Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 July 17
2007 July 19 >

18 July 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:R/Single Letter Group (edit | [[Talk:User:R/Single Letter Group|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

Sorry, but I don't see an autograph book for people with single letter user names to be "useless crud/trolling" (the deletion summary) especially when the deletion discussion showed no consensus to delete and most of the delete comments were from people who want it deleted simply because they cannot put their name on the page. I am never going to put my name on most of the pages in other people's user space. The whole thing stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Furthermore the DRV was open for only a little under 48 hours, surely not enough time for consensus to be reached. Freakofnurture also deleted User:R/SL without a deletion summary, even though it was not part of the DRV and even if the group page were deleted, lots of people have nifty little icons on their user pages. (WP:ROUGE anyone?)-N 20:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the creator of the page is without Internet access until Friday night, which was mentioned in the discussion, and surely there was no pressing need to delete the page before he could be a part of the process. Finally, the !vote was 15 keep, 17 delete, which hardly seems like a consensus for delete after 48 hours.   j    talk   20:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As User:N pointed out, User:Freakofnurture also deleted [1] and User:R/SL[2] without any discussion (or deletion summary) whatsoever.   j    talk   20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the main deletion, it's pretty typical to delete redirects, one-use images, and such associated with a page at the same time as the deletion of that page. Now, I'm going to scurry away from this DRV, before it becomes an explosion of godawful drama. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understandably. However, the image and the template were never mentioned in or part of the original MfD.   j    talk   22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist not even 48 hours was given for discussion. Personally, I was just headed off for work when I saw the discussion, and put it on my watchlist to !vote now, only to see that in less than 48 hours, a decision was made. Even if a decision was made in such a small span of time, it should have been no consensus, not delete. --YbborTalk 21:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist immediately - this was completely out of process, especially considering the consensus was no where near clear after such little debate. It was roughly 50/50 between users wanting to delete and users wanting to keep. There was no closing rationale, and instead, the closing admin simply imposed his own point of view on the matter with total disregard for the consensus or the ability for the community to discuss the matter. Under what speedy deletion criteria was the closed under? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I see no point in bringing this page back. It had nothing whatsoever to do with writing articles. --W.marsh 22:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Deletion Review is not about content, it is about whether prcoess was correctly followed and consensus was accurately judged. --YbborTalk 22:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's rather patronizing... anyway, results are more important than process. In this case I see no reason to continue discussing keeping this page, it's a waste of time. And thus, we got the right result. --W.marsh 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you got the result that you wanted. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Process for the sake of process has been rejected by the community. If I am sure we got the right result, I see no reason we need more process. --W.marsh 22:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think we got the right result, as I'm sure a lot of others would agree. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy relist The discussion was not given the minimum five days, and it didn't look like snowball criteria to me. For such a close, there was no rationale either. Sr13 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist asap. No consensus, no five days, no rationale.   j    talk   22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist We don't need this sort of drama, and the best way of dealing with this sort of thing is to simply let users who are productive users have some leeway in userspace. Now please everyone, there is an encyclopedia to write. JoshuaZ 23:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lise Skaret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Following a report on WP:BLP/N, I decided to delete this article. It is about a Norwegian teenager running for russ president who stripped to get votes and the video ended up on the internet. Here's an English language news article. I figured that a naked internet video was insufficient to sustain a Wikipedia biography and that information about her stunt could always be added to the russ article. I'm opening a discussion here to review my decision in case there are any objections. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Couldn't people file a DRV themselves if there was an objection? I realize you mean well but I don't think this DRV was needed. --W.marsh 23:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind, I stand corrected. --W.marsh 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not notable, but I see nothing that required the haste here, and this celarly did not fit any of the WP:CSD. It is at least posible that there are sources that would indicate notability. Weak Overturn. DES (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • list on AfD As I've argued with before when something is well-sourced from multiple easily accessible reliable sources we should let the community decide whether the privacy issue is severe enough to justify deletion. Thus put it on AfD. JoshuaZ 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A 19 year-old girl got a little too crazy. Young people often do stupid stuff that they later regret in life. We shouldn't immortalize this forever on Wikipedia. There's not enough information or notability to make an entire biography of the person. Do we have an article on every girl in Girls Gone Wild? -N 23:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A plausible argument at an AfD, not for a speedy. DES (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was waving the magic WP:BLP wand, it has worked before. -N 00:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not with me. There still needs to be an actual reason, not merely an invocation, even under the over-expansive version of BLP now in place. DES (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good. I was of course being sarcastic. I wouldn't mind this being listed at AfD. -N 00:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend that admins not use preview to look at the deleted history on a work computer, given the image linked therein. The article had four links in it, all originally from about a two week time frame. Absent some evidence of historic impact or lasting notability, I'd say we are better off without the article. Such evidence could be forthcoming; the article had been extant for less than 48 hours at the time of deletion and edited by only one editor. The article is clearly not eligible for speedy deletion under A7 or G10, and I do not support use of WP:BLP to speedily delete verifiable and NPOV articles on barely notable people, even under the poorly considered "do no harm" mantra. Going solely by the evidence in the article, I can't see this surviving AFD as a standalone article or merged content. That could change if new evidence is presented, so for now I'd say keep deleted without endorsing the way it was deleted, subject to change if further evidence of being encyclopedic content is presented here. I also have no objection to an AFD. (I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but I think there is a better case for deleting the image under BLP than for deleting the article.) GRBerry 01:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point, but keeping this delted will inevitably be taken as endorsing the manner in which it was deleted. Also, you state that it is possible that evidence "of historic impact or lasting notability" "could be forthcoming", but it is farr less likely that such evidence, if it exists, will be forthcomming if this remains deleted than if it is put on AfD. DES (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD My preliminary impression is that a 19 she was old enough to know what she was doing. It might make more sense to merge into the russ article, and that should be discussed. The image also needs discussion--recognizable nude images are appropriately used in circumstances were consent is explicit or absolutely clear & I'd need to know more to establish that. . DGG (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You took an action and now you want DRV to review your conduct without using specific wording from WP:BLP to justify your action? If the information does violate BLP and merits a speedy deletion, do administrators normally then republish that deleted information along with that person's name in a DVR? WP:BLP lists Attack pages as being a valid reason for a speedy deletion. Was this an attack page? While not policy, Arbitration stated in July 2007,

    Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

Is this what you did? To review the speedy deletion, it would help to have more details on the specific policy reason(s) for the speedy deletion. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at afd I don't see anything in there that requires the immediacy of speedy deletion. ViridaeTalk 03:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - this is clearly the type of "article" where we need to apply BLP. A girl running for russ president is not notable: it's a school-wide position. The stunt is described in the English article as no more scandalous than many others in recent memory, and more importantly, 3 of the 4 sources don't mention her name. Anyone who wants to include this information at russ feel free (obviously, minus the unneeded naked picture) but I strongly oppose merely listing at AfD just because "haste wasn't needed": as the BDJ arbcom ruling says, it should not be undeleted absent without an actual consensus to do so. Mangojuicetalk 12:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And let me add, I commend Gamaliel for bringing the DRV here himself. This is, I think, the best way to handle these deletions. Mangojuicetalk 12:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Not notable, just has an inappropriate video of her on the internet. Reywas92Talk 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deletion was not based on notability criteria, but BLP ones. Considering this was BLP deleted to then determine if there was any BLP issues that would stop it having a proper afd, can you cite any BLP problems that may be an impediment to the article having a full discussion with community input, so the community can actually see it while they debate its merits. ViridaeTalk 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - so she was basically running for a position like "Student Body President" in a High School? If that's the case, it's probably reasonable to take the deletion action. If there's a single "russ president" for all Norway (I couldn't glean this from the article Russ) then maybe less so. Execuative positions in a Student Council for a highschool aren't important, they may be in a student council for a country. Where are the Norwegians? The image is a second question, but I'm not sure I have any encyclopaedic comments (it certainly did aid my understanding of the text ... but there are obvious concerns...) WilyD 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse deletion. As a process matter, this should not have been deleted for WP:BLP issues, since it was well-sourced (the event was widely reported in reliable, mainstream media). However, I don't think it even remotely qualifies for a Wikipedia article, since it was an utterly trivial occurrence and ephemeral news story with no lasting encyclopedic value. There's no practical reason to exhume it, put it up on AfD, and shoot it again. --MCB 23:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse per GRBerry and MCB. No need to overturn marginal speedies if the article is clearly unencyclopedic. Eluchil404 03:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list Weak Endorse per GRBerry, MCB and Eluchil404. In future. An AfD is preferable in such cases given the data we now have, since there appears to be no serious WP:BLP issue. I have not seen the video, but I learn from the above comments that the exposure was deliberate, there was no unwanted invasion of privacy, and we are not the ones responsible for the wide publicity about this on the net. Changed my vote per DGG's commentary below. I gather that some people prefer to stand on ceremony where BLP is involved, so that BLP does not run over all other policies. Though the video is said to be very revealing, the BLP issue seems minor. so I believe a call for an AfD on this article is eminently justifiable. Note that, if for some reason the article were kept at AfD, we might omit the woman's name to further help out the BLP impact. EdJohnston 04:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I'm a little confused by your response: you give the reasons why it was not a BLP violation, and yet you say Endorse. Had this been a consensus decision, I can see it as equivocal enough to endorse a discretionary close. But this was merely a speedy by a single admin. We're voting to see if there should instead be a consensus decision. DGG (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I didn't get a chance to see the article, but I suspect that it failed WP:BLP1E, and I trust Gamaliel to be able to make that call. Do no harm. This kid has her whole life ahead of her. - Crockspot 19:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Films by shooting location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CFD)

This page and dozens of subcategories containing hundreds of articles were deleted after a sparse vote that ended at 2 Keep - 2 Delete.

The determination was that the vote totals did not represent the consensus of reasonable arguments and a deletion decision was rendered. The arguments to keep were

  1. It is a defining characteristic.
  2. It does not generally contribute to problematic overcategorization because few films are shot in a plethora of locations.

The arguments to delete were

  1. It contributes to overcategorization
  2. It is unimportant
  3. Listification would be superior
  4. Insignificant for certain cities (Los Angeles, and possibly New York City)
  5. Shooting location often differs from setting.

As the director of WP:CHICAGO categories by location such as Category:Films shot in Chicago are an important management tool. We use a bot to roam categories to identify newly created articles, to monitor for classification promotions etc. When we lose categories we are less able to improve the encyclopedia. Chicagoans are more likely to be able to contribute certain types of details to articles on films shot in Chicago than non-Chicagoans. I have already contributed based on bot identification to The Dark Knight (film) and Batman Begins. I was able to improve the encyclopedia because the bot was able to point me to these articles in categories related to Chicago. If other regions begin to manage their domain using bots as is very convenient to do we need categories by location to do so effectively.

You can review the CfD discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse per closing admin's rationale; where a film is shot is not a defining characteristic. And not to nit-pick, but it was 3-2, you forgot the nomination. --Kbdank71 16:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - clearly an extremely notable characteristic of movies. The Evil Spartan 16:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got any sources on that? Note that for many films, this is far from obvious and irrelevant to the film itself; and many other films are filmed in dozens of locations. Seems to me this should be explained in article text, not some tag at the bottom. >Radiant< 08:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - nominator support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, defining characteristic of the film. Lugnuts 18:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above, got any sources on that? >Radiant< 08:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn CfDs should make an active effort to get wider participation in non-routine discussions. DGG (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Notable, often defining, unproblematic from an OC standpoint. More important, even if the 2 delete votes had great arguments and the 2 keep votes were weak, a 2-2 vote can hardly be characterized as a "consensus." At a minimum, the discussion should have been no consensus or left open for more input. --Osbojos 18:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn this isn't exactly a policy based reason, but DGG is correct that widely used categories shouldn't get deleted with just a handful of users involved in the discussions. At minimum, alerting the projects that are related to the category would be a good idea in the future. JoshuaZ 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I believe that knowing where a movie was shot is important for those people who study films, especially if it was set in a different place. For example, My Big Fat Greek Wedding was shot in Toronto, Canada but set in Chicago. When people look at the movie, and wonder why the images don't jive with their memories of Chicago, a quick glance at the category list will reassure them that they are not losing their minds. If no such category system exists, people will add text to the article instead, resulting in less consistency across Wikipedia. Speciate 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, deletion was carried out correctly, and this is one of the stupidest category schemes - shooting location if mentioned at all would have to be in the article as well, anyway; a piece of information such as shooting location must be referenced, and you can't reference a category. Neil ╦ 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, per Speciate, this is a good resource & such lists are important to those who study film. --Chicaneo 21:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, CFD is not a vote count, good arguments trump "me too" votes. For many films, this is far from obvious and irrelevant to the film itself; and many other films are filmed in dozens of locations. Seems to me this should be explained in article text, not some tag at the bottom. >Radiant< 08:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm sorry, Radiant, but I don't see how those keep arguments are so weak as to be dismissable. I would have liked to see a bit more meat to them, but given that this was 2-2, the close should have been a no-consensus. And FWIW, I also endorse the keep arguments, and Speciate's argument here. Mangojuicetalk 13:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The consensus in the deletion debate was extremely clear. SalaSkan 17:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got to be kidding. The deletion debate elicited 4 votes, split 50-50 between "delete & listify" and "keep." How is that a consensus? Even if the vote had been 4 delete, any vote with so few participants can't be characterized as a consensus. At the least, it should have been left open for more comments.--Osbojos 22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn. Seems like a reasonable (and interesting) catagory that would definitely be encyclopedic and relevant to film enthusiasts.Afcyrus 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is not a discussion on an article but a discussion on a category. Dr. Submillimeter 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • apologies, was a mistake.
  • Relist - Assuming that the nominator was advocating deletion, this was a 3-2 split in favor of deletion. The delete votes also provided ample reasons for deleting this category, whereas the keep votes hardly said anything substantial. Deletion therefore seemed appropriate. However, the WP:CFD discussion did have few comments, whereas more people have commented here (and have advocated keeping these categories). Therefore, I suggest relisting the categories to get additional comments. Dr. Submillimeter 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - well reasoned closure by admin. The "keep"s failed to demonstrate how this is a defining characteristic. --After Midnight 0001 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per well reasoned DRV nomination. Tim! 09:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Estophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Alledged neologisms are not a valid reason for speedy delete, as was stated here [3]. See policy Wikipedia:Speedy_delete#Non-criteria. Reason given in the deletion log [4] "no real content" is not valid either, as it had basic information with references and was tagged as an article stub, as per the guide Wikipedia:Stub. The article should have been given a proper AfD for wider discussion. Martintg 06:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. If the article is to be deleted should be given a proper AfD. And BTW, I seriously doubt its a neologism, I have seen this term used in my history books at school(seven years ago) to describe Estonia sympathetic Germans during the national awakening.--Alexia Death 05:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term is not a neologism as it appears in my 1938 encyclopedia what I happen to have at hand. There is also a Google book search result [5] dating even more back. The entry may have been created at wrong time (and wrong reasons) but Estophilia as a phenomenon is an important historic fact (to Estonians) and an object of scholarly research. I therefore strongly object the way this article was deleted. Though, personally I think it is more user friendly, if it's made to a paragraph in Estonian national awakening. Thank you, Oth 10:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as deleter - the article was created as a WP:POINT creation due to the (now-deleted) article Estophobia. It had a whole two lines of actual content. Note my reason for deletion was not its being a neologism, it was for it having no real content (it wasn't even a decent dictionary definition). If it really has to go to AFD, then fine, but I don't see the point. I would have no objection to a new article being created if it actually had some real content. Neil ╦ 10:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was a stub, see Wikipedia:Stub if you do not understand what a stub is or its purpose. It had sufficient context for expansion. Martintg 12:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support all measures taken to avoid WP becoming a battleground. My whole view on disruption is that you need to deal with it when it occurs. Estofobia AfD did get out of hand and badly needed admin intervention. It did not come on time and thus more disruption. However this is not a reason to delete an article just like that. It is a reason to keep an eye on it an spank people out of line as soon as they get out of line and before they escalate matters. I understand Neil's inclination to deal with the article so, but I believe policies should not be discarded that easily. My view on the article is that it belongs to a Wikdictionary not Wikipedia--Alexia Death 11:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we prefer product over process and we're not bureaucracy. Since, as pointed out by Oth above, the only 2 valid sentences from the article (I just quoted) can be merged into Estonian national awakening and given proper context, why not do so and stop this unnecessary debate? Neil, myself, and other good-faith (and, indeed, some bad-faith) editors concluded that the article was never created (by User:Digwuren, btw, currently 7 days on forced cooling) with the goal of becoming a valid encyclopedic topic, but as an exercise in wikilawyering, which is decidedly not appreciated.
By the way, I'm by no means trying to ditch the entire group of Estonian editors into one camp, and I'll strike my comment above, which could be construed that way. But we're wasting our time on debating whether a 2-sentence article, one being a dicdef, was in process or not. Duja► 11:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a waste of time then perhaps a speedy undelete and letting nature take its course is in order?--Alexia Death 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue is not process, although the way it was speedy deleted denied us the opportunity to defend the existance of this notable topic. The intent of this request is the restoration of an article stub that was unreasonably deleted. Whether it should be merged or expanded is a matter for future discussion among knowledgable editors. Accusations of WP:POINT here is a combination an assumption of bad faith and ignorance of Estonian history. Estophilia is documented here [6]. I repeat, the request here is to restore this article so competent editors can expand and develop this stub. Martintg 12:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please. "Denied us the opportunity to defend the existance of this notable topic"?! . No one prevents you to recreate a sourced material longer than 2 sentences. The link you just provided is a valuable resource on contributions of Estophile Germans to the Estonian national awakening. The proper context for that is a section in Estonian national awakening. The whole point of Estophobia deletion is that any Estophobia in history had its historic background and context, and the proper destination for such material is in the articles describing those resprective context. The instances of Estophilia we have sourced at hand have proper historical background and context on Estonian national awakening. Having other instances of Estophilia (e.g. 20th century) lumped in Estophilia article would likely be a WP:SYN violation, the same principal reason for which the Estophobia was deleted. Now, can you add that material to, still relatively short, ENA article, or shall we bicker to death whether those 2 half sentences were worth saving? Duja► 13:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors might even decide to merge or transwiki it. I believe that this article was created as an honest good-faithed stub and got zapped just because similar sounding name and creation time. A completely understandable reaction but still mistaken one. Anti-Estonian Sentiment was clearly a pointy move, and I would have put a RfD on it in its redirect form if Neil had not deleted it, but i believe this one is not part of that case and deserves at least a chance to develop or be AfD-d.--Alexia Death 12:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Marting, I know you managed to find one mention of "estophilia" here - are there any other references for such a term, or were you planning to synthesise lots of other sources that don't actually use the term? I cannot find any references to "estophilia" other than the link you gave, which uses the term once in passing, and one throwaway use of the tem in a 1989 edition of the Economist talking about how Finns like Estonia. Would you be willing to put something together in your userspace first and then bring it to DRV for review? Neil ╦ 13:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have an issue with AGF. Please point to evidence that I have previously engaged in WP:SYNTH. Others have posted additional references here and elsewhere. Wikipedia is a community effort, nobody owns any particular topic, that is why we have stubs. Speedy deletes of valid stubs is disruptive to this effort, forcing us to expend energy here rather than building good articles. DRV is not the venue to review user space articles. Why not AGF and restore Estophilia as I originally requested [7]. Martintg 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, Martin, please read the question, instead of complaining about AGF and asking for evidence you have previously engaged in synthesis; I did not suggest you had. I asked what you were planning to do. I could not find any substantive references. I asked you are there any other (non-trivial) references for such a term? Please provide them. And DRV is the place to review previously-deleted articles being recreated in user space. I'm trying to suggest a compromise. Neil ╦ 21:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, as I said previously, there are references posted here and elsewhere. Above Oth mentions a 1938 encyclopedia and links a book with a nineteenth century reference. Alexia a school text book she had studied several years ago and below mentions User_talk:Digwuren#Estophilia_2 (which demonstates Digwuren was attempting to create the article in good faith) which lists several more sources. No doubt there are many more paper sources in German and Estonian, but unfortunately I cannot read either language. What is the point of your question? As I also said, Wikipedia is a community effort, Alexia outlined below how she would structure it, Digwuren had implied his view of the structure with the stub. Why should Estonian editors writing about notable Estonian topics of interest to a wider audience such as Australians like me, have their work censored by an admin who cannot follow due process because in their personal opinion the article is potentially WP:POINT. You have not articulated in what why it is pointy, do you think it may offend ethnic Germans? AGF is important and a core principle of Wikipedia, you should take note of it. Martintg 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just back from the local branch of the Tasmanian state library and found this book: The History of Estonia, 2nd edition, by A. Maesalu, T. Lukas, T, Tannberg, et al [8] (ISBN 9985-2-0606-1) Section beginning on page 167: Estophiles and the first Estonian intellectuals:
BTW, according to this book, the Estophile movement pre-dates and is distinct from the Estonian National Awakening which is detailed in a different section. Martintg 03:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another quote from Britannica online [9] :
If I were to plan this article, I would first give a brief description about the word, pretty much what the deleted stub was, and then talk about the estophiles of the awakening era and use of the term today. Yes, it is a used term, even if not common speech one. Article like this would have value because when somebody is described or describes themselves as estophile in some context [10], theres bound to be people who come to Wikipedia to seek for its meaning.
Also, answer this. Would you not have considered it making a WP:POINT if one of us would just have recreated the article with no mater what content? I'm willing to bet you would have. So as far as I see, this is the proper way of doing things in this situation.--Alexia Death 14:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I found this User_talk:Digwuren#Estophilia_2 from my watch list... I take it as proof that Digwuren had quite real (and not pointy)plans for this article.--Alexia Death 15:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No objection to re-creation of a substantive article along the lines of User_talk:Digwuren#Estophilia_2, the link given by User:Alexia Death. I would accept having an AfD about the tiny fragmentary article that was speedied, but I think this DRV is providing a venue for some of the issues that might come up there. I would urge the article proponents to just give us a better article. It seems that the resources are available, and it could be done in a neutral way. Recreating the extremely-short article would be unwise, since with inadequate sources it's going to look like a sheer exercise in NEO and POV. It would just gather more negative attention and decrease the chance that a real article would be accepted on that topic. EdJohnston 16:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. DGG informs us below that this had been a contested prod. In that case, I believe it was a procedural error to go to speedy rather than AfD. So let's have the AfD. I don't expect I'll be voting to keep unless the article improves, but the AfD may give a chance to improve it. EdJohnston 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ed, but I don't understand why you would recommend this stub go to AfD. I don't understand why guidelines like Wikipedia:Stub don't seem applicable to stubs related to Estonian history and AfD aggressively applied to them. Perhaps it is just coincidence. Just recently the original stub of Estonian national awakening [11] was subject to an AfD which many felt was a bad faith nomination. However it was terminated early as the consensus was overwhelmingly to keep[12]. As you can see, that was eventually developed into a reasonable article. Martintg 02:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I point out that the person who started and collected sources for the article should be given at least a chance to complete it. As it is now, if it is restored an listed now in AfD, the AfD may well be over before his 7day block expires...--Alexia Death 15:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This DVR is not an acceptable venue for discussion that should have taken place in an AfD, since the article in question can no longer be seen and be evaluated by the wider community. I seem to recall the article stub did have some structure, perhaps it was shortened before it was speedy deleted. Wikipedia is a community effort, nobody owns any particular topic, that is why we have stubs, as a guide to other editors. Or is Wikipedia:Stub no longer valid? Martintg 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It had previously been a contested prod, and should have gone to AfD. The speedy seems to have been a failure to AGF--which, while possible, should have been a matter for AfD.Deletion Review is about process.DGG (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn this was not empty in the A1 sense, nor did it fulfill any other speedy criterion. After this is restored, anoyone who choses to can list on AfD. DES (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - In dealing with suspected disruptive editors such as those making a WP:POINT by creating an article, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing advises to assume good faith but remove uncited or unencyclopedic material. If there is no eariler legitimate post to which the article could rollback, step 1 of dealing with disruptive editors justifies speedy deleting the article. This does not seem to apply. A3 speedy delete as No content whatsoever states, Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This does not seem to fit, either. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under these guidelines I request that the in no way logical current redirect Anti-Estonian sentiment would be speedily deleted. It is currently protected, or id ask there. It is a rephrasing of now deleted Estophobia and used to direct there... --Alexia Death 11:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With literary sources referenced the the neologism claim is off the the table. WP is not a google contest. The lack of comprehensive Google results on a notable term is just the void WP was made to fill. Also, I suggest you Google "estophile" --Alexia Death 10:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not surprised that you would vote to "Keep Deleted", since your last effort to AfD a related Estonian stub failed [13] miserably. If you had any balls, you would vote to overturn this speedy delete and list the article in AfD so you can demonstrate you ignorance of Estonian history yet again. Martintg 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was a speedy deletion, not an AfD, so whether this is a neologisim is at least technically irrelevant, since "neologisim" is not a speedy reason. Besides the evidence above would probably convince an AfgD that this is not a neologism. "No real conten" is not a valid speedy reason either: A1 is for no content at all beyond external links, infoboxes, and restatements of the title. There was plenty in the last deleted version for a stub, and from the above it seems that there is potential for expansion. DES (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a list of 19 books that mentions "Estophile" [14], the earliest english book in the list was published in 1947, the earliest German book in the list was published in 1901. So it is definitely not a neologism. BTW, when is somebody going to get around to undeleting the article? There is a reasonable consensus to overturn, is there not? I left a message on Neil's talk page [15] since he was the deleting admin, but have not heard anything since. Martintg 07:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:AnnRichards-closeup.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:AnnRichards-closeup.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IfD)

Active IfD ignored.
An active Images for Deletion, Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_July_13 was referenced by Quadell in his/her deletion log summary; yet the admin made no contributions to the IfD or gave any reasons for the deletion in the IfD. As the IfD shows there was no clear-cut consensus to delete which would allow an admin to skip the IfD process. It is possible that the image would not survive (though on pure !votes, it was 4-2 to keep when Quadell made the deletion), but I think the process should be followed and administrators should justify on what grounds they make decisions which go strongly against the current consensus. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you saying that debate was cut short? It sounds here like you're saying it was deleted prematurely, but it has been 5 days, which is what is required. I didn't ignore the ifd, I closed it. We still have Image:AnnRichards.jpg, and the deleted image was merely a crop of that. (Incidentally, I believe you are interpreting as "keep" a vote which actually said "keep one, delete the other", meaning that the cropped image should be deleted.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake on the difference between the two versions -- I think that the explanation of what you just said above and a statement of closing with "The result was keep AnnRichards.jpg and delete the cropped one" could have removed confusion (and I rushed to DRV because I thought the IfD was not yet closed); the IfD was an important one because I (and I think some of the participants) were seeing it more as a referendum on both pictures and on non-free images of people at a particular point in their careers, and less so on the specific cropped version. However, given what you've just said, I'll eat crow, acknowledge my bad, and withdraw the DRV.  :) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no hard feelings. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Cyrus Robinson – Deletion endorsed. (The group of new editors, associates of the subject in question, were discounted, according to long-standing practice.) – Xoloz 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cyrus Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

restore Afcyrus 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC) --> Here is a point by point reason why I'm asking for the article, Cyrus Robinson, that was deleted to be re-established.[reply]

A former co-worker asked me if I minded her creating a Wikipedia article about me and my work/contribution to the field of digital forensics and the United States Air Force. I said no and agreed to help her out by beginning an article to highlight my early life/etc (because she did not yet have an editor account). This was my first article, and I did a very poor job (and the information was irrelevant to my contribution to digital forensics and the Air Force (b/c I was just starting off my background info). The article was tagged for speedy deletion, and so realizing that I had messed up by beginning an article on myself anyway I blanked the page. Later that evening the associate who wanted to create the article did so, and did a very professional and well cited job. Without ever viewing the content of the article, Shell deleted the article (she deletes about 3/minute, clearly not enough time to actually review the article and its sources. I along with other editors interested in the article tried reasoning with Shell on her discussion page, but she acted as though she was afraid to have her authority questioned. She claims to be an "inclusionist" and to practice "good faith", but a review of her discussion page shows that any time a person objects to her deletions without any review, she pretty much tells the user that she will not change her position. Please take the time to read the entire list of false reasonings for deletion and my rebuttal to each of them. Thanks.

Shell made FALSE and unfounded allegations against me. She accused me of having friends post on my behalf. First off, one is a former co-worker (not a friend) who ASKED ME if I minded her posting an article on me and my work (Imnotfamous). The other (Spartas) I do consider a friend, but he is also a computer programmer/computer specialist who understands the relevance of the article. The Biography starter guide said do not have a best friend post an article about you. He is not my best friend, and he did not post the article, but he did defend the article at his own discretion. I, along with Spartas and Imnotfamous, gave specific rationale as to why the article should not be deleted. She deleted it just for the sake of not wanting to be proven wrong which is evidenced by her lack of response to my rebuttals as well as failing to allowing time for argument against deletion on the talk page for the article. She did NOT assume good faith.

I read the WP:BIO page and specifically addressed every complaint she listed. You addressed NONE of mine. Her complaints and my responses: Shell claims that I, the subject of an article written by another editor, am not considered notable.

  • WP:BIO and WP:N say that if ANY (I only have to meet one of the following)of the following have been met, the individual is notable. MOST have been met.

The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (TRUE - http://dc3.mil/dcci/contact.htm) The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. (TRUE - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/biographies_2.asp#CyrusRobinson source) The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. (TRUE - http://www.afoats.af.mil/AFROTC/documents/ECP_PostSelectionDatabase.xls) The person has demonstrable wide name recognition (TRUE - briefed at DoD Conference - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/Descriptions.asp#ImagingHardDrivesWithBadSectors) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (Arguable)

  • Military awards:

Shell claims that military awards cannot be listed as awards in the military awards infobox. On General T. Michael Moseley's WP article he has two awards listed, both military awards (you said mine were not eligible). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Michael_Moseley . The same is true of General John Jumper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Jumper . According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Military_person_infobox the decorations should be "any notable awards or decorations the person received." Apparently, the editor for the article about me thought my listed awards were notable.

  • Biography and well known:

Shell constantly refers to WP:BIO without detailing specific areas where the article failed to meet criteria for posting. However, Shell did tell me that I am not well known enough to have an article posted about me. I may not be famous, but I feel that I am at least notable in the field of digital forensics. According to WP:NPF (People who are relatively unknown) Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. It has been shown that while I may not be well known to the entire populous, I am at the very least, notable in my field. Shell made the comment "A forum is not a credible biography." Shell obviously did not even check the links that I listed. I did not list a forum as my credible biography. The name of the company that organizes many DoD and government conferences is Technology Forums (it is not a forum-website). Further, Shell made the rather subjective (and uninformed) comment that having briefed at one conference of 700 attendees does not make me well known within my field. This is one of the and most well known conferences in the digital forensic community. That, along with the release of the DCCI Cyber Files which includes over 10 publications authored by myself to every attendee of the conference makes me both published and well known within the digital forensics community.

  • Self-Publication:

Shell made the comment that sources for the Cyrus Robinson article are self-published. I would refer Shell to Self-publishing which makes no mention of employers or academic institutions not being able to publish work used as a source. As a member of the USAF I am not capable of registering a website or paying for publication of my work-related studies. Almost every legitimate research publication is published by a government source or a source in academia. In those cases the studies are almost always authored by either faculty, students, or staff of those institutions. This is NOT self publication as is outlined at the bottom of WP:BIO. WP:BIO states that if someone purchases a website or pays to have a book published and self-labels as an "expert" is self-publication. For instance, Ron Rivest is a professor at MIT. He has two articles as bibliographical reference. Both are published through MIT Press (understandably). Self-publication is when a person has something published yourself. I never requested that the Air Force publish my work. They do so at their own discretion. Where would military personnel or academic sources publish other than through their respective institution?

  • General Complaints:

Shell did not read articles before she delete them, as is evidenced by your serial deletion highlighted in your contributions site (despite her personal claim to be an "inclusionist". Shell sometimes deletes 3 per minute. Further, Shell does not allow ample time for discussion and debate on either the site's talk page or the debate discussion site. Finally, the limited time that is allowed for debate Shell did not read or take into consideration at all. This seems to be a case of someone with authority not accepting it when their authority or stance is questioned. Look up your discussion page. It is full of people with claims similar to mine that you just disregard. In the end, you always claim you are right...end of story.

  • In Closing:

Having drafted this point-by-point list of rebuttals full of sources and examples (from WP articles, policies, and guidelines), I ask that Cyrus Robinson be undeleted. I hope that the Wikipedia community is able to solve this unfair deletion with fairness and without elitism.Afcyrus 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • having spent 2+ years in the digital forensics community and owning a digital forensic company I can attest to the notability of SrA Cyrus Robinson and his contributions to digital forensics, and having read his valid arguments. I vote to overule the deletion.Kbert1 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Kbert1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I am new to wikipedia, but I read the points that Afcyrus made, and I read all of the policies and links that he included. I vote to overrule the deletion. There is no reason this article should not be included per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.TheTourist314 03:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the person who originally requested SrA Robinson to begin an article that I could turn into an actual article. He, apparently, did a terrible job of it at first, but as a former co-worker I do know that SrA Robinson is not only well known in the digital forensic community, but his also that work is very notable. Read every comment that he makes in his argument along with the links and sources, and it's easy to see that this article definitely should be included. the admin did not take the time to read any arguments for keeping the website, so she did not correctl interpret the situation. I created the article because I am interested in his work as an editor and member of the digital forensic community. overrule deletionImnotfamous 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I am one of the people that tried to contest the deletion on the debate page. This article is definitely relevant and the subject is also notable. As a Computer Scientist, I vote to overrule the deletion. Keep the article spartas 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Endorse original closing' — Keep deleted: I read the most recent version of the deleted article. As a member of the Military history project and main coordinator of the Marine Corps portal, though Cyrus Robinson laudably is a member of the U.S. military, he does not meet notability standards that have been established for military biographies. For example, as far as military awards — for USMC bios, we list awards in the infobox in order of precedence from Medal of Honor down to and including the Purple Heart. On the basis of awards alone, Medal of Honor recipients and Air Force Cross/Navy Cross/Distinguished Service Cross recipients have been included; on basis of rank alone, Brigadier General and above are often included. On an academic basis, publication of papers/presentation of papers alone do not establish sufficient notability. So, while it is not questioned whether the information is true, the notability expected of members of the military is not established. ERcheck (talk • contribs • count) 05:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • wow, long-winded, but it makes sense. this guy may need to edit his awards, and he might not be a big player in the military (he has to start somewhere, right?). He does seem notable in forensics for sure though. Do not delete, but edit military awards. only major awards should be included.Mil lonewolf 05:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above account began editing today, this is his/her third edit, all to DRV. Corvus cornix 19:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Accomplishment is not notability, and the subject has brought forward few to no independent sources that could be used to establish it. The editor here, on the assumption that they are one and the same, doesn't seem to understand what "independent" or "reliable" means in this context, and wants the assumption of good faith to mean changing your mind. I see one hepped-up article editor/subject, and a process which proceeded properly. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Original and noteworthy accomplishment in a specific field of study is notable.Dc3tech 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. ERcheck explains it well. >Radiant< 08:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No formal vote because I am involved, but comment: I voted against the AfD. I also reported Afcyrus and Imnotfamous as possible sockpuppets, because when the article written by Afcyrus was first deleted, a very similar article was created by Imnotfamous and the two seemed to be supporting one another. If I was wrong, that's fine, but I would like to point the following out, though.
The "biography" provided for the subject at AfD is a very short blurb at technologyforums.com. Internet forums are not considered reliable sources per WP:RS or a credible biography per WP:BIO. His awards and honours are not notable, and to prove them he linked to an Excel spreadsheet which lists in addition dozens of other servicepersons' military records (which on further consideration I am very concerned about). He claims to have wide name recognition, but again he provided no independent reliable sources to assert that. That concerns me most of all, since I am worried that editors are being canvassed solely to vote to keep this article in Wikipedia. The article was recreated three times before final deletion and blanked once during the AfD; in the last iteration the subject was given titles such as "Cyrus the Great" and the article was laden with peacock words.
My concern is that the subject is either the person who created the article or their friend, which brings up WP:COI worries as well as WP:SPAM. Most importantly, there are no secondary reliable sources given that are independent of the subject. Employers are not independent of the subject, as it is in their best interests to make their services, and by association their employees, look good. In this case his employer is also a primary source, not a secondary source. --Charlene 09:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read his post? The author is a former co-worker, not a friend. Assume good faith has been thrown out of the window?Dc3tech 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it fair that people allow Charlene to post AGAINST the policy for deletion review?! This is not the place for debate. The debate page was closed long before there was ample time to debate the deletion of the article. "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." (Per WP:DRV).
  • keep article - overrule deletion. I work at DC3, and I can, as a civilian co-worker and member of the digital forensics community attest to the notability and importance of Cyrus' work in the field of digital forensics. I reviewed the article, and the awards seem trivial and silly (although I can attest for his actually having received them), but for the otherwise, the article seemed like a good and fair encyclopedic entry. I am appalled that the article on him is being attacked with such veracity, when clearly there are MANY less notable people with far less notable contributions who are included in the biographies section of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc3tech (talk • contribs) 17:41, July 18, 2007
    • While I am new to the Wikipedia community, I am NOT a SPA. I have every intention of maintaining this account and posting regularly. AGF. Dc3tech 18:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Importance was asserted, there is no reason to suspect gaming or bad faith, and if questioned it should go to AfD. COI, though strongly discouraged, is not reason to delete. Repost of a speedy article is not by itself a reason for speedy. Speedy delete during an AfD is sometimes necessary, but the opinion of one admin should not be allowed to cut off a reasonable debate. DGG (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, he briefs people. Whoops. His bio at technoforums is not from a reliable source. He's a Senior Airman, not an NCO, not an officer. He is not notable. Claiming to be notable when it's obvious that you are not doesn't give you the right to avoid speedy deletion. And the repeated WP:COI violations, both here and at the AfD, show that Airman Robinson is letting his personal bias towards himself get in the way of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Corvus cornix 18:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when does rank indicate notability? He is not claiming notability based off of rank. His notability is established in his work and contribution to the field of digital forensics.Dc3tech 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AfD, with no early closing This is not an A7, notability is clealry asserted. The sockpuppetry issues have been dealt with above. whether the individual is actully notable enough for an article should be settled at a clean AfD. I take no position on that issue at this time, but there was no valid reason for speedy deletion. DES (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I addressed this in my comments above. Claims of notability when the claims are patently false, do not deserve to be taken seriously. Speedy deletion of articles with ridiculous claims of notability are certainly valid. Would you require an AfD for every article that says "Janie is the prettiest girl in the world"? Corvus cornix 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I would not, as I have said on numerous occasions, particularly on WT:CSD where I have disscussed the proper scope of A7 speedies in multiple threads. I do not, however, consider the claims here to be even remotely on a par with that example, so this is IMO a false analogy. I might add that the very fact that multiple established editors consider these claims plausible enough to warrent an AfD is alone a good indication that an A7 speedy, whcih should be only for very clear cases, is not warrented here. The COI issues seem to me to be reasonably well dealt with, but even if they are not, COI is not normally a reason to delete, it is rather a reason to check and ensure that NPOV is adhered to. Note that while there was an AfD, it was closed so quickly that it is meaningless to speak of an AfD consensus (open only 3 hours) so this must be judged by the standards for an A7 speedy. DES (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion per my comments on the original AfD here. It should also be noted that Afcyrus is highly likely to be the subject of the article and, if memory serves, Imnotfamous recreated the article under this new title moments after the original was speedied.--Ispy1981 01:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly, the AfD was not given a fair amount of time for debate. Also, your memory does not serve. The article was recreated, according to the time stamps, several hours after it was deleted without a fair AfD (and with reputable sources this time)Dc3tech 18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion - the closer interpreted the AfD consensus correctly. Comment - At AfD, the only real question is whether there is enough reliable source material, independent of Cyrus Robinson, to create a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. The lack of enough independent reliable source material justified the delete. The nearly unanimous AfD delete reasoning and the behavior surrounding the AfD and the article justified speeding up the delete. Consensus brought this out and it was interpreted correctly by the AfD closer. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The afd was only open for 3 hours, hardly enough time for a consensus to be gathered.
    • Since the AfD was only open for three hours and a few minutes, ther was not a manuingful "consensus" for the closer to have "interpreted". This must therefore be judged as an A7 speedy delted, and it does not stand on that basis. had the AfD been allowed to run full length, your point would have weight. DES (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If the subject is a former military person who separates from the military, yet the military still chooses to publish through their name, his reports is this third party? The only argument against my references are because I work for the AF. If this is the case, then hardly ANY academic or government sources can EVER be used in that they are almost always a result of previous staff or students contributions or authoring. Further, NO ONE has responded to ANY of the points I listed to the negative. For instance, why can other articles include publications published by their employer (I gave the example of an MIT professor).

Afcyrus 05:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The case of Ron Rivest is a poor example to use, because even with a casual google search you can find several articles about him from third-party sources - eg "CHIEF OF THE CODE-CRACKERS RONALD RIVEST ROUNDS UP THOUSANDS OF COMPUTERS TO MAKE WORLD A SAFER PLACE" from the Boston Globe, April 25, 1994, and there's many more articles like that one (he's also mentioned in books about crypto history, eg The Code Book by Simon Singh). I'd add in the information myself but I don't actually have access to that article. ColourBurst 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite his being found on a "casual google search" and despite how man third party articles he has on him, there should not be a different standard for articles that are allowed to be posted. In other words, if articles by one person's place of employment can be used as references, then the same should hold true for other entries. Also, you did not answer my question in your responseAfcyrus 05:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The point I was making was that Rivest's bibliography doesn't satisfy the "independent reliable source" criteria but it is irrelevant because he satisfies other aspects of WP:PROF, and independent reliable sources can be found for him. It doesn't matter that they aren't in the article currently. However all of this is irrelevant for the purposes of this DRV since it was speedy deleted under A7 out of process. Relist and we can argue about the merits of technology forums and DCCI. Also, your bibliography contains material you wrote - and thus only establishes that you wrote those papers, but extending any conclusions other than that would be original research. ColourBurst 15:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion Apparently this is a first contribution by a couple of editors; and I read both versions of the article. The first one was mostly un-sourced autobiographical information and left un-completed, and was thus listed on AFD. While listed on AFD, it was revised to include several reliable sources. A read-through of Shell's talk page shows an inexperienced user attempting to learn Wikipedia and an admin who did not address his/her points. (IE, I visited the techonologyforums site and Afcyrus is correct in asserting it is 'not' and internet forum, while Shell maintains that it is.) IMO, the article was deleted based on the opinion of one admin and without proper review; it should be restored. However, I would refer user Afcyrus to the Wikpedia guidelines in order to ensure that future articles are not listed on AFD. Community editor 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. A claim of notability even without proof is sufficient to avoid a speedy deletion. This article's claim is not obviously frivolous. Evouga 06:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Subject is not notable. Having briefed at some conference doesn't make one notable. The bio cited by the subject (something provided for every briefer) is merely a rote collection of non-notable facts. In fact, many of the other bios do contain notable achievements by other briefers at the conference. The subject's bio says he "works as an Electronic Forensics Engineer..."
    Having a job does not make one notable. Zubdub 01:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • your argument might make sense if you had a CLUE as to the relevance of the actual content of the biography on wikipedia. the biography noted several publications that have had a significant impact on the field of digital forensics (such as changing the acceptable methods -community wide- for imaging damaged media). Having a bio in and of itself is not a significant achievement. The content of the work that you are ignorant concerning basically negates your argument. However, your ignorance, unfortunately, does not bar your right to vote.Afcyrus 04:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the contrary, I do have a clue. The google cached version of your wikipedia article (dated Jul 16, 2007 22:41:57) reads as amateurish self-promotion written by someone with a greatly overinflated ego. It makes only a passing reference to that for which you claim to be so famous. Your listing of awards lists two instances of Airman of the Quarter in 2006. While laudable, these hardly make someone qualified for an encyclopedia article. Your highest praise seems to be "DoD Cyber Crime Center Performer of the Year", a very small crop for which to be the cream. Have you earned a community-wide award yet? Your article listed none. Do you have an MSM, even an Achievement Medal, to demonstrate Aif Force recognition of your greatness? Perhaps you will some day, but apparently not at the moment. Below, you add that you are one of only two such "engineers" in the USAF. Do you realize that further minimizes the noteworthiness of the DC3 awards about which your crow? You apparently out-performed exactly one other person in the Air Force. Perhaps you do good and innovative work. I hope so. But I suggest, Amn Robinson, that you reacquaint yourself with one particular core value of the Air Force (SERVICE BEFORE SELF) and get back to doing your job. Zubdub 02:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and there are only 2 Digital Forensics Engineers in the entire United States Air Force. It's not "just a job".Afcyrus 04:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that fact had been included in the original article I don't think anyone would have had any concerns--that is notable in and of itself and is incredibly verifiable. In fact, it is probably worth an article itself. In any event, I should point out to User:Zubdub that this is not the place to raise a notability argument--this is the place to discuss whether the AFD or speedy process was followed properly. Although you did express an opinion, which is good, that opinion should be founded on the basis of the DRV guidelines in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. User Afcyrus, if a user is less informed than you, please inform them gracefully. Community editor 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion. This article appears to have been effectively speedy-deleted and protected from re-creation since the AFD was closed and the article deleted before obtaining consensus. User:DES explains this well, and I agree with his statement that this should be judged against the criteria for speedy deletion, in which case it is not a reasonable deletion. 70.21.12.107 23:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
DaxFlame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There were two successive AfD's for this article. Both had a delete outcome, even though the original reasons to nominate the article (WP:NN and WP:RS) were refuted (i.e. reliable sources had been added). Consequently the people who voted delete on the second AfD gave "unencyclopedic" as their reason (WP:UNENCYC); but failing to provide a Wikipedia guideline or policy that substantiated their reasoning. Hence, in my opinion, there was no valid reason to delete the article, nor a consensus. (NOTE: there were two AfD's, the first and second) — Slaapwel 02:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that the users who voted to delete would have considered those sources. It's probably not enough, and unless you find sufficient sources, I have to endorse deletion. At least rough consensus was achieved during the two AfD's. Sr13 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Oh, what the heck. After thinking over, I say extend discussion at AFD. It wouldn't hurt to broaden the reach of the discussion and get a better sense of consensus, plus it's senseless to talk about what really should have been done at AfD. Sr13 03:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC) I recuse. Sr13 21:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to disagree. There was no consensus. The admin Jaranda stated he made his final decision "discounting the single-purpose accounts". Which basically means he considered everybody who voted Keep (myself included, even though I have edited other articles) as a single-purpose account. He did not assume good faith (WP:AGF, WP:BITE)! On the matter of notability: how do you define sufficient sources? — Slaapwel 04:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He didn't necessarily discard all of the "keeps" as single purpose accounts. Consensus isn't necessarily unanimous. See WP:CONSENSUS. Also read WP:NOTE on the general notability guidelines. Sr13 07:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know what consensus means, but there wasn't even a discussion going on in the first place. Nobody responded to my questions, people just reiterated their point of view (i.e. useless, pointless, etc.). This is not objective argumentation! I also have read the notability guidelines, and I believe the article meets the criterion. Remember: this is web content, not biography. There is a subject specific standard. (The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.) The article provides 3 reliable sources (the seneweb.com article's reliability is arguable perhaps, but still reliable in my opinion). The problem you seem to have is with the definition of significant coverage. Do you need a hundred sources for it to be significant? Notability is distinct from importance. I believe the Daxflame videoblog is notable as an internet phenomenon, three reliable sources prove this. — Slaapwel 15:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yet another case of not assuming good faith. .Afcyrus 04:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Suspected sockpuppet, although not proven. We can and are assuming good faith, but single-purpose accounts may also be used to push an agenda or for sockpuppetry. Besides, I don't see how not assuming good faith has to do with undeleting this article, which fails notability guidelines. There needs to be proof of significant coverage on the subject. Sr13 07:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I most certainly am not a sockpuppet. I have no special interest in this article. I am the contributor of the review above, and while reading the others, made my opinion of believing this person's sources are reliable and establish notability as an internet phenomenon are true.Afcyrus 00:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. seems like there is not adequate reason to delete.Mil lonewolf 05:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Sr13, it is routine to discount votes from single-purpose accounts. In this case there decidedly were SPAs involved, but even counting their votes the consensus came down solidly on the side of delete. Process does not appear to have been ignored in either case. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't see how you come to that conclusion. Consensus is not measured by count of votes. If you've read the AfD's you would at least have to acknowledge there was no real debate. Nobody gave argumentation as to why they consider the article to be unencyclopedic. The deletion process should be about debate and (objective) argumentation! One could argue some of the delete voters were obviously biased and could hardly disguise their disliking of the subjectmatter of the article. So even if the result wasn't a full Keep, it should at least have been Keep because of no consensus or "not enough discussion happened to determine a consensus or lack thereof" (see WP:DPR). Perhaps you can answer my question what would be considered sufficient coverage in this context? (Three reliable sources aren't enough?) — Slaapwel 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree- consensus is indeed not measured by a count of votes. The fact remains that every editor but one who was not a single-purpose account agreed that it should be deleted, even in the second AFD. Process was followed- DRV is not a place to re-enact an AFD. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although this shouldn't be about the votes, I counted at least 4 editors who voted Keep who weren't single-purpose accounts. Actually there's only one single-purpose account I can see, consequently the only editor that was tagged with the spa tag. (We're talking about the second AfD here.) So that's 4 editors, not 1! — Slaapwel 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be fair, I did miscount. There were two editors who were identifiably not SPAs- that is, Superruss and Rhymeless, that voted keep in the second. The rest of the keep votes were from SPAs, which still puts the ratio for the second AFD at two to one in favor of deletion, which is fully within the acting administrator's prerogative to carry out deletion. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You forgot Kphipps3000 — Slaapwel 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Closed early, and there was not the kind of overwhelming support either in number of commentators, nor in arguments, that jyustifies invoking WP:SNOW. In genral, if there is any posisble doubt that any reasonable editor will agree that this is a snowball situation it is better not to use WP:SNOW. DES (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure you're in the right discussion? Neither of the AfD's were closed early, last time I checked. Sr13 01:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was obviously mistaken, I'm not sure now exsactly what I was looking at when i made this comment. DES (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I've done some further research on the references themselves, so I can see what we're arging with here. Here's what I find:
  • Seneweb.com isn't a reliable source in itself; it's probably a forum of users publishing articles.
  • G4tv.com isn't a reliable reference either; I think anyone can win the "YouTube Star of the Moment" award if they tried hard enough. It's a video game talk show, which should not be considered at all as a source of information.
    • We're using these sources to establish notability. Wikipedia guidelines say "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media." What better source to determine notability of an internet phenomenon than a talk show about internet and pop-culture? Furthermore it is reliable in so far it has "editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability". By the way, they selected the video, you don't apply for it. But again, as Kuzaar pointed out, this is not the place to discuss this. This should have been discussed in the second AfD, not here. — Slaapwel 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But then, anyone can post video on YouTube right? Sr13 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fail to see the logic in that statement. Anyone can write a book, etc. What's that supposed to mean? The point is to distinguish subjects or phenomena that are notable, worthy of notice, from the rest. The featuring of the videoblog on Attack of the show is coverage by a source independent of the subject. — Slaapwel 18:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Remember, we're not talking about sources, we're talking about if the process for the AFD was followed. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NewsCloud ref (which should be The Globe and Mail, because it is transcluded from there) is a reliable source.

So, out of three sources, we get one that is reliable. WP:WEB states: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Fails that, I think. Sr13 04:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • seneweb.com does have a forum, but it has legitimate articles that are definitely considered as reliable (ASSUME GOOD FAITH) as any other news article of a reputable source. You are not qualified to judge the reputability of this source. That means there are at least 2 sources (multiple).Afcyrus 05:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AGF applies to editors, not sources. There are numerous reasons to discount sources according to the WP:RS guideline. From there: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Even overlooking this, I don't think that DRV is the right place to argue over a subject's notability or sources, but rather whether process was followed in the handling of the AFD itself. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you that this should not be the place to discuss notability or sources (So I will try not to). However this is exactly my point, this discussion did not take place during (at least the second) AfD, hence there is no basis for consensus. Only two editors who voted delete briefly mentioned the sources but failed to elucidate. — Slaapwel 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my opinion, the second AFD was handled as it was because of the extremely strong consensus in the first. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that there was anything handled incorrectly in the matter of this one's closure, though, which is why I'm perplexed as to why it's here at DRV. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason there even was a second AfD in the first place, was because reliable sources had been added on the day the first AfD closed. (It might be interesting to note that on the first AfD somebody (an admin nonetheless) changed his vote from strong delete to just delete because of the G4Tv reference. That's even before the Globe and Mail source was added.) The problem however is that on the second AfD nobody bothered to discuss the validity of these added sources. One of the delete votes was actually because he thought it should have gone straight to Deletion Review instead of another AfD. You might see consensus, I just see three people claiming the article to be unencylopedic without a solid argumentation (withouth even discussing the sources at hand). — Slaapwel 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - No notability established and youtube hits dont replace notability Corpx 15:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody even mentioned the "YouTube hits", except you. — Slaapwel 15:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arent channel views the same as hits? Corpx 08:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you are referring to the first AfD, I really don't see the point in that. The sources were added on the day the first AfD closed. In the second AfD there wasn't any or at least insufficient discussion about the validity of the sources. You were actually the only one of the delete voters that even tried. Although I can hardly see how that constitutes as consensus. — Slaapwel 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFD process appears to have been initiated properly, with the discussion centering around whether the blog and forum sources are legitimate. Forums are not reliable sources, so this is a valid concern. There are potentially 1-2 sources for this, depeding on the outcome of the blog debate. However, the AFD process was confused by several users who were suspected of sockpuppetry. If we attempt to assume good faith and count them, we are 7-6 in favor of delete, with many speedy deletes. I move to relist on AFD to establish a general concensus. Community editor 15:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify. Are you aware there were two AfD's? I have the impression your comment (vote count, etc.) applies to the first AfD, while the one on discussion is mostly the second. — Slaapwel 11:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I was aware of that. The second appeared to have the same situation: a weak bias towards deletion (if we again include the potential SPAs). Keep in mind that the AFD process is NOT a vote and is instead a DISCUSSION so speaking of vote counts is irrelevant. In any event, I would have preferred that the AFD discussion centered around the veracity of the sources you used, and whether the topic itself was appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you'd like me to consider the second AFD, then I'm a lot closer to a delete reccommendation, but I'd much rather see this extensively revised and with more legitimate sources--the cached revision is not encyclopedic content. Community editor 15:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you'll read some of my comments above you'll see that this is exactly my point. The discussion about the validity of the sources did not take place in the second AfD. They were barely even mentioned. That's why I don't understand anybody could claim there was a consensus. Nor do I understand or support the closing argument of the admin. — Slaapwel 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, second AFD closure was valid and discounts SPAs. --Coredesat 08:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you even read the AfD? If some of you guys insist on making this about count of votes, at least count it right! Let's clarify this once and for all: there were 10 votes on the second AfD. Two can be qualified as single-purpose accounts (69.248.175.25 who voted delete, Oates151 who voted keep). That leaves 8 votes. 4 delete (Ekjon Lok, Andrew Lenahan, Haemo, Corpx), 4 keep (Slaapwel, Tim, Rhymeless, Superruss, Kphipps3000). That's 4-4 (discounting nomination, if you want to nitpick). And if you would actually read the AfD, you would see there simply was no consensus. — Slaapwel 10:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the edit count, I would put Kphipps3000 as a SPA. Superruss' reasoning was "Daxflame is a phenomenon! He is at the cutting edge of Web 2.0" and should be discounted because its basically WP:INTERESTING. Corpx 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_18&oldid=1146623244"