Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December

< November 2007	Deletion review archives	January 2008 >

31 December 2007[edit]

Imaginative Sex – Overturn deletion and list at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a notable book, since it was a kind of pioneering early BDSM manual, published about 15 years before the term "BDSM" itself was even invented (as was discussed in the introduction to the republished 1996 edition by Pat Califia). This article was suddenly and seemingly rather arbitrarily deleted by User:JzG, even though any problems with article were certainly not severe enough to trigger a unilateral speedy deletion without discussion. It was definitely not an "advertisement" by the book author himself, since he rather notoriously never uses the Internet at all... AnonMoos (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See also Whatlinkshere "Imaginative Sex" -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, add some references and a claim of notability, I have nothing against the book, the problem was an unreferenced (since forever) article with a strongly promotional tone created by a WP:SPA. Want it back in place or userfied for rework? Drop me a note. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the "Single Purpose Account" that you claim was used? Since the revision history is now deleted, I have no way of examining your claim. Also, while I'm willing to do what I can to revise the article, unfortunately, my abilities to fix things will be limited, since I don't have access to the Pat Califia introduction to the 1996 reprint, which apparently contains much relevant information. If I had access to the Pat Califia introduction to the 1996 reprint, then I would probably have already significantly revised the Imaginative Sex article long ago. Furthermore, I would like to know what you claim to be "strongly promotional" about the article... AnonMoos (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You shouldn't need the book itself to prove it's notability. By definition, you need a source outside of the book to do that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, it's not the text of the original book itself, but an essay by another author (published as an introduction to a reprint of the book), which sets the 1974 book in its original context... AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse based on Guy's comment here. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that someone who conducts a unilateral out-of-the-blue deletion on a long-standing article apparently not even marked with serious problem templates should be required to give a much more detailed and specific deletion rationale. If he's not required to give a detailed and specific deletion rationale, then something seems to be broken in the deletion process. It would have been much easier all around if he had simply raised issues on the article talk page which could have been dealt with in a normal manner, instead of going to the immediate nuclear option. That way, I wouldn't be completely and utterly in the dark as to what he's talking about when he refers to "single-purpose accounts", and the specific features which he considers to be "promotional" could have been discussed and dealt with in a normal way... AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree, this thread is about improving the encyclopedia, not about Guy and if he made a mistake (which I have no idea having not seen the article but I assume good faith) then his comment here have fully made up for it, I am sure if you now create a good article it will stand. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - I've had a read of the deleted content. It really does read like a publisher's book summary, or something that one would find on the book's dust jacket. The only major contributor was its creator, 209.244.214.97 (talk · contribs). Most other edits were wikification and formatting, and some editorialization that was reverted for being factually incorrect. The article was marked {{essay-entry}} on 2007-02-01. I reserve comment on the deletion, but I do think that, if you have sources to hand (there weren't any cited in the article) you could probably do better from a standing start, and would have had to rewrite the article from scratch anyway. Try page 1359 of ISBN 0933833385, for starters. There's also a magazine write-up by Rick Umbaugh. Uncle G (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And if that's the case it was either a copy-vio or simple advertising. In either case one would expect the article to be deleted. Jim62sch 20:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Deleted with the rationale "nevr sourced, no sign of notability, looks like an advert" The first is not a criterion for speedy, the second is not applicable to books, and the third is not obvious to me in the least and is probably fixable. Seems descriptive. The essay given is probably a RS, but there ought to be others. Speedy is not where there is reasonable cause for disagreement. But all that is really needed is to carefully re-create it. DGG (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list per DGG. However, I believe that if an editor in good standing (the deleting admin, for one) believes the article should be deleted, we ought to at least have the community take a look at it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC) -- yes, any registered editor can bring an article to AfD. No problem about that. DGG (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AFD. Seems to be a questionable speedy, and there is a legitimate objection to it. I say discuss it, and possibly give a chance for some sources to show up. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD This doesn't fit any CSD criteria, nor does original deleting admin argue that it does. No compelling reason for speedy deletion given, so this article deserves five days on AfD as per normal procedure. Xoloz (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn' i dont see books anywhere at the speedy deletion page. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. Overturn partly based on DGG's analysis and partly on the the basis that books by notable author's have enough notability to avoid a speedy. List because I can't find any reliable reviews and hence an AfD review is appropriate. BlueValour (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Listing is plain silly, the deleted content was trash, AnonMoos wants to write a proper article from sources, I have offered to undelete or userfy to facilitate that, Uncle G, perpetual saviour of all that is redeemable, has pitched in - we don't need to jump through hoops here, let's just apply a little WP:CLUE, eh? I'll userfy it, that's the simplest thing. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a pretty severe misstatement to call this "trash." It's bad now, but could be made into a perfectly respectable stub in ten seconds, if someone found a source. Given that we've got a source (the critical essay -- it's unspecified, but I AGF that it exists), I think five days at AfD is a very fine idea. If you're anxious to avoid extra time, I could speedy close this DRV as "overturn and list" right now. You could also close it with that result by reversing yourself. Xoloz (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn & off to AFD I believe A7 is not an exhaustive list, but this was a closer call that may, as Xoloz states, benefit from a good airing at afd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Xarchiver – Undelete. Substantive improvements have been made in the sourcing of the article, which was the primary concern of the AfD. Relisting is at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was deleted at AFD after concerns about the sourcing. A copy of the source was requested and the requesting editor has subsequently recreated the page after adding some sources - but I'm not persuaded that these sources are sufficient. Really this should have come via here first so I have undeleted the history and added a dlerev tag on the article. Grateful for comments on whether this new article with sources passes muster. As the deleting admin I have no opinion at present Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore. I reviewed this during the original AFD, and made a "weak keep" recommendation. After the article was deleted, I thought the topic was worthwhile enough to attempt to correct the perceived flaws, essentially no demonstrated notability. Since this is Linux software, with the expected lack of commercial support, notability is more difficult to show than with many other platforms. Nonetheless, it was easy to locate many references to Xarchiver, and to find a few with actual substance. Virtually every aspect of Xarchiver can be found with at least brief details on the web, and a couple of more substantial reviews are cited. The program has been adopted as default archiver for Xfce, a desktop environment for such systems, and this is also documented. This, I think, at the very least, is sufficient to show notability for an item of Linux software. This is not a terribly important piece of software, but it is sufficiently notable to be worth an article. (And, please accept my apologies for not following expected protocols in setting up the new article. I plead great ignorance, now remedied.) Tim Ross·^talk 19:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate and Relist. There is enough of an improvement for a recreation. However, the sources still look pretty thin to me (the first one doesn't mention the software by name, the Italian Linuxpedia is a Wiki which is not a reliable source etc). I think that it should go to a further AfD so that the experts in the field can take a further view. BlueValour (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: Deletion after AFD was clear cut. Any recreation needs to be sufficiently different than the deleted version to avoid speedy deletion under criterion G4. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're quite right, Carlossuarez46. The AfD was clear cut, and significant changes were needed for correction. The problem, though, wasn't with the words of the original article, which described this little application reasonably well, and which have been little changed in this new version, but rather the need for a better demonstration of notability, which I've attempted to do through the much improved sourcing. BlueValour is also right. The sources are still a little thin, and a couple are virtually transparent. Best I could do, but, I think, it's enough to adequately show notability for a Linux application. Tim Ross·^talk 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

DJ Wonder – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was originally deleted due to "conflict of interest," yet all references were verifiable and all content was unbiased in nature. I am a fan of DJ Wonder and all DJ's originally from my state of Delaware. Can you please reveiw this deletion, as I believe it is worthy to be relisted. Thank you. 71.242.105.28 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The AFD addressed a lack of non-trivial reliable sources and failure to meet WP:MUSIC not just the COI issues. Just for the record, please declare any connection that you have to this subject? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the question of whether the sources were enough to establish notability is a matter for the AfD, not here, and the Community decided that they weren't. The AfD was properly closed but I would just make the point that closing admins really should provide a rationale when closing. BlueValour (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the proper procedure to get this relisted then, if that particular group in the Afd thought that the sources were not enough? Is this not the place to go for further review? Spartaz - I am a fan of DJ Wonder.
  - This is the correct procedure for a review but we only consider the process; we don't substitute our judgement for that of the participants in the AfD. The way forward is to find better, more reliable sources then come back here for agreement to recreate. BlueValour (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to provide a closing rationale for this discussion. So:

From the original AFD, One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) explained that the article was speedily deleted once as a non-notable DJ, and was proposed for deletion the second time. Starblind (talk · contribs) and Gtstricky (talk · contribs) also expressed opinions that the article should be deleted. The only opinions to keep the article came from Esticks (talk · contribs) and 209.196.192.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Esticks hasn't made any contributions outside of that article, while 209.196.192.7 is registered to Sirius Satellite Radio. Since there were three opinions in favor of deletion, and one opinion in favor of keeping the article, I took that as a consensus to delete it.
I'll also note that in the original AFD, the author of the article made several attempts to address concerns made by those who wanted the article deleted. While that's fine, nobody changed their mind and said the article was worth keeping at that point.
Also, some history about the article: The first version of the article was deleted on December 4, under WP:CSD G11 (article consists only of advertising). I deleted the article on December 15 after the AFD was closed. Gaslucky (talk · contribs) recreated the article on December 25, and it was deleted on December 29 as a reposting of deleted content. Gaslucky (talk · contribs) recreated the article again on December 30, and it was deleted on December 31. At that point, Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected the article against being re-created (at 11:20 UTC). This DRV was submitted on December 31, 14:27 UTC.
I get the feeling that someone would have created this article for the fifth time if someone hadn't protected the page against being re-created.
I don't have any strong opinion personally about the article or the subject, but I'll note that with the article being created four times (and deleted four times), and with the submission of this DRV, it seems like there's an inordinate interest from some person(s) to have an article on this DJ. That sounds like someone wants to use Wikipedia for promotion, and Wikipedia isn't the place for that. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse for lack of sources. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if we removed all the unsourced stuff this guy is so far under the notability line; and raises several red flags of non-notability: we don't know when he was born or even his real name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Memory Alpha – Discussion merged with existing discussion in December 27th section. – Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The other discussion was closed as overturned. —Random832 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bflomoms – Sorry - copyright violations are non-negotiable. We simply cannot host copyrighted text. UncleG's advice is well worth reading. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

the copywrited material is mine. I am the owner of the group of which the page is being developed. Bflomoms (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we can't deal with copyright assertions through the Deletion Review process. You need to follow the process at WP:CP to prove that you are who you say you are (since anyone could create a Wikipedia account and claim to be the author). I would, however, also caution to you carefully read our policy on conflict of interest and our generally accepted inclusion criteria for organizations. If your mom's group is truly independently notable, it's almost certainly best to let someone else write about it. Rossami (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Rossami said, we have no way to determine who you are, and no reason for doing so. I suggest not even attempting to prove that you own copyrights. Copying a subject's web site into Wikipedia is not the way to write an encyclopaedia article. Find multiple independent sources that discuss the subject in depth, and write an original article using solely those sources as the bases. If you cannot do that because no such sources exist, don't write. Uncle G (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Naked Women's Wrestling League – Undeleted as contested Prod. Sent to AFD. Needs reliable sources and there appears to be a COI issue to address as well. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have been trying to deal with this for a few days now. The Naked Women's Wrestling League (NWWL) had its entry info deleted. We were warned about the deletion, and at that time I changed the content. At that time, I contacted wikipedia and informed you of this. I got an e-mail confirming that you got my message, but the page got deleted anyway. As the creative director of the nwwl, I can assure you that the content on the NWWL page is accurate.

Would you please put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.59.210 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The redirect NWWL was speedy-deleted when the target page was deleted. The redirect's history had substantially the same content as the page above. Rossami (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate and list - as an expired prod it can be recreated on any reasonable request to an admin; which this is. However, it is devoid of reliable, secondary sources to establish notability so it should be listed for review. BlueValour (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naked Women's Wrestling League Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 December 2007[edit]

Francis Goya – Moot. This was a different Francis Goya – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Challenging prod, which was closed almost a year ago. This musician has sold 5 million albums in Belgium (see List of best-selling Belgian artists.) Chubbles (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and write an article. The full deleted text was Francis Goya was an easy listening orchestra conductor and composer. Is that the same person as your subject? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, okay. ~~That's him.~~ Actually, apparently it isn't! Go figure; the Belgian Goya was a guitarist. Article on the way.Chubbles (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Manhasset Lacrosse – Overturned and relisted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhasset Lacrosse. – Chick Bowen 16:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was no apparent reason for deletion and no one notified me on my talk page Jdchamp31 (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the deleting admin for comment. Although not notifying you of the deletion was bad form, I would suggest that other editors wait to hear the deleting admin's rationale for deletion before commening in this discussion. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Since when do we have to wait for the deleting admin's reasoning before we can discuss the merit of the deletion? Overturn, list at AfD Clear assertion of notability beyond normal high school team level, although the veracity certainly needs to be discussed. At worst, this should have been prodded. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was deleted months ago. There is no requirement to notify anyone before deleting anything under CSD although I agree that its good manners to. Oh and Overturn and List per Trialsanderrors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and merge - no need for any Wikidrama; just merge the content into the main article leaving a protected redirect, if thought necessary. TerriersFan (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so what is the status on this overturn? Please post on my talk page. Jdchamp31 (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and merge - the content belongs at the high school's article, not enough to overcome A7 on its own. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD I'm not yet convinced this should be merged, so additional vetting is helpful. Xoloz (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Faceless – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article for The Faceless should be undeleted according to Wikipedia:Notability(Music) guidelines "criteria for musicians and ensembles" #4, "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources."Wikipedia:Notability (music). The Faceless toured nationally on the Summer Slaughter Tour(The Summer Slaughter Tour) and are still the only member of that tour to not have a Wikipedia page. Deletion of page appears to be based on personal bias and not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Murmaider717 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, why is this tagged for deletion again? Take a look at the page of As Blood Runs Black for instance. They are both well known bands, have done international tours and released one album. What is the problem? --Rikva (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I see it's deleted now. I can understand one doesn't like Tech Death Metal, but would someone be so kind to tell me the valid reason why this article can't exist? --Rikva (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice, talk page of the article is now also removed. If I don't get any normal response I'll just re-create the article as I did today. --Rikva (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you can see from the link above, the page was deleted because of this AFD decision. Recreating the article (without prior consensus to overturn the AFD decision) is grounds for speedy-deletion. I strongly advise you against recreating the article. If you do so repeatedly, it will likely get you blocked as a vandal. If you think the AFD decision was in error, present your evidence here. Rossami (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The AfD decision was clearly made in error as they have toured nationally on multiple occasions. The music notability guidelines do not specify whether the band has to be headlining or supporting, they just have to tour nationally. Murmaider717 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, they were merely a supporting act for the tour. Being a supporting act on a single tour does not meet my understanding of the relevant criteria of WP:BAND. Endorse closure (keep deleted) unless there is better evidence that this group meets the recommended inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the explanation. Too bad, they are currently touring and have been touring in many different states (source), but I guess that doesn't qualify as "international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". --Rikva (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. It looks like Rikva has new evidence that would support the keeping of this article. People have a lot of very strong opinions on this topic, and I think a little chillin' would go a long way to help a second AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What new evidence? --Smashville^BONK! 18:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didn't see the sources he/she's provided in the AfD, therefore relist. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are no citations anywhere in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Faceless. The re-created article cited no sources, either. Uncle G (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I said that badly. "The source he/she cited above wasn't provided in the AfD" was what I meant. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah! Thank you for clarifying. Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Wikipedia is not a reliable source and no independent reliable sources provided. They do not have the album releases to meet WP:Music. They are a support touring band; fine but that does not provide notability. TerriersFan (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Restore~~ - According to the evidence provided by not only myself but Rikva as well it appears that this article should be restored by an administrator as it does fit under the music notability guidelines. Murmaider717 (talk) 01:00, 01 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion is clear from your nomination above. Feel free to reply to comments or to add evidence as the discussion continues but please do not use the format of expressing a bolded opinion at the front of a line. It gives the impression that you are trying to have your opinion counted twice and creates potential confusion for the admin who eventually has to close this discussion. Rossami (talk)
  - My bad, I'm a WikiN00b. I just think there is enough evidence to restore immediately and I don't see what other evidence could be provided. Murmaider717
Endorse Closure. "Evidence" provided is neither significant nor new (it was fully available and easily found during the AfD process...there already was a source linked from the same site)...and WP:MUSIC even considers the touring portion a disputed criteria. --Smashville^BONK! 04:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, I understand that WP:Music are just rough guidelines but how exactly is the touring portion a disputed section???
  - Because the page says it's disputed. --Smashville^BONK! 06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right, the way it is set up does make it disputable although I don't see exactly where it points out the touring portion as being specifically disputable. What's particularly interesting about this is that there are other bands of equal or lesser prominence on Wikipedia yet there are people feeling the need to dictate whether it should be allowed on the site. Also, the band already has new material on their Myspace and according to "http://www.sumerianrecords.com/news.php?page=2&limit=10&sort=date+DESC&band=&month=&year=" on 10/8 paragraph 4 they were in the studio almost 2 months ago working on their new CD. When their new cd does get released probably sometime in 2008 they would then meet 2 of the notability criteria. Do we really have to wait until then for them to be allowed on the site?? Or would it still be "disputed"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murmaider717 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It specifically says it's disputed: WP:MUSIC#Notes. Also, MySpace isn't a reliable secondary source. --Smashville^BONK! 06:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I must have passed over the notes so I see that now but that doesn't change everything else I said which merits discussion.Murmaider717
Endorse closure entirely proper. As whether to relist, probably not; no evidence shows much different than that from the result. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ron Paul Revolution – Deletion endorsed. – Walton^One 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly no consensus, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul Revolution, yet closing admin decided it was delete. Many "votes" were also invalid "merge and delete", which violates GFDL Goon Noot (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. --Goon Noot (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. By a strict count of votes, there were 21 deletes (of which 6 also said merge); 15 keeps (of which 2 said merge), and 7 votes for merge. There were accusations of canvassing on the part of one editor, which certainly may have affected the number of keep votes. The closing comment is spot-on. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 07:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Going by your count, that is 21 deletes vs 22 non-deletes. There is no consensus.--Goon Noot (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Of 42 opinions, I count 15 that include any sort of merge recommendation --- here's my tally. Of those 15, fully 11 express the opinion that there should not be a separate "Ron Paul Revolution" article when there's already a "Ron Paul Presidential Campaign" article. You are again making the mistake of assuming that the closing admin reads only the boldface type in the AfD. --- tqbf 08:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not only read the bold-face type, I looked at underlying arguments etc. As you can tell from my edits before I closed the debate, it took me awhile to read through the entire debate and determine consensus. It is not a violation of GFDL to delete an article and restore the text that was in the split article; the history of that text is still there. Keilana^talk_(recall) 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure --- A related article hit DRV a few weeks back, and I think it suggested a weird precedent --- that any opinion with both the words "merge" and "delete" was invalid because of GFDL. The GFDL issue makes sense, but discarding opinions doesn't: AfD is not a vote, and the closing admin is supposed to be taking the arguments into account, not just tallying the desired outcomes. In this case, (1) the overwhelming sentiment of the AfD discussion was that the article in question was superfluous and undesirable given the presence of Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 and Moneybomb, and (2) the closing admin properly observed that there was no "keep"-worthy content in the article that wasn't already present in the suggested merge target. An additional observation: throughout the AfD, proponents of the article aggressively shifted content between the constellation of Ron Paul-related articles into the nominated article, in order to justify its presence; very little of the content in the deleted article was unique, and what wasn't redundant was the same poorly-sourced OR content that caused the article to fare so poorly in AfD in the first place. --- tqbf 08:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- the DRV appellant's use of the word "vote" suggests a misunderstanding about the AfD mechanism that may be the root cause of this DRV discussion. --- tqbf 08:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per my rationale expressed in my nom.--Goon Noot (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Overwhelming opinion is that there be no separate "Ron Paul Revolution", either by deletion or redirection -- and deletion seems simplest. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per tqbf. The intent of the community appears to have been to remove the article, and so, since a merger was not possible, consensus was properly read to delete. Strictly !vote counting is impossible, due to the canvassing issue (not that it should be done anyway), and the closure appears to go with consensus. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; the concensus is clear even given the wide canvassing, and the close was proper. — Coren ^(talk) 16:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure. Closing admin seems to have read the consensus on the AfD well, and correctly noted that there was no content worth merging that wasn't already on the destination page. No GFDL violvation, not an inexplicable closure. Pastordavid (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, which reflects the balance of the arguments. BlueValour (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seth Finkelstein – Deletion endorsed. The consensus below simply does not favor restoration of this article. The question of the subject's "borderline notability" is one that may be reopened should additional sources come to light, but there is no agreement below that the sources presented refute the "borderline notability" conclusion reached at AfD. In contrast to some other BLP deletions (where people must make presumptions on the subject's behalf) this DRV is visited by the gentleman himself, forcefully arguing for his own anonymity.
It is a good thing for editors to remain vigilant, and concerned with striking a "balance of interests" in applying WP:BLP. The subject does not own the article bearing his name, and never exercises an absolute veto over its existence. Any "courtesy deletion" of a "borderline notable" person should be taken with utmost care and consideration, weighing both the privacy rights of the individual and the encyclopedia's duty to chronicle every notable truth. The consensus below is that, in this case, due consideration was given, and the right result reached. – Xoloz (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2008 (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/Seth Finkelstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd)

This article was nominated for deletion at the request of Seth Finkelstein (talk · contribs), and deleted in consideration of the allegedly marginal notability of the subject and his request for deletion. However, Seth Finkelstein (talk · contribs) requested that the article be deleted for the sole purpose of preventing malicious editing that might harm his reputation [1], a concern that was reflected in the statement by the administrator who closed the second AFD discussion. These concerns would be adequately addressed by retaining the article, but leaving it fully protected indefinitely -- the probability of would-be malicious editors being able to compromise an administrative account and insert defamatory information into a fully protected article is extraordinarily small. Though full protection greatly inconveniences normal editing, I claim that it is preferable to destroying the article completely. Moreover, leaving the article intact, but protected, would prevent it from being recreated in a defamatory form, which appears to have occurred once after it was deleted -- the deletion of this article seems to have facilitated the very WP:BLP violations that it was designed to prevent. The article could be protected from recreation at its current name, of course; however, with the article deleted, a WP:BLP violating version at a slight variation of the name could masquerade as the primary article. Ironically, though the article was deleted per WP:BLP, undeletion and protection would afford the best possible prevention of WP:BLP violations. Moreover, if the principle that consensus can change justifies the deletion of an article after multiple AFD discussions, it likewise justifies a substantive reconsideration of the merits of deletions that have already occured. John254 04:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore There is no rule permitting the deletion of an article because it might be a troll magnet, and thus the closing was in stark opposition to policy. (Nor should there be, if we are to have coverage of controversial subjects.) I note that the subject of this article and a prominent figure in the WMF have posted attacks on each other in a number of very prominent places. This gives an appearance of COI to the removal of the article. An objective POV (we call it NPOV) requires we write and judge judge each article without using our personal feelings about the subject. We have a method of achieving accuracy: we can correct what appears in articles, and block trolls if necessary & protect content. It is time we repudiated the practice that the subjects preferences can be taken into account about whether to have an article. It gives that persons censorship over what is written about him. It comes in conflict with our basic principle of NPOV, and cannot stand. When policies conflict, we must support the one at the basis of the encyclopedia. And what's the point--at the moment the third highest item in Google for SF is a mean-spirited attack on him. Better that we have a proper article. DGG (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only hope fair-minded people dismiss that item as the obvious ravings of a troll (though I know sadly some people will be fooled, and that bothers me). The point is that with a Wikipedia article, trolls get "reputation-washed" via the use of Wikipedia as a platform. It's then not one frothing-at-the-mouth guy with an evident grudge, but "Wikipedia says" (even if it's a frothing-at-the-mouth guy with a grudge making the edit), Plus there's just too much temptation for someone who wants to retaliate against me for my criticisms of Wikipedia, to try to work attack material into my biography on the basis of "balance". That's my reasoning. Further, the timing of the deletion of the article versus the hiring of the prominent figure in the WMF should indicate there was no COI. HOWEVER, given said figure's current WMF prominence, I cannot emphasize how strongly an article would NOW be a COI. There is absolute no way any sort of fairness can be assured, and that statement is not subject to debate. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree strongly with the last part here. The WMF hired the person in question, not Wikipedia. That person's possible COI is not relevant (and if that person edited an article about you I would bring up the COI issue and expect them to stop for that concern). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you can't back it up. That is, you cannot enforce such a concern. I've been through this, and the difference between wishful thinking and realpolitik has been manifested too many times in my life. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (keep deleted). I concur with the closer's assessment that this person is on the fringe of our generally accepted inclusion criteria. The AFD discussions make that clear. The closer is also correct that in cases on the edge, WP:BLP requires us to consider the subject's wishes. Whether you agree with the subject's stated rationale is irrelevant (and it was the subject who raised the vandalism argument, not the closer). The subject wants the page deleted.
As a side note, however, I will disagree with the two opinions raised above. While we never delete a page solely because of vandalism concerns, there are some pages that get deleted because they just aren't worth the trouble to maintain. Vandalism patrol consumes valuable resources. We spend the effort needed to watchlist and patrol clearly encyclopedic articles like GW Bush but for pages of only marginal value to our readers, we are certainly allowed to consider other factors when deciding to keep or delete a page. Rossami (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the administrator who closed the AFD discussion expressly stated that

The "notability debate" ended with "no consensus".[2]

and that he was deleting the article for the sole purpose of preventing malicious editing:

Mr. Finkelstein's concerns are very valid; a Wikipedia article is a prime target for trolls who want to anonymously defame the subject. Now that Wikipedia has become one of the highest-visited sites on the Internet, we have to take into account that things said on Wikipedia articles can and will affect the subject's life. We've seen this happen before; only recently, a professor was detained in an airport because his Wikipedia biography falsely stated that he had ties to a terrorist group.[3]

If the purpose of the deletion was to prevent WP:BLP violations, however, it failed spectacularly: the article was re-deleted on 02:32, 24 July 2007 because it had been recreated as an "attack page". So, the deletion actually encouraged a WP:BLP violation: with the article deleted, many editors likely removed it from their watchlists, and the "attack page" remained in place until it was re-deleted. Deletion of an article to prevent defamatory editing is not only needlessly destructive, it is also completely ineffective, since malicious editors can simply recreate the article in a defamatory form. If this article is at such great risk of malicious editing, and our RC patrol resources are so scarce, that we simply cannot afford to permit open editing, then it should be subject to permanent full protection. Editors may use the editprotected template to request that an administrator edit the article. While this is an inconvenient, un-wiki, state in which to maintain the article, it is far preferable to completely deleting the article (which wouldn't prevent malicious recreation anyway.) John254 15:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You neglect that a dead article is an article that can't be gamed. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you contacted Mr. Finkelstein to see if he's amenable to this idea of recreation as a protected article in order to prevent malicious recreation? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, a thousand times NO. That idea is amazingly Orwellian. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as no consensus, defaulting to keep. There was no consensus to delete in the arguement (but also none to keep). I don't believe that the subject's reason for wishing to not have a Wikipedia article holds any merit, since almost every single Wikipedia article can be vandalized (as stated in the AfD). As John254 stated, the deletion hasn't prevented the addition of malicious content. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; there is no clear consensus in the discussion, and the subject of the article does not get a veto to delete a properly sourced article (which was not seriously disputed in this case). — Coren ^(talk) 16:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn First, I have grave doubts that there is in fact community consensus to give closing admins this kind of discretion. Second, the article is generally positive in tone and focuses on accomplishments. If there are serious vandalism concerns, protecting the article is a sufficient remedy. Third, the subject is a frequent columnist in The Guardian, so I see neither notability concerns nor legitimate privacy concerns that would warrant deletion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn I was intending to DRV this article in a few months when I had additional sources which Seth produces regularly. I am unfortunately on vacation currently so I don't have the full list of additional sources that have either been written by Seth or which mentioned him, but the total was IIRC around 20 since this was deleted. Seth also won a pioneer award from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which makes him notable by itself. There is thus no real claim that his notability is borderline or marginal. Furthermore, as I have previously discussed it is unreasonable in the extreme to allow BLP-courtsey deletions for willing public figures, since they have entered the public arena willingly and there is a definite public need to have information about them (indeed, this is the essential idea behind the legal notion of a public figure used in many jurisdictions). In fact, Seth did not object to an article about him on any grounds of privacy or such but as noted above purely over concern over vandalism. Thus, this does not even really fall into what would motivate consideration for a privacy deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ - "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Finkelstein's contributions to the Grauniad are here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sethfinkelstein ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I see no reason to delete this page. The last version of his article was sourced and contained no breach of WP:BLP. Vandalism, potential or otherwise, is no reason for deletion; as admins we have the tools to deal with that. TerriersFan (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion we've no consensus as to whether this is notable or not. Since there's no consensus that we should have it, the subject's wishes can be taken into account. Closer said it all. Really, we've lived without this for six months and the wiki hasn't fallen apart. Leave the guy alone.--Doc^g 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, person of marginal notability at best (definitely not a shoo-in), who has expressed a clear preference against having an article. Not having it is not really a big omission for the project, and I'm all for letting people have at least some say in whether we cover them or not in cases where notability is limited or questionable, which it clearly is in this case. There's no need to have information on Finkelstein whether because he likes to have a go at us form time to time or for any other reason, it's not like he's in the running for the Pulitzer or anything, just a jobbing freelance journalist; I'm going to hazard a guess that there are more Finkelsteins without an article than with. It's six months since it was deleted, I'd leave it at least another six and see what sources are in play then which are biographical, primarily about Finkelstein the man, and provably independent. Wikipedia is not evil and should not do things just to thumb our noses at people. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Wikipedia is not evil and should not do things just to thumb our noses at people." So, let's undelete and protect the article to prevent someone from recreating it as an attack page again. John254 01:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what we want to do is prevent the article from being recreated, we do not need to undelete. See WP:SALT, Wikipedia:Protected titles and m:Help:Administration#Protection. We can protect the deleted article, using cascading protection, or, now that there has been a mediawiki enhancement, we can even just protect the deleted article outright without needing to use cascade. There is absolutely no need to actually create anything. I'm putting this reply to you here on ONE of your replies that make this same point about needing to protect a created article to prevent recreation (which is not correct), although you are making the same point in many places... that latter tactic may not be the best approach as it may make it seem like you are arguing somewhat stridently. ++Lar: t/c 06:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. At the risk of repeating my statement above, "the article could be protected from recreation at its current name, of course; however, with the article deleted, a WP:BLP violating version at a slight variation of the name could masquerade as the primary article. Ironically, though the article was deleted per WP:BLP, undeletion and protection would afford the best possible prevention of WP:BLP violations." John254 06:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little saddened by this. Let us keep in mind, these are in fact real people. Mercury 21:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we should undelete and protect the article to avoid its recreation as a real attack page page that could cause real harm to Seth Finkelstein's reputation. John254 01:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What am I missing here? Seems open and shut to me... AfD and AfD2 give marginal notability? BLP tells us we should then honor the subject's wishes. It doesn't say "unless the wish for deletion is for reasons X, Y or Z," or "unless we think the subject is a poopyhead". Subject wishes article deleted? Delete. Matters not why the subject wishes it, only that it IS the wish. Endorse deletion ++Lar: t/c 23:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-adding my comment from the now-reopened DRV: Endorse deletion as well-stated by Lar and others. Making a new class of perpetually-protected articles is an interesting idea. However, it should be discussed as a community-wide policy before experimenting with this marginally-notable BLP. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, marginally notable biography and according to policy deleted correctly. The real question here is, "Is the encyclopedia really missing anything without this article? I really don't think so. Phydend (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in question/marginal + subject wants deletion = Delete. Let us try and be respectful to the subjects of these BLP's. This is why we have these policys in place. Endorse. Mercury 00:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence has been presented in this deletion review that Seth Finkelstein is notable -- see the comments by trialsanderrors and JoshuaZ above. Moreover, the claim that having an article about a notable person who is intentionally a public figure is somehow disrespectful "to the subjects of these BLP's" is itself disrespectful to Wikipedia, as though our articles were inherently evil attack pages designed to destroy reputations. If we don't believe Wikipedia articles are a good idea, why are we here? John254 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woah John, slow down please. Your inference is absolutely incorrect that our articles are inherently evil. A claim that I made regarding respecting the subjects of BLP, does not relate to how I feel about the articles or this project. Let us assume good faith to our article writers, please. And I have no clue how to relate your last sentence to this debate, it is off topic. As for the first part re notability, many people myself included, would disagree, and endorse a finding or marginal. Thanks, Mercury 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that our articles were attack pages, but rather that the arguments for deletion presented in this deletion review seem to treat the articles as attack pages. If Wikipedia articles are really a good idea, it follows that they aren't, inherently, disrespectful towards their subjects. John254 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, though, this article was recreated as a genuine attack page after it was deleted, an actual WP:BLP violation that was possible only because of the deletion. So, in consideration of the fact that "these are in fact real people", we should undelete and protect the article to prevent actual harm to Seth Finkelstein's reputation. John254 01:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, salting would achieve this without restoration. Mercury 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. At the risk of repeating my statement above, "the article could be protected from recreation at its current name, of course; however, with the article deleted, a WP:BLP violating version at a slight variation of the name could masquerade as the primary article. Ironically, though the article was deleted per WP:BLP, undeletion and protection would afford the best possible prevention of WP:BLP violations." John254 02:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why, of course, deletion of articles to prevent WP:BLP violations is incredibly ineffective. We should not have an article on a given subject only when we don't have sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources with which to write an acceptable article, or if for some other reason an article cannot be rendered in an acceptable state. John254 02:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, full protect and give Seth the opportunity to discuss and reach agreement on any changes on the talk page before they are made (by an admin, obviously). Everyking (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems unworkable, as seth would not be the sole contributer, but the editing community at large. Admins have no special status here, ~~unless it~~ you are suggesting full protection, than an admin would have to edit over that. Mercury 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. I did say full protection. This is what I think is generally appropriate in these kinds of cases: vandalism becomes impossible and POV pushing becomes very difficult, but we retain an article on the subject which can still be developed, albeit more slowly. Admins do have special status: in this case, they are allowed to edit protected pages. Under the scenario I presented, they would do so in order to implement content changes agreed upon by other parties on talk. Everyking (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I did not see where you had suggested full protection. However, it is a good close per notability, and deletion is endorsed by me. Regards, Mercury 17:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone, including Seth, has an argument that this solution would be inadequate to address his concerns, I would like to see it. No one could touch the article except admins, but admins themselves would be barred from editing the article on their own initiative, so I see no basis for concern that admins would work to slant the article against Seth (and I must say that even our worst admins are seldom POV pushers anyway). Any edits would have to be proposed on talk and agreed upon by both participating members of the community and Seth (allowing a generous period time for him to participate—he would not need to monitor the talk page frequently, and he could nominate someone to participate in any such discussions as his advocate) prior to implementation. I can see no basis for objecting to this solution, as it would make disruptive or disputed editing impossible, unless the basis lies in some kind of broader objection to having information of any kind on Wikipedia about oneself. Everyking (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking, unfortunately, in order to give you that basis, I'd have to detail some real nastiness, and I don't think that is advisable here. Suffice it to say that while I grasp the theoretical argument people make, I have a lot of practical reasons for rebutting that they severely underestimate just how much harm can be done by some ill-intentioned people. I have a saying about this - "Don't ever think "They can't get away with it". They can". To give a relatively mild, hypothetical, scenario, I can easily see someone who wants to retaliate against me for my criticisms of Wikipedia trying to work attack material into my biography on the basis of "balance". Then we're off to a long "discussion" about whether that's fair or not. In which discussion I'm accused of censorship, trying to WP:OWN the article, told "this is Wikipedia's article, not Seth Finkelstein's. ... the articles remain under the control and jurisdiction of the Wikipedia community", on and on. I don't want to have to test my skills in wikipolitics against people who can definitely outlast me in a war of attrition. It's human nature that someone is going to think that they can gain community status by doing a hatchet-job on a critic. Again, note that's not my deepest objection, only one which I think works well for discussion here. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per trialsanderrors. Regular Guardian columnist surely has to be pretty notable, much as I loathe that awful rag. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 01:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, rag? Mercury 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A disparaging term for a newspaper. CWC 04:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion per Guy and user:Lar. Mr Finkelstein is a classic example of a person who is only just notable by Wikipedia standards. I strongly support the BLP deletion standards policy of taking the subject's wishes into account, so I see leaving this article deleted as an exemplary precedent. CWC 04:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly an "exemplary precedent" to delete the article due to the Seth Finkelstein's concerns about malicious editing, thereby enabling the user who recreated the article as an attack page to engage in the very sort of editing that Seth Finkelstein wanted the article deleted to prevent. We would do the subject of this article no favors if we were to blame him for the recreation of the article as an attack page after it was deleted at his request, which appears to be what leaving the article deleted would amount to. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy -- we should not apply the biographies of living persons policy in a manner that is manifestly contrary to its intent. Undeletion and protection of this article is necessary to prevent WP:BLP violations of the worst sort. John254 04:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, this deletion review centers around what is more important: real people's reputations, or Wikipedia bureaucracy. If real people are to be more highly valued, we should undelete and protect the article, while, if the bureaucracy is more important, the article should be left deleted. I fully concede that the deletion of this article was conformity with the letter of the BLP deletion standards, but to apply the biographies of living persons policy in a manner that causes real harm to the reputations of the very people that the policy was written to protect is wikilawyering at its absolute worst, something that I, and many other respected editors who have participated in this discussion find to be completely unacceptable. John254 05:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, since two editors participating in this deletion review have claimed that protecting the page against recreation in its deleted state would adequately prevent malicious recreation, [4] [5], let me observe that I explained in my initial statement that protection against recreation is only effective against a specific page title. With the legitimate article deleted, a malicious recreation at a slightly different page title might appear to be the actual article. John254 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those comments, John254. I agree that real people's reputations are more important than bureaucracy, but I disagree with you about which one we would be putting first if we restored this article. To me, whether the subject of a BLP article wants it deleted is important but why the subject feels that way is less important, so I care little about possible means of protecting the subject while deleting the article. (Perhaps having seen continuing nastiness at BLP articles such as Michelle Malkin and Oliver Kamm has made me more cynical about Internet hate-mongers.)

More importantly, John254 is quite right about hate-mongers creating articles with minor title variations (or even WP:COATRACKs). Of course, this applies to every controversial living person, not just Seth Finkelstein. If our existing processes for finding and deleting such attack articles are no longer adequate, we will just have to ~~divert more valuable editor time to~~ improve those processes. CWC 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Full protection is better than deletion. In this case, if the article is fully protected, then I don't think Wikipedia:BLP#BLP deletion standards should apply. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Rossami and WP:BLP, which does state that it's up to the closing admin to decide whether the subject's wishes should be taken into account. This close was well within the closing admin's discretion. --Core desat 09:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to play games with it. No article means no Wikibureaucracy mischief and no wikilawyering argument over the content and what counts as fair criticism. Look at it this way - you're not exactly making your case with my having to deal with this now (i.e. this sort of stuff is indicative of why I think the downside is so large) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument proves too much, because it would justify the deletion of any biography of a living person. Do major public figures, whose articles will not be deleted upon request, deserve "Wikibureaucracy mischief and... wikilawyering argument over the content and what counts as fair criticism"? If we don't believe Wikipedia articles are a good idea, and can be fair to their subjects, why are we here? John254 17:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For living people, I believe the bar should be set to the point where such mischief and arguing would have no practical effect on the person's reputation. George Bush won't be affected like I will. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And while I'd rather not go into details on-wiki, let's just say that the probability of would-be malicious editors who HAVE an administrative account and would insert defamatory information into a fully protected article, is nontrivial. Not all people with the admin bit are paragons of cool-headedness. Especially when it comes to the treatment of someone who is often critical of Wikipedia. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we have any administrators who want to sacrifice their sysop bits just to "insert defamatory information into a fully protected article". John254 17:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seth, I also think you underestimate how much many admins hold you in high regard. I at least see you as one of the few sane critics of Wikipedia and the WMF. My impression is that many admins and users have such a perception. I doubt any admin would try to insert defamatory information and as John observed the idea that any admin dislikes you so much as to risk giving up their sysop bit simply to attack you seems very unlikely. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the compliments. Unfortunately, you're working from a model of the world which is just too optimistic. Yes indeed, there exist people who think well of me. There also exist people who think ill of me. And my problem has been that the people who think ill of me are, overall, willing to go a lot further to harm me, than the people who think well of me are willing to go to help me. Neither of these quantities are zero, but the negative has proved to be sufficiently larger than than positive in my life. And I think it entirely reasonable that some admin might "stir the pot" about me - after all, look why we're having this discussion! -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion My god folks, it's New Year's Eve, I don't feel at my best, and dealing with this was not high on my list of intended ways to spend time. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Salt. Original deletion was compliant with policy: no consensus + marginal notability + BLP subject's wishes = article may be deleted at closer's discretion. This nomination offers no new argument; it just claims policy ought to be different. So go change policy, if you can summon a consensus for it, and leave Mr. Finkelstein in peace until then. He's an actual human being and this is a holiday. The nomination is in extremely poor taste. Recommend withdrawing it and extending a personal apology to Mr. Finkelstein. Durova^Charge! 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion due to the manner in which this DRV has been opened and pursued. There was absolutely no need to time this during the holidays half a year after the last DRV closed. I want to believe it was not the nominator's intention to play Mr. Grinch. Yet it should have been clear by now that this was the effect it had, so changing my opinion to salting. And if a second DRV gets conducted in this appalling manner I will seek a guideline change to salt courtesy BLP deletions routinely. Durova^Charge! 08:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the nominator intended to do that. And in any event, salting the page is irrelevant to whether or not the nom intended to that. (Salting may be a good idea if we decide not to overturn anyways). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was the intent either, but persistent failure to recognize the harmful effect is nearly as destructive. This discussion is revealing a previously unknown weakness in our DRV process. Durova^Charge! 04:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Sean William's deletion of this article, for the stated purpose of preventing malicious editing, thereby enabling it to be recreated as an attack page, at the same location from which the original article was deleted, was "in extremely poor taste". Exactly how long was the attack page in place before it was deleted? I would suggest that Sean William needs to "[extend] a personal apology to Mr. Finkelstein." Furthermore, I do not "[claim that] policy ought to be different", but rather that the necessarily broad and general language of the policy cannot adequately account for every particular circumstance to which it can be applied, a fact recognized in our own policy WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. In this case, the letter of the biographies of living persons policy should not have been applied in a manner so contrary to its intent as to have enabled the creation of an attack page, which represented a very real harm to an actual human being. John254 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, as the person about whom you are allegedly so concerned, I am telling you: I find your actions, under the very best and most charitable interpretation of WP:AGF, misguided and counter-productive. At worse, well, I want to stay within WP:CIVIL. Note your supposed concern for my welfare did not extend to consulting with me beforehand, and I'm not exactly hard to find on the Net. If you are truly well-intentioned and not making Orwellian arguments in order to rationalize what you want to do, then I suggest you take into account the extremely strong rejection of your idea by the one who it's supposed to help! -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia's article, not yours. It is the Wikipedia community that is responsible for maintaining it, for preventing it from being used for defamatory purposes, for ensuring that it is balanced. If Wikipedia is used to cause harm to living people, Wikipedia's reputation suffers. Over our reputation you have no greater interest than any other editor. John254 18:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Finkelstein is an intelligent man and has weighed these considerations, reached his conclusion, and voiced it with utmost clarity. You and I will walk away from this discussion with little consequence to ourselves, but he does not share our luxury. Courtesy does not consist of foisting an unwelcome solution onto an articulate adult who wants the opposite, particularly so when the timing interferes with a major holiday. I really suggest you step back and see how this looks. Durova^Charge! 17:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that "courtesy does not consist of foisting an unwelcome solution onto an articulate adult who wants the opposite" would be true if this were Seth Finkelstein's article -- he could do what he wished with it, and would accept responsibility for his choices. However, this is Wikipedia's article, not Seth Finkelstein's. While we have a duty, of course, to prevent harm coming to subjects of our biographies through defamatory or unbalanced editing, or, in some cases, through articles concerning clearly non-public figures, the articles remain under the control and jurisdiction of the Wikipedia community. We should not destroy our encyclopedic content, and enable our encyclopedia to more easily be used for defamation, for the sole reason that the subject of the article has requested such an action. John254 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're avoiding the fact that Wikipedia is actively used for defamation in the form of vandalism. In addition, if somebody really wants to find out about Mr. Finkelstein, then they can look around Google for news articles. They don't need us. As Tony Sidaway said at one point, "Do no harm. All the rest is wikilawyering." [6] Sean William @ 17:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then your deletion fails on its own terms, since the article was recreated as an attack page after you deleted it to prevent defamatory editing. You didn't even bother to protect the article against recreation at its current page title. "Do no harm", indeed. John254 18:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I am specifically not "avoiding the fact that Wikipedia is actively used for defamation in the form of vandalism" -- that's why I suggested restoring the article in a fully protected state. John254 18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your suggestion has been rejected by the person who it is supposed to benefit. Even without getting into some of the harsher realms, there's too many people running around Wikipedia, even admins, who are, in a memorable phrase "a few monkeys short of a Shakespeare". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, the solution that has been in place for six months was implemented in accordance with policy. Your proposed revision is not encompassed within that policy. You ought to have sought consensus within the community instead trying this experimentally. That's the reverse of normal procedure, and if we're going to play fast and loose with normal process the worst place to do that is BLP and the worst time is between Christmas and New Year's. I'm trying to assume good faith here and suppose you just weren't thinking clearly, that you didn't deliberately intend to ruin this man's holiday. But really, I'm astonished to see you persist in the misconception that you're doing Mr. Finkelstein any kind of favor. He's here, he's insisting he hates it. This is bad all around. Please withdraw graciously. Durova^Charge! 18:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Per Durova. Absolutely. - Alison ^❤ 12:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question for admins - what level/sort of vandalism is there in the page history? --h2g2bob (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created in 2004 and there does not seem much of a problem with vandalism at first. However in second half of 2006 it had to be protected twice (once by Jimbo) because of vandalism - normal type of vandalism (page blanking, nonsense etc.). Davewild (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something being discussed here, however, is the restoration of the article as a fully protected page, which would essentially prevent vandalism and other types of malicious editing. I don't accept Seth Finkelstein's assertion that "the probability of would-be malicious editors who HAVE an administrative account and would insert defamatory information into a fully protected article, is nontrivial" [7] -- any administrator who did such a thing would quickly be desysopped. John254 17:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A dead article plays no games" (said for a third time) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion naturally, as the closing admin. Durova sums up my thoughts well. Sean William @ 17:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I find John254's strident repetition of the same assertions to be very much less than helpful. He asserts that the only way to protect against vandalism or malicious recreation is by having the article exist. That is patently false, as multiple other editors have pointed out. His counter to WP:SALT is to say that articles with slightly different title spellings can be created. But this is exactly as true in his preferred approach as it is if the article were SALTed. In either case, these other titled articles are subject to summary deletion so I'm not seeing the big issue there. I reiterate, we have a biography of a person who is marginally notable, and who has expressed a preference. He even came here to express it. In accordance with our BLP policy, we honor the wishes of those expressing preference when there is no clear mandate one way or the other from notability. John254 has expressed his views multiple times now, and I suspect that there is no reader of this that is unacquainted with them at this point. I further suggest that if John254 continues to repeat the same arguments over and over, the perception that some have of him as "unhelpful" will shade over to a perception of "disruptive", and that unless there is some new argument introduced for him to counter, he should stop repeating himself, and let this DRV proceed to a conclusion. Myself, the conclusion seems blindingly clear from consensus, logic and policy. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "to say that articles with slightly different title spellings can be created... is exactly as true in his preferred approach as it is if the article were SALTed" is incorrect. If we undeleted and fully protected the legitimate article, a malicious recreation at a variant title would be quickly found as a duplicate, and deleted. In any event, the legitimate article should appear at the top of search results, since it would be at the correct title. However, with the legitimate article deleted and protected against recreation, a defamatory recreation at slightly different title would not necessarily be identified as a duplicate article, since the legitimate article would appear as a red-link. It shouldn't be assumed that we would delete a defamatory article quickly in any case -- see the Seigenthaler controversy. Furthermore, per evidence presented by Hiding below, Seth Finkelstein clearly is notable, and the article shouldn't be deleted per BLP deletion standards in any event. As for accusing me of being "unhelpful" or "disruptive", if trying to preserve encyclopedic content and to prevent Wikipedia from being used as forum for defamation is "disruptive", then I plead guilty. I am therefore banning myself from subsequent participation in this discussion. John254 05:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the main point of contention here is whether Seth Finkelstein is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia or not, then it is germane to the discussion that Seth is a Guardian columnist, his columns for the paper are cited, he is described by New Statesman as an Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award-winner after they have used opinion from him within an article, ("I predict a riot . . . and other things" Oct 16, 2006) and his opinion is also used in "Battle stations", (New Scientist Jun 25-Jul 1, 2005) where he is described as an independent researcher into spam. Finklestein is widely cited in papers and the like, is given special acknowledgement for his influence in Numerical recipes in Fortran 77: the art of scientific computing, is declared a "a leading programmer opponent of 'censorware'" at Public Libraries Face Net Filtering Following Supreme Court Decision, was an expert witness in Nitke v Ashcroft [8], and has been published in Handbook of Information Security. Now for me there's enough to meet WP:WEB, in that his opinion pieces online have been independently repackaged within the mainstream media, and I'm inclined to say there's enough to meet WP:BIO. I'd say that the person has received significant recognized awards or honors, has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field, is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors and is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. If there are other concerns other than the subject's notability, I will bow to whatever consensus forms. For the record, I enjoy Seth's pieces in The Guardian and tend to agree with his opinions on Wikipedia. Hiding T 20:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those things are, in fact, germane to a discussion of notability. As Wikipedia:Notability explains, the consideration is the number of things written about the person, not the number of things written by the person. (As it also explains, depth is another issue, which fleeting 5-word descriptions in articles that are actually about something else lack.) For example: The two chapters written by M. Finkelstein in Handbook of Information Security don't actually tell people about M. Finkelstein. What they are about are electronic speech and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and so are relevant to the notability of those subjects. Like M. Finkelstein, I am someone whose works are also cited by others, in books and articles. That doesn't mean that it's possible to write a biography of me (even though silly people using a meaningless metric might think otherwise). Things written by me could be used to support writing about the actual subjects that I've written about. But you won't find any sources that are about me. You aren't arguing that M. Finkelstein is notable. You aren't even arguing that it's possible to write about him in Wikipedia. You are simply arguing that M. Finkelstein's writings on several subjects are reliable sources, because he's an acknowledged expert that people cite. That doesn't have any bearing upon whether an article at this name should exist or not, or on whether the previous article should be undeleted. I suggest that if you want to argue about notability and whether an article could be written at this redlink, you go and look for things again, this time looking for things that are about M. Finkelstein, not by him. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'None of those things are, in fact, germane to a discussion of notability. Perhaps you will re-read WP:BIO, the guidance we use to determine notability, note where I have demonstrated the subject meets the guidance outlined, and then retract your statement. The article that was deleted met WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If this argument is merely about whether it is possible to write an article on the subject, that has been proven beyond doubt by the fact that such an article was written. If you re-read the deletion close and the debate above, you will see why I contend it is about notability. I suggest you take more time to read what I have written and better understand the points I am making. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 12:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Wikipedia without a Seth Finkelstein article!!! Well heaven forfend! Meh... get over it and move on. RMHED (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn, appears to meet the needs for notability and the living person issue. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 21:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. The subject does not want this article so it is pointless to claim that it would be in the subjects best interest to recreate this article. If necessary salt instead. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Subject is borderline notable and doesn't want a bio. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
suggestion to closing admin Given the highly controversial nature of this DRV and the timing when many people are on vacation, I recommend that we leave the DRV open for a few extra days. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep deleted or make it a protected redirect to a page such as Content-control software. Anything that needs to be said can be said at pages such as Content-control software. Short biography pages are a luxury that we can easily do without when they are a source of trouble. --JWSchmidt (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep; a notable person should get an article. Sure, let's give marginally notable private people the benefit of the doubt and leave to them the anonymity they want; but Seth Finkelstein is openly public and is actively influencing nationwide, governmental policy in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ - "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life.". And note I've been forced to abandon trying to influence policy at that level, precisely because being so public was extremely harmful to my life. I'm very bitter over it, since in essence the griefers won. And in this case, Wikipedia is adding to the negative, because such a page is almost entirely a source of draining argument and potential personal attack to me. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The internet is a troll magnet. I think that page shows that you've at least tried to thrust yourself into the public eye.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the point that I've abandoned it. I have stopped. I have ceased. I have resigned. I have quit. I was driven to that BECAUSE IT WAS EXTREMELY HARMFUL TO MY LIFE. I want that harm to stop. I want it to cease. For anyone to claim that I must be subjected to a potential attack plaform, unto my dying day, because years ago I did some activism in the public interest - well, this is part of why I have become such a harsh critic of Wikipedia and think it fosters some very undesireable behavior. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three points. First, the point that someone has stopped being actively public isn't necessarily relevant. Consider a US Senator who then retires. Now, there may be an argument that it can add some weight when someone isn't involved anymore and was marginally notable, but that's a distinct claim and runs into the minor issue that for most purposes where people care about whether someone is a public figure, being a public figure is irreversible (for example, for US legal purposes), like notability itself. Second, you are in fact continuing to be a public figure in that you continue to be a prominent columnists for the Guardian. Third, you're subject to "attack platforms" on many locations on the internet already, the presence of a website committted to writing NPOV about you seems to be in comparison to be not compelling. Furthermore, a worry about vandalism is not why BLP deletions were even originally constructed, but rather for privacy reasons. That's the not the claim issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion echoing the arguments above, esp. Durova. Eusebeus (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Been heming and hawing about this one but Durova's commentry was very persuasive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, right on the cusp of notability (as was stated, there was no clear consensus on that front), so respect Mr. Finkelstein's wishes. --Stormie (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (a) If closing admins have this discretion, that's fine and we'll soon know or find out; (b) How much weight should a subject's opinion on whether his article should be deleted or not? We'll also find out and I fear it will be more than it should; (c) if this person is not notable why does (a) or (b) matter at all; and (d) if this person is on the "cusp" of notability - whatever that means - let's just raise the bar this high and if someone has similar notability to this guy - it's "DELETE" as having failed to make the grade. I also disagree with this notion that a Wikipedia article is a troll magnet - if that were so, why are so many people defying our notability and spam guidelines to get their pages here? Let's face it, the position articulated by Durova on that point is not a uniformly held belief - but if the community decides to adopt it, perhaps more of us will do lots of subjects favors by nominating their troll-magnets for deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's situation is different. Look at it this way - it wouldn't be a good argument to claim Wikipedia should include naked pictures of anyone "the community" deemed sufficiently attractive, because there are some performers who would want Wikipedia to include naked pictures of them. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- With apologies, is there also not some cheap irony in the fact that a "leading opponent of censorware" successfully censors Wikipedia? ;) [9] Hiding T 09:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sigh. FAQ - "Cheap irony!". No. Another proof that an article is going to be endless potshots and trouble-stirring. For the record, my scholarly writing tries to address such deep issues at length in an anti-censorship but not simplistic way. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 December 2007[edit]

Ed O'Loughlin – Speedily closed, bad faith nomination. There might be DRV issues to be raised about this article by an established editor, but the nomination, besides running afoul of WP:CIVIL, has nothing to do with the closure of the AfD. – trialsanderrors (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete_Not satisfied with conduct of achieving "consensus" errors in counting of involved editors 124.191.88.235 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleting editor assumed wrongly (in both cases) that the dissenters were sock-puppets or single-topic contributors.

There was no announcement of the time of deciding on deletion. It was arbitrary, like alot of what goes on at Wikipedia - arbitrary and unprofessional.

The timing co-incided with the forced exclusion of the chief dissenter, on a trumped-up accusation of vandalism - when he was merely attempting to reverse the relegation of those wishing to retain the Article onto a subpage. The extremely poor formatting tools provided by Wikipedia resulted in unpredicted distortions on the text formatting and placement.

The responses of the Administrative Editors were wholly and manifestly unsatisfactory. None of the concerns expressed by the complainant (myself) were addressed. This was obvious because I was blocked within minutes of submitting serious questions about the Wikipedia mechanism of deletion and the behaviour of the editor driving the whole process for deletion of the article: "Eleland" when a proper and dignified response would have taken some time and space to fully elucidate.

There is something very rotten in the procedures of Wikipedia if these matters are not addressed. Claims that this is truly an encyclopedia must be challenged if arbitrary actions of a clique or cabal go without any proper accountability.

The suggestion by Admin editor that this contributor is unable to accept an opinion that does not agree with his own is insulting as it is untrue. It has nothing what ever to do with the questions leveled at the deletion discussion. The editor Eleland has a long history which is indubitable of taking a partisan approach on middle-east issues. In such a case he must not exercise deletion and or blocking rights over his opponents. Moreover such an individual must be seen to be extremely scrupulous with his facts. Unfortunately that was not the case in the Ed O'Loughlin article. Eleland made several errors. (1) A claim that I wrote a section of the article that did misrepresented the source reference was false. The section was written by Admin editor Fluri, as an exemplar to me as to how the section should be written. (2) Eleland has no record of ever interceding on the side of a pro-Israel exponent to deflect criticism from them, until 26th of December 2007 when he deleted a criticism in the biography of Isabel Kershner, in a futile attempt to achieve balance against hundreds of anti-Israel posts by himself evidence of which is littered all over Wikipedia. (3) Repeated assertions that the critics of O'Loughlin were solely Jewish pressure groups or belonged to some nebulous "Pro-Israel lobby" (when they have not a scintilla of evidence of this lobby). This had to be removed from the article when Eleland was confronted with valid criticisms of O'Loughlin by Lebanese Christian groups. (4) False allegations of sock puppetry to manipulate a vote concensus.

If this Wikipedia publication does not wish to be brought into disrepute as supporting individuals who are exhibiting unfair, foul, and possible racist proclivities in their attempts to overturn a properly referenced submission to a scholarly article about widely acknowledged controversial journalist in the Australian scene - it had better restore the article until it can supply a justification of the apparent arbitrary actions of its agents. 124.191.88.235 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this bad faith nomination. See AfD subpage. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 December 2007[edit]

Xarchiver – Source e-mailed as requested – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary review - I would like the source e-mailed to me, if possible, and the username of the original author, so that I can work on a more satisfactory version of the article.

Tim Ross·^talk 19:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zezé Di Camargo & Luciano – Prodded article restored on request. Please source or the article might be listed at AfD. – trialsanderrors (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prod-deleted. I'd like to contest it, as the group sold some 22 million copies of their albums in Brazil (they appear on the list of best-selling albums in Brazil) and are the subject of their own movie, 2 Filhos de Francisco. One of the most representative groups of the genre of sertanejo. Chubbles (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gurm Sekhon – Closure as "no consensus" endorsed. – Xoloz (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The closer found "no consensus", but none of the keep votes cited policy (apart from one who cited the independent sources rule), and did not address the WP:BIO concerns expressed by a majority of participants. Orderinchaos 10:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure The one keep argument was strong, pointing out that WP:BIO really just requires sufficient sources. Mayors, for example, don't hold national office and under a very strict application of the concept of subjective notability, we would probably delete articles on Michael Bloomberg (no state-wide office!) and so on. This is why it's important to look at the sources, as Sarcasticidealist did. The goal of notability standards isn't to exclude articles where we could have a neutral, verifiable (and thus reliably sourced) article... the idea that we should delete them anyway based on hard but arbitrary rules about the level someone has to risen to in life is outdated at best, and excludes a lot of articles we really should have. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --W.marsh 15:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg gets even international media attention, and from my general awareness was probably notable even before assuming his current role. I'd also argue that the equivalent of Lord Mayor of a state capital (in Australian terms) would basically have the same status as a state MP. However, this person failed notability even without considering his local government roles. Most of the references in the articles are to statistics showing election results, and the only references anyone can find to him are purely of him speaking in his official administrative role. Background to this as well - there's been some concern for a while about POV pushing coming from the Australian Greens, who have created many articles on non-notable figures in their organisation, opinion pieces especially in suburb and LGA articles where they do well, and lists of unsuccessful candidates in elections and the like. I actually originally found this article when cleaning up an LGA article that had become infested with cruft and checking the blue links out. Orderinchaos 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is Sekhon's official administrative role, in which he speaks, that gives him his notability. POV pushing and other actions coming from the Australian Greens, should it exist, and how you found this article, is nothing to do with whether this AfD was closed properly. Tyrenius (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside, and recognising we have gone a bit off-topic, have a look at Australian Greens Victoria and you'll get the idea of what I mean - perfect example.) Orderinchaos 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) He gains coverage in the media and is clearly a public figure. He is featured as a spokesperson.[10] In an article on election results, a third of the text features him and his comments as "State convener for the Greens in Victoria".[11] The Age is a respected newspaper. There were weak keeps and basically weak deletes, for example, "I can see how this might be a borderline case for notability." In weighing the arguments, as closing admin, I did not find a consensus to delete the article. Tyrenius (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question goes to - how could one improve this article? I'm not seeing a way to do it. At present it is a puff piece, and likely to remain so. The bit about the Age is irrelevant as he is not its primary subject. Orderinchaos 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Age is not irrelevant if it includes Sekhon in a non-trivial way, and a third of the article (in one case) is noteworthy. He is the main figure speaking about an issue in another case. It is not a puff piece: it is NPOV and referenced, just stating the facts. Tyrenius (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree re the NPOV. But anyway. (edit) I've done what I can to fix it. We're still missing a whole heap of biographical detail and the only source for anything other than his council career is a party publication. Orderinchaos 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Just from reading the debate I'd say the closing admin got this just about right. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Looks pretty much like no consensus to me, from the AfD and above. I suggest you wait and relist the AfD in a few months. DRV is not AfD round 2. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am *well* aware of that - you would be well advised to read my contributions to other DRVs. Orderinchaos 21:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am pleased to this was listed at DRV. I too remain puzzled at how the closing administrator saw no consensus from three keeps (two of them weak), of which only one cited policy or guidelines as opposed to five deletes that actually cite policy and guidelines. The one that did cite policy made the very debatable point that the sources provided that were independent of the subject were non trivial. Without wanting to rehash the AfD this clearly not correct. I would suggest that the decision be overturned and the article relisted for further discussion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that AFD isn't a vote and that consensus is judged against policy not headcount? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my saying "of which only one cited policy or guidelines as opposed to five deletes that actually cite policy and guidelines". I think I understand what consensus means. Read what I wrote, not what you thought I wrote. (note: the word "one" was added, mistakenly left out before). -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and just nominate in another two months--it makes more sense than to do it that way after a no consensus. I consider this borderline. The role of an admin is neither to merely count, nor to impose his own view, nor to determine the better of contrasting policy-basedarguments, but to determine the consensus of the people at the Afd, considering only the views based on any rational interpretation of policy. The community, not the admin, decides what considerations are most important in the matter at hand. DGG (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The role of the closer is to determine an existing consensus, not to substitute their own opinion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an excuse for overturning results. Rebecca (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (no consensus): Most of the delete comments misunderstand WP:BIO, and the fact that meeting one of the "inherently notable" categories is sufficient but not necessary for inclusion. Others misunderstand the principle that the fundamental criterion for notability is source references. AfD is not a vote. David Mestel^(Talk) 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 December 2007[edit]

Lynn valley elementary – Deletion overturned; listed at AfD. W. Marsh and Trialsanderrors had an interesting (if unfortunately testy) exchange going. In my experience, each of their different interpretations of CSD A1 is logically viable, and the issue has never been -- and probably never could be -- definitely decided by consensus one way or the other as a universal principle. However, applications of CSD A1 are made to individual articles according to the judgment of consensus in each particular case. In this particular case, consensus judges that CSD A1 does not apply, and all agree the original CSD A7 reason was clearly inappropriate. Hence, the result -- but a universal rule on CSD A1 cannot be distilled from the debate below (or any debate anywhere that I know of.) – Xoloz (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

page was deleted about 90 minutes after the nomination was posted at AfD. Closing admin gave as the reason that the speedy-delete tag was on the article. AfD discussion process should trump speedy deletion process if an article is in both. Otherwise we're wasting the time of editors taking part in discussions. I was one of two editors who contacted the closing admin with the same complaint on this decision. AfD should be relisted. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood what happened. The AFD was closed because the article had already been speedy deleted. Speedy deletion during AFD is routine, several happen every day, and is intended to avoid pointless discussion. I see no assertion of significance or importance in the article. However, WP:CSD#A7 explicitly excludes deletion of schools because deletion of schools is controversial. Accordingly, the article should be restored and relisted, but the most likely outcome is to merge to a school district or local government unit article. GRBerry 21:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is only pointless if you've already made up your mind on the article. I understand that the speedy-delete tag was already on the article when it was nominated for deletion, but I consider that irrelevant: Once the AfD process starts, it should be allowed to continue under AfD procedures. The language at WP:CSD#A7 was changed to include schools after this article was speedy deleted, so technically it doesn't apply. Nevertheless, the additional language to the rule gives another reason to relist this. Noroton (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn & relist although I believe the AfD would have resulted in a delete result, I still think it should be relisted as I don't believe schools have ever really come under the speedy delete criterion. RMHED (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A7 doesn't apply to schools. There's no consensus for that, A7 is intended only for uncontroversial deletions. --W.marsh 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Schools have been specifically excepted from A7. BlueValour (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While the A7 was invalid, it's clear to me the correct end outcome has ensued in this particular case (we're even looking at a violation of Geogre's Law here). Per WP:IAR, let's not follow process over clear common sense - it's a waste of editors' time. Orderinchaos 10:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist or just merge. Since there is a real possibility that the outcome of a school AFD is "merge", there are no snowballs to burn in hell here, so no IAR-ing here. Not an A7 candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article If the article is shorter than the DRV nomination and in the wrong spot (unless the school eschews capitals) A1 applies. Just write an article under the correct name. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No... A1 applies if there is so little context that a reader can't figure out what the article was about, which wasn't the case here, as the article said "Lynn Valley Elementary is a public school in the Lynn Valley district of North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada". People have bent over backwards for years to explain A1 is about a lack of any usable context, not just articles that are "too short". This article was 2 sentences but in another DRV we have someone claiming 3 paragraphs is short enough for A1... once you make length the criteria, people quickly get very arbitrary and make bad deletions with it. --W.marsh 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My standard on A1 is very simple: If for a reasonable editor the time to create a feasible new article is less than the time it takes to start a deletion discussion, A1 is applicable. This case here is not even borderline. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well you shouldn't be claiming it's A1 then, it's just your own rule that's not backed up by policy. --W.marsh 15:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, it is. How loosely or narrowly to interpret each criterion of our speedy deletion rules is up to each editor. That's why we have deletion discussions and don't leave deletions to bots. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No... A1 says "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". You say "nevermind that, it should take at least several minutes to write". Those are not the same at all. There's no way you couldn't identify what the article was about, based on the text that was deleted. That's all A1 requires. --W.marsh 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Last time I checked trialsanderrors's brain wasn't operated by W.marsh, so please don't state for me what I can or can't identify based on what. I find my proximate rule to determine when sufficient context is established perfectly apt both in general and in this particular case. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So you couldn't tell that Lynn Valley Elementary was a school in North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada based on the sentence "Lynn Valley Elementary is a public school in the Lynn Valley district of North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada"? I think you want much more than mere identification, but that was never the intent of A1. --W.marsh 16:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but "Albert Einstein was a patent clerk in Berne, Switzerland" doesn't identify Albert Einstein either. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So... your contention is that merely being a school isn't a claim of notability then, just as being a patent clerk isn't? A7 applies to people but not to schools, has been explained. We're back to square one. --W.marsh 16:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not arguing A7. Your argument is that X is a school in Y identifies X, but it really just establishes that X is a member of set (schools in Y). That's classification, not identification, a much less stringent requirement. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then we're arguing semantics. I don't think we're going to persuade eachother here... but your concept of A1 (which apparently involves guessing how long it took someone to write the article) is not backed up by consensus or policy. I say you'd get overturned at DRV quite often, trying to apply that. --W.marsh 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, we're not arguing semantics. We're arguing on how much effort we can expect the individual editor to exert before they can burden the community with their complaints. I don't claim to express a consensus opinion, but I claim to express an opinion that's a viable interpretation of policy. If you diagree, knock yourself out. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I only expect the editor to provide meaningful content (context, in this case) towards a good article on the subject, which is the point of CSD, rather than just arbitrarily punishing people for not working as hard as we deem they should have. As for that AFD, it would seem purely procedural to object to your poor deletion rationale, as consensus seems to have been that the article was a hoax. --W.marsh 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I like my deletion rationale just fine, but I certainly invite you to monitor my usage of it. Your depiction of my argument as "arbitrarily punishing people for not working as hard as they should" is complete dumbfuck of course, and it seems like we've reached the end of a meaningful discussion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, someone feeling the need to use the word "dumbfuck" usually means that meaningful discussion is at an end. --W.marsh 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Schools are specifically excluded from the A7 speedy criteria and there was enough context for me to tell what the article was about and where school was located. As Sjakkalle says a merge is sometimes a possibility with schools. Davewild (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for god's sake just write an article if you don't want to endorse this deletion, the entire content deleted was "Lynn Valley Elementary is a public school in the Lynn Valley district of North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada", how many pages of verbiage and pointless bureaucracy-wrangling can we indulge in over that one sentence? Here's the school's website: [12]. Here's a redlink: Lynn Valley Elementary School. Here are some other Elementary School articles that may serve as a model: Category:Elementary schools in British Columbia. Please don't waste any more time arguing over it, if you care, go and create something. --Stormie (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the bad deletion that made this necessary. The solution is to not make more deletions that have no basis in policy. --W.marsh 20:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:IAR, as Orderinchaos said. I agree with Stormie that, if anyone really wants an article on this subject, they should just write one. It would be pointless to send this to an AfD that it is almost certain to fail. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn , the reason for carrying articles like this to Deletion Review is to impress it on admins in general that they need to follow policy as it is written. . DGG (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Schools are exempted from A7, so the speedy deletion was improper and the AfD should have been allowed to continue. Though the school doesn't seem notable to me, its article did not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. DGG and W.marsh are right that we should go through this process to discourage people from making invalid deletions. I have no objection to a relist at AfD. --Hut 8.5 14:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG and W. marsh. I hate these one-line school articles, and most elementary school articles, but one-liners are generally of value to the encyclopedia. Consider, for example, that unregistered users can expand a one-liner but not create a new article. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Not a very good article, but not a good speedy either. I agree with DGG - the reason for DRV is not just to restore the content, but to give admins feedback on their actions and (hopefully) encourage them to make better calls in future. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist on policy reasons only. This is a pretty obviously a waste of time, and I like the idea of WP:IAR to save a pointless debate, but if people want to tangle themselves in red-tape, let them. We'll just make everybody happier by deleting it again five days from now. Reso lute 17:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dwellers of the Forbidden City – Deletion overturned to "no consensus" by substantial margin; no relisting required. The consensus is that, while the closer made good arguments, they were solely his own, and unsupported by the debate; they belonged within the debate, not as the close of it. – Xoloz (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reason by closing admin for deletion is that while notability exists within the specific topic, notability does not exist outside it. I am not aware of any policy that an article must be notable outside its specific subject to be worthy of an article. This deletion needs further discussion. --Polaron | Talk 18:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn ~~and Restore~~ - The closing Admin brought up many, many good points, but all of those could be used to improve the article. Quite a bit of work went into trying to bring the article up to standards, had it not been for the Christmas break I know I could have done a lot more myself. Plus I believe that the original nomination was brought about in clear misunderstanding of policy of how AfDs work. Web Warlock (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

minor edit in my vote. Web Warlock (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Closing admin introduces a new, non policy based requirement and deletes based on it. Nowhere in policy or guidelines do we state that coverage has to be from outside the genre. If that were the case movie reviews would not help show movies notable, book reviews would not help show book reviews notable, et cetera. In fact, this purported requirement directly contradicts the general guidelines and community requirement. Since the closer's logic fundamentally relies on this rule which contradicts the community standards, the closer's logic does not hold up to examination. The proper closure for this AFD is somewhere between keep and no consensus. As both result in keeping, and a relisting is unlikely to improve matters, we should overturn without relisting. GRBerry 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by closer The basis of the close was that there is one cite evidenced showing any relationship to notability. Only one. The claim to notability is finishing #13 on a list. We don't know the significance of #13 on that list - if it's meaningful or easy to achieve. So we have a notability problem. We prefer multiple sources; we have only one, and that one although credible and the like, lists it as an ambiguous "13". Is that exceptional? mundane? in its field? We have no editorial comment, no "significant coverage" otherwise, nothing to indicate the world has taken specific interest in the sense WP:N anticipates (every product gets "new launch reviews", these don't evidence notability and this game's launch reviews were evidenced average+). We need significant interest - but have no editorials on this game, no articles on it, no discussions about it. Not one was given at the article, not one at AFD. For all that was cited this product was launched and then never discussed again, save for one numeric ranking of ambiguous significance. That is why it was closed as delete. the cites provided don't presently meet WP:N (although possibly others may exist). The comment referred to, is being currently discussed in email, it is agreed ambiguously worded. But it wasn't the basis of the close, nor a "new proposal" (many items are not much referenced outside their field) but an observation on the minimal evidence provided. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason you can claim "one cite evidenced showing any relationship to notability" is because you are massively wrong on what is relevant to notability. Most of the other cites were in fact relevant, and your blatant error on this is the reason that the close needs to be overturned. All of the reviews are evidence of notability by the community standards as documented in multiple guidelines. GRBerry 02:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The purpose of sources is to evidence notability. Sources that merely rate a product on release, which every product has almost, are indiscriminate. It could be the most routine, the most non-notable almost, and someone will have reviewed it. See software reviews, where "it's been reviewed" is not alone, evidence of notability for software. The item has cites showing average reviews existed on launch. Everything gets those. Routine press releases, rpoduct reviews, brief launch interest, etc, do not indicate "notability" even if noted in reliable sources... because they are indiscriminate and do not speak to notice being taken beyond the brief, or paid-for, or routine non-discriminatory kind. Where are the reviews evidenced, which gave discriminating attention in the sense of "significant coverage" (WP:N) - ie, articles addressing this specific game or testifying to its standing, to get beyond "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information"? We have one only, and that one all we have heard is one rating, that's of uncertain significance, not one thing more. If you could confirm which cites you are using to evidence that "reliable sources" have taken "significant notice" and given it "significant coverage", that's what was missing at AFD (as I said). We need those. If they were not noted by mistake, can you note them now? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure Closing admin seems to have given careful consideration to the different factors to weigh up as well as policy considerations, and article is now a redirect to a section in an appropriate article. Orderinchaos 10:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per GRBerry. Also, as long as the arguments given are reasonable, they should not be lightly discounted. Reasonable balance between reasonable arguments on either side of the debate is no consensus territory, and arguments provided by the delete side such as the article being a game guide, was simply incorrect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was clearly no consensus to delete this article. Reading the AfD discussion will make that apparent immediately. Rray (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per GRBerry and Sjakkalle. I find it troubling that an ArbCom member not only has such poor grasp of deletion policy but also completely misunderstands WP:POINT. The article contained a claim to notability ("N^th best of all time") which was both independently sourced and considered sufficient by the majority, so it is not up to the closer to disenfranchise the community and insert his/her opinion. While it is certainly unusual for an author to submit their own articles for deletion, there is no reason to consider this disruptive. Querying the community on the validity of a class of articles ("ranked D&D roleplaying scenarios") might keep the author from creating a lot content that would later be deleted. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What of the other 82 articles in Category:Dungeons & Dragons modules? Clicking on a few random ones, they are all far poorer than this article was at the time of its deletion. --Stormie (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; "we don't know how many games of genuine credibility were rated" is absurd; it's List of Dungeons & Dragons modules with some of earlier elements of List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures. Even if it weren't a list in Wikipedia, there are people to whom the answer would be obvious, so don't say "we" don't know. More per Sjakkalle.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't know that. It's not stated, but (at AFD) mere assumption. There's no link or cite at AFD to confirm this. I see none. "There are people to whom it is obvious" is envelope pushing at WP:OR. Notability relies on sources, not editor's own views. No sources were provided to this information, nor any second source which is preferable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a cite, the obvious cite; surely the article itself tells you out of what pool they selected the 30. We have a source, an article that places this as the 13th best D&D adventure of all time. It is up to the editors to decide whether or not that is a notable claim; no source can decide that for us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oveturn as no consensus. Looking at the AfD, it doesn't appear that either the keep or delete points are that much better, and there are plenty of !votes for both. Original nomination violates WP:POINT as well, so I don't think it should be relisted very soon. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus If there is anything clear about articles like this, it is that there is no consensus about how to handle them. The closer very precisely attempted to lay out his own framework for deciding this, but he has no right to do so. His job was only to determine what the consensus was. The discretion given is to determine which of the arguments are so unrelated to policy or so unsupported as not to be worth considering. I admire his courage in trying to settle the issue, but he should be arguing the matter, not deciding on it. If he has a position on which arguments are the better, the place to do it is not join in the AfD and argue the point--he might well convince us there. The closer of an afd is taking making a judgment on what the community thinks about the applicable policy, not saying what he things the applicable policy should be. How right or wrong he may be about what the policy ought to be is totally irrelevant. This is especially evident when, as here, he introduces a completely to policy into the discussion--it may or may not be a good policy, but the place to do it is WP:N on WP:VP. If he has a new suggestion for a policy to deal with disputed articles of borderline notability, we should discuss it--he should not develop it and then announce it to us as a conclusion. I agree with others there is no point in relisting it until there is some consensus about how to handle such articles.
I consider this different from the fiction articles I usually support; it is not about an episode, or about a character, or setting, but about a related sub-fiction, with some aspects in common with episodes. It had much more of the conventional real-world information than the typical episode article. I am sufficiently neutral about this particular article not to have joined in the debate, but you didn't see me trying to close it according to what I personally thought the strongest position--and make a general conclusion about all articles of this type and develop a new policy in order to resolve the disputes over similar articles and many other types of articles in addition. And then saying I was not trying to set a precedent, when the AfD was specifically set forth as a test case. DGG (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; if he had argued it in the AfD, the issue about what #13th really meant would have come up, and could have been answered. As it was, it was deleted in part because the closer didn't know what that meant, despite the fact there were probably several people there who could have told him. That's bad.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closers comments:

I feel a large part of the above is based on misunderstanding of a complex close. Probably complicated by my attempt to note a side-observation that has been taken in a way I didn't mean.

AFD is an unusual type of debate. Its intent is to highlight evidence, not count views, unless the views are for equally tenable policy based possibilities:
"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, [or] are based on opinion rather than fact ... are frequently discounted" Deletion guidelines for administrators

That is pure traditional practice and norms. We count strength of argument, not !votes. The AFD included a majority who considered the article should be kept as notable in large reliance upon two unexceptional launch reviews. But "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection", and WP:N consensus is that coverage with low levels of discrimination are not likely to be evidence of notability. Every product almost, from remarked upon to trivial, can produce at will one or two launch reviews, so launch reviews per se are often not evidence. So we have a case where many keeps were reliant upon the fallacious logic "Cite X shows notability => keep" where in fact cite X does not appear to show notability, as several opinions pointed out. On examination of evidence presented, the latter seem to be more likely to be right as a matter of communal consensus on the approach to "notability". So per WP:DGFA keep views must show their validity and that the topic is notable, but cannot rely on sources that don't actually speak to notability, to claim notability exists. Of the 3 cites found, two are startup reviews. Effectively, strike out all but one cite, for pure policy and norm reasons.
To correct one comment above, it would not have mattered if "there were probably several people there who could have told him" (WP:OR). Editors opinion cannot evidence anything at AFD. If a friend tells you an item he owns is rated #13 in its field in some reputable chart, does that evidence anything? Well, maybe and maybe not. There are many topics where #13 is non-notable, and many where it is. But their word on what it means is purely their own interpretation of it - original research. That is why alone, the mere fact of it, as stated in the one useful cite given, was not enough.
AFD unfortunately does not support "lets create a precedent case", as a rule. That's documented over, and over again enough that that is a precedent (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). Some common outcomes exist, but they are comparatively few. Noting that an attempt to "force" a test case achieves no such thing, seems an important piece of information to tell the nominator, I think. The case gets closed as a case; it is unlikely to set a precedent (as most cases do not, nominator's intent notwithstanding); it is simply closed as a usual AFD.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors' opinions can't evidence anything at AFD? That's absurd; the only difference between topics where #13 is non-notable and topics where #13 is notable is opinion. WP:OR does not support your conclusion at all; it says "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.", not "Wikipedia doesn't use original thought to conclude what's encyclopedic or not." Even without that, editors could have attested to the factual matter of what the cite said; it's absurd to use your lack of knowledge about a matter as a reason to delete, without asking the people who had the paper cite what it said or reading it yourself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct though, if you think about it. It's possible to be #13 in some lists, and still not have attention from the world (and thus be non-notable) - and if that's the case no amount of opinion might make such a topic notable. The test for notability is roughly intended to identify whether the real world (or some independent part of it) is evidenced as having deemed it worthy of especial (or "not indiscriminate") attention. If they have, it's often likely we should as well (hence the word "presumption"). See WP:N. So here is an item, and we can agree it's got a rating of #13 in its subgenre of "modules for D&D" (which is a fairly narrow subgenre)... where is any indication at AFD that the world has paid it attention? If it was deemed "worthy of notice" in the eyes of even just the game-playing world, where is a single article, significant discussion, or significant mention of it, beyond a numeric rating "#13" and being reviewed on release (like everything else ever produced was). Coverage doesn't have to be online (and it may well not be), but that is what's needed to establish notability, as stated at close. Not one party to AFD provided actual fact and evidence beyond this, and opinion does not override deletion guidelines to this extent, which have long standing communal assent and specifically state that we look at argument and policy, not head-count. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the delete arguments are hardly compelling such as "This is a non-notable, game-guide bit of cruft and there are dozens more where it came from." Tim! (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with strong condemnation for the pointyness of the nomination. The closer makes an excellent analysis, but it is an analysis that should be a comment in the debate itself, not in closing it. The closer's role is to determine consensus. This does not mean counting heads, but it does not mean simply deciding which side they agree with either. The closer is entitled to discard arguments which are incorrect in principle (for example based on being useful), but not those which merely arrive at a different conclusion in a matter of opinion and judgement, such as (in this case) whether a source meets the requirements of WP:N. David Mestel^(Talk) 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Memory Alpha – Deletion overturned; without impugning the closer, there is consensus here that the the question raised by Phil Sandifer's argument remains open. Suggestions to take the issue to a wider forum (like Centralized Discussions) are well-taken. For this reason, relisting of the template is by editorial option. – Xoloz (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion showed no consensus to delete. Closing administrator's close reads like somebody who came to the discussion after a week and decided that they could use their admin vote to close it to their preferred outcome instead of participating in or acknowledging the discussion. Furthermore, there are numerous cases where we have multiple styles of templates and links for one purpose, making the closing reason nonsensical at best. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deleteion - most of the keep votes were "per Phil" and Phil's argument is based on precedent and the supposed vested interest in promoting other free-content sites. Precedent is important but not binding and there is no reason why the more widely-used template can't serve the promotional interest without this duplicative template. Given that the majority of the keep !votes were based on this non-compelling rationale, discounting all of the "keep per Phil" responses is appropriate. Otto4711 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am deeply curious how fulfilling something that is intrinsic to the mission of the site - the creation of free content - is a non-compelling rationale, and am further skeptical of any argument that amounts to "Discount votes I disagree with." I certainly do not see a prima faciae reason for discarding those votes. Perhapse I'm missing something - what line exists between this argument and the argument "Discard all votes I disagree with?" Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am curious as to how this template contributed to the creation of free content. Linking one wiki to another doesn't mean that any content will be created on either wiki. Also curious as to how the existing and more widely-used template doesn't serve the purpose you're claiming for this template. As for discounting "me too" opinions, TFD is not a vote. A lot of people's agreeing with a poor argument doesn't make the argument stronger and a closing admin is absolutely correct to discount "me too" arguments in determining consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's rather counter-intuitive - if somebody's argument persuades people, that does say something for the applicability and validity of the argument. It is not necessarily the end of the discussion, but me-too votes are hardly discountable either. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not to be rude, but if the original argument is crap, then "I agree with the crap argument" with no further argumentation is crap. Otto4711 (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but I fail to see what elevates the argument from one you disagree with to crap. I'm all about striking prima faciae nonsense arguments, but I have a hard time seeing what about my argument is prima faciae nonsense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your argument is (paraphrasing) "other similar templates have been kept" and "this helps us fulfill our mission." Precedent isn't binding so the first part of your argument doesn't matter. Another more widely used template exists so the second part of your argument doesn't matter. Otto4711 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. I get that you disagree. But that does not amount to prima faciae reason for rejection. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, clearly all you're going to do here is keep saying "I get you disagree" over and over again as if that's the actual content of my comment, so there appears to be little point in my continuing to engage. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This does little to make me think your comment amounts to much more than a decision that only viewpoints you agree with count in deletion discussions. Complete rejection of all comments expressing a viewpoint is a measure for comments that clearly bear no relationship to the discussion or to basic policy. That does not describe this case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Looking at the TfD, I believe the closing admin made the right call. Besides, there's very little reason to keep a redundant template.--UsaSatsui (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - There is a key point that seems to have been missed by some in the discussion. That User:Phirazo orphaned (removed from pages) the template nominated (before nominating), replacing it with another template. Several in the discussion (including the nominator) stated something akin to: "Why keep it, it doesn't link to anything". Sounds too much like an attempt at Fait accompli to me. - jc37 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't answer the question of why a redundant template should be kept. I don't see how that's relevant. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's true, then let's keep the older template and nominate the new one for discussion. There is no reason to prefer one over the other except aesthetics. My main concern is that some of the commenters didn't seem to notice that the nominator orphaned the older one. I'd like to see a relisting of both templates, and allow the community to decide between them (or to keep or delete both, if they wish). - jc37 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Before I orphaned the page, it was used in only a few articles, and it only really belonged in one - Mudd's Women. --Phirazo 05:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahem! That's exactly what has already been done. The older template is the one that was kept, and the newer template is the one that was nominated for deletion. Template:memoryalpha was created in October 2004. Template:Memory Alpha was created, twice, in February 2005 and May 2005. Each time after creating it, its creators, Cburnett (talk · contribs) and Memory (talk · contribs), requested its deletion when they found that it was a duplicate of the older template. It was re-created a third time, by Angela (talk · contribs) in July 2005, because a few articles existed, probably leftovers from the prior duplicate template, that transcluded the newer duplicate template instead of the older original one. Xe created a redirect from the new template to the old as a quick fix for that, rather than adjusting the articles to transclude the older template. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Closing admin seems to have read consensus correctly - XfD is not a vote, and "promoting" anything (even free content) is most definitely *not* the job of an encyclopaedia, so the admin was correct to ignore or disregard votes made on this basis. Orderinchaos 10:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. "Per Phil Sandifer" is a perfectly valid reason to keep if Phil Sandifer has a reasonable argument, and if so, this looks like a no consensus ("*FD is not a vote" does not mean ignore the number of people endorsing an argument, and close whatever way you want to, it does means consider other factors as well.) From reading his argument, Phil had a very persuasive reason for having a template with a pointer to Memory Alpha, but I did not entirely see the reason why this template should be kept along with {{memoryalpha}}, the reason given to delete was that this template had been replaced with a less intrusive version, making the old template redundant. If someone can explain why the old template may be better than the new one in certain circumstances, I'll be happy to vote "overturn" on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The templates generated with Template:FreeContentMeta have the secondary and important purpose of indicating an article with a similar topic but a very different focus. This is why they are made to resemble the sister project boxes. Just like the WikiQuote box has the implicit message "If you are interested in quotes by this subject or in adding quotes by this subject, this is where you should go," the Memory Alpha box has the implicit message "If you are interested in what Captain Kirk did when he was seven, or have information of that sort to add, this is where you should go." This is a distinct purpose to the external links section, which simply implies "For more information, see X" as opposed to "For another free content resource on X with a different focus..." Which is the point of our Sister Project boxes, and is a point that can readily be extended to these. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the clarification. Overturn it is then. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that the clarification is erroneous. The "for more information" section is the Further Reading section. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Further reading. Although External Links is sometimes used erroneously in place of Further Reading, the distinction between the two is that External Links is for resources that wouldn't constitute an actual reliable source for article content. See Wikipedia:External links. "For another free content resource on X with a different focus …", where that "free content resource" is an unreliable source such as an article on a freely editable wiki, is exactly one of its functions. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I feel the deletion centres on whether the template serves exactly the same purpose as another template, but that Phil Sandifer has succesfully argued here and at the original debate that this template does serve a different purpose. Relisting the debate may help to explore whether despite the other purpose the template should still be deleted. Tim! (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn TfD was no-consensus. The jury is still out on if the style is acceptable or not, and even alternatives are being tried that addressed some of the previous concerns. No reason to not let this continue a reasonable attempt to address more concerns, as well as exploring further preference among editors (most didn't even know this template was an option). -- Ned Scott 03:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah come on, the template was more than a year old, and still no one is really using them. I welcome any experiment, but if the idea was that good, everyone would be using them by now. Instead its usage was sporadic (even well before Phirazo started removing the inclusions. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only learned about this template not too long ago, and a huge number of Wikipedians still don't know it's an option. Yes, sometimes the fact that something hasn't been adopted is a sign it wasn't a good idea, but often it simply means it wasn't noticed. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This template was used on one article it actually belonged in (Mudd's Women). The final count was 7 to keep, 7 to delete, but many of the keep votes were "Keep per" votes, and the concern of "no one uses it" was never answered in the TfD. --Phirazo 04:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, many editors didn't know of the template's existence. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is difficult to show one way or the other. Consensus in the actual encyclopedia was to use the line format. --Phirazo 05:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, not really. Consensus doesn't always mean default behavior. To have a consensus we assume that the other options have been considered. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The other options have been considered, over a period of almost 3 years now. Template:memoryalpha was nominated for deletion in 2005, and at the time it looked exactly like Template:Memory Alpha. The de-boxing of the template was discussed both then and since. During its history, the style of Template:memoryalpha has varied back and forth between simple prose and a box — editing which Phil Sandifer has xyrself been involved in, and which you can see discussed at Template talk:memoryalpha. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been considered by a great many Wikipedians, and the rationale to linking to some wikis in this way has expanded since then. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn it isn't a vote, and the keep arguments were equal in merit to the delete ones, and made by well established editors. the assertion was made in the CfD--I havent checked it--that the template was deliberately orphaned before the TfD. Myself, I have no opinion on the actual issue. DGG (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else, noting that keep comments were made by "well established editors" is a fairly blatant appeal to authority, with its strong implication that how well-estblished the editors are has some bearing on the argument. A bad argument made by an old-time editor is still a bad argument. Otto4711 (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as no consensus. Around half the people were backing Phil's point, and it hasn't been shown that his point is fundamentally flawed in some way. Closing admin misses the fact of the matter when he says "It makes no sense to keep this template when it is used only once comapred to thousands of times for another template which does the exact same thing." 1. It's up to debate whether the template belongs on only one article. 2. There's the definite possibility of articles warranting the box in the future, so one is enough for the moment. 3. There's no problem with having multiple templates perform the same function in different ways. –Pomte 05:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin's statement: In the immediate aftermath of this TfD, Phil contacted me on my talk page, and among the various uncivil comments were implications that I prefer one template over another, that I am ignoring consensus, and that I close TfDs in lieu of participating in them in an effort to impose by views on the template namespace on others. I have no preference for this template or the more widely used template that I defaulted to. These types of templates have proven extremely controversial, to the point where I have begun closing nominations of free content wiki external links as suspended nominations, such as here, a move which was endorsed as wise by another admin who regularly closes TfDs here. Basically, it boils down to three points:
- One template is used thousands of times, the other is not. It does not matter why this is or how it came about, but that is how it stands. Duplicating the templates, even if parity in their use is achieved, defeats the purpose of the template namespace.
- It has long been an unwritten guideline that templates can be deleted even if they only thing "wrong" with them is that they are unused.
- The deletion debates surrounding these types of templates are controversial. I have suspended further nominations and requested a consensus be formed on whether this type of external link template is acceptable.
I therefore ask that this template not be undeleted, as these types of templates are controversial and under debate, undeleting would only cause unnecessary controversy. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see holding off on this DRV while holding a discussion about them. It still needs a lot of work, but I'm attempting to restart a proposal at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We've had the discussion, over and over again. For example: Template:Uncyclopedia, another interwiki-link-in-a-box-to-a-non-Foundation-project template, was discussed in July 2005, August 2005, and January 2006, and deleted. And as pointed out above, Template:memoryalpha, when it was an interwiki-link-in-a-box, was discussed, both at TFD and on its talk page. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those discussions don't even touch on the same issues, and are obviously not the end of such discussions. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd support that. Basically, I deleted X because it was used 3 times when Y was used 2000 times, which is normally a legitimate and generally uncontested line of reasoning in TfD closures. Unfortunately, X and Y are involved in a longer term edit war/dispute, so... RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It doesn't matter how the situation came about, but it matters how it should be, and that was the point of the debate. The debate is not about how well the template is used now, but its usability in general.
  2. The templates are not duplicates. Consider the following 2 ways of linking to the same thing: {{Sisterlinks}} and {{Seealsosection}}, the latter of which, incidentally, you closed as no consensus.
  3. There is no unwritten TfD guideline to delete templates that are neither unused nor duplicates. This decision would obviously be contested based on the arguments in the TfD itself, and I don't know why you would think otherwise. –Pomte 12:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Phils's argument that we should be allowing cross links between free content media is invalid, as the deletion of this template does not prevent this. This was a duplicate template, and {{memoryalpha}} serves the exact same function. Given that Phil's keep reasoning is without merit, so too are the per Phil's. The WP:WAX defence isn't valid either. Reso lute 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were several discussions going on at the time, so I'm not sure if I repeated it in this specific one, but I know I made plenty of statements independent of Phil's. There are reasons being given as to the benefits of having such links not just exist, but to be marked in a certain way. The utility of a link has allowed us to give some ELs their own distinction, such as review links in the album template, or IMDb links in some infoboxes. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete; closing rationale gave no adequate reason for contravening the lack of consensus in the discussion. The template's lack of use is not very useful evidence given that the nominator systematically orphaned it. The distinction between the templates is meaningful (as is evident from the discussion) and in that regard they do not serve the same function; one serves to promote a free content generator and provider while the other does not. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was used on one article it belonged in before I orphaned it. --Phirazo 04:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 December 2007[edit]

Butt Trumpet – restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted as part of the AfD for Felony Records. This group enjoyed brief nationwide success in the U.S. in the 1990s, and the page cited several independent sources (as always, I can go get more if you'd like). I would like to ask that the deletion for this page be overturned and the Butt Trumpet page be restored (editorial option to AfD it individually, if you'd prefer). Chubbles (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore per nom. I don't remember this page having any independent sources, but I'm assuming good faith on the nominator's part here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page had links to writeups from All Music Guide and Trouser Press. There's more out there; they were controversial, and got news coverage for upsetting grandmothers. Also, I should note that the page didn't have an AfD notice on it even though it was named in the Felony Records AfD. Chubbles (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Keep Slightly borderline, but notable enough. A Google News search shows a number of solid sources, with the first two being the LA Times. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The presence of sources specific to this band doesn't appear to have been fully considered in the group AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The failure to ever tag the article is a significant flaw, sufficient in and of itself to make the AFD be invalid for deleting this article. Fortunately, the other band articles were tagged. GRBerry 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and overturned it. east.718 at 01:49, December 28, 2007

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

1208 (band) – Deletion overturned. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted as part of the AfD for Felony Records. I would like to have this page undeleted because their Allmusic page, which has a biography, also notes that the group released two albums on Epitaph Records, a highly notable label; their albums have been reviewed profusely, as well (Allmusic's reviews are really quite complimentary). I will fix up the page with refs and such, as always. Chubbles (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and keep per Chubbles, this band indeed appears to be notable by having two albums on a major label and a significant All Music bio. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - two albums on Epitaph meets criteria #5 of WP:MUSIC -Halo (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kaltura – Deletion and protection endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am trying to get an article about– Kaltura, Inc – included in Wikipedia, but have run into difficulty, and I’m not sure why my article is being deleted, and is now protected and cannot be created at all.

<article spam removed -- Kesh (talk) >

Based on the information above, I would like to recreate the article for Kaltura. Please advise how I can go about moving this process along. I am happy to discuss this further and provide any additional information that might be required.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and support.

List of links including Kaltura widgets:

Representative Music Widgets (Band / Musician Pages) http://www.myspace.com/nedamusic http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendi d=102160587 http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendi d=2366356 http://www.myspace.com/mudvayne http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendi d=175360344 http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendi d=57271723 http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendi d=190878368 http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendi d=125849413

Representative Music Widgets (Fan Pages) http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendi d=198243168 http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendi d=200315805 http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendi d=192536809

Representative Widgets (Blog Pages) http://heehawmarketing.typepad.com/hee_haw_marketing/2007/11/eat-sleep-b log-.html http://servantofchaos.typepad.com/soc/2007/11/i-really-am-goi.html http://www.craphammer.ca/2007/10/eat-sleep-blog-.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lishkee (talk • contribs)

Do you have any reliable sources that can help establish notability? That is the main criteria. The links you have posted are MySpace pages and blogs for the most part...here's a hint: if anyone can put down anything they want, it's probably not reliable as a source (yes, that does include Wikipeida. Ironic, no?) Newspaper articles (not press releases), magazine articles, business web sites, a book about the company by an objective author...those are the things you need.

In addition, you need to make sure the article isn't blatant advertising for the company, but actually about the company. Usually, in situations like this, someone makes a draft of the page in their userspace (try here: User:Lishkee/Kaltura), has an admin check it out, and when it's acceptable, it gets moved into normal space. Give that a shot. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I didn't start this DRV; the page was broken and I tried to fix it, and it accidentally signed my name automatically. I've no opinion on this matter. Chubbles (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I've changed my suggested userspace target appropriately (and signed the nom's comment as well) --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse all deletions and salting. Editors are continuously creating bad versions of this article. AfD easily snowballed as delete, and the versions after that could have been deleted by WP:CSD#G4. Salting was necessary to prevent further abuse of the article name. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse all per Lifebaka, myspace does not confer notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 December 2007[edit]

David Wilcock – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedied as "unverifiable", which I find to be a probably too bombastic reason. I have queried the admin who speedied it with no response. meco (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as A7, the reason given in the db tag. --Core desat 04:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per CSD A7 which was on the db tag.--Sandahl 04:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse CSD A7. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 04:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. When I looked at the deleted edits, unverifiable sounded about right. The article was littered with "citation needed" tags since April of 2007. Most of all, the article claims this guy is a Conspiracy Theorist with no citations to back it up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid A7 deletion. east.718 at 04:32, December 25, 2007
Sorry for not having responded to your request earlier; too many things popped up in my schedule, and I genuinely forgot about your request. However, the point remains: the article generally makes unverifiable claims. Once those unverifiable claims are discarded, there remains no assertion of notability. DS (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment claims to be the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce; references are to his autobio, claimed on his website to be a bestseller, and similar self-published material. Technically this is not really A7, if he were truly the reincarnation of Cayce he would be notable. Nor is it strictly G1 nonsense, for how is WP to judge? And its not written as an advertisement. On the other hand there is no one who seems to think he is. There is really no point listing it at Afd, but it is not literally an A7. Last thing I heard, unverifiable is not a reason for speedy--nor should it be, for many people trying to delete articles say things are unverifiable as a matter of course. DGG (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. As DGG stated, it doesn't strictly meet the CSD requirements. However, it would really be a waste of time to restore it and send it to AfD, as it seems that consensus would have it deleted again. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and List - I know, an off the wall recommendation but hear me out :-) As DGG says above the grounds for the A7 are not strictly correct. In addition he has a published book on the subject here with some sort of review here. Also a local radio interview here. Whilst I am sure that none of this will add up to a row of beans at AfD it does move it out of the speedy category. BlueValour (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. You know, CSD A7, at the time of its community ratification, had a really good phrase -- "remotely plausible" -- to describe the assertion of notability. This prevented assertions like "John Doe is God" (which, on a literal level, provides enormous notability, if true) from being used to obtain an AfD. I don't know when the language was excised; but, because that was actually the language the community ratified, I still regard it as authorative. This instance is still a close case, I guess, because a claim of reincarnation is considered plausible by some major world religions, but the "remotely plausible" language answers the comments above that worry about this case presenting a problem with the literal reading of A7. A7, as ratified, was actually better. Xoloz (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a distinction to be drawn between "John Doe is God" and what I imagine this article to be about (although I can't be sure, since it's deleted), in that the latter is presumably sincerely believed by someone. See also my comments below. David Mestel^(Talk) 23:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Xoloz, there are many such deletions: "Joe Blow is the king of the world", "Jane Doe is the most beautiful girl in the world", etc. which are proper A7's, this no different. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: A desultory reading of CSD A7, and particularly its second sentence, shows that this article is incompatible with it on its face. The criteria for speedy deletion are strictly restricted, and rightly so: it allows for deletion without scrutiny by the wider community. The article may or may not be unverifiable, but that's a matter for AfD, which gives an opportunity for sources to be found, and for arguments to be made by the wider community - for example, while it may not be verifiable that he was actually reincarnated, his claims so to have been may well be so. And besides, what harm does it do for the article to exist for five more days, under a "this article is being considered for deletion" banner? David Mestel^(Talk) 23:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 December 2007[edit]

Daniel Malakov – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable Eileivgyrt (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC) --> Page was deleted by User:Coredesat relying on lack of WP:Notability arguments of User:DGG which were not valid. Neither Coredesat nor DGG defended their points of view. No consensus was reached prior to deletion.[reply]

comment My point of view as expressed at the AfD was that if additional sources became available, a proper article could possibly be made--the objectivity of the one submitted was altogether impossible. It's in the cache if anyone wants to look at it. And I note that Eileivgyrt has copied the text onto his or her user page--I'll let someone else delete it. Incidentally, the AfD was singularly refreshing, for it is the first time anyone ever said that I had " a prolific record of summarily dispatching Wikipedia pages to oblivion on that basis [notability]". Would be an excellent holiday present for me--except that it really is more than a little sad, for I dont want to figure out just where the POV is coming from. DGG (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold I'm an uninvolved user I believe, but this AfD looks like it was done by the book and reflects the consensus of the community, as judged by the closing admin. Mbisanz (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion, there was a clear consensus to delete despite multiple arguments to keep by the nominator. I will speedily delete the nominator's user page per G4. --Coredesat 02:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I was the closer of the AFD; the AFD close is not itself an argument. --Core desat 04:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, once you note that the "maintainer" of the article !voted eight times, the consensus is quite clear. And also, imho, quite correct, per WP:BLP1E. --Stormie (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion since the AfD was properly closed based on consensus. The key problem with the page is that being murdered doesn't make you notable. There are a lot of sources and there is the possibility of a Murder of Daniel Malakov article meeting the notability requirements. My suggestion is work one up in your user space and then seek advice. BlueValour (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is a slim chance that the person is notable for having been murdered, or more likely that the murder itself is notable, its drama having gripped New York for a couple weeks and raising some important issues about mental illnesss. However, we are too soon after the event to know if anything lasting will come of this. More importantly, the entire article is so poorly matched to the style of things we write here that it's probably completely unsalvageable. It is really a summary of news articles, written for the present time, with the emphasis on sifting through all the speculation of who did what and what happened. The whole thing will be out of date in another month, and still in need of a complete rewrite. Kudos to those who did take stewardship over the article and tried to clean it up, but after 2-3 weeks of trying, and five days after promising they were doing so during the deletion discussion, the article remained an utter mess. If someone wants to write a new article I don't see why not, but that ought to follow our guidelines and conventions about articles. And it is probably a futile effort. I have my doubts whether it's even possible to show notability at this point.Wikidemo (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The only keep arguments were 8 keep arguments from the original author, one weak keep, and one by Mandsford that I still don't understand no matter how many times I have read it, but it doesn't seem based in policy at all. Is the nom here seriously arguments based in policy over lack of notability should be ignored? As for DGG having a "hot hand at deletions" is probably one of the more laughable things I've seen...from my experiences with him, if there are doubts about an article, he tends to err on the side of inclusion, not deletion. Not that he's always right, but if he's arguing for a deletion...then it's probably something that should be deleted. --Smashville^BONK! 18:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can be wrong in either direction. Please follow my lead only if you agree with me by your independent judgment. DGG (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you can be...and...it seemed like a pretty straight up close to me. --Smashville^BONK! 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reverse deletion~~ Eileivgyrt (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Moved to talk page --Core desat 10:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your nomination is understood to be an argument to undelete - this tirade of bad faith is not necessary. I moved it to the talk page to make this page more manageable for other DRVs. --Core desat 10:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I have real questions of Wikipedia policy regarding the deletion by User:Coredesat of my statement (in favor of overturn in re: deletion of Daniel Malakov) from the main WP:DRV page during the WP:DRV-mandated five-day period, especially as there is little evidence that my statement has been taken into consideration (as needed for a legitimate consensus). Have expressed in good faith at User_talk:Coredesat#Deletion_of_Daniel_Malakov. Would appreciate response in kind. Eileivgyrt (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion for now per Wikidemo. I also have concerns due to Wikipedia not being news and possible WP:BLP/privacy concerns related to the custody dispute which would be enough to justify an AfD by itself. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion though this should be revived in future if the press coverage continues. Lobojo (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having an issue with the nominator's accusations of bad faith against admins for doing their duties as admins. And with the essay length responses. Be concise, please. --Smashville^BONK! 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked User:Smashville at his User Talk page to clarify his concerns so that I may address them or understand my transgression and await his kind response. Eileivgyrt (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will answer your concerns right here to the questions you asked on my talk page right here.

1. I never said that admin should be immune from criticism. I said you continue to assume bad faith. You accuse the two admins of having an agenda and of basically conspiring to delete as many articles as possible and tell one that he has a "hot hand for deletion" because he deletes expired prods and articles tagged for speedy deletion by others. You act like he has an agenda because he is doing his duty as an admin. DGG's deletion log is open and available to everyone. Anyone can open it and see that this "secret deletion spree" or whatever does not exist. Accusing either one of them of having an agenda for doing the procedural duties of an admin is not even remotely acceptable.

2. Yes, you should be concise. This is an encyclopedia. The entire point is to have a large amount of information in a concise form. It's the way things work around here. The response I'm writing now is considered by most Wikipedians to be long and many won't read it. Do you not see the problem with posting a 2,500 word response to DRV or 3,500 words of responses to the AFD? You claim it's because it's a cogent set of arguments, but it's not. You provide no evidence whatsoever as to why the AfD was handled improperly other than to accuse the admin of bad faith, accuse established Wikipedians of not knowing what a consensus is, you bring up a new argument that is suitable for AfD (and would be ignored because it isn't couched in any policy) that somehow being the victim of domestic violence makes you notable, and random various nonsense that doesn't apply to the DRV.

3. How on earth is my username inciting/promoting violence? --Smashville^BONK! 16:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Gentle "Smashville," thank you for your earnest effort to reply to my questions.
    (1) I did not think I was assuming bad faith but rather that the Admins in question had not considered all the issues. ("Hot hand for deletion" is hardly an epithet!)
    (2a) Conciseness in the article itself is indeed a virtue. However not necessarily on the discussion pages! The Adminstrators have both the power and therefore the responsibility to get it right whether concise or not, and I don't see much subtlety being practiced in this AfD and DRV discussion. In arguing a complex case, one must take into account all the issues and I fear one is not doing so. Questioning the meaning of consensus is well within the Wikipedia tradition.
    (2b) Never said being the victim of D-V makes one notable. Maybe the article should be about the crime itself, not the victim, no problem, to wit: Murder of Daniel Malakov There is no similar murder (of a spouse within a week of a major reversal-of-custody decision in his or her favor) on record that I can find.
    (3) I guess :-) we are not going to hear how you chose a name with Smash and Bonk in it. Just idle curiousity. I chose Trygvie Lie because he was a great statesman and peacemaker whom I learned about in elementary school (now understand it could tread on sensibilities).

Eileivgyrt (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, compare Daniel Malakov to Nancy Kissel, a different case in which the wife was convicted of murder of her husband (with a Wikipedia page).Eileivgyrt (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument to justify whether this page should be restored. --Core desat 10:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gentle User:Coredesat, I most certainly agree, that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument to overturn deletion. On the other hand, quid pro quo, neither WP:BLP nor WP:Notability is a clearcut argument to uphold deletion. Accordingly, wouldn't it be a simple matter to (at very little cost to you) to humor me by making the comparison? Maybe you favor deleting Nancy Kissel as well? (Others deserving of your attention might be Pamela Smart and Mary Winkler.) Eileivgyrt (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lack of notability is not a reason for deletion? Are you kidding me. Again...WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument to justify inclusion. --Smashville^BONK! 16:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - What is being said by User:Coredesat: the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (murders of a similar sort) does not in itself justify overturning the deletion & I agreed. The problem with WP:Notability as stated elsewhere is that there is no objective criterion or set of criteria to judge WP:Notability in close calls involving diverse communities. The Administrators who have joined this discussion do not, I believe, find Murder of Daniel Malakov to be particularly notable, and more power to them! However, they should not IMHO prevent those who do from finding information on the topic in an encyclopedia of the high quality to which Wikipedia aspires.
    Eileivgyrt (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator is only being disruptive and hostile; I recommend this DRV be snowballed as there are no other significant arguments for overturning. --Coredesat 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I freely admit that I have engaged in reasonable, even fraternal, ad hominem (so to speak) characterizations - which I believed were needed to try to get the administrators to look at the bona fides of Daniel Malakov. I am not aware of a wikipedia policy recommending against ad hominem so long as these remarks are not offensive, and I believe mine were absolutely not offensive (no more so than a wink or a nod) -- except to hypersensitive adminstrators nervous regarding of any implications of criticism whatsoever. Comments such as the above seem designed to divert the legitimate debate away from the issues which are fairly screaming to be heard. Eileivgyrt (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are the issues? You still haven't presented any reasons why the AfD was done improperly. The only impropriety I could see were your 8 misguided keep votes. --Smashville^BONK! 05:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - All my remarks were "misguided"? I beg to differ. The issue you seem to deny is that Murder of Daniel Malakov is, though only in the public eye since October 28 2007 (exactly two months ago today incidentally), highly notable in the eyes of a large cohort of divorcing couples, legal personnel, policymakers, & others interested in custody disputes. Has the admin corps understood this? Has it evaluated the proliferation of secondary sources (reliable news sources)? Not so clear. Instead, Daniel Malakov was critiqued on the basis of WP:NPOV (yet I have no connection whatsoever to the victim's family), WP:BLP (so I removed all nominal references to living persons), WP:Notability (indefensible, as there is no other custody-battle-related murder in the record). I do think that on the basis of WP:Notability the article should more properly be named Murder of Daniel Malakov since Malakov himself per se was not himself notable (for purposes of WP:Notability).
Endorse deletion - DRV is not the Supreme Court - this isn't a second run of the AfD, this is a question as to whether admins read consensus correctly and applied policy correctly. Consensus is not a vote, nor are closing admins required to consider every opinion as valid, if policy concerns dictate otherwise or there is obvious evidence of something askew going on. Closing admin made a correct decision on both bases, as far as I can see. Orderinchaos 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Order in chaos" is exactly what I have been after, but it's not served by the omission of Murder of Daniel Malakov from Wikipedia. If User:Orderinchaos can provide the appropriate references, I would be in his or her debt. But from what I can find on policy pages, WP:DRV states
  This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct errors in the deletion process, but that may also involve reviewing content in some cases. ... The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in main part of the page — please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request (emphasis added).
  The discussion here is within the bounds of reviewing the deletion discussion. New information appears intentionally worded so as not to admit only new secondary sources. New information also includes new discussion in support of overturning AfD. Regarding WP:consensus it is stated there
  When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view which consensus can agree upon (emphasis added).
  At the Daniel Malakov AfD page, there was progress towards a consensus but it was cut off by the arbitrary five-day time limit. Instead of informed consensus, Wikipedia users ended up with inadequately informed deletion of Daniel Malakov by a preponderance of delete votes. Those voting ceased to cooperate as the five-day deadline came near and never succeeded to achieve a WP:NPOV regarding Murder of Daniel Malakov. Instead (as then I wrote), they preferred to "throw out the baby with the bathwater." It will be a shame if the admins and higher end up memorializing throwing out the baby with the bathwater as part and parcel of WP:consensus. Regarding not being the "Supreme Court," it seems to me that multiple admins take their roles very seriously. In sum, User:Orderinchaos could not have introduced a metaphor more appropriate for the gentle admin corps! Yet if extensive discussion is needed to establish "Order in chaos," what is wrong with that? Has one looked at the policy pages? They are not exactly brief.Eileivgyrt (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, no matter how many times you argue it, DRV is not round 2 of AFD. Your 5 pages of ranting is not "significant new information". --Smashville^BONK! 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Bad faith nomination. See above comments by User:Eileivgyrt. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Coming Out at Christmas – Problem appears to be resolved, plus copyvios can't be undeleted. – Core desat 20:24, 26 December 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 text of the article emailed to me to review 'off-Wiki' With thanks. Zefrog (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Coming Out On Christmas, and I will email it if Zefrog will enable his email, or email me the address. But I would support undeletion for it was deleted as a nn parody carol, and there is no speedy deletion criterion for that reason. Songs cannot be speedied as nn. It might even be notable, but the article would have to be truncated, for it quotes the entire text, which is undoubtedly not in the public domain. DGG (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which makes it a copyvio from the first revision, which can't be restored. —Cryptic 20:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - email enabled. Thanks DGG --Zefrog (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moreno Valley Mall – Deletion overturned. – Kurykh 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was Speedily deleted when consensus was clearly no consensus. Once the size and (unusual) fact that on duty police officers provide security for the facility, all delete opinions halted. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 19:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse deletion but not as closed. First off, I don't agree with the speedy deletion; the page has some content albeit minimal. However, the debate could reasonably have been closed as delete. The raw !vote count, including the nomination, was 5-3 for delete but, since this is not a vote, more importantly of course is the debate. The argument of the deleters was that there was insufficient material to make an encyclopaedic page and that the sources failed to meet WP:N. The keepers failed to address this effectively with only the police security being cited. In my view it would be a reasonable position for a closer to take to decide that this was insufficient to overcome the deleters' case. BlueValour (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Overturn - my turn to change my mind persuaded by W.marsh. BlueValour (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- This is apparently an AFD where both the participants and closer dropped the ball, but there are sufficient sources, as far as I can tell. It's a 1+ million square foot regional mall... of considerable importance to a local economy and thus reported on. See [13], a lot of these do not seem to be trivial mentions at all... they are regional papers writing prose articles about the mall. --W.marsh 22:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist.Neutral Speedy is inappropriate. One function of listing articles is that editors have a chance to clean them up and add citations. If you speedy something for lack of sources that never happens. When it is listed, anyone who wants to keep the article can choose among [14] these. It seems to be a notable mall, though apparently for being a failure.Wikidemo (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the reason why I didn't suggest a relist was that the AfD was, in fact, open for over seven days so it was not actually speedy deleted! The timescale for closure allowed full time for discussion and sourcing which makes the deletion grounds all the more curious. BlueValour (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I'll change my opinion to neutral, then. I do think it's a possibly notable mall but the article wasn't sourced properly. There's so little to the article that anyone who wants it will have an easier time simply recreating it with some of the sources from my google news list than going about overturning and relisting the deletion.Wikidemo (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we to stick to the letter of the guidelines, or their spirit? At what point was a CSD ever mentioned ? Not in the nomination nor any of the discussions. That course of action had no consensus. The first it was mentioned was at closing, where there is no possibility of refuting its applicability. Please recreate and let the Afd do what it was supposed to do, and not let it be taken over by an Admin wanting to do something that has not been discussed. Many, many many of Tenpoundhammers nominations contain the statement 'A search online turned up no reliable soures', well the simple fact that some had shown up shows that others were prooving that fact incorrect, then came christmas :) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion blatantly incorrect application of A1, the letter and the spirit both. There was enough context that a reasonable reader would (and I'm sure the closer did) know what the article was about. This seems to have been a "I don't like it" close. --W.marsh 22:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, I don't really have a strong opinion on the malls. If you review my edit history, I closed another mall article a few minutes earlier keeping it. But thanks for the assumption of good faith. ;) - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're welcome. --W.marsh 15:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion there is a clear consensus that super-regional malls, those with more than 800,000 square feet of gross leasable area are inherently notable, and this mall exceeds 1 million square feet, clearly meeting these criteria. As there was an active AfD with valid claims of notability offered as justification for retention of the article, CSD A1 would not apply. As the speedy deletion was done entirely out of process and in violation of Wikipedia policy, the deletion should be overturned and the article retained. Alansohn (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether an AfD is in progress or not doesn't affect if CSD criteria can be applied. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - not a speedy, and especially not when there was some support in the afd for keeping it. Ridiculous deletion.--Doc^g 02:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy - As the speedy deleter, I should note that I also eat babies. Delicious delicious babies. The discussion was open a week, and I was going through old AfDs and found this one. There wasn't a clear consensus, but when I viewed the article itself, it was clear that it had no usable context. I'd be more than happy to restore this to someone's userspace if they'd be willing to take it over and bring it up to article standards. I just need a volunteer. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why on earth did you tag it as a CSD A1 speedy deletion instead of just closing the AfD and saying consensus was to delete? This could hardly be a more inappropriate A1 speedy. --Stormie (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A1 calls for not enough content to even tell what the article is about... that you knew it was a mall article means it wasn't A1. Stuff like infoboxes, and prose that provides enough context to identify the subject, is usable content. --W.marsh 14:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The most pathetic aspect is that the admin who speedy deleted the article treats the whole thing as a gigantic joke. Eating babies is just an annoying habit; deleting articles with no apparent understanding of Wikipedia policy and then having a big chuckle about it looks like a deliberate WP:POINT. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - particulars aside, I really don't think bypassing disagreement is an appropriate use of the CSD process. We have CSD to speed up uncontroversial deletions, not to overcome resistance in deleting articles. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm: So, no volunteers? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteered when I added the WP:RS's to the original Article. Nobody has asked for Userfication, we simply ask for AfD's to be closed properly, as consensus her seems to believe that this one was not been. What you eat on your own time is your business. How you close AfD's is everyones business. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As it already met "article standards", no work is necessary to avoid a proper application of speedy deletion. --W.marsh 04:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. [15] can be used as a source, as can [16]. --NE2 19:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, I'm still not big on this page being kept, but A1 was not a good choice here. ALSO, NE2 seems to have found some good sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why not just re-create the article? It couldn't have been that big, and the info in there can easily be scooped out. For the record, I believe the admin should not have speedied this of his own accord, the proper thing to do if you're an admin and feel something is a speedy is to tag it, and let another admin delete it. Second pair of eyes, you know. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Howdy! Not sure what you mean, speedy is speedy, and this was up for AfD. How many eyes do you need? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - At least one other one that agrees it's a speedy. Which, for the record, I don't see. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since nobody has volunteered to have this userfied so it can be upgraded as needed to meet basic article requirements, the protestations above seem a bit misplaced. In case anyone has missed my posts above, I'm volunteering to restore this article to someone who wants to take responsibility for getting it up to article standards. No tricks, no gotchas, just let me know and I'll restore it to your userspace. If folks really feel this article is good soup, then there should be a crowd of people standing in line to take this. Without that, it's starting to look like the meat of the objections here are procedural, as if y'all are offended by the closing rationale (after a week of AfD) and not the fact that the article was deleted. If our goal is to make an encyclopedia, then let's pull together and do it. Any volunteers? C'mon guys. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that it's not up to you. We have no reason to bow down to your demands that someone request the article to be userfied. Here on Wikipedia we have processes and procedures whereby individual editors determine consensus, which were arbitrarily ignored on your part. You didn't close the AfD, you prematurely short circuited the AfD process and speedy deleted the article, a distinction you should be able to understand. We're not waiting on line to kowtow to the demands of another arbitrary admin, we're waiting to see the article restored in mainspace, undoing the damage you've done. Looks like you eaten more babies than you can swallow; don't eat any more. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not surprisingly, no one wants to jump through your hoops, based on a misunderstanding of policy, when your poor deletion will just be overturned in a few days. --W.marsh 17:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep, clearly notable mall, it should NOT have been deleted after a no-consensus AfD. Lobojo (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Clearly invalid to speedy delete under WP:CSD#A1 - if you can tell it is a shopping mall in a particular location it clearly and obviously has context. Anyone who read the article could tell that much. The AFD should have been closed as no consensus or relisted. GRBerry 21:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist to AFD but it will almost certainly fail. Unlike the claims made above and in the first AFD discussion, contracting police services directly is not at all unusual depending on the rules (and tax structure) of the municipality. The size of the mall is large-ish but by no means exceptional. I don't find anything either in the article, the discussion or my own research to show that this enterprise meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Agreed with W.marsh on this occasion - it seems a change of circumstances midway through wasn't taken into account. If it is notable, sources will exist - I've repaired numerous shopping centre articles here in Australia and anyone with access to an online search system for news articles that goes back far enough and access to a nearby major (municipal/state) library to the centre in question will be able to dig up stuff. If not, it'll get deleted again. Orderinchaos 10:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Naftali Tzvi Weisz – Deletion endorsed. Reading the substantive comments, rather than the bold-face, there is overwhelming consensus here that, at a minimum, the article's title was a severe violation of WP:BLP. The entire biography of a living person should never be devoted to one criminal act, especially one for which he has not been convicted. However, there is also a consensus that an article on this scandal could exist at a title that did not refer to a person. Interested editors are free to compose such an article. Although the article history must remain deleted, I will provide interested editors with the list of reliable sources from the article, if they wish to begin work. – Xoloz (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Important~~ article about ~~highly~~ notable person deleted out of process, against consensus and policy. Speedily deleted after appx 13 hours on claimed BLP violation despite nearly unanimous opinion to keep; I do not have the article to look at but those who participated in the AfD said that the only problem was a well-sourced statements made about some kind of fraud investigation Wikidemo (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To the closer of this debate, please note that per the Arbitration Committee ruling, a consensus must exist to overturn for the article to be undeleted. If there is no consensus to overturn, the debate, per the decision linked before, is required to be closed as "endorse deletion". Daniel 02:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a silly process. If the deletion is upheld, I or someone else will simply recreate the article in a way that doesn't violate BLP. An article that does not violate BLP would never lose an AfD vote and I cannot imagine ArbCom objecting. So what are we accomplishing here by endorsing improper out-of-process deletions? Wikidemo (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The rulings of a particular Arbcom case apply only to that case and do not set precedents for other cases, so the closing admin should disregard the above note. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 00:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong, not in this case. This is now a common principle applied Wikipedia-wide. Daniel 01:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If so, it's inappropriate and ought to stop. The "news" objection in a biography isn't a reasonable reason for administrators to delete articles in violation of consensus. Wikidemo (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Edit conflict) If it's a common principle then I don't know why you refer to its noble origins when you bring it up. Whatever legitimacy this principle has comes from the degree to which the community, not the Arbcom, continues to endorse it. Also if it is a common principle then by definition it is not necessary to point out over and over. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any policy regarding undeletion has to be set at WP:DP, which is beyond the scope of ArbCom. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Important article about highly notable person" that is a bit of a strech, don't you think?--Tom 18:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I should have checked my facts. I had thought he was head of a large movement. He's not; it's a relatively small sect, so I've stricken the overstatement. Wikidemo (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an important article. It wasn't an encyclopedia article at all. (This was pointed out by two of the editors in the AFD discussion.) It was a news report in the wrong project. It was a news article reporting the single event of a group of people being arrested, which editors were trying to pass off as a biographical encyclopaedia article about one of those people in particular. It was utterly unsalveagable; the claims made by the editors opining that the article should not be deleted are not borne out by actually reading the sources. When one reads the sources one sees that those arguments were, to put it very kindly, an extreme stretch of what the sources in fact were.
It should be obvious that an arrest should not be the sole content of a biographical article in an encyclopaedia, that it does not even constitute a good stub biography, and that the article should be zapped and begun again, if it can be. (As I said in the closure: I looked for sources documenting this person. If I'd found any, I'd have written a good stub.) Moreover, since there is no case yet, there is no subject to refactor the article to be about instead of being about a single person. There's nothing precluding editors writing biographical encyclopaedia articles, but resurrecting this content does not achieve that. Editors wanting to write a biography of this person must make more of an effort to write proper biographies.
It is ironic that, despite several proddings on my and other editors' parts, no editor claiming that this person is notable has come up with a single biographical source from which a good stub biographical article about xem can even be started.
Our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy says that biographies must be neutral, accurate, and verifiable. Implicit is the notion that they must actually be biographies. It also says that they must be encyclopaedic. This is an encyclopaedia. Please do your journalism in a newspaper. If you are going to write encyclopaedia articles, write them properly. They are not news reports. Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fine opinion but it is your opinion, and the clear majority of those offering well-reasoned opinions in the AfD discussion disagree. As the reviewing administrator aren't you supposed to honor consensus - and only there, after a proper discussion? Poor writing, failure to demonstrate notability, or being a news article, are not grounds for speedy deletion. The consensus emerging after 13 hours was that this individual is notable as the leader of a Jewish sect, and that the arrest and allegations of fraud are well sourced (they did happen, clearly) and relevant to his notability. He was running a charity that is accused of bilking people out of tens of millions of dollars - and his notability has to do with running that charity in the first place. I don't know all the claimed sourcing or BLP problems because the article is not available to review, but even if everything else has to be removed one can say: xxxxx is the rabbi of the yyyy sect (add dates, descriptions, heredity and description of sect - that's in the Spinka article). On zzz, after an investigation by aaaa, he was arrested and chraged with (claim). That much material is obviously there.Wikidemo (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I pointed out above, and I point out again: Despite several proddings on my and other editors' parts, no editor claiming that this person is notable has come up with a single biographical source from which a good stub biographical article about xem, such as you are describing here, can even be started. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is in no way an opinion of his in any way, but it's clear Policy. The way the article was written it was just a news story under a claimed WP article for one persons name. Thats it, and thats why it was deleted as it should have been. Wikidemo keeps repeating that s/he didn't see the article, then please stop arguing about it. It was a news article and thats why I nominated it. I have nothing against a good written biography that has the content that was in there as well (with some slight mods), although it seems that the person that deleted it doesn't want it even in that context.--Shmaltz (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That policy is not clear to me. In fact it is clear to me that policy is against deleting the article. So, by that reasoning I should speedily recreate the article, right? I think you're mixing up policy with interpretations. Interpretations of policy and how they apply to given situations are matters of consensus, and why we have a deliberative process here. By the way, please don't tell me what I am allowed to have an opinion on. If I'm not allowed to discuss an article without seeing it, then for goodness sakes reinstate the article or email me a copy and let me take a look at it. Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason you can find no detils on his is because you can neither read Yiddish newspapers in which he mentioned on a regular basis, nor can can see the english language Haredi press in which he is also a regular feature, since they boycott the internet. But in a classic wikipeida way, you assume that if it is not online it does not exist. This was pointed out during the discussion that you so rudely interupted. Note that editors that know the subject know full well that he is notable, and a few even wrote to the efect that they regretted having to admit that he was notable, but he clearly is. Lobojo (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made no assumptions of that form. But I did watch your response to a request for sources. It was, as here, to simply assert that other editors were being disingenuous and "knew full well" that this person was notable, an argument that holds no water at all, and not to actually respond to the request by citing some sources. If you had cited some sources giving biographical details of this person's life, you'd have had the makings of a good stub. But, as I pointed out above and I point out again: Despite several proddings on my and other editors' parts, no editor claiming that this person is notable has come up with a single biographical source from which a good stub biographical article about xem can even be started. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As everyone else here has asserted, notabilty was amply asserted already. You are asking for evidence of notablitiy before the arrests which is an entirely different thing. Notablity had been asserted by the 15 articles cited. You speedied the article because "it is a news article plain and simple". You can only speedy articles when no notabilty is established. You cant speedy artilces that are on AFD for this reason. As an admin your view would have carried weight if had just involved yourself in the discussion - but you didn't. You speedied an artilce, which asserted notablity, during an AfD. You have made a mistake and wasted everybodys time. Lobojo (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Keep or merge into the main Spinka article. The actions of the admin here show disregard for the opinions of others here in a most shameless way. I remind him, that he closed early after votes from some of the most experience wikipedians that there are, with a collective edit count in the six-figures. The article was not a news story, but gathered information from 15 different news stories on the man and the charges against him. These sources included 1000+ words by-lines articles in both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times amongst others. There are no real BLP issues here, just potential secondary ones - problems that do NOT justify deletion out of process, especially when (for Christ's sake) such experienced editors had just voted to keep! I would not have objected, if this admin had say argued that it should be renamed to "Spinka Tax Arrests" or something - I would even have supported that idea. He claims (and this is where he errs fundamentally) that he didn't do this because the people have only been charged, not convicted. There is nothing in wikipedia that justifies this argument. This is an entirely specious dichotomy. This article should be recreated immediately in this way, this would be a compromise that almost everybody would support. You see this is why process needs to be followed, because when people get all exited all they do is create massive dramas over things that they simply could have argued about in an AFD and reached consensus, now we have waste everyones time, and for what? Egos. Good grief! A major Hasidic Rebbe is arrested on racketeering charges by the FBI, it is covered in ALL the main newspapers at length, yet it is somehow a BLP violation to cite these sources anywhere in wikipedia? Lobojo (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I believe I was the only one to vote to delete it. That was done on the BLP concern that we have a an article purporting to be a bio, when 90% of the article is discussing this one bad thing an individual did once in his life. I'll agree that the close and delete were counter to consensus and therefore, probably counter to policy. Could I suggest an article titled the name of the alleged act "XX theft" or "Group name financial scandal". That would be less of a BLP to me, since it would no longer purport to be a neutral bio of a person, but an article describing a notable scandal. Mbisanz (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking over the debate, I much prefer bringing it back at "Spinka Tax Fraud Scandal" than deleting this otherwise sourced info. Mbisanz (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't have sources yet that describe any such scandal. We don't have sources documenting a case, a scandal, or anything else. As I said in the closure, if we had a publicly documented case, I'd have renamed the article. But there is nothing apart from solely reports of six arrests. A publicly documented subject for an encyclopaedia article doesn't actually exist, yet. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You again make this arbitrary distinction between "charges" and "conviction". There is so such distincition. Notable things on wikipedia are things that have "multiple non-trivial sources". These "things" can include convictions, arrests or a "Series of tubes". Lobojo (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that's the issue there should be no problem. New York Times is certainly a reliable source, and there can be no doubt that a much publicized indictment of eight individuals and five charitable religious organizations by federal official on tax charges involving international money laundering of tens of millions of dollars is a scandal.Wikidemo (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite right. Also note the actual wording of the BLP policy states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Even an allegation is not disregared if it is sourced! Let alone FBI charges. Lobojo (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Keep WP:BLP has to be one of the most abused policies in the Wikipedia admins arsenal, essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT on steroids. Any information in an article that might be deemed to be negative in any way, shape or form? Just whip out the speedy delete function and ignore any process that might actually address the problem. As discussed by nearly all AfD participants, Rabbi Weisz is independently notable as a Hasidic religious leader, even without details of his arrest. Even if the closing admin had a valid basis to complain about WP:BLP issues, the simple solution is to tag the article and/or turn it into a stub. Deleting the article in the face of strong claims of notability, clearly cited at AfD, and in direct opposition to a strong consensus to keep, is entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy. As the closing administrators actions are in clear opposition to basic and fundamental Wikipedia policy, the deletion should be overturned and the article retained. Any genuine WP:BLP issues should be tagged, discussed and addressed at the article's talk page. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Keep notable as a major hasidic leader in any case. The article should have been there even before this. And that takes care of every possible problem, for it isnt one issue notability, the negative information is securely documented from multiple RSs, and--for that matter--the indictment is sufficiently notable that it would pass not news in any case, even if the guy weren't notable anyway. The policy is that one-issue notability is dependent on circumstances. It's a policy that we can delete in those circumstances, even if there are the 2 RSs that would otherwise be enough for a keep. it does not say that we must do so. Totally invalid extension of BLP. I urge the deleting admin to reverse himself and save the drama. It's OK to make a bad decision, but if the consensus of all the various people here and at ANB says you are wrong, you should acknowledge it. I note that even those reluctant to support negative articles on such figures supported this one. DGG (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per closer.--Doc^g 02:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The admin closing the AfD, did the right thing and based on existing policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Keep because any Rebbe of an important Hasidic dynasty automatically qualifies for Wikipedia notablity (even if it initiallly becomes a two sentence {{Judaism-bio-stub}} of which there are many hundreds in Category:Jewish biography stubs!) It is not easy obtaining good biographical material right away, but it can be done. The mere fact that this rabbi is the undisputed head of the Spinka (Hasidic dynasty) is in and of itself proof that he is a notable personage. Yes, it is true, that starting an article based only current events is controversial and problematic, but the response to that should be a request to expand the article and not to zap it out of existence. There were already a number of very experienced editors, including some admins, who had voted to keep the article (a strong majority of users had voted to keep it when it was suddenly prodded and deleted against consensus) and it was highly insulting and demeaning to over-ride them when they were at least following due process. Somewhere, somehow, something does not sit right with this arbitrary deletion out of nowhere and it should be investigated further. Thanks you, IZAK (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim that "any Rebbe of an important Hasidic dynasty automatically qualifies for Wikipedia notablity" Since when has that automatically conferred notability upon a person? Picaroon (t) 21:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if you believe that not every Rebbe of an important Hasidic dynasty automatically qualifies for Wikipedia notability, the fact that the claim was made in the first sentence of the article definitively rebuts the rationalization for deletion by an admin who cannot justify deletion as a speedy in this case. Inherently notable or not, the strong claim of notability means that there is no valid case for speedy deletion. Alansohn (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article was not speedily deleted for the subject being non-notable. --Stormie (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed, if the objection to the article was that it was too "newsy" then it should have then been reduced to a {{Judaism-bio-stub}}, with even a sentence or two about this Rebbe now, and that could be filled-in later by an editor who knows this kind of stuff, and with the disputed material moved to its talk page for further discussion as to suitability, but the prod and delete out of the blue was compeletly out of line and against what was heppening and what should have been done. In other words, this prod was a big mistake. IZAK (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I pointed out above, and I point out again: Despite several proddings on my and other editors' parts, no editor claiming that this person is notable has come up with a single biographical source from which a good stub biographical encyclopedia article about xem, such as you are describing here, can even be started. You still have made no effort do so yourself, even here. You can start a proper biography if you have such sources. Speedy deletion doesn't preclude starting a substantially different article, and an actual biography would be a substantially different article, because the article as it was was not a biography at all, not even a good stub. But a good stub biographical article requires sources. You've had several days now, and have cited none at all. I wasn't able to find any, either. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I pointed out above, and I point out again, that there was not a single prod on your part, and you know that to be the case since it has been pointed out to you on talk page 2 days ago. I don't know why you continue to claim that you made any prods. You would have done well to have simply put a unsourced tag on the articles, or one saying "this artilce does not establish notablity" like everyone else would have done. Editors here and on the AfD asserted that he is notable for both his position and the charges. Lobojo (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        To Uncle G: You have hit upon a huge dilemma perhaps without realizing it. I would say that you lack two fundamental insights into modern-day Haredi life in general, that pertain to your question. One is that Haredim and their leaders do not function like Western leaders. They literally despise the media and the academic world. They do not allow their children to study secular studies. That is just a fact one must accept about them and their chosen lifestyle. The second factor is that they are vehemently opposed to the Internet and certainly to any form of mass publicity through it, and they have outright banned its presence in Jewish homes and allow it only very sparingly for business purposes under very tightly controlled environments. Parents are warned that their children will be kicked out of yeshivas if they allow them any Internet access. See Of ostriches and cavemen; Can Israeli rabbis enforce their ban against the Internet? and Bezeq to launch ‘Kosher’ internet. This is the same way that they have dealt with TVs in homes for decades with great success as no-one wishes to defy these rabbis and face social ostracism in those communities that they preside over. The net result of all this is that you will often find very little information on the Web about some of the presently most notable and highly-regarded rabbis, Hasidic rebbes and Jewish sages. Thus one must often rely on the barest of crumbs that would minimally satisfy Wikipedia's standards and criteria for how to verify notability. There is also the odd phenomenon on Wikipedia that some persons who are actually rogue "rabbis" and may have no standing in any Jewish community, can get articles because of the publicity that has been generated about them, but truly humble publicity-shy personalities may get shunted aside in the media blizzard. Actually, rabbis such Rabbi Weisz would surely be very happy that no articles are written about him anywhere on the Internet and certainly not on Wikipedia, so even though the author of this original article may be blocked from Wikipedia, he was actually sticking his neck out and taking a huge risk writing up any article about such a notable rabbi. So these kinds of situations require great care and inspection so that one does miss the forest for the trees. Thanks for giving this your considered attention. IZAK (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —IZAK (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Uncle G's closing statement and his additional comments at ANI and here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, Uncle G gave an excellent and clear summation of his reasons for deletion in his closure of the AfD discussion, and I can find no fault with them. I would certainly encourage IZAK to create a fresh bio stub on Rabbi Weisz but the article that was deleted was not the basis for such a stub. Sorry, I know it can be frustrating, but WP:BLP is an extremely serious policy and enforcement of it is by no means "arbitrary deletion out of nowhere". --Stormie (talk) 13:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing admin speciously claimed he was "unable to find any actual biographical information on this person after doing some research", when in fact the lead of the article provided the clearest possible claim of notability. Every single one of the sources, including the press release from the United States Attorney's Office, referred to the article's subject as "The Grand Rabbi of Spinka" providing clear evidence of notability, even if the material regarding the alleged crimes was ignored and deleted. Even if the pathetic excuse of WP:BLP issues had the thinnest veneer of validity, the fact that there is a strong claim of notability would be justification would require an admin to remove the items that offended his delicate sensitivities and turn the article into a stub. The fact that User:Uncle_G declared himself judge, jury and executioner, ignored clear claims of notability stated in the article and in the supporting sources included in the article, and ignored the clearest possible consensus for retention in the AfD is evidence of the most fundamental disregard for Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I pointed out above, and I point out again: Despite several proddings on my and other editors' parts, no editor claiming that this person is notable has come up with a single biographical source from which a good stub biographical encyclopedia article about xem, such as you are describing here, can even be started. You still have made no effort do so yourself, even here. I have made an effort to do so, as I said in the closure, but couldn't find anything. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it was asserted and it remains so that there are plenty of other sources but they are not online, not that others were needed to assert notablity. All the 15 sources that are not enough for you describe someone as the "Grand Rabbi of Spinka" (born 1959) of Boro Park, amogst other details. So you entirly wrong, and you certainly were in no position to delete the article, especially considering that you spoke to no other admins about it (or did you...) know nothing about the subject and other seniopr editors had voted to keep. Your opinion is worth no more than anybody elses, you could have blanked/stubified and made these points in the AfD like everybody else. But to speedy delete, you needed much stroger grounds even that those you claim here, and those grounds you certainly didn't have and you knew it at the time, which is why you immediatly posted to both the ANI and the BLP noticeboard to get your defence in first. Which begs the question, why didn't you post there first to get some suggestions on what people thought of your proposed deletion? Oh and by the way there were no proddings on your behalf, but that is besides the point. Lobojo (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, BLP is a very serious policy, but if the NYT and other national newspapers report the accusation, it meets the requirements--the sourcing is impeccable. BLP shuld be enforced strictly, but narrowly, or we will end up deleting all negative bios. The closest thing I can find is 4.3 "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.", But the word is "unlikely" , not "never" In this case, the NYT is sufficient to show the true notability & reverse the presumption. . I've suggested clarification of 4.3 at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 2007-12-25 14:51:21
  - Quite right DGG. BLP is being abused here, and the added flexibility that admins were given in this policy is being taken advantage of. You don't like something, so you shoehorn your objections into a "BLP issue" and then you have a free hand do whatever you want without fear of censure. In this case it was so clearly not a BLP issue (which he should have fixed by stubifying/merging in any case) that he had to add the extra trick of WP:NOTNEWS.
    Also note that BLP was not the issue (since there are so many top-grade sources). In his clear confusion, the closing admin deleted the article (as opposed to say merge it elsewhere, as policy would dictate) on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS. "Not the News" is not policy it is an "essay", like WP:DICK. For him to speedy the article on the such flimsy grounds against the consensus that was emerging was a clear error on his part, he has caused a massive waste of time all round, and certainly cannot be argued to have any grounds in policy. He knew the actions he took were out-of-order, which is why he made preemptive posts to the ANI and BLP boards.
    I like IZAK have strong suspicions that there is more to this that meets the eye (indeed I pretty much know there is), something which has been confirmed by the second group of 3 senior editors/admins to post here within about 20 minutes of each other, all basically just saying "endorse, per nom". I don't think it is pushing the boat out too much to express my suspicion that there is some kind of off-wiki canvassing going on. Lobojo (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, but WP:NOT#NEWS is policy and says much the same. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, in fact it says "News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial" And you don't get more substantial that 1000 word by-lined articles in both the NYT and the LAT. Not to mention, he was notable in anycase, just nobody bothered to make an article. Lobojo (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Lobojo it seems that you have come to a point where you are yelling: don't confuse me with facts, I have already made up my mind, what you quoted is about sources, the policy is about what WP is NOT (hence the WP:NOT shortcut) and the delete article meets the criteria of what WP is NOT.--Shmaltz (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lobojo why do I see your comments here as a double standard with your arguments on this deletion? Is it possible you have a motive behind both? and it really has nothing to do with good faith editing?--Shmaltz (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am reluctant to respond to this weakest of weak points, I recommended there that it go to wikitionary where it belongs, there is no analogy between people are phraseology. I you want to play such games I might have asked you why you voted "Strong Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shraga Hager, when clearly a Rebbe who gives a tish in the basement at Satmar and has no actual Shul of his own is far less notable that this one. But I didn't because that is off-topic. Lobojo (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as above. Eusebeus (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Continue AfD (otherwise Keep) Tthe facts that (a) everyone agrees the charities he was running were collecting tens of millions of dollars (legitimately or not); (b) articles in highly reliable sources like the New York Times and Los Angeles Times mentioned not only his arrest but also described his past background; and (c) he was already mentioned in the existing article on the Spinka (Hasidic dynasty); should all give some hint that the claim he is non-notable independent of a news event, whatever its ultimate merits after discussion, isn't so obviously and overwhelmingly correct as to justify a speedy delete that overrides an ongoing AfD discussion. My own view is that this individual, while not necessarily "highly" notable, is notable by standard policy criteria. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I acknowledge that the arbcom ruling gives any administrator the right to delete an article if in the administrator's sole judgment the article violates WP:BLP and that the claimed WP:BLP violation here involves WP:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event. The difficulty here is that notability for a figure like the rebbe of a Hassidic group is not necessarily obvious to any admin because the question of what sources in the field are reliable etc. does require a certain amount of expertise. We've generally taken the view that when Hassidic dynastes are notable, as the Spinka dynasty definitely is, their rebbes are also notable. Further, the individual received extensive coverage for who he was, not just what he did. As I understand it, the arbcomm ruling does not preclude the following two-step process for dealing with a figure of this type: (a) create an article without mentioning the news story and submit it to AfD without the news story (b) if it passes, the news story can then be added since there will be a community consensus that the individual is independently notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirahadasha (talk • contribs) 2007-12-25 18:55:27
  - Comment It is not clear to me the arbcom case cited is controlling here. The arbcom case involved a minor who was a victim of other people's activity and who had no colorable claim of independent notability. This case involves an adult who is not alleged to be a victim and who has some basis for being independently notable. The arbcom cautioned that Wikipedians should not be "legalistic" and insist that subjects who are unquestionably not independently notable should nonetheless go through AfD on pure "process" grounds. This is simply not a case of being legalistic or unquestionable non-notability. This a case where in addition to the news event being impeccably sourced, there is a genuine dispute and a colorable claim that the subject has independent notability. The impeccable sourcing means that there's no possibility of legal liability here, and both the existence of independent notability and the seriousness of the news event makes clear that there is no possibility that reporting the matter would be considered unethical, which is what the arbcom dispute was fundamentally about. This case is far beyond both the facts and the stated policy basis of the arbcom decision. I don't think that arbcom intended arbitrary administrator judgment to extend this far. I'm not intending to suggest User:Uncle G would fall in such a category, but would we want an administrator whose contributions consist primarily of comic books summarily deleting articles on non-famous but notable philosophers or scientists over the protests of established philosophy and science editors because they are reported to have gotten into a traffic accident or had a run-in with the law? With no balance we risk the tail wagging the dog here. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This, like Alansohn's "ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject" argument in the AFD discussion, is an argument that one discovers to be quite false when one actually reads the cited articles. Hsu, in the Los Angeles Times, actually does not describe this person's past background at all anywhere in the article. Go and read it. The only thing that it says about this person is that xe resides (present tense) in Brooklyn.
  There's actually just as much information in the cited news stories (i.e. age, occupation, and place of residence) about, say, the banker from Tel Aviv as there is about this person. Yet no-one is creating an article on the banker arguing that there are "ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject", or asserting that we should have a purported biography of that banker that comprises solely this news report of xyr arrest. The simple fact is that these sources don't support good stub biographical encyclopaedia articles for any of the named arrestees, and there's nothing been provided from which such articles can even be started. The fact that this news story reporting a group of people being arrested is being misrepresented as a biography of just one of those arrestees, in addition to the failure to cite sources when repeatedly challenged to do so over a period of several days now, only serves to further undermine the arguments made by Alansohn, Lobojo, and others. Clearly, this content isn't an attempt to begin a biography. It's news story reportage, and it's news story reportage that unjustly attaches that news story to just one single person. As I said before, the place to do journalism is the newspaper. This is the encyclopaedia.
  If you can create a biographical encyclopaedia article without the news story, sourced to actual biographical coverage of this person (which none of the sources yet cited have been, which I have been unable to find, and which no editor arguing in favour of keeping or undeletion has shown to exist either, despite repeated proddings) you'll have created the good stub biographical article that I keep referring to. Speedy deletion does not preclude that. But no-one has demonstrated that such a good stub can even be started, and I couldn't find any sources for doing so when I tried to start a good stub, as I said in the closure.
  Instead, some editors want Wikipedia to permanently pillory a single person because they have a news story, about some arrests being made, to publish.
  I suggest reading the "definitive and factual" test outlined in Wikipedia:Avoiding harm and considering whether a news story that reports arrests and charges that have yet to be even proven, is suitable biographical content for an encyclopaedia that only includes things after they have been fact checked, proven, and publicly documented. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:Avoiding harm is clearly labeled as an essay. I would recommend not citing even to guidelines, let alone essays, as it might tend to give the impression of a lack of policy basis. Speedy deletion requires a policy basis. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, this is nothing more than "Your opinion". "Your opinion" does NOT give you right to Speedy articles that are under discussion at AfD, there are very specific circumstances in which that is justifiable. There were 15 sources that explicitly established notability. You are asking you sources when there are plently which you deleted. I did say that he knew that he was notable and you know what he responded? He conceded that his "his job is", which rather makes my point. But this is all irrelevant in any case, since you should have engaged in the discussion, something you claim you did, but the record shows that you didn't. At least now you engage. Here are the sources that establish notablity and precluded you from justifiably speedying the article: The JTA "The head of the Hasidic Spinka sect was arrested in Los Angeles"; NYT "The grand rabbi of Spinka, a Brooklyn-based Hasidic sect. . . Naftali Tzi Weisz, 59.. . Five Spinka charitable organizations in Brooklyn named as defendants"; Brooklyn Eagle: "Rabbi Naftali Tzi Weisz, 59, of Brooklyn . . .grand rabbi of a Hasidic Jewish sect called Spinka and runs several Brooklyn-based charities associated with the group, including Yeshiva Spinka and the Central Rabbinical Seminary. Both are based on 56th Street in Borough Park. the scam began in 1996 and ran through the beginning of this year, involving millions of dollars in bogus donations. The charities are also named in the indictment"; The indicment "Grand Rabbi Naftali Tzi Weisz, 59; and so on. Do no harm? This is just a essay neither a "policy or guideline", so when you are pushed into a corner you are forced to resort to this, no doubt your belief in this essay is the actual explaination for why you refused to stubify/merge/rename/redirect/blank. How was the article "permanently pilorying him" any more that the NYT or the LAT or the other sources. Wikiepedia is not WP:CENSORED, the BLP policies were brought in to deal with libel issues, and you are amongst those who abuse this policy to censure WP:V and notable information because you don't like it, or you think "do no harm" should be policy but know that it will never happen. The beauty of wikipedia is that as new sources come in, telling us that the charges have been dropped we will have it here. While there will never be an addendum to the NYT article saying "oh by the way the charges were dropped 3 months later and the FBI apologized." Lobojo (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were seven individuals listed in the indictment, only one of whom -- Rabbi Weisz -- was chosen as the subject of an article, for the very clear reason that someone cited in the indictment and in the associated sources provided in the article as "Grand Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Weisz", the recognized religious leader of a notable religious community, is an individual with a clear claim of notability. While the article was lacking in biographical details to support the claim, the claim of notability is inarguable. Yet we get the same BS from the closing admin that he was unable to find any such claim. There were several options available to a rational closing admin with the most basic respect for the collaborative process of building an encyclopedia: tag the non-existent WP:BLP issues that are claimed to exist; turn the article into a stub; or merge the content into another article, such as the Spinka (Hasidic dynasty) article, as I have suggested. That User:Uncle_G chose to ignore the clear claim of notability and carefully selected the most disruptive option of speedy deletion, spitting in the face of clear consensus to the contrary, is evidence of showboating self-aggrandizement rather than any effort to deal with a real issue. Alansohn (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per closer.--Shmaltz (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger to Spinka (Hasidic dynasty): Moved to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 24

Overturn, relist I agree that if left unchanged the version of the article discussed during the AfD should have been deleted under WP:BLP at the end of the discussion, as it failed to establish the first assertion of notability, namely that Rebbe Weisz was a notable religious leader before the incident detailed in the article. But AfD is not a discussion on the current version -- it is a discussion on whether a feasible article can be written based on the sources, including the sources discovered during the process. During an AfD discussion the remedies for BLP-violating versions include page blanking, stubifying and protection, but not speedy deletion, which is reserved for attack pages. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. Speedy deletion is just as much a remedy as page blanking. Moreover, speedy deletion does not preclude the creation of a substantially different article, as an article that is actually a biographical encyclopaedia article would be in this case. This was not a biographical article, in any way. It was not the basis even for a stub. Its speedy deletion does not preclude the creation of a good stub, once editors actually cite some biographical sources that document this person's life. But as you yourself state, it does not stand as one in the stead of that work being done. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This arguenment is entirly bogus Uncle G, you were not at liberty to use these remedies. There are 1500 admins here. If everyone of them felt that they could speedy artilces based on personal whim and misreadings of abrcom dicisions AfD would become a chaos, indeed, it would turn out like this. There were a number of very good options avaliable to you as mentioned by almost everyone here. You are an expirienced admin on AfDs and must have known that your action would be disputed and was needless, indeed we know that you knew this would be the result from you preemtive postings to ANI and BLP. This is the kind of action that people who have strong POV opinions on articles take in order to get their way. But there is no reason to suspect you of this, so the question is why you did it. Why couldn't you have just blanked/stubified the page and deleted the bad histories? The mind just boggles. Lobojo (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure a merge would be the best solution here. The reason is we have no evidence the indictment etc. is attributable to the Spinka Hassidim as a group and putting it in the Spinka article itself, except for a brief mention, could tend to suggest collective responsibility. If the speedy delete is not overturned, I would prefer to create separate articles on the event and the rebbe with the arrest etc. listed only in the See also so that all notability is independent. If both survive AfD independently, we could discuss merging the two. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Keep He is a 'grand Rabbi', every Jewish user knows that this isn't a normal title, it is a huge position and status in our society. - and for the admin to speedy delete against consensus, and declare 'openly' (thanks) that he sees a grand rabbi the same Notable as a Tal Aviv Banker, is alarming of his ignorance on this subject matter, and gives us very much insight and understanding how and why he can dismiss consensus so easy. If we let such an admin continue to speedy delete articles against the wish of consensus, there is no hope for our project. There was 15 sources of independent media citations stating that he is an importent notable Jewish Leader, and the closing Admin has said that since it isn't a Biography article only a newspaper article thats why it isn't good, i disagree, if we had all biographies there is no need for another biography, i strongly urge the community to not let such an act pass by in silence--יודל (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Uncle G. Rebecca (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Uncle G is correct about this being a news story about an event rather than an actual biography of a person. I do disagree with one point that Uncle G makes: It's irrelevant that the subject has not been convicted. Arrest is noteworthy enough. Any subject of a Wikipedia biography article who is arrested on a serious charge should have that arrest noted in the article, regardless of the eventual outcome in court. Also, it does seem odd to me that, if this person is so important in his community, no local newspaper coverage exists that delves beyond the arrest. Anyone with a library card can usually get into NewsBank or some similar database for articles that aren't in GoogleNews or otherwise available online. It wouldn't surprise me if an article meeting Uncle G's legitimate objections could be created. Noroton (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). The closer's rationale was well-explained and solidly based in policy. The article as it was written did not meet Wikipedia standards and formed no reasonable basis for a better article. That said, I find no prejudice in that closure against a properly encyclopedic article that documents the accomplishments of a notable person. But that news article was just not encyclopedic. Rossami (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Note that DRV is not a rerun of AfD as some people seem to think here. The question here is did the admin correctly read consensus and did they correctly apply policy? Those are the only two considerations at DRV that are relevant to changing a result. The answer to me is yes to both. Orderinchaos 10:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The article was a coatrack for the news story. This is not Wikinews. The closing admin made the right call. However, if any editor would like to create an article about him which is encyclopedic, I see no reason why it should not be allowed. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - The individuals in question appear to have gone out of their way to prevent us from finding any reliable, verifiable sources of information from which to create a biographic article. As such, there's no way to satisfy WP:BLP in this matter. -- Kesh (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and continue AfD Certainly there are problems here. The juxtaposition of the contents of the article and the article's title doesn't jive. The contents may belong better under a different title, e.g. Spinka money laundering scandal. Or maybe the scandal isn't notable enough for coverage, as the standard of notability for "news stories" is higher than it is for most topics. However we need an AfD or article Talk discussion to look into those issues; DRV isn't the place for it and speedy deletion certainly isn't. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kord (band) – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 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 verify the reliable sources, even if the article is able for being notable and the content of article Kord (band) is very notable. In the content of the article were some reliable sources which i've checked them and were very reliable. So, please check again and restore the article Kord (band) and article Stefan Corbu too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.168.220.29 (talk • contribs) many thanks

Remain Deleted - having checked the google cache of the page, the only source was the band's site. Fosnez (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - an entirely clear close. The way forward is for the nominator to research and create a sourced article in his user space and then request undeletion. BlueValour (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Consensus in the AFD is clearly to delete. GRBerry 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Closing admin read consensus correctly and deleted accordingly. Orderinchaos 10:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jim Jagielski – I have reopened the debate at the second discussion (link) under the clause of Wikipedia:Deletion process that states "Closing decisions [by non-administrators] are subject to review and, if necessary, may be reopened by any administrator" — I personally find this close to be in error, and am using that statement to reopen it. My position is strengthened by two other administrators who advocated for continuing with further discussion at articles for deletion. – Daniel 02:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weird I know, but this is not a request for undeletion, but rather a true deletion review. This AFD was a "non-admin closure" citing WP:SNOW when the AfD was barely 18 hours old (if that). The article was deleted once before, and overcame CSDG4, however I have a problem with both the closure and the article itself. You may find a detailed rationale as to why this should still be deleted here:

The subject of the article has re-created this article (about himself!) with no reliable sources that establish any sort of notability, and a very clear conflict of interest in which the article serves to promote its subject rather than give any sort of encyclopaedic treatment. The largest claims to notability seperately (apache.org founder and Slashdot editor) are both tenuous at best -- they each seem to fail WP:N individually, and I just don't see how combining the two comes any closer to true encyclopaedic notability. Regarding WP:RS, the sources listed all fail... the first source is a self-published list in the subject's own web directory; the second source is a self-published usenet FAQ also by the subject himself. The third source is a self-published press release. The fourth source is a self-published Slashdot announcement. The final source is simply a list of the Apache BoD's.

The AfD should have at least been allowed to run its course, especially given the fact that it was recently deleted having failed a previous AfD. I know open-source advocates like this guy might be lauded as high-priests of the slashdot community, but let's not rush to reward his actions simply because he's attached to everyone's favorite /usr/local/apache/bin/httpd. At the very least, this shouldn't have been closed so hastily. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support early closure I support the closing users's use of SNOW, it is there for when an AFD has no chance of working, as this one didn't. A quick google news search reveals a good number of sources. Instead of trying to get this article deleted, perhaps you could improve it with them? Or if you don't have time to do it, put some {{fact}} templates where you think citation is most critical. This is all said with respect, and my intent has not been to insult you. - Fosnez (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, none of this is personal, and discourse isn't made into insult (in my mind). ;-) I do question your statements, however. "SNOW... is there for when an AFD has no chance of working, as this one didn't". How could you possibly know how an AFD will end after it is barely 18 hours old? Only five editors had expressed their opinion... hardly a snowball (if you would like some actual examples of a snowball, I'll be glad to find some). Regarding your google news search... none of the results I checked are about Jagielski (which would help establish notability), they simply have one or two lines mentioning the subject en passant (not quite the same thing). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist I think the article should be kept, and will be kept, but this is too short a time. Considering the previous AfD, a non-admin should not have closed it SNOW--tho I think it was closed with good faith., seeing the initial pile-on keeps. During this week, with many people away, moving rapidly is not a great idea. DGG (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right result, wrong process, so endorse snowball keep. So why try again to delete the article? If there's a problem with NPOV, COI, or article quality, better to simply address it.Wikidemo (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that these issues should be addressed as editorial matters outwith the deletion process. For that reason I have tagged the page and started a discussion. BlueValour (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see no harm in a re-listing if someone feels the deletion nomination wasn't properly heard. Out of fairness everyone deserves a fair hearing - though my personal opinion is that it's an obvious keep, other people are entitled to express theirs in an AfD if they wish. As someone has pointed out above, it is the holiday season and some people have no access now, so we ought to go kind of slow on these things. Wikidemo (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will not comment on relisting or not as I closed it, but to explain my rationale: I really did not feel that the article had much of a chance of getting deleted. DGG is probably right, though, in talking about people being away this week, and I really did not consider it. At any rate, for full disclosure, I will say that this is only my third non-admin close and that in the future I will be more careful about closures. SorryGuy Talk 19:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I think that out of process closures should be made sparingly and this one was too rapid. For many editors, real life intrudes in the period 23-25 December and I think those should be given a chance to comment. I agree that the result will highly probably be the same but I think that we should do it right. BlueValour (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, should not have been closed early as there was no indication the nomination was made in bad faith. There were also no indications the concerns were being addressed. --Core desat 02:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 December 2007[edit]

Rochester Institute of Technology Model Railroad Club – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admin Secret closed this discussion as delete. I brought the following reasoning to Secret's talk page but the response was to suggest bringing it to DRV, so here I am.

The article in question was modified during the discussion, which I pointed out as the final comment on the page, but no one ever went back to look at the article again to see if it was improved. Furthermore, I believe the established standard of "multiple reliable sources" was ignored in this discussion for no good reason, and thus that those arguments should have been given less weight in the analysis.

For example: Cirt's reasoning was that it was a) unsourced, b) non-notable, and c) original research. The revisions made to the article invalidated at least two and possibly all three of those arguments. It was no longer unsourced, which also meant it was no longer original research. Notability might still be an issue, but I believe it's established by precedent due to the multiple reliable sources that were found.

jj37 simply referenced Cirt's reasoning, and so that !vote is called into similar question.

LonleyBeacon never responded to my additional question and request for clarification; LB's objection was that the D&C articles were not primarily about the club, but the policy he quoted says only that coverage must be "more than trivial", which said articles demonstrably are. That objection to LB's reasoning was never addressed.

Storkk had similar concerns, but yet still only said "Weak Delete".

Bearian had no opinion on the main club article.

DGG mentioned only that "[a] single writeup in a hobbyist publication is not sufficient notability", which is true, except DGG apparently ignored the other reliable sources, and never responded to my question pointing that out.

So in my opinion, each of the delete !votes are either weak or have remaining unresolved questions. I don't think there was a clear consensus for deletion in that discussion. Powers ^T 20:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - a reasonable call by the closing admin of the debate. We are not here to second guess the AfD debate but to ensure that the AfD was properly closed. As a BTW, of the five references; two were from the club's own website, two were index pages and just one was a local paper report on an exhibition rather than on the club. Most all railway clubs, stamp collecting clubs, chess clubs, bridge clubs, bird-watching clubs (and I belong to at least two of these) can point to a similar range of references and most have a history way longer than 10 years. BlueValour (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was my understanding that the issue when it comes to notability is not which sources are referenced in the article but which sources exist; I found sources that were not (yet) used in the article, yet several participants failed to provide a reason why thy didn't qualify under the notability guidelines (which merely call for "multiple" sources). Powers ^T 03:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - an admin can not go do research and then use his own assessment of the article and its issues to discount the comments left by those who participated in the deletion discussion. Instead the admin has to evaluate the comments, determine which are sound arguments with respect to policy and guidelines, and make a weighted decision based on what the participants said; not what they should have said. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure to what you're referring. The problem as I see it is that new information was introduced that indicated notability that was not addressed by earlier participants in the discussion; as such, the discussion should have been considered incomplete at best. Powers ^T 03:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse the only other independent sources is a short article in the college's home-ciity newspaper and a special interest blog--albeit a good special interest blog. There is a place for material like this, but not WP. DGG (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The second source was a magazine, I believe, not a blog. Don't those two count as reliable independent sources? Powers ^T 03:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Product_Development_and_Management_Association – Overturn speedy deletion and restore. AfD at editorial option. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

generic trade group, speedied twice as G11 Davolson (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On September 4 2008, Guy (user: JzG) speedied as G11 the entry for the "Product Development and Management Association". PDMA is a 30-year-old, highly respected non-profit 501(c)(3)professional organization of 3500 members worldwide. Among other activities, it publishes a highly regarded professional academic journal called "The Journal of Product Innovation Management", named as one of the top ten academic business journals in the world. The association's web site at www.pdma.org.

In Guy's reason for deletion, he called PDMA a "generic trade group"; it is not in any sense a "trade group", as it is not focused on any particular industry, does not do any lobbying, etc. It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit association, and is cross-industry in its focus on improving the professional practice of developing new products and services.

An association very similar to PDMA in its professionalism and mission is the American Marketing Association; and the AMA in fact has a Wikipedia page, and which has not been deleted like PDMA's has. There is no consistent or logical reason as to why there should be a Wikipedia entry for the American Marketing Association, and not one for the Product Development and Management Association, unless Wikipedia editors believe a highly-regarded professional association of 3500 members does not merit inclusion, when a larger association of some 38,000 members does. Is there some sort of cutoff point on membership size for inclusion? Is 3500 members simply "too small", regardless of its value and contributions (e.g., publishing a "top 10" academic journal)?

Guy, in response to my personal request to him that he reconsider, wrote me this: "It was pretty generic stuff, loaded with peacock terms and making no obvious claim of notability - for example, the fact that it has a magazine and an annual conference hardly distinguishes it from any other organisation, and 3,000 members worldwide is pretty small beer." But please look at the American Marketing Association entry, which is entirely "generic stuff"; the one for PDMA had, I believe, much more specific information about the association, like its history, mission, contributions to the practice of product development, etc.

I am particularly puzzled by his comment that the information "hardly distinguishes it from any other organizations", not knowing this is some sort of requirement for an entry on Wikipedia. PDMA is in fact completely unique, in its mission in being focused, for more than 30 years, on new product and service development. If the entry didn't do that, it perhaps wasn't very well-written; but the page is now completely blocked, without any way to improve its content.

I fully understand and endorse not letting for-profit companies use Wikipedia for their commercial advertising, but what about non-profit 501(c)3 professional organizations like PDMA (and the AMA, and others)? These are organizations which provide real value and information to people, worldwide.

I hope Wikipedia editors will reconsider this decision, or at least explain more clearly the reasons why this deletion stands, when the AMA page continues to exist on Wikipedia. Thanks very much for your consideration, whatever your decision. Davolson (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore - the deleting admin said "I believe the creator and sole editor is connected with this organisation". He may but that is not a ground for a G11; it is a ground for care in assessing the page. Undoubtedly the page is promotional but that is a matter that can be dealt with by editing. OTOH it is also well sourced; far better than many comparative articles. If the deleting admin has ongoing concerns then he can AfD but, in my view, a speedy deletion was improper. TerriersFan (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There are some issues with the tone of this article, but the advertising isn't blatant, so it doesn't qualify for G11. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & Restore certainly seems notable, the original article may have been unencyclopedic in its wording and the article creator may have had a COI but that isn't a good reason for speedy deletion. RMHED (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & restore. This will allow a reasonable time period for the maintenance issues to be addressed. If it then still warrants deletion, an AfD can be instituted. Speedy was premature. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. that top 10 rating was based on JCR impact factor, an imperfect measure abut an unmistakable indication of notability for the publication. an organization that can do that would almost certainly be notable, as would the journal. But for the record, we adopt the same standards towards commercial and non-commercial organisations--both groups want publicity, and both frequently are the subjects of articles that are Publication Relations style pamphlets, rather than encyclopedic articles. DGG (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vanderbilt, the Netherlands – Page relisted on AfD; Non-admin closure. – Will ^(talk) 16:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

AFD debate was closed after 38 minutes per WP:SNOW with the statement that all places, irrespective of anything else, are notable. I'd agree if we were talking a larger village or a town, but the place is a hamlet with an apparent population of 54 with no reliable sources cited and no significance given - this place seems less notable than my street. I believe this should go through a full AFD and that the speedy keep was incorrect. -Halo (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I said on your talk page, arguing that a recognised settlement is not notable will not get you anywhere. If you want to argue that it is not a recognised settlement, feel free to take it back to AfD with my blessings, but no one was arguing that in the original AfD. J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen AFD, no AFD, unless it's a blatant bad faith nomination, should be closed within 38 minutes of it opening, regardless of the circumstances. No one argued that it was not a recognized settlement because no one had the chance to do so. --Core desat 14:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen the AFD. I agree strongly with Coredesat that speedy-closes should be very tightly limited. This was clearly inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure. The nomination was for a "non-notable location". Geographical locations have long been considered to be notable, regardless of their size. Therefore, the speedy keep. I see no reason to re-open this when the result will be exactly the same with some more keeps piled on. If there is a different reason to want a deletion (the nom thinks it may be a hoax, for example), then it can be listed in another AFD. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the closure of this particular AFD. What does concern me, though, is that the village of Vanderbilt doesn't exist. There is a town in the Netherlands called De Bilt, several Dutch Americans are called Vanderbilt, but there is no town, city, village or hamlet in the Netherlands called Vanderbilt, whether on the island of Texel or elsewhere. This article should be deleted as a hoax, regardless of the AFD. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether this discussion results in a "endorse" or "overturn" result, the article will go back to afd anyway. In the case of the former result, it will be nominated for deletion again as non-existent, and in case of the latter result, the afd will be reopened, with combined concerns of notability and existence. Is this deletion review, to decide whether the closure was correct, worth having, while an article on a possibly non-existent place remains? Or shall we call this discussion moot and reopen the afd right away - since that's the effective outcome either way? I'm in favor of closing this as moot unless anyone really wants to see the discussion through to the end. Thoughts? Picaroon (t) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be for that. Just re-list it with a legitimate concern. No real need for this DRV if that is going to happen. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy reopen AfD - whatever the merits of this article it is incontrovertable that this AfD was wrongly closed out of process. BlueValour (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list on AfD as a hoax/error/non-existent place, re-opening the original AfD will just muddy the waters needlessly (as any nomination of a geographical location for deletion as non-notable is going to be speedy kept, precedent is extremely well established). --Stormie (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list AFD obviously the debate was not non-controversial. Wider input is required to determine concensus. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Closure was premature, 38 minutes is not long enough for consensus to be demonstrated. And besides, new arguments like non-existence might crop up. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen / relist with an explanation there is concern the place doesn't exist. Addhoc (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanderbilt, the Netherlands (2nd nomination) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Butterface – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's Legitmate Now JK (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- never tried posting in this section before, so hopefully I'm following protocol.

I was having a discussion with friends about the definition of "butterface", and one person in our party hadn't heard the term, and we recommended they wiki it. Surprisingly, there wasn't an entry, and it had been protected from creating one.

The original discussion back in 2004 seemed to favor deletion on the grounds that it wasn't a well known phrase, and that only Howard Stern appeared to be using it. Now, however, I think "butterface" is a pretty common phrase among the under-30 set, and I count 90,000 google entries for "butterface" (all with the same general description/usage), and another 60,000 for a two-word variety, "butter face" (again, all seemingly consistent).

At the very least, wikipedia should redirect to the existing wiktionary definition of butterface (which is correct.) This is what "MILF" does (redirects to the wiktionary def), and would therefore be consistent. JK (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, do not soft-redirect. Consensus was clear in the AFD and there's nothing here. Google hits aren't an indicator of notability, and neither we nor Wiktionary are Urban Dictionary. --Coredesat 03:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm arguing more on the grounds of consistency, based on similar terms. Most terms, like "BBW", get their own page. Others, like "MILF", redirect to wiktionary. Still others, like "Boy Toy", redirect to similar concepts (in that case, an article about age disparity in relationships.) I can't come up with a single similar term that is treated like "butterface" (i.e. no entry, banned from creating, no redirect, etc.) Maybe it belongs with the "perjorative terms for people" section?
Endorse all 15 of the prior deletions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The entry already exists at Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and no soft redirect per Coredesat. Consensus was pretty clear in the AfD. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not consistent. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the AfD was properly closed. As it happens, butterface is a widely known term but the there is no evidence that it can be expanded from a dicdef to an encyclopaedic page. BlueValour (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sounds similar to Zachary syndrome. Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it Ed Zachary syndrome? Will ^(talk) 11:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, deny soft redirect AfD trumps google. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is a slang dictionary definition that could not be anything more without original research, thus unencyclopedic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 December 2007[edit]

PearsonWidrig DanceTheater – Deletion endorsed with no prejudice against recreation. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. Jonwiener (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC) my article posted 12/20 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PearsonWidrig_DanceTheater -- was deleted for copyright violation. Yesterday morning 12/21 I obtained copyright permission and submitted it to [email protected]. I emailed this info to the administrator who nominated the page for deletion, Travis TX; he responded "I am not familiar with the process of obtaining approval of copyrighted materials, so I'd like to direct you to the help desk for more assistance. Thanks. —Travistalk 14:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)" Do I need to do anything else to get the article posted? I'm willing to rewrite if necessary. Many thanks --Jonwiener (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, you can always rewrite it in your own words, giving references to the reviews, which are clearly sufficient to demonstrate notability. DGG (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse with no discrimination against recreation. It looks as though the nominator has already been notified that he/she should be able to recreate the article without the copyvio and with assistance. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and allow recreation. The help desk was the correct venue WP:OTRS to file a copyright waiver. But you should not need to plagiarize the source to use it... reword it for understanding and context. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

صفحهٔ اصلی – Restore redirect based on new information, and redirects are cheap. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used redirect. The deletion was based on the rationale that the redirect would not be used. It turns out it is our most visited 691'th page for whatever the reason: (see #691). So the odds are more than what anyone would have thought. -- Cat ^chi? 10:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that this is a problem with the tool? The redirect was deleted in early October, and the tool hadn't been collecting statistics for several months before this month. Also, from the top of the tool's page: "This tool is still being tested. Some of the results may be false or misleading!" --Core desat 11:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that this is a problem with the tool, yes but it is also probable that this is in use. I think there is benefit in undeleteing it and no harm keeping it. -- Cat ^chi? 16:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible that there were links to صفحهٔ اصلی from external sites, so a lot of people were being sent there and redirected? I attempted to do a Google search but the font issues confounded me. --Stormie (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tool tells me it is in constant use. Having such a redirect brings no harm. As you suggest صفحهٔ اصلی could be linked from external sites which is a very good reason to have the redirect where it is. In other words a benefit. -- Cat ^chi? 16:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Overturn The potential wonkiness of the tool aside, it is some evidence the redirect is being used in some way (though if it were nuked way back in October, if it were so popular, I think someone would have made it an issue before now). In any event, redirects are cheap. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no reader of the english language wikipedia would expect to be able to enter a keyword in a non-latin alphabet for an english language article, who would not be able to come up with the english keyword on their own. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true. English keyboard can generate Arabic/Japanese scripts with ease provided you have them installed. We have plenty of Japanese and Arabic redirects. This is common practice if there is a good possibility of such a use (such as the names of Japanese people in Kanji). -- Cat ^chi? 16:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Cristian Fleming – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"The artist met WP:BAND (through international tours) and that the correct course of action on this one might be source or ref templates? By pure vote count, the AfD passed - but the vote count was simply wrong," as quoted by a Wikipedia Administrator whom had previously affirmed the artist's notability. Further, the artist's notability was previously asserted on a separate occasion by a different administrator. In all, two administrators asserted the artist's notability and only one most recently asserted the opposite, which also suggests to me that AfD was passed in error.Omotorwayo (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, nearly unanimous consensus. --Core desat 08:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimous by random non-administrative users who are uninformed of Wikipedia policy. The opinions of a small sample of people are never sufficient to reflect overall truth. Omotorwayo (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming an admin is not a big deal. The AfD was open long enough to allow any other users who had wanted to make themselves heard to do so. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Notability is entirely subjective - that admins take a different view from an afd is neither here nor there. WP:MUSIC etc. arr merely guidelines based on previous experience, they are not rules, and they do not, in any way, count over consensus in any given case. Wikipedia is not consistent, sorry.--Doc^g 09:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither one of you has addressed the issue that the sources are valid. I don't think when you say "Wikipedia is not consistent, sorry," that you're truly sorry. This shines a negative light on your character and the rationality of your arguments. Omotorwayo (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with your assertion; WP:BAND requires multiple non-trivial secondary reliable sources. None of your sources meet this criterion, as all are either non-secondary (your blog is not a reliable source) or trivial (the various lists). There are no other sources available that account for notability. If you continue to be hostile and assume bad faith upon administrators or regular users (who are just as qualified to participate in deletion debates), it's only going to result in this deletion review being speedily closed as a bad faith nomination (in fact, I recommend as much - DRV is not AFD part 2). --Core desat 09:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Coredesat. Completely unanimous consensus. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - in a developing genre, this particular artist is notable. He has engaged in international tours. I truly believe that people's viewpoints are clouded by the fact that it's not a popular genre at the moment. The standards at WP:BAND are clear, and frankly, I believe he met them. - Philippe | Talk 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Proper reading of consensus. The article was a promotional piece for an underground artist, there were no references to back up any of the assertions made about his supposed notoriety or influence. For instance, the assertion that this artist engaged in international tours is backed up by a link to a blog entry containing a dark handheld cam video of one performance. Note also that following deletion a portion of this article was recreated at Unit (musician), using the same links, by the new account Resident6music. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were references. They were correct. The arist is undeniably on said labels for music distribution and if you had actually listened to the artist's music you would hear his songs in that video recording, wherein the video is irrelevant to the audio being played. Again, this has proven to be a pissing contest where nobody knows what they're talking about when it comes to the genre. I'm sick of seeing the illogical, flawed arguments of everyone on this site. If you're so paranoid about the sources, you should e-mail the labels directly, but you'll never do that because you're just trying to win an argument as opposed to trying to find the true answer. This is why Wikipedia is a complete waste of time and if you want to do something meaningful with your life, it certainly won't happen on this website. :-( Omotorwayo (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion failed WP:BIO and WP:BAND as recognized during the AFD discussion by everyone except the DRV initiator and Philippe above who still lack verified facts to back up their positions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Consensus was clear. The judgment of the users and the closer were proper. Singu larity 08:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion concensus was very clear. Previous admin opinion on the article has no bearing on the deletion debate. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carolyn Doran – Keep deleted and create a protected redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. Although there is no consensus for overturning or endorsing the deletion itself (in which case the default for negative biographies of living persons per Arbcom is to keep deleted), there is a strong underlying consensus that a redirect should exist here if nothing else. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think it is only appropriate that this page be brought up for discussion again after several days of protection. Since Register's story on December 13 the story has snowballed, and was just today picked up by the AP, which independently verified The Register's revelations and added some more background information. This article was recently picked up in The Washington Post. As for the inclusion of this article, it obviously satisfies the need of reliable and substantial third party references, and there are many living people with far less notability that have survived AfD. I understand the sensitivity of this subject, but I think that just as protecting the FA page is seen as harmful to Wikipedia's image of openess, a blanket protection of this article's creation without further discussion would be counterproductive in the least. Joshdboz (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as per WP:BLP1E. If she wasn't notable before the Register started their anti-Wikipedia campaign, she isn't notable now. Corvus cornix_talk 03:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (place protected redirect to WMF), WP:BLP1E sums it up. She's still not notable for anything else. --Core desat 04:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (but redirect to WMF and protect) - she is only of interest because of that the WMF did (or rather spectacularly did not do) so we should record this incident in the article on the Wikimedia Foundation (and on wikinews). Unfortunately, this will erroneously be described as "censorship" (it isn't, the information remains), and I'm tempted to argue for this bio in order to head of the "OMG, censorship!!!!" crap. However, in the end she's a living person and we must treat her as we would with any other living person in similar circumstances - a single incident of being (mis)hired by a company does not merit a biography.--Doc^g 09:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikinews article is important here as it was already covering this more in-depth with better sources when this was deleted. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. She's notable for holding a C-level position in the WMF (which owns & runs one of the top 10 web sites) and for, well... the obvious scandalous reasons. And the reasons behind Talk:Carolyn Doran being deleted elude me, but that's something else entirely. Dookama (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will not comment any further on this but as an involved party I urge any additional participants to review the deleted talk page as it contains an explanation of what happened. There are OTRS tickets and instructions from ArbCom involved here. This isn't a normal BLP DRV - the last admin who undeleted this was desysopped. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That admin was quickly reinstated because someone misinterpreted the situation, and the desysopping is irrelevant to this DRV. ~~I don't see an OTRS ticket number mentioned on the deleted talk page or in the discussion on WT:RFAR.~~ The only "instructions" there are here would be that, since this was deleted under BLP, the page can only be restored if there is consensus to do so (based on the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom case); lack of consensus to restore would result in the article remaining deleted. ~~I'm not even sure if that applies here, though.~~ --Coredesat 11:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Right, sorry for not providing links. According to this OTRS was involved. There was an e-mail on the OTRS mailing list instructing that this should be deleted (that's what I was told anyway. See the deleted talk page where Zscout370 explains this to Jossi). See Zscout370's talk page for the ArbCom bit. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. I suppose the Badlydrawnjeff case would apply, then. --Core desat 12:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. The terms of WP:BLP1E indicate "associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime". The person we are discussing here has a fascinating, notable personal history. Her father was an officer at the CIA. She shot her boyfriend / father of her child in the chest, but was not prosecuted. She wore a recording wire in an effort to incriminate a roommate in a plot to lethally poison someone, all while she was accused of financial fraud. Then, there was the time where she was DUI and someone was killed in an accident and she left the scene. Then her husband -- also a CIA agent of some importance -- drowned while on their Caribbean honeymoon, and the coroner never determined the specific cause of death in the drowning. Then she very quickly worked her way up from a temp assignment to a Chief Operating Officer position at the planet Earth's eighth-most popular website. Then she had another DUI come up and she was arrested in violation of her probation by leaving the country on Foundation business. Any attempt to "hide" the need to have an article about this person is CLEARLY not paying attention to WP:BLP1E which, at worst, indicates that "a separate biography may be unwarranted". Given the above fascinating history, it is most certainly warranted here. Why don't we let the Wikipedia process flow here with an article, and if, over time, the Carolyn Doran story subsides significantly, the article might then be merged into a chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation article? I recall a large number of people back in the early Spring saying that the "Essjay affair" was not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and it was suggested that nobody would remember it in a few weeks. Well, guess what -- just in this month of December (many months after the Essjay affair), the Essjay phenomenon has still been mentioned in three different news outlets. Society still cares about Essjay, and I have a feeling that months and years from now, society will still care about Carolyn Doran. We have not even begun to see the effect of this story reaching hundreds of thousands of previously unaware readers this weekend, via the Associated Press release and reprints. Other journalists and people of influence are bound to analyze the story and draw their own important and meaningful conclusions about the subject individual. To "hide" the article here on Wikipedia will, I'm afraid, only draw even more criticism to this project that it shows little ability to demonstrate accountability when it errs. Restore the article before it looks worse than it is. --Lord on Canary (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Single-purpose account, posting only on this issue in an apparent attempt to fake consensus - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not have a firm opinion on whether this issue should have its own article or be incorporated elsewhere, other than that it should be discussed instead of simply deleted and protected. As an amendment to Lord on Canary's arguments, I would add that the issue of whether or not a subject is remembered in x amount of time, which was brought up as a counterargument in the en.wikipedia mailing list, is entirely irrelevant. Notability is determined based on secondary source coverage; whether or not an article's subject is remembered in one day or a hundred years is inconsequential. Joshdboz (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would it be possible for an admin to undelete the original commentary on Talk:Carolyn Doran to assist editors in understanding the rationales for previous decisions made relating to this article? I am not completely convinced yet that the article should be reinstated, but there is much useful information in the talk page that may be used to make arguments on various ways to present relevant information, whether in an independent article, as an additional statement in the Wikimedia Foundation article or simply as a redirect. Risker (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the useful material here can go to WikiMedia Foundation. Doran doesn't really seem notable at the moment in her own right, and an unbiased article would be nigh on impossible. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion or redirect to WMF - "officer of organization hides a number of past problems with the law, loses job, organization criticized in media for not checking" is a fairly classic WP:BLP1E. The problem is that even as a person with a criminal past, it's fairly non notable low grade stuff. We wouldn't usually create an article for people on the basis of petty larceny, unlawful wounding, DUI, and losing their job when this came out, otherwise we'd have thousands like this, and COO of WMF is not that huge a job to make it notable by itself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion or redirect to WMF - BLP1E. Fired COOs from far larger companies go un-articled. No-one would even think to write this in Wikipedia except that every media puff and fart about Wikipedia gets written up in it. If it's a notable incident, it'll be in WMF or criticism thereof - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How many fired COOs from far larger-traffic websites (there are 7 in the world) have shot their boyfriend, worn a wire to turn evidence on a roommate who poisoned someone, left the scene of a DUI manslaughter, witnessed her CIA agent husband drown on their honeymoon, kite checks, execute credit card fraud, get another DUI, then violate probation by leaving the country? Oh, and how many got to be COO of those websites after only a 4-month job temp assignment? Maybe we can make a Wikipedia list: "List of people who have been COO's of Top 10 websites with a multitudinous criminal record after only 4 months with the organization". This ridiculous interpretation of BLP1E is going to blow up in our faces as the media takes the "next step" and scrutinizes how we address this person's biography in our own encyclopedia. So far, it is not looking good. In fact, it's looking downright foolishly hypocritical. Sure would be nice to work on this incident in the Wikimedia Foundation article, but that's locked down thanks to a dispute over who the founder/co-founder of the Foundation is. Foolish. --72.94.148.87 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a single source that covers her outside the context of the Wikipedia resignation? There appear to be no stories about her prior to this year, and no stories since this single event fail to mention it. In other words, her biographical note is entirely tied up in one event. BLP1E. Cool Hand Luke 11:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. Even if this is a classic WP:BLP1E, the principle of least astonishment should argue against presenting someone looking for information on Ms. Doran with a redlink. —CComMack (t–c) 16:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. A bio based on an incident does not meet the threshold for Notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion and do not redirect, She has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For people saying she is notable for one event, which event is that? --Pixelface (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as article creator because the the AP story has not been widely picked up, and as it is (and where its published) its basically trivial coverage that should not qualify the subject for an article. I don't agree that this is a 1BE, since there is no 'event' at play. If the coverage expands to other outlets with a wider readership, this should be evaluated again. Avruchtalk 17:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am interested in how the above editor defines "not been widely picked up". --Lord on Canary (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps if you did a proper Google search, you'd find that there are only eight hits. Corvus cornix_talk 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I am finding 117 based on this quite restricted search[17], including major news networks and tech/management websites, from the US, Canada, India, Australia, the UK, France, Ireland and Austria. I'd say the story is well and truly out there. Risker (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And I find three. Corvus cornix_talk 05:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as the subject is notable for multiple things. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the press coverage makes her easily notable enough. Everyking (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ~~deletion~~ redirect Not very notable for a criminal, not very notable for a businessperson. The coverage she has received lately has more to do with the Wikimedia Foundation than the objective significance of her accomplishments and misdeeds. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation; the story is about what the foundation did and what it failed to do. Protected Titles should be used sparingly and a redirect would be more appropriate. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn WP:BLP1E does not apply, for she is notable apparently for two things the 1E everyone is so touchy about and her position of COO of a notable organization. Since COO's of most notable organizations are considered notable at WP, she's no different. If she also has some negative information in her life, she should expect that it will come out if she seeks and obtains positions of high office and trust in notable organizations. If she wanted anonymity she went about it in an odd way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Valid redirect if nothing else since she's mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Standard procedure to have a redirect in such a case. Also the story seems to have been picked up by the Tampa Tribune and apparently the Miami Herald since the initial deletion.[18] --W.marsh 22:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn W.marsh is right... redirect is necessary at bare minimum. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have some confusing here. Both "overturn" and "endorse" opines are calling for a redirect. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is a consensus that at minimum we should have a redirect. However, those voting to overturn might like to make clear whether they are supporting an article or are satisfied with a redirect.--Doc^g 22:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 of the 4 deletions were deletions of the redirect... so something needs to be overturned here. I'd be fine with a redirect. --W.marsh 22:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that a redirect looks like the consensus, there's the beginnings of an attempt to hammer out the details at Talk:Carolyn Doran if anyone wishes to chip in.--Doc^g 23:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and make protected redirect. We can't self-censor, but I'm not sure we have enough to write a good article on this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you perhaps provide a rationale for protection? After reviewing Full Protection policy, I cannot find how indefinite or temporary full protection would be supported in this situation. There is no edit war, and if a redirect is the consensus of this deletion review, this will not be a page "deleted by consensus that is repeatedly recreated." No other listed rationales are even possibly applicable. Joshdboz (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. The story is all about the Foundation: the recent AP article (which has been picked up by Fox News so far at least) focuses on the Foundation's apparent failure to do background checks, the possible risk to Foundation donor money, etc. The controversy in the tech sphere and on blogs has also been all about what the Foundation did wrong/failed to do. That's been the focus of the story all along. --bainer (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Thebainer above. JavaTenor (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per all above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
make the page a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. No need for Wikipedia to have a biographical article about such a non-notable person. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If Carolyn Doran is "non-notable", I'm not so sure Asil Nadir, Tom Coughlin (Wal-Mart), or Donal Collins are notable for anything but the scandals they generated. Should we expect similar BLP1E reviews for these three articles? --Lord on Canary (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of Asil Nadir at Polly Peck seems adequate. The mention of Tom Coughlin at Wal-Mart seems adequate. Donal Collins does not get mention at pages such as Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, so it is not clear to me that he is notable enough to have a biographical Wikipedia article. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation (clear BLP1E case). Leave notice and links to discussions on the talk page, and link that talk page from the talk page of the WMF article. Make sure the WMF article has enough there to satisfy people looking for information - a few sentences and refs, but no more. Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion under both BLP concerns and because there was no assertion of notability. There are lots of criminals in the world. They don't become encyclopedia-worthy just because the story gets picked up by a news service. Rossami (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete or Overturn: The desperation of Wikipedians trying to protect their reputation from casual readers is palpable. Why not COI? --Fandyllic (talk) 12:36 AM PST 23 Dec 2007
Protect my reputation? Is this padding on my resume? Am I getting compensated for working on this project, and could this compensation suffer by the existence of this article? No COI for me, at least. Perhaps for those who hired her though. Redirect per above. Powerful BLP1E argument here. Cool Hand Luke 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Lord of Canary. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per WP:BLP1E, without prejudice to recreation as a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and write up in summarized form within some other article. BLP1E does indeed seem to cover this person. It also seems to cover a lot of other people who have articles. She hardly seems notable to me; on the other hand, tens of thousands of people (let alone Pokemons, etc.) who have articles in en:WP don't seem notable to me. If she's merely a news story, then at least she's a real news story in a real newspaper, unlike a lot of stuff on WP that's neither of more than the most ephemeral interest nor demonstrably news. Anyway, her history does appear to say something noteworthy about the degree of vigilance within a charity running a well-known website. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Consider: replace "Wikimedia Foundation" with any comparably sized non-profit. Suddenly it's a non-issue. The Doran business is being used by Wikipedia's opponents as a coatrack on which to hang their grievances. We should no more have an article on her than on Daniel Brandt: the fact that activists can rake up a small amount of dirt is an atrocious reason to have an article on someone. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Doran business is being used by Wikipedia's opponents as a coatrack on which to hang their grievances. There's really no need to make blanket bad faith assumptions here. Joshdboz (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Rossami, JzG, and because being a news story is so not relevant. As has been said several times already, we even have alphabet soup to cover this case: WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS. No opinion on redirecting to Wikimedia Foundation . Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who do people keep saying BLP1E? Did you not see she got mainstream media coverage for 2 unrelated events? --W.marsh 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do surprise me: what's number two? I'll be disappointed rather than surprised if it's 1990 vintage Washington Post stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a 1990 WP story was somehow about 2007 events concerning the WMF, I'd be surprised too. It was a totally separate story. --W.marsh 01:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. She is no more notable than billions of people alive right now who led colourful lives. The only aspect that makes her interesting is the appointment as COO of a non-profit that has a large online presence - that appointment is clearly a result of insufficient due diligence by the WMF rather than anything she did. Even if it turns out that she did embezzle or some other action that is interesting in its own right while appointed, the Wikipedia coverage of the topic should start on the WMF article and expand to a sub-article only when that is required. Daniel Brandt redirects to Public Information Research, so a redirect to the WMF is a reasonable way to handle this. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you suppose was the initial motivation for creating the article about Michael M. Sears or about Darleen Druyun? Especially looking at the latter, could this person possibly be worthy of inclusion into our encyclopedia, were it not for "one event" in her life? Another thought, for those who think that the article about the woman should be salted and permanently directed to the Wikimedia Foundation article, we're only shooting ourselves in the foot. Three months from now, which article is going to be read by more people -- Carolyn Doran or Wikimedia Foundation. By dumping this woman's event history in the much more popular article, we're unwittingly and probably unnecessarily sullying the reputation of our project, when (at the end of the day) the entity whose reputation is most in question is truly Doran. --Lord on Canary (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The initial motivation for creating each of those was the person was guilty of doing something of notable: corruption to do with military equipment procurement, related to US $ 23 billion of tax payers money. However in this case, Carolyn Doran hasnt been found to have done anything worth noting yet, except having a minor criminal record and ending up as a COO at WMF. No embezzlement has been uncovered, and it is probably not possible to "lose" a significant amount of WMF money due to its meager budget and its operating costs. As a result this event can not possibly be on the same scale.

The second aspect of your comment is precisely why an biography about Carolyn Doran is not desirable. This event is relevant to WMF now; in 2020, if there is nothing more to this controversy than the news to date has reported, this issue will end up being a short part of Wikimedia Foundation (the first ten years), and Carolyn Doran will be able to live her life in relative obscurity, with only a tiny bit of regret: that she ever accepted the COO position without disclosing her colourful history. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are examples of a few crimes that are more than just a “minor criminal record”: (1) Shooting one’s boyfriend in the chest. (2) DUI hit and run that resulted in a fatality. (3) Four DUI’s in ten years, resulting in a third degree felony. Also, budget is not the only way to measure an organization’s notability. For example, consider the internet rankings of the following: Wikipedia #8; US Air Force #11,708; Boeing #15,165; US Department of Defense #36,793. So who is more notable, Carolyn or Darleen? Carolyn Doran did indeed engage in misconduct on the job at WMF: She lied about her background, something Darleen Druyun never did. Trying to draw a difference between the notability of Darleen Druyun and Carolyn Doran is a slippery slope for Wikipedia. The more you dig, the more irrelevant the differences become. Westwind273 (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion without prejudice to recreation as a redirect to WMF. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WMF. Very few felons are encyclopedically noteworthy, and the press coverage is fleeting. All notability is tied up to criticism of the Wikimedia Foundation so a simple redirect is OK. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. Ask yourself this question: Why is there a Wikipedia article on Darleen Druyun, but not on Carolyn Doran? Both held senior positions within their organizations. Both were later found out to have engaged in criminal behavior. Both have been the subject of numerous media articles. The only explanation for this discrepancy is that Wikipedia is engaging in information censorship to protect its own reputation. This kind of behavior is ultimately self-defeating. If Wikipedia simply becomes Jimmy Wales' version of the truth, then it will be overtaken by Knol, and Wikipedia will fade into oblivion, similar to Netscape. Incidently, a search on Google News brings up 42 hits on Carolyn Doran, and only 10 hits on Darleen Druyun. Westwind273 (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to make personal attacks on Wales, especially in a discussion he is not even a part of. Joshdboz (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a personal attack. I am simply stating that by this incident, Wikipedia is losing impartiality and is becoming an opinion blog of Wales and his cohorts, rather than an unbiased reference site. Jimmy Wales certainly has the right to make a site that reflects his opinions, for example allowing articles on senior defense department execs who were caught in scandals, but not on senior execs in Wikimedia caught in similar scandals. However, when he does this, his Wikipedia site then becomes a biased and opinionated site, rather than a neutral reference site. When the general public realizes this, they will flock to Knol, leaving Wikipedia to fade into irrelevancy. Keep in mind that those posting on this deletion review are not representative of the viewers of Wikipedia at large. If they were, you would see many more “undelete” opinions. This is the (perhaps fatal) weakness of Wikipedia. Westwind273 (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per not news. Indifferent about redirection. Eusebeus (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There needs to be an article. In the short run, we look inconsistent and silly without one. In the longer run, it impacts our credibility. But it need not be the article deleted here. A new article, one that starts out sourced by the AP story and the recent Washington Post article and is improved upon as the 3rd-party, NPOV reporting continues, may be the best answer. David in DC (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Australian Koolie and Koolie – This is not within the remit of Deletion review. No deletion has actually occurred. No administrator has deleted anything, and there have been no deletion discussions. The place to discuss this is Talk:German Coolie#Merge?, where a discussion has been ongoing since September 2006. – Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

unfair merge 61.8.32.204 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a review of the deletion of the Australian Koolie page.

A merge was originally proposed, I and Koolie Club of Australia submitted our concerns and objections over this and assumed as nothing was forthcoming that the matter had been resolved. I apologize that I am not a constant visitor to Wikipedia, hence the delay in my reaction to the deletion, but I fully appreciate the impact of Wikipedia, through the school system I am involved with, and it is this involvement and the motivation to supply correct information that has provoked this action today.

The original information first submitted by one of the Koolie Clubs of Australia's members then continued on by several researchers of the same club presented the, then, current view into the initial efforts of the Koolie Club of Australia, the original club formed for the breed, known as the German Koolie, Coolie, German Collie and currently in Australia the place of this breeds origins as the Australian Koolie.

That original, effort demonstrate the many myths and theories held by many Australian owners and breeders of the Koolie, as time progressed the page was update, possibly not as fast as some would like, but the page made steady progress as correct factual information was uncovered by our researchers, it contained all the genetic advancements the club was undertaking as well as the recognition the club was obtaining from the Australian National kennel Council and relevant Canine Control in the sates of Vic, Nsw and Qld as well as documenting the clubs efforts in America through our American members .

We recorded all published articles and results as they became available, as well as sited our sources.

This page is very important to future visitors of Wikipedia seeking true and correct information on this breed.

We will not enter into a fight over the page, this has already occurred, carried out by the same people who now claim their page the "German Coolie" is the only true and correct source.

All we ask is that your panel review all content, the majority of correct information has originated from myself and the Koolie Club of Australia and published on the net at various Koolie friendly sites.

Even known Authors like Iris Coombe and Pat Hutchinson gathered their revised information from our findings(they still need to revise more) and do a bit of research into all groups involved, the German coolie group is in America and run by one women not a member, the Coolie council is run by one women, not a member, the Koolie association is run by one man, not a member, most have no committees, no contact details, no ties with other organizations like the Koolie club has and they do not provide any information to any outside sources like the Koolie club do.

Does this not establish that the Koolie Club of Australia are authentic and legitimate in their dealings when supplying correct and factual information regarding our chosen breed the Australian Koolie.

It is necessary to avoid confusion over the reemergence of this breed and unfortunately this page does exactly that, causes confusion, and with the Koolie breed specifity test nearing completion, it will only cause more work to rectify situations like this that these break away groups have created.

I look to hearing something from your panel soon and do hope you can resolve this situation.

Thank you for your attention Kerrie Challenger, Koolie Rescue, Koolie Club of Australia 61.8.32.204 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Australian Koolie page? I don't see anything in the history that indicates that there was ever anything there but a redirect. There have only been two edits to the page, once in December of last year to redirect to one page and once in July of this year to change the redirect to another page. Corvus cornix_talk 03:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see you're talking about Koolie, which has been a redirect since July. Although it may be true that you are "not a constant visitor to Wikipedia", but it would seem to me that if you were interested in the article, you would visit more often than once every six months. Still and all, this is not an appropriate venue for this discussion, as the page has not been deleted, but merged. You need to take this to the articles' Talk pages, and then to dispute resolution. Nothing to see here. Corvus cornix_talk 03:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 December 2007[edit]

Betsy Baker – Endorsed on DEcember 21, no new info to consider – trialsanderrors (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would pretty much go along with Kitia's reason in the previous DRV. I believe that two few people were attracted to the AFD to establish consensus, and i would have had I created an account. Most just followed User:BrownHairedGirl's lead, which claimed that there was nothing to merge except what is already in oldest people, which is false, as demonstrated by User:Kitia/Muzzy Mueller which, if my fuzzy memory is correct, is a copy of the article. It only had two sources, though trivial, yield encyclopedia-worthy information that is currently lost. What a shame. December 21, 2012 (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The DRV seems to have been closed properly, considering that the only a single user and his/her sockpuppets seem to have wanted to keep. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not many people voted to delete either. December 21, 2012 (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The close was a reasonable call based on the debate and the state of the article at that time. In order to get the page back you would need to meet WP:BIO which requires multiple reliable sources which don't seem to be available. My suggestion is to add a section for her to List of American supercentenarians, assuming she was a US citizen by the time she died, or the British equivalent if not. BlueValour (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We could do that, just don't keep this deleted. December 21, 2012 (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, was well-covered in the DRV discussion five days ago, nominator here has not presented any reason for discussing it again. --Stormie (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion no compelling argument presented that the closing admin failed to use good judgement, just that the participants in the discussion did not say what they should have. The admin can not determine that. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Coral Calcium Claims – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 01:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly covered under Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV.

Endorse deletion. AfD was interpreted correctly by the closing admin (though apparently closed early per WP:SNOW). No new information has come to light. DRV is not the forum to continue re-arguing the original issues from the AfD. MastCell ^Talk 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you, IF I had had a chance to argue my position in the AFD. I thought I was supposed to have five days to present my arguments. Magnonimous (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Perhaps a bit premature for a WP:SNOW closure, but I doubt that your arguements would have changed consensus. It was previously discussed at another DRV, and barely was restored and listed. If you would like to create a better version of the article, which does not appear to violate WP:OR and WP:CFORK, please do so in your userspace and check with an experienced editor before moving it to article space. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, while I don't think it was particularly wise to snowball-close an AfD after 6 hours when the AfD was itself a result of a DRV discussion, the issue really does seem fairly clear-cut. The Coral calcium article consists of three short paragraphs concerning the substance and the rest is about the health claims. There is no earthly reason for the health claims and counterclaims to be forked off into a separate article. --Stormie (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While this has not been a model of following the letter of the deletion process, I think it is safe to say the community has spoken. Just for disclosure, I'm the one who originally speedy deleted the article, then restored and listed at AFD per the first DRV.--Isotope23 ^talk 01:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen the AFD. After just having a Deletion Review discussion below about the inappropriateness of the speedy-deletion, it was particularly inappropriate to close this procedural AFD preemptively. Let the AFD run its course. Rossami (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trout slap the closer for causing needless drama by a premature close, but endorse the closure itself. Another Afd now is simply process wonking gone mad. --Doc^g 16:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and do what Doc said, but use a minnow. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

5Rhythms – Contested PROD, restored. However article is in fairly poor shape and could well be listed on AfD if improvements are not made. --Stormie (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleated as not notable, without debate, I beg to differ. As well as a worldwide network of practioners, with 93 international classes[19]. I've found 1 PhD's thesis on the topic, 1 MA thesis at least 2 other academic publications:

Open Floor: Dance, Therapy, and Transformation through the 5Rhythms, PhD Thesis [20]
5Rhythms in the Workplace: Exploring Movement as a Corporate Training Approach, MA Thesis [21]
Cook, S., Ledger, K., Scott, N. (2003) ‘Women’s experience of 5 Rhythms dance and the effects on their emotional wellbeing’ (Book) Pubs U.K. Advocacy Network, Sheffield[22]
Pract Midwife. 2007 Mar;10(3):20, 22-3. The ecstasy of spirit: five rhythms for healing. Henley-Einion A. University of the West of England.[23] Salix alba (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeff Wolverton – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 01:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article's deletion has been already overturned by Shimeru on 00:46, 27 December 2006 on the grounds that 'He's credited with writing (and voice acting in) an Oscar-winning animated short. That's sufficient notability, despite the CoI. Article isn't so hot, but he should meet WP:BIO.' Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_24 Additionally, in the intervening time since the overturned deletion the subject's name has appeared three times in movie theaters (in the credits of 'Spider-Man 3' & 'Ghost Rider' for effects work and for voice acting in another theatrically released ChubbChubbs short.) Additionally subject's name appeared in both Variety and Hollywood Reporter during that time. Seems unlikely this would make him LESS notable than when the deletion for WP:BIO was originally overturned. 74.222.153.11 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I don't see that anything was done improperly in the AfD. However, this does not mean you cannot recreate the article, assuming he passes WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and other relevant policy. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - I don't have access to the deleted page but the AfD consensus was entirely clear and the AfD properly closed. Our role is to check the procedures not to substitute our judgement for that of the Community as expressed in the AfD. I suggest the way forward is to create a new page in user space with additional sources that clearly meet WP:BIO and then ask for recreation. BlueValour (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - this page not only ensures procedure is followed, but checks whether policy-based deletions are appropriate. The AfD nominator and voters all invoked "notability" as their reason for deletion. The subject of this article clearly and easily passes Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. In terms of something a little subjective than notability, the subject has many different reliable sources. --Oldak Quill 06:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We don't restore unsourced articles that are deleted by consensus unless someone offers sources. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of reliable sources out there! IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, his homepage and a whole bunch of other movie sites. So the automatic assumption is that an article is bad/unverifiable and the burden of demonstrating the article is good/verifiable isn't on those voting to delete the article, but on a random someone to go looking for them and post them to Wikipedia? That's absurd. To vote "delete" is to make a positive assertion that the article is unfixable or unwanted and the burden to prove that is on the voter. --Oldak Quill 01:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the sources you list are considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. Also to establish notability, sources must be both reliable and independent. Also, while you are free to consider it absurd, it is in fact, standard operating procedure, to require evidence, in the form of sources, that an article subject is notable if it has been challenged. Otherwise nothing could be deleted under WP:N as it is virtually impossible to definitively prove a negative. This may seem to tilt the scales heavily towards deletion (though five days isn't really that short of a time to locate sources), but many people, both outsider reviewers and Wikipedians, feel that Wikipedia's biggest problem is its lack of reliability. One of the best ways to combat that is to require that articles cite reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment effects work credits makes somebody notable? What about the caterer and the limo driver? JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cliff Akurang – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 01:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deleted per (CSD A7), was an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject. Cg29692 (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC) -->[reply]

Endorse deletion - which could also have been deleted as a repost pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Akurang. The established standard is that a footballer should either be a full international or have played league football (WP:BIO says "competed in a fully professional league") which he hasn't - see here. BlueValour (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this, however he has just agreed to sign for League 2 side Barnet and will be playing in the Football League in the very near future. Thus, I don't see any real point in deleting as it will be recreated soon. Cg29692 (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a BTW the deal has not yet been agreed - see here. We have these debates quite often and the position is clear - when he débuts for Barnet he gets a page. Deals fall through and players signed do get injured in training and never play for their new clubs, so we can't crystal-ball. BlueValour (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion recreated content from AfD, and does not meet criteria that has become standard for notability of soccer players. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Ford VIN codes – Speedy close, prodded articles can be restored by any admin, no community discussion needed – trialsanderrors (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 article went through AfD remainder are associated Prod articles already deleted, conflict of interest from nominator. Gnan garra 06:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deleted article by that name. I assume you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIN Codes, but what is it you are asking for? --B (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The affected articles are ;

prod - Ferrari VIN Code‎
prod - Volvo VIN Numbers‎
prod - Toyota VIN codes‎
prod - Lamborghini VIN code‎
prod - Land Rover VIN codes‎
prod - Mercedes-Benz VIN codes‎
prod - Maserati VIN code‎
prod - List of GM VIN codes‎
prod - Honda Automotive VIN codes‎
prod - Subaru VIN codes‎
afd - List of Ford VIN codes

Nominator was EvanCarroll (talk · contribs · count) who has an acknowledged association with DealerMade a company he implies has spent considerable sums of money("largest operating expendature") to obtain this information.[24] This editor was not the only person with a COI to participate, Corey Salzano (talk · contribs) works for a competitor recommending the article be retained.

I closed the AfD as no consensus and have raised this DRV as the status of the articles should have been addressed as a group, IMHO they should all be restored and sent to afd as a group with the COI clearly identified prior to discussion commencing Gnan garra 06:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all of these were deleted as uncontested prods, so if you contest their deletion, you can restore them. I flipped a few of them and unless I'm missing something, the whole thing is one big pile of original research and the deleted articles should stay deleted and the Ford article should join them. --B (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Firstly,the motives of the nominator are irrelevant here. These were prod deletions, so they can be overturned simply on request. There's no need for this DRV. However, any admin that undeletes them should send them straight to AfD, where they will most certainly be deleted. I'm not going to undelete myself because it is a waste of time. Sorry.--Doc^g 09:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only one of these which did go to afd was kept. It doesn't look substantially different from the others. Certainly none of them even pretend to be encyclopedia articles; b:Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN codes) looks like a much better home for them. —Cryptic 17:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as no DRV action is called for. The nominator can undelete and AfD the prodded pages if he wishes without further authority from here. BlueValour (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close They're prods, just undelete them and send them to AfD. east.718 at 21:43, December 21, 2007

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

20 December 2007[edit]

Robert M. Edsel – PROD contested, automatically restored. The article needs a major rewrite and sourcing. AFD nomination can be done by someone who wants it deleted, if courtesy is extended after a period of time for sourcing and rewriting as an encyclopedia article. – GRBerry 03:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mr. Edsel is the author of a best-selling book Rescuing Da Vinci, and co-producer of a documentary film called The Rape of Europa that just is now on the short-list of 15 films for Academy Award nomination. He has also just received The National Humanities Medal from the NEH, during a White House ceremony for the work his foundation, The Monuments Men Foundation for the Preservation of Art is doing to preserve art. I believe this is a piece of history that should have a chance to be updated on the Wikipedia page and restored. Please take a look at his websites and their content. [25], [26]or [27]. --Armcandy101 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Armcandy101 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC) --Armcandy101 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article at Rescuing Da Vinci. The sources Armcandy101 references are not reliable sources. For now, I wouldn't object to a redirect to the book's article, but there needs to be reliable sources to write a bio from. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armcandy has provided me with two further sources which look, to me, as if they would establish notability: [28] [29]. Based on those sources, I'll say Endorse allowing the article to be recreated. Since I can't see what was there before, I'm reluctant to overturn the deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The websites that are referenced above are run by his organization and I understand they may not be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. The White House website [30] references the National Humanities Medal he received and also features an image of Robert Edsel with the President and other Monuments Men and the National Archives website [31] references the recent donation of the "Hitler Albums" that Robert Edsel donated to our nation in a press conference covered by over 100 media outlets. --Armcandy101 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was deleted merely as an expired prod and I think therefore can be restored on request. DGG (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List. New information is being presented, so it should be restored and go to a deletion discussion. If the article does now pass notability guidelines, it should be kept easily. An AfD would be prudent, just to be sure. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Coral Calcium Claims – Deletion contested; restored by deleting admin and listed at AFD.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:43, 21 December 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 page falls under the category of Articles whose subject is a POV. Both points of view were represented on the page. It was clearly about points of view. Content was not being represented as fact. Thanks. Magnonimous (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin here. This was a pretty obvious content fork from Coral calcium and was based off content that had been the subject of an edit war at that article and was now being displayed in a new article with a disclaimer. This is why it was deleted. The content should be discussed at Coral calcium. I'd certainly be open to an AFD of this if neutral uninvolved editors feel it necessary as this deletion was done boldly.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn There is no provision for speedy deleting as an "obvious fork". You are probably right about the fork, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (sorry, speedy overturn=snow, in this context)[reply]
Restore and list, as above. The matter of whether or not the article should have been deleted can be decided in a deletion discussion. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting undeletion Magnonimous (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and AfD per DGG and Lifebaka; sympathize with Isotope23's motives, but it really does need to go to AfD. Disclaimer: As I am obviously fighting a POV fork tooth and nail below at #Card shark, I have a strong opinion on the matter and agree that the AfD should proceed, swiftly and firmly. That said, I still have to agree with DGG et al., that CSD does not come to bear on the issues raised by Coral Calcium Claims. However, I'm not sure what DGG means by "speedy" overturn, since we do not have a WP:CSoverturn. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted patent content fork. Perhaps it should have gone to afd, but no point in us restoring crap to process wonk.--Doc^g 09:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Doc. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse deletion~~~~, no real point in restoring this, it's a blatant POV fork that wouldn't survive at AFD.~~ Okay, fine, overturn and list per below. --Core desat 11:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a fan of process simply for the sake of it when the end result will be the same, but given that 3 editors in good standing have requested the deletion be overturned and sent to AFD, I'd be comfortable with this being closed now and relisted at AFD per the same common sense rationale I used to initially delete it.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to agree with the others above. Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD where I think it will fail. While I recognize the problems with process for process' sake, I am more concerned with the negative precedent that comes from stretching the speedy-deletion criteria beyond their intended and deliberately narrow scope. Five days and a few extra edits are worth the price. Rossami (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready for AFD, Let's Do This Thing. Magnonimous (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tyrannical Response Team – Speedy Close, this article easily falls under A7 and/or G11. Take your pick, really. Also, we are not a soapbox for certain editors to broadcast their beliefs about Wikipedia being a pet project of the CIA. GlassCobra 22:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC) – GlassCobra 22:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, my newly posted article was marked for deletion literally less then 2 minutes then I had posted it. I then marked it for hangon and asked for further clarification as to why they felt it required deletion, being that I feel it does meet the A7 requirement as stated within the opening paragraphs and most obviously is how could they have possibly read it so quickly to come to such a conclusion, the article was then deleted about 5 minutes later without any reply at all. This is unprofessional and the wikiMOD seems poorly trained and standoffish. I request my article be reinstated and notified as to what the "discrepancies" are so that I may take remedy to fix them. Thank you. Majestic2007 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you contact the deleting admin and ask him/her why your page was deleted. As far as I can tell, since the {{hangon}} tag was ignored, it was probably a clear WP:CSD#A7. To that end, endorse. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse as the person who nominated it. total of 4 Google hits. All self published. page was basically a long essay like this one http://defendindependence.org/TRT/TRT.HTML only longer. Ridernyc (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A7 as a non notable website or company was probably valid, but it certainly was a valid deletion as G11, advertisement. DGG (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As deleting admin, I read enough of it to see it was blatantly an advertisement for something that did not assert the notability. I used the quick A7 tag, but also believed it qualified under G11. I stand by my deletion in this instance. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Clearly a valid WP:CSD#G11 deletion, though I wasn't willing to put enough effort into it to see if it is also a valid A7. Of course, the deleting admin should have cited the actual reason for deleting it, but an error in citation is not reason to overturn. GRBerry 03:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What 4 Google hits? You also need to include the search team Tyranny Response Team, so there are over 7,530 hit in Google alone.
A. The original reason for the deletion has yet to be resolved.
B. The "WikiMODS" inappropriate actions and behavior have yet to be addressed.
C. I still do not have a clear idea as to what needs to be corrected, it seems as if all of these WikiMODS chiming in are actually just throwing straw men out there to explain and cover for another's irresponsible and wrongful actions.
D. From what I read regarding each of your dispositions you are creating your own assumptions, look at what you wrote, how could you possibly know such information? That is no basis in fact in what you are writing, you have taken very little information and warped and contorted it into something that it is actually not.
E. The truth and "crux of" have not been mustered and are lacking.
I ask each of you where is your accountably and professionalism at? To me it sounds as if you are basing your opinions upon preconceived notions and extremely weak assertions. So now your reason is because there is page similar to the one I created on Wikipedia, well guess guys that is the case for the millions of other Wikipedia entries, so if that is your basis then by all means all Wikipages should be marked for deletion, because they all (for the most part) also fall into such a category. Finally, you can pick and choose whatever you want to classify it as an "advertisement" as well, in essence that is what all Wikipedia pages dealing with a business actually is, although I do ask you to ponder how my page can be an advertisement being that it is not selling or endorsing any products whatsoever.
You are all confusing fact with fiction to suit what you have been told to do by your former trainers (or handlers) that is very weak, gentlemen, very weak.
I do know that others have attempted to start of a Tyranny Response Team page and they have all been quickly deleted, though I put a lot of time and effort into making a proper Wikipedia page and it was deleted by the WikiMODS, whom have admittedly done so without putting forth much effort or thought into it. I have heard that Wikipedia is a CIA/NSA pet project (founded by with benefits), which would serve to preclude the acceptance of such a page as one that demands honesty from its own government.
Congratulations gentleman on your willingness to bow down to those whom wish you harm and bondage. You are much more simplistic and forgiving then I. Though I honestly wonder if my words are being wasted speaking to any of you, because honestly after seeing that photo of the responsible WikiMOD, I have to say that was not a very professional image to pass onto the public of oneself, if you catch my drift. Though it does help to explain alot as to why there are so many existing and unresolved issues here at Wikipedia... which is honestly way over rated anyway.
Majestic2007 (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boo freakin' hoo. JuJube (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the point of making this reply, this is completely inappropriate, see below for mention of "soapboxing". kthxbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majestic2007 (talk • contribs)
Endorse deletion, creator needs to read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Good luck with your activism but this isn't the place for it. --Stormie (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Soapbox, has nothing to do with the page that was deleted, that is unrelated and after the fact, this comment has not basis to the related argument and lends to obfuscation of the facts at hand, (hence and unneeded dueling distraction). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majestic2007 (talk • contribs)
Endorse deletion. The page indicates nothing resembling notability; I see nothing in the way of reliable sources that discuss the topic, and thus it can't really be verified as notable. It did also appear rather promotional. The deletion appears to have been quite valid. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are over 7,000 pages that beg to differ, the Tyrannical (or Tyranny) Response Team - TRT, is a very real movement of proactive individuals coming together across the nation for a redress of grievances from their government. I am merely attempting to bring recognition and awareness to those countless Americans whom have put for such positive efforts to ensuring Americas foundation is secured.
  This page is not about being on a soapbox or about engaging in activism on their face, this page is not here to argue one way or the other about such issues as 9/11, the Bush family, the Iraq war, etc.; it is solely about the principles of the Tyrannical Response Team. Once again the page does not directly discuss such specific views, it merely glosses over the concerns of the TRT (similarly compare to the pages about the Freemasons, KKK, political parties, religion groups, etc.). I am not here to debate such things with anybody here, as I realize that most here would not understand such concepts anyway. Majestic2007 (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I have to ask as I have yet to receive a single valid response or reply:
A. The original reason for the deletion has yet to be resolved.
B. The "WikiMODS" inappropriate actions and behavior have yet to be addressed.
C. I still do not have a clear idea as to what needs to be corrected, it seems as if all of these WikiMODS chiming in are actually just throwing straw men out there to explain and cover for another's irresponsible and wrongful actions.
D. From what I read regarding each of your dispositions you are creating your own assumptions, look at what you wrote, how could you possibly know such information? That is no basis in fact in what you are writing, you have taken very little information and warped and contorted it into something that it is actually not.
E. The truth and "crux of" have not been mustered and are lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majestic2007 (talk • contribs) This comment was moved by Rossami to restore the chronology of the discussion. If doing so accidentally changed the context or meaning of the comment, please fix it.
Endorse deletion, valid A7 and G11, Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. If the article creator is only going to be hostile, this DRV should be speedily closed. --Core desat 08:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The creator did not make clear how and why the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia, and the article used Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote a real-world agenda. A valid deletion. I agree with Coredesat that if the creator is going to turn this DRV into a diatribe on our enslavement to the powers that be, this DRV should be closed. Please do remain on topic: what makes this subject notable enough for Wikipedia? And in what way was the article neutral enough for Wikipedia? A ecis^Brievenbus 13:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion. No independent assertion of notability was made in the deleted article nor has any evidence been provided here. To the author's comments above about Google searches as evidence, "Tyranny Response Team" returns 297 non-duplicative hits and the vast majority of those are either self-published materials or blog entries. "Tyrannical Response Team" currently returns only 5 hits, two of which trace to Wikipedia and none which demonstrate notability. I found no evidence of independent coverage by any Wikipedia:reliable source. Rossami (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. They have a website... and a logo... and some documents. What they don't have is any indication of notability per our guidelines; or reliable 3rd party sources. There is no conspiracy here; until it is demonstrated that this organization is somehow notable, there is no reason for an article .--Isotope23 ^talk 18:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There is nothing in the article that asserts notability or contains it; we have herein generated more attention to this topic than it has received in national/international media, AFAIK. I endorse the original decision to delete this article; I'd have done so too, for the same reasons. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping – Overturn deletion. When closing a discussion based on strength of argument, the closer must always have a sound basis in policy cited in the discussion. The essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions was cited in the close. As many have pointed out, however, use of said arguments was rampant on both sides of the debate. As some have also pointed out, WP:AADD is not policy nor guideline, nor are many of its suggestions as applicable outside of the mainspace as in. The policy guideline to fall back on here is policy on determining consensus. The argument that "this is how we do things at UCFD" (i.e. past discussion among a small number of editors establishes a prior overriding community consensus) does not hold water in light of two broader community samples favoring retention of this category. If overriding community consensus against such categories actually existed it could be codified in policy or guideline form. As I said, any closure must fall back on policy, and arguments in this case that Jc37 deleted without consensus (contrary to the deletion guidelines for administrators) are compelling and borne out by my own examination of the UCFD in question. – IronGargoyle (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closer somehow got a delete out of the discussion. Friday (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(admission) I created this category, simply as a light-hearted attempt to encourage admins to be open to constructive criticism, even if they didn't want to do the "recall" think. I think that has some merit. I was surprised when it was CfD'd without anyone raising any issues with me first. I didn't participate in the CfD as there was obviously not going to be a consensus to delete - and because I wasn't that bothered by the thing. The closure mystifies me, it seems the closer has confused closing with suggesting a new argument (he did the same with the CfD of the "recall" category too - that's been overturned here already). He's been asked to reconsider this, but refused. I'm not really concerned what we do with this category, but perhaps some folk who he'll listen to might offer a little coaching in closing discussions.--Doc^g 16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, anyone who thinks this has merit might like to add themselves to it. Hey a deletion might be the best means to get it to catch on!! :)--Doc^g 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it's the "light-hearted attempt to encourage admins to be open to constructive criticism" part which I consider valuable to the project. Also note that the category still exists because a few people are using it- so, did deleting the page accomplish anything? I don't even begin to understand why it was nominated for deletion in the first place, much less how anyone could have decided to delete. Friday (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer made the correct decision based upon the strength of arguments. "harmless and funny" is not a reason to keep. --Kbdank71 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Restore The closer seems to rather like to implement the result he thinks is "right" rather than the result the community has shown a consensus for. This occasionally works if the closer makes a good call, but so far I did not see the closer make any such "good calls" against "apparent consensus". I'd strongly suggest him to rethink his actions - having the bit is not a privilege; it is a responsiblity. CharonX/talk 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware that you needed the bit to close discussions. Oh wait, you don't. "Consensus" doesn't mean "vote counting", but all too frequently too many people get those two mixed up. --Kbdank71 17:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Consensus" means just counting the votes you agree with. --W.marsh 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoa, slow down there skipper, no need to get snappy and sarcastic. Sure, you don't need "the bit" to close discussions (though I believe to dimly recall that only discussions with "clear" results (i.e. little or no opposing !votes) should be closed by non-admins) but if you are an admin everything you do is given additional weight (after all, admins are supposed to be the best of the editor crop Wikipedia has to offer, rolemodels how users should behave). And W.marsh said above - consensus aint "vote counting" and neither is it "only counting the votes you agree with" - it is taking the sum of the comments and editors that stand behind it and thus seeing where the consensus is. And saying "The wide majority of you can go screw itself, the small minority shows where the consensus is" is kinda... counterintuitive. CharonX/talk 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - it is taking the sum of the comments and editors that stand behind it and thus seeing where the consensus is Sum of the comments sure sounds like vote counting to me. And if the wide majority comes up with "I like it", and the minority comes up with anything better (aka strength of argument), then counterintuitive or not, that's how it should be closed. --Kbdank71 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If a XfD is closed against the (votecounting) consensus the closer should explain his interpretation of the outcome with arguments. The more biased the XfD seems, the more and better he should explain his reasoning. If a wide majority of comments goes contrary to the percieved closure he should definitly explain in detail where the majority erred. Simply saying "that's only WP:ILIKEIT !votes" won't be enough - he should explain (in detail) how and why the arguments of (seemingly) smaller side of the commenters outweight the arguments of the majority. Otherwise it might look like the closer did not act like a neutral mediator, but rather allowed his personal bias to outshadow the consensus of the majority. Which would be bad. Charon X/talk 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse and userify~~. The delete arguements were stronger. This is not a category that helps build an encyclopedia. I am all in favor of this sort of humorous content, but I believe that it should either be left in Wikipedia or user namespace. It should be little problem to have the userbox link to a user subpage (or some other page) instead. So, for now, restore a version to user namespace. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I don't want it in my userspace. It is of no use whatsoever to me there, and I don't use userboxes anyway, so I've no idea how they would be a substitute. BTW, it is not intended as humour, light hearted, yes, but it has a serious pupose, if its only purpose was humour, I'd have deleted it myself.--Doc^g 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting anyone's userspace in particular. On second thought, it would make more sense to place it as a subpage of WP:TROUT anyway. Change to endorse and recreate content at Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout/Admins in favor of or a similar subpage. Same logic as above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, might as well keep deleted then. I can see no use for a subpage.--Doc^g 18:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see much use in a subpage. While signing their names, admins can add witty remarks or make a serious commitment to be more open to constructive criticism. A userbox in userspace can connect them all together. Admins who do not use userboxes can simply link to the subpage, or they can choose not to if the issue isn't important enough for them to signify. –Pomte 14:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't it for the community to decide the best way to group themselves? When did we decide that they couldn't use the category system? Because as yet no-one has found a killer piece of policy. The best guidance we have seems to allow it. Why is that being overlooked? Hiding T 15:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Closer pointed everyone to arguments to avoid and said that he didn't need to explain further. Well, he should have. There were valid arguments on both sides. There was no consensus to delete either by weight of argument or by numbers. It was a bad close and a bad way to close it. If you're going to close a xFD that is not clear you have to do more than just point to an essay. Not too mention talk about how the essay fits into the close. RxS (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There was no consensus to delete present in the discussion. "Harmless and funny" isn't a reason to keep an article but can have some merit as an argument in discussions of meta-information. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Per the above, "harmless and funny" is not an invalid reason to keep something that isn't in mainspace. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 21:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure and undelete. As per Dark Shikari, "harmless and funny" is not an invalid reason to keep something when that something is not in the mainspace. Additionally, there was no consensus in that discussion to delete the category. (Warning, unproved assertions ahead.) My impression of UCFD is that it seriously suffers from self-selection bias: there are a few regulars who have widely differing opinions from those who comment at only one or a few discussions. I do not think, then, that we should point to previous discussions as "precedent" or "consensus", because either those discussions resulted in no consensus or there was self-selection bias. Again, that is my opinion, from my experience at UFCD, but I have no diffs to support my assertions. --Iamunknown 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - actually I'd be content to say that if something is only "harmless and funny", then delete it. Category:Wikipedians open to being tickled by Jimbo's beard, gets my strong delete on the grounds of not being remotely useful - we are an encyclopaedia not a social networking site. However, I don't think this is totally useless. It serves a purpose of light heartedly encouraging admins to hold themselves open to good-natured criticism. I often don't respond to criticism well, and tend to be defensive, but being in this category will remind me to respond jovially to good-natured rebukes (trout or no trout). In any case, keeping it about for a few months and seeing if it helps or hinders isn't harmful.--Doc^g 00:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above (and trout-slap closer ;-) --Thin boy 00 @123, i.e. 01:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible endorse. This nonsense category in no way, shape or form fosters collaboration, and the rather offensive conduct of the creator in reverting the deletion with a rude summary (and then asserting that redeleting it would constitute wheel-warring) is something that should be noted as well. There is a userbox for this (created after the original UCFD nomination) that can be used to convey the sentiment, and it can be listified if it's so terribly important, but "ILIKEIT", "ITSFUNNY" and ""ITSHARMLESS" do not constitute valid votes, and were (appropriately) discounted when the closing editor assessed the discussion. Horologium (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

First of all, I should probably apologise for presuming that most (if not all) of those who commented in the discussion were well-acquainted with WP:AADD, and its various sections, and how they are applied in deletion discussions. I fully admit to making the possibly mistaken presumption. As for its applicability to the discussion closure, in looking over the discussion, I thought it was painfully obvious to see things such as WP:ITSFUNNY, or WP:HARMLESS. And those are just two. There were more. (If requested, I suppose we can recreate a play-by-play, but I really just don't think it's necessary.)
Second, I find it interesting that the nominator here has no regard for the discussion. When I attempted to respond to this comment on my talk page, I received this surprising statement as a response. Later, after making this DRV nomination, the user said this, and when I asked them to clarify what they meant by "the right answer"[32], I received this response. When I add them together, it appears to me that this is a case of "leave my category alone". A comment that I think all closers encounter often enough in XfD discussions. They opposed the nomination, and then the later closure of the discussion. It's kind of hard to discuss the consensus of a discussion when the person you're discussing with has no regard for the discussion itself.
Third, I think it's great that Doc glasgow was looking for something to positively remind him about civility in discussions. I sincerely hope that , regardless of the results of this discussion, he finds the positive reminders he seeks.
Fourth, that said, yes, I think it was an abuse of his admin tools to arbitrarily recreate a category which was deleted through an XfD discussion, without coming first to DRV (or at least having some discussion "somewhere"), especially since, as creator, and by his own admission, he was in no way neutral to the category. However, I think it was a simple mistake, and besides a gentle reminder, no action should be taken concerning it. Yes, don't allow policy to stop you from doing what is "right" (per WP:SOP and more famously WP:IAR), but at the same time, I feel that ignoring policy and/or process because "IWANTIT to be right" is abusing the elasticity of the clause. It seems fairly obvious to me that's what Doc glasgow was doing. (And how the current nominator of this DRV feels.)
Fifth, I've been accused of (essentially) pushing my own POV in closing the discussion. I'm going to address this offensive lack of good faith directly. My job as closer is to determine consensus, both the consensus of the current discussion, and that it follow current community consensus. While, as closers, we're allowed to add our own perspective on the topic in the closure (I see it happen quite frequently), in this case, I actually didn't do so (more about this below).
My "personal preference", if I had "voted" in the discussion would probably have been the following:

Keep, but Rename to "Wikipedians who welcome being whacked by a trout, when appropriate", or something similar, or at least Rename "...slapping" to "...whacking", as that seems to be the more prevalent term.

See, I happen to be a fan of WP:TROUT, and even helped in creating a template or so concerning it. (Note that those edits and the related discussion predate even the UCFD discussion.) But as closer, this isn't about my personal preference, which would have been to hope to "help" consensus change in this case (since such categories have been repeatedly deleted in the past).
So as closer, I was to determine the consensus of the discussion, while keeping in mind any broader concerns. I did so. Take a moment to look over Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index, and in particular the discussions regarding #Wikipedians by preference, and #Miscellaneous. There are numerous examples of past precedent, which was referred to by several of those in the discussion. As noted by others, consensus isn't about a head count (See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which says precicely that).
Sixth, and then there is the question of whether this should be a category. Categories are groupings which are listed by name at the "bottom-of-the-page" of pages, and which also have an introduction. There has been repeated consensus at WP:CFD that categories should not be used for "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If that's what one wants, they should type the text into the page itself rather than abuse categories in that way. And in looking over the discussion, I see several noting this very thing, that a category is not appropriate for this. Humourous, "feel-good", community-building pages are typically "kept" in Wikipedia-space (or sometimes userfied to userspace). I noted this in the closure, when I suggested that there was no prejudice against someone creating such a page.
And finally, thank you for for informing me of this discussion, and allowing me to comment in it. I'll note that I could probably continue on-and-on, showing and explaining more and more about policy, process, and precedent, but I think that what I even have now is quite lengthy, and I despair of it actually being read. But WP:AGF prevails, so we'll see : ) - jc37 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - per my comments above. - jc37 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer determined consensus within that discussion with his experienced knowledge of long-standing consensus on the purpose of user categories; a less experienced admin would certainly have misinterpreted. There's a fundamental difference between humourous projectspace pages and humourous categories. Editors are simply not seeing the big picture here, and this doesn't validate their apparent 'consensus' by vote count. In response to the arguments above that "useless and harmless" isn't a valid reason only in mainspace, please familiarize yourselves with UCFD, userbox migration, and userification of pages unfit elsewhere. As for Doc's intended psychological purpose for the category (I got it wrong in the discussion, and I apologize), it's unrealistic and reasonably not why admins put themselves in it. –Pomte 08:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn with no criticism of closing admin implied: This was a tough judgement call and could have gone either way. I lean toward overturn solely on the basis that rationales for the category were applied, that are not to be found in WP:AADD, and that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is precisely as worthless an argument as WP:ILIKEIT. The editorial collaboration effect of this is category is presently indeterminate; no legitimate case has actually been presented that such a utility genuinely does not exist, and the burden of proof is on the deleter, not the defender. At CfD we routinely keep categories if a strong basis for the deletion cannot be demonstrated, and some other criterion for deletion is not applicable. All that said, I personally question the editorial utility of the category myself; suggest merger with the one about admins open to recall, since they seem to address the same issue, i.e. self-declaration of admin fallibility and willingness to be criticized. In itself, not a bad meme at all, I would add. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a couple of points to clarify here.

First I've been pointed twice to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index. The only other cat I can find listed there which catetegorises admins is Category:Rouge admins, and that was closed as a keep. So I'm not sure which section we should be looking in there to determine consensus or how we use that page to determine consensus. It only lists categories that have appeared on UCFD, not the many which, as Jc has pointed out, aren't listed because there is an overwhelming consensus to keep. So I'm not sure how we use that page to determine consensus or precedent, because it seems to be biasing in favour of deletion by the simple fact of not listing all categories for which there is a strong consensus to keep. Since we also have a notion that consensus can change, I'd be worried that we're setting too much faith in determining precedence in prior discussions listed on a page with such a heavy bias. Did the closer compare with similar categories that have not been nominated? Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to restrict your analysis to categories that contain admins only, they are:

Category:Wikipedia administrators

Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall

Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks

Category:Wikipedia administrators who use VoA script

Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles

These are all of a different nature than the category in question, so no meaningful comparison can be drawn. The relevant section in the index is Nonsense/joke/humor categories. I think you misinterpreted Jc37 in that keep decisions are not purposely or largely omitted from the index, as the purpose of the index is to determine actual trends and consensus on each topic. Black Falcon has done a comprehensive job of including all controversial or precedent-affecting decisions since June. –Pomte 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I misinterpreted Jc, you may have misinterpreted me. I can't see how you determine trends when you miss a key part of the data set such as the categories which have never been nominated. Part of using statistics is knowing what they are telling you. You can't use these statistics to know anything other than how the deletion debates have been closed. They will tell you the trends at UCFD, but they have to be filtered for the bias that they only determine trends for things which have been nominated. Someone armed with the stats could game the system, for example, by nominating something which does not mirro the other things listed but for which the trend is for deletion. I think we both agree that there are no meaningful comparisons on that page. If you are looking in the joke section you have already made a judgement on the category and on some comments within the debate and fallen foul of our guidance on being impartial. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second I've been pointed to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. The most fundamental piece of advice on that page is When in doubt, don't delete. I think the closer has already demonstrated he had doubt in mind, stating that his preference was to keep. We are also guided to respect the feelings and judgement of Wikipedia participants. Wikipedia isn't a courtroom, it isn't a bureaucracy, it isn't a democracy, it's an encyclopedia built by a community. I can't say that strongly enough. Our deletion guidance tells us we have to respect the feelings of that community. If that community is split on an issue, we have to respect that split and note that there is such a split. Precedence alone tells us that, from all the paedophile user box Jimmy's beard deletionist inclusionist kiddie porn not/censored not/spoilt no/plot wars. We need to avoid deciding divisive issues before they're ready to be decided. Also, reading Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators I can fiond no mention of the word precedence. I can find mention of policy, but unless Wikipedia has changed the last couple of months, I don't recall that a few things which have happened before has been elevated to policy. Sometimes that stuff gets written up as guidance, but again, that's not policy. It's policy we bow to, because we'd never have a biased article or original research. We'll often include non-notable stuff or stuff that doesn't cite reliable sources and the like. It's policy which trumps a deletion debate, not a couple of deletion debates a few months ago that are somewhat related in the mind of the closer. Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting it would have been divisive as well, in setting a precedent that goes against past and present UCFDiscussions. So this is more of a damned if you do, damned if you don't decision. –Pomte 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A point I made myself. The only ways out of no man's land are to wave the white flag, walk backwards slowly, hide under cover and pray to whatever gods you hold dear. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third What's a category for. The closer makes a big point about how there is a question as to whether this should be a category. Last time I looked, categories were for grouping things. This category grouped admins. It's suggested that categories shouldn't be bottom of the page notices, which is fine. To a point. When the category groups along the lines of such established cats as found in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy, none of which appear to have been detailed on the prior precedent page but all of which seem to have an overwhelming consensus to keep by dint of the number of people in them and the fact they've never been nominated, it strikes me that there is a consensus to group admins by admin philosophy. We seem to have a precedent in Rouge admins and admins open to recall and egour admins and so on, so how can it be that categories are not about bottom of the page notices when we have such categories? As to the stament that "Humourous, "feel-good", community-building pages are typically "kept" in Wikipedia-space", I'd note the word "typically" there. We have a long tradition of doing the same in category space going back to the late 2005. Hell, the whole userbox wars were over whether it was an appropriate use of category space to do that, and it never got settled one way or the other who was right. The begrudging consensus that formed was that it's okay when we all agree, and it's not when we don't, and in the middle is where the fighting happens. I guess that's why we're here. We're in the middle. Didn't we learn from World War I not to venture into no man's land? Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the userbox wars were settled well enough since no one seems outraged at their userboxes being moved from templatespace to userspace. Wikipedia editing philosophies are clear in scope; this category isn't. A rename would make it serious and clearly state its inclusion criteria. –Pomte 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is settled on Wikipedia. That's the whole point of consensus can change. It's hard to discuss the rename of a deleted category. Had it been a no consensus close with an eye on renaming, that would be an acceptable outcome and we most likely wouldn't be here. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Nominated the same day it was created? What gives? Did anyone else notice that, or did no-one else think it was important. Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created while the similarly-named recall category was under discussion, it was bound to attract attention. –Pomte 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't really undermine my point. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth How do you weigh that deletion debate? Every argument breaks down into I like it and I don't like it. Why the hell are we wasting time with such triviality? You can't impartially weigh that debate as anything but no consensus, in my opinion. The deletionists argued it was bad form, the inclusionists argued it was harmless and numbers were evenly matched. If it's got to a point where we can decide in favour of bad form over harmless, there's something rotten in the state of Denmark. Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful does not break down to I like it. Lack of collaborative potential does not break down to I don't like it. –Pomte 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. How else do we decide what we like and what we don't like? Oh, I think this is useful, it meets my criteria of what I like, I'll keep it. Oh, I can't see any potential here, it meets my criteria of what I don't like, let's get rid of it. How else do people make decisions? What else is a decision or opinion but a subjective feeling based on subjective criteria. You can pretend that I DON'T LIKE IT and I LIKE IT are something other than they are, but not in my company. Wikipedia really has descended into farce if we ignore the fact that people's opinions are subjective and based upon what they feel and like. Just because they interpret a guidance or agree with a policy, it doesn't change the fact that they are using that to bolster their opinion, which is based on what they like and feel. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth A trout slap to Doc g who should know better by now, not so much in restoring the category but in the tone and colour of subsequent comments. We should not have our hands tied by process, but we should damn well respect each other or be so convincing in our pretence of it that it makes no difference. Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll endorse based on the fact that we allow closing admin's discretion, process was followed and I trust this closer. I do however think the category should be recreated anyway, and maybe in five years time we revisit the whole thing once we have that encyclopedia written. I wish the closer of this debate the best of times and seasons greetings. For the record, since think the closing admin wanted the debate brought here, I'll reluctantly state that the close should be overturned. That's based on my gut feeling of where consensus within the community lies, rather than process issues. If the debate swings the other way, swing me with it. And someone build a more comfortable fence. Hiding T 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seventh Damn, it's annoying when you leave your coat behind. I've just reviewed Wikipedia:Userboxes and found the following piece of advice, Consider how useful the category would be to other editors. I'd say that the I LIKE IT comments were basing their opinion on this piece of guidance as much as the I DON'T LIKE IT brigade were basing theirs on any other guidance. As to whether this category is useful to other editors, who can say, but if that's the guidance on determining whether to create, I think the deletion debate examined that issue and the consensus was that no-one knew. I know I don't. But I err on the side of good faith that it could be and doubt that it needs to be deleted, as stated above. I think the quoted guidance above shows that category space can be used for community building. If it can't be, why the hell are we guiding users that it can be. Hiding T 12:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only a couple of keeps referred to its potential usefulness. –Pomte 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole debate concerns whether it is a useless category. Almost every comment addresses that. I suggest you re-read the debate. Friday rejects the nominators belief that it is useless. Nick discusses the POINT issue. Kubigula discusses the utility, anetode sees value in the grouping, as does lucabfr, Jehochman calls it harmless, Bduke seems to be bowing to consensus, Risker outlines the utility, as does Raymond Arritt, dorftrottel points out it may be less divisive than other categories, CharonX we can perhaps disregard but seems to indicate a bow to consensus, RMHED sees value, WODUP echoes Kubigula, as does DarkFalls, Anonymous Dissident sees use, as does Abd and Captain Panda. Maybe you were looking for something other than people saying Keep because they do not think it is useless, the reason for nomination? This isn't article space, arguments are typicaly less robust, of lesser import and less procedurally bothered because this isn't outward facing. This is an inward facing category, and the debates on inwards facing stuff tend to reflect that. They tend to be more emotive and less procedural, because ultimately it has little impact on the encyclopedia. The best point made in the deletion debate is by Bduke who sums up the whole debate and identifies consensus in his comment (my emphasis added) "This does not seem to help the encyclopedia so perhaps it should go. However, I really do think it could have been left for a few weeks over the holiday period before being dragged here for deletion. We get less and less laughs these days here." The consensus was that no-one agreed, either on the deletion or the utility of the category. For that alone it should have been closed no consensus. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Closer tried an innovative compromise solution, but it was not supported by consensus. WP:OCAT is a guideline for a reason: the community, if well-informed and duly considered, may override it for any good reason, including the goodwill generated by a humorous category. The guideline cannot be enforced against this much community affection. Xoloz (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what I see here is an attempt to separate "admin" user cats from "editor" user cats, in an attempt to justify the retention of this category. If (as is continually reiterated) adminship is not a big deal, why is it acceptable to retain joke cats for admin-only groupings, but delete user cats for all editors? Do those who support this joke cat endorse a recreation of Category:Well endowed Wikipedians (yes, it went through CFD in 2006) or perhaps Category:Wikipedians who believe TINC (which was deleted earlier this year)? Keeping only the admin-related humor cats is most certainly not "HARMLESS"; it's divisive, creating a de facto apartheid in which only admins are allowed to have humor categories. If you endorse the recreation of the well-endowed cat, you will open the door to the creation of a flood of humor user cats, which will overwhelm the user categorization system and make it totally useless for navigation. This is a self-expression category, not a useful grouping. Horologium (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This "admin category" makes no reference to real-world ideological differences. It is a humorous category related to the maintenance of the site. User categories of this sort ("This user is an eventualist", for example) are similarly kept. Wikipedia is more ready to support humor about Wikipedia as constructive in building a community: if, however, WP allowed every user to make joke categories related to his or her perceptions of, say, sexual humor, WP would be deluged with bad jokes that had nothing to do with the encyclopedia. Xoloz (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- <EC> Your argument holds water as long as we agree this is a joke category. Doc has stated he did not create it as a joke category but to outline a philosophy. I'm extending him the good faith of believing him. Therefore I reject the basis for your argument. Were we debating Category:Admins with big dicks, you'd have a point. Hiding T 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some deleted categories that contain some humour about Wikipedia, or can be thought to be constructive in community building:

Category:Userpages That Are Full Of LOL

Category:Wikipedians whose userpages are intentionally left blank

Category:Wikipedians with a Twisted Sense of Humour

Category:Wikipedians with Practical Jokes on their user page

Category:Wikipedians who defy categorisation

Category:Wikipedians who refuse to be categorized

Category:Wikipedians with over 5000 edits etc.

Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators

Category:Wikipedians who use userboxes for statistical reasons

Category:Users Who Have Found Selfworm's Hidden Page

Category:Wikipedians interested in Wikipedia You may think that all Wikipedians should be interested in Wikipedia, in the same way all admins should be open to constructive criticism.

Category:Wikipedians who aren't administrators

Category:Wikipedians who display their number of edits

Category:Wikipedians who collect signatures of other Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians who believe their userboxes may be deleted

–Pomte 14:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Pomte, <edit conflict> It's not the categories we need to be looking at, it's the discussions. If all we went on was prior precedence, we wouldn't bother having the discussion, we'd just delete them straight away. WP:CSD lists the things we delete based on precedence, and there's a reason why humorous categories isn't listed there as C4. You make some good points. The point, however, is that they didn't carry the debate and a significant proportion of those commenting disagreed with the premise of your argument. A closer has to respect the feelings and judgement of Wikipedians. I get where Jc was coming from, but I think it disregarded what was said in that debate. Hiding T 15:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This should not be about personality conflicts or the alleged misdeeds of anyone involved. This should be about the pros and cons of deleting this. The crowd who cry "this should be a list, not a category, therefore delete" simply confuse me. I don't understand this reasoning at all. The best argument I've seen for deletion is that it's not useful, but the keep side respond that they do consider it useful. I still haven't seen a plausible case made for this being harmful in any way. Friday (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is sliding toward rearguing the CFD debate. Let me make one point clear though, the closer pointed to an essay to justify his deletion. Just for clarity let's review what an essay is This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Basing a close on an opinion piece is the ultimate IDONTLIKEIT. That's not a valid justification. RxS (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just thought I would mention that I don't oppose this being relisted for further discussion. - jc37 17:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Pomte. Also, I honestly don't believe that we would be having this DRV now if the category had been Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping. As far as admins saying that they are changing attitudes with this category: I think it is just more of an inside joke for IRC users, where the slap command is just a click away. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying you endorse your own deletion because you think it's an IRC joke? Is this really what passes for rational analysis these days? If there are concerns over one word in the title, isn't the obvious answer to bring up the concerns on the talk page? Why the rush in reaching for that delete button? I still don't understand why this was even nominated. Friday (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this help the encyclopedia or the people who visit? It doesn't. It doesn't even help the admins in the administration of the encyclopedia. That's why. --Kbdank71 15:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what the deletion debate was for? And wasn't there no consensus as to whether there was a use to the encyclopedia? Or do we only count those people whose opinion we agree with? I get why Jc closed it that way, I just think the debate was misread. The argument was basically "I see no use" against "I do", and no-one particularly referenced any killer policy because we haven't got one. If you are impartial, you don't get to agree with the people who say it has no use. Relist it and find the killer policy or guideline, or convince enough people that it has no use. Let's pretend we have a level playing field and all the rest of it. Community consensus decides what helps the encyclopedia or the people who visit or the community. Demonstrate the consensus better than was demonstrated in this debate, and the problem will go away. Hiding T 15:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, let's turn the argument the other way. How does deleting this category help the encyclopedia or the people who visit? It doesn't. It doesn't even help the admins in the administration of the encyclopedia. How does this debate help the encyclopedia or the people who visit? It doesn't. It doesn't even help the admins in the administration of the encyclopedia. What's the damn point of being here? Is process that important we want to argue over this? Is there a flag planted in a principle so solid and pure and true that battle lines have to be drawn and I'm the only one so blind I can't see it? If not, someone please close this and tell people to move on with a lightly administered tap from a recently deceased trout. Self included. Jesus. Hiding T 16:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday, please try to tone down the rhetoric a bit and check your facts. I did not close the discussion as delete, thus I am not endorsing my own deletion. I can see you not agreeing with the decision, but to say that it was not even correct for it to be brought to the table for discussion implies that you are not being particularly objective here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log says you deleted it, per the deletion discussion. Yes, I see that someone else closed the discussion for some reason, but you're responsible for you deletions you perform. Friday (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday, you may wish to familiarize yourself with deletion process (WP:DELPRO). When an admin closes a CFD or UCFD as delete, rename or merge, they have the option of emptying (or whatever) the category or of placing the action on a page such as WP:CFD/W or WP:CFD/WU for a bot operator to perform the action. When the bot is done, an admin is requested to delete the category. No bot operator who works the page would ever refuse to run the action and no admin would ever stop at this point and deny the deletion. To suggest that the admin who presses the button for this G6 deletion is somehow responsible for the decision is just silly and for you to say that this counts as me endorsing my own deletion really makes me question your judgment. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a belt and braces approach meant that if your braces snap your belt ensure your willy isn't hanging out? I mean, I respect that bot operators aren't going to look at the cfd, but I would hope that a separate admin would maybe think twice before deleting Category:Physics and perhaps review the cfd. Which is to say, I agree with both you and Friday. Maybe this wasn't Category:Physics, but if you're pulling the trigger, you'd better be sure you have no doubt per policy. Hiding T 15:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm follow After Midnight. It almost sounded like you were saying that alhto you personally deleted this, you did not apply your own judgement as to whether or not it should be deleted. And, it also sounded like you don't see this as a problem. Surely I'm misunderstanding something? I can't believe it's standard practice to do such a thing- it sounds too preposterous. Friday (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You both really need to familiarize yourself with deletion process. The closing admin could do everything themselves if they chose to. The fact that they ask a bot operator for help does not mean that the bot operator has some special DRV privilege to question the admin's closing and refuse to execute it if they do not agree. As for Hiding's comment, no, Category:Physics would not be reviewed before it were emptied if it was placed at WP:CFD/W. The bots (at least Cydebot) run that page automatically and there is not even an opportunity for it to be questioned. Bot pages exist specifically so that people do not have to think. If the task is not "bot-able" then it shouldn't be placed on the page. If you think this is preposterous, you should probably start some discussion on an admin noticeboard or at the village pump to try to change things to how you like them, because currently this is in fact how things are done. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about bot operators. I said a lot about deleting admins. I even quoted ~~policy~~ guidance at you. I care more about ~~policy~~ guidance than I do about process. With respect, any admin who robotically deletes anything because it was listed somewhere gives me cause for concern. Hiding T 17:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, about that. There is a bot that does the deletions also. I guess you should be concerned because this has been accepted for quite some time now. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just looked at the process and suggest you review it yourself. It states that After all instances of the category used in pages have been removed, the category can be deleted by an administrator <my emphasis>. It does not state must, therefore your interpretation is incorrect. With respect, if you wish to change the page to agree with your interpretation, please consider starting some discussion on an admin noticeboard or at the village pump first. Also note that it states that "This relies on the discretion and common sense of the user closing a debate. If you disagree with a decision, please discuss it with that user." Therefore the decision of the closing admin may be disputed during the process. Again, with respect, if you wish to change the page to agree with your interpretation, please consider starting some discussion on an admin noticeboard or at the village pump first. Hiding T 17:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pretend to respect me. We both know better. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself. I make no pretence and have no issues with you or your opinions, other than to disagree with them in this instance. I believe the deletion process makes it quite clear that an admin is not bound to delete a category simply because it has been listed by the closing admin. Beyond that, I don't recall having crossed your path before. That you consider me with such disdain is of no matter. Hiding T 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion but not the reasons given. The category merited deletion as an example of Wikipedia:OC#Arbitrary inclusion criterion and Wikipedia:OC#Trivial intersection - Why only administrators? Why only trout? - as well as Wikipedia:OC#Non-defining or trivial characteristic, so the result was undoubtedly correct. All this and its not even 1 April. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so now essays and guidelines override consensus (or replace the lack of it)? Actually, I've no problems with that, I will now use my interpretation of guidelines and essays when making XfD closures - no need to count the vote, or indeed read it at all.--Doc^g 20:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know. That's how this got restored after the deletion. --Kbdank71 14:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per jc37's and Pomte's lengthy explanations. The main pro-retention argument given in the CFD is that the category expresses that an admin is open to criticism; however, that's a userpage notice, not a category. A category creates a grouping of users for the purpose of aiding navigation -- what, are people looking for a random admin to troutslap? All admins are supposed to be open to constructive criticism, so this category is just an in-joke. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's the first time I've understood the argument for deletion. That's for putting it so succinctly - most people lose me with long-winded complications or point to alphabet soup I've never heard of. I might even be persuaded by your argument. However, the a consensus on the cfd obviously were not. Under the same argument Category:Wikipedians by philosophy all would be deleted, yes?--Doc^g 21:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I apologise if my previous long comments contributed to increased confusion. With regard to the "consensus on the cfd", I think most editors in support of keeping did not address the point, failing to differentiate between the project-space page and the category. (The principle that categories should not be used only as userpage notices is fairly well-entrenched, supported by several hundred discussions over many months.) I support deletion of the Wikipedians by philosophy category tree, but am not convinced that these two cases are really comparable. (A number of "Wikipedians by philosophy" categories have been deleted, though the exact reason for deletion has sometimes varied from discussion to discussion.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overturn deletion - I reviewed discussion of this at the closer's talk page which seemed to be descending into arguments about what the nature of categories are. I think the closer has a bit of a different view of when things should be categories versus lists than the commonly accepted one. I think this may possibly be biasing the closer's views. Therefore I think any close of a category discussion is possibly suspect, and especially those where it is advocated in the close that the category be listified, turned into a user box or in some way kept around but not as a category. NB I have added myself to this category because I am an admin, and I try to be open to criticism of my actions, and I try not to take myself too seriously. (I hope all three are true :)... you tell me. ) ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, first, what you think my "different view" is, and second, what you think the "commonly accepted one" is. (I ask this in light of noticing that I don't see that my view of categories is different than any of the other CfD regulars who are commenting in this discussion. If anything, I would guess I'm the most inclusionistic of those commenting. (But that, of course, may be a presumption.)) - jc37 09:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here perhaps is the problem. Do the CFD regulars represent the views of the wider community or of themselves? Cards on the table, I've been complaining that CFD is a ghetto for over a year. Yes, it would be nice if the whole community got invloved, but they don't, and we can't enforce them. But each area of Wikipedia seems to have become a little cliqueish and perhaps we disregard opinion of those who aren't in the clique. Look at what happens when you try and eidt a policy or guidance page, or in some cases an essay. It's reverted by the regulars. Are these pages supposed to represent the views of the regulars, or is every voice to be respected. I know what our policies and guidance tell us, but it appears people are a little less interested in that than in protecting their patch. It's a fascinating experiment, Wikipedia. Both as an encyclopedia and as a community. Hiding T 15:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since its creation a little over a year ago, Wikipedia:User categories for discussion has been edited by over 1000 unique users. While most are not what might be termed "regulars", there is a constant stream of editors in and out of UCFD. The "clique" to which you refer does not exist, especially since even the composition of "regulars" is constantly changing; and if you think that "regulars" at UCFD can disregard an opinion or simply steamroll opposition, then you've not seen the tantrums that some editors have thrown when their favourite category was nominated or deleted. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those 1000 have edited it once? I lost count after a hundred. It was easier to count those who've edited it more than 100 times. Eighteen. As to whether cliques exist or not, that they change doesn't matter, that's what cliques do. The Rat Pack, for example, was founded by Humphrey Bogart and named by Lauren Bacall. I don't mean to cause offence or make cast aspersions, I simply wish to make an observation, which I think is somewhat supported by my experiences. You are welcome to disagree, but I'm not the first to comment on any such ghetto-isation, and I suspect I won't be the last. If you check back through the talk page archives, there was very much a real fear that UCFD was becoming a ghetto. Hiding T 19:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fear, yes; but I don't believe any substantial evidence been offered? Editing a process page with as little activity as UCFD (compare it to CFD or AFD) 100 times is a significant commitment, so you should not ignore thresholds lower than 100. Also, I do not see how there be a clique when its supposed members frequently disagree with each other on such major issues as the validity of entire category trees (I have in mind the "Wikipedians by alma mater" and "Wikipedians by religion" category trees). Anyway, I realise that we're essentially arguing perceptions, so it's unlikely that either of us will be able to convince the other. Oh, well, c'est la vie. :-) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How low do you want to go? 2? And a clique is still a clique even when they disagree. Hiding T 23:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my view. I think it's mainstream but I could be wrong... (As a note, I'm usually a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist when it comes to policy and practice and style, although sometimes I waver). A category is an organization tool. Nothing more. It's often, but not always, better than a list, because it's more self maintaining (it takes one edit to note you are in and add yourself, instead of two), and it's often, but not always, better than a userbox/image/template on a user page, because it doesn't require using "what links here", to find the members, which is counterintuitive for newish users. To argue about whether something should be a list instead of a category, when what we are talking about is a user category/list/userbox is missing the point. The people using the category have chosen to set it up that way. If people comment saying "I find this useful as a category", it's missing the point to say "but the philosophy of categorys and lists says it should be done this other way". That's not how we do things in general. Policy here is descriptive (of what people actually do), not prescriptive (of what they should do) Your closing of [{CAT:AOTR]] as listify was wrong. The users of the category (those who are in it and those who use it to find things out) are the best judges of whether it should be a category or not. Since you have continued to argue elsewhere that those saying you should not have closed it "listify" (which was an anti consensus close, by the way) were wrong, that calls your judgement about all UCfD into question, in my view, not just that one. Nothing personal, I just think you're misreading how things work here, by being prescriptivist when you should be descriptivist. Now, if this were articlespace, arguments about how things SHOULD be hold more water. But this is about userspace, where ease of use trumps style or theory. PS, I think Hiding has cottoned on to an important problem... Various areas of this vast project come up with all sorts of things that seem off when one checks them against the general theory of everything about this place. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The occupants of a user category do not own that category, and they have no superior jurisdiction over it. If a category is useful, non-users will be able to see its utility. At the least, those who see a category's value should be able to explain it to those who don't. So, how is this category being used? The only suggested use was as a nifty userpage notice; but - by your admission - that's not what a category is... – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Occupants of a user category may not own it but they can demonstrate a consensus for the keeping of that category. Consensus is determined by more than just a deletion debate. I'd be concerned to see a debate on a user category containing in excess of 1000 Wikipedians closed as delete. Do we disregard their opinion on the utility of the category in favour of those at the deletion debate? Hiding T 20:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not! If they choose to participate, their opinion and the arguments they offer should most definitely be given equal consideration. ... Now, if I simply stopped here, I assume that you'd point out that they may not be aware of the deletion debate. But so what? Consensus is reached through discussion and judged by the strength of arguments, not by a simple headcount: applicable arguments can be presented and considered in a discussion between just a few people. There's no need to turn things into a vote by demanding that all members voice an opinion. More generally, if it is indeed true that most members of a category are not aware of deletion debates regarding the category, isn't that perhaps the best sign that they don't care? If I create a category that I'm interested in, I watchlist it. If I add myself to a list of users, I watchlist that page as well. The fact is that most people appear in categories because of userboxes, and it takes only one editor to add or remove a categorisation function to a userbox. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, consensus can be reached through editing as much as it can through discussion, so ignoring edits when determining consensus is bad. Your attitude seems somewhat cavalier here; almost I do not care what those people have done, I merely care what these people have discussed. That's the sort of thinking WP:CABAL is supposed to warn against. Since we're discussing a debate here where there is no intrinsic consensus, is it not possible we should also have weighted in the edits of a couple dozen editors or whatever it was? The debate centred on the utility of the category. Either people find it useful or they don't. There was no consensus as to the use, unless you factor in the people who found it useful enough to use it, at which point you see a consensus that it is of use. And the listify close disregards guidance that list builders should not tear down Wikipedia's category system. There needs to be a consensus to delete a category, because that's what you do when you listify. Decisions on Wikipedia are supposed to be made by the community, and reflect community consensus. Whatever else we discuss here, I simply do not believe the close of the debate under question did that. Hiding T 21:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, "what those people have done" is to add a userbox. So, while that argument might carry weight in a TFD for the userbox, it has little or no relevance to a CFD on the category. More generally, and as I've stated elsewhere, there is no basis for claiming that the mere fact that a category is populated indicates consensus for its existence, especially when we're dealing with categorisation by userboxes. Also, "while the debate centred on the utility of the category", simply stating "It's useful" is not a replacement for an explanation of how it's useful. The only utility suggested during the discussion was as a bottom-of-the-page notice, which years of community discussion and consensus has determined that categories are not. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying it isn't useful is not enough either. Nor is saying it is nonsense. You can disregard one side of the debate for being lacking in the how, but then you have to judge the other side by the same standard. Nobody actually explained how it harmed, hindered or prevented collaboration on the encyclopedia. Hiding T 23:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on those arguing for retention, and one shouldn't be asked to prove the non-existence of something (in this case, potential utility). As for juding "the other side", I don't think we should make inclusion/exclusion decisions solely on the basis of whether a page is or isn't actively harmful; failing to be useful is enough reason to delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's argued up above that the burden of proof is on the deleter, since the default is keep. Guess there's no consensus on that either. I always thought the burden was on every user to explain themselves or have their opinion disregarded. I've already pointed out how I've read the debate, maybe it would be useful if you did the same? Hiding T 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Per Black Falcon. Keeping this sends the message that joke categories are ok as long as enough people say they like it or it's funny, which goes against what we have been trying to do at UCFD for over a year. While consensus is important, and generally I would agree that consensus should trump most other concerns, in this case my conscience tells me the right decision was made. VegaDark (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, maybe what you've been trying to do at UCFD doesn't reflect the wider communities wishes. Note I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm saying maybe it doesn't. Hiding T 21:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, which may be true, it should be discussed somewhere bigger than an individual nomination where a policy can actually be established. I've wanted that for a long time, but it has never happened. Perhaps situations like this can get one started? VegaDark (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always considered WP:NOT to be the relvant policy, and these past months of discussion have mostly been based on that policy. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the fact that Wikipedia is not a moot court and that rules are not the purpose of the community. Hiding T 23:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my focus was more on the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" gist of that policy. :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you're going wrong. That only applies to the encyclopedia. The community has a whole separate section. The one I like best is that wikipedia is not a discussion forum and it is best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories. Hiding T 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The community has a whole separate section." - That's a place where (and I hate to be the one to break it to you), you're incorrect. It's been established, and continually reaffirmed that all spaces are part of the encyclopedia. While userspace may be used in indirect support, that doesn't change that fact. Is there value to "community-building" pages? In my opinion, yes, absolutely! However, not everyone shares that opinion. But when it comes to categories, we've seen it repeated again and again that categories shouldn't be used for that. (See the userbox wars of the past to see the argument about template space.) I don't know if they've all changed their minds now that a pet category has come up for discussion, but I believe several of those supporting keeping this (including Doc glasgow) have, in the past, supported deleting similar categories. (And no, this isn't a sideways insult, it's merely an observation.) - jc37 03:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also sends the equally-problematic message that joke categories are ok as long as they are for admins only. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See what this has spawned? (no pun intended) - Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping. Now if this gets overtuned and the new category gets deleted, who knows what sort of complaints might emerge. VegaDark (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What spawned it though? The creation of the admin cat, the creation of the trout page, the deletion of the admin page, this review? WHich one. I don't know and I don't really care anymore. It's not as if it matters. It's like, one side of this debate sees the user categories as one thing, and the other side says, well, hey we don't, and god knows. You ever see a heart beat? It contracts and then it expands and then it contracts and then it expands. Maybe the user category was contracted as far it could go and now it is expanding again. Who can tell. After all these words I still can't see that debate as anything other than no consensus. Hiding T 23:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That really was a poor thing to do - given these ongoing discussions it would have been prudent to wait for the result before creating an alternative. Suggesting it here would've been a much better thing to do. violet/riga (t) 18:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per Lar, and because WP:ILIKEIT. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of notable spoken word performers – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reason given for closure was that the list could be categorized, but that is problematic. Torc2 (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the names on the list do not have articles written about them. How do you add a category to an article that doesn't exist?Torc2 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. There are at least 10,000,000 notable things that do not have Wikipedia articles yet, and we'll survive. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not any kind of answer.Torc2 (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long version: The AfD was closed as delete based on the assumption that the list would work better as a category. This causes two problems. The more bureaucratic one is that per WP:CLS, a category shouldn't be seen as a substitute for a list (or vice versa), so using "It'll work better as a category rather than a list" is a flawed excused for deleting a list. The bigger, less officious problem is that many of the the names on the list don't have Wiki articles written about them yet - (not necessarily because the names aren't notable, but just because it's such a specialized topic that editors haven't gotten around to creating articles for everybody), so there's really no way the list could be adequately transformed to a category when there's so many non-existent we can't add category tags to. Thanks. Torc2 (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: I don't really see this as problematic. I have long thought of AfDing the List of snooker players on a similar basis (and haven't only because I don't want to irritate other snooker article editors; I would like to see the WP:SNOOKER project discuss the matter first). Category:Snooker players and its by-nationality subcats appear to be to be perfectly adequate, and there is not much point to a list of allegedly notable personages of one sort or another that is full of redlinks. I'm highly skeptical that such lists actually regularly generate bio articles, though I am generally a fan of the notion that redlinks encourage article creation. If the individuals in question are genuinely notable, they will eventually have articles, and will (hopefully) be properly categorized. This is explicitly an eventualist point; I am immediatist in other ways, such as resolving the two-article contradiction outlined at #Card shark, below. Some things need to be fixed now, others are a matter for progressive WP growth over time. Another way of looking at it is that it would probably be completely trivial, as a matter of effort, for someone from India who is a big fan of carrom to produce a List of notable carrom players, but the actual utility of such a list to our readers would be near-zero, as it would only have a handful of bluelinks in it, all of them to stubs. Category:Carrom players is just fine. It is very under-populated now, but come back in ten years and it will be quite rich. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of having redlinks on the list isn't to encourage creation of those articles; it's because the people listed are actually important to the field. The fact most of the names are redlinked doesn't make the list useless, it just means whoever needs that information will have to do research on those people elsewhere. It's pretty well established that being on Wikipedia does not automatically make a person notable, but by the same token, not being on Wikipedia doesn't mean the person is not notable. The list of names shouldn't be viewed as just a way to navigate through Wikipedia quickly: its primary purpose is as a piece of information for further research; the redlinks just mean that research will have be done elsewhere. A list allows us to give users information about people who might not have their own articles yet (or ever); how do we include these people in a category if they don't have Wikipedia articles about them? Torc2 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think I can agree with much of anything you have said here, even down to the claim that being the subject of WP article does not make one notable, since of course one cannot (for long!) have a WP article without in fact being notable, given that lack of notability is a well-recognized deletion criterion. Cf. tautology. If the people on the list seriously might never have their own articles, then not only is their inclusion in the list questionable, but the existence of the list itself here is questionable, as POV and a trivia-promotion vector. No intent is alleged here, I want to clarify; only an effect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your response assumes that all notable names will have article. If that's the case, why would any article be created for anything notable prior to December 21, 2007? The list is simply a piece of information that cannot be represented as a category; the fact that some of the links have associated articles and some do not is purely incidental. If entries on the list require citation, that's best left to {{fact}} tags, not AfD. The list is no more trivia or PoV than any other List of artist-type articles. Torc2 (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as the admin who closed the AfD. Consensus on the AfD (as I read it) was to delete the article as listcruft, and make use of the existing category. Per naming conventions, the title was problematic as POV, and without the "Notable" it would become the indiscriminate List of spoken word performers (what would qualify one for inclusion - would I, as a pastor, be included? What I do is spoken word performance.). However, I welcome the opportunity for others to give my closure the once over, and welcome whatever consensus of this DRV is. Pastordavid (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The naming problem I agree with, but this can be solved simply by renaming the article. (Also, per WP:BIO#Lists of people, "notable" is eschewed in names not because it's POV, but because it's already assumed.) Notability could still be a requirement established in the article header, and backed up by secondary sources as required. This gives lists a clear advantage over categories since WP:V enforcement in categories ranges from lax to non-existent. This isn't the only list article that is potentially open-ended. I don't agree with the listcruft argument at all; the article is closer to List of Romantic composers than it is to List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles organizations. It just disturbs me that this content when from being part of Spoken Word to being split off and AfD'd in seven minutes. Torc2 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per above. It should be no problem to use the above link to the cached version and add links to the existing categories. The closer appears to have read the consensus to category-fy correctly, but such categories already exist. A delete is appropriate. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - the balance of the argument is for the use of categories and against having this list. The problem with the list is that there is no added value. I notice that the nominator has merged the list back into the Spoken word article where it is, for the same reasons, pointless and looks silly but that is now a separate editorial matter. BlueValour (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've explained the added value - or rather, the shortcomings of categories - quite clearly. Personally I think the categories are obtuse and unhelpful. For example, look at the category - if I want to find a list of artists, where do I go? "Spoken word artists"? "Spoken word poets"? How do I separate off the names from all the other subjects in the categories? There's a reason WP:CLS says category-or-list should not be an either/or decision. As for the article, I simply undid an edit that resulted in useful information being deleted due to bureaucratic maneuvering. Torc2 (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion the perceived problems are not. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are they not? Torc2 (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Card shark – Keep closure endorsed. This does not preclude any future movement, mergers, or redirections as determined by future consensus. I suggest possible dispute resolution to examine the issues regarding consensus on article titles. – IronGargoyle (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Short version (added after initial "endorse keep" !votes): It's an unsourced stub that directly contradicts a reliably sourced article, into which the stub's salvageable content has already been merged anyway. Update: A third party, no party to this dispute in any forum, has tagged it with the {{Articleissues}} variant of {{Contradict-other}}; i.e. other editors are now declaring it to be contradictory with another article. Further update: A fourth party, also no party to this dispute in any forum that nominator is aware of, has observed at Talk:Card sharp#Contradiction that card shark is in conflict with card sharp and is "dubious". Further further update: Article at Card Sharks demonstrates usage of that term in a context in which no skill of any kind is implied, further deflating the assertion that the term necessarily means "skilled card player", since the game in question is based on random guessing. What more could possibly be needed to put this to bed? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long version begins here: An examination of the actual rationales given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Card shark, and the extensive material on the issue at Talk:Card sharp, shows that the argument for deletion/merge is very, very well-sourced, while the arguments for keeping the POV-forked stub are completely unsourced and apparently unsourceable, since sources for it were outright forged. WP:AFD is not a vote, so the fact that "keep" !votes outnumber the "delete"/"merge" ones is not significant when, as is the case here, the "keep" !votes are uniformly of the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IKNOWIT invalid argument forms per WP:AADD... when they are not false claims about sources. Also, the content of the articles were in fact already merged long before the AfD was even opened, so we now have not just competing articles, but conflicting ones: A well-sourced one at Card sharp that covers both the negative and positive uses of the terms, and their history and etymology (as noted below, a new source remains to be added, pending resolution of this debate); and a unsourced POV stub at Card shark that advances someone's personal theory that the usages are distinct, despite there being no reliable sources for this claim, and a mountain of them against it. No sources in support of the separation have been cited – not in the article, not on the talk pages, and not at AfD. No hard feelings toward admin The Placebo Effect (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the closer of the AfD; I simply can't agree that a consensus of "keep" can be found here, on the basis of policy (NPOV, NOR, V). Card shark must redirect to Card sharp on the evidence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The !votes in favor of keeping the stub are not even particularly numerous; it was 7–4, with the points raised by the "keep" !votes refuted and most of those refutations unaddressed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep, yes AfD is not a vote, however there wasn't a clean consensus to delete either and if anything the result would be no consensus considering there was evidence the terms are related but do not have the same mutual meaning. In the course of writing this response I looked up "card sharp" and "card shark" up on dictionary.com and they brought back seperate results with shark being an "Expert cardplayer" while sharp was "a professional card player who makes a living by cheating at card games". Card shark did link to card shark as its secondary definition but it is evident that these terms are not exclusive to the simple "cheating player" definition. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I've demonstrated that they do have the same mutual meanings, with source after source. A small handful of sources, including Dictionary.com and (importantly) the abridged Webster's volumes which directly conflict with their unabridged "master", can possibly be interpreted (and quite possibly misinterpreted) to suggest that "card shark" may be becoming a separate term with a distinct meaning, while also retaining the same meaning as "card sharp", but even this idea is directly refuted by other reliable sources. I believe that given the level of sourcing brought to bear on this that card shark must be deleted, because it is an unsourced stub that directly conflicts with a well-sourced article. That this is even actually still subject to discussion is rather amazing to me, since WP:V is a pretty clear policy. In the short term, the idea (to the extent it is not WP:OR) that "card shark" may be shifting in meaning toward positive usage can possibly be addressed at the merged article, given some reliable sourceson that idea itself (maybe some recent poker books that document usage among modern players?), but there is insufficient extant evidence that two articles are warranted. In the very long term, i.e. after another generation of dictionarian work, there may be enough evidence around for the terms being severable.

I also have to disagree that it should be closed as "no consensus", because the genuinely actionable rationales brought to bear in the debate are entirely on the side of the merger, which has already taken place anyway; the AfD was simply a post-merge formality, with the specific purpose of having card shark speediable if it is re-forked again without evidence for its legitimacy, in response to just such a POV-pushing re-fork. Some !voters seeking to keep the stub on bases that are covered at WP:AADD does not mean that a consensus of merge/delete was not reached, since the only arguments that count are those that have a basis in reliable sourcing and policy, not AADD "noise". Think of the horror that would be inflicted upon us if random garage band articles could be kept on the basis of 50 of their school chums showing up to meatpuppet in a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IKNOWIT !votes. No real difference here, other than meatpuppetry isn't happening; the underlying issue is the same.

Anyway, this isn't even a case of "well, it can be sourced later", since the matter has already been sourced to death, with the weight of evidence strongly in favor of the terms being interchangeable, even if the OED (alone, out of all sources cited so far) suggests that their ultimate German derivation could actually differ. (That possibility and its OED source still needs to be added to the card sharp article; I did not want to edit it while the dispute was still open.) PS: I don't even focus on card-game related articles; I'm skeptical that I've even edited one before. I have no axe to grind with regard to this topic, I simply can't stand us having contradictory articles, especially when that contradiction is not reliably sourceable, and the article that is reliably sourced already addresses the usage and meaning issues anyway. There is ample precedent for undoing content forks of this nature. PPS: The card sharp article already gives both definitions and both terms, so your closing point is already adequately addressed (unless I am misunderstanding it). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is re-listing this for further discussion, but I strongly suspect that this will be unproductive. The number of editors willing to actually read and analyze the big stockpile of sourcing on the matter is surely a much smaller digit than those willing to throw in a WP:IKNOWIT argument and ignore the sources entirely; I predict that we'd end up with something like a 12–6 but equally unsupported majority for "keep", and be right back here, meanwhile WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, backed by WP:RS and WP:POVFORK, are already telling us "delete", loud and clear. Clearly it is untenable for us to have two articles that contradict each other. If merging them and enforcing that merge are not the solution, I'm curious what other possibilities would be reasonable. Doing an RfC on the matter seems likely to be interpreted as forum shopping unless it was done by someone other than me, and it seems too small an issue for WP:ARBCOM to want to bother with (though I think they would confirm that WP:V and other cited policies are in fact the controlling principles). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of looking at it: I want to quote Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who I generally find to be rather wikiwise: " 'Consensus', when skewed by a determined group of biased editors[,] cannot overrule policy." (from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 19#Barbara Schwarz). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another salient quote, from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 20#Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping: "–'Consensus' doesn't mean 'vote counting', but all too frequently too many people get those two mixed up." --Kbdank7

endorse Keep the reason for deletion seems to be that one person thinks his side is right and the other people wrong. This is not AfD2 DGG (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Alternatively, keep & deal with editorially per Uncle G. DGG (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This doesn't have anything at all to do with what one editor thinks, only with what the reliable sources indicate, and they are heavily supportive of the terms being interchangeable. Almost all of the exceptions (I think there is but one hold-out) are abridged Webster's volumes that conflict with their own unabridged parent. This is simply a WP:V issue. We have a well-sourced article here and an unsourced stub directly contradicting it there. The only reasonable outcome is a merge (which has already happened, over a week ago) and a redirect (which has been reverted, thus the AfD). If someone wants to question the sourced facts (good luck!) they can do that at the merged article and (very, very hypothetically) the articles could be re-forked at some point when the viewpoint that the terms are legitimately severable is actually sourced. I mean, come on. You and a few others here are arguing for keeping an unsourced stub that directly conflicts with a heavily and reliably sourced article. What on earth is the point of this exercise? I recognize that the vast majority of things brought to DRv are upheld as closed, on both specifics and on the general principle that that closing admin was conscientious and paying attention, but this is the first time in over a year I have brought something to DRv, I allege no wrongdoing on the part of the closer, just a difference of interpretation, and am citing ironclad policy on the matter. WP:V is not some random "oh, well, I'll adhere to it if I feel like it" guideline. So, if to any extent this opposition is reflexive, please knock if off and actually address the facts being presented, both as to sources and as to policy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - I am aware that I am falling foul of WP:IKNOWIT but I do:-) A Shark uses skill and a Sharp cheats - as most everyone has tried to say. The reason for a lack of sources is that the normal term is Shark not Card shark. In the AfD the suggestion was made to move the page to Shark (gaming) which makes sense since the simple term Shark can be well sourced in poker but that is without this DRV ... BlueValour (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely: It is WP:IKNOWIT. The best (per sources) that can be said about this alleged distinction is that it might be an American English neologism as a truly distinct term – an assertion that remains unsourced to sort-of-half-sourced at best (with sources that also, in every single case cited to date, clearly indicate synonymity as well), and which is directly contradicted by several reliable (eminently reliable, I would say), and also American, sources, so one cannot even raise a UK vs. US English gripe here. Even if it were sourceable, it would remain suspicious as grounds for a separate article, per WP:NEO. Pushing for the separation (which I do not allege that "keep" endorsers are necessarily doing; "endorse keep" and "keep" are not actually the same !vote) can also be interpreted as ignoring policy simply to make a point about or toward an editor whose XfD is simply unpopular or who isn't making fans because he is a bulldog about such matters. I really wish people reading this would get the point without me having to shout it, but here we go: This is not about whose POV is correct; it is only and entirely about sources. No sources, no ~~article~~ unsourced, POV-forked and contradictory stub. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I agree that whether there should be a Shark (gaming) article is a different matter entirely. It is one I would have to oppose, as the so-far-presented and some additional (i.e. in pool) source research into the matter contradicts this idea. We cannot simply go around throwing up new articles on "X" and "Y" just because we have a personal pet theory (WP:NOR) that they are legitimate article subjects. There is simply an avalanche of evidence that the term originated as a negative, regardless of the spelling, and has, through sarcastic and figurative usage, also come to have a positive meaning (cf. the word "bad"), and also happens to have forked for unclear reasons into "sharp" and "shark" spellings, with both spellings sharing both definitions. Period. Any further assertions about the terms are going to have have to have reliable sources, which in turn are going to have to contend with already-provided reliable sources that say they simply off-kilter on this matter. I think that the best that can be done is what has already been done at card sharp (other than OED also needs to be cited on the matter, as to possible ultimate derivation of the root words, as already noted at the AfD). That article documents both spellings and both meanings and includes a (non-novel-synthesis) analysis of their history. What, pray tell, can we possibly do otherwise, and why, pray tell, could anyone be supporting the retention of a content fork that is already rendered moot by a merged and reliably-sourced article expansion at card sharp? I think I am going to be bald within twelve hours (because I have a lot of hair and it will take that long to yank all of it out) just from pulling out my own hair at the outright astoundingness (if I can make up a word that should exist and might actually be a word, but which my spell-checker says is not actually a word) that this debate even exists much less has not already concluded "well, duh, delete the unsourced stub, per WP:V." PS: Also, not "most everyone" in the debate said that the terms were distinguishable – it was 7–4. Regardless, even if 159 people asserted distinguishability without sources, their arguments would remain invalid per WP:V and per overwhelming WP:AFD precedent as recorded at WP:AADD, namely at WP:ILIKEIT and related sections. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article remains standalone or is merged into card sharp, an administrator doesn't have to hit a delete button at any point. And that's what Articles for deletion is for deciding. Even an editor without an account can do the merger that is desired here. The proper venue for discussing merger is the article's talk page. And the proper venue for attracting outside attention to that discussion is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. The closure here seems entirely proper, and in accordance with our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The closing administrator decided that hitting a delete button wasn't required. And that what Deletion review is for deciding.
Article merger does not involve deletion, AFD, or Deletion review at any stage of the process. Uncle G (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merger has already taken place, and the card shark POVfork was recreated, and that is an AfD matter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're mistaken. The article appears to have been undeleted to allow for the merge. If it was a recreation, it wouldn't include the entire history of the article so far. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and merge. In the AfD, no one satisfiably countered SMcCandlish's arguments. Let's use common sense here to see that having Card shark as it is now is detrimental to the encyclopedia. If you want to defend The Truth, back it up with sources and then undo the merge. Encourage starting an RfC. –Pomte 15:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Deletion review is not for judging whether something is detrimental to the encyclopedia or not; it's for judging the procedural issues involved in the close.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, and it should be clear what my judgment is on the procedure in this case. Since the keep arguments contradict with policy, they do not contribute to consensus. –Pomte 17:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The losing side in an AfD can always quote policy to their support. If we have 9-4 against deleting, all reasonable Wikipedia editors, I wouldn't delete without a WP:BLP issue. In this case, Card shark is arguable WP:V, and if the argument won AfD, it's not for us to second-guess it here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse It's hard to be sure whether you've countered all of SMcCandlish's arguments because he is so prolix. But I did due diligence and am satisfied that there are distinct words, concepts and etymologies which can support separate articles. My interest is now whether WP:NAM or WP:LAME is the most appropriate policy or whether there there is an even better one. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied on what basis? Also, neither of those are policies, just essays, and I am not "angry" or "editwarring", I'm following the provided procedures to get rid of a POV-forked, unsourced stub that conflicts with a well-sourced article, that two other editors have now flagged as problematic as well. I have to note (again) that card sharp already gives both spellings and both meanings, and the bulk of the sources found so far give both for both (which is why the article says this in the first place). That one source, the OED, proposes that sharp, shark and (the obsolete as a noun) shirk may actually have different ultimate German derivations, that is simply interesting and not germane to the discussion; words do not have to be cognate to be synonymous (cf. "head" and "cranium".) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head and Cranium are not synonyms and that's why we have separate articles for them. I am likewise satisfied that shark and sharp are not synonyms. As for the essays, Pomte's suggestion of The Truth seems more apt than the others but they all seem worth reading in this situation. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep. There obviously are sources that separate these two terms, as Lid shows. Whether or not they are important enough to keep these two articles separate is not a decision for Deletion Review. There was a case to be made, and apparently the people agreed with the case, right or wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Lid showed is that even his dictionary says they are synonyms. It has been argued by me in this debate the whole time that both terms exist and both have (the same) two meanings, which card sharp adequately covers. All Lid has done is find a dictionary that provides both definitions for one term, and doesn't bother to do this for the other for one reason or another, presumably because it already said they were synonymous. Other sources cited provide both definitions for both spellings, and this is all adequately covered by the merged article, which even goes into when such the meanings started to become distinguishable, and so on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep closure Merge is a variety of the general species keep, not a form of delete. Merges are supposed to be discussed on article talk pages, not at AFD or DRV. No case for deletion is presented in the AFD or here. Go forth to the appropriate article talk page to discuss and form consensus on merging. GRBerry 15:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merge was discussed there, and 100% of the evidence supplied was for merger. This AfD and DRV are not about the merge, they are about the recreating of the post-merge unsourced stub at card sharp. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep closure merge is a job for editors, not deletion processes. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I writing in Ancient Aramaic or something? This is not about the merge, it is about deleting the unsourced the POV fork. How many times do I have to say this? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep. AFD round 2 should be carried out at AFD after a reasonable amount of time, and only if you feel that there is good reason to believe that consensus has indeed shifted. Consensus was reasonably clear on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for "delete", since the only arguments raised that have any basis in policy and sources were for deletion, and the keep !votes were all WP:AADD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keeping history. If the content is merged, it is not legally possible to delete the article history. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has happened before and will again to prevent POVforking. I've even seen such things SALTed. Another possible solution would be for an admin to restore the redirect and then full-protect the page to prevent the reforking. I don't really care which. As the article is unsourced there is nothing in its history worth saving. Even calling it a merge, really, was simply a politeness. What really happened is that virtually nothing was salvageable from card shark, and what it was trying to say was restated from scratch (minus unsourceable POV pushing), with sources at card sharp. There is no issue here. On WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V alone, the card shark stub should be deleted immediately, because it has been amply demonstrated that it can't be sourced. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 December 2007[edit]

Impending Doom – Unsalted and moved to mainspace – trialsanderrors (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello again! This band article was deleted three times as an A7 and then salted in November. The first two were certainly legit (since they were created before the band's debut even came out), and looking at the state of the page that was created the third time, I can't say I blame anyone for pulling the trigger. But the group is signed to Facedown Records, is currently criscrossing the US on tour as the main support for Dead to Fall, received some cushy reviews from a bunch of press sites (including a nice writeup in Decibel), and hit the Billboard Heatseekers chart with their September 2007 release. So, I've tossed together a rewrite that should substantiate the group's notability under WP:MUSIC bullets 1, 2, and 4. Can I please have this unsalted? Chubbles (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt and move to mainspace, seems to meet WP:MUSIC, certainly destroys CSD A7. --Stormie (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt, move to mainspace Enough notability established in the rewrite to allow the article to be recreated. Davewild (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:SS-R.T.Heydrich.jpg – Withdrawn – Core desat 10:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is not PD in country of origin, just the US. Request undeletion locally as Commons will soon nuke it and addition of {{Do not move to Commons}} to prevent this from happening again. -Nard 16:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this at DRV? If commons deletes it, the WP copy will go too. However, I think we need only be concerned with US Copyright law, since that's where the servers are located. Following the laws for 200+ countries and an untold number of jurisdictions would be impossible, since they often conflict. If nothing else it's unnecessary. --W.marsh 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, nevermind. If and when this is deleted at Commons (not even going to bother arguing about that), then it can be undeleted here. If nothing else I'll undelete it. --W.marsh 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as no DRV action called for. Either it can be handled as W.marsh helpfully suggested or the nominator could simply upload a fresh version with the same licence that is valid for Wikipedia. BlueValour (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guess I could have just asked an admin to handle it. Withdrawn. -Nard 02:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

White House Museum – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 01:26, 24 December 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 marked for speedy deletion yesterday and after only two people had a chance to advocate to keep it up, it was deleted without debate. You have articles about real museums on this site, why not an online museum? I didn't start the article, and I'm not the owner of the website/museum. But I'm appealing this deletion please (Kcrattmp (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

After receiving a speedy deletion notice this editor posted a request to hold off for review, and began a talk page for discussion. It does not appear due process was provided. The White House Museum website has a blog area as only a very small area, and at a different URL. CApitol3 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to assert importance to survive speedy deletion... but doesn't appear to have done so. Has it gotten media attention? Has an independent commentator called it the best resource of its kind? Has it won an award? These are the likely sorts of things that would be claims of importance here. --W.marsh 16:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the museum, the scope of its image database, the cultural and architectural signifigance of the White House all recommend its restoration.CApitol3 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion WP:CSD#A7 is the speedy deletion rule, and this is a valid deletion under the rule. This was an article about a website that is "not associated with the the website whitehouse.gov, the White House Historical Association, or any part of the United States government." It has no inherent notability itself just because the White House is notable and it has content about it, no more than my starting a personal website about MIT would make my website notable. Nor did the article assert any importance or significance for the website. Nor did the talk page posts assert that the website was notable. Notability comes from independent and reliable sources publishing substantial coverage about the subject of the article, which here would be substantial coverage about the website. Speedy deletion does not create prejudice against recreating in a way that at least asserts, or preferrably documents, that the subject merits coverage in an encyclopedia. WP:WEB documents the general standard for articles on web content. Wikipedia:Amnesia test is the best way to write the first draft of articles. GRBerry 16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per WP:CSD#A7. Certainly a valid speedy deletion. And, certainly, should the article be re-written with reliable sources that assert verifiable notability, it ought to be re-created. Pastordavid (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it typical to delete before discussion?CApitol3 (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When there is no assertion of why a website is important, yes, such articles are usually deleted without discussion. --W.marsh 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: It's pretty clear that the article doesn't assert any notability for the website. It's probably a very nice website, and it probably does its job, but nothing sets it apart from the tens and tens of thousands of websites that do good work. Furthermore, the phrasing certainly seems... shifty. "Official website" of the unofficial and unaffiliated museum certainly sounds like an attempt to prey upon the gullible. Endorse deletion under A7, although I wish most new articles had even half as much content. Geogre (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just re-create the article and talk about some of the site's notable content. (You'll still have a problem keeping it without some kind of references, but it should pass speedy). DGG (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the deleting admin, I chose to speedy delete due to the fact that the article/museum has no notability. This is obviously not written in stone, and I am more than willing to restore the page if that is the decision of the review. Jmlk 1 7 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, but of course a version could be created which does assert notability. --Stormie (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wael abbas – Unsalted, moved to mainspace, history restored. Someone else do the rename please (or discuss at WP:RM). – trialsanderrors (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It was suggested in yesterday's DRV that I write a new article on Wael Abbas to overturn the salting of an article on him. I've created an article on him in a sandbox at User:Andjam/Wael abbas, with half a dozen reliable sources cited. Andjam (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to mainspace, seems like a valid start, and asserts notability with sources. --Core desat 05:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace, I concur, much better sourced than the great majority of new articles created every day. :-) --Stormie (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mainspace but retitle it. It should be "Wael Abbas." Additionally, given how common "Abbas" is, isn't it best to refer to him by his first name? Good article, although a bit in-the-news. Geogre (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I didn't know for sure whether the lowercase "a" was a typo or something that should be lowercase like "bin" or "van". I'd like to make sure the article has in its edit history the previous deletions though. Andjam (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm no expert, but I believe we're looking at a call-name or by-name or pseudonym. It's not that it's a screen name, such as we find in the West, but rather that it is a sort of nickname that is the primary name for the person. The same "Abbas" is used by several Palestinian leaders, for example. As for "Wael," that may be something with variable transliteration, but the sources seem to agree on it, so that's as far as we need to investigate. Geogre (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace, good job, article clearly establishes notability with reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace, history merge and retitle - now ready for international release! Note to closing admin: please perform a history merge with the deleted version when moving across. BlueValour (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barbara Schwarz – Keep deleted. The arbitration ruling is central here in my consideration of this closure. After careful review of the discussion, I determined that no consensus could be obtained for the key issue: Does the subject indeed surpass a threshold of notability where BLP-deletion consideration is off the table? Arguments for a predominantly local or "news-of-the-weird" scope of the newspaper references are persuasive and render comparison to other subjects notable for "one negative characteristic or behavior" dubious. Issues of dependence on primary sources and the fact that the article is a potential coatrack are also troubling. Arguments that the community should be involved in making decisions regarding notability is a point well taken--but given that the focus of this DRV was largely on the notability (or lack thereof) of the subject, listing at AfD is not warranted considering the scope and volume of discussion that has occurred already. – IronGargoyle (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Barbara Schwarz

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

18 December 2007[edit]

Sandra_Silvers – Contested PROD automatically restored, but will send to AFD – Core desat 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

NOTABLE Sandra Silvers is owns and appears on one of the longest running, if not THE longest running amateur bondage website (Continuous operation since 2000). She is the #3 ranked google result for "love bondage", trailing only behind the industry leader. She has a very large fan club on yahoo groups numbering nearly 7000. She is well-known and respercted in the adult fetish industry/community. Wikiargent (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

M._Nicole_van_Dam – Speedy deletion endorsed as CSD G11. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

NOTABLE WikiNikiNiki (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC) This is really sad - there are thousands of collectors of M. Nicole van Dam art, the artist is international, and the page just gets deleted without the deleter ever askingany follow-up questions - I am really disgusted with the whole process - this is starting to feel like an old boys club and discriminatory! All the reasons were set forth on the talk page - this is so subjective! It is starting to seem that if you like someone or you know them their posts get on, and a newbee can't make a good faith factual contribution. Also, and the system is hard to use, even this process. Room for competition guys! If this article stays deleted you've lost your credibility with me, and my sincere hope is someday this needlessly harsh, seemingly clicish, behavior is corrected. The reviewer was user John, don't know what that means, and at least one other man not familiar with the artist participated in deletion of that page, and one of his comments was quite offensive. Is that the behavior for an encyclopedia? Do you think that encouraqges new users? SHouldn't you require that only those knowing art can delete art related entries? WikiNikiNiki (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid A7 and was probably also deletable under G11; the article was pretty much a fluff piece and an ad for the subject's website. Not to mention possible WP:COI (note the username of the nominator). --Core desat 22:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no access to the deleted page so I can't comment on the speedy but a Google search is gloomy. No news hits and the web hits here are all sales links. BlueValour (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn unless copyvio. Asserted notability and therefore not valid A7 "paint[ed] a mural on...the Smithsonian Institute Observatory at Harvard ", "articles in well-known and collector publications", very spammy but fixable,so not G11. One paragraph is copied from [33]; if the rest is, of course don't overturn.DGG (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the (dubious) assertion of notability, endorse speedy-deletion as spam (G11). This was patently written by a paid promoter who needs to read our policy on conflict of interest before contributing further. I'm not finding anything remotely salvageable in the deleted history. Rossami (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Rossami. Eusebeus (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G11 deletion "M. Nicole van Dam's artwork is internationally licensed and available on wide array of products, all clearly identified with the M. Nicole van Dam trademark, including on collectible jars, glass plates, tile ceramic murals (as available through http://www.xxx.net/xxx.htm ), rubber stamps, scarves, puzzles, greeting cards, calendars, prints, and many other items". Spam Spammy McSpam Spam. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dragonfly_CMS – Restored per WP:DP and sent to AFD2 – trialsanderrors (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page_is_needed Chris963 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC) -->[reply]

Overturn Speedy Deletion and Relist at AfD. Yes, it was 4 months ago and I'd be surprised if it hasn't been brought up before. Article was kept at AfD (albeit for procedural reasons) and speedy deleted User:Radiant! as an A7 4 days later. Probably should be relisted just because there were some concerns, but there is no reason to ever speedy delete an article that was kept at AfD. Especially not only 4 days after the fact. --Smashville^BONK! 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - procedurally wrong. A page that has been kept at AfD should not not be speedied. Concerns should be addressed at a further AfD if an editor so wishes. BlueValour (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion the crtieria for speedy deletion are clear that an article that has survived a deletion discussion may not be speedy deleted (except for copyright reasons). Davewild (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn i note that Chris did ask Radiant before coming here, but also that Radiant has a message about being partially unavailable. This seems clear enough though to go ahead immediatelyDGG (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Any sources, at all? Any commitment to tone down the blatantly promotional tone of the article? "Article is needed" for what? As part of its marketing strategy, or as an entry in the Wikipedia Cornucopia of Promotional Articles About Software? Chris963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does look more than a bit like Stephen2417 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 15:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you are welcome to argue these points at an AfD. This is not AfD round 2. Round 1 didn't delete it. . DGG (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

LBU – Dab page created – W.marsh 21:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

See talk page for proposed TLA dab Ra2007 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Recreation as a disambiguation page which appears to be what the last admin who deleted the page thought it should be. Davewild (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy allow recreation as a disambiguation page - obvious action; we don't need to dwell on this one. BlueValour (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing! Louisiana Baptist "University" is on the dab list! Who could possibly have predicted that? Other than anybody familiar with Jason Gastrich? Guy (Help!) 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Burma/Myanmar-related Categories – Renames endorsed; the main issue seems to be the title of the country's article, which should be hammered out so the category names can be changed to reflect the correct name of the country. – Core desat 04:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion was closed early with a result of rename. In reading the discussion, while I supported the action, I believe that consensus at the point it was closed was clearly 'no consensus'. So it was closed out of process and with an incorrect decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn and speedy relist~~Comment As closer, I agree with what Vegaswikian has said above. I was confused by the use of every persons comment of the lead-words "I agree". It looked to me like there was overwhelming support for the proposal, and no opposition at all. Before I was aware of the CFD, I was reviewing Categories that had been marked as speedy deletable. Several of the categories associated with this CFD were tagged as CSD, and had no mention of the CFD in discussion. After I deleted alot of them this way, I then became aware of the CFD when I came across one that was tagged as undergoing CFD. That is when I looked at the CFD and incorrectly determined that it was supported unanimously. I further saw that all of the categories were empty, that is they only contained other nominated categories if anything, and no articles at all in them. (Since all of the categories had been emptied by another user who perhaps also misinterpreted what was said in the discussion). So I deleted all of the remaining empty categories as G6 - housekeeping. Since all of the categories under discussion were then deleted, I closed the discussion with the result summary of what had already in effect been done (the rename). However, since Vegaswikian entered this DELREV, I further studied the comments left, to see how I could have interpreted them differently. What seems to have happened was the first person said "I agree (but here is why we should not do it)", and then several persons said "I agree", but they did not mean they agree with the nom, they meant they agreed with the first person's comment as to why we should not do it. I actually read them in reverse order, from the bottom to the top, which made it all the more confusing for me, as I assumed the "I agrees" were relative to the nom, not another comment above. I think the lack of use of standard comment structure (eg. support, oppose, etc.), the fact that my monobook inserts a large green checkmark icon in front of text that starts with "I agree", and my lack of experience led to this error on my part. But how do we proceed from here? The categories were empty. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is really about what the main article should be called. There is no consensus for Myanmar or Burma and in a sense supporters or either have a POV. Supporters of the pro-democracy movement call it "Burma", while supporters of the Government call it "Myanmar". In my opinion the article should be called "Myanmar" because that name is supported by the UN, the main independent source we should go by. The argument for the categories to follow the name of the main article is however a sound one. I therefore think we should leave things as they are at "Burma" until the country article name is resolved. If it is changed to "Myanmar" then we move the categories back. --Bduke (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This just addresses the issue of the debate, not the close. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn purely on procedural grounds. Open for less than 24 hours, and closed by a heavily-involved editor. I find it very alarming that an Admin should be so completely unaware of procedure - it would be no different if it were an AfD. His comments above hardly help! Also no link provided to the very recent debate on thwe same issue, which alone should have given him pause. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to "heavily involved". I had no awareness of Burma, Myanmar, or this CFD prior to finding the CFD template. I have never edited any article in any category and never participated in any discussion on any of the respective article or category talk pages. In fact, I have never edited anything even remotely related to this subject. I just did what I thought was the right thing (and what was clearly not the right thing), and clearly admitted that above. I do agree with the overturn proposal, which fairly well guarantees this will happen, so there's no need to slur me over it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wan't implying you have views on the issue etc, but having deleted categories covered in the nom, as you describe above, clearly makes you involved in my view, & you should not have closed it at any event. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the deletions of the categories which were marked for CFD were part of an attempt at closing the CFD, which seems illogical to prohibit an admin from doing. I really do not think that is what the deletion policy means when it says admins who have been involved in the discussions or editing the articles in question shall not close. In any event it was wrong to close the CFD as I have stated, but not because I was involved, just because the 5 days was not up and the concensus was not as I thought it was. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by what you said above. Make your mind up, please: "Several of the categories associated with this CFD were tagged as CSD, and had no mention of the CFD in discussion. After I deleted alot of them this way, I then became aware of the CFD when I came across one that was tagged as undergoing CFD. That is when I looked at the CFD and incorrectly determined that it was supported unanimously." 23:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs)

Gee, I don't see your confusion. What you copied above is exactly what I have been saying all along here. Perhaps you are mixing up all the abbreviations. I'll try to restate it without so many abbreviations: I was patrolling the category: "candidates for speedy deletion", and I was looking over the section for "categories". I saw several that were "...Myanmar..." upon opening each, I saw only the template marking it for speedy deletion, nothing on the talk page, no articles in the category, and a reasonable explanation on the template that the category was deprecated and depopulated. The history page showed no evidence of prior deletion attempts. So I deleted each such category, citing as reason: "CSD G6, housekeeping". I came back to the category: candidates for speedy deletion page several times over the two days and saw a few more pop up, because a bot (AWB) had been depopulating the categories and an editor was marking them for speedy deletion. I therefore similarly reviewed and deleted these with the same rationale. But then something bad happened... I came across one that was tagged with the banner announcing that the category was subject to a discussion at categories for discussion. That is when I went to the discussion page and saw a large number of such categories listed, (including several that I had already deleted). I looked over the discussion, and it appeared to me that it had unanimous support and I saw that a bold editor had stated he had initiated the depopulations. Realizing that the proposed outcome of the discussion had in fact already happenned (the renaming of the categories), I wrongly assumed it would be okay to end the discussion early. So I deleted the remainder of the categories and closed the discussion. None of what I said above qualifies me as being "involved" in the discussion or in editing the articles/ categories of the discussion. Therefore there was no procedural grounds for me to recuse myself from closing it. I do agree that my determination of concensus was wrong (that's explained up there), and that I was wrong to end the discussion early. But administrators who close discussions do have to delete thin gs, if that was the determined outcome, their deletion can not be considered "involvement" in the sense that you used it. The reason we do not allow "involved" adminsitrators to close things, is to ensure that their decisions are not perceived to be skewed by their demonstrated bias on the issue at hand. I hope nobody would accuse me of having any opinion whatsoever on the Burma/Myanmar issue; until the last few days I had never heard of either, and I couldn't care less what they call the place. I am certain that you could not find a more neutral administrator on this issue than me. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the main issue remains the main article, Burma. If you think that the article should be moved, take up the issue there. As per the 'by country' categories, their name must reflect the name used in the main article, and the renaming of categories should be done immediately as the main article is moved. --Soman (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly believe that you are correct. It is generally accepted that the category and article should use the same name where possible. Having the category and article use the same name is good. We don't need to argue the correct name in two places and then use differencing results to constantly switch between two names. I guess the real question here is what harm would be done by leaving the rename stand? Yes, it was an incorrect close, but is the end result bad for the wiki? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Currency correlation – This is an editorial question, not a deletion question, and can be debated on the talk page of the article. The current status quo, which is that the content is merged, may be fine, but either way there's no deletion issue. – Chick Bowen 05:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Afd was no consensus to delete. I felt that there were strong grounds for deletion. Subsequent discussion about where to merge the article appeared to confirm this. For clarity, 2 changes have been made since the failed Afd - 1) removal of duplicated explanation of a correlation (which proved incorrect in any case), 2) removal of wikiquote box as there were no quotatons. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - the AfD was properly closed and this is not the place to sort out merge discussions. Relist if you wish but my suggestion is to be bold and merge/redirect to Currency pair. BlueValour (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure but allow an early renomination now that new discussion and new evidence exists. In the renomination, be sure to link to the Talk page participants' conclusions. Rossami (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient vote for consensus: Ultimately, what's present at the article is a dictionary definition, which is a violation of the deletion guideline. If the term exists at Wiktionary, then there should be a speedy delete. If it does not exist, then it should be transwiki'd to Wiktionary and deleted. While it is possible that a complex article on the economics would be possible, it does not exist. Decisions should be based on what is, not what is possible. When the article was on AfD, it got a mix. While there was no consensus to delete, there was no consensus for anything. That's essentially a nil vote. I count 1-1-1 in the votes. That's not a staggering endorsement for any result. If we review the article ourselves (which is one of the things we do at DRV), I see a classic dictionary definition. Geogre (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I'm confused by your comment about votes/consensus. I thought that Afd is meant to be principle based, not vote based which is why I've requested a review. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is consensus based, unless there are overriding policy reasons to do otherwise. Deletion requires a consensus, without one, we default to keep. Unfortunately not enough people participated to form a consensus - the solution is to try again. Deletion review is for where either the consensus formed breaches policy, or the closing admin may have misread the consensus. Neither applies here.--Doc^g 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I advise the nominator to withdraw this DRV and initiate a second AfD, to generate a real consensus either way. He'll have my delete/merge vote if he does.--Doc^g 13:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. It's not that the term shouldn't be a redirect, for the curious, or that the information shouldn't have a home, but it seems to me that the fact of the concept and use of it is best done elsewhere, while the definition is simply not an encyclopedic matter. This is not a silly, cranky, odd thing, but it's also misplaced as a standalone. Geogre (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK, I have decided to be bold and have merged what is at best a stub into a logical home. BlueValour (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He shoots, he scores!!! Ronnotel (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Daniel Brandt – Continue with status quo. – Kurykh 04:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 4 —Random832 16:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neoseeker – Deletion endorsed – Core desat 04:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neoseeker is a major electronics website/forum The WEB clearly states that FORUMS can have their own article. Neoseeker is one of the 100 biggest forums in the world. It has 300,000 members, yet it was deleted due to not being notable or having enough sources. By that logic, GameFAQs should be deleted. It has 84 references. How many are from a Non GameFAQ or GameFAQ subdomain? About 10? Delete it too, as unreferenced. The point is, Neoseeker is an insanely notable site, with massive forums, and is well known for it's unbiased reviews in the PC world. It should have remained undeleted, so sources for some stuff could have been added Guticb (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were explicitly asked to demonstrate the existence of any such sources during the AFD discussion, and had 3 days in which to do so, during which time you revisited the discussion at least twice. You did not. You could have cited such sources when you talked to the closing administrator. You did not. You could have cited such sources here. You did not. You have given no reason to believe that the decision made by the closing administrator was not exactly in accordance with our content policies. Instead you have simply repeated the same "If article X then article Y." argument that failed during the AFD discussion, which can be seen with a little thought to be entirely fallacious, and which has no basis at all in our content policies. Uncle G (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation if someone can cite significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Stormie (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Arguments that the topic is notable don't supercede the lack of independent sources. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appear to be many google news hits, but almost all are mentions of product reviews by Neoseeker rather than about Neoseeker. The closest I could find [34] [35] [36]. All of which are unfortunately subscription pieces. But if someone has access to look at the full articles we might be able to justify an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the first source is not subscription, just supply some details. In any case, the page is a list of resources which don't provide any notability. I can't speak for sources 2 and 3 though. BlueValour (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion; close was proper. The place to discuss the merits of the article was during the AfD, which you did. DRV is not a "I didn't like the result, try again" forum. — Coren ^(talk) 18:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not used to this aspect of Wikipedia, but I did find a number of sites or companies which did use Neoseeker as professional resources, if I understand correctly (apologies in advance for mistakes with markup!). As a tech site, Nvidia ([37], [38], SLI [39]), Super Talent [40], Intel (Gigabyte?) [41], QSound Labs [42], TechZine [43], NZXT Products [44], and NCIX [45]. A number of other sites also have Neoseeker reviews, such as Man!festo Games [46], HotHardware [47], Crucial [48], NT Compatible [49], Bnet [50], Collantes [51], Sapphire Tech (can be seen along the side, possibly a company?) [52], and PC Hardware [53]. Also, I believe I read something on notability somewhere previously about popularity. I do not trust Alexa ratings and so will not use them, but apparently, if you believe this article [54], the site gets 700,000 unique hits monthly, as well as having a number of subsites (including TweakFactor, GameGrep, a series of hardware/audio selling/buying sites and the Portal system) with closing on 350,000 members. Does this not indicate notability, or does a site require a third party article about the site itself before it is considered worthy of an article? In all honestly, I do believe the article itself as it was previously seen needed to be curtailed in size down to the bare facts. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.222.129 (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation I think the above refs would be sufficient to let the article stay or proceed to another AfD, if integrated into the article.DGG (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... if they actually were sources. Have you read them? I have looked at all of the ones linked to by 68.147.222.129. One is a press release and not an independent source. One isn't clear what web site it is actually talking about, since it doesn't give the domain name. Of the rest, not one of them contains even a single fact about the subject. One of them doesn't even mention the subject at all. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I'm to understand correctly, the use of Neoseeker's awards alone (which is what I searched for when I found these links, not Neoseeker in general) on official company sites would imply that the site itself is a competent technical review site. After looking more into the site, it also appears to be run by the company Neo Era Media. I'm still confused as to why sheer popularity of the site is not a quantifiable reason for keeping an article of reduced size, although that may be in part to my lack of knowledge about the guidelines. I do apologize for the other links, I found a number of technical sites leading back to Neoseeker itself for information as well as the reviews (with small excerpts of said reviews) and decided that if it is spreading this far it must contain something worthwhile for a Wikipedia page to be maintained. If not, I apologize for barging in, I am not sure what you are looking for fact-wise and I went under the assumption that numerable published reviews by the aforementioned site made it note-worthy. You learn something every day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.222.129 (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Popularity is not a criterion here. What we need are sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. What you have provided gives no reason to believe that the decision made by the closing administrator was not exactly in accordance with our content policies. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion, though I'm fine with it being recreated if it can meet the basic notability and verifiability requirements. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Uncle G, will keep in mind in future instances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.222.129 (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room – Speedily close, simple redirects are editorial decisions and can be reverted by anyone. Discuss at Talk:The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room – trialsanderrors (talk) 13:45, 18 December 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 turned from a stub about a song by Flight of the Conchords (which I created) into a redirect after User:SilvaStorm left a note for Speedy deletion that said "Unnecessary page - nothing is said here that can't be said on the band's main page" and 25 minutes later, an Administrator User:Lid made the change. There is no reference to the song on the band's page but it is mentioned on several other pages that reference the band. I love the song and I think it deserves a page of its own, although this point can be debated. However, in this case, there was no debate. I was not notified before the change was made. When I suggested to User:Lid on his talk page that he revert his edit or change the redirect to a page that at least mentions the song I got no response. Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an invalid speedy deletion nomination, the admin appears to have acknowledged this but redirected the article, which is a valid decision. The article was never deleted so a deletion review is not needed... if you disagree with the redirect, you can just revert it. --W.marsh 04:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I did not reply was not for reason of malevolence but for instead simply missing it entirely, I get a fair few comments a day these days and missed yours. The reason I redirected the article to the page of the group itself rather than an episode that mentions the song was due to my ignorance of the subject matter and felt people looking for the song itself would be looking for the group behind it, not the episode it was featured in. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the song itself having a page... the page as it existed did not fulfill WP:SONG and no evidence exists that the song itself is notable by itself. In my opinion if an article on the song is to exist it first needs to be shown it can meet the criteria rahter than a page linking to a youtube video of the song and a page of tis lyrics. Not all songs ever are notable. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kevin_Kinchen – Speed close - endorse. – FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article determined to be a blatent (obvious) hoax. Speedy deletion criteria (WP:CSD) are strict, and prohibit hoaxes of any kind from being listed as "A1". Otherwise "If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum".

However CSD does cover "pure vandalism" (G3), which includes both "creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages" and also "Adding known inaccuracies" (Adding information in bad faith that you clearly know is false (see WP:HOAX).).

Also, WP:V, a core policy, states that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" (WP:REDFLAG), but in this case not even ordinary sources of a reliable, independent, verifiable nature were presented.

The article has had scrutiny under AFD and despite the small response it's pretty clear the conclusion is valid. Good evidence from reliable sources to the contrary was not presented. Hence AFD endorsed and DRV speedy closed under WP:CSD#G3, WP:SNOW and WP:DUCK. RFCU on various editors might make sense too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was supposed to be restored, looks like a bot ate it.. garth (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) >[reply]

Actually, an admin speedy deleted it for being a hoax (which is specifically listed in the guideline they cited as not being a reason to speedy delete something, but whatever). --W.marsh 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, Should be restored immediately then, also, it was listed on this page on the 12th and a deletion was overturned which in keeping with logic, that means it could not be a hoax. Maybe changes after it was restored could be a hoax, but then, shouldn't it be restored before the hoax took place? I mean to say, If it was restored, at that time it wasn't a hoax, perhaps though i still blame the bot. A bot probably did it. garth (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) >[reply]

I suppose I will list what the guidelines say just so people can get to it. i followed your link above. Yeah i see it. The admin messed up.

Questionable material that is not vandalism. Earnest efforts are never vandalism, so to assume good faith, do not delete as vandalism unless reasonably certain

Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum.

Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. It is not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax. There have been cases in the past where something has been thought to have been a hoax by several editors, but has turned out to be true, and merely obscure. garth (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) >[reply]

Overturn and Keep with instruction and additions of ref request tags.

Since I apparently can't add anything onto the talk page in question, references, etc, as i already had started too but now the references are gone, I clicked the AFD, and it appears it passed afd with DRV "Deletion Overturned" which is funny because then how could a hoax stand.... I think this really should be handled with [citing sources] or at the very least, since it passed deletion review and afd, the article as it was when it passed deletion review should return in tact. garth (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) >[reply]

I looked into this when it was first speedied, because I had restored at the first DRV. While "hoaxes" are not speediable in themselves, very obvious hoaxes become speediable if there is no "remotely plausible" claim to notability (this was the original language of CSD A7 when it was adopted by referendum, and it is a good bit of wisdom today.) Thus, an article which read "John Doe was elected President of Earth in 1961" would be speediable as obviously a hoax. One must be very careful in applying this fine point of policy -- something that at first looks ridiculous to one person's eyes may turn out to be true. Still, if it becomes plain that an article is completely absurd, a speedy (under A7 or, if mal-doing is clear, G3) can be warranted.

In this AfD, several editors exploded fallacious claims made about the subject, and an individual claiming to be the subject (supposedly a renowned writer) posted an ill-written rambling in defense of his notability. At that point, it became reasonable to conclude that this "article" is the brainstorm of determined child and/or troll. In the absence of real evidence that this fellow exists, I endorse the speedy deletion on the basis of the AfD's record. The claims to notability here are no longer "remotely plausible" in my view, and so, the article fails CSD A7. Xoloz (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. As the deleting administrator, I had no problem at all ignoring all the rules on this one. The claims made about the subject were blatant hoaxes, and the only user accounts pushing for the preservation of this ridiculous article seem to be sockpuppets of User:Castawayred, of which User:Kevin.Kinchen is a sockpuppet. These two sockpuppets have already been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and I highly recommend a checkuser to determine if User:67.183.169.112, a.k.a. "garth", is one as well. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Source_Radio – Contested PROD -- restored, sent to AfD. – Xoloz (talk) 11:11, 18 December 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 deleted as it was marked WP:PROD and states no links to independent sources. While I've never contributed to Wikipedia myself, I feel this article should be undeleted as its about a major part of an English University and there was more content than a stub. It's hard to find independent sources when it's mostly publicised, funded and run by the University students but I'm sure the members will do so if given the chance. Thank you 81.178.91.77 (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What was the rationale on the prod? The cached version doesn't have it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - according to the deletion log "Non-notable small students' radio station, that asserts no notability through use of external links to independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:N.". BlueValour (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and List - there is no way that the article would survive an AfD in its present form but I see no reason not to allow editors the chance to improve it to establish notability. BlueValour (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see [[Wikipedia:DRV#Contesting_.27proposed_deletions.27]. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wael abbas – Speedily closed, new encyclopedic article forthcoming – trialsanderrors (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

As the article was speedied, and salted, and the main deleting admin is no longer contributing, I cannot really tell why the article was deleted. However, since the last time it was deleted, abbas has been the centre of international coverage. A youtube video he broadcast helped with a torture conviction, and his youtube account was subsequently blocked (and then unblocked). His yahoo mail account was also blocked. If possible, I'd also be interested to find out who nominated the article for speedy deletion and why. Andjam (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as no DRV action is being requested. The deletion logs, with reasons, are here. Since the nominator states that matters have moved on the suggested action is for him to create a new, sourced article in his sandbox and then come back, here, with a request for recreation. BlueValour (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator should know that the article was speedy deleted because it was exceedingly short and lacking in any assertion of notability or reliable sources. Any experienced Wikipedian would have nominated it for deletion, and any admin would have deleted it. The nominator is welcome to write a new sourced article in his userspace, and then request its transfer to mainspace here at DRV. This request may be closed soon, but should be kept open a little while for the nominator to see. Xoloz (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may take me a week to write an article on him, but I'll do so. Andjam (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 December 2007[edit]

Jim_Jagielski – Move to mainspace and list at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The rational for deletion was the person in the article was "not a major figure in the OSS movement" as well as due to unreferenced notability. Certainly the ASF is a notable organization, and a leader in the OSS movement. The person in the article is a co-founder of the ASF, has been elected to the board each and every year since the foundation of the ASF, had been elected as EVP/Secretary since the start and has recently been elected Chairman of the ASF. Since the ASF is based on merit, if the members and peers of the ASF are so inclined to award the person with these responsibilities, it indicates his notability within the ASF and the OSS movement in general. A/UX was a noteworthy OS for Apple and the person was the editor of the A/UX FAQ and was a prolific porter and coder of A/UX code, as well as the admin for the jagubox server, noted in all A/UX documentation. Evidence of this can be found on various jagubox mirrors which contain copies of ported and original code. Slashdot did have a specific Apache section and Jim Jagielski was the editor for that section, based on his involvement and in that area (see http://apache.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/10/10/198257). Note: I am the person in question, so certainly I am admittedly biased. Certainly this may seem "promotional" but the facts remain that the content is correct and corresponds to a person who has made significant contributions to the OSS movement, even if just for the ASF connections. Similar to the re-instatement of Greg_Stein and the continued availability of Sam_Ruby and Ken_Coar, for example (Note: Suggested changes have been made to page at User:ChristTrekker/Jim_Jagielski). Jimjag (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decidedly neutral. It appears to me that the proposed new version does pass WP:N, but the problems with sources still have yet to be addressed. More sources are needed first. It is also in need of quite a bit of cleanup, but sources should come first. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation and List - I don't have access to the original page but there is enough in the userfied version plus some reasonable material from here to make it worth a second look. Note to creator: avoid phrases like "leading expert" unless you can closely source them! BlueValour (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace and list at AfD. The article hasn't changed much since the AfD, except for new references, which are -- of course -- crucial. I'm not sure of notability, but the article escape G4 and deserve another hearing. Xoloz (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Psychodiagnostic Chirology – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 02:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

prejudicial and uninformed attitudes and gross bias of a subject which has laboratory tested scientific foundations and with these foundations reaffirmed in papers published in the fields of Psychology, Psychiatric Biology and Medical Genetics. Please visit http://pdc-psyche.net/reviews.htm Arnauld (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Article was deleted as original research with no prejudice against a new referenced article. How was there prejudice, uninformed attitudes and gross bias? --Smashville^BONK! 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse it was the correct consensus that it was at present an essay without specific sources. If you can write a good article on this subject, do so in your user space. DGG (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; consensus was clear, article was original research, and DRV is not the place to rehash arguments on the merits anyways. Close was good, end of story. — Coren ^(talk) 18:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't have access to the article but I am happy to accept the judgements above. The point I would make is that there are sufficient sources available for an encycloaedic page so the nominator should accept the invitation to produce a cited rewrite. BlueValour (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Beer and breweries by region – CfD closure (to rename) endorsed. – Xoloz (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This deletion has made a significant impact to the organisation of the beer articles, and yet appears to only involve discussion between two users. When the beer categories were organised there was a widespread notification and involvement of interested parties to establish a working convention and appropriate consensus. Discussion here and here. Given the background and complexity of these beer cats I am suggesting the cats that have been changed are restored and a wider discussion and consensus is sought for the best way forward. The admin who closed this debate is on a wikibreak, which is why I have brought it straight here. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 14:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, it wasn't deleted, just renamed - see Category:Beer and breweries by country for the new category - and it looks like there was pretty good agreement on the project page. --B (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something, or there may be a misunderstanding. I don't see a discussion on the project page to remove or rename or restructure the supercat Beer and breweries by region, which held the main cats: Category:Beer and breweries in Europe, which then held the subcats Beer and breweries in Germany, etc. I only see the discussion on this page, which is between Vegaswikian and Hmains. I have pointed out above that a considerable amount of users took part in the discussion to shape and create the system which has now been changed by the two users. Perhaps I am going about this the wrong way. My concern is that the beer categorisation system which took some discussion and thought to create has been altered without wide consensus. I feel that a change like this should have the opportunity of a wider discussion. If people feel this CfD has been handled correctly, what should I do now to get an appropriate discussion going on whether the current system is generally preferred to the previous system? Should I put Category:Beer and breweries by country up for CfD - suggesting that it be renamed Category:Beer and breweries by region, which is then subdivided by Category:Beer and breweries in Africa. The current renaming has led to the odd situation of continental and multiregion cats being subcategories of a country cat - and the European cat being deleted completely! I'm sure the guys were well meaning, but I think they didn't pay close enough attention to what they were doing, or of how many people were involved in the original discussions. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: Actually, consensus to rename looked pretty darn clear. --Smashville^BONK! 18:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, agree with Smashville and B. --Kbdank71 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure people are looking at the right discussion. The ones I link above are to the discussions that originally took place to create the supercat Beer and breweries by region and related subcats. The discussion under review is this one in which the last comment by Hmains is "comment to administrator This nomination should be re-listed since we only had a concrete proposal two days ago." SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 23:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're reading the same one. It was closed and renamed. --Smashville^BONK! 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group – Speedily restored per WP:DP, sent to AfD – trialsanderrors (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

article was speedy deleted, but there are multiple articles written about the WHATWG and their draft of HTML5. it also seems the deleting admin is going to be unavailable from wikipedia for three weeks. riffic (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Edit history and representatives from big-name hi tech companies makes this a case for community investigation. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'm speedily restoring, article exists in five different languages. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 December 2007[edit]

Betsy Baker – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Second person to attain the age of 113, first person in the Oldest People category of Guiness World Records. The deletion discussion had extremely few takers, with a 2:2, which I find as a no consensus rather than a delete. Material was not merged into List of American supercentenarians as promised by the nominator. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note It has been confirmed at checkuser that Kitia was running two sockpuppets, You've Got Mail! (talk · contribs) and I'll bust your beak! (talk · contribs). Kitia and I'll bust your beak! were the only "keep" !voters in this AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The article had only 3 refs, all of which ere mere list entries ([55], [56], [57]), so clearly failed WP:BIO. Kitia's argument to keep was based on the notion that she thought WP:BIO should presume notability for very old people. The closing admin was quite correct to close the discussion on the basis of the guidelines as they are, not on how a particular editor would like them to be (note that Kitia's prposal at WT:BIO has attracted no support). Kitia appears not have read the AFD debate: there was no promise to merge into List of American supercentenarians, because there was nothing to merge (the only verifiable info on this person is nationality and dates of birth and death). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS Per the deletion guidelines, AfD is not a vote count: the closing admin has a duty to weigh arguments, and to disregard those which "contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious". Kitia's argumnts fell into that category, as did those of the other keep voter, a single-purpose account who ignored WP:BIO and added a gratuitous allegation of bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong, as it tells of the 2002 study, where the subject was born, where the subject died, and stuff on immigration. And besides, I though that 3 refs established notability. I think that the discussion did not attract enough voters, whic would show that Baker established notability. You've Got Mail! (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC) see below[reply]
- ~~PS i'm sorry I didn't vote in the discussion as I was taking a wiki-vacation.~~
  - Reply Notability is not established by having too few voters, nor by having 3 trivial sources. It would help considerably if the "keep" !voters studied WP:BIO. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as per my reasons listed above. You've Got Mail! (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC) This admitted sockpuppet account has been indef-blocked.[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid close and arguments for keeping were refuted. --Coredesat 00:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe (and thats a big Maybe), but BHG has been constantly merging super-c content into list of American supercentenarians, which she failed to do. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have not been consistently merging them: I have been merging those which do not meet WP:BIO but where there is more than one or two sentences to be said about them without padding the entry out with waffle about who was the next oldest person etc. In any case, it's completely inconsistent of you to object to something not being merged into List of American supercentenarians when for weeks you reverted without comment every article merged into that list, then nominated the list at Afd and then nominated it again a week later because you didn't like the AfD result. You are trying to have it both ways, Kitia, complaining at AfD that the lists are daft and useless and will grow too large, and then complaining here that a trivial snippet has not been included in them. Betsy Baker is listed in Oldest people, and there almost nothing more to be said about her than is in that article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). The AFD closer did not explicitly comment on whether he/she had discounted the new user's opinion, but it would have been entirely appropriate to do so. Very few users find AFD by their 7th edit or know about the Willy on Wheels vandal (1st edit). We are supposed to assume good faith but this user's behavior is highly suspicious. Other than that anomaly, I find no process problems in the discussion or the closure. Rossami (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Per BrownHairedGirl & Rossemi. - Galloglass 13:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - While I appreciate Kitia's efforts, this is one of a series of articles created with the assumption that extreme age = notability. In recent AfDs, some were kept, and some were deleted (for reasons outlined above which I won't repeat). This one has failed to demonstrate notability, and should remain deleted. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and merge as nominator mentioned. That way the article stays gone, and we get to have a slightly more complete list of supercentenarians. Everyone would be a winner. Neıl ☎ 15:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, there was no proposal at AfD to merge, because there was nothing to merge: the only verifiable info on this person is nationality and dates of birth and death, which is already covered in Oldest people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, endorse deletion. Neıl ☎ 09:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion; rare does not meant notable, the close was correct by following policy. — Coren ^(talk) 18:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jose Luis Aquino – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 00:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I really don't understand the pages deletion. More people voted keep than delete, and yet it was deleted. Notability was established by WP:BIO with the band, and his death only furthered it. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has been selectively canvassing this debate, and may be the puppetmaster of You've Got Mail! and/or User:I'll bust your beak! (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser has confirmed that both those accounts were sockpuppets of Kitia. Both voted "keep" in the AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn bizzare admin activism on a great article. You've Got Mail! (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC) This admitted sockpuppet account has been indef-blocked.[reply]
Endorse deletion per admin's very clear and well-explained reasoning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh... the deletor suggested that there should be an article on his death or the band, of which there are none. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, there are none. But they could be written, and their absence does not make this person notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. AFD is not a vote. If an article is created on the band, I would not be opposed to an overturn and merge outcome. --Core desat 00:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; the keep arguments basically amount to "the band is notable". That might be good for an article on the band, but not this one. — Coren ^(talk) 04:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). The closer did not comment on this issue but one of the "keep" participants in the discussion has been confirmed as a sockpuppet, created with an open password and another of the "keep" participants has a pattern of highly suspicious behavior. Other than than anomaly, I find no process problems in this discussion. Notability is not inherited. Even if the band is someday determined to be notable, the individual players in the band must independently determined to be notable in their own right. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, which was correct per policy, no prejudice against a redirect if we can write an article on the events, and if that article belongs here rather than Wikinews. Which it might not. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD is not a vote and notability is not inherited. --Smashville^BONK! 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Afd is not a vote, fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zayda Peña – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 00:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pretty much the same as above. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has been selectively canvassing this debate, and may be the puppetmaster of You've Got Mail! and/or User:I'll bust your beak! (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as per my reasons in the above discussion. You've Got Mail! (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC) This admitted sockpuppet account has been indef-blocked.[reply]
Endorse deletion per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pena was notable for being in a band that achieved some success and for her death. That's two things that she was notable for, right? ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong again. She was in a band, but did not achieve notability for being in a band. As to her death, do read WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah she did. What I remember of the article is that there was this one major hit. Her death is definately notable as some Mexican musicians began running for there life. It is sad that such a major event is not covered in Wikipedia at all. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia is not a compendium-of-everything-that-ever-happened. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. AFD is not a vote. If an article is created on the band, I would not be opposed to an overturn and merge outcome. --Coredesat 00:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you create it and we can merge all the material on this page into it. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kitia, you have already said that you would do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted) for the same reasons (and with the same concern about sockpuppetry) as in the "Jose Luis Aquino" deletion review immediately above. Rossami (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per my comment above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tangled Up Tour – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 00:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think 'No consensus' would have been more appropriate. The tally is 6:3 delete (inc. nom), but, other than the nom, the delete votes lack little depth. Also, consistency is very important: we cannot have a similar article being kept with another deleted. The closing admin, Pigman, has courteously replied to my concern. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse; WP:WAX isn't a defense in AfD, it also isn't a defense in DRV. The consensus seems clear enough to me. Consistency is desirable when it happens, but is neither a goal to strive for nor a sufficient reason to keep or delete— this is not a court of law, we aren't bound by precedent for the sake of precedent. — Coren ^(talk) 04:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). Wikipedia should not speculate on future events just because they get covered in the newspaper. The fact that we made a mistake in another discussion is not a reason to propagate the mistake. Rossami (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - The keep arguments amounts to little more than stating that the event somehow inherits notability and more reliable sources will surface. It might be useful, though to update WP:MUSIC with some remarks regarding separate articles on tours in general and upcoming ones in particular.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the entire processes are pointless because I'll recreate the article once the inevitable RSs trickle through. I don't care for Girls Aloud, but will look out for it of principle. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JPS, I understand your reasoning, but that's just how it works here. We can't speculate on whether something will become important; were we to do so, we'd be filled with literally thousands of articles on trivial subjects which never met that expectation. If those reliable sources come, great - it means we'll have a new article. Better still, if they come, we can retrieve this article's history, so you won't have to start from scratch. But that if is the important word here... we have to wait until that point comes, if it does. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure since the AfD was properly closed but it will soon be academic. Any tour by Girls Aloud will quickly attract sufficient RSs to establish notability and the tickets are already on sale as here. BlueValour (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Afd is not a vote, and whether something similar is kept is not particularly relevant. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote...and the nom really said all that was to be said. --Smashville^BONK! 18:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Pankorea.jpg – Withdrawn – Core desat 00:56, 17 December 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 this had a valid fair use rationale, as I was the one who wrote it, and I would like to review it to see if it could be better phrased to fit wiki-policy. Atropos (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as the image has been restored independently. The issue is resolved. Atropos (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Tart – Deletion overturned. – Kurykh 00:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Referencing concerns have been addressed and I do not believe there should be notability concerns - the paper is well known to university students across Britain. A copy of the entry can be found at User:Jonathancherry/The Tart Jonathancherry (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation/Overturn speedy The version that Jonathancherry has created has 2 reliable secondary sources covering the paper significantly. As the original closer of the AFD I think this addresses the concerns raised in the AFD debate about the lack of secondary sources and has established notability. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/notice : The page appears to have been accidentally created in main article space, I've moved it to User:Jonathancherry/The Tart. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn invalid deletion, the article seems to have been substantially rewritten since it was deleted at AFD. One AFD somewhere should not justify blind speedy deletion of any future article on that topic. --W.marsh 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I still don't beleive the notability concerns have been addressed (judging by the draft), but I don't feel strongly enough about it to actively oppose recreation. — Coren ^(talk) 19:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with Coren here, I don't see anything in the current draft that even addresses notability. If it gets recreated, it should immediately go to AfD. Corvus cornix_talk 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do the first three secondary sources not address these concerns? There are publications like the Epigram (newspaper) with much smaller distributions than the tart. --Jonathancherry (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't just point to references, if there's notability, you need to explain in the article what makes it notable. Corvus cornix_talk 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - An article has notability "if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The references demonstrate this.--Jonathancherry (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think the keyword here is "significant". The Times article just barely meets that, and that's hardly multiple sources. The Epigram article only mentions The Tart in passing as "one of three new papers". Like I said, very marginal. — Coren ^(talk) 03:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You haven't addressed my concern. You can't just point to an external link and say "that shows it's notable". The article itself must include language which explains what makes the subject notable. WP:CSD says that the article must make claims of notability. This one doesn't. Corvus cornix_talk 04:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I have added a Press section in the article itself, explaining how it has been featured in both the student press and a major national newspaper. I have added an additional student press article (Oxford University Cherwell) and added a 'controversy' section which should hopefully address some of your concerns. --Jonathancherry (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There is now a Times [58] story devoted to the paper, not just mentioning it, that would seem to clearly establish notability. DGG (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and allow recreation - The Times article is pivotal and gives arguable notability. I am not enthusiastic about the page which is self-promotional but that can be resolved by editing. BlueValour (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as per W.marsh, BlueValour. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 18:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. My initial reaction was that, while the material was substantially different enough from the originally deleted content as to not be deleted by G4, it still did not establish notability beyond local interest. However (as is often the case), DGG has made a compelling argument, backed by reliable sourcing. Pastordavid (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall – a wintry overturn; strong consensus that this closure was against consensus. – krimpet ✽ 18:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed outside of consensus by Jc37 (talk · contribs) who is already being questioned on this on his talk page. Strong overturn, there was no accepted support to remove the category. Lawrence Cohen 16:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTFOMG Overturn; this was a clear keep, but even if consensus was unclear the default is also to keep. — Coren ^(talk) 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep. There was clearly no consensus for deletion, and no consensus for converting the category to a list. Not only did keeps outnumber deletes, but multiple users explicitly argued against converting the category to a list ( [59] [60] [61]). In his closing comments, Jc37 wrote that listification would allow "criteria for recall to be voluntarily listed, if wanted, sonething that obviously can't be done in a category." But the category already encouraged admins to outline their understanding of their commitment in their userspace, and some had done so in detail. Furthermore, the category provided an automatic membership count, and automatic links between the category page and members' user pages. The category contained over 130 admins, all with links to it in their userspace which have now been erased. Listification and deletion was a radical move unsupported by consensus. Tim Smith (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. I think there was no consensus to delete, and I am one of those who supported deletion. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does Tim's comment above mean that all admins who were in the category somehow had their category removed from their pages? How would that get undone if that happened? Lawrence Cohen 17:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does. As to how to undo it, the bot operators who in my view acted too hastily (this DRV was predictable if they had read the close) ought to undo it. If they can't easily reverse it, they ought not to be operating those sorts of bots. I reverted the change to my user page myself already. ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. No consensus to delete. Epbr123 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Overturn: Should not have been deleted in the first place, that is unless we are throwing consensus out the window. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I don't see consensus for deletion or listification. henrik•talk 17:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep Misread consensus. Perfectly useful category per WP:NOTART. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I consider this recall notion an piece of well-meaning folly - admins have tenure for good reason. However, if people want to be foolish, let them. There's no consensus to delete this and no pressing policy reason to do it in the absence of consensus, so overturn it. If someone wants to relist it, they are free to do so - I couldn't honestly care less.--Doc^g 17:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, there was no consensus for either listing or deletion. Red rocket boy 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Sometimes I just have to shake my head. The category may not have any real use, people can disagree about that but this close was quite wide of the mark. RxS (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep - I saw no consensus for deletion there - on the contrary, in fact - Alison ^❤ 17:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn...no consensus whatsoever to delete...--uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any merit to a merge of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion to WP:MFD? WP:MFD tends to cover the other project stuff. Hiding T 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: It might be arguable that a consensus was not reached here (personally, I thought a consensus to keep was achieved) but in the absence of consenesus to delete, the category should clearly have been retained. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? Guy (Help!) 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They do. Hiding T 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously a lot of folk do, but you needn't care if you don't want to. To fully and effectively not care, you could go all the way and not comment at all next time if there is one. :). ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently User:JzG since he's commenting on it. --W.marsh 18:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delistify the list, restore as category: No offense to the closing admin but the close was way wide of the mark, and the justification given was scant. There is no need for a relist in this case. This was either a consensus keep, or, if you want to give the benefit of the doubt to those arguing against keeping this, a no consensus keep. Absolutely no justification for listification here, and whatever bots did it can very well undo it once this DRV is closed. (the bot ops perhaps should have waited a bit, common sense would have told them that this DRV was inevitable... not waiting in this case results in wasted effort.) Is it SNOWing yet? ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I was rather shocked to see my watchlist light up. Agree that the consensus was not to delete. It is useful as a category, you could keep the list as long as someone wants to maintain it. Woody (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn although I think this category has been monumentally useless in doing anything about abusive admins, that's not an excuse to abuse the deletion tool and delete it against consensus. --W.marsh 18:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Recently, there was a controversy involving admin Mercury, who closed a recall discussion about himself/herself. If there is a move to delete the category because one thinks the recall setup is inadequate, then consider discussion about recall first rather than delete the category as a first step. Archtransit (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't as much care if this particular article is undeleted as I wish to have the closing decision reviewed and invalidated. The closer's stated rationale credits "policy and guidelines" arguments in the debate overpowering the "ones based on pure opinion without basis in policy nor guideline" as the reason for deletion. A look at the debate, however, should show that the reasons given for deletion were too much detail and too little importance, as well as unsubstantiated calls for non-notable (they were unable to cite the WP:N criteria it would not meet). The keep argument was based on WP:V and WP:NPOV policies. I sought an explanation from the closing user and received the reply that the user felt it met deletion by virtue of "WP:N, and WP:HOCKEY's guideline, which are, IMHO, are more important, as they are specialist guidelines, and I feel the WP:HOCKEY is most applicable here. It clearly didn't meet it." ^{link to conversation}. I submit that:
1. the WP:V and WP:NPOV policies are more important, as WP:N is simply a guideline for interpreting policy
2. the article in question met WP:N criteria anyway
3. no one has been able to point me to the WP:HOCKEY guideline but such a WikiProject's guidelines should be of little, if any, significance in deciding a deletion debate.

Thanks for your consideration of what I consider an important issue regarding deletion policy and precedents. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think WikiProjects do have a relevant role in the details of criteria. The question of how to integrate this in the more general criteria remains unsolved. usually, they are simply accepted by default because all those most involved with those articles either agree on the project, or come to no consensus there--in which case there are no criteria adopted, tho it is not unusual to pretend otherwise.DGG (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Season articles have always been problematic. However, the emerging consensus seems to be that they are justified for fully professional teams playing in a major league. For example, a season article on Tamworth F.C. was recently deleted since they only play in a semi-professional league. This seems a clear case of WP:NOT since this is a junior league club. BlueValour (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. What section of WP:NOT are you referring to? DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" - we are not being discriminating when we include so much detail on a team at this level. BlueValour (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. That is the first deletion argument I've seen for this article based in policy (or guideline, for that matter) and an entirely reasonable one at that. Of course, had the argument come up at the debate, I would've countered that there are enough reliable sources to describe the season well (like 2006-07 New York Rangers season and 2007 Florida Gators football team). DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will note that this was brought up in the other debate when it was mentioned that wikipedia is not a collection of statistics. -Djsasso (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm, you seem to be correct about that. I suppose I did not give that argument much weight since it was obvious that the article was not/would not be a collection of statistics. Perhaps, on reflection, it was not so obvious and I should have argued against that position. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Closure seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the discussion, with a reasonable enough weight of opinion for deletion. Davewild (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks but as I said my main concern here is the closing rationale. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; the close is a reasonable interpretation of the debate. This is the only argument to be discussed here. — Coren ^(talk) 03:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The closer said, "the arguments based in policy and guidelines are much stronger than the ones based on pure opinion without basis in policy nor guideline" which is sound but the keep arguments were based in policy and guidelines while the delete arguments were based on too much detail and too little importance. How does that represent a correct interpretation of the debate? DoubleBlue (Talk) 12:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, simply put, the keeps were basically all WP:ILIKEIT or WP:WAX— statement of preference, but none address the repeated concerns that the article never met notability guidelines. Maybe a good argument based on policy and guidelines could have been made to keep the article, but it wasn't. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Was there a good deletion argument made? I argued in the debate that the article did meet notability guidelines and that it could meet Verifiability and NPOV policies. I sense a strong scent of BIAS in the whole affair. If an article can meet WP:V and WP:NPOV, then editors' personal opinions of importance are insignificant. The fact of reliable sources signifies its notability. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I appreciate the arguments that you make. However, you will not be provided with a clear policy basis for the deletion of this page because there is none to give. Many editors have in the past argued, as you do, that provided that policy (V and NPOV) is complied with then a page should be permitted to exist. In other words we should not have WP:N notability thresholds. That is a valid viewpoint but not one which has found widespread support. Whilst we have WP:N then in all such notability debates editors will make a judgement as to where the boundaries lie and it is on such judgement that this article has foundered. BlueValour (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for your thoughtful response. Would you agree with me then that the closer was incorrect when stating that deletion "arguments based in policy and guidelines" and the keep arguments were "based on pure opinion without basis in policy nor guideline"? Furthermore, could you point me to the WP:N criteria that the article could not meet? DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm, let me put it this way, if I had closed then I would have used a different rationale. Meeting the letter of WP:N is not, in itself enough for a page to survive. It also needs to convince enough of the Community that the article has enough importance to be part of Wikipedia. Whatever the rights and wrongs, this is the way the AfD process works. In this case, accepting that it was not a vote etc., there was a 2:1 consensus that the page was not sufficiently notable. BlueValour (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, as I said in my opening statement, I am not very concerned with undeletion. I do not contest the "vote" count so much as I am concerned with a closing administrator's false declaration that the article did not meet WP:N and that arguments based in WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV were "pure opinion without basis". I believe this reflects an increasing incorrect assumption that WP:N = importance = deletion criterion. As I've tried to point out, WP:N is a guideline to interpreting Wikipedia's inclusion policies. Attempts to have editorial views of importance be a deletion reason have failed several times. The wise and unbiased method to determine "encyclopedic" is to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that equals WP:N. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, as a WP:HOCKEY member. For the most part, any junior team's season article can pass WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. One could also argue WP:5, since almanacs are part of Wikipedia. The sticky parts are WP:NOT a collection of statistics, as the initial creation of such articles at the major pro levels was fought over this point, but most have enough prose to justify existence as stand alone articles. For most junior seasons, it isn't going to happen. WP:N doesn't really have an allowance for articles of this type, so it remains a grey area. As a junior hockey fan, I'd have no great issue with creating season articles for many teams at many levels. However, the question becomes one of the notability threshold. NHL, certainly. Minor leagues? Possibly. Junior leagues? Ehh.... For the most part, discussion within WP:HOCKEY has decided that this level of detail for junior league's is too much, and a failure of WP:N. Reso lute 06:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 December 2007[edit]

Anti-Christian violence in India – No consensus closure endorsed. – Xoloz (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relist.Discussion was closed as no consensus. However there were 15 merge/delete (merge to Persecution of Christians votes, and only 5 Keep votes. I know Wiki is not a democracy but this article was little more than a fork of Religious violence in India and Persecution of Christians. As such the article relies on the testimony of one UCLA professor, and does not even substantiate a pattern. Baka man 23:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No consensus" really just means "no consensus to delete". Articles for deletion really just decides whether to delete or not (articles for deletion). If you want to try a merge... the AFD would seem to provide support that. --W.marsh 01:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So I can merge the article unilaterally then? Baka man 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you start a debate which I have just done ... BlueValour (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - merge is a variety of keep not a variety of delete so no consensus was the correct close. I do wish, though, that closing admins always gave reasons for their close which often forestalls these appeals. Incidentally, the nominator is being somewhat disingenuous in his choice of merge target - he proposed Persecution of Christians but the majority of the mergers went for Religious violence in India. Possible merges are editorial post-AfD actions and I have placed suitable tags. BlueValour (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disingenuous? Its a triple fork, which is why I got a bit confused. See Persecution_of_Christians#Persecution_of_Christians_in_India and Religious_violence_in_India#Anti-Christian_violence and Christianity_in_India#Hindu-Christian_Conflict. Something is wrong here.Baka man 02:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point; it is pretty confusing! However, we can't sort out the mess in this DRV. The necessary actions are for discussion and action elsewhere. I have started the process by proposing to reduce the number of articles by one by an obvious merge. The other three that you highlight are all legitimate separate articles but the overlaps and links need some hard editing to make a coherent whole. BlueValour (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. There was no consensus to delete at the AfD and the requester seems to be pursuing a merge for which DRV is not the appropriate venue. Eluchil404 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment let us not be disingenuous either; merge may be technically a variety of keep, but in the ones coming out of AfD that I've followed, it generally leads to deletion of the information, either by a pretended merge that loses the information immediately, or a merge followed by a reduction and elimination of the material merged. It turns out that google does not index redirects, only articles--so keeping a redirect preserves only the indexing within wikipedia. For someone searching from outside, it essentially hides the heading. Obviously there are cases where a merge of truly duplicate content is an honest solution--but a merge as not sufficiently important for an article does not generally do what the naive think is intended. (I am not commenting on the particular situation here). But here is not the place to argue this in detail. DGG (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist.Discussion was closed as no consensus.--D-Boy (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (leave as "no consensus"). There is no evidence either in the discussion or here that a relist will be any more successful at achieving consensus. Give the article's editors the benefit of doubt for a reasonable period (probably a few months). If the problems still remain, the article can always be renominated then. The merger issue should be sorted out on the respective Talk pages, not here. Rossami (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

James Henry Brett, Jr. – Deletion endorsed. If future sources are found (they'd probably be on paper), recreation may be warranted, as usual. Redirecting may be performed under normal editorial processes. Requests for restoration, with an eye to merging, also may be presented at DRV or to any administrator. The likeliest outcome of the recent "cleanup" of the extreme longevity articles will be a consolidation of these (otherwise unremarkable) names to lists, for which a single verifiable source (often the GBOWR) is sufficient. Exceptions to this general trend will, of course, exist where there are more sources known. – Xoloz (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admin activism, no consensus to delete. No merge was performed. Why ask our opinions if they are ignored? Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. I don't see any consensus in the AfD. It should be relisted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Recently many of these articles have been nominated for AfD. There appear to be entrenched camps on both the delete and keep sides of these arguements. It seems to me that some sort of policy should be hashed out to decide whether being the oldest person in a given country is enough of an assertion of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply See Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Supercentenarian, where just such a proposal has no supporters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as no consensus - I am not convinced of the merits of a relist because that seems also likely to lead to another no consensus. However a policy discussion, as suggested above, has merits. The preamble to WP:BIO includes the phrase "It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.". In my view it is open to the Community, at an AfD, to create such an exception which they appear to have done here. What is more important is that WP:V is met since this is policy. For the age of the subject we have two arguably reliable sources; the 1963 Guinness and the Gerontology Research Group. If an editor wishes to argue that these are not reliable sources then that is a different basis for possible deletion as failing WP:V. The point made in the AfD that there is insufficient sourced information for a standalone page is a somewhat different issue. This, in my opinion, is not a ground for deletion but rather for a merge of the material into one of several lists as an editorial action. In summary, the page should be restored with the option to merge tag if any editor is so minded. BlueValour (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus the decisions vary, depending mainly on who has the energy to argue them. DGG (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as per nom. I am also going to nominate Betsy Baker for deletion review for much the same reason. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The closing admin was obliged by the deletion guidelines to weigh the arguments rather than to count votes, and was correct to note that the "keep" voters did not adddress the lack of reliable sources. The World's Oldest Person Titleholders (since 1955) sole reference] is a list entry, so the closing admin was correct to disregard arguments which did not address this. Most of the article was unverified and should have been removed, so there was nothing left to merge anywhere apart from the dates of birth and death, which are already listed in Oldest people. It would have been quite perverse of the closing admin to ignore WP:V and accept a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT !votes on an article which almost wholly original research. The bottom line is that no evidence was offered that there is anything verifiable to say about him other than what is listed in Oldest people. An article about him based on reliable sources would read in full
James Henry Brett, Jr. (Houston, Texas, June 25, 1849? - February 10, 1961) was an American supercentenarian who was the oldest recognized living person from the death of fellow American Martha Graham on June 25, 1959 (apparently his 110th birthday) until his own death.
Considering the "keep" votes, we see:

Smashville: reluctant keep simply because some previous similar articles had been kept. Invalid argument, because the other articles raised difft issues; should be disregarded
Kitia: "possibly oldest person in the world is definately notable". Wrong: see WP:BIO as it is, not as Kitia's no-support proposal would like it to be. should be disregarded
Richard Arthur Norton: "Keep abd reference better". Disregarded, because there is no evidence that any other references are available. Per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", and the keep voters should find the references if they want to keep the article rather than merely assuming that they must exist somewhere. should be disregarded
You've Got Mail!: "Keep as per, well, pretty much everyone who voted keep". WP:SPA on 14th contribution, supporting other invalid arguments, should be disregarded
DGG: "Keeep we are not bound by precedent, but we should be consistent. This and other articles on the oldest people at any given time in the world are notable." Wrongly assumes that other articles were kept on the basis of similar evidence, so invalid argument, should be disregarded

That leaves no valid arguments to "keep", and the closer was correct to note that "keep arguments did not address the lack of reliable sources backing up the claim of notability."

I think that the issues raised by this DRV are very important, because an AfD decision should be not be overturned just because some editors would like it to be a vote count. If the deletion process retains articles in people about on whom there is next-to-nothing to say based in reliable sources, then wee are undermining a pillar of wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion but... BHG got to it before I could, and probably summarized it better than I could anyhow. The easiest way to have kept this would have been to provide some reliable sources and improved the article. No one did and, from my own searches, I suspect they didn't because they couldn't. Thus, the closing admin's rationale "keep arguments did not address the lack of reliable sources backing up the claim of notability. Only source is itself unsure of the facts. was exactly on the money. "Having said that, however, I don't see a problem with recovering the information and merging it into List of American supercentenarians and turning his name into a redirect. Per WP:V, however, only the information that can be verified through reliable sources should be restored and placed in that article. Cheers, CP 01:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted) for the same reasons (and with the same sockpuppetry concerns) as were noted in the "Jose Luis Aquino" deletion review above. Rossami (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, lack of sources correctly identified by closer and not addressed by Keep advocates. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the AfD may have been skewed by sockpuppetry amongst the "keep" !voters: it seems that Kitia (talk · contribs) may be the puppetmaster of You've Got Mail! and/or User:I'll bust your beak! (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia). You've Got Mail! (talk · contribs) actually described himself as having been created by Kitia, though the outcome of checkuser may needed before confirming that Kitia is the puppetmaster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The checkuser request has now confirmed both You've Got Mail! (talk · contribs) and You've Got Mail! (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets of Kitia. Both sockpuppets !voted "keep" in this debate, so three of the 6 "keep" !votes were from the same editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. Per BrownHairedGirl. - Galloglass 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per BHG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. Lack of sources is fine by me. Even if they had been found...wouldn't they most likely be obituaries? --Smashville^BONK! 21:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Smashville raises an interesting point, about obits. I have seen several mentions of the notion that an obituary alone does not satisfy WP:BIO requirements, and it seems to me to be a wise approach (implicit in WP:NOT#NEWS), a but I can find no mention of this in WP:BIO. Is it in any of the guidelines? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer Wikipedia:NOT#MEMORIAL is frequently cited to that effect, but it's not the most straightforward reading of the current wording. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obituaries used to be mentioned on one of the "notability" pages as similar to primary source material - allowable as a contributing source but insufficient to prove notability. Sooner or later, everyone gets an obit. Rossami (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion; the problems with the article were never directly addressed by the keep crowd; the closure was proper as it went to policy and not numbers. — Coren ^(talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion as above. Eusebeus (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Inkou.jpg – No deletion to review; list at WP:IFD if you feel it should be deleted – Core desat 12:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admins generally and perhaps User:Edokter more specifically refuse to delete this image, after the discussion at WP:AN#Image for deletion, I had tagged it for speedy deletion because of a fair-use validity concern. However I believe it should be deleted, my concern is that according to WP:FUC cover art can only be used when there is critical commentary of the particular item, and not as a general example of a pornography film cover, as is the case in Pornography in Japan (see the phrase This image is being used for critical commentary as a general example of pornography in Japan. in the rationale). The particular image, film or actress are not mentioned once outside of the image caption. The fair use rationale says The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article, I ask the admins to please paste here any sentence that mentions the image even briefly outside of the image caption. In my opinion sometimes some fair-use images simply have to be deleted and it is not a case of rewriting the rationale, especially not by adding incorrect info just to satisfy the FU criteria. Jackaranga (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to review The images has not been nominated for deletion, nor has it been tagged with a speedy template, only a disputed fair-use template, which was removed after ammending the fair use rationale. This image should be nominated at Wikipedia:images for deletion first. — Edokter • Talk • 12:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Emmett H. Walker, Jr. – speedily restored. – Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wish to see this article undeleted as it does not in my view fail the SD criteria under A7 as decided. The article asserted the significance of its subject in its opening paragraph in the statement that Walker "served as the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from 1982 to 1986" - A major military command in the US. The article also mentioned his World War II service winning both the Silver and Bronze stars. I would also point out that other former chiefs of the National Guard have pages up eg. John B. Conaway and Raymond F. Rees, and it would seem incongruous to keep these articles and deny Walker's. Kiwipat (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy deletion under A7 with the option for anyone to list at AFD of course. Being the head of a military command is an indication of importance as Kiwipat says and especially when combined with the medals cannot see the article being a speedy deletion candidate. Davewild (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Overturn Clear indication of notability, which is easy to ascertain. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedily restored this article; it appears to be a simple mistake as the article clearly asserts notability. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the discussion on the deleting admin's talk page it's not. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The deleting admin may have intended to delete, but it seems to me to be a mistaken application of the speedy criterion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 December 2007[edit]

AccuCMS – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 03:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page should not be deleted because it quite simply covers a notable topic with extensive references to published material in major international news outlets, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The subject matter as it was presented has been covered non-trivially by multiple independent reliable published works. QA5Qz (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. As written, the page was a G11. However, if "multiple independent reliable published works" can be cited, and its a big 'if', then there can be no objection to the recreation of a balanced page. BlueValour (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and temporary name protection. It appears that bad versions of the articles are continuously being created in a very short period of time (five deletions over the past two days), so at least a short protection of the name should be used. This will prevent, at least in the short term, the continued abuse of page recreation. With any luck the page author will get bored and go do something else. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion both as inappropriate use of the encyclopedia for advertising and/or as a probable copyright violation of the company's website. The nominator alleges that this company has been non-trivially covered by major news sources. Google News turns up nothing. A straight google search (excluding the company's own site and Wikipedia) returns a mere 12 hits, the best of which is merely a reprint of their press releases. I'm not even find a claim to notability sufficient to send this to AFD. I strongly recommend that the nominator read the Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest before again attempting to write this article. Rossami (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No assertion of notability has it. This seems to be approaching a coatrack article to pursue the former professional cyclist who is asserted to have helped advertise it; however there is no special significance in the advertising. No really non-trivial mentions in the general media, per Rossami. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse all deletions no version asserted notability; some more spammy than others, but fundamentally A7 (and yes, although some purists say computer programs aren't technically covered at A7 because they aren't mentioned there; I don't buy into that bureaucratic wikilawyering phooey and it's articles like this that's why). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gyorgy Orth – Title unprotected by deleting admin. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should be a redirect to György Orth. Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to recreate. It was speedily deleted as per WP:CSD G5 as it was created by an abusive sockpuppet of the banned vandal, Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steve Pederman – Speedy closed as deletion endorsed. The "article" was a single sentence, with the subject's name badly misspelled. Under such circumstances, CSD A1 is justification enough, a redirect/history merge for the improper name makes no sense, and retyping the sentence at the correct title should take less than ten seconds. A deletion review is a waste of time. – Xoloz (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this page about the former athletic director at the University of Nebraska... unfortunately I somehow must have written "Pederman" instead of "Peterson", which is his real surname. He's a clearly notable guy as the former head of two multi-million-dollar departments and I don't think the page should have been speedily deleted (under A7, I believe)--though of course I understand why, as it wasn't under the right name for him! But it was a pretty decent stub that I wrote, so I'd like to have it restored if that's alright. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 10:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn delete another bad A7. Athletic director of notable schools is a claim of importance. --W.marsh 15:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and merge with Steve Peterson per nom. The current Steve Peterson article is a redirect to Steve Peterson (actor), so the merger should not be a problem. If the mistake was merely a typo of the page title, as the nom claims, then there should be no real problem with the article. However, I cannot see a cached version of the page, so if the deleting admin or nom has a copy of the content, I would like to see it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The deleted version just read:

Steve Pederman is the former athletic director for the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Nebraska.

I had to click on the link to find out what it means. Is there consensus, that a sports related "full-time administrator" is by itself a claim of importance? If it is recreated or restored at Steve Peterson (athletic director), an Afd might be appropriate.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother Just write a meaningful article at Steve Peterson (athletic director). ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Angry Video Game Nerd – Speedy close. This is a request for unprotection, it should have been handled at WP:RPP. The recent AfD is not being contested.. – ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This long-deleted article has been re-created here: The Angry Video Game Nerd (show) and that article is strong enough to earn a speedy keep at this AFD. A request to unprotect this page (and the associated pages that are also protected) was put in at Requests for Page Protection, but unless I'm mistaken, I think it needs to come here. So I am bringing it here. Based upon the current article and the AFD, I ask for an Overturn of the previous AFDs to allow the article to be moved to a better name (if that's where consensus ends up), or at least to allow redirects to the new article. UsaSatsui (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The notability and verifiability that past opposers were seeking has been established in the passing months, with mainstream coverage from XM Radio's the Opie and Anthony show [62] on several dates, CNN [63], G4TV, and Spike TV [64]. SashaNein (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 December 2007[edit]

Freeway blogging, Roadway blogging – Deletion endorsed, article userfied – trialsanderrors (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Defined in US News and World Report in the December 17, 2007 issue, and now there are 6 Google News Archive Hits. Minimally copy and paste to my user page so I can work on it from there. Google News has: [65] Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on this matter at this time, but from what I can tell this is a request regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadway blogging and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeway blogging. -- Ned Scott 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to Roadway blogging, several articles were merged into that one (including Freeway blogging), and then it was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadway blogging in December 2006. I have put the last version of it at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Roadway blogging. --Stormie (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, solid consensus to delete in the roadway blogging AFD. --Core desat 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I think there are sufficient references to restore immediately under one term or the other. DGG (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Norton's version looks better, so I won't comment on it (he can move it to mainspace when he's ready, as far as I'm concerned), but endorse original deletion as that content had no reliable sources, justifying a closure of delete. Xoloz (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ancients (Farscape) – Unnecessary per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Speedy close, per WP:IAR based on that reasoning if none of that covers it. – Hiding T 16:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_11#Ancients_.28Farscape.29, I have created a draft with the userfied information at User:Sgeureka/Races in Farscape (with a lot of material that was kept in a recent AfD and which still needs to de-cruftified). There wasn't so much to be merged from Ancients (Farscape) because it was just plot, but Peacekeeper (Farscape) had some usable destriptions of the race. As I said before, the merged article content can be sourced from the show and the scifi.com website mentioned at the end. The article can be further expanded by including conception info from e.g. The Creatures of Farscape: Inside Jim Henson's Creature Shop. Reynolds & Hearn Ltd. ISBN 978-1903111857 so that the article would pass WP:FICTION. If I read User talk:Eluchil404's response correctly, I need to present the new article draft for evaluation here before I can move it to main space, so this is what I'm doing hereby. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore/Allow. The draft could be moved directly into mainspace on the theory that it is sufficiently reworked to not be a G4 of the deleted articles (besides which there was considerable support for a merge in the AfD's). But it is probably better to ask here and see if anyone has an objection. I don't. It looks like a reasonable draft which should be allowed (though subject to future AfD's if people see fit). Eluchil404 (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Eluchi. This has been rewritten enough to be considered a different article (not to be confused with a different topic for the article). -- Ned Scott 23:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore/Allow -- per the above. ditto. // FrankB 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but when did we need to start asking permission to do things like this? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Deletion policy notes that If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. Just do it. Hiding T 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment go ahead and add it, looks fine to me, totally different from the old article. RMHED (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as initiator (or whatever this is called). Since the comments here were encouraging, I was bold and moved my draft to Races in Farscape, and moved Ancients (Farscape) and Peacekeeper (Farscape) as #redirect [[Races in Farscape]] {{R from merge}} into mainspace also. GFDL is alright, and the merged new article has a good chance to establish notability. Someone can close this review if they also consider everything alright. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:FGwiki – Deletion overturned – Core desat 05:59, 18 December 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 template that linked to the Family Guy Wiki that is hosted on Wikia. No consensus to delete, nor does the template violate WP:EL. WP:EL says to avoid "...Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Family Guy Wiki, buy any reasonable measure of such things, has both. Further more, editors that help keep excessive plot summary off of Wikipedia know the value of having alternative outlets easily available to both readers and editors. Personally, I believe this deletion happened because of paranoia about not wanting to be seen as endorsing a Wiki that hosted by Wikia, rather than the merits of the wiki itself. The offer to link to such sites is in no way limited to just Wikia, as documented on Meta:Interwiki map. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree SharkD (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore, clear case of TfD closer ignoring both unanimous consensus to keep, and also precedent: see Template:Wookieepedia box, Template:Wowwiki, Template:HarryPotterWiki, etc., which are similar templates that have all been discussed on TfD in the past and kept. I also would dispute the closing admin's claim that the Family Guy wiki does not have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" - a cursory glance reveals a history going back to May 2005 ([66]) and a claim of more than 1200 articles ([67]), which sounds like a lot to me for a single TV show. --Stormie (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin statement: I could care less about who hosts the wiki. It receives only a few hundred edits per day and has less than 200 registered users. There is no reason to link this from every page using a template. When I closed the TfD I said nothing about the suitability of FGwiki as an external link - I said that it was not a viable use of a template, although I did quote the external link policy in so deciding. As for the templates you raise above - the first is not linked to any articles and should be deleted, the second violates policy in the same way that this template does, and the third was only kept because its nomination was part of an edit war. As I stated in my close, FGwiki adds nothing to an article. If an article on a Family Guy episode became an FA, it would have everything that an FGwiki article would have. Thus the template violates the external link policy. If FGwiki had important information which otherwise could not be hosted on Wikipedia, that it would be a valid link, but I think that that occurs so rarely we don't need a template to do it. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 16:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"When I closed the TfD I said nothing about the suitability of FGwiki as an external link"? But that's exactly what you said! "We shouldn;t link to the FG wiki because it is in violation of the external link policy."

"If FGwiki had important information which otherwise could not be hosted on Wikipedia" - well, recent strong consensus at AfD has made it very clear that detailed in-universe articles about fictional characters, etc., with only primary sourcing from the fictional work itself, cannot be hosted on Wikipedia. And that's exactly what all the wikis I mentioned above are dedicated to. I'm not sure why you want to discourage attempts to direct people to a more appropriate venue for reading and creating Free articles about such topics. --Stormie (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It receives only a few hundred edits per day and has less than 200 registered users." That's pretty damn impressive for an independent wiki. Also, activity of a wiki doesn't always reflect the quality of it's contents. There are some wikis out there that are rarely edited, but simply because they don't need to be edited often.

The point in linking to the Family Guy Wiki is that they will have detail we will not go into, and they will have different content (regardless of detail) that Wikipedia doesn't have simply because of out MOS or that we're set up as an encyclopedia.

"If an article on a Family Guy episode became an FA, it would have everything that an FGwiki article would have." Err, what? FGW has the potential to have information that would cause an article to fail FA (not because of usefulness, but because of FA's criteria would have an article exclude such information). -- Ned Scott 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - we can't ship extended plot summaries off to Wikia then remoe the links. Also, Stormie makes a very good point. Will ^(talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - This seems like a very useful template and the deletion ignored consensus and precedent. Ursasapien (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn -- clear case of editors involved should set methodology, not some idealized half-baked attempt at covering all bases. Tfd quidelines have been brain-dead for quite a while. Those few tens of bytes kept in a template have little cost to the project and the deletion discussions aren't generally well advised as they directly cost others their time to defend. // FrankB 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to endorse the close. Admins can only close what's in front of them. I also think the issues raised in this review need wider airing. If the wiki in question has more info than we do, it is because they are breaching copyright. Therefore, per WP:EL, we should not link to them. Hiding T 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Hiding T 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was in front of that admin was a consensus to keep the template. Copyright concerns with fictional coverage are a whole other issue, and something where we've only speculated. Even with that, linking to such sites doesn't violate copyright law even if we ourselves wouldn't have that much information, in the same way we link to websites that use more fair use images than we do. It's still legal where the servers are being hosted, the US, but Wikipedia is more strict because we want to focus on free-content, and avoid content that has conditions and red-tape.

The only concern that I can really understand from the deleting admin is that it could be that we are over-linking FGW. I'm not sure how I feel about that, since it's more of a technical limitation than actually over-linking. We basically want to give a link to the over-all topic, and when someone views a page about a specific element, allow them to find that element on the external wiki. That's why it's a template, because it's a link that gains context depending on what page is being viewed. This is especially useful when we are dealing with other free-content wikis, and one that, even if unofficial, have a healthy relationship with Wikipedia, and allow us to direct both readers and editors to the appropriate place for extended details. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - admin's job is to establish consensus and use policy. Nothing in policy gave any reason to ignore consensus in this decision. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Varya_Akulova – Deletion endorsed; recreation from reliable sources permitted, as usual. – Xoloz (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was deleted because editors felt this was a hoax; however this is not the case. The Discovery channel ran a piece about her: [68] JudahH (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate only if additional sources are found. Otherwise keep deleted. Aside from that piece there don't seem to be any reliable sources that can can substantiate any of the claims. Don't restore the article deleted in the AFD, as it was simply one sentence and a fragment saying who she is and what she does (which is pretty much what the homepage of her website says). --Coredesat 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How many reliable sources do you need? I don't know if there are many other sources available on the internet, but the Discovery Channel is very well known. Besides, the pictures/video on her website (lifting people) substantiate the claims to a degree: weights may be hollow, but people are not. JudahH (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, an article needs multiple independent non-trivial sources to establish notability. One isn't multiple, and the subject's website isn't independent. --Core desat 05:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're changing your argument now: what you said before was that you wanted sources to substantiate the claims. As to that, I think a Discovery Channel show with footage of her winning a (regional) championship is enough substantiation. Now you're talking about notability. That's a bit more subjective. As far as I can tell, the Discovery show is her only notable appearance in Western media, but in Eastern Europe, she's had more press coverage.JudahH (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same difference, pretty much. The claims are essentially assertions of notability (in this case, the assertion of notability is that the subject is the strongest girl in the world). --Core desat 09:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing other than the Discovery Channel show, a UK tabloid, and presumably Russian tabloids. Despite her claims about being recognized by the Guinness Book, last I checked I found no evidence of that on the Guinness site. I really have to question how reliably researched and presented "My Shocking Story" on the Discovery Channel UK is. --W.marsh 05:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Guinness site: check again--the only weightlifting record they mention at all is "Most weight lifted with an ear". In other words, most of the Guinness records are not posted on their website.JudahH (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is she mentioned in the print version? What year/page? --W.marsh 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether she's really in the Guinness book of records or not. If I get a chance to look at one, I'll check.JudahH (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - the AfD was properly closed. Whilst there has been widespread publicity, significantly it has not been reflected in reliable sources, bar the Discovery Channel. At present, we have no reason to regard it as anything other than a hoax. Mind you, if the publicity continues then the whole event might become sufficiently notable to justify an Varya Akulova weightlifting controversy article. BlueValour (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "it has not been reflected in reliable sources, bar the Discovery Channel."

"At present, we have no reason to regard it as anything other than a hoax."

You contradict yourself. First you note that she has been covered by the Discovery Channel, and call that a reliable source; then you say that there is no reason to regard it as anything other than a hoax. You can't have it both ways. If the Discovery Channel is a reliable source, than this is not a hoax. That's why I made the request for deletion review in the first place.JudahH (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are two issues here. Firstly, whether the page was properly deleted in the light of the AfD discussion and my view is that clearly it was. Secondly, should recreation be allowed. Though the Discovery Channel is regarded as a reliable source, even reliable sources make mistakes sometimes. Having read an extensive range of opinions on the web, I still think that this is a possible hoax. To convince me you need to produce additional reliable sources. Not that convincing me is pivotal; you need to convince sufficient editors to obtain a consensus for recreation. BlueValour (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this just stuns me. You've read an "extensive range of opinions on the web? And on the strength of these opinions that are based on nothing, you think that the Discovery Channel, which actually went to Ukraine and filmed her and her family, including her winning a regional weight-lifting championship against competition several years older, somehow made a mistake, and it's still a hoax. JudahH

Recreate It meets our standards for sourcing. V, not truth, after all. Maybe the Discovery Chanenel was fooled, but unless someone says so it a published source we can not argue this. DGG (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate, lots of reliable sources in Russian[69][70][71][72]. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 14:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 December 2007[edit]

Kevin_Kinchen – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD. – Xoloz (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

In_What_Way_Does_Article_does_not_indicate_subjects_importance_or_significance? Castawayred (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) >[reply]

Weakly endorse deletion (there were two deletions, but the second was for an incorrectly placed {{DRVNote}} tag, which was G6 and not G4) - the article looks only barely speediable under A7, but if overturned and sent to AFD, it would likely not survive. --Core desat 11:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list AfD. I agree with Coredesat that the article is not likely to survive an AfD, but the deletion was improper. WP:CSD#G4 only applies to articles recreated after being deleted in an AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the second deletion summary was probably a mistake. The article creator put a notice tag in the wrong place; it wasn't an attempt to recreate the article. --Core desat 23:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the first speedy deletion under A7 as the article did make an assertion of importance 'known for creating the worlds largest in use real time database'. It should go to AFD to determine if there are sufficient reliable sources for him to be notable for either this or for the poetry awards the article says he received. The second speedy delete is a moot point but could have been speedied as no content even through G4 did not apply. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and List - not a G4 (that is only for pages deleted at AfD and the like) nor an A7 (indicates significance). However, the subject has only marginal notability so should be procedurally listed to allow the Community to take a view. BlueValour(talk) 18:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very true, even minorly notable, is still notable. True encyclopedia's distinguish bull flies and house flies regardless of how insignificant the difference, although small differences, even the small things merit notation because the future might show this person as being the greatest peacemaker or war villian known to humanity. The truth is, as little notable he might be, every notable person started with just a little noteriaty that grew.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.6.59.163 (talk • contribs)

List the article deleted under A7. Leave the attempt at notifying the deleting admin that was deleted under G4 alone - that attempt should have been met with some support notifying the admin who deleted under A7 followed by a G6 deletion as non-controversial housekeeping. GRBerry 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Restore - Very shocking but we have now verified the claims in the quote. For the less tech savvy in regards to the database, what was as we thought impossible having a four quarter farm in miles of databases, you really can create in a single server room using postgres and the methods described. Much to our surprise; and deliver the astronomical numbers as claimed. Atleast partitons in the millions in a single database as far as we can tell. It is a bit hard to explain to a non database person but... this is not minorly notable. This is very notable. This is huge!! In comparison. My god this is astronomically huge.. We here are very excited and want to know more, much more. this could change everything.. We have seen the proof. As far as "I" personally can tell, this has never been done before, atleast, not that I have heard of. The simplest way to put this is thus.. Before today the max we could partition in oracle was sixty thousand plus partitions per database before having to implement rac and multiple boxes, now imagine the difference, working partitions in the millions on a single box. Add to all of this the ability of Postgres to branch to othe rboxes and... Well lets just say, its astronomical. I can't say this person was the first to do this but... This is definatley the first I have heard of it, I could not find reference to it anywhere in any search engine, but we have proved it out at least on one of our little boxes. So unless otherwise proven, I believe this must be truly a person who is who he says he is, atleast in the computer science aspect. The poetry, I don't know anything about that. Perhaps a split into two seperate articles until the poetry part could be proven? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.6.252.151 (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Articles needing an infobox – CfD closure endorsed. As mentioned, this does not preclude a new CfD to suggest renaming. The DRV only holds that this closure was not in error, and should not be reversed. – Xoloz (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 1#Category:Articles needing an infobox for the CfD of this and its subcategories. I don't think that this CfD had enough discussion before closing as all pages involved were not notified during the discussion. I disagree with the nominator's/closer's rationale and argument, which is essentially that the categories being named in the format as "X articles needing infoboxes" is presumptive and no one should be making a determination of what an article needs. I find the change to "X articles without infoboxes" unnecessary and incorrect, as there are articles that are without infoboxes but don't need them. The common usage of these categories comes from WikiProject templates, where WikiProject members use these categories as internal mechanisms, used by other members to know what the WikiProject has determined the articles need. On the contrary to the nominator's rationale, I propose that standard usage of infoboxes in many, many articles represents a consensus that most articles tagged by WikiProjects as needing an infobox do indeed need one and aren't just without one. It is similar in nature to that of Category:Articles needing attention and its subcats. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be clear, I don't disagree with the singular vs. plural deduction from the CfD, just the rewording from needs/needing to without. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, and this gets overturned, then all the newly renamed categories could easily be transferred into their "needing" equivalent. I'm not saying that's what I'd do, but now they're all named similarly and so they'd only need a one-word change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: All these categories have finished transferring their content. So if any get relisted, this should be done should be in the format of "[[:Category: (X) articles without infoboxes]] to [[:Category:(X) articles needing infoboxes]]".--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. Many of the categories in question still have CfD templates on them, and none of the changes that were aggreed upon in the closure appear to have happened. Category:Articles needing infoboxes links to the deleted category that it was supposed to be replacing, as well. I doubt the CfD was closed properly. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did happen to interrupt the editor doing all the work mid-way, so I assume that's the reason it's not complete. I have a feeling that User:Mike Selinker would have finished and cleaned them all up soon. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I've finished all the template changes but it takes a while for the talk pages to finish processing. When they're done, the original categories will be deleted, as some already have been. (I did miss the category redirect, though. Thanks for catching that.) So it is technically still in process, but no manual work remains to be done.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's rationale. There was complete unanimity for a change from "needing" to "without," and changing from the domains of the WikiProjects to the general topics (e.g., "WikiProject Schools articles" to "School articles"), as the projects do not own the articles. However, I can see that presuming that all the subcategories should change in the same way (not just the ones listed in the nomination) may have been overstepping. I expect almost all would pass on their own, but if there are some that people see as outliers to this principle, then I don't object to relisting those.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see four users participating in the discussion for a period of only three days (once the idea of "needing" -> "without" began) before it was closed. The section title did not indicate that the decision would affect all of the myriad subcategories, and neither did the initial discussion lean that way. The controversy comes on the one hand from a sudden shift in direction of the CfD, and on the other hand from the renaming/deletion of categories that were never put up for discussion. Those latter changes were made out of process, and should be restored regardless of the outcome of this review. They can then be put up for CfD, if that is deemed appropriate. We should not have to relist items that never underwent the CfD process. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold There is no requirement at Cfd that Projects are notified. I think, as Mike says, a middle course could perhaps be struck here, limiting the decision to those categories actually listed this time, with a further debate on the others. I understand what Rkitko is saying, but these days (thanks to the dreaded betacommandbot), most articles seem to be in multiple categories, and there are very often different views between the projects as to whether infoboxes are desirable, or which infobox is desirable. For example, the Biography project plasters all articles with "infobox needed" (meaning theirs), when for artists the Visual arts Project (to which the writing editors nearly always belong), do not support an automatic infobox, & often prefer a painting infobox to a biography infobox (partly because the artist infoboxes get filled in very inaccurately by bio people, and take up valuable picture space). There are many similar conflicts, so the appearance of prescriptiveness is best avoided. Very few projects are in fact so cohesive and organised that their views in this matter should be encouraged to override the view of the writing editors of the article anyway - Project Military history is perhaps the only one I can think of in this class. I wonder how many projects have actually taken a collective decision to use infoboxes anyway - I suspect often one or two people create it & then just go with it if no-one objects. I see Rkitko is from the science side, & I appreciate their boxes often seem much better than humanities ones. But at the end of the day, if you want to know what boxes are missing, either wording does the job fine. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your thoughts! I can see the rationale for some projects and agree it might be appropriate to be more neutral for some as in the given example. On the other side, in all my time here I have only bumped into one user who has expressed disdain for the Tree of Life infobox (i.e. the taxobox). I haven't taken a complete consensus of all WP:TOL subprojects, but all of them seem to have no problem with the taxobox and they rarely overlap with other project like you describe - or if they do overlap, such as with a geographic-related WikiProject, there is no appropriate infobox that those WikiProjects would desire to put in place of the taxobox. Taxoboxes are pretty much standard on any TOL article, except for things such as Illiciales, where the taxon is pretty much no longer used and a page is only needed to describe it's treatment in the many systems that exist. So perhaps what I'm getting at here is at least the "needing taxobox" categories should be discussed in more length. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The revised name is wholly inappropriate for TOL articles. There are many, many organism articles that have no taxobox and shouldn't. For example, the Fish article has no infobox, but it should not have a Taxobox because it is not a taxon. The same is true of Bryophyte, Algae, Marine mammal and countless other organism articles. These pages are not taxa, and so do not have a Taxobox as a result. However, there is also a desire on the part of all the various TOL groups to include taxoboxes on articles that are about taxa (formally recognized groups), as well as infoboxes on articles about important strains and cultivars. When these pages lack such a box, it is important that they receive one. Unfortunately, with the newly revised category names (e.g. Category:Plant articles without taxoboxes), the category name is nonsensical and useless to the project using it. There are many, many articles within the scope of WP:PLANTS that have no taxobox and never will. The plant physiology article will not (and should not) have a taxobox; it is a discipline, not a taxon. Likewise, the Leaf article should not have a taxobox, and neither should Algae, Bryophyte, Fish, etc. For all the TOL Wikiprojects, there is a clearly defined, and very important, distinction between articles that should have taxoboxes and articles that should not have taxoboxes. Whether an article is simply without such a taxobox is irrelevant and useless information. What is important is locating the articles that need such a box. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm definitely hearing strong reasons why the taxobox categories should not be treated the same way as the infobox categories, and so as the closer, I would support reverting those. I didn't see any difference before, but I'm starting to now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encycolpetey isn't making sense to me. The previous names were "needing", the new name is "without". If they didn't "need" infoboxes, what were these articles doing in the category in the first place? Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't in there. The old category name made it clear that such articles should not be tagged for the category unless they needed a taxobox. The new category name doesn't make this necessary distinction. People will be tagging articles because they are without a Taxobox, rather than because they need them. In other words, it is easier to explain to someone with, "No, that article shouldn't be in the category because it doesn't need a taxobox," than it is to explain with, "No, that article shouldn't be in the category, even though the category name implies that it should be in the category because it is without a taxobox; we only want articles in the category that need a taxobox, despitre the name." --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, your lot are obviouly more thoughtful than the Bio folk, who assume everything without a box needs one. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn ToL related categories~~. Per the information stated by others in this DR. Additionally (although a minor argument), pluralizing the "taxoboxes" makes the category even more absurd, as each taxon that does need a taxobox only ever needs one. One of the original CfD nominator's arguments was that often an article needs more than one infobox. However, by definition each taxon has a single taxobox. If it isn't a taxon, it doesn't need a taxobox. While I agree with the intent of the original CfD on infoboxes, it was FAR too reaching in changing taxoboxes as well. Justin ^chat 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively sympathetic to this, but note none of these were in the original nomination, & are only affected by the close proposal to rename all such articles this way. Maybe if Mike amends his close to exclude those, referring here, we can close this. Is anybody arguing against the close in respect of non-TOL articles? Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to amend the close to "re-exclude" the taxobox-related categories, now that I get that they're not just oddly-named infoboxes. I think we're all agreeing that should be done. (Though I'd still keep the plural since it's "Articles" that need many, not "An article" that needs one.) As Johnbod suggests, if that happens, does this nomination close early?--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only issue I have, and I can live with the pluralizing. Seems to me the only argument is for taxoboxes so I would agree to an early close if taxobox cats are excluded from the original nom. Justin ^chat 17:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we would go back to singular for the taxobox categories, since your point stands that each article requires only one taxobox, regardless of whether or not it is a plural "articles" in the category title. So we would move from Category:Plant articles without taxoboxes to Category:Plant articles needing a taxobox (even though the original category was Category:Plant articles needing taxoboxes) and from Category:Cultivar articles without infoboxes back to Category:Plant articles needing a cultivar infobox. The latter makes sense in that the title relates it to WP:PLANTS and that cultivars are only plants. It was more descriptive to begin with. I'm still not convinced that all the non-TOL categories had to be changed to "without" from "needing". The closer's rationale is that the WikiProjects don't own the articles. They do, however, maintain those talk page categories and it is right and fair for WikiProjects to determine what the articles they edit need, just like any other maintenance category and like the parallel Category:Articles needing attention. Other objections were that some WikiProjects and editors do not prefer to have infoboxes, which creates problems where those projects intersect (such as the arts/biography intersection noted in the CfD). Why not just change the few where this problem is noted, or work it out between those projects to come to a consensus on what the articles need? Rkitko ^(talk) 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't "a few" at all! - I would say most of the 5,000 + articles I have edited (apparently) are, or potentially could be, covered by many projects. You have national projects (often several), religious/denomination projects (ditto), history projects (ditto), the Biography project and then the specialist projects. I think ToL-type situations are the exception not the rule. Look at Talk:Albrecht Dürer or Talk:Book of Kells - 5 project tags each, to which more could easily be added. Talk:Crusades has 7. Johnbod (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the issue of ToL categories should be taken to WP:TOL? In reality, although not required, this is where the issue should have started, but it appears the nom didn't intend for the effects that were caused as a result. If no one does it today, tomorrow I'll throw together a list of WP:TOL related categories and move the discussion there. For the purpose of this DR, for the sake of making this less complicated, I will change my vote from Overturn ToL related categories, to Overturn and relist, since I still feel the issue is VERY widespread, and there simply wasn't enough input on the issue. Justin ^chat 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Nothing wrong with the close. --Kbdank71 16:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closure appears to reflect the consensus of the discussion. This is not the place to introduce a variation that might be better for a closed discussion. If there is a better name, then nominate the categories and have a normal discussion. The work to change is minimal since the cat is added by a template, as I recall, and changes to templates or by a bot are easy. In any case, the approved change fixes existing naming issues and should be allowed to proceed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After 3 opinions were issued, the proposed renaming changed from "needing" to "without". Given that the changes that occurred after the close weren't the same as the proposed changes and the actual changes occurred on categories outside of the proposed changes (taxobox articles in addition to infobox articles) this was by definition, an improper close. Had the CfD notices occurred on at least one taxobox category, it's unlikely it would have ever made it through CfD.

While the existing change may fix some problems, the ends don't justify the means. If we don't overturn closes that have a far broader brush than proposed (actually CfDing categories that aren't even mentioned), then what's the purpose of having a deletion review at all? Justin ^chat 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 December 2007[edit]

Ancients (Farscape) – Content userfied per request to enable merge – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request temporary undeletion. The AfD of the Ancients article closed in deletion with "The proposed merge target does not exist." Several days later, a similar AfD for the Peacekeeper article closed in deletion with "most of the keep arguments center around in-universe importance, not real-world notability". In both cases, the recommendations pointed more at a no consensus than a delete, but the closing admins didn't do anything wrong. In the believe that all other Farscape races would be considered non-notable and therefore deleted, I AfDed them in a group nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banik), but the result was "Keep with possible merge", although these races are less in-universe-notable. I asked the closing admin to restore the other two race articles for a merge, but he replied that I should go to Deletion Review. Since I doubt that any Farscape races can establish individual notability, I already merged them in my userspace (User:Sgeureka/Races_in_Farscape). The Scifi.com external link serves as source. Because of the amount of companion literature and DVD features, I am very certain that real-world information exists (as needed per WP:FICTION) to justify the existance of a (merged) Races subarticle, so I request the temporary undeletion of the Ancients and Peacekeeper articles so that they can be merged too for consistance. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- temporary undelete should be automatic. I'm a little unhappy about closers using their own preferred reasons, instead of recognizing there is no consensus on such articles, but in any case a combination article would be better all around.DGG (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you like the content? I would be happy to move the articles to your userspace or email them to you but am reluctant to undelete them in mainspace against (another admin's determination of) consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my understanding that, if I merge, the page histories of two now-deleted articles have to be restored under the GDFL, which is the easiest by recreating the articles and then redirecting them as #redirect [[Races of Farscape]] {{R from merge}}. I don't know in how far moving the article to my userspace or receiving them by email keeps the GDFL intact, which is my only worry besides getting the mergable article content. I have never participated in Deletion Review and need a little help here, but the main DR page said Temporary review – Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), which is exactly what I want. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Putting a temporary copy in your userspace (or email) gives you the chance to create a solid merged version which can then be presented to the community for evaluation. At the point that you get consensus to move the article from your userspace into the articlespace, we can (and must) restore the history of the pages merged in. That would be a very routine request that any admin can carry out. (I'd be happy to do it for you then.) Undeleting now, when the success of the merger still seems a bit speculative, could be seen as premature. I think that's the real source of the reluctance to unilaterally overturn the AFD closure. Rossami (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for explaining. Please provide a copy to my userspace then. What exactly do I have to do when I've finished the merge in my userspace? Comment here, or ask an admin for review? – sgeureka ^t•c 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content has been userfied to User:sgeureka/Ancients (Farscape) and User:sgeureka/Peacekeeper (Farscape). I am closing this DRV as moot. A new one can be started once the draft of the merged article has been created. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Openbravo – Deleting admin did not throughly investigate; interceding DRV of 15 November specifically permitted rewrite. A new AfD would be needed -- G4 not enforceable on new draft per DRV consensus. Clear error here, so speedy restore. – Xoloz (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

article not substantially identical, as per CSD A4, notability shown, and no more COI, because of new editors editing the article. Note: please view User:Thylacine222/Openbravo, not the cache, that is a previous revision of the article with no sources. Thylacine222 (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, here's how I think this came about. First of all, when the page was first created, Openbravo didn't satisfy the guidelines for notability, and it was speedy deleted. I believe this went on for some time, until it was recreated, by the owners of the company. It was deleted again, because it did not meet CSD A4, and also because of notability and the COI of the owners creating the page. It was recreated one last time, except that this time, the Openbravo creators did not edit the page, I did, and I expanded it so that it was not "significantly identical", as per CSD A4. Then, I'm not sure what happened, but the page was deleted, I think because the admin believed that the page was being written by an employee. I am not an employee of the company, I simply use it. As for showing notability, I have a few links. CNet article mentioning Openbravo Sourceforge Activity Ranking, OB is currently #2 Google search with 192000 results (I know, it doesn't really prove anything) Article about Open source ERPs CIO Article about ERPs Thylacine222 (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore last revision per nom. I cannot tell from the cached version, but there does not appear to be significant problems with the last revision of the article. Citations would be good, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to let you know, the version that is on the Google Cache isn't the one that was deleted, but rather one from a previous time that the page was deleted, but both versions are similar. The more recent version had a few refs. Thylacine222 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Course of events: Probable OpenBravo employee creates article. Gets deleted by AfD. Probable or admitted OpenBravo employee creates article. Gets speedied. Repeat, seven or eight times. OpenBravo employee asks for undeletion. Editor in dispute with me (user:Sfacets) recreates article to irritate me, succeeds admirably. I no longer care. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why I brought this to Deletion review! Can we please stop yelling at each other about petty internet rivalries, I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about the article which I believe should be undeleted! Thylacine222 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, the cached version shows no signs of notability. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as the cached version is non-notable. Given that this has been washed and dried many times over, it's obvious that the article is not warranted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Full disclosure: I am an Openbravo employee. I have always stated my condition as an Openbravo employee in any discussion related to Openbravo. As per your instructions, I have requested all Openbravo employees to refrain from editing the Openbravo entry to avoid any conflict with Wikipedia's policies). You can find independent evidences of notability in Google (200,000 references), SourceForge.net (a regular in the Top 10 list projects in terms of activity , with more than 400,000 accumulated downloads, at a rate in excess of 1,000 per day -for the last year the fastest download rate for any open source ERP on SourceForge-), Awards (InfoWorld's 2007 BOSSIE award to the best open source ERP Infoworld_Bossie_Awards; LinuxWorld San Francisco'07 Product Excellence Award; Red Herring Top 100 Europe). Please, also note that if you want independent writers for this entry, add references, and so on, you need to allow for some time for the community to work on it. If you ban the article there is not time for the community to contribute to it. Please help me. We are an open source project that understand and respect community driven efforts. Give us a chance... Jmitja (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page was unsalted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 15, but it seems that all work done since then is still completely lacking in relible sources independent of the subject which establish its notability. We keep seeing claims of notability made in DRV discussions, can someone just cut through this once and for all by writing an article in userspace with sources establishing this? That would achieve so much more than all these DRV discussions. --Stormie (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sample of independent sources citing Openbravo (I hope this helps with your decision and is appropriate for this forum) MySQL's Mickos: Open Source in the Enterprise interview by James Maguire in Datamation; In Open Source Software, "The ERP Market Also Rises" by Dennir Byron in ebizQ; Running the open-source bulls with Openbravo by Matt Asay in CNET Blogs; LinuxWorld Expo 2007 report by Andy Oram at O'Reilly; Open Source ERP: Today's Hottest Emerging Technology? by Laurianne McLaughlin at CIO.com; Openbravo executives open up on the ERP solution by Dahna McConnachie at IDG's PC World; This tech boom has legs by David Kirkpatrick, Fortune senior editor, for CNNMoney; Interview with Openbravo's COO by Sean Michael Kerner at Internetnews.com; Openbravo on open source ERP by Scott Mace at Information Manager Journal; Openbravo on TV2 a TV program aired in a national Spanish TV. Regards, Jmitja (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC) (Disclosure: I am an Openbravo employee)[reply]
Per Stormie's suggestion, I have started work on a userspace page to establish notability. User:Thylacine222/Openbravo. I have just started it, but I already have 2 independent sources from the beginning paragraph, and the aforementioned articles should allow for me to add even more. Thylacine222 (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

NewMusicBox – Continue with status quo. – Kurykh 04:00, 16 December 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 notable e-zine that would link from many references already existing in wikipedia. VoxNovus (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the deleting admin and have explained that the original article posted violated CSD G11 but had no qualms with the notability and stated that the article could be recreated as long as the advertisement sections were removed and it was re-written in an encyclopedic tone. The current version is as such and I have no objection to it. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current version looks good to me; not sure if it really needs a review, but if it does, endorse current version. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As above, the current version looks fine. I endorse the deletion and say allow current version. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - the current version is clean enough to avoid a G11 and the site is plenty notable as here. BlueValour (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Debacterol – userfied at User:Patcat88/Debacterol – trialsanderrors (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was SDed, I need a copy of this to my userspacePatcat88 (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this was blatant advertising, but it certainly needs work, so I'm userfying. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Glenn Burns – We don't restore copyvios – trialsanderrors (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting history-only undeletion; page is now redirected to a section of the TV station he is at (WSB-TV).

Any reason for this? According to the AfD, the article was a partial copyvio, plus it was wholly unsourced. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a partial copyvio, this DRV should probably be speedily closed since copyvios are non-negotiable. --Core desat 03:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Adventures of Captain Proton – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 04:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This deletion discussion had no clear consensus, being split almost perfectly, and while the article admittedly is not exceedingly important, it has significant content that ought be retained at least in a merged article. Precedent for this level (and even lower) of article was clearly presented and the page was deleted regardless of the discussion. Best solution is likely a merge, but there was, again, no clear consensus (in fact, no consensus at all) for deletion. Please review and restore so the information from the article may be utilized in a more appropriate merge or standalone article. VigilancePrime (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On 11 Dec, it was recreated by user:Anthony Appleyard and was subsequently tagged for deletion. I have speedy-deleted it as recreated content pending the conclusion of this discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: As has been pointed out as well, more than 20 pages pointed to this article. VigilancePrime (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of pages which point to an article have no bearing on whether or not the subject of an article is notable. What if I created an article about myself, then went in and added my name to hundreds of articles? Does that by default mean that my article should be kept? Corvus cornix_talk 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're missing the point totally. The pointing-to is a note. The problem is "This deletion discussion had no clear consensus." How are people so blind to simple fact and instead pick apart the extraneous or additional information? Open you eyes, read the discussion, and instead of puny little quips about fringe "what if" statements, one can see that the deletion discussion was inappropriately classified as delete in spite of the true reality of the discussion. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. As far as I can tell, none of the arguments for keeping the article addressed the nominator's valid concerns (namely meeting notability requirements with reliable sources). Nor was there any mention within the AfD discussion that the article itself had been edited to address said concerns. Unless article underwent sufficient revision prior to closure, deletion seems in-bounds. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Memory Alpha is on the Interwiki link list, so you can do [[MemoryAlpha:The Adventures of Captain Proton|The Adventures of Captain Proton]] to produce an interwiki link, like so: The Adventures of Captain Proton. --Stormie (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But there should somewhere on Wikipedia pointing to MemoryAlpha:The Adventures of Captain Proton, so that Wikipedia readers can be directed there: e.g. as a stub-and-link at The Adventures of Captain Proton. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Neither the article, the AFD or this discussion have produced any independent sources demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's recommended inclusion criteria. I find no process problems with the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, reasoning for closure seems sound and reasons for keeping were not grounded in policy or guidelines. --Core desat 06:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On 12 Dec, user:Anthony Appleyard again recreated the deleted content. It has again been speedy-deleted pending the conclusion of this discussion. Rossami (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I re-created it as a stub with external link to [73], not as the full article again. I thought that that would be allowed, to satisfy its current incoming links. Sorry. Could that short stub-and-link be restored as a section in Star Trek: Voyager? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: While I tend to agree with the notability concerns, the decision was entirely subjective. The AfD should have been closed with no consensus, however, it was closed by an admin who subjectively decided the arguments of those against the AfD weren't "good enough". Overturn the AfD, allow the people that expressed an interest in the article to qualify it's notability, and come back in 6 months if they haven't. Justin ^chat 18:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Admins are supposed to weigh the quality of the arguments. Otherwise, an article with 10 Keeps based on solid policy would be outweighed by 11 Deletes based on "I don't like it." Consensus in an AfD discussion must be rooted in policies and guidelines. Comments not based on policy or guideline can (rightly) be discarded by the closing admin. -- Kesh (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep agree, AFD isn't a vote count, consensus is formed by if the article meets current policy or guideline, which this AFD didn't, thus Endorse my deletion Secret ^account 05:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say admins are supposed to weigh the quality of arguments? WP:IAR is the ultimate rule and "the first to consider". There is absolutely no requirement at WP to prove a particular point with policies and guidelines because WP:IAR says to ignore them. Personally, I tend to get annoyed when people use WP:IAR, but it's purpose is to prevent EXACTLY this type of action: an admin making a subjective decision that other people didn't quantify there arguments with policies and guidelines. If admins make determinations like these, then the simple answer is from now on, simply saying "Keep per WP:IAR". Why bother arguing as humans when we can just quote like robots?
  Furthermore, I am astounded that the admin in question in this DR actually endorsed his own AfD. Perhaps that's commonplace, but it's pretty poor form to be providing a "vote" (so to speak), in a review of your own actions. The decision was made without a consensus. The irony is, it seems this AfD is likely to head to no consensus, perhaps the closer of this DR should use the same logic Secret did and close it in favor of overturning. Justin ^chat 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You asked "Where does it say admins are supposed to weigh the quality of arguments?" Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus paragraphs 2 and 3, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure paragraph 2 and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion to name a few. WP:IAR is a rule to consider. By no means is it "the ultimate rule". It was "first" only in the sense that it was the first such rule that anyone bothered to write down. Rossami (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There is no consensus to delete present in the AfD discussion. In particular mere allegations of "cruftiness" are not persuasive arguments to delete. Lack of independent sourcing is a problem but need not be decisive in cases like this where reliable primary sources are available and other arguments for notability are made. A redirect might be a compromise option, but I see no pressing need to keep the history deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no attempt to retrieve independent sources during the Afd nor was there an attempt to explain why independent sources could exist but are hard to retrieve. As such, no sources → no article applies. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 December 2007[edit]

Wuice – last version emailed to requesting editor, everyone happy. --Stormie (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was hoping someone could email me the contents of this page so I may post it elsewhere. I put a lot of work into it, and although it has not been deemed appropriate for wikipedia (which I am fine with), I would still like the have the content I wrote. Thanks. VenomSnake (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wolfen (Star Fox series) – Deletion endorsed – Kurykh 02:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request undeletion of this article beucase i feel that it is notable for being a prominent part of the Star Fox series of video games. It is not as prominent as its "good-guy" counterpart, the Arwing (which is also under deletion review), but it is in every single game from Star Fox 64 onwards, and i think that since it is well-known, that it should have an article telling what it is, on wikipedia. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DRV is not AfD redux. This is not the place to re-argue the AfD, but to explain how the (unanimous, by the way) deletion discussion and closure were not done properly. Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The impression i got from the introduction and explanation of the Deletion Review was that it was a place to challenge a deletion. in fact, that's what it clearly stated. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the portion which says This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate.? Corvus cornix_talk 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - the AfD was correctly closed. Incidentally, the article was unsourced, in-universe with no real world context and I see no prospect of an encyclopaedic version being produced. BlueValour (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but new information has come up, and i thought the article could be recovered and expanded upon. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the AfD discussion didn't have particularly many commenters, but there have been many similar nominations of video game characters recently and the consensus is solidly there that articles entirely consisting of in-universe details with no real-world sources establishing notability should be deleted. --Stormie (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I don't see that there is any new information brought up here. The AfD was closed properly, as stated above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:DW Fear Her.jpg – Relisted. This should not have been speedy closed. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 15#Image:DW Fear Her.jpg. – Chick Bowen 00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is in violation of the fair use criteria 3A, it is used in the article for decorative reasons only. The original nomination was closed as a malicious complaint of disruption was made, and a memeber of the relevant wikiproject closed prematurely closed the ifd on these grounds. The groundless alegation has since been withdrawn, and the individual involved told me to submit the image here. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep - the image is informative in the article and I see no grounds for it failing fair-use criteria. BlueValour (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. To be more specific, the original nomination was closed based on the fact that your nomination was a WP:POINT nomination, as is this deletion review. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the uploader, I told him to bring it here, so no WP:POINT here. — Edokter • Talk • 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep - to delete a fair use image illustrating a television episode would be an extremely far-reaching precedent which should be preceded by genuine policy discussion, not a WP:IFD nomination. Also, what is this "decorative reasons" criteria you are referencing? WP:FU criteria 3A says "Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." You could certainly argue that this one image is not "necessary", but again, that's a matter for a policy discussion not a deletion nomination. --Stormie (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: There is no "decorative reasons" criteria, the only reason for a fair use image is neccessity any usage reason other than neccessity (including decorative) is invalid as a fair use criteria Fasach Nua (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep - It's a fairuse image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimospy (talk • contribs) 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- question - Is it neccessitated? Was the article invalid before it's inclusion? What does this image convey that cannot be conveyed in uncopyrighted text "The Doctor and the Tardis in a child's picture"? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible overturn and delete. This image or equivalents of it were already deleted not once but twice after valid IfDs. An admin with a vested interest in the use of the image then undeleted the image in blatant violation of due process, and then re-uploaded it under a different name to evade the IfD. He also bullied the nominator, to the point of making bogus block threats against them. Gross case of admin abuse. -- As for the content, the NFCC concerns against this image are very real; unlike what Stormie above implies there is no blanket allowal for one image per television episode; every image must in itself be necessary to illustrate a specific point of analysis. This one isn't, just like its predecessors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this supposed to be sarcasm? Before you start yelling "gross admin abuse", you better get your facts straight. The original image was deleted only once, then once again under G4, then admittedly restored and re-deleted by me. Then I uploaded a completely different image, so there is no "re-uploading" involved here. This deletion review only concerns the closing of this IfD. Concerns regarding my actions on the other image should be addressed elsewhere. — Edokter • Talk • 10:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, this is not sarcasm, I'm dead serious. And I did say "this image or equivalents of it"; anything that applied to the former ones applies to this one, including the valid deletion decisions and the fact that the new uploads were in violation of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The closer of the original IfD had a deletion in the same scope overturned before he closed the IfD. There wasn't any consensus for the deletion of the first either - just one anon listing it on IfD along with other images with no attempt to note this on either the talk page or the article or the WikiProject. Saying that's consensus is laughable. Will ^(talk) 15:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. Will ^(talk) 15:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside - What is this discussion about? Lots of people have suggested that the image be kept without explanation, however we know that WP is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, and the only consensus that needs be found is wether this image is nessiccary or not. I have seen nothing to suggest that anyone thinks that the article neccessitates this image Fasach Nua (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is not intended to discuss the reason for deletion, only if the IfD was closed properly. You can vote for a "relist" to try and have the IfD relisted. — Edokter • Talk • 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would seem that there is enough of a spectrum of opinion to suggest that the original ifd submission had some merit, was improperly closed, as it did not fall under WP:POINT or WP:DISRUPT, and that the member of wikiproject in which the image is used shoudl not have closed the ifd without discussion Fasach Nua (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not referenced in the text, fails "Significantly increases a reader's understanding, or its omission is a significant detriment". I am also unhappy with the process here from what I see - seems fishy.--Doc^g 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Deletion Review, not Images for Deletion. — Edokter • Talk • 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, overturn and delete - happy now?--Doc^g 22:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at IFD or FUR. This is not the right forum to discuss whether the significance of this image is enough to justify its use; the IFD or a fair use review would give editors more ability to discuss the nuances of the image policy than this DRV. The use of images like this is a common topic of discussion at WT:NONFREE, and there is unlikely to be a clear answer in policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete: While the trend might be to include one episode image per article, fair use policy doesn't support it unless there is critical commentary on the image (see WP:NFC#Acceptable_images). The article's plot summary is substantial (probably too much so; see WP:PLOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information) and a reader can understand the term "drawing" without having to have a fair use image to depict it. Further, the image can be replaced by a user drawing an image of a person in a child like manner. So, it's replaceable and not needed. Thus, it fails WP:NFCC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry. Generally, DRV is for contesting an out of process deletion (or not deletion as the case may be), but reading this discussion I can't tell whether we're debating the merits of the image itself and its legitimacy or the closure process itself. If I could get feedback on exactly what discussion is going on, I'd be glad to give my input. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are deciding whether to uphold the ifd and keep the thing, or overturn it and delete it. The philosophical niceties matter less than the result.--Doc^g 08:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we're effectively having the IfD anew here, then I don't see how this image meets the muster of WP:NFCC#8, requiring that the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and have its omission be detrimental to that understanding. This is a drawing of the Doctor and his TARDIS, and while pertinent to the plot, certainly not necessary to understand the prose provided. Overturn closure and delete. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, we're not have the IfD anew here. The only thing that should be being discussed here is the closure. If 'delete' would be the outcome, it would mean the image would be deleted out of IfD or CSD... and I'm not willing to let that happen. 'relist' or 'endorse' are the only possible outcomes in this case. Any other outcome would establish a vary dangerous precedent where fair use images can be deleted out of process, and this particular images is only picked as an example. Otherwise, all TV screenshots would have to be nominated. This is a very dangerous trend here; before you know it, there is going to be a barrage of deletions under the guise of the "necessity" rule. That term that open should never have been allowed in the policy, as it is now being abused by deletionists trying to get as many fair use images off of Wikipedia. I intend to start an RfC if I am proven right; Fair use policy should be strictly defined within the policy framework. The only other option is to disallow fair use of images alltogether. — Edokter • Talk • 14:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we're specifically discussing the closure as appropriate, I find it out-of-process. Regardless of whether or not Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) was being disruptive or not (a discussion and determination I won't involve myself), the nomination itself certainly seemed valid and not subject to speedy closure. I lean more towards overturn and relist as opposed to o+d, namely because the IfD still needs to run its course--moreso than the 5.2 hours afforded. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - No valid reason was given to keep the image in the ifd, no consensus to keep the image in the ifd Fasach Nua (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep as uploader. There was no consensus to delete either... And we need no reasons to keep, only to delete. But since discussion was cut short, if the close was done unproper, relist is the only alternative. — Edokter • Talk • 20:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. Self-evidently supports the commentary. Closing admin was correct to close this as a malicious nomination. Jheald (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

point of information' - The closer was not an admin, as you state, but a member of the wikiproject which uses the image Fasach Nua (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clandestine HUMINT asset recruiting – Deletion overturned. – Kurykh 02:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A perfectly decent starting point for an article which was speedy deleted by ST47. While needing some cleanup of tone, it does not, in my opinion, meet any speedy deletion criterion, and ST47 has refused to explain which actual criterion he deleted it under. Kirill 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The cache link above does not show the page. Is there a cached version available elsewhere? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Cannot see how the article meets any speedy deletion criteria, at the least deserves an AFD discussion. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The speedy-delete summary suggests the criterion was No Context, but there indeed was context. DMacks (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as deleter - page is utterly unnecessary. Reads as a how-to, is too far in-depth. Content should be heavily pruned and merged into the main article, not spun off and expanded ad infinitum. We are not a guidebook. We are an encyclopedia. We document facts. We do not record a person's opinion on how to do something, certainly not ever anywhere but that person's page or pages related to him or her, and only when he or she is an expert. As written, the article was crufty OR. (Lifebaka: If you want the content, email me) --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Context is right there in the title. And likely, given a little work could survive AFD considering there is a wealth of information about it on the internet. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn None of the reasons given by ST47 amount to reasons for speedy deletion. We do not speedy for "crufty". We don't e4ven delete on that rationale. DGG (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list AfD. The article should most likely have been deleted, but proper process should first be used. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - A copy of the article, pending the result of this DRV, can be found here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn improper speedy deletion. RMHED (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG, SwatJester et al. Thanks for link. The way WP is going, it may be a popular topic.... Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

phi technology – This had already been restored through OTRS; consensus here was to send to AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phi technology. – Chick Bowen 00:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admins are mantaining a blind-deletion behaviour against our page, they say we are infringing some copyringhts but this is very false since we are the producers, the owners and the only legal holders of those copyrights. Phi Technology page has been locked now, and this may lead to a some damage, please undelete it as soon as possible since it's my duty to have that page online. Paolo.russian (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have directed Paulo to Wikipedia:Request for copyright assistance, but I think further down the line, the subject is going to suffer from WP:COI and WP:OR problems. Marasmusine (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. It has been shown that the creator of the page was not commiting copyright violation, so I see no reason why it should be kept deleted based on this. However, other problems with the article should be addressed. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion and title protection. Blatant advertsing in the article's long form. Non-notable product in its stub form. I love that "my duty"! Paolo, you also have a duty to comply with Wikipedia editorial policies. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete No explicit release into the GFDL makes it an indisputable copyright violation. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Shouldn't be speedily deleted as copyvio, because it has been released under GFDL, or as recreated page because it hasn't been AfD'd, but does seem to qualify for speedy deletion as spam. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse deletion until proper proof of copyright ownership is provided. Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

- ~~In addition, please remove cascade protection from the stub so that a proper afd discussion can be begun. Corvus cornix_talk 22:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Overturn and List at AfD - correct GFDL permissions have been received, see here, so there are no copyvio grounds for keeping the article deleted. However, the last version had serious problems so it should be listed to enable the Community to make a decision. BlueValour (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the above, overturn, unprotect and list for afd. Corvus cornix_talk 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Restrore and send to AfD where it will be probably deleted. Very spammy, but probably better to do it after a discussion. DGG (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and AfD per above. Justin ^chat 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sputnikmusic – Deletion endorsed. Removal of links is an editorial issue; they can be removed by anyone if deemed necessary. See Dealing with existing red links for guidance. – Chick Bowen 00:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page about a music review site has a confusing history of creations/deletions/redirections I am not specifically interested in. I am listing it here because of IMO sloppy treatment of the issue. I clicked to see its backlinks and was surprised to see that it is liked from multitudes of albums. Now, you have to decide whether this site notable/reputable or not. If it is notable then the article must be restored. If it is not, then it cannot be a reliable source for wikipedia, and hence all references to it must be deleted. Please comment/process. I am not so bold here because am not an expert in music, only in the suffix -nik :-) `'Míkka >t 06:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Consensus was clearly to delete in the 2nd AfD. However, should sufficient sources become available to create an article on this subject, it should not be disallowed. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The result of the AfD was quite clear. However, it does seem an influential, highly regarded site. It should be straightforward to produce a new, fully sourced page and this should be permitted. BlueValour (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure? I'm not getting a sense of that myself, e.g. a Google News archive search [74] reveals one lonely reference, a mention from a German news site from January 2007. --Stormie (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I was sure but you have sowed doubts in my mind :-) I think that it all depends whether the argument about notable bands citing the site holds water. I appreciate that band sites are no way WP:RSs but would notable bands compromise their reputation by citing sites that are not well regarded? BTW this is not a rhetorical question but one to which I don't know the answer. BlueValour (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, clear consensus in second AfD. If someone can create a reliably sourced version establishing notability, fair enough, if not, I'm happy to do a pass over the "what links here" and remove the review links. --Stormie (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I think that it is a fair argument that if the site is not notable then the links should be removed. BlueValour (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Linux Action Show! – Restored by deleting administrator – Tikiwont (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article appears to have been speedy'd, as there's no AFD for it! It was about a podcast about Linux and open-source software.

A quick Google search may help to establish its notability... it is referenced frequently by numerous Linux-related publications, websites, and industry events. It has interviewed many significant leaders of the Linux community. If more references are needed in the article, I'll add them. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 05:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the deleting administrator, and I have restored the article. I think I deleted the article totally on accident with the wrong tab open. I wasn't in a haste or anything, strictly an accident. My sincerest apologies. The addition of those references would be nice, though. Keegan^talk 05:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 December 2007[edit]

Daniel Brandt (redirect) – The consensus below is that applying BLP in this manner to redirects is a new development, requiring more deliberation than one admin's opinion. It is not clear that there are any BLP concerns over a redirect. Per Lar, while Doc might be commended for his boldness, wider consensus is needed. The matter may be taken to RfD, which I'm sure some interested editor will do very shortly. – Xoloz (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm bringing this here myself, before some someone else does it for me. On the 15th contentious AfD, Daniel Brandt was merged by User:A Man In Black on 14th June 2007 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)), and the article was made into a redirect to Public Information Research. It really was the best that could be done in the heat of the drama. On December 1st, the subject posted on the BLP noticeboard [75] pointing out, amongst other things, that the result of the redirect was that any google for his name first located our article on PIR. (A little unfair when you consider that we only kept our PIR article because there was no consensus to delete it - basically it's crap). Considering the request to be rational, and the cost to us little, and the drama to have died down, I deleted the redirect at Daniel Brandt - citing BLP and privacy considerations. I'd have done the same for any subject ~~- and the fact people knee-jerk with the "hate Brandt" mantra is no reason not to.~~[unhelpful remark stricken by me - with apology] We have to give some thought to what Wikipedia causes Google to do when real people's names are involved. My decision was a bit IAR - but I was trying to "do the right thing" without drama - and it was endorsed by an number of admins, including the AfD closer.[76]

Yesterday, User:JoshuaZ approached me with a number of concerns, including a valid point the GFDL had technically been violated by my actions. However, before we had fully discussed this, or sought agreement, he promptly and without warning reversed my deletion, and attacked as me as I (according to him) "insist on being Brandt's lackey" [77]. Trying to avoid further wheel waring, and meet the GFDL technicalities, I moved Daniel Brandt and all its history to Talk:Public Information Research/merged material and set that as a redirect to the main article. User:Dmcdevit deleted the resulting redirect at Brandt's name, as now redundant. I'd hoped that would be a quiet end of the matter, acceptable to most, but it seems some wish to instigate a public debate on my "unilateral" BLP moves. So to pre-empt that, I'm coming here myself. Please endorse the move (not deletion) of the history and Dmcdevit's deletion of the redundant redirect.--Doc^g 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse move of history and deletion of redirect. This should have been done the first time round and should be done in future to address such concerns. Would also recommend a bit less of the sighing, mentioning of knee-jerks and dramaqueens - that creates drama in itself. Carcharoth (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sighing stopped forthwith.--Doc^g 15:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: note that this solution does not address all of Brandt's concerns. The history of the Brandt article is still available, just a bit harder to find. Also, the fact that Brandt's name is mentioned 14 times in the PIR article means that that article will still rank highly in a Google search. The February 2007 DRV still ranks highly in Google searches, along with (ironically) the ED article on all this. Nice to see the German artist is still up there and not being affected too badly by all this... Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confused: I don't understand why the GFDL requires duplicating the history of Public Information Research on a subpage simply because we deleted a redirect to it? That seems entirely beurocratic?? -- Kendrick7^talk 15:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, when material is merged, we need to keep the history of the old article so to show who created it in the first place.--Doc^g 15:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the history of Public Information Research. It's the history that used to be at Daniel Brandt. As I've said above, this will likely not be completely satisfactory to all, but is worth trying to see if it works. Carcharoth (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec with below) ***Oh, I think I get it. The whole history of the Daniel Brandt article is actually merged in there, just in deleted/hidden form, right? -- Kendrick7^talk 15:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Endorse history restoration. Ooooh, I see what you did there! I got confused by the redirect. I'm happy to see my contributions, now smerged to NameBase, properly credited. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) GFDL requires proper attribution for contributions by each and every user. There were 2000+ edits that got deleted along with the deletion of the redirect. Endorse Doc's and Dominic's actions. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good move, Doc. Thanks. Oh, and I endorse your actions. --Tony Sidaway 15:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn There are a variety of concerns here. First, This is highly unsual and out of process and should get a community input at a RfD (the default in Wikipedia is to keep, not delete). Second, the notion that Brandt will be at all satisfied with this is inaccurate in the extreme. He has continued to push and to harass Wikipedians and will continue to make demands of us. The end result when we keep compromising further with Brandt is that he wins. Wikipedia articles inevitably have high google ranking and we are deluding ourselves if we think he will be satisfied as long as his name is mentioned anywhere. The other articles also get high google rankings and he will continue to make demands for those. Third, there is nothing in WP:BLP that allows for deletion of a redirect simply because it has high google rankings. Indeed, such a suggestion was made (by Fred Bauder at one point) about that sort of thing at one point and it was rejected. Fourth, this goes against a long-standing compromise of how to handle the material. Fifth, this sends a message to Brandt and other trolls that they can get what they want by harassing us enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He "wins"? I'm not playing a zero-sum video game with Daniel Brandt. I judged his request on its merits. Let's keep personalites out of it - and less of the "trolls" language. This is the type of "war with wikipedia review" paranoia that ends up distorting our decisions. We are neither "lackies" for, not soldiers against Brandt.--Doc^g 15:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, he wins. He gets to not have a well-written source about him and his various activities and he gets to further destroy Wikipedia content. That's called Daniel Brandt winning. If this continues we won't even have an article even on PIR (and don't claim this is a slippery slope fallacy because we've already gone multiple steps down the slope). And your comment doesn't even address my other concerns. The bottom line is that this is out of process, against prior consensus, doesn't help matters at all, won't satisfy Brandt, won't stop Brandt and will in fact just embolden trolls and other people with interests directly inimical to an NPOV encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I don't care about Brandt, but I do care about the Wikipedia, and this goes against what we stand for, which is making a decision by consensus, rather than by fiat. The slippery slope isn't just something we're in danger of here, it's here. You can see the next steps in the implied request to delete Public Information Research right at the top of this DRV. The article on Daniel Brandt had something like 40 excellent references, and was merged, not deleted, in a highly contentious decision, given that a large majority was arguing to keep. Doc Glasgow was one of the minority arguing for outright deletion.[78] Now, some time has passed, and it's not a merge, it's a deletion. In another few months, it seems that PIR will be quietly deleted too. This is doing a quiet end-run around the community, not the way we do things around here. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebar to my own comment. It seems that DocG is feeling put upon; that is not the intent here, or at least not my intent. I fully believe the Doc is doing this for the best motives. I think he is wrong, but not evil. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Now that the fuss over the GFDL has been sorted out, we really don't need a Daniel Brandt redirect in place. Concerns that "Daniel Brandt has won" are misplaced; he may think he is in a conflict with us, but we should not regard it as a conflict with him, and treat him as any other person mentioned in Wikipedia would be. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If he were treated like any other person on Wikipedia, his article would never have been deleted in the first place. LondonStatto (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Fourteen AfDs, and still going... Appeasing characters like Brandt does not work - he'll always find something else to hassle us about. In addition, Google is not Wikipedia -- why should our work be damaged because of what some other site shows? If Brandt has a problem with ranking high on Google, he needs to talk to Google, not us. Finally, there was a long-argued-about compromise solution developed (incredibly painfully, I hasten to add). For somebody to now destroy that compromise is undesirable, to say the least - especially when done by someone who was not neutral on the last AfD. LondonStatto (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Because this back and forth is a bit confusing. Which version of this scenario meets 100% compliance with our GFDL requirements, which I understand as non-negotiable and trumping any other policies since its WMF level? Obviously endorse that scenario. If one of these scenarios isn't GFDL compliant, why even consider it? Lawrence Cohen 16:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the fully-compliant GFDL options are: (1) Undelete and restore everything; (2) Delete everything and start again. The non-compliant options involve having unattributed text in an article written by we-don't-know-who. I think GFDL doesn't require a full list of authors (only the five primary authors), but it would be nice. One of the partially compliant options is what is being discussed here. In practice, this GFDL fudging happens all the time, every day, on Wikipedia. Take a random phrase from George W. Bush: "In the 2004 elections, 95–98% of the Republican electorate approved of him. This support waned, however, due mostly to Republicans' growing frustration with Bush on the issues of spending and illegal immigration. Some Republican leaders began criticizing Bush on his policies in Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian Territories." - how easy do you think it would be to find out who wrote that? Is that what GFDL is about? It is possible, indeed probable, that the sentence was rehashed and rewritten innumerable times, moved out to other articles, rewritten again, merged back in, and so on and so on. Makes a bit of a mockery of GFDL sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a history merge is GFDL compliant which would allow the redirect to stay deleted. What Doc did probably is GFDL compliant at this point in time. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the deletion, ie, endorse the results of the most recent AfD. This deletion not only pointlessly breaks the GFDL but also breaks the compromise position it took 14 AfDs to finally come to. This was done unilaterally and doesn't even make sense within a BLP context. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: should not have been deleted, IMO, for both the GFDL history reasons and because I see no legitimate BLP reason. If the PIR article remains and mentions Brandt prominently - as it does - a redirect from Daniel Brandt is normal practise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The GFDL rationale is moot, since we've solved that other ways. As for BLP, consider that we almost deleted PIR on the grounds of not being notable (there was a majority, although not a consensus, to delete). Why should someone's name HAVE to google to an article that a majority of wikipedians think to be unencyclopedic, especially when it's unnecessary and the subject has objected? That's the BLP issue - we're quite needlessly upsetting someone (someone most of us don't like, but that's not the point). I've yet to see one good reason for declining Brandt's request here.--Doc^g 17:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see no evidence for the claim that "we almost deleted PIR on the grounds of not being notable" And if you feel a need to AfD PIR then AfD that, but let's not play games with redirects. PIR is meets notability many times over (indeed so does Brandt himself for that matter). We don't delete articles to mess with google rankings. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look harder - here's your evidence - a majority (although not a consensus) of wikipedians voted to delete it - as I said. No, I'm not renominating it - and I note you did agree with the majority. But it is exactly as I said: "we almost deleted PIR on the grounds of not being notable". BTW, I'm not "playing games" - are you?--Doc^g 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fascinating, an AfD on the subject back when we still had an article on Brandt and most of the material currently at PIR was at the Brandt article. That AfD says little about the article as it currently stands. And again, if you don't think that the PIR article should be or is going to get deleted than there's no reason to delete a legitimate redirect to it simply to hurt google rankings. That does amount to game playing- an attempt to avoid the lack of ability to delete what you are really aiming at so trying to get around by deleting the redirect. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        All I've had from you today are personal attacks and accusations of ulterior motives. Until you can read my mind, please assume good faith, and don't attribute purpose to me I haven't stated, because for now I have lost the will to debate with you further.--Doc^g 18:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It actually may create some future confusion to leave this uncreated. If we actually started applying WP:Red links properly to mentions of Daniel Brandt, he'd probably bubble up to the top of WP:Most wanted articles pretty darned quick. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the deletion and stop rocking the boat :( Stifle (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and end this drama fiasco once and for all. Danny (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse though the idea of a "redirecting to an article mentioning this person" approach was going to be good enough for Angela and Wikia so that approach should be good enough for Brandt and Public Information Research. We have no control over Google, let Brandt go annoy them if he doesn't want his name on Google. Nick (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Enough; Doc's rationale for deletion seems perfectly sound. --krimpet ⟲ 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as 1) out of process. 2) not in the intention of WP:BLP. When the subject of an article has genuine privacy concerns that is a serious issue. But please do not start deleting things because some arbitrary search engine happens to have it on the first place, and the subject happens to be upset by that. Sometimes, complaints from the subject are to be listened to. This is not because of their source alone, but also because they're valid. This complaint is not. User:Krator (t c) 19:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of redirect. Move history if you wish, but let bygones be bygones. David.Monniaux (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - there is only so far we can go to humor people who want to control their PR spin on the net. Where someone has already by their actions and/or Internet presence made themselves a public figure, there's no legal or privacy problem and someone simply wants to change history, we can't really do that. Wikidemo (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has the Foundation counsel been consulted on this decision? If this was done per Mike Godwin's opinion, then fine. Otherwise it may be better to either restore the previous compromise or open a new community discussion over the merits of this solution. Durova^Charge! 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with any legal issue.--Doc^g 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- GDFL compliance is a legal issue, is it not? And Daniel Brandt has made legal threats in the past, so that's a potential issue also. Durova^Charge! 22:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - GFDL has been fixed, and Brandt's legal threats have not entered into this. Why do you think we need to consult the general counsel?--Doc^g 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not quite what I've said; I'm asking whether he was already consulted. If this change was taken per his advice then that resolves the question for me. Otherwise it was a unilateral decision by one administrator. I just want to understand the context clearly. Does that sound reasonable? Durova^Charge! 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I still don't really understand what you are talking about. I have never suggested I deleted this for legal reasons, so why would I have consulted the lawyer? Why do you think I might have? This seems a total red-herring.--Doc^g 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It was my good faith in your judgement that doubted you would have acted unilaterally without some appropriate consultation on an issue where consensus had been so difficult to achieve. You hadn't mentioned that point one way or the other so I proposed it in your favor. If that somehow gives offense then I'll gladly strikethrough my comments to this thread. Please advise, and apologies for my share of the confusion. Durova^Charge! 01:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I outlined the rationale and history extensively in my two paragraphs above. I think if I had had some sort of "legal reason" and or had instructions from the "wikimedia general counsel", I might just have mentioned it. Perhaps you can assume my good faith, and rational judgement, without need for such a far-fetched scenario.--Doc^g 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        In other words, Doc never mentioned secretive (untaken) measures, so you've poisoned the well for him. May we move on? Mackensen (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a bloody redirect. Subject wants it gone and it really doesn't hurt us either way. Are we so obsessed with hating Brandt that we can't delete a damn redirect about him now? Pathetic. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This has nothing to do with being "obsessed with hating Brandt" - there's no good policy or other reason to delete this redirect. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You said this was not about letting Brandt "win" some type of war - and that's why we can't delete this. So it does seem that feeling towards Brandt might be clouding the judgement here.--Doc^g 23:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Brandt wants to destroy any mention of him on this project. That is what he wants to win at. And that's not acceptable since he is a very notable person who was willingly made himself a public figure and a source of public controversy. Emotional feelings about Brandt have nothing to do with that. He could be an impersonal force of nature and my reaction would be identical. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me - seriously, getting caught up on these high drama low value topics is not a good thing. --B (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn he has no right to control how he as a subject is handled by wikipedia. There is no provision of BLP that justifies this deletion. The redirect was properly made as a compromise solution to a long-standing controversy. I dont really want to revisit that right now, but this request and this removal may make it inevitable. the cat has been foolishly let out of the bag again, and--who knows--there might even be additional sources to justify an article. DGG (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, seems like a reasonable solution, and the potential GFDL problems seem to be simple to deal with. Not sure what the point is in getting so worked up over a redirect, whether it's Brandt or anything else. As ^demon said, "it's just a bloody redirect". And just because Daniel Brandt is a redlink doesn't mean that article is automatically going to become a heavily requested article (and with all the drama that's come from this article and dealing with the subject, I'm not sure why it would be requested to begin with). --Core desat 01:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as WP:MWA is bot generated, he might end up near the top of WP:MWA#Unwanted_articles due to the previous deletion. Ironically his biography could even become our most unwanted article ever.... -- Kendrick7^talk 05:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per Doc. Mackensen (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Common Sense. Yes. I think this is what we need. Mercury 01:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion lets think here. Prodego ^talk 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse end of drama. ~ priyanath talk 03:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn It's an absurd argument that deleting the redirect will have any realistic impact on the attention he receives or how easily people will find information on him. If you search Daniel Brandt, you find this information, with or without the redirect. Seriously, BLP does not apply here, nor does it even help Brandt. No really, wtf Wikipedia. Have people gone batshit insane? OMG you've hidden Daniel Brandt! Where did he go? Deleting the redirect is of absolutely no benefit whatsoever, and only serves to confuse the situation, as well as confuse everyone who's ever read the article or contributed to it. Stop making our jobs harder with this BLP drama, and just leave the redirect alone. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example 1, example 2. -- Ned Scott 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this isn't going to end the drama. We're not deciding if we are going to cover Brandt's information, we're not talking about vanishing, and we're not talking about avoiding unwanted attention. Yes, this is a discussion related to Brandt, but don't confuse this with every other Brandt discussion and blindly endorse actions as a means to end drama. The amount of such misguided blind endorsements are really concerning. Wether you like it or not, even if it causes some drama, putting our heads in the sand is not an acceptable solution to the problem. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Sorry, feels too much like playing shell games with the GFDL, considering the other targets of the complex merge. I'm open to reconsider, but that's my honest assessment. —CComMack (t–c) 05:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interestingly, Google-Watch-Watch is now the first hit for "Daniel Brandt". [79]. Zagalejo^^^ 06:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Doc trying to do the right thing, but I leave the decision of whether he did or not in this case to the consensus of others. Ya, maybe Doc sighs a bit much sometimes, :) but he gets very high marks in my book for trying very very hard to do right by the spirit of BLP and by the people affected by our articles. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (that is, revert back at least to the previous compromise outlined by AMIB at the 14th AFD). George William Herbert said the following more eloquently that I could: Rendering aid and comfort to people who behave sociopathically online is not in the best interests of the project [80]. Furthermore, we do not make content decisions based on the behavior of Google or any other search engine (just as search results are not a valid indicator of a topic's "notability" or lack thereof, but merely a tool to help editors locate sources from which to build and verify an article). — CharlotteWebb 14:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I don't see how the redirect skews the Google results, as Brandt's PiR activities make up the first chunk of relevant Google results anyway. Given that, this is a sensible redirect of the sort we routinely maintain, and I don't see a persuasive reason to remove it. That said, I'd support deleting the PiR article, as it seems like a non-notable company. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. That this redirect was in someway violating the BLP policy does not make sense. It is a dangerous path to walk down, since it will ultimately undermine the BLP policy if it is used for cases where it was never intended. The decision in the last AFD was to merge, and that means keeping the navigational pointers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Done for good motives but don't see a real BLP concern personally, seems to overturn the decision of the last AFD and our normal process of redirects. Davewild (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. for four reasons. First, the merge/redirect was a compromise to end the whole DB AfD/DRV fiasco (apparently, it wasn't enough, but I digress); a single editor shouldn't override such a compromise simply due to the subject's wishes. Second, when making deletions in accordance with the subject's wishes, I think we ought to consider whether a request is made in good faith. Third, I am extremely concerned about the slippery slope we're on: deleting a page in violation of GFDL (a solution has been found for that, but that issue was initially ignored) merely due to the subject's wishes? Fourth, the redirect doesn't violate WP:BLP: it points to a neutral and logical/reasonable target. While I have no doubt that Doc did what he thought was best, I think his decision was wrong and, if endorsed, would set a damaging precedent. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn No good reason to delete. Black Falcon and Ned Scott say it well. Gothnic (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Danny. Mr.Z-man 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK, I've not going to make any more hay here. However, there do seem to be issues about what happens to search engines when we have a redirect or a deleted page. This isn't just "google's problem" as it seems the mediawiki software is in part to blame. If, unlike me, you understand such things, you might like to review the thread on my talk page.--Doc^g 02:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I'm not happy with your further assistance to a banned user. But ignoring that, his claim is simply wrong. There isn't a bug here. The redirects are working exactly as they are supposed to. Brandt now appears to be demanding that we change our software in a way that will 1) severely damage our search engine rankings on many topics and 2) increase our server usage or he that he will be in a situation that is "actionable with the Foundation". In others words, go cut off a limb or I'll sue you. Do we need any more evidence that giving into this man's demands at all just leads to more demands? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've removed the link to the material you find objectionable. I don't comment on whether it is right or wrong - I really, genuinely, have no idea.--Doc^g 12:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Morven NoSeptember 04:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I have no more to say on the subject. I acted in good faith by doing what I believed cost the encyclopedia nothing, and helped the subject. I'd have done the same for any subject. It's obvious that the community is taking a different view. Although I'm unclear as to why, I'm going to let this go. I'm sorry for the drama, and I will say no more on this.--Doc^g 12:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Brandt is notable enough to be covered in Wikipedia, though a full article may be unnecesaary. In cases such as this one where notable figures who do not trigger heighten BLP conern (i.e. children, crime victims, and the like) I believe that little to no weight should be placed on their wishes. While it is important to consider the fact that anti-Brandt animous may colour some peoples opinions on this matter, it is equally clear that no action on our part will fully satisfy him and that attempts to appease him are ultimately futile. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. We don't allow linkspam that companies try to raise their Google rankings with. The reason why we shouldn't delete this redirect is the flip side of that coin. We're an encyclopedia, not the search engine police. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stoner music – Decision to redirect was an editorial choice per AfD closer. Evidence presented here strongly suggests the redirect is a case of CSD R3, unlikely (and deceptive) redirect. Since the underlying AfD heavily favored deletion, strength of argument favors outright deletion here, with CSD R3 as partial justification. – Xoloz (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Last AfD resulted in delete but strangely an admin thought a redirect was more apt. Redirect to stoner rock is wrong. Stoner rock is a well defined genre whereas stoner music is just a term (not a genre) for music (whatever genre e.g. reggae, hip hop) that is strongly associated with cannabis use. In other words, it's music to listen while getting high. See Rolling Stone articles [81] and [82]. The term is wildly used on the internet, mainly in forums and other non-notable media. Here are some examples of more reliable media that have used the term: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89] and less notable but nevertheless sources [90], [91] . Some of them refer to stoner rock, most do not. The article must not redirect to stoner rock Kameejl ^(Talk) 18:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoner music (2nd nomination). Mackensen (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy close as malformed nomination - nominator obviously missed AfD2. Nominator can format a new DRV if they wish to appeal AfD2. BlueValour (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The top link is wrong, but he's clearly discussing AfD 2, since the original was a keep. No need to speedy close, at least not on those grounds. Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the top link. Splash - tk 00:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. A redirect was a noble idea but flawed by the sounds of the debate and the nomination statement here. Original research charges do not seem to have been rebutted in the debate, a cursory google search suggests that there are no sources that would rebut that charge, the target of the redirect is evidently unsatisfactory as set out here and the debate makes clear that the article is not wanted standalone. (NB. That all said, the redirect seems fairly harmless to me). Splash - tk 00:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Stoner music is a widely used term but ill-defined. The stoner rock article is also flawed since most of the content is unsourced and redolent of OR. The stoner music article couldn't survive but there is scope for a sourced page to be written. Meanwhile this is a Mostly Harmless redirect. BlueValour (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry the link was not right, I didn't know. Thanks for the input! Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. In most cases redirects are a good way to compromise by saving history were it is still visible to editors if they ever want or need it. But in this case, there is nothing to merge and the redirect will be as confusing as helpful. (It generally makes sense to redirect from the specific to the general but rarely from the general to the specific.) Eluchil404 (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Angela Beesley – Overturn deletion. Consensus is that the original deletion per WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards is invalid because the subject's notability is not ambiguous (specifically, per WP:BIO#Additional criteria, "Any Biography", point 2). – Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Angela Beesley

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

Mr. Peppa – Article speedily deleted, but this is not where one goes to request deletions – Core desat 05:06, 9 December 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 a mistake plus it went against ome copyright stuff, i want it to be delted please Knowledgeispower37 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 December 2007[edit]

Gerald Gustafson – article recreated and taken to AFD, history later restored underneath given the trend consensus here was heading – GRBerry 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This editor by the name of "Tom" keeps deleting this article about one of the few surviving Air Force Cross winners from Vietnam, because he feels it is irrelevant. I disagree and know that a lot of time and effort was put into the page before "Tom" policed the article and squashed the information that may be useful and informative to many users, especially those pilots who served in Vietnam in the late 60's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.186.119 (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keeps deleting"? As far as I can see, only once. Endorse as valid A7. >Radiant< 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn if it was speedied for being non-notable that is not within the speedy deletion criterion. A7 is only for those articles that don't indicate the signifigance of the subject at hand, and that appears not to be the case here. RMHED (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Too many admins are speedy deleting new articles that don't fall within the speedy criterion. They are either not fully conversant with said criterion, in which case they probably shouldn't be admins. Or they are wilfully ignoring the criterion, in which case they definitely shouldn't be admins. RMHED (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (as deleter). Now RMHED, before we hop on the hordes-of-incompetent-admins-that-need-to-be-stopped bandwagon, let me clarify a few things:

Any problem with my deletion summary is more or less semantics, so let's just forget about that for the moment.
Read through the article and show me where the importance or significance has been asserted. There isn't any mention of why he is notable, just that he won the Air Force Cross. :Why is this important? What does this mean in the context of this person? I wouldn't know that it is anything out of the ordinary for servicemen from reading the article.
The link to his article was placed on several pages out of context, which lead me to believe the author may be a family member with a personal interest. My suspicions were verified when the author (who I assume is the anon IP who opened this DRV) posted a message on my talk page asking why his grandfather's article was deleted.

People post biographies of their relatives who served in wars all the time, and this still doesn't seem to be any different. I feel it was deleted properly. --Tom (talk - email) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn From Air Force Cross (United States): "The Air Force Cross is the second highest military decoration that can be awarded to a member of the United States Air Force" ... "As of December 2006, there have been 191 awards of the Air Force Cross." Having been awarded the air force cross is an assertion of notability, and in and of itself sufficient reason to not speedy delete. GRBerry 05:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Being awarded the Air Force Cross is enough of an indication of importance to not meet the speedy criteria. Davewild (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Of course winning an award for "extraordinary heroism" is more than enough of an indication of importance. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 15:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Article has a claim of notability which is enough to defeat an A7 speedy deletion. The option will be open to use a normal AFD. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the Air Force Cross claim is enough to satisfy A7. 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hut 8.5 (talk • contribs)
comment when this happens, of course people should try to clear it up with the admin in question first, which deals with 90% of the erroneous deletions--almost all admins will undelete something borderline if requested. But if not, this is the place to clarify for them the difference between notability and assertion of notability. DGG (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Article claims notability and as others have note, Air Force Cross winners are probably notable. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - AFC recipients are notable, the article only needs a minor edit to move the subject's notability up to the lead paragraph, BUT the article isn't sourced and Google turns up nothing but mirrors. If an editor can source article properly, then I'd be happy to change my vote. Rklawton (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the speedy-deletion (which at this point, means restore the page's history). While winning the Air Force Cross is not automatic proof of notability, it is a sufficient claim that this should never have been speedy-deleted. List to AFD if you think it's worth testing. Rossami (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Since this article was recreated before the DRV finished, I've decided to go ahead and nominate it for deletion. The discussion is here. --Tom (talk - email) 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:1947 Indo Pak War.jpg – Deletion endorsed. We need a 100% certain source (i.e., publication source/copyright holder, NOT just a date and place) to evaluate its status. – Chick Bowen 03:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion reason is "Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 25". The only commenter on the deletion was myself, who made an adequate case the image should be PD in either Pakistan or India. The WP:PUI listing was definitely not reason to delete this image. -Nard 21:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own deletion - See for full discussion here and also Image talk:1947 Indo Pak War.jpg. Garion96 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn. It was not deleted according to process.~~ I think everyone agrees that it was either created in Pakistan or in India in 1947. It appears it would be PD either way. No one has given a reason why it would be under copyright under any situation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it was deleted per proces. Just restore the image on 31 december 2007, only then it is for sure PD either way. See the discussions I linked to. Garion96 (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I read that discussion, and it didn't look like there was (a) consensus to delete, or (b) clear evidence that it was copyrighted. That's what I meant by "out of process". It wasn't listed on WP:IFD, there wasn't consensus at WP:PUI, etc. :::Regarding the substance (is this PD?), if it was published in Pakistan then it's obviously PD. If it was taken in India, then it'll almost certainly be PD on the first of next month. Doesn't seem like a pressing issue, either way.

But what if (notice that the possibilities are getting remoter here) it was created in India, and there's some reason the copyright won't expire at the end of this month? According to Indian law, images "are protected for 60 years from the end of the year in which the work is made available to the public with the consent of the owner of the copyright or publisher, or, failing such an event, for 60 years from the end of the year in which the work is made." No, we don't technically know when this was "published" (although I'll point out that this technicality is true for the majority of free images on Wikipedia). This photo was either published that year by a journalist (or for propaganda value by a government), or it was someone's private collection, never officially "made available to the public with the consent of the owner". In either case, it would be PD at the end of the year. The only way it wouldn't be PD on the first is if (a) it was officially taken in India, not Pakistan, (b) it was not published that year, (c) it was officially "published" with consent of the author in a year following. This is approaching copyright paranoia. I could make a similar argument for nearly any image on Wikipedia. So if we were debating whether the image should be kept or deleted, I would argue that we should either keep it, or delete it now and restore it on the first.

But we're not debating whether we should delete it. We're debating whether it was deleted according to process. And so far as I can see, it wasn't. The WP:IFD process? WP:CSD#I9 process? Doesn't look to me like it should have been deleted without consensus or clear evidence of a violation. (I'm sure Garion96 was acting in good faith, however.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the WP:PUI process. The nominater thought it perhaps should be deleted. One response of Nard which also included the option to delete. I, as the closing admin, looked at the evidence and decided to delete. Garion96 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- On reflection, I can see both sides pretty well here. I'm not sure whether the image is in violation or not, and I'm not sure whether PUI is a valid deletion process or not. So I'm abstaining. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If taken in India, it enters the public domain no later than 31 December 2007, if taken in Pakistan, it is already in the public domain. Undelete on Dec. 31 as being in the public domain - or go ahead and do it now if nobody wants to put it in a tickler file. GRBerry 05:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC) In India, photos enter the public domain 60 years after first publication. There is no evidence presented, or in the deleted history of the date of first publication or where that occurred. Thus we can't conclude this is in the public domain. Keep deleted. GRBerry 13:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it shows an event of the war, how can it possibly be later than the event it depicts?~~

The difference between date of being made (during the war) and when it was published (unknown). Garion96 (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion From WP:PD: "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism." I don't see any of that here other than speculation that it might come from a government source. Missing a source the 60 year discussion is moot. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

See You Next Tuesday (band) – Deletion endorsed, new version moved to mainspace and listed at AfD over notability concerns – trialsanderrors (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi everyone, me again. My latest case is this metal band, whose article was AfD'ed for the second time late in November. The consensus doesn't seem terribly clear to me, and the final deletion appears to be based more on the current status of the article rather than the inherent notability of the subject, which one !voter attempted to show by pointing out several concert and album reviews.

I try to spend as little time as possible at AfD, so how did I hear about this? Barely a week after its deletion, up pops a request at WP:RA for an article on the band - and I scratch my head and say to myself, we've already got one, don't we? Well, not anymore, and I'd like to change that. An admin has generously provided me with a copy of the deleted article, which I patched up a bit; here is the article beefed up with media sources. The article isn't protected but I brought it here so as to avoid getting slapped with a G4. Can I have the new writeup moved to mainspace? Chubbles (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the notability claims, that's my only problem. -RiverHockey (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to meet WP:BAND for their touring and press coverage of their debut album. RMHED (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I opined a weak keep in the most recent AFD because there was a fair amount of press coverage and felt it, combined with national touring, would work to meet WP:MUSIC. The rewrite looks good, and I'd suggest it be moved to mainspace. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to just about scrape past WP:MUSIC. If the draft article were up today and were on AFD, I would be saying "weak keep". Happy to allow recreation. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion the article, having been deleted once before, still had notability failings. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prior deletion happened in May of 2006, before the group signed to Ferret Records, released a well-covered album, and toured repeatedly through the United States and Canada. Several points of WP:MUSIC are covered. Also, did anyone notice that even the Portuguese have taken notice of the band? (Their Wiki tends to have better coverage of American metal than ours does, which we should regard as embarrassing.) Chubbles (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion Sorry but it still seems non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rigging_extempore_gear – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry guys, I don't have the time to understand all this complicated stuff how to object to a deletion. All I want to say is that I object to the deletion of my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rigging_extempore_gear Janno (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nom was misplaced, I moved it from here --W.marsh 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, unanimous AFD, no reason given to change it. This is a place to point out how the deletion process was not followed, not a second bite at the cherry to get a different result. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Stifle. Nothing new, no reason for objecting given. --W.marsh 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book wasn't an encyclopaedia. It was a bad idea to copy the chapter heading in the book as the article's subject, and a bad approach to writing an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia should have articles about the things that were being discussed. It already had derrick, and now has articles on the others at gyn, sheers, and ropeway. There is no need to resurrect the deleted content. Uncle G (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - unanimous AfD, no valid reason to resurrect or overturn provided. SkierRMH (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Encyclopedia Dramatica – Not going to happen unless a viable userspace draft can somehow be written in line with the ArbCom rulings on the matter – Core desat 06:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason for putting in the "Perennial requests" section (which I cannot seem to find mention of under WP:DEL policy) says that it was deleted because it was unverifiable. My intention was to rewrite an article (or rather, a stub) using verifiable sources, but the namespace is locked. I would like it to be unlocked. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could write such a thing in your user space... unprotection of article title is unlikely. Even if you could theoretically get people to agree to an article on this topic, you'd need a darned good draft first showing some solid sources exist. I don't think anyone's going to just allow recreation in the article space and hope a good, well-sourced article appears. --W.marsh 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we need a GA, or even a B-class, on the first try? Also, people who write protected articles on their userpages tend to get those pages deleted (see User_talk:Stephen_Deken#User:Stephen_Deken.2FThe_Game_.28game.29, for example. But I'll give it a shot. Meanwhile, my request still stands. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you need something that shows credible sources exist. There are some people who'd probably want to delete an article on this particular website even with those sources. I'm just explaining the situation. --W.marsh 04:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the situation, and there's even an article on it. Cyber bullying exists for Wikipedians, too. Have you read Wikitruth lately? I love Wikipedia, but not everything about it - this seems a little ridiculous. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

TomTom – I am annulling the non-admin closure reverted per WP:DPR#NAC and reopening an AFD. – Stifle (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an objection to the process that led to a SPEEDY KEEP for the TomTom article. The objection is based on three grounds:
1. The conditions of WP:SK were NOT satisfied. Specifically, I did not agree to withdraw the AfD request.
2. From beginning to end, the process took less than an hour - there was no time for reasoning, no time for opposition to take form.
3. A far as I can determine, the editor closing the process was NOT an administrator.
Please (re-)consider my AfD request using the proper process. Iterator12n ^Talk 01:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a purely procedural objection... the article now cites sources from the AP and the Wall Street Journal about this company. Notability is glaringly obvious... and AFD at this point seems pointless. --W.marsh 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this was an out-of-process keep, as I had already noted earlier to the closing non-admin. All 3 points Iterator12n makes are correct. However, as W.marsh noted, this is a massively notable Dutch company and I think another AfD would be a waste of time. The article states that TomTom trades on the Euronext exchange; normally companies that trade on a major exchange are considered inherently notable. A Google News search turns up >1800 press mentions in just the last 30 days. Searching the Google News archives turns up 12,000 more press mentions. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(aec) Overturn and reopen or relist I cannot imagine that any further discussion should result in a different disposition—I imagine that most will construe the present version of the article as plainly meeting WP:CORP—but as a PIIer, I'm a bit displeased with the procedural posture here, and, since a reopening or relisting should present no real harm (because absent any further discussion the AfD will be closed as "keep", no editor, save for the closing admin, will need devote any time to the issue) and might bear out more clearly the consensus of the community (the nominator might, one supposes, offer more argumentation on the issue of WP:CORP and the new sources, and we might then see whether there exists support for his proposition, even as we might expect that there won't be), it seems that that is the superior course here. Joe 02:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we then remove the notice for deletion that is currently tagged in the article? --Chrisdab (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to the four reactions above. First, I would not have appealed if mine was a "purely procedural objection." Second, and related, an article such as TomTom is not encyclopedic material. The company may be notable as a business, its products may be successful, but in the larger scheme of things the company is not iconic of anything - at least, there is nothing in the article that points to some iconic qualities. It would be very disturbing if Wikipedia has come to a point where the number of press releases is used as justification of an article. To put it differently, Wikipedia is NOT a business directory. Re. a matter of style, there should be no place for something like "I'm a bit displeased with the procedural posture here" - everybody should take it at good faith that the AfD request was issued because of a concern about the quality of Wikipedia, about the direction ("a business directory") that Wikipedia seems to be taking. Finally, I have considered the issue of there being hundreds of articles like TomTom - why object to TomTom and not to the many other, similar articles? My answer to that is that one has to start somewhere. Thanks for your consideration. Iterator12n ^Talk 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Joe's supposition, obviously, when there is some assurance that the AfD request will not dismissed out of hand, I will provide more argumentation based on WP:CORP. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 05:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon re-reading Joe’s reaction, I think I misunderstood what the “I'm a bit displeased with the procedural posture here” was directed at. Sorry for that, won’t happen again. Iterator12n ^Talk 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:CORP doesn't require a company be "iconic" to get an article, just that it "is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources", and the article clearly established that. Also the 1,800+ news results aren't press releases, but independent news articles. --W.marsh 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there is nothing in the WP guidelines preventing the use of more severe norms. To put it differently, WP guidelines do not establish a "right" for a company, meeting certain business criteria, to have an article. Now, it MAY be that you are ok with WP (in part) being some kind of business directory - if so? our positions will be hard to bridge. In summary, notability is (I think) a concept wide open to interpretation. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 06:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A business directory just contains information like contact information, maybe prices. That's what a directory is... it's like a phonebook. It doesn't contain long sections of prose about a company... that's what an encyclopedia article would contain. Notability for corporations is pretty clear cut... either sufficient non-trivial coverage by reliable sources exists, or it doesn't. In this case, the coverage exists. You can set the bar higher than that... but it's harmful and pointless to do so. We aren't a paper encyclopedia. --W.marsh 06:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. If there are still problems with the tone of the article, fix it; the company is big and renowned enough that we shouldn't delete its article. Valid application of WP:SNOW. >Radiant< 09:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 December 2007[edit]

Haifa Linux Club – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A vfd was conducted on the club in October 2006 due to the site being down and no recent activity. The reason for this was the fact the city of Haifa was under attack in the 2006 Lebanon War, combined with technical trouble on the club's main server which led to its temporary suspension. The club is now active again, and is still the oldest and most regarded linux club/user group in Israel. All the reasons listed in Talk:Haifa Linux Club/deletion are still valid today. Please consider undeleting.

Also note that the club has resumed operation less than a week after the deletion [92], and has been operating continuously ever since. epsalon (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, WP:DRV is for contesting the improper closure of an AfD or similar, whereas you seem to be advocating the restoration of the page under new circumstances. Feel free to recreate the article (bearing into mind WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V), but this is not the venue to ask for its restoration.
As an aside, an administrator might be willing to copy the original page content to your userspace to allow you to incorporate some of it into a new article, but that's beyond my purview. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The original article was fine as-is (of course it can be improved on). The reason of deletion was strictly notability, which was due to a temporary failure of the website (and lack of meetings) due to a then ongoing war. epsalon (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Only one commentor made any comments on the site having been down, and that was only in passing. The deletion was due to notability, not site availability. If you want to create a new version in your user space with reliable sources to indicate the club's notability, then go ahead. Corvus cornix_talk 23:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I ask for the deleted version to be copied to my userspace or sent by e-mail. epsalon (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the original article was not fine, it was completely lacking in reliable sources or indeed any independent sources, or any assertion of notability. But anyway, I have restored it to User:Alon/Haifa Linux Club, recommend you work on adding sources before moving it back to article space. --Stormie (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the restore. However, I recall a much longer page existed before. I think you've restored the 2007 (partial) repost. Is it possible to restore the original Oct 11, 2006 deleted page to my userspace? Thank you. epsalon (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. (not much longer, though...) `'Míkka >t 17:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Article contained neither a claim of notability nor reliable sources (or any sources, for that matter) and would probably be speedied within minutes if re-created as it was. Looking at the unanimous AfD, it's pretty clear nobody wanted to delete it because its site was down, but because it was non-notable and unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - certainly the restored version is a no hoper even to survive a speedy. There are thousands of computer clubs around the world and evidence of existence, or even temporary closure, doesn't cut it. What is needed are reliable secondary sources and there are none. BlueValour (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No evidence of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion still nn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN – Deletion overturned. if the claim is indeed deliberately malicious, archiving it helps build evidence against the filer; if it merely a good-faith mistake, archiving it will help prevent future such errors. It is not yet clear whether the claim is meritless, in any case. Beyond blanket assertions, no one has presented any evidence on that basis here to justify the deletion. – Xoloz (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deleting admin, User:JzG wrote,
“This is clearly fatuous and I don't believe that Taric25's best friend would look on this as his finest hour. Deleting to spare his blushes.”(log)
I do not believe this was a poor moment in my judgement, and I believe my claim deserves serious consideration. I do not think whatever my “best friend” thinks is my finest hour has anything to do with the hard evidence I presented. In fact, my Adopter, User:Matthew Yeager is taking a close look into it. Please undelete the page and let Wikipedians consider the evidence and judge for themselves. I echo User:Maniwar that it needs to remain until the case has been decided.(diff) Taric25 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The issue was decided by the deleting admin, who reviewed the evidence. Consider that as your claim being given consideration because it has been seen and dealt with. Seraphim ^Whipp 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We did not have even ten days to have comments from the community, and even if the admin closed the discussion, it should have been archived, not deleted. Taric25 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As others have said, they believe this SSP report to be in bad-faith as an attempt to besmirch TTN's reputation and gain the upper hand in a content dispute. It was deleted because the accusations were believed to be false and the report did indeed stain TTN's reputation. It may have been an out of process deletion, but it was done in good faith. Sometimes we don't have to follow the rules to the letter; surely thats why we have WP:IAR? Seraphim ^Whipp 12:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I was looking for the upper hand in a content dispute, I would request checkuser under code D for vote fraud, not beat a dead horse by continuing a discussion here. In case you didn't know, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (2nd nomination) already ended with us keeping the article to allow improvement. If my sole objective was to win that AfD, then I would have finished already and not given two cents about whether TTN is sockpuppeteering or not. Taric25 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion there appears to be a whole procedure for archiving these things, even ones you think are incorrect! Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive. Deleting a page just because you don't like the question it raised is just a bad idea for what should be obvious reasons. --W.marsh 18:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Even if the discussion was closed, it should have been archived. Taric25 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you agree, because it was your fatuous claim in the first place. Consider, though: why do we deleted uncertified RfCs? This amounts to the same thing. A vexatious abuse of process. Why on earth should we immortalise it or treat it as sacred? Guy (Help!) 15:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my calim is fatuous as you say, don't you think the community will realize that? Also, RfC and SSP are two totally different depatments. If you believe that SSP has this sort of precident, prove it! Taric25 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. This appears to me to be a completely baseless accusation made in bad faith by a disruptive editor who appears to be actively courting a block in a blatant attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. It really does not get any more deletable than that, in my book. Is Henke37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a sockpuppet of TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? There's zero credible evidence to suggest this. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did give evidence to support why I believe Henke37 is a sockpuppet of TTN, showing how TTN and Henke37's behavior pattern matches What is a troll?#Dealing with inappropriate content. (cache) Please let the community review the evidence for at least ten days and then let the decision be made. Taric25 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I have posted a warning to the user's talk page over his adolescent use of a sockpuppet allegation when he didn't get his way in a content dispute. I also suggest that the user be issued a block as censure for this kind of behaviour. It is completely unacceptable. Eusebeus (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Eusebeus. Taric25 (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion as out of process. Even if the discussion were to have been snowball closed, the record should still be archived for transparency of process. Is TTN (talk · contribs) a puppetmaster? I don't know the user specifically, but generally support his practices and processes. Regardless though, one user seems to stridently believe so, and I would want to know the process and evidences proffered that resulted in the decision made. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the accusations are specious, the deletion is appropriate and there should be no archiving of what is basically an improper personal attack. Corvus cornix_talk 19:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur. It amounts to a personal attack, even if it remains unclear whether breathtaking ignorance or deliberate venom was the motivation. Eusebeus (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except as far as I know we archive these pages, even if they turn out to be wrong, not delete them. It's like saying we should delete AFDs just because they resulted in a "keep" decision. --W.marsh 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For certain things, we courtesy blank things, I don't think that this could be done here, so the only real alternative is deletion. If otherwise, a courtesy blanking may be appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close through WP:SNOWBALL per pd_THOR. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Four overturns (including yours) and three endorses, none of either with particularly bad arguments, is not WP:SNOW. — Malcolm (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we have no way of knowing what the community will decide when they see the evidence presented before them. Taric25 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure Tartic seems to honestly believe this is an issue, so I'm not sure you can call it a personal attack. There's a near zero chance that any of it is true, though. On the other hand, undeleting the page could have the effect of driving more nails in the coffin. I could go either way. -- Ned Scott 20:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deletion Even if the claim proves spurious a record should still be archived. If, as I suspect TTN has nothing to hide then what is the problem with archiving. Deleting this kind of report just looks shifty. RMHED (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the old "If he isn't guilty, he shouldn't object if we rifle through his files" argument. Corvus cornix_talk 21:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So we should never be allowed to investigate abuse anywhere because we might get it it wrong occasionally? This investigation was being conducted openly. At worst it should have been rejected and archived. --W.marsh 21:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say we shouldn't investigate abuse, but if there is no abuse, then the initial accusations should be removed, not archived. Corvus cornix_talk 21:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then why are we apparently only doing that here? It sounds like you want a broad change of deletion/abuse investigation policy. --W.marsh 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This appears to have been a deletion completely outside of process. No CSD, No PROD, No AfD. The actual nature of the allegations are really irrelevant here. The issue is to review the process. We should not be distracted by the emptiness of the claims. Such deletion feeds the growing paranoia and is not transparent. Openness demands it be undeleted. Once done, it can be sent to AfD for full community review. -JodyB_talk 21:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the ever-sensible W.marsh (unless it has in fact become our [uncodified] practice to delete SSP reports that are regarded as entirely unfounded and the keeping of which appears to have no benefit [I don't believe that it has, but SSP isn't an area of which I have had much occasion to take part]; deletion might then be appropriate, although only, of course, after this one is deemed to have been entirely unfounded—it doesn't seem clear, I'd note, that it has). Joe 22:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per W.marsh. I am not endorsing the claim of sock puppetry, but I also believe W.marsh says it well, that the case was deleted improperly. --Maniwar (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I do believe that the case was dealt reasonably, but, as in any cases of "be bold", if there are some objections, no big deal to return to full bureaucracy without much drama. `'Míkka >t 17:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Let someone rule on the suspected sockpuppetry request, then let someone else decide if the page should be deleted as a personal attack if TTN is found innocent. -Nard 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TTN is innocent. There is zero credible evidence of sockpuppetry. That was why I deleted the page in the first place. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, we are not here to discuss whether or not TTN is innocent or not, and you are not one to decide whether or not he is. We are here to discuss whether or not to undelete the page in order to let the community examine the evidence I presented. Do not claim that I offered zero evidence or that is not credible, because that is for the community to examine, not one user to unilaterally delete.

Endorse - The page was created in bad faith and is not necessary for the function of the encyclopedia. There is no reason to undelete it. FCYTravis (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may be correct and probably are. However this deletion was fully outside of process and that is what is under discussion here. Resurrect and send it to XfD which is what should have been done. Otherwise, we set a nasty precedent that any unfavorable documentation can be deleted at the whim of any one person. This was not a PROD, not an XfD and if it is claimed it is covered by CSD, which section? -JodyB_talk 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "unfavorable documentation." It's a page full of certified lies and misrepresentations designed to smear an innocent user. FCYTravis (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume in bad faith for a moment that I created the page with totally baseless accusations and no credibility in my claim. Don't you think the community is smart enough to see right through that? If I created the page in bad faith, then it would not be possible that the community would decide that TTN is guilty of sockpuppeteering. Taric25 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn this is not where we decide allegations of sockpupppetry. Surely recent cases have made it obvious we must follow the full process in detail. No admin has the authority to unilaterally delete for reasons like this. DGG (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, because we should allow the community to decide by following the full process in detail. Taric25 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, as Wikipedia should be as open and transparent as possible. Personal attacks might be worthy of delete but expunging them from even the history is unnecessary, especially when in this case you have what might be a real claim, even if it is uncorroborated (I have no knowledge of the truth of the matter as it relates to sockpuppetry). Epthorn (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist If there's so much argument about how this process (or lack thereof) happened, then let's make it happen again and keep an eye on it this time. Jtrainor (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion attacks against editors merit deletion if they cannot be proven, see WP:BLP which applies to all parts of the project including its processes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? BLP certainly does not apply to these kinds of situations.. -- 04:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ned Scott (talk • contribs)

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

List of tools for static code analysis – History undeleted, per request – Xoloz (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

(forgive me if I'm doing this wrong) I'm requesting a history-only undelete. The page has been recreated according to better style. Still it would be helpful to have access to the history as it shows the evolution of the page and clears ambiguation on what has been lost. In light of the page rewrite, I believe it was a case of WP:RUBBISH. I also believe it falls under the last clause of WP:LOSE. Verdatum (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As original deleting admin, I have no problem with this; however, it might be worth noting that there are an awful lot of external links in that article. There may be reasons for some of them; however, note that the reason it was deleted in the first place was the fact that it was almost solely links to non-notable products. In my opinion, there should be a good reason to link to a web site, where the product is so non-notable that it doesn't have an article (perhaps, at the very least, these should be redlinks, not external links?) Ral315 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, and I have just made a comment to that effect, proposing a method of cleanup. Thanks. -Verdatum (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

> There may be reasons for some of them

There are good reasons, as discussed in the history and discussion pages; one of the repeated, allegedly rule-based deletions was particularly egregious, as it was of a demonstrably notable tool. Another of the deletions mentioned in the discussion removed two notable tools which I needed to investigate in my day job. This list is useful as it stands, though of course it could use some more editing; the repeated deletions rendered it less useful.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we view it as an important tool, it should be a red link, not an external link. Ral315 (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s an important tool and it’s likely to get an article written about it in the near future. In the meantime, realistically, the external links are useful for those of us working in the field. (Disclaimer: I had my lunch paid for yesterday by the VP of one of the deleted companies—this may disqualify me from restoring that particular company, but I hope it doesn’t disqualify me from commenting on the general issue.)

—FlashSheridan (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I fail to see what any of this has to do with the request to undelete the history. It sounds as though this type of discussion belongs in the existing talk page. -Verdatum (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zwaanendael Colony – source is proven older, so this is an unquestionable copyright violation. Try rewriting from the texts referenced in that source or other reliable sources. – GRBerry 05:39, 9 December 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 ask you to respectfully reconsider this delete. The URL of the alleged copyright violation (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1259094) is not necessarily the owner or source of the text in question. It seems just as likely that it was copied from wikipedia in the first place, or that the same user contributed the content for both. Perhaps if it went into AfD or something it would give editors a chance to address possible copyright concerns (if they truly exist). Elpiseos (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Everything2 article cites "America's Historylands: Landmarks of Liberty, National Geographic Press, 1967" and "Delaware: A Guide To The First State, ed. Jeanette Eckman, Hastings House Press; New York, 1955" as its sources. We can certainly have a viable article about this colony based on, for instance, those sources. >Radiant< 16:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Everything2 article was uploaded Feb 23 2002, while the Wikipedia article was written starting in 2007. A reverse copyvio seems unlikely here without further evidence. In situations like this, we assume we don't have permission to use the copyrighted text until proven otherwise. --W.marsh 16:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above comment by W.marsh. Time stamps don't lie. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion as a copyright violation. Plenty of sources are available to rewrite this article from scratch. Rossami (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - all the indications are that the Everything2 article pre-dates the Wikipedia version so copyvio must be assumed. Without prejudice to a clean recreation from available reliable sources. BlueValour (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, nothing to show that this isn't a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michelle Watt – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Changes have been made in accordance with reasons the page was originally deleted ie categories listed, outside references listed. Michelle Watt is a TV presenter who has worked in the business for a number of years. She has done - and is doing - a lot of mainstream work. She is the daughter of a very notable world champion sportsman and receives a lot of press for her own TV and media work Happiness12345 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the original article, but I'm sure that you could create a valid version of the article in your own User space with reliable sources if all that you say is true. But her being the daughter of somebody famous has no bearing whatsoever on her own notability, so drop that argument. Corvus cornix_talk 19:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer went with the clear (and only possible) consensus. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as AfD closer). The article has been created by three (single-purpose) different accounts and deleted three times. While participation in the initial AfD was low, the article hardly asserted notability, had no sources a, the participants opinions were clear and also indicated that some further sources had been searched for. The second recreated article did still have no sources and was tagged for CSD A7 and deleted as repost. The third creation by the nominator was again tagged and deleted for not asserting notability as the main text read: "Michelle Watt is a Scottish Television Presenter. She is the daughter of Jim Watt (former world boxing champion, now Sky Sports commentator)".

It had, however, the following external links which I think the nomination refers to as outside sources that could address the original reasons for deletion:

[93] Club Cupid
[94] Michelle's Official Website
[95] Kirkintilloch Herald
[96] RDF Management
[97] Cormack Creative Management
[98] Hottest 100 Scots.

So I understand the request here mostly to review whether these are sufficient to allow recreation.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as last deleting admin. I deleted this article for it's orignal tag as nn-bio which I believed was correct and also that it was a repost, with no major changes since it's original creation and AfD with the exception of the links added in it's last re-creation. Regarding the links Tikiwont cited above, in my opinion her own website, the Kirkintilloch herald, and The Hottest 100 Scots isn't screaming notability to me. Though as with all my deletions I'm willing to restore if the community believes otherwise. ^Khukri 10:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the closer via speedy, I stand by my decision. First, there is no assertion of notability which makes it ripe for a speedy delete. Two, the article is substantially the same as that previously deleted which also makes it ripe for deletion. Three, the so-called sources are external links to mostly non-notable, non-independent sites. The only exception is an article from her hometown newspaper. Fourth, there is a difference between an EL and a source. Not one comment was actually sourced. In addition, I would have userfied the article in someone's userspace had they asked. The DRV page recommends asking the deleting admin first before posting it here which User Happiness12345 did not do. I stand by my decision that the article should have been deleted in its present form but will move to his userspace if asked. -JodyB_talk 12:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that it was appropriate for User:Happiness12345 to take this issue to DRV, rather than asking the deleting admin, since Michelle Watt has been deleted by three different admins, the first of whom did so pursuant to an AfD. Since reinstating this article would in effect be overturning the AfD, a DRV is a more appropriate means to do so than a decision by any of the deleting admins. (See discussion at my talk page.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn coverage in multiple sources, including the Daily Record, The List and the various television shows she has worked on are a demonstration of notability. Catchpole (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Notability is not inherited. If somebody wants to create a new version in userspace with proper sourcing (not external links, but proper in-line sourcing of specific claims) not limited to press releases and personal websites, then we might have a case for a newly created article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Filmcow – Deletion endorsed. – Chick Bowen 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Illegitimate Deletion, the article I made did NOT fall within criteria for speedy deletion, and everything that WAS considered "too short" was quickly rewritten within 30 minutes of the Speedy Deletion issue. The article was deleted soon afterwards while not falling within ANY criteria for speedy deletion, and all it was was an article on the Internet based film studio Filmcow (of which I am not affiliated) and they have enough of a reputation to be supported in a wiki article (they created Charlie the Unicorn and other noteable movies). Please consider this review. I believe this deletion to be unjust. Livebrick (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid A7 and notability is not inherited. --Core desat 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, I don't see any assertion of notability in that article, looks like a perfectly valid A7. Suggest you recreate citing reliable sources independent of the subject which establish notability. --Stormie (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Charlie the Unicorn was deleted for lack of notability also, so that's probably not a great argument for keeping Filmcow. --Stormie (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion classic A7 speedy, as written. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a short term userifcation to allow Livebrick a chance to work on it. -- Ned Scott 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moneybomb – Closure as "no consensus" endorsed. – Xoloz (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I originally closed the AFD on Moneybomb as a delete, citing a flood of SPAs and an apparent consensus to delete among established editors. However, I was informed that not all the arguments I dismissed were from SPAs, and I reclosed it as no consensus. There has been support for both closures on my user talk page, and I am requesting a review of my own decision to keep the article as no consensus. I've opted to bring it here rather than relist the AFD or re-close it as delete. Core desat 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are regular users allowed to comment here? (I've never worked with DRV before.) I was involved with the page as a third opinion, and I gave my vote on the AfD. Can I give my thoughts here, or is that a COI of some form? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly you may comment here (as can all informed editors) but remember that this is not AFD-round 2. Please focus your comments on the question of whether the AFD process was properly followed and whether the closure was reasonable given the state of the discussion. Welcome to DRV. Rossami (talk)
While I share the frustrations of some editors involved, the mediocre state of the article and the presence of SPAs do not add up to an excuse to delete. AfDs cannot be used as a punishment for slow or lacking cleanup, and that is how this closure came across. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second closure. I think "no consensus" was your only choice. While there were some good arguments on both sides (after discounting the suspiciously new users and the incivility), two of the deletion arguments had to be thrown out because "delete/merge" is incompatible with GFDL. We can not merge content and then delete the attribution history of the content which is being merged. (Ideally, that point would have been raised during the discussion and the two participants could have modified their comments.) I count 3 clear delete (plus the 2 invalid "delete&merge"), 3 clear keep plus 3 that could arguably be discounted and 3 sets of comments that are either explicitly neutral or are too ambiguous to call.
Note that as a "no consensus" decision, it can always be renominated and run through a second discussion. Hopefully the second round will be more polite. Rossami (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for an essay on this subject. I would not consider those comments invalid, per the arguments in that essay. Chick Bowen 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second closure. Having followed the AfD, when I saw your first closure as "delete" I was surprised; it had looked like a "no consensus" to me. It also seemed to me that most of the AfD opinions were from legit editors, although I didn't do a close examination. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second closure there was clearly no consensus to delete and a keep decision would also have been contentious. No consensus was the only way to go. RMHED (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse first closure. "No consensus" is a de facto keep; the only bearing the "no consensus" really has is the possibility of a second AfD in the future. Eliminating the SPAs and COI editors from the equation there was a consensus to delete. - Chardish (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the non consensus That does seems to be the best way--it will need to be resolved, but hopefully the article will be better by a second try after a reasonable time. . DGG (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the non consensus Clearly if there was an overwhelming voice that said delete and/or merge, it would have been a lot more noticeable. A very easy decision- however what concerns me is the deletion of the link to this page on Moneybomb by John J. Bulten- this matter has only just been opened for discussion. Monsieurdl (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse nonconsensus closure My mistake, M. dl, I did not realize DRV had been reopened, will fix. Since this particular discussion is a happy consensus, I will only provide one obligatory rationale: the quality of the arguments from all 6 keeps (however weighted) was markedly stronger than the delete arguments. E.g., 2 of the deletes were "coattail" coatracks without their own rationale, which would seem to discount them when the original coatrack suspector withdrew the rationale as non-fact-based. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes do happen- just look under my name for many :P You seem to be quite reasonable with the changes, and with improvement hopefully it will not come up again. Monsieurdl (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus closure. Looking through the AfD, that seems like the clear result to me; I certainly don't see a consensus to delete, and neither argument particularly overcame the other. Terraxos (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second closure I didn't see enough to push it one way of the other over other legit comments. I'm with Orange Mike and Rossimi. --\/\/slack (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voodoo Tiki – Deletion endorsed as advertising. A fully sourced draft in userspace is needed before unprotection can be considered. Please note that all deleted articles are reviewed on their merits; attacking the deleting admin as an attempt to get a deletion overturned has never worked and never will. – Chick Bowen 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was surprised to find that an entire entry would be INDEFINETELY BLOCKED from being created as the result of ONE user's actions?! Is this ethical or even legal to ban an article from ever being written from Wikipedia based on the entry of one individual? Upon further investigation, it appears that the Admin reacted in a very emotional manner. Aside from the fact that the person who has indefinetely blocked this page from being created has now RETIRED fro Wikipedia because (in his own words written on his user page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG) "This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia." I am requesting that the option for someone to create a page for Voodoo Tiki Tequila be unblocked and monitored for appropriateness and that the individual who caused this be under review by Wikipedia and perhaps no longer be allowed to make such hasty and unethical decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.180.157 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Correcting and signing the nomination. This nomination has been removed twice because the nominator got the title wrong and no one was able to find a page by that title that had actually been deleted. Here is the correct link. The page itself has been deleted 5 separate times - once for being a copyright violation and the remaining four under speedy deletion case G11. User:JzG was only the most recent admin to delete the page.
The page is not protected. A contributor to this page was, however, blocked for harassment and spamming of other wikipedia pages.
To the nominator: The page also failed to provide independent sources demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. Unless such sources are provided here, your request for reconsideration is unlikely to succeed. Rossami (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this deletion and the four before it. This is a non-notable; repeatedly-recreated spam for an obscure product, properly deleted by three different editors, one of them among our most respected. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, I'm not finding anything at all about Voodoo Tiki that isn't sourced from press releases from the producer. Of course if anyone out there can find reliable sources regarding its notability, they should use them to create a better article. --Stormie (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suppprt deletion If there are every usable sources for notability, an article can be recreated, but this is a clear G11. DGG (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 December 2007[edit]

Charles K Herman MD – Deletion overturned with the consent of original deleting admin; listing at AfD at editorial discretion. – Xoloz (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

notability and significance clearly established by numerous peer-reviewed scientific publications and book chapters, academic and clinical position of authority, national research and clinical awards, media references, some of which were removed to maintain npov (could be added if assisted significance Afjl (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC) afjl[reply]

Overturn and restore. The bar to survive an A7 is deliberately set low and simply requires that the page "indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Here the article states that the subject is "internationally-published", has "published several important chapters in medical textbooks", and has "won a national research prize from the American College of Physicians in 1998 for work in the field of photodynamic cancer therapy", and that he "he spearheaded a joint effort to provide plastic surgery services to injured American soldiers returning from Iraq". This to me indicates his significance and thus hurdles A7. The bar is raised for an AfD and whether the page is able to cross that is a different matter and time will tell. BlueValour (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore Asserting the publication of multiple scientific articles is an assertion of notability. Deleted for not having sources proving notability, but that just wrong--it doesn't need to do this to pass speedy. I've notified the admin who deleted it, and declined to restore it--I would be interested to hear his explanation.DGG (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Like DGG said. If it turns out the notability isn't there, it can go through AFD, but notability is clearly indicated (did you all notice? it's not "assert" anymore in WP:CSD#A7. I am so happy about that change, it seems too many people just don't know what that word means) --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I had seen this one in New Pages Patrol, and it definitely wasn't speedyable. Clear, believable claims to notability. Misapplication of speedy, which is not about sourcing. Fram (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn No objection because the second message from this editor lists some new sources that can be added that were not present before. When it was deleted none of the publications listed appeared to have subject title's name, four of the external links were from the same site, one was a list of physcians [99], one concerned a sports event [100], and I did google "charles herman plastic surgery" --Sandahl 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moneybomb – Overturned to "no consensus" after being contacted on my user talk page; new DRV here as this DRV does not apply to that closure – Core desat 21:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article should not have been deleted. I know the deletion decision is not based on votes, but I would like to point out that there were 6 editors in favor of keeping, and only 3 for deleting/merging.

The reason the article was brought up for deletion was because an editor misunderstood Wikipedia's policy on neologisms. In the discussion, it was demonstrated that this particular neologism was widely used in the media, and therefore worthy of it's own article. Furthermore, accusations of the article being baised for Ron Paul could have been corrected with editing. There was no sound reson for deletion. Please overturn 155.247.166.31 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC) byates5637[reply]

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

Mushroom (Mario) – "No consensus" closure endorsed; merging can be proposed at any time as it is an editorial decision – Core desat 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Standards of notability require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This article was closed as a "no consensus" due to a number of editors who claimed the independent notability of the topic despite the fact that the article only has a single trivial source. An unsourced topic is not notable by the very definition of notability. Thus the keep !votes are meaningless.
As there is no evidence that this is culturally notable (and I've tried, too), overturn and redirect to Mario (series) merging relevant information. Chardish (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not need discussion here. Be bold and do it. "Merge and redirect" is a flavor of "keep". Just because there has been an AfD discussion does not mean that the article must forever after be kept as-is. Normal editing resumes. If there is dispute about the merger/redirect, sort it out on the article's Talk page. Rossami (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as it definitely meets all of our standards and there is certainly no consensus for a redirect. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) You understand this is a referendum on the deletion decision and not the article itself, right? 2) How can you possibly say that it "meets all of our standards" when it doesn't have multiple sources, which is one of our standards? That's not even a matter of opinion - it is a fact that this article is not up to standards. - Chardish (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep closure. Deletion is appropriate where sources do not exist, however, many users comments at the AfD imply that sources do exist but just haven't been added to the article. If after a reasonable time (4-6 weeks) they still haven't been found and added you can renominate. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closure seems to have been within the admin's discretion (if that is a sensible English expression...?), especially with his reasoning. The standards of notability are tools for producing a better encyclopedia, and come with the requirement to make an exception when they don't; a reasonable case has been made for that. --Kizor (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Admin followed consensus, tied nobody's hands and left it open for another AFD to be started if the article remained unmerged and did not improve. If the sources don't turn up then it can be brought back to AFD in a few months, without messy back-and-forth merges etc. and nobody can say they didn't receive enough warning. To have done anything else would have caused needless problems. Someone another (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - no consensus at AFD defaults to keep; you can propose a merge using the {{mergeto}} tag. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carl Oehling – Deletion endorsed – Core desat 02:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Stub “Carl Oehling” should be restored (or an article with the same title should be permitted in the future), and should not have been deleted to begin with:

IT WAS A STUB. All of the reasons given for deletion would be appropriate if this was the best that could be done for an article. This was a stub about a Michigan politician that was available to compliment the more general article, “Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006.” To exclude this participant in that election, and not all, appears to violate the NPOV policy in spirit if not in word.

Upon viewing the deletion log, I noticed a recreation and G4 had taken place on the same day. So I was not going to bother wasting my time like another editor apparently had. A stub on this Michigan activist should be permitted to be given a chance rather than being deleted before an article can be written.

--Redandready (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the best version of the deleted article seem to be:
- Official site several times
- Short resume-ish bios on a TV-station website [101], probably campaign-provided
- Sites about Michigan election law
- 2 directory listings (no prose) that identify him as a contact for a pro-life group
- 4 blog interviews
- A page that simply links to his website [102]
- A donor page that identifies his past claimed occupations [103]

This just isn't enough. There would need to be prose articles about him in newspapers or other similar sources... all I'm seeing here is either candidate/campaign-written or directory listings. Keep deleted. He can be mentioned as a candidate in that election and this pagename can redirect to the election article... but I don't see the sources for a standalone article. --W.marsh 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore it. the article was a stub. It was there to be improved. With this deletion in place, it is likely that any future creation of an article in which “new sources have been provided” will be instantly deleted using G4 as a criteria. A quick look at the deletion log shows a G4 deletion took place today.
The community would not have the opportunity to view any future sources to find that they were sufficient. This is a de facto block on creating an article with this name, even though it meets all the criteria that were questioned.
The point of a “Stub” is to create a starting point not a full and complete article. --Redandready (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Your opinion that the deletion should be overturned is already clear from your nomination. You are welcome to add new evidence or respond to comments but please do not use the bolded synopsis at the front of the comment. It gives the appearance that you are inappropriately trying to get your opinion double-counted. Rossami (talk)
Endorse closure (keep deleted). I concur with W.marsh's analysis. This article sat essentially unimproved between its creation on 5 Aug 2007 and the conclusion of the AFD discussion on 3 Dec. The references were reviewed by the community and determined to be insufficient. The article was properly tagged and discussed for the full 5 days. No new sources have been provided here to suggest that the AFD discussion missed anything. I find no process problems with the discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the stub I just created. I log in and find a message that the stub I created this morning was already deleted. I never had a chance to post a "hang-on" or make improvements to appease the prod. I guess that’s why it’s “speedy.” Anyway, I get the impression that it was ONLY deleted because of a previous deletion discussion… Not based on the text I had placed with that title.
I know this because comments include, “There would need to be prose articles about him in newspapers or other similar sources... all I'm seeing here is either candidate/campaign-written or directory listings.” The following such articles were referenced in the article that was deleted today (I mean December 6, it’s past midnight here). They include:
Cm-Life [104], Harbor light news paper [105], The News Herald [106], News & Views [107]
Furthermore, Oehling was the subject of interview [108], and the author of commentary in the Daily Democrat[109] and The Hawkeye (author)[110]
I did not dig much deeper because I was only creating a stub. My understanding is that I only needed to give leads from which other editors could build a complete article, but since the other editors ask for more source, I dug up a couple more:
Iowa State Daily [111], voice news [112], Constitution News [113], Third Party Watch [114], News and Views [115]
I am sure there is much more out there, but this stub was just supposed to get the article started. But why even compose an excellent article (with lots of prose article references). If it will just get a speedy deletion based on a prior work? --Libertyguy (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reviewed all the links you provided here. I'm sorry but they do not demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. Of the 12 links you provided above, 7 only mention his name in passing as one candidate among many. 4 are things he's written himself (blog comments by the look of it). Only the Michigan Personhood article represents an interview of him. That one article actually traces back to this blog of unknown provenance. Blogs rarely rise to the required level of reliable sourcing.
  Please do keep looking. This has already been discussed by the community and deleted once. The normal rules about "create a stub and see what happens" no longer apply. You have to show that the concerns raised in the deletion discussion can be overcome before recreation is accepted. If you can find independent, reliable sources demonstrating that he meets the inclusion criteria, the decision can be overturned. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have done. The Stub I created yesterday was not subject to the Afd debate. It was written after that and referenced "independent, reliable sources"--Libertyguy (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (uphold deletion) per W.marsh's analysis of the sources. There is no substantial coverage of this marginal candidate, and the closer interpreted the debate correctly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eva Morris – Keep closure endorsed. Operating under the maxim "when in doubt, don't delete", DRVs require strong consensus decisions to overturn a keep closure and delete outright. It is very unlikely this will be achieved. Additionally, some of the arguments made in favor of deletion below are flawed: "oldest living person" is a "temporary" designation only in the sense that Chief Justice of the United States is a "temporary" one: it expires upon death, whereupon it succeeds to another. Many, many "temporary" designations (including offices of fixed term) confer "permanent" notability. BrownHairGirl's argument for lack of sources is more compelling, but it is not clear that all commenters below followed in applying it. Since the crux of the issue here is whether the subject's noteworthiness is lasting, another AfD in six months is a logical result of this discussion. – Xoloz (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AfD was closed as "keep", and there was indeed a clear majority of editors who !voted to "keep". However, AfD is not a vote, and the only way which I can see of counting that AfD as a "keep" consensus is by counting heads, which runs counter to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted". This article fails WP:BIO, and despite a number of WP:ILIKEIT !votes, there is no likelihood of further substantive references to establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as closer - "Being the oldest living person in the world, however temporarily, is grounds for notability.", "(Being) the oldest person in the world is as notable as the tallest person in the world or the heaviest person in the world, or even the strongest person in the world in an achievement.", "A good many of the supercentenarian articles deleted lately very much deserved to be deleted, but some should remain--such as this one." - I think trivialising these as WP:ILIKEIT arguments is unfair. I note of the two non-nominator arguements in favour of not retaining the article, one gave no reason whatsoever, and the other said "it is destined to be a stub forever". Those are not strong arguments for deletion. The consensus to "keep" was obvious. It is not the closer's role to evaluate an article and close it as they see fit (if that was the case, why bother with a deletion debate?) - it is the closer's role to evaluate the discussion. The discussion as a whole was easily in favour of retention. Neil ☎ 14:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We agree that it is "the closer's role to evaluate the discussion", but diverge thereafter: I don't think that the closer was sufficiently rigorous in evaluating this discussion. Of the comments which Neil quotes, the third offers no reason for distinguishing this article from others, and such is clearly an ILIKEIT comment. The first two seek define one attribute as grounds for a presumption of notability, but if if this proposition was more widely accepted, the notability guidelines are clear that such a presumption may be disproven: in the end, notability is always a matter of the availability of substantive coverage in reliable sources. In this case, all we have is a small number of sources saying briefly that she is old, has a great-grandson and eats eggs. Since her claim to noteworthiness arises only through her old age, there is no reason to expect that there is more substantive coverage out there in old library files, or that there will ever be enough material to expand the article beyond a few factoids in a stub. I think that it was therefore wrong to dismiss the "destined to be a stub forever" argument: if an article can never grow beyond a stub not incorporate material not manageable in a list, why have a standalone article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't dismiss the "destined to be a stub forever" deletion argument - I lent it the same weight as any of the "keep" arguments. It was, however, grossly outnumbered by equally valid "keep"s. Neil ☎ 15:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Here's my reasoning: if notability is not temporary, then it seems to make no sense to say that a person (or anything else) is notable based on possession of a title which is almost certainly temporary. Not every person who was at one point the world's oldest person is notable, so why should the current world's oldest person be notable? On a side note, I was the world's youngest person at one point, though I didn't hold the title for very long ;) - Chardish (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, good call by Brownhairedlady. Being the alleged oldest in the world barely gets you a mention in the back of a newspaper these days, not even the Guinness. >Radiant< 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree, but since you didn't specify any premise behind your conclusion, I probably won't either, unless I'm destined to convince you I'm right. While I may not collect newspapers, I certainly Google search the full name of the oldest person in the world in quotes.. Neal (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse closure. There was a clear consensus for Keep. For the closer to override this there needed to be a balance of argument that weighed against the majority or a breach of policy. The key policy here, WP:V, is met. Whether WP:BIO is complied with is a judgement. That guideline states that meeting WP:BIO requires "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". I have started to expand the page adding additional sources to meet this guideline. 'The world's oldest person' is a concept that most readers are, in my POV, likely to find encyclopaedic. This is a clean, informative page and I see no advantage to the Project in trying to use narrow interpretations of WP:BIO to delete it. BlueValour (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Thanks BlueValour for cleaning up the Eva Morris article now, after the AfD. Neal (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn and delete or, failing that, relist to AFD. I concur that the "keep" opinions ignored the established Wikipedia standards and attempted to create a new standard out of whole cloth. In addition to failing WP:BIO, the article falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. This is a minor human interest story appropriate for a newspaper. There is no basis on which an encyclopedia article could be created. Rossami (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Many of the similar articles nominated for similar reasons were deleted--the consensus was clearly that this one was different and had notability. Almost nobody except the nominator spoke for deletion. DGG (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Unfortunately, the assertion that "that this one was different and had notability" was about as far as it went. DGG's own justification for keeping was that "A good many of the supercentenarian articles deleted lately very much deserved to be deleted, but some should remain--such as this one", which omits any reason to keep and just amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure I see no grounds on which the closer should have overriden the consensus opinion. The article contains a claim to notability and the sources to establish it. The editors agreed that both were sufficient, and the article has no policy-violating deficiencies that could have caused the closer to ignore the consensus. To claim that WP:BIO can be used to override the consensus is a grave misunderstanding of our policies. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per trialsanderrors above. There is no consensus to delete present in the AfD. WP:BIO is a guideline and can be suspended by a consensus , thus there is no procedural reason to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, let's do this mathematically (or possibly logically) and add up the values of the argument people made, where keep is positive and delete is negative. Therefore, someone who made 3 valid reasons for keeps get +3 points, etc. And those that voted "keep" but specified no reason, gets +0, and those that voted "delete," but also specified no reason, gets -0. Notice that +0 and -0 are the same. So let's add up the arguments on both sides. If the result was positive or negative will we decide whether to endorse deletion or not. And I guess 0 defaults to no consensus, so keep. So I'd vote endorse deletion if the result was -1 or below. Neal (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn and Delete this article is only ever going to be a stub, all the relevant information is already at List of British supercentenarians. A seperate article is not needed. RMHED (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: that article is currentluy for deletion. Besides, the article has tons of valid souces to establish notability (+3) ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Annie Jennings – Keep closure endorsed, under the same rationale as the Eva Morris DRV. – Xoloz (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AfD was closed as "keep", and there was indeed a clear majority of editors who !voted to "keep". However, AfD is not a vote, and the only way which I can see of counting that AfD as a "keep" consensus is by counting heads, which runs counter to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted".

This article is an unreferenced stub which has remained unreferenced for four months; it clearly fails WP:BIO, and despite a number of WP:ILIKEIT !votes, there is no likelihood of substantive references to establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as closer. Per above (although this was a little closer, due to a lack of referencing); consensus to keep was crystal-clear. Neil ☎ 14:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep The keep-voters dropped the ball here, but Neil seems to have cut them a break. They never seemed to find the sources, of which there are several. [116] Several seem to be just about her. So verifiability (and the verifiability-based requirement of WP:BIO) isn't a problem here... the question is whether being oldest person in a large country is a claim of importance. I think it's weak myself but consensus seems to be that it's a reasonable claim. Pointing out sources (or better yet, adding them to the article) is one of the most powerful arguments you can make at AFD, people. --W.marsh 16:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have checked the results of that search, and I can't find anything more than trivial mentions of her in articles on other subjects. If there are non-trivial sources, please could you identify them rather than just pointing to a google search? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - [117], [118] seem to be written just about this person. GN Archive is incomplete, but the existence of 2 sources with non-trivial coverage suggests more exist. --W.marsh 14:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Non-trivial? You gotta be joking. This page shows that those articles have word counts of 17 and 41 words respectively, which is about as trivial as it gets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete: most of the keep !votes didn't provide a sound rationale for keeping. Just because someone is old does not mean they are notable; notability is determined by multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Also, see rationale above. - Chardish (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have asked everyone who voted keep to make some effort to add reliable sources to the article. If they haven't done so in a couple of days I'll be calling for the decision to be overturned and the article deleted. --Stormie (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sources now added. BlueValour (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The sources have been shown to exist... while improvement is nice, it's not required. Sources just need to be shown to exist. We shouldn't delete verifiable articles just as punishment. --W.marsh 02:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As above, no sources have actually been identified; all we have is a link to a google search. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which shows many news articles about this person. --W.marsh 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - But the only coverage in sources readable without subscription is trivial. It seems that we being asked to presume that the highbeam.com articles in tabloid newspapers are non-trivial, which looks unlikely: this page notes that the Daily Record article cited amounts to only 41 words, and quotes: "A Guinness Book of Records spokeswoman said: Annie doesn't like being in the book so we don't know much about her." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same comment on the above for Eva Morris. However, this person probably fails on their own article. I note this person is probably forever a stub. It may take years before I can get the old folks at the GRG and Max Plank Institute on setting up their off-line sources and make them appear on the Internet. But there doesn't seem to be an immediate need for an article now. Neal (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Here's something that's irrelevant: we actually have a photo of this person. But I don't think that means much. Neal (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn and Delete as per my comments in the above DRV. RMHED (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - now that references have been added to meet WP:V there are no policy reason to override the AfD consensus. Compliance with WP:BIO is a judgement call, a matter for a possible second AfD, but not for DRV. BlueValour (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matilda Hunter – Deletion endorsed – Core desat 02:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of this AfD was apparently 'delete' except that the discussion turned out equal - 5-5 keep/delete. I am not passionate about this article and only am requesting a DR because I thought that not enough 'votes' (I know we don't use voting, etc. but I will call it that for my fingers' sake) were in either camp to turn the discussion either way. I 'voted' in the debate but can't remember doing it, unfortuantely. There was another first AfD here which included this article, now deleted. Thus, I would like a deletion review. Auroranorth (!) 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and redirect to List of current Home and Away characters. This article should not have been deleted, since the result of the closure was to "REDIRECT ALL to Current Home and Away characters" (which redirects to the list). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs)
- Comment: the result of the AfD being reviewed was delete, not redirect. --Pak21 (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - Article appears to have been an copyvio of this page. Needless to say, I doubt that it will survive a new AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: none of the keep !votes made any argument with any reference to policy, mostly just being WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While it is definitely possible to write good articles on soap characters, not a single secondary source has actually been shown to exist for this character, although noting Bláthnaid's memory. --Pak21 (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I would prefer a keep, failing that a redirect and merge to a bigger article would be in order. Just deleting it, when as a major character, people will search for her, is pure vandalism. --UpDown (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not AfD II. Which policies were not intepreted correctly by the closing admin? --Pak21 (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn~~ All articles about major soap opera characters can be sourced, but it is difficult to do so over the space of an AfD because the magazines and newspapers that write about soap operas are generally not available online. That is part of the internet's systemic bias, and it is a pity for that bias to be reflected in Wikipedia. Now that I've had time to do some research, here is an article from The Age about one of the character's storylines. There is a couple of paragraphs in this article also. Bláthnaid 09:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my overturn because the article appears to be a copyvio. Bláthnaid 11:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Endorse): The WP:RS does not have to be online … see this essay about researching memberships in an organization with the help of a librarian and back issues of a monthly newsletter … give us an issue and page number from Soap Opera Digest or any other periodical notable enough to have a Wikipedia article (or an ISSN, for that matter) and you can make a {{cite news}} reference that will satisfy WP:V for WP:N … also note that this DRV may set precedent for articles listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) and beau coup other Home and Away related deletions … Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion: Most of the keep votes boiled down to either WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or "I bet that there are sources, I just can't find any!". AfD is not a vote, so the 5/5 split is irrelevant. Lankiveil (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse Closure - Closure matched consensus unless you nosecount. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK, this article has been identified as a copyvio that should have been a G12 speedy deletion, like several others identified in this open AfD of fictional Home and Away characters ... can we please close this and MOVE ON? —72.75.72.199 (talk · contribs) 15:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Intellect books and journals – Deletion endorsed – Core desat 02:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON Melaniesharrison (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC) I want to add a page about Intellect publishing. It has been deleted as it said I was advertising the company. How have the company Future Publishing added a page very similar to the one I tried to create and it still exists?[reply]

Endorse deletion. The article made little or no attempt to wikify and had no justification of notability. I added wikify and advert tags which the author removed with no comment. I found that the creator had previously been banned for link spam to Intellect Publishing's web site, and recommended speedy deletion, which took place. I would support the creation of an article that was NPOV and showed notability.TrulyBlue (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Melaniesharrison has confirmed that she is a publishing assistant at the company in question in a request for Editor Assistance. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. And consider blacklisting the website, since Melaniesharrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been spamming it all over the 'pedia. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I have done wrong. I am a new user of Wikipedia and I don't feel like I have been given any help or advice, just punishment. I have no intention of doing anything similar again, so please don't blacklist me. I thought that people are 'blacklisted' or 'banned' or whatever to protect the site, but Guy and True blue you seem to be enjoying being horrible to me about this. Genuine mistake although may not have looked as such. I was following an almost identical format to what Future Publishing have done. Someone needs to take a long hard look at their page because all I can see is advertising and links to their website where you can BUY THEIR MAGAZINES. I never tried to deny I worked for the company. What second source material could I provide. Intellect exists (as does Future) and therefore to appear on Wiki does someone completely unconnected to the company have to supply facts about it? I am positive that that is not what has happened with Future, or Oxford Uni Press, or Bloomsbury or any other publishing companies on here. I need advice, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T IGNORE ME!! :( Melaniesharrison (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. TrulyBlue (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and agree with JzG above that this should be blacklisted (see Special:Contributions/Melaniesharrison). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (my own) deletion with comment - I've tried to explain to Melanie what the situation is. She seems willing to discuss, learn, understand and comply with the policies which, I suppose, she had no idea existed. I'm applying a little WP:AGF and restoring the article to her userspace so she can work on it and get to grips with the policies I've pointed her towards. In the meantime I'd appreciate it if we don't attempt to blacklist the company's website. If my faith isn't repaid by Melanie, I'll lead the charge to get it (and her) blocked. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of appreciation for the time you've taken over this, Rambler. Excellent work here and on Melanie's talk page. TrulyBlue (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the support. It's difficult to "keep the faith" but I'd rather be transparent about it, talk to you guys about it and then apologise should it all go horribly wrong! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It is clear that the article was justifiably deleted through WP:CSD#G11. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, with comment: I support The Rambling Man's efforts to mentor the article's creator. Let me remind some editors of WP:BITE and WP:AGF. I'm working (currently in userspace) on improving an article on the topic of my employer's area of business, and I stayed away from the topic until I was familiar with WP policies, and I'll put my contributions through at least one neutral admin to avoid WP:COI problems... but a new user, faced with you're-welcome-to-edit messages and seeing counter-to-policy articles about competitors, could quite reasonably assume they could create similar articles. Barno (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn An article about a publisher that includes a short list listing the journals and books published is not unfixable spam. Given that its books are distributed by The University of Chicago Press, a good case could be made for notability. That is a sufficient show of notability to avoid blacklisting as well. Restore and edit. DGG (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Prester_John – Deletion endorsed. There is no prejudice against the recreation of the page with appropriate content (i.e. not a recreation of what was deleted) if/when the user in question returns. – Eluchil404 (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus for delete Law Lord (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There actually a clear consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination) that I can see.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Consensus has been found for deletion. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - consensus wasn't too clear, but I think we should not be keeping such pages anyway. Thanks. Red rocket boy 11:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, clear consensus to delete. --Core desat 11:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore: Clearly, no consensus to delete. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. It's a close call, and I know these aren't votes, but I don't think we can describe something less than 2/3rds as a rough consensus. Prester's page had been changed to remove the offensive material by the end of the MFD. Therefore, I count the conditional keeps/conditional deletes as keeps. The tally then stands as follows:
- Keep: Law Lord, ~~Phoenix-wiki~~now endorse deletion--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC), Cygnis Insignis, Prester John, Sarsaparilla, Ned Scott, Matt57, Master of Puppets, jonny-mt, Ilywrch, Kurt Weber[reply]
- Delete: Web Hamster, Aminz, Agha Nader, Hu, Itaqallah, Coredesat, Viriditas, Redrocketboy, Aninum, Rlevse, Brendan, P4k, Christopher Parham, gadfium, Lester, Lawrence Cohen, Rodhullandemu, Fin, krimpet, Moondyne, Cheeser1, CharonX, Tarc, Devs Ex Macina, Shot info, Jeffpw
- Other: FisherQueen ("delete if necessary"), PrestonH ("Delete/Conditional Keep"), GlassCobra ("delete if..."), Walton ("Conditional keep"), Sarah ("comment (sort of a delete, I guess)")

So, we have 11 keeps, 26 deletes, and 5 others. As mentioned, I count those 5 as keeps, which brings it to 16 keeps, 27 deletes. If my math is wrong, please let me know. That just seems too close to count as consensus, especially after the changes that were made. Sarsaparilla (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - The fact that MFD is not a vote is one of the reasons why the page was deleted in the first place. --Core desat 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I most certainly was not a "keep". I preferred Prester to remove the offensive material himself, but failing that, and with his refusal to cooperate, I argued quite strongly for deletion. He refused to cooperate with removal of the material and edit warred with admins, myself and Fisher Queen, and reverted it back in. The only reason it is out right now is he is blocked and unable to restore it. Also, what you are doing here is not how deletion discussions work. You are essentially counting votes when the discussion and comments must be weighed. You can't just say "keep" and expect it to be weighed equally against someone who makes an argument based in policy. This is what I tried to explain to you lot during the MfD but you refused to listen and rudely and dismissively told me I don't understanding Wikipedia. Sarah 07:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - it's not a headcount. Neil ☎ 13:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Sarsaparilla. --Law Lord (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The vast majority of the straight "keep" votes were not based on any real policy, which is contrary to the point of XfD as noted in the guidelines pointed to above. In addition, a number of the votes listed in "keep" on Sarsaparilla's count (mine included) asked for a cleanup of the material as a condition of the keep. I think the closing admin read the consensus just fine. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 15:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per jonny-mt. He's right. After reading through the MfD, the users in favor of deletion cited policies, where as those who were in favor of keep didn't cite policy. --Son (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, but allow recreation. The deletion implies that the user is not entitled to a userpage, which was not the intention of the MfD. Assuming the user does not again violate WP:USERPAGE, he should be allowed a userpage. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation with content that doesn't violate WP:USERPAGE. I agree with jonny-mt's comments after rereading the MfD. As Lifebaka noted, just because the material transcluded from subpages was (by most readings) counter to policy doesn't mean that the user cannot have a userpage. If future use of userpage presents a problem, it should be taken to RfC (or AN:I if extreme) to remove the user rather than let him contribute as a user-without-userpage. Barno (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse was offensive--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion If there are a few dead branches on a tree, you don't bulldoze the entire thing. However, given that the user has been warned and has still taken no action, I Suggest giving him an ultimatum; if he does not remove content generally perceived as offensive, his userpage will be deleted, or modified to remove aforementioned content. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wake up please The userpage has already been deleted! This is not a discussion as to whether it shall be deleted or not. --Law Lord (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The "keeps" were told during the MfD that this was a discussion not a vote and that both keep and delete comments which were essentially votes without any policy/guideline grounded reasoning would be weighted accordingly by the closing admin. That this is exactly what has happened, resulting in a closure of deletion is of absolutely no surprise. Endorse deletion. The closure was proper. Sarah 07:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I received an email asking me to contribute here, did everyone get one of those? ;-) A clear consensus to delete was the result of the discussion. This was not an unexpected or unwelcome outcome, some of the stuff should have been deleted on sight, but the page gave a very good indication of that editor's other contributions. However, the scope of that discussion was too limited to address the problem of the user's long campaign, gaming the system, and this particular response by the community will only serve that user. This was [a] just [a] blow, a broader discussion is still required. I had hoped to avoid any suggestion that I was voting or arguing for anything ... no such luck. Deletion was proper, yet will be ultimately ineffectual if further discussions do not take place. cygnis insignis 10:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask who sent it, and which side was it implied you should contribute to? I perfectly understand if you can't/would prefer not to, for privacy reasons - just wondering :) Daniel 10:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course you can ask, and the answer is here. I'm not sure I understand the next part of your comment - privacy?. cygnis insignis 11:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Privacy: I think what Daniel meant was that in general if somebody sends you an email message then the sender will expect that you keep the contents of the message and the name of the sender private. --Law Lord (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In ref to policies overriding the tally of keeps and deletes, does that apply in the case of something like WP:UP which is not a policy but a guideline? Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion guidelines you cited above states that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." In an XfD discussion, the question of whether an editor's argument is based on a guideline or a policy is largely a question of semantics (the exception being when a policy overrides a guideline, which is exceedingly rare and something that we actively seek to avoid) due to the fact that both are based on consensus and thus serve to support their argument.

Of course, WP:SOAPBOX is part of WP:NOT, but my point stands regardless. --jonny-m t 03:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the deletion. From what I can see at the MfD was a clear consensus to delete the page, and counting who "voted" for what and counting the "other votes" as "keep"s is not how we operate in any deletion discussion. Spebi 09:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice to the user recreating a more friendly version, when he comes off his block next year. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Raccoon Police Department – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possibly flawed closing and deletion by admin against consensus. I'm actually bringing this against my own closing because I'm wondering if I did the right thing. I'm confident that I evaluated the discussion fairly but because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raccoon Police Department includes a number of strong keeps, I'm now wondering if I should have gone for a no consensus decision. I'm still new enough to closing AfDs that I'm worrying about poor judgment in cases like this. Pigman☿ 07:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The article was tagged for references since September, and nobody offered any during the discussion, so it fails WP:V as well as WP:N. If someone wants to add the refs, the article can always be userfied and brought back here. So don't fret, you did the right thing. Dhaluza (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, with the proviso that of course if someone comes up with references, the article could be recreated (G4 speedy wouldn't be applicable since references would "address the reasons for which the material was deleted"). --Stormie (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, WP:V is non-negotiable and closure was correct. Neil ☎ 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. With the article failing WP:V and WP:N, I believe that was the right decision to make. --Son (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The delete arguements were clearly stronger. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whew! Glad people think my judgment was sound. Since I received complaint (my first on an AfD closing) I decided I preferred other opinions to remaining in doubt. If I was more confident, I wouldn't have brought it here. Question: If an AfD decision has the possibility of being contested/challenged, is it better to provide a rationale for the decision or just leave such things to DRV to decide? Is it helpful to provide such a summary or is it just a waste of time? Just curious. Cheers, Pigman☿ 19:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I believe that a rationale for any AfD closing is appropriate, and if the closer sees it as likely to be contested, almost mandatory. It definitely helps an individual understand the close (and makes it more likely to be resolved by a simple talkpage exchange); and if the matter is brought to DRV, it helps reviewers determine whether process was followed in evaluating the arguments (as compared to simple headcount or imposing one's own opinion). Barno (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, I don't think that a childish rant, rejecting core WP policy, is very much reason for much worry about closing an AfD where no evidence of verifiability (other than "you can verify it from the game itself") was offered. If you close AfDs, especially in the videogaming area, you'll get these complaints all the time. Thank you for trying to be sure that you hadn't overstepped. Barno (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: The use of closing "statements" was one I had observed and thought an excellent idea if there was the slightest question of the resulting decision or the policies/reasoning behind the outcome decision of the closing admin. I figure it's not so necessary if the outcome is clear and unambiguous from the discussion and opinions. However in this particular case, I think my saying "Technically, the consensus leaned toward keep but..." was a mistake to articulate in the closing; it's practically an open invitation to second-guess the closer. While I've been getting used to process of closing AfDs, I've attempted to steer clear of those AfDs calling for more detailed policy knowledge than I have at the moment. Or maybe I have it but I'm not comfortable exercising it. And, yeah, I know I can't please everyone in any charged or mixed opinion closing. I'll be better able to put complaints into perspective once I have some confidence in my skills in the area. Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it. Cheers, Pigman☿ 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I think it is important to note that the number of comments lean one way, but the weight of the arguments lean the other. It shows that you did consider all the evidence in reaching your decision. As the closing admin, you are the arbiter of policy, and you must respect the broad consensus reflected in policy over any narrow consensus formed in a particular AfD. Dhaluza (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Good call that you explained clearly. Rossami (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and it's a positive thing that you've sought further discussion and that you offered your reasons for closing as delete. The article did not pass WP:FICT and none of the keep arguments made any inroads in that department. The five keep arguments were 'notability is inherited'x2 (~~it ain't~~ it can be in some circumstances, but not this one), 'it's notable'x3/'there's primary sources, they're good enough for character articles' (notability is a standard not just a word we like bandying around and it wasn't demonstrated, character articles are given much more leeway with regards to notability, though that's been changing too). If sources are found there's nothing stopping the article being reinstated and brought up to standard - it's not like deletion is a scorched earth process. Someone another (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - the guidelines are quite clear - game-guide material needs real-world context and this page has none and no RSs either.BlueValour (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, and Pigman, good on you for reading and evaluating the unbolded words instead of just counting the bolded ones. Keep it up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn As the closer said, "consensus leaned to "keep", and then he gave his own judgment on this issue, & closed on that basis. He should rather have joined the discussion, and I'm glad he realised it and brought it here. I did not comment on the afd. My personal view on the issues is opposite to the closer's. I could have closed, saying "slight consensus to keep" giving my own opinion as support. That would have been wrong for me to do, & I would never close an article on a topic where i had views about one side of a relatively equally disputed debate. Closing is not a casting vote. He should have let someone else close. That the views on the article of the people here so far agree with the closer is irrelevant. They should instead say to relist it, and join the debate, not debate it here. I have notified all those who joined in the discussion--both sides--who have not already participated here. Personally, I think that should be required--seems elementary politeness.DGG (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. From WP:PRACTICAL: ...wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD.... (Emphasis added is mine except for "not a binding vote".) But that's not to say that only polling and votes can apply to AfD; it's saying that for article space, polling should be avoided, in xfD it's recommended. --Son (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as there was obviously no consensus to delete and there still is not. If we operate by consensus, then situations like this one in which a good deal of good faith editors believe the article has merit, we should not delete it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse although at the same time I see no reason whatsoever that a redirect can't point to the Resident Evil series article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at AFD. I think relisting, instead of closing as a no consensus, would have been the right call...I think there was still some discussion to be had. And isn't it supposed to be "Raccoon City Police Department"? --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to relist. Find references, and it can stay; no references, and it must go (at least for now). Anybody can make a redirect as needed. Dhaluza (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse though a redirect won't do any harm 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Resident Evil, on the whole a Redirect makes a lot of sense. RMHED (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid closure. Go on and replace it with a redirect. --Core desat 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tokyo in pop culture – Closure endorsed, but redirect placed as an outcome to keep an article does not make it immune to editorial decisions such as merging – Core desat 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was kept because the "the article is now more than a list". However, the entire text of this article is duplicated near-verbatim in the Tokyo in popular media section of the Tokyo article. Needless to say, the 2nd nomination for deletion was shouted down. This pointless fork should not have been kept. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure as it was obviously too soon to relist it for AfD. This should be a merge discussion, not at DRV. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merge has already been performed. The article remains a fork. I don't believe the first closure was a good one. I took this to Deletion review on the advice of the editor who performed the 2nd closure. Now I'm hearing this is the wrong venue, and I should have started a Merge discussion before copying one sentence to Tokyo. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy or what? / edg ☺ ☭ 06:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that there is no need to bring this here if all you ultimately want is to have the information merged to another article. If that merge has already happened, simply redirect the article to where you merged the information. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have to do? And this won't be promptly reverted? / edg ☺ ☭ 06:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BOLD. If someone objects, they'd have to object to my removal of the actual list; after all, there is no other content. If we end up back at that version, things can be challenged. You might have avoided a lot of pointless debates if you had just talked to me about my original closure. Mango juice^talk 06:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This merge has been reverted, and my performing this merge has been called "an attempt ... to singlehandedly reverse the clear consensus", by an Admin no less, who cites this DRV as part of the consensus to keep the article, and explains the fork must be kept per WP:CONSENSUS.

My request in this DRV was that the original Keep decision be overturned for reasons given above. We have since received two (2) votes in this DRV (which I was advised to make by yet another Admin) toward keeping this article, which exactly duplicates a section of Tokyo, and serves no purpose but to have trivia items appended. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article as a large number of good faith contributors find it encyclopedic and are willing to continue developing and improving it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about reading about deletion review, instead of just writing keep? This isn't the same as an AFD debate. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

LED circuit – Discussion misplaced. A decision to redirect at XfD is a species of keep -- it is an editorial action undertaken by a closer after deciding not to delete a given article. While the decision may have more weight than a unilateral decision to redirect (based on the strength of the consensus at the AfD supporting such action), the redirect is still editorial. When under dispute, anyone may revert it, subject to talk page consensus. As this redirect is clearly under dispute, I will revert it, and any interested parties may discuss the best options at the talk page. Redirect editorially reverted. – Xoloz (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe the closer went completely off the reservation on this one. Other than the nom, there were no straight delete comments--there was one "trainwreck", one delete or merge, and the rest were merge or keep which preserves the content. Nobody suggested a redirect, which effectively deletes the content. Even after discounting the questionable nom portion of the comments, the result is the same. The closing comments go into great detail about the closer's non policy related opinions on the article itself, and speculation on commenters' intent, rather than impartial evaluation of the actual AfD discussion taken at face value. If an admin has an opinion on an article, they should comment in the AfD as an editor, not as the closing admin. Also closing the same AfD twice is probably a bad idea. Dhaluza (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as no consensus There was no consensus for deleting the content as the closer did. Dhaluza (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own closure - I have made an "impartial evaluation of the actual AfD discussion taken at face value" - and it is written in the close comments, i.e: Keeps all conflate notability of LEDs with the circuit that happens to have one, so don't you say I made no such evaluation. The sources all point to notability - not of LED circuit but of LED. Would we envision having a "light bulb circuit" article? I dare say no! In cases where all keep comments are blindly conflating things or simply disregarding the nominator's rationale, it is up to the closing admin to sort things out and apply some comon sense. I further noted that there is nothing to merge to LED in this article, the content totally duplicating Ohm's law. In this case a merge comment is equivalent to a redirect comment; this is standard operating procedure. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The commenters explicitly addressed "LED Circuit" in their comments, so your assumption that they were conflating LED with LED Circuit is not taking what they actually said at face value, it is making a value judgement. Dhaluza (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus. There does not appear to have been any consensus in the original AfD. It should probably be relisted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I understand, and have sympathy with, the reasoning of the closing admin. However, it is so far off the consensus that it must be overturned. I think that merge would have been a better close. The problem with the simple redirect is that some useful content is lost; for example the Typical voltage drops section contains mergeable material. I suggest the closing admin starts a merge discussion as a separate editorial action. BlueValour (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A number of uninformed keeps is not consensus. The table in LED circuit#Typical voltage drops is already present in light-emitting diode#Considerations in use (towards the end) where voltage is labeled as potential difference instead. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Personal attack removed) Whether your argument is correct or not, it was not supported by consensus. And by making it in the close, rather than in the discussion, you denied the contributors the opportunity to rebut it. For example, your assertion that there is no mergeable material is demonstrably false. The essence of the article, the circuit diagram itself, does not appear in the LED article, but it does appear in the references, so it is relevant. Dhaluza (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am too dumbfounded to respond to your claims except the first one, that "you are judging the contributors to the discussion, not their contribution". That is plainly untrue and I have no idea what magic hat you pulled that rabbit from. The closure was not dependent on who commented; if any other editors had expressed the same rationales for keeping the article I would have closed the AfD the same way. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No magic needed, just reading your comments at the close and here. We give the closing admin discretion to evaluate comments in relation to policy, because a narrow consensus at AfD cannot override a wider consensus in a policy. But we do not give the closer discretion to dismiss comments to substitute their own judgment, especially based on the closer's own "expert" opinion of the subject. This is what you have done--you did not impartially evaluate the AfD discussion to try to divine rough consensus, you rendered you own judgment on the article, and dismissed dissenting views, effectively casting a super-vote. As you just said, you would have closed the same way, regardless of how many editors expressed opinions contrary to your judgment. Dhaluza (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, I can take it when you say I cast a super vote; I blatantly overruled consensus - fine. But when you say I judged the contributors instead of the substance of their contribution, that is untrue and a grievous slander on your part. I cannot take your injurious insinuation lying down - I did not make remarks about any editor(s) themselves. Period. Pegasus «C¦T» 10:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not intended as a slander, and I apologize if I expressed my observation in a way that you find offensive. But after reconsidering this, I still think the observation is consistent with the evidence. I find your comment that "...a lot of people have wrongly conflated the notability of LEDs themselves..." as judgmental. You are saying that they are wrong and you are right. If this were a policy interpretation, that would be within your purview as a closing admin. But you are saying they don't understand the subject as well as you do, and for a closer, that is going off the reservation. You should have made those types of comments as a contributor, and left it to someone more impartial to close. Dhaluza (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent) "Judging the contributor" requires one to name or identify specific editor(s) in the remark. I did no such thing in the closure. Please, strike that blatantly untrue statement. I did not make remarks about any specific editor or editors, which the phrase "judging the contributor" implies to most people. Pegasus «C¦T» 14:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no such implication. Other than that clarification, I will let you have the last word. Dhaluza (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Countering the claim in the nomination, the edit history is still available for anyone to merge any content anywhere they please. There are essentially two meaningful contributions in the discussion, one by Edison, one by Dhaluza. Closer performed due diligence on the references and concluded that Edison's position has more merit. That's a perfectly valid thing to do. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closer was not impartial. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - "consensus rooted in policy" is the phrase, not just "consensus". Information is duplicated elsewhere, and content is retained in the redirect's history in case anything has slipped through the gaps. Neil ☎ 14:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus, as clearly there was none. I also note that the closing admin was a contributor to the AfD. It was therefore not appropriate for him to close it, regardless of the outcome. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to point out his comment in the midst of the AFD was procedural (I closed this as a "speedy keep" earlier but after objections on my talk page, I've reverted my closure), not about deleting or keeping the article. Neil ☎ 15:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but his other comment applied more or less specifically to the argument. --Smashville^BONK! 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus. Looking at the AfD, there just wasn't any consensus. I agree with gorgan_almighty that it was inappropriate for a user involved in the discussion to close it. --Son (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I have an issue with an admin who participated in the discussion making a close against consensus. IMO, anyone - admin or not - who participates in the discussion should not close it. --Smashville^BONK! 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (which was only to not delete). The pagehistory has not been deleted. This is consistent with the closure decision and the community opinion. The decision to merge/redirect is then a normal editorial decision since it can be reversed by any editor without the need for special admin powers. The argument that a redirect "deletes content" is without merit and is untrue given the Wikipedia process. Normal editing (including turning some pages into redirects) is not deletion as we use that term here.
All that said, I agree with the closer that there is no independent material here. None of the sources describe this topic as a topic. An LED circuit is a circuit with an LED is self-evident. Until a more substantial article can be successfully written and sourced, our readers are better off with a redirect. Rossami (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was careful to characterize the outcome as effectively deleted, because if an editor were to restore the article, another editor would be likely to point to the AfD and revert. So absent an overturn here, the article is effectively deleted. I don't disagree that the article could be better, but we generally do not turn articles needing improvement into redirects, especially when there are ample references. Also, as I pointed out above, it is plainly obvious that the actual "LED circuit" diagram from the article was lost, so there was independent info, making that a false assumption. Dhaluza (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if they did unredirect and then have it reverted, that would be completely consistent with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. That sort of content dispute gets settled on the respective article Talk pages. It does not require discussion here. The image is not lost - it can be moved to another article if useful. Rossami (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not true, as the Talk page of a redirect is seldom if ever used. There was clearly no consensus to redirect, so the article should have been left as it was. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus. Looking at the AfD, there was not consensus. I agree that it was inappropriate for a user involved in the discussion to close it. There are over a thousand uninvolved administrators who could have done it. DGG (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 December 2007[edit]

Category:Eagle Scouts – Undeletion - The deletion discussions did not reach a consensus to delete. In the absence of a consensus, we look to policy and ask "Is there a clear policy violation so serious as to mandate deletion in the absence of consensus?" The answer is that there was not. Therefore, the deletion is overturned. Johntex\^talk 15:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a reference I want to note the previous CfDs prior to the one referenced above.

After some discussion, where the consensus of editors thought that keeping the three above categories was a good idea, the discussion was closed as The result of the debate was Delete. In closing comments, the admin stated,

"So the members are not notable for being Eagle Scouts, but for something else after earning Eagle Scout. AKA Category:Notable people who were also Eagle Scouts. These fail as categories under several sections of WP:OCAT."

First, Jc37 is wrong on the facts. "The title of "Eagle Scout" is held for life, thus giving rise to the phrase "Once an Eagle, always an Eagle"." The members are notable, and they are Eagle Scouts. Only about 2% of Boy Scouts make Eagle Scout and only about 1% of Eagle Scouts receive the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award. This is significant.
Second, let us stipulate that all the comments were made were of equal value and quality. That being said, 2x as many people thought it good to keep the above-referenced categories. Jc37's closure flies in the face of logic and was not with Wikipedia:Consensus.
Third, most people consider the attainment of the rank a major life milestone. Many Eagle Scouts keep the fact that attained the Eagle Scout rank on their resumes for life ; such as US President Gerald Ford. He always regarded this as one of his proudest accomplishments, even after attaining the White House (see this link and the wiki article on Ford).

Reliable sources often mention that notable people are Eagle Scouts, and clearly regard it as a defining characteristic. A defining characteristic and award for anyone, due to its limited number of awardees, the fact that "what an Eagle Scout is" is well known, sometimes to a cliche level.

Following the logic of the admin who closed this CfD, most people categories should be deleted. Like "People from Spokane" and "Recipients of the Bronze Star medal" all the "UK PM" by decade cats, and "category:Fictional canaries." Are we really saying fictional canaries is worthy of a category and being an Eagle Scout isn’t? And how are all the "year of birth/death" defining? They’re so overfull as to be totally useless.

Finally, people keep forgetting categories have value outside of lists. How often do we have to delete a cat and put it in a list then delete a list and put in a cat? Which way is the wind blowing this week?

Overturn and restore --evrik ^(talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You left out part of the closure. Here's the full closure, for those who don't wish to check out the discussion:

The result of the debate was Delete Category:Eagle Scouts and Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts; Listify Category:Fictional Eagle Scouts to Scouting in popular culture.

Note the introduction to the featured list, List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America):

This list of Eagle Scouts includes men who have become notable after earning Eagle Scout, the highest rank attainable in the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Since it was first awarded in 1912, Eagle Scout has been earned by more than one and a half million young men.

So the members are not notable for being Eagle Scouts, but for something else after earning Eagle Scout. AKA Category:Notable people who were also Eagle Scouts. These fail as categories under several sections of WP:OCAT. - jc37 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- jc37 02:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree--being an Eagle Scout is both a defining characteristic, as well as a significant achievement, and therefore consistent with WP:OCAT. For example, being an Eagle Scout has frequently been cited as a defining characteristic as well as an ingredient in the success of Steve Fossett. Dhaluza (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling 1, 2, or even 50 names out of the air doesn't make all Eagle Scouts "notable". And further, just being an Eagle Scout has yet to be shown as "notable" in and of itself. - jc37 12:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't know what "several parts" it goes against. It isn't an "opinion," "subjective," "arbitrary," "intersection by location," or "intersection by ethnicity, etc," a "narrow intersection," "small" or "unrelated" or "overlapping," "eponymous," "candidates," or a "published list," "venue," or"performer." The only possible parts left are "awards" (for which this award definitely shows notability) and "non-defining," which you keep saying it is not. I think that the biggest point showing that it is notable is when its recipients say that it is (like the Gerald Ford example). —Scouter Sig 04:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore No consensus for delete (and being an Eagle Scout is a defining characteristic). Dhaluza (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore - CfD closure did not reflect consensus. I do not see that the categories fail WP:OCAT, either. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore Category:Eagle Scouts. Do not agree that consensus was reached on the previous CFD. Per guideline — WP:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic — "In general, categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life, such as his or her career, origin and major accomplishments." Attaining Eagle Scout IS notable in a person's life and is a major accomplishment. When a person goes on to achieve notability later in life, it does not make this a non-notable event. Having the category does not imply that all Eagle Scouts have sufficient notability to have a Wikipedia article. This category should be restored. — ERcheck (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (Though I do not oppose an attempt at listifying.) - As I note above (and in the closure), List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) makes it clear that this is a group of individuals who are notable for what they did after being an eagle scout. If Category:Notable people who were also Eagle Scouts is considered a valid category by those commenting here, then by all means, overturn. But it obviously isn't. This is an intersection of notability and trivia. I'm a big fan of Scouting (believe it or not), but I'm also a fan of Star Wars, and Star Trek. for that matter. And I don't think that we'd dispute those who say: "Once a Trekkie, always a Trekkie." Or for that matter, I note that Category:Order of the Arrow doesn't include people, though the list at Distinguished Service Award (OA) does. How about Silver Buffalo Award? Or any of the other members of Category:Scout and Guide awards? If you (the nominator) wish this to be a WP:WAX argument, that's fine, but let's include "everything", not just a few categories taken out of context of their structure. As for categories and lists, check out WP:CLS for guidelines concerning lists, gidelines, and series boxes (also called navboxes). It's not about "which way the wind's blowing". The bottom line is that this should be a list (if anything) per WP:BLP, among other things. It also allows for references showing that they were at one time Eagle Scouts. And though I personally might not be worried that the category could become as large a 1.5 million members, someone might... I wonder if that's why they're all not listed in the featured list: List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)... - jc37 02:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on "Notable people who are/were also Eagle Scouts" — This is redundant. If they have a Wikipedia article, then per WP:BIO, they are notable. — ERcheck (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point! Just because they happen to be notable, and happen to be eagle scouts, there is no reason to have a category intersecting the two. "Category:Astronauts who were Eagle scouts"; "Category:Presidents who were Eagle Scouts"; "Category:Film directors who were Eagle Scouts" - These people are notable because of something later in their lives. And while their lives may have been influenced by their experiences in earning Eagle Scout, they aren't notable for being Eagle Scouts. That's why I made the point to quote from the List introduction. And note that this was mentioned in the nomination as well. - jc37 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a red-herring argument. Nobody is suggesting the cross-categorizations you are listing here. Eagle Scouts is not a cross-categorization--all categories are cross-categorized with notability. The fact that it happens early in life is not relevant, but even so, many Eagle Scouts cite it as being relevant to them--that is they self-identify as Eagle Scouts (e.g. Gerald Ford and Steve Fossett examples above). Also we have plenty of cats that define early life, e.g. Category:Children of national leaders, Category:Military brats, etc. Dhaluza (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring? If what you just postulated was true, then not only every single person listed on List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) (at the very least every single Distinguished Eagle Scout), but every single Eagle Scout, should have an article, right? Just being an Eagle Scout creates their "notability", after all. If not, it's trivia and WP:OCAT (and various other explanations on various category guidelines pages) applies, and these should be deleted. So which is it? - jc37 11:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a red herring. Nobody is suggesting that every Eagle Scout have an article simply to fill up the category. But if someone is notable, then the fact that they were an Eagle Scout is relevant. As already pointed out, some successful people self-identify with this, and even credit it with contributing to their success. And to someone who might be researching notable Eagle Scouts, it provides a quick index. So there is no need to delete the category, it is not inconsistent with the requirements of WP:OCAT. Dhaluza (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaluza's statement provides clarification to exactly what I was trying to get across. This is not a cross-categorization issue, as notability should be inherent for all biographical subjects with articles. Notable characteristics that are included in an article/category are not necessarily sufficient for establishing notability (for example, Category:Harvard Law School alumni) — ERcheck (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that this is where I'm supposed to point to the section of WP:AADD which states that notability is not inherited... But that aside, categories aren't articles. - jc37 12:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - "...let us stipulate that all the comments were made were of equal value and quality.": Let's not. Even in the discussion there were commenters noting the poor quality of the "keep" comments. evrik, the nominator above, had this as his comment: "Keep per previous CfD." - There were several of such comments, which several people, including the nominator of the CfD complained about. (Which also meant that I had to take at least that previous discussion under consideration in the closure. See also this cfd discussion as well...) So despite the accusations of being "wrong about the facts" at the top, I did a bit more research than is being presumed. And, as always, counting votes does not equal consensus. - jc37 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for Category:Eagle Scouts only; (listify Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts and Category:Fictional Eagle Scouts per my arguments here.) I think that the Eagle Scout category is a notable accomplishment. The idea that the category could have 1.5 million articles is, I think, not hitting the point head on. Category: Living People I'm sure has more than that. If the category ever got "too big" it could be broken down to Category:Eagle Scouts by decade or something. The award is notable, and it's awardees are notable, and I believe that the intersection is notable. You may argue that they are not notable for being Eagle Scouts, but few categories are intended to prove notability. Julia Gillard is not notable for being in Category:Welsh_Australians, but we all consider it an appropriate category; neither is Shaka notable for being in Category:Murdered kings, but it remains part of his notability.—Scouter Sig 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per closer's rationale. --Kbdank71 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer got it right when he said that it wasn't a defining characteristic. As to the nominator's quiestion about competing bird-based categories (" Are we really saying fictional canaries is worthy of a category and being an Eagle Scout isn’t?"), the answer is yes. "Fictional canaries" are all those articles can be; they are both fictional and canaries. But being an Eagle Scout is just a footnote on a career, unlikely to be listed even on a famous person's bio. It may be a big deal to the person, but it's not to the world.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore RE Mike Selinker "just a footnote on a career, unlikely to be listed even on a famous person's bio"...Oh really? The very first bio I checked had it listed, near the top: SC Justice Stephen Breyer. It was so kind of you to ignore most of the other points brought up, giving them more credibility. Just because you think it's not defining, doesn't mean it isn't. It is very defining. I support restoring these for all the reasons mentioned by other supporting restoring. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore because delete was not the consensus of that discussion. In fact, I'd go so far as to overturn the 20 July discussion and close it as keep, because keep was the clear consensus of that discussion. The preceeding is the DRV reason for overturning. While getting my Eagle wasn't one of the times I've been quoted in the press, for me, like many many award recipients, it did make the press. Getting an eagle is in fact a significant biographical event, regularly reported in the press and regularly discussed in dead tree biographies, precisely because only recipients with certain qualities receive one, so mentioning the ward defines the recipient in terms of having had those characteristics - at least at that stage of life. Thus the delete arguers who said it is not defining are just plain wrong and in my eyes there is no need to relist. GRBerry 05:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly mean this in no way disrespectfully, but I've seen notices in "the press" about Mrs. Homebody's Wednesday night Pinochle game; St. Local's church bazaar; and Mrs. Bedding's quilting bee. I think one of the difficulties/confusions here is that some thing that that we might normally compare this to might be considered professions. And this isn't. It falls under organisation member, award earner/winner. Can this be shown comparable to the Nobel Prize, or even the Newberry Medal? And those are yearly awards. Becoming an Eagle Scout just means passing certain criteria. Anyone who completes these criteria at any time (prior to being 18) can become an Eagle Scout. Is it really really cool to be an Eagle Scout? Sure. Pillar of the community, and all-around great guy. Should it be a category grouping in Wikipedia? Probably not. - jc37 06:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This shows you simply don't understand. It it NOT merely passing a set of criteria. It's far more, but I'm sure you wouldn't get that either if I tried to explain it. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate open discussion, and even lively debate, but that last comment crossed the line a bit. I'd appreciate if you clarified how you feel that it's not; or clarified and struck it and apologised. - jc37 12:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse all three closures - closing admin got it exactly right and this DRV is just an attempt to get another bite at the apple. Otto4711 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something off of the AP (not a local paper). This is a quote from an Eagle Scout on the impact it has on his life, and the community:

On December 3 the 64-year-old, who called himself a black militant in his autobiography, will formally collect the honor. He said he hopes it will add an important layer to a personal narrative that, to many people, will always be linked to his conviction in the civil rights protest at a historically black college that ended with three students gunned down by state troopers.

"People have tried to create these monsters and make us something that we weren't because it helped them make their case," said Sellers, the director of the African American Studies program at the University of South Carolina. "I think it's important for people to know who I am and maybe through the process that will help lower the barrier and lower the kind of imagery they have of me."

— Cleveland Sellers^[1]

--evrik ^(talk) 16:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse all three closures - a minor event in someone's youth. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you provide some documentation on thta, especially in light of the previous article i just posted? --evrik ^(talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor? NO WAY. You just don't get it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - I can understand some stupid little thing like "People that were valedictorians" being deleted, but being an Eagle Scout is no stupid little thing. Why anyone would want this deleted is beyond me. Whammies Were Here 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restoreJust read all the other in favor of overturn, no need to repeat myself for the umpteenth time. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore for Eagle scout category. Listify the others mayhaps. I'd like to know who has received the DESA I think the category is necessary. I also think all this quibbling is silly. Eagleapex (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Distinguished Eagle Scouts should be a sub-cat of Eagle Scouts. The Fictional Eagle Scouts should not be a cat, because although it is a defining characteristic for real people, it is a trivial attribute for fictional characters. Dhaluza (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that listifying a category means that no content is lost, and while I haven't actually compared them, I "believe" that all the Distinguished Eagle Scouts are already listified at List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) (and were so prior to the CfD). ~~Anyone out there have any idea why List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) (a featured list) doesn't currently include all Eagle Scouts?~~ - jc37 12:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a closer look at that page, and see now that there is a symbol which differentiates between the two. Which means that, at this time, all three categories are currently listified already. - jc37 12:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jc37 is incorrect ( see Talk:List_of_Eagle_Scouts_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)/to_do), not all Eagles in the cat were in the list. Plus, this constant list/cat debate is really getting old. Why can't there be both? It's also applied inconsistently--towit, there is both a list and cat for US Presidents, why isn't that cat being deleted? There are other such cases too. This whole case comes down to two things: 1) which side of the months-long list/cat issues is one on, and 2) is being an Eagle Scout a defining characteristic. For item two, yes it is defining. For both item one and two, considering considering what I've seen of other list/cat debates and this current Eagle issue and the two prior ones, it's obvious both sides are fervent in their beliefs and are not going to change their view. The result will come down to which side of the fence the closing admin is on. I will agree Fictional Eagles can stay deleted, but not the other two cats. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleting - the discussion on deletion did not result in a consensus to delete. To the contrary, the comments tended towards keep. The nominations should have been closed with a result of keep or no consensus at minimum. In the absence of a consensus to delete, there would need to be a clear-cut and compelling policy reason why these categories cannot exist on Wikipedia. None was given. The analogy to "People from Spokane" is a good one. We routinely classify people based upon where there city of birth, something over which they had no control. In the case of the Eagle Scout award, the recipient consciously strove for the achievement. Most Eagle Scouts consider it a formative event in their lives, and the Boy Scouts of America considers it something that is carried for one's whole life. To wit, there are no "former Eagle Scouts". Therefore, I am restoring the categories. Johntex\^talk 15:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Goggins, Katrina A. (Nov 2007). "Ex-Black Militant Becomes Eagle Scout". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-11-26.

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

Fyne Times – Restored as an invalid G4, references added, requester is happy, deleting admin is happy, everyone seems happy. --Stormie (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was a page I patrolled in the new pages. It was an article on a Gay and Lesbian magazine. Looked like a legitimate article to me. The magazine has a page on the web. It still needed some work so I placed some maintenance tags on it and categorized it under GLBT. logged on today and the page was completely missing from my contributions list? I'm not gay but have no prejudice towards the gay community. Was there a legitimate reason why the article was deleted? I was unable to ascertain which Administrator deleted the page so I have not notified them of this discussion. It would be nice to get some feedback on this as I'm now wondering if I had been working on a banned page or something? Sting_au Talk 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore - the logs show that the deleting admin was User:Orangemike. However, the reason given "CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material" is invalid since G4 only applies to deletions following a deletion discussion; this page has only previously been speedy deleted to which G4 doesn't apply. BlueValour (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore G4 speedy deletion was wrong. RMHED (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have restored as an invalid G4 speedy deletion. Recommend adding reliable sources establishing notability ASAP, the article at present would not survive an AfD discussion. --Stormie (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I have cleaned it up, put it in categories and added some references. There are many more that can be added but I'll leave that to those for whom this article is mainstream. BlueValour (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks to all concerned. The article as originally created, and as recreated, was extremely spammy. I do hope that a decent article can be created, but the one I deleted was clearly not it. I apologize for imprecise use of the tools (i.e., G4); I'm still pretty new with the mop and bucket, and will admit to a pretty hardnosed attitude towards spammers. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alex Smithies – Recreated – Core desat 09:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy allow recreation - Now meets WP:BIO having come on as a substitute for Huddersfield Town at Southend United. See here and here. BlueValour (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has since been recreated, and the subject now meets our notability guidelines. I suggest a speedy close. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNIVERSITY_MUSICAL_SOCIETY – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

NOTABLE TOPIC UniversityMusicalSociety (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article about the University Musical Society (UMS) should be allowed to be created because of its notability. UMS is an internationally recognized arts presenting organization consistently ranked with Carnegie Hall and Lincoln Center. The UMS website is located here: www.ums.org

In addition, here are some articles to verify the importance, international recognition, and validity of UMS:

http://crainsdetroit.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071203/SUB/71202001/1033/toc/-/-/dia-lands-largest-share-of-state-arts-council-grants The Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs recently granted over half a million dollars to UMS.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/ENT04/71114039/0/ENT04 The Detroit Free Press, a major newspaper, often features articles about UMS and the performances they bring to Ann Arbor.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071108/ART10/711080311 Information about UMS often appears in newspapers from other cities, thus giving UMS more than just local significance.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/02/09/rsc.html UMS is recognized by other notable universities, not just the University of Michigan.

Please consider allowing me to create this page. UniversityMusicalSociety (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation - there is enough here to allow recreation. BlueValour (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Article already exists at University Musical Society. --Smashville^BONK! 19:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually the page has just been recreated from a redirect page so we do need to take a view. The recreated page is unsatisfactory as it lacks any of these references. BlueValour (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the logs, the page has never been deleted. Why are we here? --Smashville^BONK! 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - It doesn't appear that the article in question was ever deleted or nominated for deletion. Any other problems with the article should be dealt with elsewhere. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - deletion of a version of the article is here. BlueValour (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - The article has not fundamentally improved since it was deleted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion the deleted article was far from neutral and a decent start of an article exists at University Musical Society. Add the above references to that, keep it neutral and there will be no problem. The nominator might want to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline though. Mr.Z-man 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Somerville Ecovillage – Request for email copy denied -- copyright violation. – Xoloz (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could you please email me the deleted Somerville Ecovillage 'off-Wiki' or copy the original page to my talk page so I can review and consider writing an improved article? Thank-you. Ozneil (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The deleted copy was a copyright violation, primarily taken from this site. Copyright violations may not be restored unless there is a release from the copyright holder. (Note: The article was edited somewhat from the original copyvio version but the edits were not substantial enough to overcome the copyright concerns.) If you have evidence that this subject will meet our generally accepted inclusion criteria, you would do far better to start from scratch. Rossami (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Piercingdot.com – Speedy close. Nothing to review. – W.marsh 05:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

spam Folk smith (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Turtlefish – Speedy close. Nothing to review, the nominator tagged the article for deletion (validly) then opened a deletion review. – W.marsh 05:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

nonsense Folk smith (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sntn – Speedy endorse. Clearly a valid deletion, DRV nomination gives no explanation of why a review is needed. – W.marsh 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

vandalism Folk smith (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

James Adomian – Speedy undelete - G4 speedy deletion in August was invalid as the article deleted was not even close to the version deleted in the 2005 AFD and definitely addresses the reason for deletion. I've undeleted the 2007 version. – Mr.Z-man 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject Notable; original deletion in 2005 by now-inactive admin; new information available since then; original page could be useful in update under WP:Comedy ChrisBuckles (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order for your request for undeletion to succeed, you've going to have to actually provide some evidence of or links to the new information available since the AFD. There do not appear to have been any process problems in the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - things have moved on since the AfD and he is now getting some press coverage - see here. He is also getting regular work - see here. I know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source but it does list him, amongst others, as doing a notable impression of George Bush - here. Whether all this is sufficient to survive a further (likely) AfD is problematic but I think that there is enough here for recreation to be permitted and it can can then take its chances at AfD. BlueValour (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and allow recreation - as BlueValour. I'm sure there are other reliable sources about him as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's this and this from today. Also Google search for bush impression yields at least 4 results out of the top ten for James Adomian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBuckles (talk • contribs)

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

4 December 2007[edit]

User:Tparker393/Team Game 1 – There doesn't seem to be a pressing need for this. – Chick Bowen 06:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can someone please undelete this unutilized sandbox? We want to utilize it. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was clearly deleted out of process but was simply an un-used on-line game of Chess from 2005. I doubt it would survive MFD. Can you explain why you need it undeleted and how you plan to utalise it? Who is we. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Tparker393 and I. Or is game-playing something we should take to Wikia? We were going to challenge a couple of wiki-peeps to a chess battle the likes of which the wiki-community has never wiki-seen in their freakin' wiki-lives. Sarsaparilla (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tparker393 hasn't posted since August 2006 and you only registered in November. There must be a real life connection. Perhaps you should play your game at Wikia. I'll e-mail you the source. Can someone close this now? We seem to be done. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm. No email enabled. Send me a mail and I'll respond with the source code. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

AtHomeNet – Prod, overturned on request. Mango juice^talk 17:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC) – Mango juice^talk 17:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cited verifiable sources to notability

Edit added by Edenrage. — Rudget _{contributions} 16:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of bow tie wearers – Closure endorsed, for now. There is clearly no current consensus to delete this article. However, I think Lid and Otto4711 have legitimate points about whether this might represent indiscriminate information. The problem is that the sources cited in the article, while they point to the notability of particular neckwear choices, do not establish the notability of the means of categorization in itself. Has it really been established that whatever Karl Marx and Pee Wee Herman have in common is not trivial? There are still outstanding questions for a possible future AfD to consider, and for now this should be thought of as no consensus. – Chick Bowen 06:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been through two nominations and in the second one it seems to hav been kept due to the fact its citing of sources overwhelmed the fact the article itself is a hodge-podge of sections that have no place in the article and the combined sections result in an article that should not exist.

To explain the opening section of the article have nothing to do with a list of bow tie wearers, and instead are content that should be in the main bow tie article, this specifically was not refuted by the keep proponents but instead argues that the content was here because if it was added to the bow tie article it would be expanded upon and eventually become too big. In the words of Otto4711 in the course of the deletion debate "We should not encourage the lamentable practice of maintaining garbage dump articles out of fear of cluttering the main article."

Ultimately the keep arguments were not based on any supporting evidence that the idea of people who wear bow ties is anything but an indiscriminate list but rather that because it was sourced, te sources being these people wore bow ties, the article should be kept. Being sourced and looking nice should not immediately mean an article is to be kept when the subject itself does not meet the burden of being an article in the first place. If you ignore the opening paragraphs, which have no place in the beginning to begin with, and eliminate the list under WP:IINFO the article should not continue to be.

I realise this may come across as AfD 2 but I feel that the keep decision really had only a basis in head counting and personal opinion keep vote variations of WP:ILIKEIT. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It comes across as AfD 3, with the same arguments that you made at AfD2. You see the list, through your eyes, as "indiscriminate"; others of it see it differently. It's a list of notable people who voluntarily engage in a public activity that many other notable people don't. htom 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IINFO - merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Many notable people don't do many things, this does not mean there needs to be a list of them i.e. list of people with goatees, list of people who wear fedoras, list of people who wear cowboy hats. An argument can not be made that simply because certain people share a common trait that affects nothing about them apart from the fact they wear or have it is not grounds for keeping an article.

Yes, it is the same arguments as I believe the decision was wrong based off the arguments given by the keep and delete sides, hence the DRV. You still have not addressed the fact that most of the article deals with the bow tie in popular culture and going by the way it is formatted should not be in the article at all. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse deletion~~ Endorse closure DRV is not round 2 of AFD. People didn't buy the deletion arguments in the AFD, so this just seems like venue shopping. --W.marsh 15:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own close. As I explained on my talk page to Otto, this was an example where no Wikipedia policy mandates deletion. WP:NOT may support a deletion argument: if the community feels that this is an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory, it would be legitimate to delete it. However, the consensus shown in the debate was against that conclusion. Put another way, I didn't see any strong arguments on either side, just opinions. Mango juice^talk 15:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - per nominator. I understand that it's referenced, but is it needed? — Rudget _{contributions} 15:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC) See new comment below.[reply]
- Ok, now I'm confused. The article was not deleted, it was kept. Please clarify. Mangojuice^talk 15:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Corrected. — Rudget~~ _{contributions} 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure There is clearly no consensus to delete this list. (But there seems to be a problem with the link to the discussion in the article's talk page ) Colonel Warden 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. — Rudget _{contributions} 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to FashionPedia. >Radiant< 17:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Two successive AfDs have failed to delete it. An ed. disagrees, so he thinks this is AfD3 -and in fact says as much. His argument is that the list is indiscriminate. But the consensus clearly did not agree with that, and the close properly represented the consensus. I suppose after a few months a proper third Afd can be started. and the matter argued again. DGG (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what the nominator said. He said "I realise this may come across as AfD 2" and went on to explain why it wasn't. Otto4711 (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- From context, I think DGG meant to say "endorse closure."--Orlady 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - as per above, really. Consensus seemed to have been reached at both AFDs and after reviewing the history for the article, there's nothing to suggest why it should comply with deletion. — Rudget _{contributions} 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - the page needs work but that is a matter for tagging and improvement not deletion. There was a clear 'keep' consensus in the 2nd AFD and the closing admin was correct to go with the consensus in the absence of any overriding policy exigency. BlueValour (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure although I was in favour of deletion the consensus was clearly keep. RMHED (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I personally don't think that there's a real encyclopedia article here - at least not once you strip out the original research and the trivia. But the community clearly decided to give it the benefit of doubt for now. If it remains unimproved after a reasonable period (months), it can always be renominated. Review here is premature. Rossami (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure The argument for overturn is essentially that the article is not encyclopedic, which is a debatable judgment that we commonly leave to consensus. (Actually, the article is encyclopedic: It covers a distinct cultural phenomenon of notable people and characters who are also notable for wearing bow ties. The paragraphs at the beginning of the article were added to demonstrate that the very specific subject of the list is the very specific subject of a number of sources. The massive sourcing demonstrates that we have some kind of cultural phenomenon involving notable people + constant bow-tie wearing + notice that these notable people are constantly wearing bow ties. There's nothing indiscriminate about it, no matter how many times certain editors allege it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noroton (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, consensus to keep and there is no convincing reason why deletion should be overturned. DRV is not a place to try and get a different result because you were unhappy with the AFD outcome. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - not that my voice will be heard here any more than it was heard at AFD over the thundering chorus of opinions with no basis in policy, but here goes anyway. The closing admin admitted on his talk page that he gave weight to invalid WP:ILIKEIT !votes and that if the AFD had closed on time (before a late surge of keeps posted on the seventh day of a five day AFD) he would have closed it no consensus instead of keep. In the course of the AFD itself the loudest voices in favor of keeping flat-out acknowledged that the subject of the list is not notable. Others back up their "I like it" !votes with such ridiculous assertions that wearing a bow tie is as notable or more notable than a person's religion, occupation or military service and one wanted the list kept to make a WP:POINT about prejudice he supposedly faced for wearing a bow tie himself. Nor was anyone able to answer the simple question, posed numerous times throughout the AFD, of how these people and fictional characters are related to each other past a particular article of clothing. Given that the close was clearly based on vote-counting and opinions with no basis in policy, given the ridiculously ill-informed bases for the keep votes, given that not a single keeper refuted the policy-based argument of IINFO except to say "no it isn't" or addressed the policy-based NOT#DIR argument at all, and given that even the supporters of the article admit to its lack of notability, the AFD as a whole does not support keeping the article and the admin closed it as keep in error. Otto4711 (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need to be reminded to assume good faith, Otto? --Orlady (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't, and if you're interpreting anything said above as a failure to assume good faith then that's on you. Otto4711 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that we have lists of notable people by all sorts of behaviors (even birdwatching), not that those on the list were notable because of their bow ties. Further, I know that I have faced discrimination because of an invisible handicap -- epilepsy -- and can easily imagine that someone might discriminate on the basis of something more obvious and more superficial, wearing unusual neckware (bolos come to mind), brightly colored shoes, ... people discriminate for all sorts of reasons. I doubt, actually, that I have been discriminated against because of my bow ties. I have had people tell me that they wished that they could wear them, but that they feared that they would be discriminated against because of wearing them. "The nail that stands out ...." htom (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you want the list not because of its supposed encyclopedic value but, as I said, because it helps to prove a point. Futher, the theory that wearing a bow tie can lead to discrimination, if sourcable, belongs in Bow tie, not in a list of bow tie wearers. And noting the existence of other lists in seeking to keep this one, also known as WP:WAX, is just another invalid argument. Otto4711 (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. The consensus of the discussion was at first glance indeed to keep this list. But I'm not sure the closing admin took the weight of the arguments into consideration. Many of the keep !votes cited the infamous arguments to avoid, such as WP:INTERESTING, WP:PRETTY, WP:BHTT and WP:ILIKEIT. The nom and several !voters also made a valid argument that this list constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information, in the sense that these people are listed together simply for wearing a piece of garment. I suggest overturning the closure, closing the AFD as No consensus (defaulting in keep), and relisting it in due time. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The_Status_of_Medjugorje – Deletion endorsed. Permissions have to go through permissions-en at wikimedia dot org, not here, but in any case concerns have been raised here that the content in question was original research. Any recreation must conform to Wikipedia policies. – Chick Bowen 06:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article is indeed from Inside-Medjugorje, but that is my website and I am going to take down the website as soon as the article appears in Wikipedia; also, all formatting errors are going to be fixed; style changes can be addressed as I am a reporter and enjoy writing and editing. Peterfranciw 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother undeleting - unless someone likes to rack up deletes and undeletes in their sysop logs. The article, even if perfected and not a copyright violation, would say exactly the same thing as the existing Medjugorje article. Useless duplication. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - I viewed this article the other day at AFD, but didn't get round to commenting on it. I remember that it was in essay form and an unquestionable copyright of this. Copyrighted information can't be accepted. — Rudget _{contributions} 15:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure — The article was an essay and probably included quite a bit of original research. It is also still copyrighted, and we cannot allow copyrighted content. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist to AFD. The nominator alleges copyright release. Demonstrating that he/she is the copyright holder is fairly straightforward. The speedy-closure was based solely on the copyright allegation. However, the AFD participants also raised duplication and original research concerns. Those should be discussed further in the AFD. Rossami (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have sympathy with this view but the problem, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, is that we can't undelete copyvio material before the necessary permissions have been obtained. I have suggested a way forward, below. BlueValour (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pages tagged as copyvios for 7 days won't generally get undeleted without prior confirmation but speedy-deletions for copyvio have a different standard. See WP:CSD#G12 starting with "If notified of a plausible error, the deleting administrator ..." which allows for history undeletion pending verification.
    That said, I also have no objections if the nominator chose instead to contribute to the existing article. Rossami (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's helpful guidance, thank you. BlueValour (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - even though the material is taken from the author's website the procedures to demonstrate permission still needed to be followed. The Međugorje page has a brief section on the town but most of the article relates to the visions. Certainly the visions material can, and probably should, be broken out into a separate page. I don't wish to discourage Pegasus since he seems eminently well qualified to carry out the split and there is plenty of useful sourced material from the deleted page that could be added to a new article. BlueValour (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 December 2007[edit]

Cognitive Coaching – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cognitive Coaching is a legitimately developed approached to supervision. It is primarily used in the field of education. Although there is training in using the skills of this approach to coaching it is an approach that is substantiated by the research used to develop it. The article is not meant to be a commercial for the training but is intended to raise awareness of the design and approach for effectively coaching the thinking of others to enhance their effectiveness. Jadyer 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) John Dyer[reply]

Comment - I have no access to the article so I am not in a position to comment on the correctness of the deletion. However, it is a perfectly respectable approach academically, it is used world-wide and there are plenty of sources available to create an encyclopaedic article see the University of Texas here and the Australian National Schools Network here for example. There are also independent papers such as here. BlueValour 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The speedy deletion rationale was "Wikipedia is not a place for publishing essays)". This is not an accepted rationale for speedy deletion per WP:CSD. On the other hand, here are clear COI problems with the article, and it should probably be quickly improved and well sourced, or it will go to Afd. (I've notified the deleting admin. so he may wish to comment) DGG (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the deleting admin of Cognitive Coaching, but the article was deleted separately at Cognitive coaching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by two other admins as a G11 violation who should also be notified. Looking at the original article I deleted the article was a G11 violation as the "essay" was essential just an advertisement for the "quiet revolution going on in North America that is having a significant impact on the type of communication that is taking place between professional educators." The article may be able to eventually become an encyclopedic article, however the article created would have been nearly impossible to be converted into an encyclopedia article and I still agree with my decision at the time to delete it. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article was an advertorial at best. There could be an article about it but this isn't it; such an article would require citations from reliable third-party sources and a serious dose of WP:NPOV. Overturning the deletion just because there's no specific reason would be process wonkish. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse all three G11 deletions Clear and obvious advertising, as announced in the opening paragraph. ~ trialsanderrors 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - as per above. Although, I am unable to view deleted edits, from what I've read, it was obviously an advertisement at best. — Rudget _{contributions} 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endore deletion - Although it is possible, as User:BlueValour states above, to have an article about this subject that is allowable on Wikipedia, this article is not. It appears to advertise www.cognitivecoaching.com, as stated above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: - The article was re-created and I have just re-deleted it until a decision is reached here. ^Khukri 20:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kowloon Junior School – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is a wiki information for everyone (requested by the school principal) and the school does exists in Hong Kong. Please refer to http://www.esf.edu.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=975&langNo=1 and contact me [email protected] if needed. Wayhorn (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, that's not a reason to keep an article. The article was deleted because there was nothing to be merged. --Core desat 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from deleting admin. There was a pretty clear consensus to delete in the AfD discussion. I have directed Wayhorn to the proposed notability guideline at WP:SCHOOL so they can get a better feel for what we're looking for. Caknuck 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Caknuck and others, I have asked our school principal to provide information/sources ASAP for fulfilling primary criterion and additional criteria of Option 2 in WP:SCHOOL page in order to establish notability. Please give us some time. Thanks. Wayhorn 07:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information provided by the school or individuals associated with it is not a reliable source. The information would need to be verifiable by an outside source. Corvus cornix_talk 18:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - this was a clearly correct closing decision on the discussion. BlueValour 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No valid reason for keeping given. If the school wants information about it on a Wiki, it should set a wiki up on its own website. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jason Lau – copyright violations are never restored – GRBerry 23:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable Person proper citations listed student of Jiu Wan BibaribaWC 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe not an A7, but the text strikes me as a copyvio. ~ trialsanderrors 13:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'speedy as copyvio no question about it .DGG (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:R/EFD – Deletion endorsed, CSD U1 now applies as deletion was agreed upon by "owner" (although the initial reason was still contested). – Daniel 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was speedy deleted as an attack page. Really wasn't. It was a humor page, and clearly marked as such. Most, if not all, of the entries were "self nominations" for deletion, and I don't see any evidence that anyone complained. If this is to be deleted, it should atleast be given a shot at MFD... Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FFS! I stumbled accross this when some troll had added an inflametory template to Deskana's user page calling for him to be "deleted",and linking to this. I shot it on sight as an attack page. What's going on? How is it funny to call for people to be "deleted"?? How isn't it trolling, or at least a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I'm failrly bright, and if I mistook it for nastienes, I'm sure others will too. Keep deleted - and speedy close this tendentious DRV.--Doc^g 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see it's gone. I seem to recall most people who used the damn thing were people who bang on relentlessly about how Wikipedia isn't a social networking site. So, no need for it to be recreated. Nick 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling for "deleting another user" is as humorous as telling someone "you suck, die". Not civil. Not humorous -- drini ^[meta:]_[commons:] 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never requested that it be ultimately kept. I only ask that it be brought to MFD so that all Wikipedia users, and not just admins, should have a chance to judge for themselves as to whether it should be kept. For the record, I agree that its fluff and probably smells of "social networking" and probably has no place on Wikipedia. But a single user should not make that decision. This should be brought to MFD for a greater discussion, and not just sumarily deleted. If MFD decides it should go, that would be wonderful and agreeable. But speedying it seems rash at this point. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You think it should be deleted - but you think delting it was rash? So what you want an MfD of an incivil and trolling page for what? Beurocracy and kicks?--Doc^g 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope. I am saying that, while I have the opinion that it should be deleted, I do not personally believe that my single opinion is what Wikipedia is built on, but rather it is built on the consensus of the many editors that it has.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If my opinion is singular, then this DRV will unanimously overturn it.--Doc^g 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, strong endorse. A cesspool of borderline sexual harassment, of all things. --krimpet ⟲ 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it was already brought to MFD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:R/EFD, I think it a little unfair to say it was being used for trolling, for the most part just people trying to be funny, be it good faith editors or admins, although I can see how someone trolling could used it for the wrong reasons or how other good faith users may take it the wrong way, anyways I don't feel that strongly about it either way. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the reason, but keep deleted-I have been meaning to speedy it but didn't get around to it. The humor has been killed, the joke has run it's course. I do want it deleted, however I don't think it was deleted for the right reason. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion - and you guys didn't listen to me the first time when I MFDed it. Hmm.... Miranda 02:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matthias Hinze – Deletion overturned. Listing at AFD left to editor discretion. – W.marsh 17:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It had explained the importance of him being a voice actor. Kitty53 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above editor asked me to comment on the DR as deleting admin. Deleted as nn-bio, with no assertion of notability. ^Khukri 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore - I don't have access to the full text of the deleted article but I am happy to accept that it was properly deleted. However, this is a voice actor with a fair degree of notability, certainly enough to cross the speedy threshold. See for example the German Wikipedia here and IMDb here. I think that the article should be restored so this material can be added. BlueValour 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original article gave a list of 9 roles, without any links or indication of importance, or references, except a link to animenewsnetwork DGG (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD The English text might technically meet A7, but the link to the German version de:Matthias Hinze gives enough starting info to make it possible that the article is improved and kept after community input. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no problem with this but I should like the extensive info from the German WP page added first. This is largely sourced from IMDb and is needed for an assessment of notability. BlueValour (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb isn't a reliable source. Corvus cornix_talk 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are irrelevant for CSD decisions. If there is an assertion of notability the community is asked to find the sources that establish notability. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 December 2007[edit]

Image:Emily Sander.jpg – Deletion endorsed per WP:SNOWBALL as there is significant support for the deletion, and no support for restoration by anyone except the uploader. The image, the url of which is available for review in the upload log, is completely crass, tasteless, and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a pornographic website; please take material of this nature to a more appropriate forum. Additionally, I find that further scrutiny towards the uploader, Eso si que es (talk · contribs), is warranted, as his username sounds suspiciously like S O C K S, and may be a word play on the term sockpuppet. – John254 02:02, 3 December 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 speedily deleted with the following summary: "WP:BLP concerns, not fair use appropriate". This deletion is unjustified, as WP:BLP does not apply to deceased subjects, and no specific WP:BLP concerns were articulated in any event. WP:NOT#CENSORED. Eso si que es 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we justify fair use for this picture? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To restate the fair use rationale that I provided in the deleted image:

This image constitutes fair use in Emily Sander as it

(1) Is necessary to illustrate Emily Sander's participation in the adult entertainment industry.

(2) Cannot be replaced with freely licensed content, as the subject is deceased.

(3) Will not reduce the commercial value of the image, as the image was posted publicly for promotional purposes, and since Emily Sander's adult content is not being marketed commercially at this time.

Eso si que es 19:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we add a reference to the site that the picture appeared in in order to illustrate her participation in porn? We do we need to have the actual photograoh on Wikipedia? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting that argument, we wouldn't need to have any fair use images that appeared on public websites, as we could simply reference the websites in which the images appeared. Our fair use policies may be strict, but they aren't that strict. Clearly, having some fair use images from websites adds value for readers. Eso si que es 19:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from deleting admin: I deleted this image, which was a pornographic image of Emily Sander, a female college student who was murdered within recent weeks. The Emily Sander article already contains an image of its subject, and I do not believe a pornographic image adds to a reader's understanding, failing a fair use requirement. Additionally, I deleted the image per WP:BLP concerns. Sander may be dead, but I do not believe it is appropriate to sensationalize her biography simply because she is dead (note the article is nominated for deletion). I'm not one to cite WP:IAR, but deleting a pornographic image of a recently deceased female college student seems fitting. If the discussion concludes the deletion should be reversed, so be it, but I do not intend to restore the image myself. - auburnpilot talk 19:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "deleting a pornographic image of a recently deceased female college student... fitting"? Our articles often describe the accomplishments of deceased subjects. The explanation for the deletion of this image, as I understand it, seems to be predicated upon the notion that visual erotica is bad, and, as a result, that activities in the adult entertainment industry are not to be understood as achievements, but rather as failings and sources of scandal. Since Wikipedia is to be written from a neutral point of view, however, we cannot justify the deletion of images based on the assumption that erotica is bad. Eso si que es 19:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She appears to have felt that it was bad. Our article states:

"Sander apparently kept her career mostly to herself, and only close friends knew about what she did for a living. They claim that when informed about her modeling, her boyfriend broke up with her."

So it would appear that for here, it already was the source of scandal. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Emily Sander article expressly states, in relavent part, that "According to her close friend Nikki Watson, Sander enjoyed the work and needed the money." That " Sander apparently kept her career mostly to herself" does not imply that she regarded it as shameful. Eso si que es 20:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I think it probably does. Anyway, we now need to think of her living relatives. BLP states "do no harm" . Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I don't go around telling everyone my Social Security number, does that mean that I regard my Social Security number as shameful? Of course not. Non-disclosure doesn't imply shame. Furthermore, if we were to delete all content from Wikipedia articles that might offend living relatives of the articles' subjects, this is what we would have left to read. Eso si que es 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equating a Social Security number and participation in the porn industry is nonsensical. —Kurykh 22:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. No compelling rationale has been offered for fair use, nor any reason why the article is benefitted by inclusion of this picture. That Wikipedia is not censored does not mean that we can't practice editorial discretion. Chick Bowen 20:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, WP:BLP does apply to recently deceased subjects, which this one is. WP:NOT#CENSORED does not apply, and there is no valid fair use rationale. --Coredesat 21:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just thought of this - is there a possibility the subject was 17 when the image was taken? I am not a lawyer, but there could be 2257 issues at hand here, as well, and if she was 17, the image is technically child pornography (which should not be restored). --Coredesat 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A significant problem is that this image was taken not from Sander's website, which of course is shut down, but from a third-party site. Thus nothing about it can be verified, not its authorship and copyright status, not (as you say) the age of the model when it was taken, not (as Theresa says) the subject's intentions about this photo or other similar ones, etc. etc. Chick Bowen 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Future Pilot – Nomination withdrawn. Rossami (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admin NawlinWiki speedily deleted article "Future Pilot" stating that assertion of significance was not valid. I beg to disagree. Because Future Pilot was a finalist at the New Mexico Music Awards, the premiere awards in the state of New Mexico, they have clearly met criteria #9 at WP:MUSIC: Has won or placed in a major music competition. If the New Mexico Music Awards is not a major music competition, then I suppose New Mexico itself is not a major state? That's what the Iowans and New Hampshirians would have us all believe anyway, right? My article has now been deleted twice... the first time for not asserting significance. The second time, it was deleted for the same reason, though I asserted significance. Should not my article have been subjected to a review? As I understand the Wikipedia rules, articles that at least assert significance merit review and are spared from speedy deletion. Dusty42682 03:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion (as speedy deleter). Here is a directly quoted section of the article:

Notoriety

Although Future Pilot is not well-known on the commercial scene, they have enjoyed a certain level of recognition and success on the social networking website MySpace. Their devoted fan following on MySpace is in great part due to the band's avid communication with their fans.

Songs

To date, the band has made public only four songs: "Ghost in my Dream," "Subhuman," "No One Escapes," and "Sinking Ship." However, their upcoming album is expected to contain at least eight and quite possibly nine tracks, though details on the remaining songs have been kept a closely-guarded secret.

Discography

At this time, Future Pilot has yet to release an album or single.

Enough said. NawlinWiki 03:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NawlinWiki, you make a valid point when you say the band has not released an album or single. However, you are ignoring the fact that the band has PLACED IN A MAJOR MUSIC COMPETITION. I understand that you are trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. You, and the previous admin who deleted the article the first time, have attained and do indeed deserve my utmost respect. However, you are ignoring the fact that I have MET criteria to keep this article alive, while citing the fact that I lack OTHER criteria, such as the fact that they have not released an album or single. Do you honestly believe that this has no encyclopedic value? Do you believe that their association with the website MySpace diminishes their import? The fact that the band has been recognized by a major music association in my opinion shows that they at least deserve some recognition. Thanks for your time, and for helping to make Wikipedia the wonderful resource that it is. Dusty42682 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I could completely remove the parts of the article you cited in your previous post, yet the section of the article stating the band's significance would remain. Dusty42682 04:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the assertion of notability via the New Mexico Music Awards, should probably restore and send to AfD. However I'm dubious as to whether it would pass: the examples given at WP:MUSIC for "major music awards" are all nationwide awards (Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis awards are the examples given). A band that has been nominated for a statewide award, but does not meet any of the other notability criteria.. well, that's extremely borderline. --Stormie 06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The New Mexico Music Awards yields no Ghits, no Gnews hits, no reliable sources to verify the existence, much less notability of these awards, and, by extension, this band. Nonnotable Myspace band that, at most, won a non-notable award. Keep deleted, and author should talk to WP:MUSIC to get some ideas about what needs to be included to assert notability. --Ssbohio 15:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow those guys really need to work on their search engine optimization - perhaps our feature article on the topic could help? :-) Anyway their website is at: www.newmexicomusicawards.com --Stormie 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look closely, both of those search strings are set to only search Wikipedia. There actually are some Ghits when searching the full web, but I question whether there's enuf that "New Mexico Music Awards" could survive AfD, let alone a 'finalist' in the competition. Ravenna1961 01:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm certainly embarassed, as I thought I had cleared the sitesearch parameter out before doing my Google searching. Apparently I hadn't, but, even so, I don't see a reason this article should be kept. It can be recreated when the band becomes notable. --Ssbohio 16:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse I interpret "no significance" very liberally, but not as far as this--I see nothing which anyone could in good faith think significant. But maybe I'm wrong. DGG (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - without reliable sources to stand up the award, and with no release, this is four square an A7. BlueValour 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per others - also: "If the New Mexico Music Awards is not a major music competition, then I suppose New Mexico itself is not a major state?" is a logical fallacy. That's like me stating that the English county in which I live isn't important just because we don't have an article for the Cumbria Sheep Shearing Contest, our annual sheep shearing contest. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. While not strictly speediable by the letter of A7, there's no sense sending it to AFD for the sake of it when the result will come back the same. No singles = don't bother creating a Wikipedia article - this is the exact reason we expanded A7 to nn-bands last year. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Thank you all for your input. I'm learning a lot about how this site works; you've all been very patient with me in the creation of my first article, and I will definitely keep it at the ready for when the band achieves notoriety, if it ever does. I now agree the article should stay deleted. 75.173.10.245 (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Respectfully request a moderator close this discussion, as I have withdrawn my argument (above post). Dusty42682 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Major_Stars – Moot, new article created that asserts notability; AFD is optional – Core desat 10:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not sure why this should have been deleted, why is it not notable, I had links to citations that I thought backed up the notability of the topic, the band Major Stars.

The administrator NawlinWiki speedily deleted the article Major Stars, for asserted lack of "notability." I don't think the admin had time to read the material I linked to, from newspapers etc., or checked the links, which I think gives evidence of the bands notability. They come from the band Magic Hour which shared members of the legendary band Galaxie 500 (see the Wikipedia article), they run a legendary record store Twisted Village, they are now on the legendary indie record label Drag City (see the Wikipedia article), Wayne Rogers and Kate Village have put out many many records in the noise/improv category. Major Stars alone has released around six records. They where chosen by Thurston Moore of the world famous Sonic Youth to play a 2006 world All Tomorrow's Parties (music festival) concert (see the respective Wikipedia articles).[119] They were called the "best rock band in the world" by the esteemed FADER music magazine. [120] The world-famous Chicago Tribune (see Wikipedia article) newspaper agreed that they are the best rock band in the world. [121] They toured with the famous Acid Mothers Temple (see the Wikipedia article) and have played with other famous bands [122]. All Music Guide (see Wikipedia article) describes them as veterans of the Boston music scene. [123] If you look at the links and do the research you will see how notable Major Stars are. I don't see anything on the speedy deletion list of criteria that I think justifies the speedy deletion of the Major Stars article. Let me know how it could be improved, but I don't think it should be deleted. What are other steps I can take to improve the article? Thanks.

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

1 December 2007[edit]

Rob Honeycutt – Restored and sent to AfD. Sam Blacketer 12:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC) – Sam Blacketer 12:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article in question was listed as a speedy delete. The hold on tag was placed and comments were made. In a few minute I had added references, external links and the proper categories. The subject is the founder of Timbuk2 and passes the google test --evrik ^(talk) 04:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Halomark went and recreated the page. --evrik ^(talk) 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my deletion. I don't see wide-spread notability. However, since I have now twice speedy-deleted this page (once in a much more bare-bones version than now exists) I will recuse myself from a further deletion. - Philippe | Talk 04:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a bare claim of notability in the deleted versions so overturn speedy-deletion and send it to AFD (though I don't think it has much hope of surviving as an independent article unless there are substantially better references than have been provided so far). Rossami (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

chessGames.com – Userfied by me to User:Potato dude/ChessGames.com. Recreation with sources is permitted. – Chick Bowen 03:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reasons give for deletion of this article were advertising, lack of independent sources discussing the website, the fact that it isn't widespread, and the comparatively small size of the database. There wasn't any advertising on the page, which even pointed out deficiencies in the site. Chessgames.com can be found on various online sources independent of the site, as can be easily seen by use of a google search. In addition, Daniel Freeman, one of the co-founders of the site, gave an interview about chessgames.com to GM Mikhail Golubev that was published in the Chess Today newspaper, Issue CT-305(2185) on November 1, 2006. The accusation that the site isn't widespread fails to recognize that chessgames.com is the largest online chess community. Other online chess communities with noticably fewer members have wikipedia articles, such as the Internet Chess Club. Lastly, the reason for the database of about 400,000 games instead of millions is the site's focus on learning. Instead of just blindly archiving every game like most database sites, it requires games to have either a certain measure of quality or historical importance. Potato dude 03:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permit recreation - there is no way, based on the discussion, that the admin could have closed this as anything other than a delete. However, this is an important site in the chess community. As an indication, in all articles on Wikipedia on chess players their games are linked from this site in the same way that Soccerbase is used for stats for footballers. The problem with assessing notability for chess sites is that they are not covered by the mainstream media. Therefore we need a somewhat different metric for their importance. There are two I would suggest. The first is the number of members. If, as claimed above, this exceeds ICC, which is incontrovertibly notable, then that is significant. Naturally, this claim needs sourcing. The other metric is its use by titled players. There is a wide range of resources for titled players to use so if a number choose a particular option then that is also significant. In addition to those listed in the article, a quick search shows that the highly notable Susan Polgar quotes its analysis on her own site here. Having reflected, I agree that immediate restoration is not possible. However, I would suggest that the article be userfied to Potato dude to enable him to work on the notability, along these lines, with my assistance and permit subsequent recreation. BlueValour 23:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, permit recreation per Blue, to whose perfect, detailed summary of the associated procedural and substantive issues I couldn't possibly add. Joe 23:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation as per BlueValour. Clearly the article was inappropriate as it read too much like an advert and the result of the AfD was fairly clear. I feel that notability has been established by this discussion and there is no reason the site should not have an article. --carelesshx _talk 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what y'all think of Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Today#Chessgames.com (or, alternatively, Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2007-12-04#Chessgames.com based on the date). If someone who is familiar withthe previous article could accept or decline this submission. The Evil Spartan 07:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They measure their "active users" by "someone who has logged in within the last 90 days" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.210.198 (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? - I think this discussion would be easier if specific sources that could be used to recreate the article were provided. Some third party independent sources would be a good start. I wouldn't be happy to see this recreated until these had been provided but thereafter would concur with recreation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

World of KungFu – Speedy endorse deletion; in addition to being a proper A7 and G11 speedy, the article was a copyright infringement, which are never restored. —Cryptic 04:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This post was about a 3D online game called World of KungFu. It was deleted because it was an online game. I am a little confused about this. World of Warcraft is a similar game that has a wikipedia page. This game is an up-and-coming 3d game like WOW and already has 1,000 users. As more users join, a wikipedia article will be more appropriate. Lilcoons1995 03:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Carlos-Smith.jpg – Image speed restored; deletion clearly in error. When Wikipedia has an entire article on an image, the image is necessary under any thoughtful reading of the NFCC. – Xoloz 14:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This iconic image of a unique historic event, for which no free alternative is available, adds greatly to understanding of the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute. Unfortunately, it wasn't tagged with a proper fair-use rationale. I will fix this soon after it is restored. (Closing admin is retired, hence DRV) <eleland/talkedits> 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - iconic event, should have been brought to IFD. Certainly not i7, unless it was only used as the main image on someone's biography. The Evil Spartan 09:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't have access to the deleted image but there is a cached version here. Could an admin indicate whether this corresponds to the version under discussion, please? Could the nominator please indicate the revised fair-use wording they are proposing? BlueValour 22:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is exactly the same, as is the contents of the page itself (save for the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} which led to deletion). Splash - tk 02:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Iconic image that is essentially the subject of an entire article, if any fair use is to be allowed this is one of the situations where it has to be. Appears to have committed the sin of not mentioning the article it was being used in, although it clearly implied what that article was if anyone had read the rationale... of course the tagger/deleter couldn't be bothered to spend 2 seconds fixing this minor issue. --W.marsh 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Exactly the sort of image for which fair use is intended to be authorized. (As opposed to logos, book covers, etc.) An editor in good standing is willing to do what it takes to fix the problems with our insane NFCC criteria. GRBerry 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[SellersEagle-1] Goggins, Katrina A. (Nov 2007). "Ex-Black Militant Becomes Eagle Scout". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-11-26.

[1]