference are not advertising - rather they are describing industry news and insights that came out of the technical sessions. Approximately 40-50 industry experts speak at the event each year. With respect to the authority of referencing entities, I would assume the size of the pond should not be as important as an organization's relative size in that pond. User assistance is a relatively small part of the overall IT industry. It does not regularly receive notices on large, mainstream web sites. But it is vital and vibrant. The numerous organizations and individuals that reference WritersUA may not be well known in the mainstream but they are certainly well=respected within our community. Joe Welinske 21:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The material for the article should be from reliable sources that are independent of WritersUA. Newspaper articles are good, write ups in magazine such as Time (magazine) and Newsweek are good too. A published book or two on the history of WritersUA would be great, but is not a requirement. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, valid AFD and article was definitely promotional in tone. Sources provided by nominator are not independent. --Core desat 20:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No independent sources during the AFD or now, consensus was clearly to delete. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the review request does not indicate why the AfD was supposedly closed in error. It was a unanimous delete. Sandstein 17:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Igor Vishev – Article restored by deleting admin. – Chaser - T 21:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was copied from [forum] with the permission (to place it on Wikipedia under the GFDL licence) of the person who posted it there (Bruce Klein, a director of ImmInst). The statement about the source and the permission was added to the talk page immediately after adding the article itself. User:WWGB marked the page with speedy deletion tag. I further elaborated on the article's talk page that it is copied here with permission. In case of any questions I requested this to be discussed on the talk page. Some time later User:Maxim speedy deleted the page.

All this was done in violation of Wikipedia's critera for speedy deletion, because the parameter 4 of the 12th criteria did not apply. That is, there was already an asserted permission for use of the text.

User:Maxim has ignored my message on his talk page. I am asking any admin to immediately restore the last version of the page, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It says "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately." Paranoid 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ignored it. I haven't had time to read it yet, Paranoid. Also, Paranoid posted a rather uncivil message, starting with "Are you serious?", and ending with "I require that you...". I realise that Paranoid has asked me to take a second look, and I believe this DRV is premature, as I've only seen Paranoid's first and second notice, and I certainly didn't delete the article in question out of process, as Paranoid has implied. I would prefer to have a day or two to look over this, as well. By this, I also ask Paranoid to be a bit more patient, and understand that I'm human, I make mistakes, and most importantly in this context, that admins delete page not by personal likes/dislikes, but by policy, making them more like janitors. Thank you. Ma x im 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Maxim. Sadly, I have become really annoyed by the overall bureacracy at Wikipedia and has simply stopped contributing to it. When people falsely accuse me of copyvios, arguing I copied a photo to Wikipedia from another website, when I made the photo myself and the website in question is a freaking wikipedia mirror, I get really pissed off. That's my attitude to Wikipedia now.

In this particular case the page was deleted without review, it clearly didn't fit the criteria for speedy deletion, I was not notified by User:WWGB on my talk page about the SD tag (as he is required to do by policy), so I assume "out of process" can be applied to it. If "out of process" is clarified somewhere on WP, please give a link to it.

The civility of my message is not relevant in this context. You clearly didn't check the CSD g12, so I was really surprised by the deletion. Hence my "Are you serious?" comment. Please note that I didn't ask whether you were nuts, on drugs, etc. Furthermore, since you clearly made an error when speedy deleting the page, I required you to undelete it immediately. I should not have to "request" or "kindly ask" Wikipedia users who made an obvious error to fix them, should I? Paranoid 17:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I didn't check CSD G12, I know it by heart, as I do countless deletions per day. Civility is relevant, as any individual is less likely to act if someone asks them to do it rather uncivilly/rudely. I still believe it's a CSD G12 vio. I realise you are attempting to help, but I don't think it complies with our policies. I think it would be better now for myself, Paranoid, and WWGB to abstain for a bit from this DRV, and let the community seek a solution to this. Ma x im 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you should check CSD g12. As I said above, parameter number 4 requires that there be no assertion of permission. In this case there clearly was such assertion. Please answer to this direct complaint before asking the community to "seek a solution". Paranoid 20:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim, there seems to be a clear assertion of permission on the deleted talkpage; "This article was taken with permission from http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=110&t=1343

The author (Bruce Klein, director of ImmInst) agrees to license it under GFDL. Paranoid 13:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)" Though I have much less experience than you,why not simply restore it with the appropriate tag pending the rest of the formalities, instead of debating here?'DGG (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore as permission was clearly asserted and seems like it would be easily verified (or not). G12 does not apply when permission and/or free licensing are asserted. I think we can assume good faith here but backing off of a clear error seems to be the correct course of action here, as the G12 policy advises. --Dhartung | Talk 03:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spells in Harry Potter – Overturn AfD#1 closure and relist - It was out of process to open AfD#2 twelve days after the close of AfD #1. The matter should have been taken to DRV. The non-admin closing of the AfD#1 discussion ten hours after the AfD opened was out of process as well. The article now is relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (3rd nomination), which should stay open at least five days so that all who want to comment have a chance to comment. – Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note This deletion review addresses the Snowball keep, non admin closure of AfD #1, which was open for ten hours. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been put to AfD twice this month (the second debate was closed as it was judged that not enough time had passed since the first debate). The first AfD resulted in a snowball decidion, during the second there was an ongoing debate before closure. The admin closing the second debate suggested that it could be taken to Deletion review. Basicly my feeling is that the article goes against several policies and guidelines and essays that are important to Wikipedia in the following ways:

WP:NN - No secondary sources discussing the subject.
WP:FICT - No real world material
WP:V - Can't verify the content as there are no secondary sources
WP:RS - As there are no secondary sources obviously none are reliable
WP:OR - If something has no sources it is almost by definition origonal research, the etymologies are really just a case of

editors matching up the names of spells with words in a Latin dictionary

WP:NOT#INFO - Collection of non-notable information
WP:NOT#GUIDE - This page and pages like these effectively are a guide to the HArry Potter Universe - not encyclopaedia articles and may be better suited to a Harry Potter wiki or a fansite.
WP:NOTINHERITED - Harry Potter is notable - this hould not by definition mean that the spells in the Harry Potter books are :notable - they should meet the relavent notability criteria.
WP:FAN - Could definately be considered as fancruft (in my opinion)

It might also be noted that the AfD for a page on non-canonical spells - with much the same content but refering to the games and movies rather than the books - was deleted using much the same reasoning.

Looking at the first AfD most of the arguements used boiled down to WP:USEFUL or WP:INTERESTING or other rationale such as:

"it's well written" and
"it's a good guide" and
"Oh no you didnt! This page is great!" and
"I know it's useful, because I just used it to check the spelling of a hex that I just shouted at my friend"

were also given as arguements for keep, I do not these opinions did much to address the issues at hand. I think that there is definately a case to be made for deletion. The first nomination ended in WP:SNOW but I do not think that should preducjice against opening up a new AfD considering that there was considerable discussion in prehaps a more policy minded way. Guest9999 15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per the laundry list of policy violations cited by Guest9999 above; the matching up of names of spells with Latin words clearly runs afoul of WP:OR, and I can't imagine an article appropriate for our project existing under this title. Both AfD closures were appropriate and within acceptable admin discretion. Heather 16:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... what deletion? You realise the AfDs were closed as keep, right? David Mestel^(Talk) 22:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure (that means either let the AFD run its course or delete it) Will ^(talk) 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure AFD should have ran it's course, many of the keep votes are like Keep/Merge. Although I am an avid editor of the page, it isn't encyclopedic. The information is very informative and useful, and should be kept in my opinion. At the very least, it should be merged with Magic (Harry Potter) even though Spells in Harry Potter is larger than that page. which is easily discounted in any AFD. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure Original snowball keep seems to have been dubious, let the AfD run its course, and if I were a gambler I'd bet on it getting deleted. It's not a speedy candidate, though, AFAICT. SamBC(talk) 18:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseA reasonable close, even for a non-admin. Besides the nominator, there was only one voice for delete, an active WPedian who changed his vote to keep during the discussion, giving reasons, and convincing even the nominator that there was no reason to delete. When the nom. withdraws, and there is no other delete. Considering that the prev. discussion had also had a SNOW keep, that the nom withdraw, and that there was no other dissent, the conditions for a non admin SNOW keep were certainly fulfilled. admin would have closed. I am not happy with the request for review: the Appellant claims there was debate, but neglects to mention that the debate ended in convincing the lone voice for delete and the nom as well.

But the debate ran for only 1 night in the US = 1 morning in Europe, and obviously not everyone was heard from. Personally, considering recent AfDs in general, I would have expected that there was more to come, and would have continued the debate. But I do not say relist, because nothing said now is likely to settle the matter: even if it is relisted and ends in a keep, there will be another series of attempts to delete possibly continuing once monthly until by chance it gets deleted, and if it ends in delete at any time there will be another request for review, etc. We have no mechanism for a final determination, which is a disgrace to any pretense at well-considered process.
As for the underlying merits, the spells are collectively a very major plot element, they run through the books, there is already substantial criticism to be added, and it was cited in the debate.--and there is a certainty of more to come. Ilikeit, though a factor, is balanced by idontlike thistypeofcontent. There is no ruling anyway that this sort of material counts as trivia, and not likely to be any consensus on that. There were abundant policy arguments raised for keeping. the possibility of merge remain, as a editing decision--one doesn't need AfD for merge. And, as I said in the discussion of another Potter-related article, this series is important enough to people generally and to wikipedians that any flexibility in interpretation should amount to a keep. deletion review is not AfD round 3. DGG (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn closure. While I am absolutely in favour of keeping the page, and will continue arguing that, I believe it was wrong and unnecessary to close the debate while active discussion was underway. There is nothing wrong with letting a nomination run its course, even though it was probably not really smart to start a new AfD just days after the previous one ended. Mel sa ran 18:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn closure~~ Endorse closure The first AfD was withdrawn by the nominator, not closed, so that's not anyone's fault. ~~I too am in favor of keeping the page, and will also continue to argue its case. The AfD should be allowed to run its course.~~ The second AfD was rather hasty, there should have been a longer waiting period. GlassCobra 18:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure - This is not a speedy, but Guest has it right. This one partitially or fully violates those policies, and I suggest this to be partially merged with the Harry Potter article, or continue with the Afd. --H irohisat ^Talk 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure. While I understand the closing admins rationale for closing the second AfD, if your going to do close an AfD under such circumstances, close it when the AfD is still new, as in less than a day old. This AfD had been open for about 2.5 days, i.e, half the time period for an AfD. Kind of silly at that point to close it. And as far as I know, there is no minimum time period for a person to renominate an article, assuming good faith. And on top of that, there was about 18 days since the closure of the first AfD, and the opening of the second AfD. Also, considering the first AfD didn't even run it's full course, I see no reason to not let this one do so. Pepsidrinka 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure—the first AfD was Snowballed, but the second AfD introduced much more discussion on both sides; an early closure prevented the newly found discussion from continuing. — Deckill er 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - the decision to renominate the article for deletion in the first place was out of process, and considering DRV is a place to discuss process (not whether or not the article deserves deletion), the AFD should never have been created in the first place. Specifically - an AFD was closed on 3 August 2007, with the verdict being "snowball keep". Anyone who disagreed with that decision should have put it on DRV, or waited a significant amount of time (I believe the guideline is 1 month but then again I don't visit AFD on a daily basis so maybe that has changed too!) before renominating. But instead, the article was renominated within 2 weeks. I see nothing wrong with the original decision to close as a "snowball keep", and therefore there is nothing wrong with the 2nd decision to close early. Incidentally, I would vote strong keep for this article, so please don't speedy delete it because then I will have to re-nominate it for DRV and it becomes quite a mess ;-) ugen64 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough of the rules lawyering already. What you seem to be saying is that we should close this DRV as endorse, to allow a new DRV to overturn the snowball close, and only then re-open the AfD. Needless waste of time. David Mestel^(Talk) 22:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - AfDs of the same article shouldn't occur within weeks of each other, especially when an article doesn't have WP:NPOV, WP:BLP or WP:CP issues. Consensus needs to count for something. Wait at least a month. ichor}mosquito{ 19:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the page for the the "snow ball clause" it says that:

"If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause."

The fact that someone later brought up a reasonable objection (in the second AfD) suggests that the use of WP:SNOW was not neccessarily an appropriate way to end the origonal debate. [[Guest9999 19:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Overturn closure- the use of WP:SNOW in the second AfD was uncalled for and unnecessary. The admin should have waited at least more than a day to allow discussion. However, the nomination of the article twice in such a short period of time wasn't so good, either. --Boricuaeddie 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure and relist, I hate WP:SNOW sometimes. It cannot seriously be invoked if someone does present a valid reason to delete the article, which is what happened here. It should be noted that the first AFD was also snowballed. This one shouldn't have been, plain and simple. --Core desat 20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but the two objections were withdrawn, weren't they? DGG (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn closure: the second AfD was entirely justified. Why should the previous one being withdrawn by the nom, who changed his mind, mean that a real AfD is not allowed to take place for an arbitrary period? In his opening comment here, User:Guest9999 has this article's failings spot on, not that many people are interested in a little thing like that in the AfD anyway. Miremare 20:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: the suggestion that a withdrawn AfD precludes another one is absurd. David Mestel^(Talk) 22:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure of both 1st and 2nd AfD. The first AfD was snowballed, along with nom withdrawal is very much a valid speedy keep via WP:SK#Applicability #1. The 2nd AfD was again rightfully speedy closed as not a reasonable amount of time has passed, which is the last bullet point of Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. Having noted that I think both closure was correctly applied, I am happy for the article to be relisted if there's a consensus here. KTC 22:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is incorrect. A withdrawn AfD does not count as a completed or consensus finding AfD. Note, that if even a single person had supported delete in the first AfD, then it could not be withdrawn, but it had been before anyone had the opportunity to do so. I would hate to see people start to do this intently, to game the system and keep articles by nominating them, then quickly withdrawing to avoid another AfD. A withdrawn nomination is totally different from an AfD that ran it's full course, and is not the kind of situation that WP:DP is talking about, at all. -- Ned Scott 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist The first AFD was far too short and most of the keep comments were WP:ILIKEITs and the second AFD should have ran its course. --Farix (Talk) 23:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure The second AFD was finshing up very rapidly with copious amounts of Keeps anyway. Therequiembellishere 00:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist. I swear, overeager admins stir up more needless drama than the actual trolls combined. Just follow process already. 160.39.202.22 02:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but this appears to be your first contribution. Do you have a username? Because right now, you seem like a complete newcomer adding a comment for a process you don't know about. Again, if you just failed to login, I apologise. Therequiembellishere 02:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I have my login set to "remember me," but evidently, it did not. Evouga 07:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn closure and relist. The first discussion seemed to be lacking in much policy discussion, but the second seems to be generating useful discussion (rather than fan-based keeps that cite no policy). I'd like to see this relisted as it was, so that the good arguments don't go to waste.
Overturn and reopen/relist. Needless parliamentary red tape. We should not have to have a debate about whether we're allowed to debate the deletion of an article! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the first AfD closure, overturn the second The first AfD was closed quite properly, with the nomination withdrawn and overwhelming consensus to keep, it was perfectly fine to snowball and keep the article. As for the second AfD, since new arguments in favour of deletion have come up, the AfD should not have been closed early. Thus, reopen and let it go the whole five days so as to get a sturdier result. PeaceNT 03:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure and relist second AfD The reasons for the first AfD closure was because of a withdrawn nomination, and different issues were raised for the second AfD. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist in AfD. I personally think this article should not be deleted, the nominator thinks it should be. Let and AfD finish and we'll (hopefully) have a better consensus. Useight 04:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse per overwhelming consensus. Let's go through all of Guest9999's points:

WP:NN - WP:N really isn't meant to apply to lists in the same way it applies to, say, terms of art. I can find an article on tall bridges, and I can find a list of the tallest bridges, but I'm not going to find an article that discusses the subject of lists of bridges. That's just the reality of the written world. And yet, we have a list of bridges article, and it would be rather absurd to even consider deleting it. The same applies here. There are articles about spells in Harry Potter (**hint**Google**end-hint**), and there are lists of spells from Harry Potter (external links), but there are (probably) no articles which discuss lists of spells in Harry Potter. In this case, following WP:N, we do not treat lists of spells in Harry Potter as the topic, but rather Spells in Harry Potter, or more generally Magic in Harry Potter. It may make sense to hold these lists to a higher notability standard than their non-list topics, but per common Wikipedia practice we don't require that lists present reliable sources on the topic of "Lists of X." If we did, there would be precious few lists!
WP:FICT - This guideline just says that an article's notability and the merits of bits of information inside the article are to be judged from a real-world perspective, not a fictional one. The merits of this article are derived from its weight in culture, so it passes.
WP:V - Eh? What about all the links in the article? Sites like this one which are clearly linked to? It is a secondary source insofar as it's not affiliated with the producers of the story.
WP:RS - What exactly is wrong with the sources provided? If you don't have any objection to the sources specifically in this article, then please don't throw the policy violations around as generics.
WP:OR - The material corresponds to the links in the article. (See WP:V.)
WP:NOT#INFO - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, but that does not mean that Wikipedia cannot contain information. This isn't really a reason for deletion; it's a response to "X should be kept because it is true information." You are citing a refutation to an argument which, as far as I know, was never made in the AfD, and is almost never made anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter.
WP:NOT#GUIDE - The article does not tell the reader how to do anything, so it is not a guide. If your interpretation of "guide" was universalized, then we would have to delete World of Warcraft as a guide to WoW, John Locke as a guide to John Locke, and so on.
WP:NOTINHERITED - This article receives spillover notability in the same way that J. K. Rowling receives spillover notability, only to a lesser degree.
WP:FAN - Again, this is a response to an argument ("keep b/c I'm a fan of Harry Potter") which the article is not contingent on. The Harry Potter article could also be considered "fancruft."

— xDanielx ^T/_C 07:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply J.K. Rowling has had many, many secondary sources write about her - her article is not based on Harry Potter "spillover". The Bridges in list of tallest Bridges show evidence of being notable - they have their own articles - the spells do not. I'm pretty sure that fansites like Mugglenet - which you linked to and the Harry Potter Lexicon do not count as reliable secondary sources. WP:FICT does not say real world perspective - it says "contain substantial real-world content". I felt WP:NOT#GUIDE was relevant as if real world places do not merit having every aspect of them explained I do not think that the Harry Potter Universe deserves this treatment. WP:NOT#INFO - applies to putting in information which is not notable for the sake of it - if the arguements above are to be considered then by default it would seem it is a relavent policy. [[Guest9999 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

True, the list of bridges links to other articles, but notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. So listed items being individually notable and having topics might be a reason for keeping a list (assuming that the items are meaningfully connected), but the opposite is not a reason for deleting a list, since WP:N does not apply to bits of information within articles and thus does not apply to individual list items.

I agree that Mugglenet is probably not the ideal source, but just as exceptional claims require exceptional sources, mediocre sources can suffice for claims which are trivially true, such as "the summoning charm is a spell in the Harry Potter story." There are also multiple sources listed which can be cross-referenced with one another (see the two external links), so the sourcing is more than sufficient in my opinion.

I think WP:FICT should not be applied here for a couple reasons. First, the article in question is essentially a supplement to Harry Potter and other related articles. If we were to merge all the Harry Potter-based articles together, the result would be too massive, hence the split. We could just repeat the cultural details in Harry Potter to make the article in question a "proper" article by conventional standards, but that would be redundant since readers who are seeking such details of the story don't need such a general overview. Regardless, though, exceptions can and should be made for books which sell 325+ million copies.

Your comment on WP:NOT#GUIDE, as I understand it, is that the article goes into too much detail on the subject of Harry Potter. Reading the text, I don't think this is how WP:NOT#GUIDE is meant to be applied. More importantly though, more notable subjects justify more detail, and Harry Potter is something of a king of notability. So I don't think WP:NOT#GUIDE applies here, but if it did, it should be unhesitantly ignored.

— xDanielx ^T/_C 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to say WP:FICT doesn't apply to an article on fiction. [[Guest9999 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Especially since WP:FICT is geared toward fiction subarticles instead of their main works. We must establish balanced, academic articles on fiction—not lengthy subarticles that retell every aspect of a fictional universe (that is not the role of an encyclopedia, obviously). — Deckill er 00:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notability guideline, not a rule. Fictional stories which sell 325+ million books may merit an exception. And I don't understand why you assert that WP:FICT is geared toward sub-articles; it seems completely general there as far as I can see. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guest9999, I said that WP:FICT should not be applied, not that we shouldn't consider it in relation to the article in question. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misinterpretted you. I would like to restate my point in a more appropriate way. It seems odd to say WP:FICT shouldn't be applied to an article on fiction. [[Guest9999 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I think this is only a pseudo-disagreement resulting from a minor ambiguity in my earlier assertion. When I said WP:FICT "should not be applied," I meant that it shouldn't be used to delete the article in question. I take it that you interpret "applied" to mean something along the lines of considered as a reason for deletion (otherwise you would be arguing that WP:FICT mandates deleting all fiction articles). I agree that the article in question falls inside the general scope of WP:FICT, that is, fiction articles, and based on this I agree that we should consider the conditions for inclusion/deletion which WP:FICT explains. Where we disagree is on the question of whether this article meets those more specific conditions (adequate context, etc.) and whether, if it fails that condition, the condition should be strictly followed or ignored as a loose and non-binding guideline. I argue that those conditions should not be applied as reasons to delete the article in question because of the questioned article's supplemental nature, and because the article is closely connected to an extremely notable subject such that it warrants an exception. Hope that clears things up. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT deals with "topics within a fictional universe"; in other words, the subarticles for the work they appear in. WP:FICT also encourages merging and transwiki over deletion; I'd prefer to see this merged and/or transwikied before deletion (I started a merge discussion, which met stiff resistance, and transwiki to the Harry Potter Wiki is certainly an option if enough people agreed to it). — Deckill er 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure per above comments. The article does not go against any of the policies that Guest9999 mentions. Also, with the constant nominations and the number of keep votes, the result of the debate would be the same. --musicpvm 08:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who closed the nomination, based on the fact that the nominator had withdrawn the nomination (Guest9999), the one call to delete was withdrawn following discussion by an editor whose opinion I have come to respect in AFD discussions (TenPoundHammer), and the closure of the AFD was suggested by the nominater, the withdrawn delete, and aonther editor (FrozenPurpleCube) whose contributions to AFD I also respect. I was probably wrong in snowballing it, so do what has to be done to make sure all is proper. -- saberwyn 10:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure Nominating the same article over and over is a waste of everyone's time. nut-meg 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not when the second AfD is unrelated to the first, and brings up issues not discussed before. If you think it's a waste of time then don't participate. -- Ned Scott 20:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The second is related to the first, and uses the same arguments for deletion. There are no real new issues. Nominating the same article every two weeks is a waste of time. I participate because I don't want to see useful articles deleted. I suggest to you that if you wanted it deleted, you should go back and read the first AfD and figure out why it wasn't. There could be better citations, but plenty of reasonable sources are attached to the article. Aside from that, the arguments for deletion boil down to "I don't ilke it", and that rationale just doesn't cut it. nut-meg 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse retention There are certainly secondary sources available. I bought my nephew a non-fiction book largely devoted to this subject. Carina22 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the AfD discussion. The discussion at hand is if the AfD was properly closed or not. -- Ned Scott 20:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse retention All that the page needs are more references, and sources to the outside world. It's just a wikification that's needed. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Although a case could be made, in the abstract, for closing the second AfD as being too soon, I think this was not the appropriate thing to do here. Unlike the first AfD, this one had substantial arguments in favour of either outcome, and letting it run this time may well prevent AfD no. 3 one month hence. Sandstein 17:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. I'm rarely a fan of process for it's own sake, but it seems like lately there's been more and more dubious use of the WP:SNOW clause. When it is contested, a relisting is more than appropriate. Speedy closing a new AfD because the last had been snowed is counterproductive. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 01:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said in the deletion discussion, there isn't much point to an AFD. There's little chance of a consensus to delete, thus I suggest any concerns about the nature of the article be taken to talk pages in order to attempt to resolve the actual issues with the page. I'm not sure I think that the early closure was the best idea, but let's really ask ourselves, is another round through AFD the best idea? FrozenPurpleCube 02:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:SNOW. From the debate in this DRV, it is obvious that a new AFD will not result in a consensus to delete. >Radiant< 08:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what page it was, but there was some guideline that said that you shouldn't speedy close AfDs when there is substantial discussion going on. Discussion is healthy. Melsaran (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Depends. Pointless or redundant discussion is not healthy, and virulent or aggressive discussion is definitely unhealthy. If the outcome is clear (as it is here) and debate is creating more heat than light (as it does here), speedy closing is the way to minimize drama. And no, the guideline you mention does not exist, although there are a few essays that argue that way. >Radiant< 12:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These discussions tend to shape our guidelines and policies. Discussion is healthy and should not be avoided just to avoid an argument. A conflict, a debate, is exactly why we have the AfD debate in the first place. -- Ned Scott 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and retain No consensus to delete. Arguments for deletion incorrect, as the subject is notable and can be sourced to independent publications. Mowsbury 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no consensus to keep, as both AfD discussions were stopped before a consensus could be formed. As pointed out by another editor supporting keep, the AfD would help to strengthen keeping the article. It is simply incorrect to say that you have consensus to keep the article when both AfDs were stopped before people could make their statements. -- Ned Scott 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closure - everyone keeps saying it was snow'd and that it still is notable, but the second AfD made clear the issues and falacies associated with it. This DRV, like the second AfD, is now being swamped by 'keep' votes again... David Fuchs^(talk) 14:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is kept, which is looking likely, something has to be done to fix everything that's wrong with it. Its shortcomings have been picked apart both here and in AfD 2, but I wonder if anyone is going to (or can) fix it? Or is is going to repeat the "AfD - Keep, AfD - Keep, AfD - Keep" cycle forever? Other such articles (RuneScape gods anyone?) have succumbed to exactly this, still resulting in absolutely no improvement to the article. This seems like a "we like it so it's staying - indefinitely" from the many keepers, none of whom appear to be able to provide any valid reasons as to why it should stay. Miremare 15:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do everything I can to keep it, you can count on that. Therequiembellishere 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Same here. The article needs to be improved, not deleted, but certain people seem loathe to take up this burden and would rather delete it. As for valid reasons, did you not read XDanielx's list just above this? GlassCobra 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an answer to your first point, many people are not au fait enough with the intricacies of Harry Potter to contribute to this article, and that almost certainly counts just as much for the keepers as the deleters. I would gladly take up the burden of editing the article into shape, but I think many people would not appreciate the results! Also, yes, I did read XDanielx's list, but I don't agree with most of the points he made, and still side with Guest9999's original list. Miremare 18:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. I can't argue, even if I would, with xDanielx's point about a series that sells several hundred million (and is the literary event of several decades) being a good candidate for an exception. Our rules are explicitly tools, not ends, and were fundamentally constructed for that purpose. This has unfortunately-if-inevitably received less attention as the place ages, but here we have what's almost a textbook example with a highly important (quite integral, much unlike, say, items in Metroid), high-priority article - one with no plot summary or risk of growing past its present confines, which are pet peeves in this sort of thing.
  Besides the above argument (not the least because it tends to drive a few editors to screaming blue murder), I naturally agree with the need to avoid the cycle - AfDs seldom fix things. Luckily, we've picked up some sworn editors and secondary sources. This is more and more a matter of wikification now, not the Unblinking Eye of Deletion. I'll add the article to my to-do list as well. To my vast and horrible to-do list. As for etymologies in particular, note that the bulk appears to be in intelligible Latin, and editor-made translations together with the original is acceptable form for references. --Kizor 23:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply So your saying once a something reaches a certain degree of notability every small detail about it warrants an article despite not complying with WP:NN and that the information contained in said articles be things like "editor-made translations" of fictional words despite not complying with WP:OR. I would have to say I disagree. Also WP:NOTINHERITED is not WP:NOTINHERITED-UNLESS IT IS RELATED TO HARRY POTTER. [[Guest9999 23:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Clearly marked comment left after DRV closure. Hi. Much as I dislike doing this, I can even less stomach having the massively erroneus comment above, made as I slept, being the only word on the matter for guaranteed future viewers. I still have no intention whatsoever of starting a debate here, so to be brief: No, I'm not, and I specifically said that these are not small details, and that I was talking about real Latin instead of fictional languages, and that the translations are in line with policy (WP:OR included). That isn't what I said at all. --Kizor 05:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - Even notwithstanding the technicality argument that the second AfD was too soon after the first, I think it's still persuasive that the second AfD was once again on its way to snowballing to keep. Overturning the closure and reopening the AfD or relisting it for a third time would seem to be monumental wastes of time -- it doesn't look as though there'd be any real chance of a consensus to delete, so why spin our wheels going through those motions yet again when that effort could instead be applied to simply improving the article? The proper course here would be for the objectors to the article to work with the proponents thereof and just improve it, in my opinion, rather than wasting everyone's time with a perpetual cycle of AfD nominations. Ashdog137 18:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen many discussions and debates where, in the first day, things are looking to go one way, and then go somewhere else. I've seen RfAs that start out with 100% support from 40 people on their first days, only to fail at the end. That first day, when you see a page without a single oppose, and 40 people supporting the person, it would be easy to come to the conclusion of a snowball keep. But important points were brought to discussion, and the outcome changed in the end. One day's worth of discussion is in no way, whatsoever, a reasonable measure of consensus. -- Ned Scott 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SNOW is not meant to apply when there is any reasonable dissenting arguement - which there cearly is in this case. [[Guest9999 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

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

List of chefs – Endorse decision but... more details by clicking the "show" button. – —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closing: This deletion was made based on 3 arguments, one that would successfully apply to all lists of this type, and two others that could be fixed just by editing the page. As such, I'm going to leave the page deleted, but allow for re-creation if whoever recreates the article fixes the two problems. If the resulting list after the fix still should not be there, then a new AFD can be opened. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: the two issues that can be fixed are: 1) the list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable - In addition to listing chefs, the list also accepts entries for noted gastronomes. There is no distinction for living, dead, nationality, gender, or even "real"; fictional chefs like the Swedish Chef are also on the list. and 2) The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category.

There has been arguments given that note that there are categories by nationality of chefs, so its unreasonable to create a chef category and put the chefs of the various nationalities in that category as well, so given that a list can be made with additional information, and the list's scope is limited, recreation is ok. If someone wishes to do this task, you may contact me to undelete and move the full article history to your userspace. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments given for deletion included specific, legitimate problems with the list; in particular lack of annotation making it redundant with the category system and the existence of unreferenced red links. I put a considerable amount of time into addressing these problems, and if I think its not going to be a wasted time I will put in a great deal more. Most of the delete !votes were however general arguments which apply to any list of people by occupation, or indeed by nationality. There isn't actually consensus to delete all articles of this type, or if there is, it certainly isn't reflected in existing guidelines Kappa 12:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion both sides has valid points, but there was concensus to delete, 11-5, one of the keeps is WP:USEFUL and another one was a agruement that was moot in a way, Mansford american chefs one, as categories existed for different nationalities of chefs. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Clear consensus to delete this article. --Phirazo 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion view. This was a correct closing on the consensus. For a list to be justified rather than a category it either need to organise the information in a way that categories cannot or be heavily annotated. Annotation has started and recreation should be permitted if a usefully, fully annotated version is produced. Bridgeplayer 20:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories can't organize the information alphabetically, that's why I left it that way. Kappa 21:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ??? Sure they can, and do all the time. Corvus cornix 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not when the category is split; one cannot get an alphabetical list of all chefs on Wikipedia with the way the category is currently structured. DHowell 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Consensus existed to delete, based both on arguments and on !votes. More people made solid arguments to delete than to keep; thus, consensus does exist to delete this specific article (but not "all articles of this type"). bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 02:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned, the delete arguments apply to all articles of this type. Kappa 21:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But consensus is not to delete those articles based on these arguments. The discussion is about these articles, and consensus exists to delete this article, not all the articles of this type. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 04:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is the difference between this one and others of its type? Kappa 06:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The difference is that consensus does not exist to delete those articles based on this argument. If they were all listed for AFD for the same reason and people had !voted to delete them, that would be one thing. In this case, those arguments may apply to those other articles, but at this time, consensus does not support the application of those arguments against those articles. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 11:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore There clearly was no consensus, with strong arguments made for retention. Mowsbury 13:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you please provide some substantiation to your argument? Thanks, bwowen talk•contribs 02:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I rarely would suggest such a thing: Jaranda read the debate right, it's just... the arguments for deleting are so weak. A number of people felt they would prefer to have a category rather than a list, but that is not and has never been a good reason to delete a list if the list plays to the advantages of lists. For instance, lists can contain redlinks, entries on chefs that should have articles but don't, while a category can't. DGG pointed this out in the debate; the redlinks were mostly removed, but I imagine some were appropriate. Also, the list was annotated (categories cannot be annotated). People complained about the list having vague membership criteria (not really) or being unmaintainable (again, not really - I can see it seeming daunting when a category is so much easier, but that doesn't mean it can't be done). I'd feel entirely different if Kappa hadn't put his money where his mouth is and worked so hard on the list, but that's important - it goes to show that the will exists to improve this, and that should be good enough to counter arguments that, fundamentally, were doing no more than preferring the easy option. Mango juice^talk 04:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, clear consensus to delete. Should be noted that the nominator has been spam-PRODding various lists for no reason other than that some unrelated lists have been deleted or at least nominated at AFD in the past (WP:ALLORNOTHING). Nominator is trying to state that no lists can be deleted. --Core desat 09:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was no consensus here; a majority in a five-day debate does not necessarily mean consensus, especially when the page itself had been edited by more than a hundred and fifty editors. Dismissing a keep argument as WP:USEFUL just because it contained the word "useful" is also disingenuous, the essay itself says "...there are some times when 'usefulness' can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest...or a matter of opinion... An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers." Attempts had been made to make this list more useful by adding annotation, how does deletion encourage finishing that job? See also WP:RUBBISH. And if the only difference between this article and others of its type are that "consensus" decided to delete this one and not the others, then there is no hope of ever getting an objective idea of what types of lists belong and what types don't, because it is all going to be up to the random gathering of editors who happen to show up for each five-day debate. DHowell 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - 2 of the 3 deletion arguments that the nominator proposed could have been easily remedied by editing the page to fix those problems. The 1st argument (namely "the list was created just for the sake of having such a list") is incorrect - if this list can be considered listcruft, then so can every other list in Category:Lists of people by occupation. While you might say this is an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, I am simply arguing that we have hundreds of articles of this general format, so to delete one of those articles with the rationale that "this type of article should not exist" (which is essentially the nominator's argument) does not seem correct. And as for making the list into a category, I think Kappa made some good points against that argument (and accuse him of incivility all you want, but I know that at one point or another, every regular editor is going to find some issue that displeases them and a lot of us do indeed get a bit uncivil about those issues!). In short, despite this overwhelming majority of delete votes, I feel there were no solid arguments for deletion in this debate. ugen64 21:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion After thinking about the arguments above, I must agree with Mangojuice. I cannot fault the AfD closer in the least, but it appears the arguments for the list's real advantages were not fully appreciated in the debate. While "it's useful" is a dubious argument in general, the fact is that an encyclopedia is organized partially for the sake of convenience of information. Kappa's right -- this list can do valuable things that a category can't. Of course, DRV isn't for re-arguing the AfD; but, DRV does address cases where an AfD discussion missed the full importance of some particular argument made. I feel Kappa's argument represents such a case, and thus call for the restoration of this list. Xoloz 10:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion this is much better suited to be a catagory than a list. Sasha Callahan 17:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

CMS_Made_Simple – Speedy restored per the proposed deletion policy.--Chaser - T 14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Expired prod, concern was: Fails WP:SOFTWARE, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SPAM Dannewestis 10:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to know why this page was deleted. CMS Made Simple is a very active community developing an open-source CMS system with the General Public License. As such there is no commercial interest in this. The community in the forums and on IRC is also very active and thus the CMS is definitely notable, as it is used by thousands of web designers all over the world.

Overturn and list Since the prod deletion is being disputed, I believe this is the next step. However, proof of notability will help. But so far, a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything with regards to reliable sources beyond a few security alerts. --Farix (Talk) 13:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some few sites with reviews etc. in different languages, for notability: Dannewestis 14:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Julia_Earl – Contested prod automatically restored. In my opinion the BLP issues do not rise to the level of deletion in the presence of sources. They or other concerns can be delt with by editing or AfD. Eluchil404 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC) – Eluchil404 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I hope I'm asking this question correctly. I'm a new editor. What is the reason for the deletion? The reason cited was "hit job" and "messy," but it was neither -- it was neutral in point of view, and well-sourced. I tried to find out more by going to the deleter's page, but he seems to offer just a rant about how he knows the rules and doesn't have time to follow them, or listen to anyone who objects. What to do? Notfromhereeither 04:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the help desk, Julia Earl was a superintendent of public schools of a small (population-wise) county in New Hampshire. The article made no claim for notability. With the exception of the last paragraph, the article went into great detail about accusations against Julia Earl. All citations were from the local newspaper (again, lacking worldwide or even national notability). The first step in reinstating the article is to show notability. Wikipedia does not contain articles about mere school superintendents (present or past). Wikipedia does not contain articles about people who merely made the local news. Notability is the key. -- Kainaw^(what?) 05:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Norvan_Vogt – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 09:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability notability with respect to the "Norvan Vogt" Article as per 3rd post deletion "00:00, 18 August 2007 " , last substantial review, in the Wikipedia guidelines is described as;

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

1.The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Norvan was the Subject of an article in the Youth Volunteers Report of the international Symposium on Volunteering (Geneva, Switzerland - November, 2001). He has also been the subject of an article in the Australian Journal on Volunteering, Volunteering Australia ISSN: 1325-8362, Volume 7 Issue 1 (April 2002)

2.If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.

The 15 that have been supplied with in the article should be sufficient

3.The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.

An independent bio was published on the Youth Action Net website as well as the Department of Education (Australia), witch are independent and widely noted sources.

4.The person has received significant recognized awards or honours.

Both awards noted in the article are not trivial, they are both royal warrants. However I do note that it is not a popular invented award like CLIEO's Batchlor of the year or TIMES person of the year.

5.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Norvan's Contribution to the re-establishment of Scouting in Vanuatu is widely recognized as a significant contribution to youth development their, as noted in several articles in the 'trading post'(Vanuatu's main daily news paper)

I feal that there is a double standard being applied to the Norvan Vogt Article as the notability issues are not equally applied across the board.

For example; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Muehlenberg - is about a nice guy that has been involved in a few NGOs and has a Blog that is not even noted as one of Australia's top 100 read blogs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iktimal_Hage-Ali - is just about a sweet girl that has been on a few advisory committees and landed her self in a media frenzy late last year.

I am not saying that these articles should be taken down but if they are allowed to stay I cant see why this one can't. Or is there a rule that the bigger the article the more notable you need to be. If so how many words does Norvan get? Or is a disk space issue?

Also, anyone that does work and live in developing countries, as Norvan does, has a natural disadvantage to the notability criteria. There are the Wikipedia is dominated by North American content because the wider media

there can produce more content than any other country.

Now before anyone decides to delete this article I would like to have a decent rational discussion against all 5 of the points I made above. Also I found the paragraph on the " Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" "Much like just a policy or guideline, simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. Therefore, try to explain to other editors why the subject of an article may not be notable. Instead of saying, "Non-notable," consider using "No reliable sources found to establish notability," or "Not enough reliable sources to establish that the subject passes our standards on notability. Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that establish or confirm the subject's notability."

NB. Lastly I should state that I have known Norvan in the past and that there may be a COI issue.

I look forward to your responses.

Delvian

P.s - I would like to politely point out, with respect to Carlossuarez46, that the deletion of the article was not deleted in accordance with the CSD G4 Q:“not provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version” the new article was substantially different and was also pointed out in the article discussion page.

Overturn and list at AfD first of all, a clear assertion of importance was made. I have some doubts whether it is adequately supported, but that's a question for AfD. ~~Second, G4 applies only if the previous deletion has been by XfD, not if it has been a speedy (or a prod)~~DGG (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC) I think the present version is worth a discussion at AfD, tho I would advise the author to trim it first. DGG (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was deleted as the result of an AfD, page log and the AfD. The two deleted version appear substantially to me, so the deletion that needs to be appealed is therefore the AfD one. That had only one dissenter, the nominator of this DRV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to note that I was also dissenter in the third edit of the article but due to seedy delete that was not noticed. It would seem to me that most of the peole reviewing the article did not see the 2nd or 3rd edits of the article.Johnanderson75
Comment Ok so what is correct way of re posting this article?, do you guys restore it and then i cut it down a little or do i just start the article again? Delvian 11:18 August 20 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion the proper way to have dealt with this was to bring it here after the afd was concluded rather than re-create it in defiance of the community consensus. Recreation of material within hours after an afd is closed as delete is the clear reason for having G4, otherwise nothing will ever be accomplished by afd. User:Delvian has few edits outside of this topic and managed with his second edit to find himself at an afd discussion which I find somewhat unlikely. Carlossuarez46 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion per Carlossuarez46. Material recreated after AfD speedy deletable per WP:CSD#G4. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse both deletions I'm not sure which one is being appealed, but the speedied version was substantially identical to the one deleted at AFD. The points raised in the AFD didn't persuade people, so not seeing any problems, I endorse it as well. As to other articles, see WP:INN. Wikipedia can be inconsistent. If you really want consistency, you can nominate those other articles for deletion. Kudos to the nominator for his consistent politeness and civility. It is appreciated.--Chaser - T 05:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 August 2007[edit]

Zeitgeist the Movie – Speedy endorsed; find reliables sources, THEN request a review. – Mango juice^talk 23:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure if there are reliable sources. Post reliable sources here. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - a better place to put this discussion Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 22:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Incompetence – The last edit was to PROD this, which process had two days to go. This was an invalid speedy, and an unnecessarily accelerated prod that has effectively now been contested. The deleting admin has not responded, and so I'm going to undelete this on the grounds that the prod was contested. Note that wikt:Transwiki:Incompetence shows that the transwiki was correctly completed. – Splash - tk 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article improperly transwikified with loss of disambig and "See also" info. Prior AFD vote results were disregarded. Azazello 20:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and send to AfD. I can't see to what degree the deleted article was a trivial dictionary definition, but without further information it seems speedy deletion was misused - speedy deletion only applies to articles that were transwikied as a result of an AfD, not articles that were transwikied on someone's own initiative - see WP:CSD and WP:TRANSWIKI. Evouga 20:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Permanent North American Gaeltacht – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Permanent North American Gaeltacht was deleted for verification reasons. Personally I didn't know how to cite myself (I live across the road from the site, speak Irish, and wrote the article. Any information I stated was verifiable, but from non-online sources (such as the letters from Eamonn O Cuiv received on the official opening). This site was endorsed by Uduras na Gaeltachta, and despite what some claim here, is a full gaeltacht not a college. for a complete description see sources such as (http://www.nwipp-newspapers.com/DN/free/324892792346375.php) which gives a detail of the site planned as the learning centre, helping to preserve the culture and language we posess. Also, being rejected because of size (as one claimed, Erinsville is to small) is just ridiculous. UNDELETE_verified by me, and others. -- Danjdoyle 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The history of this article has been restored pending closure of this review. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cite yourself. That would violate the policy Wikipedia:No original research. You need to rely upon reliable and published sources, preferably independently published secondary sources. The actual consensus of the AFD was a failure of WP:CRYSTAL, for which the only solution is the production of sources as described in the prior sentence. Consensus in the discussion is clear, so endorse deletion. GRBerry 17:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical point: you can cite yourself if you have published the facts in question in a reliable source. In mind I have academics who routinely publish in such a way, and could legitimately cite their own papers as a result. (Not that we'd know if they were pseudonymous). Splash - tk 23:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; consensus to delete was clear. DRV is for cases of improper deletion (or improper retention), not for deletions/retentions one disagrees with. —Angr 19:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion view - this was properly closed based on consensus and with no overriding policy issues. Recreation should be permitted once this settlement becomes a verifiable reality. Bridgeplayer 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Even were it real, it would need to pass beyond mere existence to be encyclopedic. There are any number of gaeltachts about. One even tried to teach me Irish, once. However, they have a hard time remaining, gathering subjects, and then having a demonstrable effect on the world. Geogre 21:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the standard here is verifiability; all the notability in the world is not really useful if no one can verify it Offline sources can be cited; however, they still need to be reliable and you still have to cite them in some form. I could see the article being re-created when and if it has some sources to back up notability --Haemo 00:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion provided that it's noted that re-creation with sources is acceptable. SamBC(talk) 18:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Agree with SamBC. Proposer of restore asserts that he has access to sources which confirm "Gaeltacht" status. Assuming these can be provided (and verified), re-creation would seem acceptable. Without however, issues with VER/CRYSTAL remain - certainly if "Gaeltacht" used in title. (Otherwise can only ber VER as a "project" or "school" or "language education centre" or similar, and any other "aspirations" remain CRYSTAL.) Guliolopez 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Closing admin interpreted the debate correctly. If that settlement has a library, I'm sure that some WP:RS material could be located from which the article may be recreated. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development – Copyvio deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 00:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The intention of this page is to provide a resource for interested parties to obtain information on this State Organization. The copyright violations that were described shall be corrected promptly and we request that the page and it's content will be Temporarily reposted in order that corrections and source sitations can be made. Thank you. Lefirre 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We never restore copyright violations. The risk to whomever actually acts and to Wikipedia are too high. Endorse deletion of acknowledged copyright violation. GRBerry 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy. Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations beyond fair use quotes is nonnegotiable. --Farix (Talk) 18:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion view but allow clean recreation. Naturally, to safeguard the Project, the article cannot be restored. However, as a state department the subject is eminently notable so there cannot be any objections to a new, clean article being produced. Bridgeplayer 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, not a copyvio State of California web pages created by the State are public domain, except for material that may have been copyright elsewhere: "in general, information presented on this Web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. " [65] This information is linked from "Conditions of use" at the web site quoted in the article, [66]. Incidentally, the same applies to Texas. I know it may apply to some other states, but I do not know just which ones--it does not apply to all. GRBrry, you have more experience than I at this, could you check? --:the material should be rewritten anyway--it is much too heavily PR for an encyclopedia page, but that's a secondary concern.DGG (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG is correct that http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/conditions.htm says "In general, information presented on this Web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use." However, what do they mean by information? That isn't clear to me, and I'm not an expert on copyright law. The page that was the source also explicitly says "© 2004 State of California". Given this, a plausible interpretation is that copyright is at best questionable. I've asked for some assistance. I incline to being conservative and keeping deleted since a complete rewrite is pretty much needed. GRBerry 01:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy delete The source also explicitly stating "© 2004 State of California" is enough to meet speedy deletion. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. – Deletion overturned; relisted at AfD. The DRV consensus is broad and clear: the process irregularities, including failure to list in a daily log, are not "shrubberies" in this case, but real errors affecting fundamental fairness. – Xoloz 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

After 5 days, the result was clearly keep. The AfD was not closed. After 10 days, there were a few more delete votes, but there was clearly no consensus. A non-admin closed the AfD in frustration at lack of admin action after the failure to close had been reported on WP:AN for two days. The AfD was plagued by argumenative sockpuppets of Kephera975 and/or indef blocked user Frater FiatLux as strongly evidenced in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd), both of which were also ignored by admins despite requests to review on WP:AN and/or WP:AN/I. The arguments that these socks presented were for the most part invalid, and based on bald assertions of various writers' membership in the order without any valid citation to a source where the individual self-identified as a member. Due to the argumentation, El C incorrectly deleted the article upon review, apparently w/o taking into account the sockpuppetry and/or single purpose accounts and invalid arguments. IPSOS (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it appears that the AfD was never transcluded onto the daily logs or elsewhere, so the consensus was not representative of the entire community. At the very least it should be overturned and properly relisted. IPSOS (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken into account all the factors presented and have nothing to add beyond what I already stated in my closing statement. Thanks. El_C 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rejected GRBery's request that I overturn my decision. Again, I was aware of the factors. Enough established editors participated. El_C 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: there's a whole host of WP:COI breaches going on in that AfD discussion. While I originally voted to merge I now agree with the current closing decision based on the earlier closure by a non-admin who was partisan to the debate. At the same time, the allegations of sockpuppetry against User:Kephera975 raised by User:IPSOS have yet to be proven and this is a clear failure to assume good faith on the part of fellow editors. I'm not getting in to this debate again, and I have already noted my own suspicions that the AfDs were raised in bad faith in the first place, but that does not mean we're free to cast aspersions against fellow editors with whom we disagree, willy nilly. I am certain that the closing admin took the merits of the article, and the debate, into account when making the decision, rather than the 'who might be a sock of who' tit for tat going on between User:Kephera975 and User:IPSOS. Coldmachine^Talk 13:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - care to explain your COI comment? Which editors are you referring to? IPSOS (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This behavioural guideline notes that editors who fail to disclose an interest in a given topic, particularly when making controversial edits (and I would include debate on an AfD as potentially controversial), risk being accused of a conflict of interest and this template, which might be placed on a users' talk page, makes specific mention to "participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors". I refer here to the non-admin closing the debate, and to this removal of a clear COI some time ago, but I am assuming good faith and have refrained from templating people. The debate, and the notability of the article in question, speak for themselves. Coldmachine^Talk 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, an interest in the subject is not the same as a conflict of interest. But I'm sure you knew that. IPSOS (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, El C took the correct action here. Neil ム 13:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Due to an honest mistake by the nominator, the AFD was never transcluded in any of the AFD daily log pages. (The nom omitted the word "The" when attempting to transclude.) This is a basic issue of procedural fairness that compromised the entire AFD discussion, and is itself necessary and sufficient reason to compel a no consensus closure or a relist. I probably should have closed it myself as no consensus when I first learned this, instead of just leaving a note in the AFD for someone else, so I award myself a WP:TROUT for failure to take the correct action myself. But a delete outcome is the one untenable outcome given this procedural failure, so overturning is necessary. The unresolved sockpuppet concerns are an additional issue, and hopefully someone will step up to resolve them (I have no expertise to inject myself) prior to relisting. GRBerry 13:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that really matters. It was in the AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product) category, and was later noted on AN, so many people noticed it. I, myself, never even look at the convoluted daily log, refering instead to the topical categories (although admittedly, I am the one who created the AfD categories). I don't feel this procedural oversight really hindered the balance of the debate. El_C 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the sockpuppet allegations were taken to account, within reason. I don't think another closing admin can do better on that front. El_C 13:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the sockpuppet point, what I meant by "resolve them" was figure out which, if any, are valid, and issue any appropriate blocks. GRBerry 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood that. The point is that it just wasn't that pertinent as a factor, in any case. El_C 13:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. -- Avi 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone please take a look at the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page? User:IPSOS has now merged the majority of this deleted article into the main page. In the edit summary he lists it as "including a summary of the most significant contemporary golden dawn order". Isn't this out of line? Kephera975 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't think the omission from the log mattered--clearly everyone from both sides saw the debate. DGG (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Clearly there is no consensus in either direction, yet El_C indicated that he was interpreting the consensus to, broadly, indicate a failure to satisfy notability requirements. Notability is a question in this issue, but there are book references that mention the organiazation, so that is still open issue and should be discussed when the AfD is relisted. Most certainly there is no consensus on that AfD page that there is no notability. Out of the 14 editors who listed !votes, only 5 of them were for delete. 2 were for merge, 1 suggested splitting the article and starting over as a stub, and 7 specified keep. That's not a consensus.

If El_C had stated "there is no consensus but I don't think it's notable" that would more accurately reflect the action, though I would still question the decision. It is not fair to declare a consensus where there is none.

Aside from the !votes, that extremely long AfD page is so full of contentious bickering and repeated arguments by the nominator who apparently has a COI, and at least one pair of sockpuppets, that there is nothing even approaching a real consensus and it would be hard to see it even if it was there (I am not accusing the nominator of being related to the sockpuppets, but there are sockpuppets involved).

In Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete it states, and it is written in bold: When in doubt, don't delete.. That is the correct action in this case: restore the article and relist the AfD. In the relisted AfD, use extra vigilance to avoid long rambling arguments by COI accounts and the nominator and let the process proceed as it is intended to work rather than devolving into chaos as it did this time. Choas is not consensus, the AfD should be relisted.

I have written a lengthy response here, but in case anyone is wondering, I have never edited the article or articles related to it so I have no vested interest. --Parsifal _Hello 18:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist - as per User:Parsifal's excellent statement above, particularly the quote from the deletion guidelines. John Carter 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Reassess hi just to say that the AfD was listed on the main list of current things at the time, so it was open for the whole community to comment. I thought the result, from all the comments and opinions that were given, would be keep though. There are problems with non-admin closures with a lot of the AfDs (some people are too mad for doing it.) Much as I love Glass-thingy (the bloke who closed it) if he was involved in the debate it's clearly wrong for him to close it. I don't think it needs the whole shebang again though, I'm surprised an admin kept it as delete and think the consensus, arguments should be reassessed by someone else.Merkinsmum 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by the level of apparent promotional activism. From what I saw, all the established editors who commented opted to delete. AfD is not a vote and the deletion guideline is not intended to be cherry-picked in this way. El_C 19:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not true, unless you are defining "established" in an elitist way. Please check again. Use WP:COUNT (Interiot's tool) to check the breadth of contributions. I !voted keep, and so did Parsifal, GlassFET, Fuzzypeg, Warlordjohncarter and several others. None of these are single purpose accounts. IPSOS (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted an univolved admin to close as "no consensus". Sorry it dosen't work that way. This promotional attitude is far off from that of the average established editors, so, yes, I have my suspicions. Of you, too, seeing how you are revert warring over the restoration of deleted content in the other article (which I thereby had to protect), merely a few hours after it was deleted. El_C 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No established editor that I know can possibly cheer on an involved user when he struck out his vote and closed the debate. El_C 20:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A wonderful sentinment, but in point of fact, no cheering has occurred. If you think it has, please show some diffs. I and other editors have stated that we agree that the non-admins conclusion was the right one. That's entirely different from approving of his action. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are getting overly emotionally involved, and please stop flinging around accusations. I've responded multiple times to accusations of conflict of interest which I will repeat here for your benefit. IPSOS (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not an agent of Cicero or HOGD, Inc. I met Cicero once. We didn't discuss any of these issues. I don't have his telephone number, email address, or snail mail address. We don't correspond or talk to one another. He most probably doesn't remember my name. I am not a member of his order, and have never joined any Golden Dawn order. Primarily because of people like you." (diff of full post here) IPSOS (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's untrue; I'm uninvolved and I don't really care. I have gone to the lengths I wish to to illustrate the extent of the disruption. But if you continue to revert war over the restoration of deleted content, be prepared to face further censure. El_C 20:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, you wrote: "all" the established editors who commented opted to delete.

Your comment is not only incorrect, it is a basic violation of AGF and disturbing to see that coming from an administrator. In what way am I not an established editor, with over 2800 edits and hundreds of edits helping resolve disputes at WP:WQA? And, I've never edited any topics related to that AfD.

That shows you completely discounted valid "keep" !votes by good faith editors without actually checking our contribs. I don't know why you did that, perhaps you were angered that a non-admin closed the discussion. There is no evidence that I or most of the others who added "keep" comments have any vested interest in the article.

By stating that only the "delete" votes were those of established editors, you acknowledge that you did not consider the "keep" votes at all, making your close of the AfD biased and unfair.

Whatever happens with this deletion review, I ask you to withdraw your negative characterization of myself and the other editors who do not deserve to be spoken of in that fashion. --Parsifal _Hello 20:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not acknowledge that; it was a well-rounded decision that took everyone's opinions and all factors into account. El_C 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you took everyone's opinion's into account, why did you say "all" the established editors who commented opted to delete. ?

Please tell me in what way you find that I am not an established editor, or that I have any promotional activism on this topic. My only activisim in the debate was to try and fairly identify SPA accounts that were disrupting the discussion. I've never edited any related articles, and I came to the AfD from a report at WP:WQA.

Aside from your decision on the AfD (which I believe was hasty and incorrect), that characterization of me is just plain wrong, and it's unfair. I think you're wrong about several other editors too, but I'll stick to what I know absolutely for sure for now, which is the facts about myself.

You marginalized my comments by stating that I am not an established editor. That's unfair, uncivil, and I ask that you withdraw that statement. You're an administrator. You're supposed to set an example of the best, so please show us that you are. --Parsifal _Hello 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist: this should not imply any form of criticism of the closing admin. The lack of transclusion is a severe problem for an article which is already something of a battleground. Hornplease 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This willingness to relive the battle due to an irrelevant technicality is even more concerning than the apparent promotional activism. El_C 19:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that its a battleground is precisely why soliciting wider, neutral "oh-I-just-stumbled-across-this" opinion is more, not less important. Hence, not a technicality. I certainly scan the logs. Hornplease 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment there are lots of tit for tat sockpuppet pages being filed and absolutely none of them have been proven, as far as I know there's no conclusive decision of anyone being a sockpuppet of User:Kephera975 and so that claim should not be used to decide anything. Not saying it's necessarily untrue, who knows, but it's certainly not proven and for all way know some editors could be sockpuppets of people on other sides of the AfD argument too. i don't get El_C's latest comment either- please explain? Any AfD may get promotion by its fans while established eds disagree. that's not a matter for concern, though with no wiki-able reasons for the args, they can be ignored. but anyway, the vote didn't go their way, so wasn't biased.Merkinsmum 19:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Ipsos is right too, several established eds voted keep.Merkinsmum 19:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that care if this notable group makes it? Go ahead, overturn it, "vote stack" the relisted AfD and close as no consensus. El_C 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn on procedural grounds. At least one editor, me, looks at the daily log. Evouga 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the current AfD listings for that day I think, along with all the others Keph listed. I think that's how I saw it, unless I just tracked it down from those other ones. It's not like uninvolved eds didn't contribute. Oh and I agree with Parsifal, I too am an established ish editor having been on wikip for over 2 years, with over 1000 edits. It's a bit rude to say all those who voted keep aren't established. I don't know if I voted keep, as I was a bit turned off by the ravings of the HOGDinc fans. But I'm surprised that the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn got through and this didn't. Because I imagine that there are more sources for HOGD Inc, though they're maybe not as novel.Merkinsmum 21:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, when in doubt delete and El C has once again taken a wise decision from what I can see, SqueakBox 21:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's absolutely counter to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which clearly states the opposite, When in doubt, don't delete. I sure hope you're not an admin. IPSOS (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? Because my view of wikipedia differs from yours? We actually need more middle aged professionals and less clueless kids as admins if we are to prosper as a project, thank God for admins like El C who use their own judgement, SqueakBox 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What does age have to do with this? IPSOS was referring to an official guideline that states that opposite of what you wrote. Why do you assume, when in doubt delete, when the guideline says the opposite? What's so important about deleting on a whim rather than relisting and allowing for a more functional debate to create consensus? --Parsifal _Hello 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great I'm a middle aged professional, why don't you nominate me? I've done a little searching and notice that you go around behind User:El C and give him kudos for actions others find somewhat out of line, like in this thread. I admit I'm rather curious about why you might do this... IPSOS (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - (ec)I dont think this is the place to discuss more general issues but age does mean better judgement 10 times out of 10, IMHO (though I have no idea how old El C is). I have been thinking about this issue for a long time now thropugh extensive wikipedia experience. Sticking to the point, a half hour assessment of the situation is not a whim, and that is what El C has done so I fully trust his judgement on this one and we still have Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn which is clearly notable and covers this interesting subject amply, SqueakBox 22:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I withdraw the use of the word "whim." But I still don't understand your inverting of the WP:DGFA guideline When in doubt, don't delete, and changing it into when in doubt delete . Would you please explain your reasoning on that, other than by general support of the actions of El_C? --Parsifal _Hello 22:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Er, what are you talking about, IP? I endorse one action of El C in nearly three years and you are giving me a hard time for it, as if I somehow dont have the right to support an admin whose positive actions I have seen so many times over the years. Please stop this line of editing as its not going anywhere and is off topic, we are absolutley not here to discuss either El C or myself, SqueakBox 22:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No SqueakBox you miss the point. You reversed an established recommendation of Wikipedia - reversed it mind you ! - and then have the temerity to gloss over it and comment on a straw man - this is not good enough, is it? What is going on here? El C and his dodgy support? This merits closer attention from other admins, I would suggest. What began as a dubious decision to delete (against consensus) is now a bigger issue, is it not? docboat 01:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think not deleting is an established recommendation and if it is its one well overdue for review, SqueakBox 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You don't think that ...." is just not good enough. First off, you are wrong. If in doubt, do not delete - that is the current policy. You may not like it, but there it is. Secondly, because you have an opinion does not justify acting to the opposite of established procedure, does it? If you have an issue with Wikipedia policy, then work to get policy changed. Anything else is anarchy, and admins should not support anarchy, nor should supporters of admins, should they? Mind you, I am a middle aged person, so perhaps my views are a bit suspect too, huh? And thirdly, if you are a fan of El C as appears to be the case, I would really advise you to be "on board" with Wiki policy, or risk jeapordizing El C's position - as it is, he is on very shaky ground with his recent decision. But that is just my opinion as a middle-aged established editr with no axe to grind on the recent article debacle - just a very strong sense of "something being very wrong" with recent events. I am calling now for admin review of the whole sorry affair. docboat 01:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squeaky, don't forget anyone can be any age with any qualifications on the internets, not that El_C is like that I'm sure and not to say anything against him in any way, but think of Esjay:)Merkinsmum 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I believe that closes like this (ie, based on arguments and policy, not head counts) are fine, and I don't think the sockpuppets were a big problem, nor was the lack of listing in the daily log a problem. I just think the arguments here for deletion were refuted in Parsifal's comment and so I don't think the debate can be called on the side of delete. I would recommend not relisting until the sockpuppeteers have been blocked, though. After that a relist might make sense. Mango juice^talk 23:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn due to procedural errors and lack of consensus. When in doubt, the result is no consensus, which means keep. Postlebury 10:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist per failure to include on the daily log. If the result of the discussion had been clear, this error would be harmless, but it wasn't. Newyorkbrad 02:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn without prejudice to relisting. The AfD really comes down to notability concerns. The notability was borderline, there was no consensus, and the editors as a whole were leaning to Keep. El_C pushed his own judgment in closing this as Delete. Clearly El_C had an opinion just as GlassFET did. There's no rule that a closer has to be unopinionated, but while the first closure did reflect the outcome of the AfD, the second was rather bold in my opinion. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - I am an established editor, have no axe to grind, and have reviewed the material. I am sorry El C - your justifications do not make sense, they are contrary to the AfD discussion, and do a disservice to the wikipedia. I would expect a complete explanation of your decision taking into account the statements expressed on this page - statements you have answered very poorly, IMHO. docboat 10:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist I hesitate to go through an AfD with all the arguing again (yawn) if the AfD had been closed not long after 5 days there would have been a clearer and less confusing AfD result to read, even if it was 'no concensus'. It's not El_C's fault- I thought of nagging an admin to put us out of our misery when it got to 6 or 7 days, but didn't. Assumed this one would end up a keep to be honest, as it may be more well known/ have more writers members of it than Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn. Some people are more keen to delete articles if they are about occult/new age or paranormal groups or subjects. Not saying El_C is necessarily like this.:)Merkinsmum 13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, looks like the AfD was poorly handled at several points. Bryan Derksen 06:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn without prejudice to relisting. While notability was borderline, there was no consensus to delete. I would recommend that it not be relisted immediately, simply to give editors an opportunity to correct the weaknessess that were identified by discussion. I am sympathetic to the problem of how to determine what groups are notable, and often would argue for deletion of borderline groups, but this one seemed to have potential to be interesting because it illustrated for me the difficulty of tracking lineage in this tradition. Buddhipriya 08:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as one of the those whose comments were discounted as being an "involved" party, I just want to let everyone know that I am in fact a member of all the religion projects, and have done several assessments for all of them. I don't think I've yet really really edited a single article related to this subject, though. Actually, my specialty is biographies of Christian figures, and my own personal beliefs are pretty much contrary to those of the adherents of the group in question. John Carter 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment me too, I've flirted with various spooky stuff over the years but never been involved in an order based on the 'Golden Dawn' or any of the related orgs. Nor had I edited any of these articles until a few days ago. If you look at my edit history until a few days ago it was mainly on alt med articles, and reading the AfDs. These golden dawn AfDs have inspired me to try and improve some of the articles.Merkinsmum 22:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist anew - The lack of transclusion on the daily log plus the lack of clear results. The admin closing this DRV should do the listing at AfD to ensure that it is done properly. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lolcode – Restore since significant new information has come to light since the deletion. – Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was deleted about two months ago due to it's newness and lack of reliable sources or notability. Since then, it has spread surprisingly fast as an esoteric programming languages, including being the subject of a Microsoft joke and Media coverage of that. It was also apparently mentioned at linux.com(another page linking to it, which might be an RS in itself) , although that article seems to have been deleted for some reason. It has been the subject of academic lectures at Australian National University, which according to our own article has been rated as one of the top universities in the world, and the top in Australia. It has also been mentioned significantly in an article by the Houston Chronicle, while it was discussing Lolcats. It has been mentioned in a Computerworld blog, although I agree blogs are almost never RS. In addition, in just two months, it's GHITS have gone from around 750,000 to nearly 950,000. Also, as the original AFD and DRV stated, it has a rapidly growing community, and has made it onto the front page of Digg, Reddit, and del.icio.us. It is clearly 'out there' enough to be notable, if not then, now. Lu c id 06:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much of an opinion on this, but I do want to note that someone has already taken the initiative to recreate this at LOLCODE. That particular version doesn't address the notability concerns, though. --- RockMFR 07:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, I didn't know about that. Per MOS that page should probably be redirected to 'Lolcode', though. That paeg, as it is now, is rather unencyclopedic, and could probably be speedied for making no claims of notability --Lu c id 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article, it's currently a protected redirect to Lolcat, but there's plenty of resource and reference out there for a full article on the topic. Merge in from LOLCODE, as the deleted article was better. Neil ム 11:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem to be protected, I can edit it fine. I just brought it here to make sure there was a consensus to restore it before I got into something ugly --Lu c id 11:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, you're right. The protection has expired. I'd wait for a few more views, but I would imagine that an article is now fine, provided all those lovely references above find their way into it. Neil ム 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about that "blog" you mentioned: it's not really a weblog. I'm the (freelance) author of Computerworld's IT Blogwatch column, of which that was the entry for June 4, 2007. It links to blogs, but has a similar level of editorial oversight as other articles on computerworld.com (albeit posted before edit and posted as part of the "Blogs" microsite) ... richi 18:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, it would have as much reliability as all the news reports going "Hey grandma! Look what's happenin' on those tubes! Look at the CRAZY ANTICS your kids find hilarious!" Thanks for letting us know, although it's kinda creepy you found out about it so soon. Small series of tubes, I suppose --Lu c id 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't hurt to have a copy in a sandbox to peak at and merge into a rewrite of the version mentioned by RockMFR, found here. Should just run with that recent edit, source it to the point where NOTE is plainly present, and then move it from LOLCODE to lolcode to preserve the edit histories. Not one hundred percent clear on the point of the DRV, given that the deletion and initial DRV were fairly straightforward. No policy issues/gaffs brought up here, just newly published sources. MrZaius^talk 01:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse well I dont have any articulate reasons right now but if you know me you'll see where I am coming from, SqueakBox 02:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - LOLCODE is really a perfectly legitimate programming language, with compiled and interpreted implementations. It has become very well known in the programming community, and sources are all over the place. LOLCODE has nothing to do with lolcat, other than the fact that both are humorous and have "lol" in the name. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The LOLCODE syntax was derived from phrases commonly used in lolcat captions. The two are definitely related. WarpstarRider 11:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's fair to say that LOLCODE was to some extent inspired/influenced by lolcats, but I don't think the connection is strong enough to embed LOLCODE within lolcats unless LOLCODE is deemed not notable enough for its own article. A popular language with somewhat unique syntax and what not really merits its own article. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per xDanielx AshbyJnr 18:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore we have extensive articles on programming languages even more esoteric than this. Tomgreeny 03:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. I was the admin who closed the AfD as delete, and I'm satisfied that the primary concern of the AfD -- lack of reliable sources -- has been addressed, and a verifiable article can now be written. --Krimpet 04:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, now - No substantive reason to restore before, given the rewrite/recreation, but now: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=LOLCODE it's been axed again, and on relatively shaky grounds. This after it having been sourced with several of the links above. A second AfD might have been warranted, but deleting based solely on the first was not, IMHO. (Note that I was not the creator of the recreated page.) MrZaius^talk 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, plenty of sources now. Bryan Derksen 06:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 August 2007[edit]

Media Publisher – I see enough in the press coverage to assert notability, which is enough to save this from a proposed deletion. – Chaser - T 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did not have an opportunity to debate the merits of the deletion reasons EricAlderman 22:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Technically this could be undeleted as a contested prod, but come on, a user account named EricAlderman and the article stated "founded in October 2002 by Rod Bacon and Eric Alderman". Pretty clear WP:COI case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Yeah, I have acknowledged I'm one of the founders of the company. My argument is that the company is in fact notable, and that I carefully followed the advice from WP:COI: "If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources." (If the article were undeleted, I don't think anyone could argue over its neutral tone. I made no claims of product quality or industry leadership, etc. Do you really have to be a Microsoft or Adobe -- so big that everyone writes about you all the time -- to have an article about a company? Our particular industry is more limited in its size, but we are in fact the leader within it, so we are clearly notable to that audience (including many Fortune 50 companies among our customer base).— Preceding unsigned comment added by EricAlderman (talk • contribs)
- You might want to consider the guidelines about notability at the linked page. If you think it's still notable, I'd be okay with overturning the prod deletion. --Haemo 01:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups – "No consensus" closure overturned; however, the margin is insufficient to delete outright from DRV. The article was thus be relisted. – Xoloz 14:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was closed as a no consensus, even though there was consensus to delete the article (12-6), most of the keep votes were because WP:USEFUL while the delete voters had valid concerns over the status of the article. I recommend a Overturn and Delete or at least Relist Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete: I disagree that there was "no consensus" as well. There seemed to be a strong support of deleting the article per WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:N, and WP:NOT#INFO, and reasons for Keep included WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING, not valid arguments for AfD debates. Ksy92003(talk) 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - I've been a baseball fan for years, and I can say that opening day rosters are no more relevant than the normal rosters through the season are, and in some ways they're even less relevant. I've seen some pretty minor names in the Red Sox roster over the years due to injuries and/or extended spring training by the regulars. But anyways... the keepers' rationales, varying from "I like it" to "its interesting" should not have been given they weight that they apparently were afforded. Tarc 19:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again Good grief.. I thought this was settled... ~~Ksy wouldn't know a valid argument if it hit him in the head.~~.. Several people gave good arguments for keeping the article.. ~~It really is not fair that just because Ksy and his good buddy Jaranda don't like the decision they can bring this up again.~~ Spanneraol 19:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why we have DRV. Don't insult me just because you don't agree with my opinion. Comment on contributions, not on contributors. Ksy92003(talk) 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously the only opinions that matter are yours, so why do I even bother... The only people likely to find this board are those that agree with you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanneraol (talk • contribs)
    - Alright, I don't even know why you're saying this about me. Who are you to say that I think only my opinions matter? Your opinions are just as valid as mine are just as valid as Albert Benjamin George Michael's opinions. Mine don't hold more weight than yours do, nor vice versa.. Just calm down and let the process work its way through. Ksy92003(talk) 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse a variety of arguments were presented, and they all were refuted. a reasonable close., DGG (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All I saw was back and forth agrueing, non of them were refuted. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, consensus was actually clear. Arguments for deletion were sound and based on valid concerns that were not addressed. --Core desat 19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per DGG. --W.marsh 19:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete remove all the threaded comments and strip it down to just the delete/keep comments, and it's pretty clear. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & Delete Keep arguments were - "navigational purposes", for remembrance, its significant (without providing sources asserting the significance), useful. While MLB recognizes the starting day pitcher, that's not a reason to keep the whole lineup. I think a starting day pitcher list might be worth keeping Corpx 20:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The thread was long, so I think the conclusion of no consensus was easy to make, but wrong in this case. Cool Hand Luke 21:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Such arguments as "I think this page should be kept because it will be useful for a lot of people and will help them remember some players that they have forgotten" are not valid !votes. I don't see much in the way of keep arguments that should have been paid attention to. WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument, period. Corvus cornix 21:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I would likely have called this one otherwise but I don't think Walton did anything wrong with the closure, and therefore I can't argue against it. Besides, it's a no-consensus close, there's nothing wrong with letting the issue cool off a little and then renominating it to try and get better consensus. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - consensus to delete is pretty clear. Delete arguments addressed policy and guideline concerns whereas keepers tended to argue WP:USEFUL and the like. I note that one keeper was persuaded to the point of withdrawing his support. Otto4711 21:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, not a great close, the obvious consensus, rooted in policy, was to delete; the keep arguments were very weak (I like it, it is useful). Neil ム 10:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK, at the risk of getting on everyone's bad side, I'm going to try and explain my close. This was a very difficult close overall; I personally agree that the list is pointless, and would have !voted to Delete if I had participated in the AfD. When I was closing the AfD, I came very close to closing it as a Delete, as I also felt the Delete arguments were stronger. However, although I disagreed with the arguments to Keep, I felt that they did make some valid points, and didn't think their opinions should be disregarded. AfD is not a majority vote; the Delete !voters may have been in the majority, but I felt the Keep !voters were a sufficient minority that it was better to take their views into account. I also reasoned that a No consensus result, unlike a Keep, does not prejudice quick re-nomination. If someone wants to re-nominate the list for deletion, it is quite possible that it would be deleted the second time round. Walton^One 13:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Agree with closer that this was a tough close with legit editors voting to keep but their arguments were mostly the same and not rooted in policy. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but that does not mean that information does not belong on Wikipedia. This article is consistent with the purpose of lists. I say weak endorse because the AfD could have reasonably be closed either way (the traditional WP consensus line is "two thirds, sometimes higher"), but there was nothing procedurally wrong with the AfD. Also, the deletion per copyright violation argument was really improper, as the article contained nothing but factual content, organized in a purely factual manner. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I could go through and make arguments against each argument to delete but there are 2 in particular that do not hold any weight. First of all - the list cannot be a copyvio because any similarities between it and any other website are exceptionally minor. The table itself consists of player names (factual information), ordered by position (which is by far the most commonly used way to distinguish players in a baseball lineup) and year (which is necessary since this is, after all, a list of lineups over time - and since there is 1 opening day lineup per year... and many years...). Given this information, a table with 2 axes - year and position - seems to be a very suitable way to order this information. How can that be a copyright violation? Second argument - the list itself is not notable because opening day lineups are not inherently notable. The arguments here are along the lines of... "who cares who started on opening day, because players could be injured?" Well, we shouldn't have lineups in the articles about UEFA Champions League finals either, because obviously it doesn't matter who started those matches since players could have been injured! I guess FIFA World Cup squads are not notable either, since players could have been injured and therefore other, less deserving players selected in their stead! Indeed, I am even less of a baseball fan than a football fan but even I know the importance that a team's opening day lineup has, at the very least to baseball historians and fans, if not a more general interest (like mine, since I have watched maybe 10 baseball games in the past 4 years). ugen64 19:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not familiar with the football tournaments you're referring to. Where are lineups listed? Keep in mind that a typical baseball season consists of 162 games lasting six months. To list the starting lineup for one of those games, especially game number 1, is only representing about 0.6 percent of the games for the entire season. If, as I assume, your football lineups are representing a far higher percentage of the season's games, the analogy is weak. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply the fact that a number of baseball related sites such as baseball-reference and baseball-almanac list the opening day starters as a special category as well as most teams media guides listing the past seasons opening day starters should be proof enough that they are notable and of a special nature. I found three online sources on cursory glance that show this information as special and notable.. that should be enough to satisfy the concerns of Wknight above. Spanneraol 02:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But baseball-reference is a reference site, not an encyclopedia. They also have a page to list the most unique similarity scores. I don't even know what that means but, by your logic, since they have such a list, so should we. Same with list of progressive leaders for adjusted OPS+. No clue. (I'll stop there). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thats not what I was saying.. Your point was that no one cares about opening day lineups because they arent different than the other 161 days... I was showing several examples of where they are held out as more notable than other days. Spanneraol 04:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Alright, let's assume that the opening day roster is more significant than the rosters of any other day. Would it still be notable enough to list each one throughout the season? I mean hockey and basketball have opening days as well, but the guys who start those games aren't significant, are they? Ksy92003(talk) 05:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete view - I am normally sympathetic to sports lists because they are generally encyclopedic and fans find them useful (usefulness is not always a bad thing!). However, I am unconvinced about the encyclopedic nature of this particular list and by both consensus, and by policy, this close should have been as a deletion. Bridgeplayer 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete This is raw data rather than an article. Carina22 16:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is a list, not an article.. Spanneraol 02:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete since consensus was to delete. Eusebeus 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - It appears that the discussion was interpreted incorrectly as the consensus was delete. I think the list was a strong keep. In fact, there probably is enough WP:RS material out there to write an article on the topic. I'm not sure what the consensus' stink with the article was, but there you go. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Australian Holographics – Speedy deletion overturned; relisting delayed a few days as a courtesy, per suggestion below. – Xoloz 14:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was incomplete, and now needs to be completed. There may have been some concern over the copyright of certain images, but in fact all images used have been cleared and are free to be used publicly. Also, there was reference to the lack of any assertion of the subjects importance or significance. I think this was an oversight on behalf of the original contributer. The importance of this particular endeavor in large format holographic production is hard to dispute. Many international experts would attest to that fact. Some ground breaking research was conducted by this company, and the various examples of holograms produced fill in an important part of the international holographic story, about which there is precious little information available in Wikipedia. If the Article can be reinstated or re-submitted, I will volunteer to work to link together researches and producers in this field and make sure that the articles are well referenced and thorough in their adherence to Wikipedia's content guidelines.- Perhaps complicating this process is the fact that the person who deleted the article, "Naconkantari" has apparently left the Wikipedia community, so I have not been able to advise them or discuss same. with thanks~User:Receptive Receptive 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn article should never have been speedied--clearly asserted notabilityDGG (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I agree with DGG, although I think the notability could have been asserted more clearly. --Bduke 22:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist in AFD, it had some claim of notabilty in the article, but weakly. It had no sources to back it up though. I would have endorsed the speedy deletion but I'm willing to give the writer the benifit of the doubt. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - [I am the author in question]. There are a number of reliable external sources to validate the notability of the information contained in the article, and the article also was not linked well enough to other holography related articles both internal and external. This can be remedied quite easily. I also think this article can form a kind of hub to draw other notable practitioners in the holographic community to contribute information to Wikipedia] So if I can ask... What happens next? Receptive 08:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wait a few days for this debate to close. If things continue the way they're going now, the article will be undeleted, and then you can work on improving it. Mango juice^talk 06:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - It took two years of their research before they were able to commercially produce high quality large format holograms. Seems important to me. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - don't relist right away, give the author a chance. Seems like a viable topic, certainly meets the A7 threshold. Mango juice^talk 06:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Childhoodsend/Balance check – Overturn speedy closure; relist at MfD. – Xoloz 14:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

My sandbox was nominated for deletion (?!) on August 14 by interparty, and the debate was closed for "delete" only one day later, August 15, and this despite having only votes for "keep". Debate should at least been open longer (if not by fairness, see policy). Comment on admin's page was left unanswered. Little chance to improve was given. Also, not sure request by nom was even supported by any policy. -- Childhoodsend (talk · contribs · logs) 14:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The user subpage was nominated for MfD deletion at 20:29, 14 August 2007. Two users participated in the MfD. The page was speedy deleted 10:51, 15 August 2007 by Radiant, reasoning "Pages like this are effectively "enemies lists" for a content dispute (see recent thread on WP:CSN). This poisons the atmosphere and really isn't helpful." This deletion review addresses whether WP:SPEEDY supports the speedy deletion. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist at MFD. Without seeing what the page's content was, I'm not sure deleting it was the right decision. Both contributors in the discussion seemed to support keeping it. And the user who created the page didn't even get to defend the page. Sasha Callahan 14:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC) - — Sasha Callahan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: That is not correct. He was made aware of the MfD and commented in it, just as I pointed out WP:DRV to him as he complained afterwards. --Stephan Schulz 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at MFD. Deleting admin, in their deletion summary and closure summary, cited a thread on WP:CSN that doesn't even mention the page. (I note that there was less than a 24 hour gap from asking a question of the deleting admin and opening this review.) When 2 uninvolved participants at MFD had opined keep, one of them an admin, the MFD closure was clearly not supported by consensus, although that may develop. GRBerry 14:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It appears both of them were admins. Cool Hand Luke 17:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could be. One I recognize 'cause he hangs out here too much, kinda like me. One I have no acquaintance of. GRBerry 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since Radiant seems hard set on misinterperting, I absolutely reject his claim that G10 applies (there isn't an A10 at all). We all know certain admins who are so biased in certain subject areas that they should never act as an admin in disputes involving that area. The page was not an attack page, and whether it is worth having is for a consensus on MFD to determine. Accordingly, overturn the incorrect deletion, because the supposed rationale now offered is false, as was the one offered in the deletion summary. GRBerry 14:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I advised the user to take it here. DGG (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. No policy clearly demanded deletion, and its early closure appears out of process. OR and objective usefulness don't even apply to user pages as far as I'm aware. This sort of page might in fact poison the community, but it's not clearly a bad thing as DGG's MfD comment shows. It's an important debate that the community should have. I recommend widely publicizing it upon relisting. Cool Hand Luke 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seeing as no one who had looked at the page recognized it as an attack page, including at least one person supposedly under attack (see JoshuaZ's thoughts below) I would say that it's the kind of controversial call that policy demands sent to XfD. Cool Hand Luke 23:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. CE is a known problem user, and Radiant was right on the money when he deleted this as an attack page. Raul654 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Do all listings of a user's purported bias constitute an attack? I seem to recall admins posting lists of non-scientific Global warming editors in various forums. I agree that this might be an attack page, but if it is then we really need to discuss the limits of identifying other user's purported POV. Cool Hand Luke 18:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is Raul654 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment For those not aware, Raul654 is known for such rant against me. We have divergent views about global warming and he takes it quite heartedly. --Childhood's End 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - For those not aware, Childhoodsend is a global warming denier. His edits to that topic have been profoundly negative and waste the time of users interested in making those articles better. [67][68][69] That he should create such a page is not surprising in the least. Raul654 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Kinda shows what I mean... --Childhood's End 19:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I see. The non-admins should see the precedents here, here, and here. It should be noted that these pages had headings like "Be wary of the following and monitor their edits closely", whereas this deleted article said, "Administrators known to clearly support the theory of anthropogenic global warming." I think lines could be drawn here; it's not so clearly an attack. Users make these kinds of dirty dozen lists all the time in talk space. Cool Hand Luke 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Just to chime in, you're wrong there. My purported "attack page" was no such thing. One thing it did say was "Be wary of the following" (no "watch monitor their edits closely," as Cool Hand Luke claims), which is not entirely different at all from [70]. So you and Raul654 can keep claiming these things, but they are without substance. ~ UBeR 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        On 04:34, 1 March 2007 you revised "Administrative watchdog" to say "Be wary of the following and monitor their edits closely". I didn't make this up; it's a direct quote. I have no idea who you are, and I have no axe to grind. It should be clear from my comment below that I'm not giving anyone a free pass here. That's just what the deleted page said. Cool Hand Luke 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The last modified version wouldn't have said to monitor their edits closely. Regardless, no different than [71]. ~ UBeR 21:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Users make these kinds of dirty dozen lists all the time in talk space. - Wik is banned for doing it. Uber's 3 previous hit lists were all deleted. Your comment is simply false. Raul654 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. Oh, Really? When one inserts a list of purported POV warriors into history and refers back to it in the future, it functions like this user page. If naming groups of purported POV editors is an attack, we should not tolerate it anywhere. Don't misunderstand me: I believe that deniers of man-made climate change are simply wrong. I also think I would vote to delete this user page on balance. But DRV is not about the merits of deletion. DRV is about process. The process was short-circuited here. Cool Hand Luke 19:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The deletion process was undermined and ignored by Radiant. Raul654's just got an axe to grind. ~ UBeR 18:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not red herring at all. You were wrong, and just about every admin and every user here agrees. Don't try to game the system. ~ UBeR 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As the nominator, I obviously think the decision was right. The page was useless POV-pushing propaganda. I would have preferred for community consensus to firmly establish this, on the other hand. On the third hand, zapping this early might have prevented some waste of time, so I appreciate Radiant's attempt. --Stephan Schulz 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There was not even an opinion expressed on this page, so "POV-pushing propaganda" might prove hard to establish. Again, please re-read DGG's MfD comment, which quite accurately described the simple purpose of this page. --Childhood's End 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. And I am not expessing anything about your ancestry and a donkey with this comment. --Stephan Schulz 19:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The discussion should have been allowed its full course. To clarify one point. When I expressed an opinion on the MfD discussion, I was not an admin. I was made an admin only yesterday (actually today on UTC time). --Bduke 22:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that, upon becoming administrator, your opinion hasn't changed? ~ UBeR 23:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that his comment was meant to clarify the point discussed by GRBerry and Cool Hand Luke above. --Childhood's End 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when does keeping track and labeling contributors cross a line per WP:HARRASS or WP:STALK? For what purpose was this list made? I see little valuable reason for its continued existence but there may be a good faith explanation during MFD. Carlossuarez46 22:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
relist Having seen the content, I don't see anything wrong with giving it the full length. I have trouble seeing it constitute an attack, although I would think by now that users would have learned that it is easier to just keep lists off Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 03:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist per above. Inappropriate out-of-process deletion. Walton^One 14:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Speedy closures are meant for WP:SNOW-esque AfDs, not for pushing controversial decisions before substantial resistance has a chance to form. There was no consensus and no policy was discussed, apart from WP:OR which doesn't apply to user space. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is this a red herring? His comment actually answers yours beforehand (!) --Childhood's End 15:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, several people here appear to be unaware that Speedy Deletion Criteria apply EVEN to pages presently on MFD. >Radiant< 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, several people here believe that the speedy deletion criteria do not apply to this page. GRBerry 12:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, one or two people have an actual argument, but the rest are throwing the red herring around that pages on MFD may not be speedied. >Radiant< 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - See petitio principii. It seems that you are trying to defend your decision by throwing everyone's arguments into the red herring basket upon your assumption that speedy deletion automatically applied, while that's what you failed to show. It notably seems that the reviewers above do not feel that the page should have been speedy-deleted, so saying that speedy-deletion applies despite MfD is no answer. I guess you're supporting your decision upon criterion 10 (attack pages), but this criterion is for "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity" and it is far from being clear that my page fell under this, as it shows and as you can see by the comments herein. As Speedy deletion warrants, "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead.". Thus I dont think that all the reviewers herein are guilty of making red herrings... --Childhood's End 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - See straw man and ad hominem. >Radiant< 14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Next time you close a debate as speedy deletion, try to actually mention it, eh? Y'know, on the deletion summary or in the heading or something. Don't use words like "The result of the debate was delete." If you had said it was a speedy to begin with, I could have immediately undeleted it as an invalid speedy and sent it back to MfD. It would have saved everyone a lot of time. Cool Hand Luke 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Strictly speaking, I'd really opt for relist, as incorrect speedy closing of an AfD, followed immediately by speedy deleting of the material. Given that that's clearly a nonsense, I endorse deletion. The material had no place in Wikipedia. For me, this is a classic example of IAR... as it's making a monkey of our rules. --Dweller 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at MfD - Speedy delete may be used at anytime, even when the page is at XfD. However, I think reasonable people could conclude that the speedy deleted page could serve a purpose other than to disparage its subjects, particularly since two users failed to note such disparagement at the MfD before the page was speedy deleted. The page was created by a user with 1,700 posts since starting with Wikipedia in Jan. 2007. The user has not had any other such subpages deleted. The Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard discussion on Childhoodsend was closed with "User's blocklog is clean, no violations present, try using WP:DR." While the user subpage may not meet Wikipedia:User page, WP:CSD#G10 appears to have been misapplied and none of the other speedy delete criteria appear to apply. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, because an MfD was going on. The speedy here doesn't seem valid: this may be an enemies list as Radiant describes it but it doesn't say anything attackish or otherwise worthy of qualifying as G10. If the user's behavior is an issue, I would much prefer to see warnings and blocks, and behavior-oriented dispute resolution as a way to handle it, and the page is not so incivil that we can't wait for an MfD to take place. Mango juice^talk 05:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Inappropriate deletion as no criteria applied per Mango. Radiant should have sufficient trust in the community to assume that if his position is correct, he would have received the backing of the community. Instead he short-circuited due process. Brandon97 13:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

David Shafer (baseball player) – Deletion overturned with consent of original closing admin; relisted at AfD. – Xoloz 14:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the Debate on AFD over this article; four voted to keep and four to delete. Regardless of this, WP:BIO states "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis" is the criteria for establishing the notability of athletes. The subject of the article plays in a fully professional league. Sasha Callahan 11:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - I'm not sure how the closing admin concluded delete there. --B 12:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist There was clearly no consensus--a variety of arguments were offered, included one by an established editor challenging our practice of not accepting minor league baseball players. DGG (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn there was no consensus. --W.marsh 17:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and page move there clearly wasn't any consensus for deletion, and WP:BIO is quite clear on the subject; player clearly has notability. However, I also think the page, if it's overturned, be moved to David Shafer (baseball) due to the fact that all baseball player's articles are being moved to this format. Ksy92003(talk) 18:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist on AfD player hasn't played a single MLB game, so notability is somewhat questionable. Ksy92003(talk) 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist on AFD as I admit I shouldn't be the person closing this debate as I am involved with baseball articles. Just for a note several of the keep votes were protest votes that wanted to change WP:BASEBALL guidelines of not accepting minor league players, which failed in the talk page of WP:BASEBALL big time, nothing with the player so I discounted those. The minor leagues while they are proffesional, it's not the highest league there is for baseball and there is consensus that minor leaguers aren't notable. Shafer won't be in the majors for a while (if ever) looking at this link currently a earned run average of over 7.50 which means horrible even for the minor leagues. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't think individual projects could set there own notability standards. Last I checked, WP:BIO states that athletes are notable if they "have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis". The subject of the article has played several seasons in fully professional leagues, and is notable by WP:BIO's standards. The baseball project can't set its own policies, but if they don't want this article to fall under their scope, that's the projects call. Sasha Callahan 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll likely leave a comment on WP:BIO about wikiprojects guidelines on certain athletes. Most of the wikiprojects have their own guidelines about athletes, not only baseball but soccer, etc about athletes who play in the lower divisions but are "fully proffessional". They are the specialists of those kind of topics and it should be mentioned. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - there was no consensus to delete. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The Delete argument was founded in both the inaccurate assertion that WP:BASEBALL established specific grounds under which minor-leagues are deemed not notable, and upon the shaky premise that any such would trump WP:BIO's unambiguous phrasing. In fact, WP:BASEBALL has nothing more solid than "Most minor league players are not considered notable, but some players are as determined by WP:BIO," nor does WP:BIO support the popular fallacy that fully professional leagues are non-notable if they are not premier national leagues. Were I the closing nom, I'd want overwhelming Delete consensus to override the fuzziness of the grounds, but no consensus at all was reached. I applaud WP:BASEBALL members for wishing to tighten up their criteria, as other sports Wikiprojects have accomplished, but do not support them using AfD as a stalking horse to bypass the need to establish -- and respect -- their own project's consensus. RGTraynor 19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to respectfully disagree with Jaranda's assertion that the minor league arguments failed "big time" on the WP:BASEBALL talk pages.. It seemed like there was enough general agreement to open up the minor league notability guidelines to at least include the minor league all-stars. Spanneraol 20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I could see a problem if the player had "significant coverage" from independent sources, but looking at the cache, I fail to see that, and I do not think being a MiLB player should be a sole reason to keep it , per WP:BASEBALL Corpx 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, minor leaguers do not meet the criteria. Mnor leagues are not the highest level, period. We don't keep people who play for the 12th level of English soccer, why would we keep people who play for the third level of professional baseball, only two steps up from the lowest possible level? The deletion was proper under consensus that has been followed from the beginning of such discussions. Minor leaguers who have not yet played a major league game do not get articles. If this guy gets kept, then there would be reason to delete any minor leaguer who has never played a major league game, and that just opens a can of worms that we don't want to open. Corvus cornix 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor league players are the most borderline cases in WP:BIO, it gets deleted in AFD all the time, but with the current wording, a person may think wrong. I reopened the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) which should take care of this issue, other than that, is there anyway this DRV should be Delayed until some discussion is formed. I'm away until Monday. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with the 12th level of English soccer is spurious. It is totally uncontroversial that people who play at the third level of English soccer (Football League Division One) do merit articles. Postlebury 10:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion view - WP:BIO is a guideline that is only of limited use in some sports, hence the reason why the Baseball Project produced their own guidelines. We have discussed minor league players before and agreed that they are not generally notable. Of course, if there is a particularly notable amount of media coverage then, in accordance with WP:N, an exception would be made. In this case, no specially significant reliable sources have been produced and I see no reason to go against the position of the baseball guys and gals who know their onions. Bridgeplayer 04:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but I wanted it relisted because I wasn't the one who supposed to close it as delete, because of obvious bias. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The more specific guideline is the relevant one. it was written and accepted as consensus with full knowledge of the general guideline, to adapt it more specifically to the particular type of subject. Whether it was a good decision is something I am unable to judge--that's why there's a specialised project who have the knowledge for it. But discussing the wording of the guideline at the appropriate page seems the way to go. DGG (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What specialist knowledge is needed exactly? Knowledge of wider practice on Wikipedia is what is relevant, as the whole project should be consistent. If a group of specialists want to apply standards which are markedly different from those of Wikipedia as a whole, they are free to set up their own wiki. AshbyJnr 18:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

specialist knowledge about whether minor league players are likely to be so frequently referred to by RSs that there is a strong or even an compelling presumption of importance. There are many special cases which over-ride the general standard of WP:N--highways, inhabited places, for 2 major examples. This is specifically stated at WP:N-- " A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right." Read WP:N, don't guess at it.DGG (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I believe WP:BIO must control here even if it is imperfect. Allowing individual projects to set the standard is an invitation for confusion and disagreement. Given that many articles are under the umbrella of more than one project, we should consider what would happen if two projects issue contradictory statements of notability. The problem should be addressed at BIO and there the various project people and non-project people can make that decision. In fact, the baseball project could agree on a statement and issue it there. However as for this particular article we should allow the more expansive wikipedia-wide guideline to direct. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 20:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and optionally relist. WP:BIO and WP:BASEBALL are loosely in conflict. It makes sense to give priority to the more specific one, but on the other hand WP:BIO is a much more well-established guideline which reflects a much wider precedent-based consensus. There are two sides to the issue precedent-wise, and the AfD resulted in a 4-4 tie (including nominator) or 4-3 keep (excluding nominator), indicating that consensus favors keeping per WP:BIO. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I certainly agree that the priority should be given to the more specific set of criteria. That would be WP:BIO. The sentence I quoted in my own comment is all the criteria WP:BASEBALL proffers; compared to some of the criteria given in other sports Wikiprojects, which goes into specifics as to number of seasons/games played, the particular tier of leagues, and consensus criteria as to a player's generally regarded prospects for reaching the majors, WP:BASEBALL's is next to nonexistent. RGTraynor 16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. AFD is not a vote, and rules-lawyering about the "fully professional league" clause of WP:BIO ignores its intent and the reality of the situation: minor-league baseball players who've never or haven't reached Major League status aren't notable per se. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my info, could you point me to the discussion or commentary indicating that the intent of WP:BIO is for any level below "major league" to be de jure non-notable? Truth be told, I haven't found anything of the sort myself. RGTraynor 14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There shouldn't be an arbitrarily different rule for baseball and projects should have no right to overrule general guidelines. It is essential that this is made clear if we are to have a well organised consistent encyclopedia. People will want to look up minor league baseball players, so they should be covered, to provide the same standard of service to readers as is provided in other sports. Postlebury 10:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore and strike down the baseball project's guidelines, which are not consistent with the overall notability requirements applied by Wikipedia. Why restrict the coverage of baseballers to 30 teams, when the coverage of European football extends to players from hundreds of clubs? AshbyJnr 18:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't hundreds of European clubs, I'm taking the issue of minor league players to WP:BIO talk pages, as it's borderline at best (as some people don't consider them to be fully proffesional) and specialists of borderline articles should decide those that are borderline by BIO or WP:N Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of European clubs. There are about 100 professional football clubs in England alone. Brandon97 13:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per Calton above. Eusebeus 18:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and do not relist - The closer did not seem to interpret the debate correctly since there was no consensus. Do not relist since the AfD lasted 5 days, and enough users participated in the AfD to determine consensus. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. There was no consensus to delete, and WP:BIO must take priority over discussion on a project. If general guidelines don't take priority, Wikipedia will become incoherent and unpredictable. Brandon97 13:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Bring radicals cartoon.png – Keep closure overturned; it is worth noting that the cartoon is no longer used in the article. The utility of relisting is uncertain; it will remain at editorial option, given that the previous closure was not supported by DRV. – Xoloz 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_6#Image:Bring_radicals_cartoon.png

I am bringing this issue up for review because the IFD process, as well as the talk page of the sole article this is used on, lack sufficient editor participation to get a meaningful consensus on this image.

This image is a low-quality hand-drawn cartoon used to illustrate a pun in an article about mathematics. It is debatable whether it is actually funny, but it does not add information that could not be covered in the article text. However, the actual issue is whether Wikipedia should use cartoons to illustrate articles and make them funnier. I believe it was established with the WikiWorld comic that we should not (hence that cartoon was moved to our newsletter rather than to articles).

The main arguments to "keep" so far are (1) that mathematics textbooks also use silly cartoons, which seems to be irrelevant, and (2) that the detractors of the cartoon are ignorant about mathematics, which is only an ad hominem. I suggest that this image has no place in an encyclopedia and should therefore be removed. >Radiant< 09:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep No reason for deletion based in overriding policy offered anywhere that I can see. Clearly no consensus for deletion at IFD. GRBerry 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep there seem to be divided opinions on this within the project, but that's where they'll have to work it out. Editing question. DGG (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, image is unencyclopedic and not within the scope of Wikipedia. Arguments for keeping do not address concerns about the image. --Core desat 19:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. If the image is encyclopedic for one particular article is not the question - it can be deleted from the article instead of from the database. I can imagine encyclopedic use of the image in articles on humor, on in-group jokes, on drawing techniques, ... --Stephan Schulz 20:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is stupid. It shouldn't be in the Bring radical article, just get it gone and then it can go the way of any other lame orphan images people upload. Shall we create cartoons for other articles? Wasn't this discussed a while ago, and the answer was no? Overturn and delete for anyone who's counting; the image is tantamount to original research. Neil ム 10:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why won't you let this go, Radiant? There was ample discussion on the Bring radical talk page regarding the image. Your participation in that discussion was limited to one sentence. You then decided that despite the lack of concensus, you'd list the image at IFD. A fair summary of your position there and at IFD was "I don't like it".
The lack of discussion at the IFD was your own fault, Radiant. You didn't mention the IFD on the talk page, nor did you even notify the creators (CyborgTosser and Cronholm144).
I'd also like to add that the image was brought up for IFD before, and was kept. The image was also discussed by the math Wikiproject. All these discussions I linked at the IFD. All of them either resulted in no concensus, or a concensus for keep.
Having to debate this repeatedly is really getting tiring. I also think it underhanded that you didn't tell me you brought this to deletion review. (You didn't even mark the image as up for deletion review.) Lunch 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This'll be my last comment anywhere about the cartoon.
  It seems like the thing to do is relist this at IFD. But for Pete's sake, at least invite people to debate the merits. At a minimum, you should notify the creators (both of them), the talk page of the "Bring radical" article, and the math wikiproject at WT:WPM. It would be wise for someone to read all the prior debate and summarize it at the IFD for everyone to read. There are cogent arguments for keeping it and for deleting it. I don't think they've gotten much air.
  I think this image has gotten far too much time and attention of contributors, time and attention that would be much better spent elsewhere. I've reached my limit and am going elsewhere. I leave it to the rest of you to do as you see fit. Best of luck, Lunch 22:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse keep I disagree with the IFD result, but there seems to be clearly no consensus to delete. 20:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Overturn since I, and I assume many others who have expressed an opinion on this cartoon, were not made aware of the new IFD. I would definitely have !voted delete, since I agree %100 with Radiant's reasoning and have expressed similar sentiment before at Talk:Bring radical and elsewhere. nadav (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I'm fairly strong about not wanting the image in the article. However I don't think IfD is the place to handle that, and I certainly don't think Deletion review is the way to go about it. The only place this should be discussed is on Talk:Bring Radical. As for the actual IfD, the consensus (regrettably) was to keep. --Ybbor ^Talk 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC) changed to relist, see below.[reply]
- Deletion review is the place to discuss improperly closed IfDs. There was almost no participation at the IfD (keep in mind that a dozen people expressed an opinion on the cartoon previously), and the discussion was closed as "keep" because the image is licensed, which ignores the fact that the reason people want it deleted is because they feel it's unencylopedic (which is an acceptable reason for getting rid of an image, as per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content, which refers to WP:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedicity). nadav (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You make a good point about low participation, which seems to be what Radiant was getting at in his nomination here. Relist so greater participation can be achieved. --Ybbor ^Talk 22:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep The picture is properly licensed and not offensive or grossly inappropriate, the closer was correct in directing editorial concerns to Talk:Bring radical. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse~~ Endorse and optionally relist per clear XfD consensus. Whether an image is "encyclopedic" is a largely ambiguous. Wikipedia is not paper; there is no policy prohibiting images which are not strictly informative; and the XfD determined that the image was appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. I see nothing about this case which makes it appropriate for DRV. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It cannot be called "a clear consensus" since there was almost no involvement. I and many others were not informed of the IfD. It needs to be relisted so that the many people who have expressed a view in the past can participate. nadav (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the numbers, the vote count was 6 (keep) to 1 (delete). The number of participants wasn't outstanding, but it was much greater than most IfDs get. The being radical editors seemed well aware of the proposed deletion -- what other groups would you recommend notifying? — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually there were only two voters on the IfD, the other 5 were from a prior discussion that happened in March. And the !count was 2 delete, 5 keep for the record.--Ybbor ^Talk 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - (e/c) ????? There were only 2 keeps vs. nom (Radiant). The Bring radical editors were not made aware, since there was no notice on that article's talk page. nadav (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right again Nadav. Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Listing_images_and_media_for_deletion states that a notice is supposed to be provided in the caption whenan image is up for deletion. This didn't occur at the Bring Radical page. combine this with the obviously low participation, and there's definite grounds for a relist.--Ybbor ^Talk 01:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't know that the caption wasn't tagged -- I'll change my vote accordingly. I don't see why we should be ignoring the previous IfD though -- it's the same image, after all. In fact I would have supported a speedy keep on the grounds that the nomination was "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected." I don't know if WP:CSK officially applies to the IfD forum, but the same logic certainly does in this case. Even if Radiant managed to get a majority in favor of delete, it would be a clear case of "Asking the other parent". For all practical purposes, I still consider it a 6-1 keep, since the same arguments were presented in each IfD and the context was not different in any relevant way. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Consensus can change, and it makes no sense for us to be forever bound by the opinions of the small group of people that voted "keep" in the first ifd (and content is very often nominated multiple times for deletion). Moreover, the question of including comics in articles was already definitively settled by the wikiworld discussions, which saw much, much broader participation. nadav (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Consensus can change, yes, but "asking the other parent" is not a proper consensus change. It doesn't matter in this case, since the IfD was rejected repeatedly, not circumstantially. My point is just that the article shouldn't be relisted any further for reasons of low participation, since there is really no appropriate reason to disregard the three Keep votes from last year as well as the three for this year, given that the same arguments were presented and the image remained static. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original cartoons. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the same note, DRV is not the place to improvise original extensions of what Wikipedia is not. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since we all have short attention spans, let me refer everyone to the very large consensus that decided it's not ok to put the WikiWorld cartoon in mainspace articles. It was eventually decided to make it a column in the Signpost instead. See e.g. [72], [73]. It's a clear precedent. nadav (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find your "very large consensus" assertion rather unsound. Neither of those discussions produced any clear consensus, and. They also didn't have a particularly high level of participation, and unlike the IfD, most of the participants didn't express clear positions on the issue. On the first page you referenced, there seemed to be a very vague agreement which lies somewhere between presenting unobtrusive links to comics on the main article page and presenting them on the discussion page. If anything, this implies that we should keep comic-like images, not delete them. The WP:AN discussion involved a very mixed bag of opinions - "I think they're brilliant", "Very clever", "Surely a link on the talk page is enough", "they surely will be brillant additions to the project", and so on. Only a small minority of editors expressed the view that the images had no place on Wikipedia. In any case, the relevance of any such "consensus" to this DRV is rather slim. We're dealing with a small image which doesn't need to be stretched, not a template, not a link, and not anything which is presented in any way substantially similar to the way large WikiWorld comics may be presented. There were also concerns voiced which have virtually no applicability to this DRV, such as "Comics have the problem that the text in them is not editable". We're dealing with a single-frame image, not a large comic that illustrates an entire article. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep - IfD and DRV do not seem to be appropriate ways to edit articles. The image should not be in the Bring radical article (perhaps because it is original research or because of a variety of style reasons or because there are no reliable sources to support the inclusion of the image in the article), but that doesn't seem to be a basis to delete a {{self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} licensed image. If the image is included in an article, I think WP:RfC is the place to get consensus to keep it out of articles or this discussion may be a sufficient consensus for an admin to use their tools on the matter. Talk page consensus discussions should last for about five days. If you are looking for an admin to close such a discussion with a decision, please contact me. If someone closes the discussion early to prevent consensus, please contact me and I will open the discussion back up or post a note on WP:AN. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

ProjectPier – Article restored by speedy-deleting admin. – Xoloz 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was reposted in a significantly improved manner after an initial deletion. Also, there was a discussion about the deletion criteria on its talk page that resulted in a consensus to keep the page Rcrossvs 03:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. Certainly didn't fall under G4 :-) ugen64 09:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, was not markedly similar to the originally speedied content. Not a valid application of CSD G4. Neil ム 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 deletion and award the second deleter a trout; G4 only applies to things deleted because of an XfD discussion. When an XfD discussion is closed because an article was already speedy deleted at the time it started, G4 doesn't apply. Overturn original A7 deletion and award the first deleter a trout, an open source software product does not meet the criteria for A7. Sigh. GRBerry 14:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Not sure if my vote counts, but I noticed that there are already 3 other people suggesting to have the page restored, and no one things the deletion was justified, so can someone restore it now? Rcrossvs 07:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but normal time on DRV is 5 days. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Closing_reviews. --Stephan Schulz 08:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not familiar with some of wikipedia's policies in this arena Rcrossvs 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as explained by GRBerry. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn per GRBerry. JoshuaZ 20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed that someone seems to have restored the page, can the discussion page also be restored so there is a record of the deletion discussion. Rcrossvs 06:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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