Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 1-15

< February 16-28 2007	Deletion review archives	March 16-31 2007 >

15 March 2007[edit]

John Bambenek – Speedily endorsed, nominator blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet – Core desat 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since deletion, subject has been interviewed by Daily Show, had a piece exclusively on him by ABC News, and has had about a dozen columns syndicated wildly on various papers and journals. His prominence continues to grow, even all the sysops here know him. Jcunha2 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this ABC news piece? If not, what are you talking about? It's a shame that the deletion discussions have been marred by sockpuppets the way they have, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Speedy close the last review closed on the 9th, 6 days ago. We really don't need to go through this every week. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, yet again another Bambenek sockpuppet. Corvus cornix 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse again. This has now got to the point of trolling. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talend – Deletion endorsed, no prejudice against a less-spammy recreation (see User:Elisa-Talend/Talend) – Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Talend page was speedily deleted by Nishkid64 for CSD#A7 reason, putting forward that Talend.com ranks badly on Alexa traffic ranking website. However, imho, I don't think Alexa traffic ranking is a valid representative of global internet usage. Fair enough, Talend is new on wikipedia and a pretty young player in the BI and ETL industry, but Talend is present and active on known resources websites such as SourceForge.netor on FreshMeat. Moreover after a year of existence, Talend is already the Technology partner of JasperSoftas the ETL OEM solution embedded in the JBIS suite, a Gold partner of MySQL, the ETL brick of the SpagoBIstack and has been approached by numerous Open Source as well as Proprietary software companies to setup integration and technological partnerships. Eventually Talend is co-founder with a large number of global Open Source keyplayers of the OSA and was invited to join the ObjectWeb consortium - OW2. I hope this information will let you think that Talend is "notable" enough to overturn the Talend article deletion decision. Elisa-Talend 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it was deleted because it read as spam. I can't see the article, but I have no reason to believe Nishkid is trigger-happy on spam deletions, so endorse. Nothing's stopping you from writing a version that doesn't read like an advertisement, even if you think you've done so already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This was initially what I thought too, but please check out the exchange history with Nishkid64. I'm ready to follow the rules but I need some guidances, content-wise then, because I am getting confused how to proceed now.thnks. Elisa-Talend 15:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I see. My suggestion: User:Elisa-Talend/Talend is a place you can work on the article, and I'll be glad to help you on it. When it meets the standards (if possible, no promises), we'll move it to the proper place and be all set with it. If you do this sooner rather than later, we can show people as they review this deletion that there's a better article in place already, ready to be moved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great. Thanks a mil. I'm gonna work on it now.Elisa-Talend 16:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll keep it watchlisted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion article at time of deletion absolutely reeked of advertising/spam, up to and including the following (in bold text, no less): "Talend makes data integration tools accessible to everyone!". No opinion on whether a good article on Talend is possible, but we sure as heck don't want that one coming back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as being well within guidelines. If the author believes that an encyclopedic article can be written they are more than welcome to - the title is not protected and there is nothing preventing them from writing a new article from scratch, so long as it's not the same material. Arkyan 19:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I still feel that Talend has not had the time to assert its notability. The company has only been online for a year or so, and I am a bit skeptical on notability per WP:WEB for such an article. It seems too soon for the company to actually be a leader in its field, too. Nishkid 64 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With regard to notability, BI and, in particular ETL, are very focused fields, hence Talend (as well as [| Pentaho], which btw does have its own wikipedia article) are not Microsoft nor Google, but does this mean they don't deserve being mentioned in this encyclopedic reference? Elisa-Talend 11:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse all deletions of COI spam. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, but no prejudice against creation of a non-spam version.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to all OK. I have no choice than accept this unanimous vote. But would it be possible for you(s) to comment the new article I propose: User:Elisa-Talend/Talend and possibly help me to correct it if applicable? With thanks. Elisa-Talend 11:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ho Hwee Long – Speedy close, copyright violation is quite obvious, and such can not be restored:) – GRBerry 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Person is a notable musician. Content does not infringe copyright. Hence no reason for deletion. Elaborations on how he meets wikipedia criteria for posting articles on musicians have previously been stated but were since lost when article was deleted without notice. Please restore those points if possible.Lmao123 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse copyvio deletion. Simply rewrite the article using the source, make sure you're following the major policy and relevant guideline, and you should be fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Verse Studios – Speedily restored as contested PROD, now at AFD – Core desat 08:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Factually correct and follows the same format as many other indie studios 69.237.201.118 08:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pligg – speedy close; deletion endorsed three days ago, no new information offered – GRBerry 00:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It was deleted on the grounds of "notability" less than a month ago and yet *is* notable. It has 2.58 million Google hits (Pligg doesn't seem to be the name of anything else - every of the top 20 results is for the software). Nominator gave the following reason for deletion: "This article has no external references. Unable to find a single news article or mention of the site in reputable source". Firstly, we shouldn't be fixing a lack of references by deleting the article. Secondly, why would *news* establish whether software is "notable" or not? "MediaWiki" only gets 27 news hits at Google News. One of those who voted "delete" claimed "seems to fail WP:WEB". Problem: you can't fail a guideline (you can only not fulfil it). The fact that such an article can be deleted strikes me as a failure of our deletion mechanisms. Essentially, an article that is bound to get plenty of readers has been deleted based upon an out-of-touch and overformalised sense of notability. Oldak Quill 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arizona Jewelers Association – deletion endorsed – GRBerry 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable Organization. This page was deleted because the Administrators did not believe the AJA is a notable Organization. However, the AJA is a very active and committed organization, that while new to the web has been working to promote ethics on a Statewide level for many years. It has recently begun to be more active online and as such wishes to include information about it's organization here in Wikipedia. While the administrators who deleted this article may not be aware of the AJA, it is well known in the jewelry industry and well regarded. The AJA holds a conference every year with speakers from around the U.S. attending to speak on every topic from Jade and Platinum to the Kimberley Process. Past speakers have included the primary authors of the Kimberley Process, and leading world experts on various minerals and jewelry processes. I will admit that the article needed to be updated, but instead of deleting it out-right with no notification to the primary author of the article Saint Gulik, it would've been nice to know that the article was being considered for deletion. 71.223.143.86 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse for now. Can you come up with any sources at all? WP:CORP is the applicable guideline to work off of here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, properly conducted AfD per above, no rationale for overturning presented. Deletion review is not AfD part 2... per above, "This page is about process, not about content." Unless a fleshed out reason can be provided other than "non-notable" (i.e., new sources indicating some notability that were not properly presented at the original deletion discussion) the original AfD should stand. If indeed such sources exist, no prejudice to recreation as a properly sourced article asserting said notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nearly all the comments in the AfD were "per nom", and the nom gave a pretty weak reason for nomination, based on guidelines not policies. That said, the AfD ran its full course and no one stepped up to support the article, so no reason to overturn. To me, it appears that this could form the basis of an encyclopedic article, so I'd suggest creating a new one that complies with content policy. Agent 86 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The latest revision before deletion had no sources to back up any claims of notability, a valid reason for an AfD. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 March 2007[edit]

Accidental Centaurs – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Accidental Centaurs is a webcomic created and drawn by John Lotshaw that debuted on January 15, 2002. Sandstein closed AfD#1 on 14 December 2006, stating that the outcome of the deletion debate was delete. On 19 December 2006, King of Hearts speedy deleted Accidental Centaurs and redirected it to deleted page "The Accidental Centaurs."[1] On 12 March 2007 BradBeattie speedy deleted Accidental Centaurs writing, "Redeleting previously AFD'd article."[2] Dread Lord CyberSkull now seeks review of the delete outcome of the 14 December 2006 AfD, reasoning that "this page was deleted simply because it had been deleted under an AFD before, and oddly enough, the nominator proved the notability of the work." (Summary provided by Jreferee 06:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Overturn This page was deleted simply because it had been deleted under an AFD before, and oddly enough, the nominator proved the notability of the work. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is published by Plan 9 Publishing. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and endorse re-deletions. This article was deleted for lack of notability. No new evidence has been presented to justify revisiting that decision. The webcomic has been released in print (3 books that I could find) but the Amazon sales rankings are 1,865,341, 2,135,425 and None. Rossami (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse for now. 3 book collections would seem like a good sign, but the Amazon rankings are abysmal and none of the 3 had any editorial reviews listed. The article itself was totally unreferenced, and we wouldn't want it coming back in that form. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse In the case of books it should be easy to point to reviews in mass market media to demonstrate notabilty. If you can do this, I'll be prepared to review my !vote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closing admin. Neither the article subject to AfD nor the recreated version come even close to meeting any notability guideline. Being published as a book does not constitute notability, as we are not an index of books. Sandstein 06:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Brown Quote – PROD deletion overturned – GRBerry 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Escalalting use of the phrase in UK business 4five 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately undeleted since it was deleted as a PROD. —An gr 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

HHO gas, Aquygen, Brown's gas, Magnecular bond – Deletions endorsed w/o prejudice against creation of a sourced article, article space unprotected – trialsanderrors 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

...

A number of related articles are being repeatedly nominated for deletion for inappropriate reasons. Although I agree with some of the deletions, this topic needs to be covered in some form or other. Salting is entirely inappropriate. At least one or two of the articles need to be re-created, though I'm not sure which or in which format.

This is not a request to undelete all of these articles. It is a request to cover the topic in some way in Wikipedia, and to undelete one or two articles for this purpose. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Reviewing several articles at once.

I've just gone through all the various AfDs, and all of the reasons cited for deletion fall under one of the following:

"Violates WP:HOAX", "Most likely a hoax", " concept exists only within a fringe theory"
- This is probably the biggest complaint, but is not, in fact, a valid criteria for deletion. Contrary to popular belief, WP:HOAX does not prohibit articles about hoaxes. Go read it. It prohibits creating articles that are hoaxes. We have hundreds of articles about hoaxes, frauds, pseudosciences, scientific fallacies, cons, and deceptions, and this is a very Good Thing.
"Violates WP:NN", "Google returns 769 hits on this person", "nothing that would qualify as a reliable source. Blogs, forums, post your own press release sites", "No reliable, third party sources"
- I've compiled a list of references for the article, which also clearly demonstrates that the topic meets our primary criterion: It's been mentioned in a peer-reviewed journal and featured in a number of independent newspapers, in both articles and televised reports.
"But those are all self-published promotional sources"
- No they aren't. "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight." Even the article in Nexus magazine doesn't count as self-publishing. Independent, third-party newspapers and journals definitely don't.
"Violates WP:OR", " User:Nseidm1 editing/re-creating these articles may be in a Conflict of interest"
- Yes, Noah needs to be prevented from biasing the article, but this is a user problem, not an article problem. We don't delete articles just because they've been edited by people who might be biased. (Note that he endorsed deletion after I had edited the article to be more neutral.)
"But look at this huge list of related AfDs; this article should be deleted, too, because it's similar", "Numerous articles that did not survive AfD in the past are recently recreated as redirect to this page"
- Repeated deletion and re-creation of similar articles is not a criteria for deletion. In fact, our deletion policy states that "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article"
"I'm sick and tired of reverting this into a semi-sane state."
- Me too, but it's our duty to cover it in some form, in a neutral, verifiable, scientific way.

I'm currently leaning towards a Brown's gas article and an HHO gas article, since they are promoted by different people and claimed to be unique substances. The Ruggero Santilli article was kept, so the magnecule stuff can go in his own article. Stuff about conventional electrolysis→oxyhydrogen welding goes in Oxy-fuel welding and cutting#Hydrogen.

Overturn as nominator; weren't nominated for valid reasons. At the least, salting to prevent re-creation is inappropriate given notability of topic. — Omegatron 14:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid AFDs with clear and strong consensus towards deletion. >Radiant< 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you also endorse salting to prevent re-creation? — Omegatron 14:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional overturn. What Omegatron says. The deletions, individually, clearly are justifiable. But as a whole, we should have at least one page on the topic. I agree there is enough outside coverage to make this notable, and there is evidence of a need for an article. (Though I'm not touching the task of maintaining it with a ten foot pole—but that's not a valid reason to have nothing at all on the topic other than salted pages.) Even if it's scientifically confused partisan nonsense, the need for this encyclopedia to explain the "why", and to cover the history, remains.
I support the suggestion to keep Brown's gas and HHO gas as distinct topics, with restrictions of the content on POV, notability, and verifiability as per the previous AfDs. The ruling on other pages such as Yull Brown, Denny Klein, Aquygen, etc. will remain that they should not be recreated except as protected redirects to their appropriate main page. Femto 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. As much as I may feel that the concept, in general, has enough notability and can be well enough sourced to merit at least one article as per User:Omegatron above, the previous AfD's were all valid and there was a strong consensus to delete, so there is no grounds to overturn the deletion. I do take issue with the protected deletion, however, as it precludes re-creating the article under encyclopedic standards. I do understand the closing admin's concerns though, as the article kept getting re-created and re-deleted, and the back and forth becomes a difficult issue. Arkyan 17:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletionAs is explained here there were numerous violations of policy cited in the many AfD's: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Klein for a detailed analysis refuting nominators suggestions.
1. Being a hoax is not relevant, the missing RS is what this is about.
2. Contrary to WP:SPAM several commercial websites are used as source.
3. There are no non-promotional sources available. Even those by CNN and FOX are nothing more than reporting on the promotion by Klein.
4. There are no independent and journalistic credible sources debunking the claims.
5. The previous 2 points make any article a violation of WP:NN, WP:OR and WP:RS.
6. All this resulted in the deletion of all these similar articles. As long as no editor can supply non-promotional sources there is no point in recreating yet again.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already addressed your concerns in the nomination. Articles presented by third-party, independent newspapers are, in fact, reliable sources for the claims that have been made. They are not self-published, and they are not promotional. Please read through WP:NN, WP:SPAM, and WP:RS, especially WP:SELFPUB, very carefully. — Omegatron 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You still have to explain how buying a report in the media (established news organisation or not) is something other than a subtle advertisement. That still does not constitue RS. As long as no independent news organisation makes a non-promotional comment there is no RS and no NN.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll bite. Reliable sources and notability have provisions for not include non-independant sources such as vanity press, but if you look at the list of references, this topic has appeared on many separate TV stations, newspapers, and JREF considered it notable enough to mention it three times in the newsletter to refute the technology. Were all of those people "bought" ? John Vandenberg 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse without prejudice to coverage as and when reliable independent sources can be found. We have deleted Aetherometry and Electric Universe for pretty much the same reasons: no sources outside of their proponents, no critical review in reputable sources. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The latest article HHO gas should not be judged on the prior Afd's as Omegatron and others put a lot of work into ensuring this article had the WP:RS up front. I'm happy that this has been raised at DRV as the the last AfD skipped my attention because it wasnt delsorted and User:Nescio didnt notify anyone involved about the Afd. The use of WP:NN was in denial of the sources that Omegatron had collated on Talk:HHO gas#References, and the use of the proposed guideline WP:SCI as an argument for deletion was making an assumption that the patents and journal articles that were provided are false, and thus the subject isnt worth an article (undue weight). That rationale for deletion is also unpalatable, as it is in difference to the current practise of documenting pathological science/Fringe science/Hoaxes/Pseudoscience (e.g. Polywater, N ray) (one Afd participant mentioned this). I suggest non-admins review Talk:HHO gas to get a feel for the content that was in the latest article. To the admins, it is quite possible the article POV had switched before the Afd so I suggest going back to Omegatron's last revision to see where the article was going. John Vandenberg 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If seeking to overturn a consensus based deletion, it would be best to split these four deletion reviews out seperately so that they can be given consideration on an individual basis. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I dont think that there is any call for all of these articles to be undeleted; the problem is that any article remotely related to this are winding up on Afd (multiple times) and being deleted with calls for liberal salt. I am pretty sure that the serious contributors to these articles would be happy to have only one article restored (HHO gas being the best candidate IMO) and its content disputed on the Talk page rather than littered over many Afds and deleted talk pages. Femto makes a good point that not all of these should be restored. IMO having all of the articles restored would only result in more Afds. Note that Institute for Basic Research and Ruggero Santilli were also nominated for deletion without an afd warning being placed on my talk page (at that stage I was the only contributor to each article). John Vandenberg 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked on the talk page and was told to list it like this, with all the articles at once so we can discuss them all at once, since only one or two need to be kept. See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Reviewing_several_articles_at_once. — Omegatron 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. Since this is the same issue for all four articles, it's better to discuss it in one thread rather than four. >Radiant< 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion jesus christ people... WP:HOAX, WP:MADEUP ... absolutely zero facts involved here. WP:RS are required... there are none. Keep them deleted, salt them, and indef block article recreators as timewasters violating WP:POINT. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:HOAX and WP:MADEUP say don't make up hoaxes and post them pretending to be real articles, not that the encyclopedia can't cover notable hoaxes. Rossami (talk)
- Did you look at Talk:HHO gas#References ? Please comment on the lack of WP:RS based on those references, of which most were in the HHO gas article at one point or another in between various content disputes. John Vandenberg 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually read those guidelines before citing them here? You should. Especially WP:HOAX#Hoaxes vs. articles about hoaxes. — Omegatron 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist HHO gas with the limited goal of determining whether this particular hoax is notable enough for a stand-alone article. It's alleged above but I'm not yet convinced. But the article was changed significantly during the discussion and if doesn't appear that the discussion participants noticed the change.
If this is kept deleted, I recommend unprotection so it can be replaced with an appropriate redirect instead of the {{deletedpage}} template. (No opinion yet on the others.) Rossami (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lack of non-promotional sources discussing the subject is an indication of its notability. That is no RS are available endorsing or debunking the stuff.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree that there are not many sources available for "endorsing or debunking the stuff", so the article shouldnt attempt to do either. That doesnt prevent an article being written about the claims that have been made, the facts that are known, and the general level of scepticism shown by media and others. This allows readers who hear about these technologies to make their own opinions using more information than is provided by the people making the claims. As an example, if someone was to hear that there was a journal article about this, they would be impressed to find that the journal article really did exist and it is a reputable journal. However they would be less keen on the technology when they learn that Ruggero Santilli has "self-published" the majority of his books and journal articles. We can join those dots by having an article based the reliable sources we have. John Vandenberg 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This subject keeps cropping up, including on TV, and similar things have appeared many times over the decades. And there are other articles that are related and would link to it. As pointed out above, according to WP:HOAX, honest articles about hoaxes are legitimate. Man with two legs 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and provide a chance for re-editing before relisting. (I presume this may result in a partial merge, but I make no assumption about what the merge should be. This is a matter for the editors. obviously some compromises will be necessary.) There are always voices wanting to reject articles on fringe science.

Most know that total rejection of such topics is not likely, and so argue on the basis of N and RS. Given the scientific sophistication of the public, any fringe theory that can obtain some initial publicity usually becomes N, regardless of the absurdity. (there are exceptions where WP is being used in an attempt to get the initial publicity, and these should of curse be rejected).

Given the state of scientific journalism, there will usually be RSs in the form of newspaper articles, which are probably truly RSs for giving the state of public notice and opinion, though hardly RSs for the state of scientific knowledge. Usually there will be RSs from scientists explaining the invalidity, except for some newish ones that nobody thinks worth refuting in a formal way. Sometimes there will be RSs from a real scientist or two supporting the theory; there is no education that prevents peculiarity. The only logical rule is that once it is in the newspapers, then it goes in WP. (I would personally extend this, and say that when it is discussed in several widely-read blogs not originating from the author of the theory, these are also RSs for the state of public notice. )

We really cannot discriminate of the grounds of scientific likelihood, for we are not judges of that any more than we are of religion or politics (and in a practical sense we cannot discriminate because we will rarely be able to achieve more than temporary consensus for what should be included). What we can judge, is what the state of public and scientific opinion is, and what we can be responsible for is accurate reporting. DGG 18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. The request of this deletion review - "to cover the topic in some way in Wikipedia, and to undelete one or two articles for this purpose" - is outside the scope of the purpose of deletion review. This deletion review invites discussion, the outcome of which could not be "to cover the topic in some way in Wikipedia, and to undelete one or two articles for this purpose" since such a request is vague (not clear) and ambiguous (could mean different things to different people). Rather than allowing others to waste time on this, speedy close please. -- Jreferee 05:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it helps you focus on the matter at hand, consider this as a deletion review specificly for HHO gas, the most recently and least opined Afd. John Vandenberg 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: This extract from Jimbo's posting about Crackpot Physics from 2003 persuades me that having an article on these topics is not necessary.

(a) if those are valid concepts about which we need an article, we should patch these up or rewrite them so they aren't nonsense

(b) if those are *known* and *popular* crackpot ideas, then we should have an article about them, identifying them *as* ideas that are completely rejected by the consensus of leading scientists or NPOV verbiage to that effect

(c) if those are *individualized* crackpot ideas, i.e. stuff made up by one anonymous crank, then after some time on 'votes for deletion' they should just be deleted, not for being false, but for failing the test of confirmability.

His first point (a) is where we are now, trying to reconcile these ideas with standard science. His option (b) is covered by WP:HOAX, where we are allowed to have articles about famous hoaxes, known to be hoaxes. We are not in case (b) in the present discussion because we don't know it to be a hoax, we just know very little at all. His case (c) presumably describes stuff that fails WP:ATT because it's a single crank. We are not in case (c), the isolated crank, because these are shared ideas, though they are not shared by people who can express themselves well using widely-understood scientific terminology.

Our problem is that there is no reliable secondary literature. I wouldn't trust a summary of this issue unless it was offered by somebody fluent in standard science. We only have documents created by partisans, in other words, we're struggling to parse the primary sources. It's not our duty to create new secondary literature on this issue. After Science publishes their article, or Reviews of Modern Physics, then it's time for us to summarize this material in Wikipedia. That time has not yet come. EdJohnston 01:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case its useful to others, Jimbo's email lists three articles that were being considered:

Plasma cosmology, which has many reputable source and still has the {{totallydisputed}} tag
Dynamic theory of gravity, tagged with {{accuracy}}, and proposed to merge with Nikola Tesla
Rotating magnetic field, which now redirects to Magnetic field with a section "Rotating magnetic fields"

John Vandenberg 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we are in (a), but the article should be deleted? Option a is "patched up or rewritten". — Omegatron 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, "HHO gas" is hovering somewhere between (a) and (b); some think it is definitely (b) and nominated the article after some (a) was added. Ed is spot on with their being a lack of "reliable secondary literature" for the scientific concept "HHO gas" (there are a few: [3], but they dont suffice to discredit the science); however there is a great deal of coverage of the idea of "HHO gas" and "Brown gas" and whatever it is that Santilli has written about in his journal article.

In regards to "Brown's Gas", there are a decent number of scholar results, suggesting that we can write an article about it using primarily reputable scientific publications. John Vandenberg 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a scientific journal or textbook; it's an encyclopedia, which means we cover notable things in a neutral way. The topic is clearly notable, so we should cover it. To write in a neutral way, we just say:

Ruggero Santilli wrote a paper which claims this and this. Denny Klein runs a company that does this and says this about his products. None of this has been significantly reviewed or acknowledged by the scientific establishment.

Perfectly neutral and reliably sourced. If you want to go further and evaluate the actual claims a little, you can, but it's only here that the secondary scientific literature comes in. If there really isn't any mention of this by reliable scientific sources, we can still make straightforward logical deductions, such as debunking Klein's quotes of a car that runs on water and mentioning similar things like the water fuel cell, linking to the articles about electrolysis products and oxyhydrogen welders that electrolyze water without any bogus gas claims, etc.

Even without scientific literature or logical deductions, we can quote the opinions of people like Randi, who are not reliable sources on science, but notable enough to be sourced as critics. — Omegatron 07:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thinking that "common ducted electrolysis" might be a familiar technical term, I did a Google search for the fully quoted phrase. The first two hits are in Noah Seidman's wiki, the third hit is John Vandenberg's draft article! (User_talk:Jayvdb/Denny_Klein). While it is charming to think that Noah's web site and John's User talk are now the world centers of research on this topic, it does suggest there is no strong background in standard science to which this material can be anchored. If all we can do is write a 'He said, she said' article, we are just like journalists who don't understand the science and are merely writing down what people say. I also read part of a William Rhodes paper that I found on the web. While it seems that he does know how to execute some standard lab procedures, his claims for the high burning temperature of his mixed gas are hard to credit, and do seem contradictory, as I think someone else has noted in one of the WP discussions. But a detailed critique of Rhodes's work is another primary source analysis that I don't think is our business. Do you imagine that William Rhodes ever ventured into a university chemistry department to give a seminar talk? Do you imagine he ever tried to collaborate with a recognized combustion lab to see if they could reproduce his claimed results? If he did so, no-one has reported that yet in our WP discussions. What we do know is that he files patents that repeat his wonderful claims. EdJohnston 23:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dead Oceans – overturned, merge suggested via template – GRBerry 18:54, 19 March 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 speedy-deleted for lack of notability. I believe it should be undeleted, as subject meets Wikipedia's notability criterion. Dead Oceans is a new record label that is a sister label of two well-established indie record labels: Jagjaguwar and Secretly Canadian. The initial roster of Dead Oceans includes Bishop Allen, an important, previously unsigned band that has a Wikipedia entry. Its creation is a significant event in the musical world. More importantly, although Dead Oceans is new, it meets Wikipedia's notability criterion as a number of significant, independent sources have already written about it, including Pitchfork Media and Austin 360. I'm afraid that, as something of a newbie, I failed to include links to these independent sources in my initial version of the entry, which I suspect is why DragonflySixtyseven performed a speedy deletion for reasons of notability. However, I am convinced that adding these independent, published sources to my entry would make Dead Oceans an entirely appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Please consider undeleting it. It should go without saying that I have no personal connection whatsoever to this record label. BenA 14:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and possibly list. I'm making no statement on DF67's speedy (although being the label for a bluelinked artist is a worthwhile notability assertion), but there's more than enough here now to consider it on a broader scale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it as "not yet notable". Given that it was founded in February 2007, and that the article quoted from the press release saying that Dead Oceans WILL feature bold and timeless etc, I felt that the use of the future tense was sufficient indication that Dead Oceans isn't there yet. If you think there's enough for a new article, make a new article. If I agree, I'll undelete the old one for a history merge. DS 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unhelpfully sitting on the fence Are there multiple non-trivial sources and/or references to verify whether this label is notable. If these can be produced than its worth an article. Otherwise, keep deleted without prejudice to recreation when they are available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources (or lack thereof) are irrelevant when it comes to A7s and assertions of notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That depends on your point of view. I see no reason to undelete an article that is going to fail to meet a core tenet such as verifiabilty. Anything that can be sourced is invariably worth having. Articles that cant be sources are invariably going to fail to meet basic requirements and will eventually get deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's really not a POV, CSD is very clear - an assertion is all that's necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, OK. Rereading this and in particular DS's comments, I see that he/she deleted the article because it wasnt yet notable. Jeff's right, that's not what A7 is for - although I have seen a lot of eminently worthless crud removed from the site by stretching A7 in that way. However, Restore and List at AFD is probably the correct way to go now - but if someone can steer me in the direction of the AFD, I'm almost certainly going to argue for deletion in the absence of the multiple non-trivial sources I mentioned earlier. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, don't bother with AfD, redirect to Secretly Canadian (or Jagjaguwar) and grow the section until it's a viable stand-alone article. Can't chide the admin for deleting this because it's really just a presse release, but yeah, offspring of SC/Jag should be mentioned. ~ trialsanderrors 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Quantum-Touch – overturned and listed at AFD – GRBerry 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page flagged for speedy deletion due to reposted content. Content was written fresh from scratch (my first submission ever here). Admin deleted page due to reason "waving magic crystals". I do not believe a new article should be speedily deleted in this instance. See talk:Luigi30 for discussion engaged. First attempt to dialog was simply deleted from talk page. Trane Francks 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn assuming the version written was not spam. The original AfD referred to it being an advertisement, the other deletions were either due to a prod or via G11 - spam. If it's an ad, no complaints, but not if it isn't. Luigi's comment, as well, - "Your page has been deleted six times by several different administrators. That in itself is a criterion for being deleted." - is disconcerting due to its complete misunderstanding of speedy deletion policy, which may play a role here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse deletion. Not only have we debated the concept and found it wanting for independent sources, this article was blatantly promotional - in fact it looks like a copy-paste of a sales brochure. It is entirely referenced from the website selling the concept, and the concept is so self-evidently snake oil that I can't find any credible sources who even bother to debunk it. Finally, a quick Google indicates that Trane may have a conflict of interest here. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quantum-Touch is one of a family of "modalities" commonly falling under the banner of Energy medicine. Reiki, Qi, qi gong, acupuncture and other approaches to energy-based healing are very much related and, in fact, several articles link back to QT here. I apologize if my article came off as ad copy; I was merely trying my very best to ensure it did not read as first-person spam. Re: Conflict of Interest - if I were a martial artist attempting to pen a solid article on Chinese martial arts, it wouldn't be an issue, right? If there are specific problems with the article itself, I would prefer we deal with those. I'm happy to fix any deficiencies there. Trane Francks 13:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reiki gets rather more Google hits, and has reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Reiki gets more hits. I doubt that it would be incorrect to presume it is because Reiki has more history behind it. (It was defined in the mid-19th century.) QT does get over 200,000 Google hits, however, and that makes it notable in my opinion. Trane Francks 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Any COI is irrelevant to this discussion - COI does not govern whether material should exist. The discussion from over a year ago never once touched upon sources, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, relevant to discussions of process. The problems with the article are independent of the conflict of interest, and include the fact that it is advertorial. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do believe that my use of terms such as "concepts of Quantum-Touch are claimed to be related to", "it is claimed in the book that" and "techniques are claimed to cover the gamut of emotional and physical issues" decidedly remove any hint of advertising. If you can show me a single point in the article where I state any of QT's claims to be fact, please do. And back to COI - is it actually the case that a participant in a certain activity or sport cannot offer Wikipedia articles on said activities? Understand that I am not a QT employee peddling wares nor am I in any sense "competing" with other healing modalities, I am simply a person who is aware of several forms energy-based healing. I find the lack of a representative article on Wikipedia notable for the simple fact that heaps of directly-related material is available here. If there are issues of tone or delivery in the article, I'm happy to work to fix those. Trane Francks 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to point out that Blatant Advertising point 11 states "an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well". Although I disagree that the article is advertorial in nature, would you please indicate what content you thought to be inappropriate in support of speedy deletion? Also, to address an earlier point, I take exception to your claim that all the information was entirely referenced from the web site. Although I cited the web site to indicate the source of information, other information was taken from the Revised Edition of the book, Interactive Video Workshop DVDs, Supercharging DVDs and Core Transformation DVDs. And re: self-evidently snake oil, I consider both Reiki and Quantum-Touch to be on equal footing there, as both practices were formed from the inspiration of a single person. Since p4 and p11 of the criterion for speedy deletion did not apply for this particular article, deletion was inappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trane Francks (talk • contribs) 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse deletion, no reliable sources -> no reason to invalidate the AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn The AfD was partially based on lack of ghits, thus demonstrating that there was no general public awareness. There are now 210,000; removing duplicates & directory listings, there are probably about 50,000. Naturally, most of these are mentions of the books on the subject or personal testimonials in blogs. I think that shows N. The books on the subject are probably RSs for what the technique is, though of course not for N, but the ghits do show public awareness & so it is significant.

Significant noticed total nonsense in my opinion, but that isn't a factor. DGG 19:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 March 2007[edit]

Xtreme ice skating – deletion endorsed – GRBerry 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrote the entire article from anew. Prolite 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse deletion.~~ I'm sorry, but it really appears to be something made up one day. The version you have on the talkpage isn't exactly confidence-inspiring either. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list per badlydrawnjeff's comments. We need to relist this at AfD or prod it; I didn't really see anything that made it nonsense, per se. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. I wasn't aware games were a speedy deletion criterion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. It's nonsense. --Core desat 23:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What part? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jeff, seriously, what do you seek to gain by making badgering remarks like this one whenever I or some other people make a comment on deletion review? >Radiant< 08:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xtreme endorse yet another extreme foo neologism. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neologisms can be speedied? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, when they are nonsense, vanity and spam as well. This one was. And it was created by a single purpose account. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Evidence of the first and third, perhaps? Not that the second is a speedy criteria... --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jeff, seriously, what do you seek to gain by making badgering remarks like this one whenever I or some other people make a comment on deletion review? >Radiant< 08:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So asking for further evidence for a claim is a problem for you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Evidence of the first and the third are in the article. You appear to be being contrarian. Please choose worthier targets for your enthusiasm, this article was egregious puffery. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I can accept contrarian. The version I saw certainly wasn't either of those things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In your opinion. Several of us disagree with you. It is a one-person term promoted by one person, with multiple namechecks to that person, and no sources in the article or externally that I can find which trace back to anyone other than that one person. Valid G11 and A7. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Valid G11 maybe. I don't believe the version required a "fundamental rewrite" as required, but maybe there's some wiggle room there, I certainly can't see it now. Games and neologisms, however, are not valid A7s. Period. This is a statement of fact. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list Perhaps any speedy contested in good faith should be listed or prodded. Most of the ones contested are obviously not in good faith, but an honest attempt to rewrite an article deserves a hearing.DGG 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist just so it can be erased with an honest-to-goodness AfD. JuJube 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Waste of time, I'd say. All 23 unique Googles track back to the supposed originator. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as self-promotive spam of a nn group (CSD G11 and A7, not to mention the iceball clause...) and redirect to Ice skating to solve the problem. >Radiant< 12:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion. JuJube tagged this page with {{db-nonsense}}. This was incorrect since the articles were not patent nonsense in the very narrow way we use that term here. However, the article was essentially unsourced and did not make an assertion of notability that I can find. Google turns up nothing that qualifies as an independent, reliable source. I think this was a valid speedy-deletion under case A7. No prejudice against a rewrite if someone can find the required sources and evidence of notability. Rossami (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources are not a requirement of A7, nor does A7 allow for the speedy deletion of games. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the deleted content and the source material, I consider this to be an article about about the commercial enterprise which is promoting and profiting from the "games", not about the games themselves. This is not baseball. These games do not exist independently of the enterprise. In my opinion, A7 applies. Rossami (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Wrong speedy tag used, but templates breed faster than rabbits so I find that difficult to see as a good reason to overturn deletion. As there is no indication that the sport described in the article exists independently of the sole external link, this article should be considered as promoting that organisation, and falls under Articles-7 as no notability is asserted for that organisation. Xtreme deletion review awards bonus ~~vani~~ COI style points for using the founder's name twice in a two-sentence lead paragraph. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weakly endorse deletion I have to agree with Jeff's assessment that this deletion was out of process. However, since there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this will survive AfD because of obvious failure of WP:ATT, I don't quite see the point of going through undeletion. Pascal.Tesson 17:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power and subcategories – overturn self, will relist on CFD today. – >Radiant< 12:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

overturn self, will relist on CFD today. >Radiant< 12:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a pre-emptive strike, because I think whatever User:Radiant did in this category discussion might've ended up here. To be clear, I agree with Radiant that "Listify and delete" was the right solution to a complex problem. I voted Keep all, though, because the system had just been put into place after a series of very contentious arguments, and I wanted to see if the problem he theorized would actually develop. What Radiant did that I object to was introduce a solution that had not been discussed during the debate. I think the right answer here was for Radiant to introduce his solution and relist the debate. Because right now it looks like 17 Keep alls, 9 votes for deletion, and 1 vote for listifying, which is what won. I'd like to see if people agree with that direction.--Mike Selinker 15:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant deletion debate is here. With respect to the vote count, I must point out that there were several people other than myself suggesting listifying, and there were at least one sockpuppet, one sleeper account, and a few objections on procedural grounds only, in the "keep"-camp. But this is one of those issues where strength of argument trumps strength of numbers. I should also point out that it was closed (by me) as a listify, and changing a category into a list is not a removal of information.
With respect to the actual issue - there are several dozen categories like Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate ice or cold that are basically intended to categorize superheroes by what they can do. Apart from the awkward names, this gives two problems. First, for many characters it is unclear what they do (e.g. they can shapeshift into a flying creature, or use a tool for manipulating fire, so which cat do they get, if any?). More importantly, the proponents of these categories have apparently not thought of Category:Fictional wizards and Category:Fictional deities. If we think about Raistlin Majere, Gandalf, Mustrum Ridcully or Edward Elric, we must conclude they can do just about all of it. So if we use these categories properly, we have to add 30+ long-named categories to Albus Dumbledore, Merlin, Q and Willow Rosenberg. Clearly that is not a good idea, and by that token this categorization scheme is not practical. So endorse. >Radiant< 15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Radiant's second bullet point (though, as I mentioned, I would have liked to have to seen it develop naturally). But I don't agree with his first point. Changing to a list is removal of functionality, and shouldn't be viewed as a information-neutral change, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 16:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, changing to a list is adding functionality, in that you can add extra comments and remarks, as well as sort it in ways other than alphabetical. >Radiant< 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn for wider discussion. There were a great many lists and categories of this type brought up for deletion recently. The general voice on AfD was that they were impossibly vague--that criteria could not be made that would be sufficiently helpful.

This is something which concerns the many WP eds. who work on a wide range of fictional genres, and I think needs a general policy discussion. Personally, I find them interesting--but so did many who nonetheless !voted to delete.DGG 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn since I've said all along that the arguments offered for deletion didn't hold water and the closing nom specifically cites "strength of argument" in his reasoning for his decision. I would also like to point out that one of the categories included in this nomination was deleted separately and the DRV for it is here. Otto4711 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I disagree with Otto4711's assessment of the arguments to "delete". I could just as easily say that the "keep" arguments did not hold water, either. We should avoid ad hominem attacks and focus more on resolving this issue. A more fair assessment would be to say that the majority of people disagreed with the arguments for deletion, although several people apparently thought that the arguments to delete "did hold water". Dr. Submillimeter 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that a person's argument does not hold water can not reasonably be interpreted as an "attack" on the person. You are free to express your opinion that my keep arguments didn't hold water and I promise to not take it as an attack on my person. Otto4711 21:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - While I appreciate Radiant's actions, and while I still think that the categorization system is infeasible, I think the decision to delete and listify does go against consensus. Apparently, most people wanted to use the categories for navigation. Maybe a new discussion on listifying is warranted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Radiant raises an interesting proposal, but it probably should have been introduced as an ordinary voter such that it could have been discussed in the CfD, not as a closer and discussed in DRV. Anyway, as CfD part II, the problem with listifying this is that it seems like it'd be rather awkward to get to the list from an article. Maybe Superman will have a lot of categories at the end of his article, but that's better than a giant "See also" section with 10 "List of characters with power X." With television series casts, the television series is likely to be prominently linked somewhere in the article (and be an obvious place to go to find other actors from the series); that's not as likely for this. Plus, categories aren't just about getting the information. Cats are also a handy summary of key vital facts about the subject, and these "powers" seem to qualify as a decent cat on that basis. Now, maybe there's a good response to why lists are okay and this solution should be used... but again, this should have been discussed at the CfD. (Also, the issue about wizards and the like is valid, but ideally there'd be some standard in these categories that general magic-users, deities, etc. should be excluded.) SnowFire 21:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the major problem with these categories was that they were all Category:Made-up characters by made-up name for their made-up power. How is that proposed to be fixed? Guy (Help!) 00:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen discussion with Radiants' suggestion of listifying. While I understand and appreciate the reasons for deleting these categories, these categories seem to be the major ways in which these characters are now subcategorized. I think there is much room for improvement by renaming, perhaps removing a couple, and perhaps listifying most, but I don't think the case for deleting and listifying all of them has consensus. Nor is there a clear policy or guideline that can be cited that justifies making such a bold decision. Perhaps in the future there will be a consensus for handling this information in a different way, but we're not there yet. Lacking precedent, guideline or consensus, nothing is lost by reopening the debate to discuss Radiants' suggestion of listifying. -- SamuelWantman 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of debates for and against not only the deletion, but also the listification, were made in the original discussion, so if it were to reopen, a fairly detailed plan needs to be given, either on the discussion itself, or on a separate page. A lot of suggestions were made with no means of either replacing or repairing the system (it was stated as being irrepairable in the nom, however it seemed that no alternate method was researched, working off the evidence--this may not be the case). I'm still keeping the suggestion of forming clear, concise guidelines for a system (either of lists, which started long before the discussion was even considered, or categorization), of which I will unhesitantly assist with the creation and drawing up, so that it can be put into place immediately. --JB Adder | Talk 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kaminari – deletion endorsed but debate moot, a better article, with its own problems, written – GRBerry 00:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Redversunilaterally deleted a sourced article based on a Fudokan kata Kaminari. If this page is deleted i shoud deleted the page Fudokan, Taiji Shodan, Heian Oi-Kumi. That page is important karate kata. I continue to be troubled by the increasing numbers of unilateral deletions like this. UNDELETE_REASON Snake bgd 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly not unilateral [4] [5] [6] [7]. Article is now in user space and can develop there beyond its previous one word-and-a-pile-of-external-links existence. 〈RED VEЯS〉 14:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, falls under CSD Articles-1 or -3 due to lack of any content whatsoever. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I read it twice and still did not understand a word of it. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that to be the standard? There are a remarkable number of articles on various topics in highbrow and popular culture, and in science too, that I cannot understand. The question is whether someone interested in the subject would understand.DGG 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The page (with history) was moved to User:Snake bgd/Kaminari. No one, whether interested in the subject or not, would understand this page. It lacks both context and content necessary for understanding. Endorse speedy-deletion as both A1 and A3. Moving it to the userspace was the right solution. Rossami (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, a rare proper application of A1. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Being sourced does not depend on having sources alone. For content to be sourced, there also must be content. Not a single word. -Amarkov moo! 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

100 Greatest Stand-ups of All Time – copyvio deletion endorsed; a stub without the full list would be viable, but needs to be written from scratch – GRBerry 00:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:ChrisGriswold unilaterally deleted a sourced article based on a Comedy Central poll. By this logic, we need to delete lists like List of billionaires (2007) and Pop 100 number-one hits of 2005 (USA) unilaterally without any kind of AfD. I continue to be troubled by the increasing numbers of unilateral deletions like this. Jokestress 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those do need to go. Those lists are the intellectualy property of Forbes Magazine and Billboard, just as this is the intellectual property of Comedy Central. We can't reprint lists taken from such sources in full. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you cite the Wikipedia policy that covers speedy deletion of Fortune Global 500, etc.? Jokestress 09:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Can we speedy delete a list of Oprah's Book Club selections, or Time 100, or Inductees of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? These kinds of things seem as if they should be discussed in AfD. The article in question has over 50 links to it. Jokestress 09:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lists such as this, which are copied whole cloth from an original source violate fair use: Lists created by a single agency are their intellectual property. They are copyright violations and should be removed. It is for this reason that a number of these articles have been deleted.
    These lists are described at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4:
    "Under US case law, e.g. Eckes v. Card Prices Update, lists of items that are created entirely or primarily as a result of editorial opinion are subject to copyright protection. This explicitly excludes lists which are derived solely from facts, statistics, or polling data, as only opinion based lists are considered by the courts to have the requisite creativity required for copyright protection under US law. Consequently, the inclusion of the entirety of such a list solely for the purposes of adding it to Wikipedia will generally constitute a copyright infringment. Excerpts of such lists can be used in Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use when they are associated with meaningful discussion of the contents of the list, but under typical circumstances, one should never reproduce the entirety of such a list." --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the list had not been speedily deleted, other editors could see that it was derived from polling data and had nothing to do with the "editorial opinion" of Comedy Central. Also if it had not been speedily deleted, I could check with the editors who created it. I had nothing to do with its creation. I was merely filling in the last red link when I returned to see an established article removed unilaterally. Jokestress 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, not only is it a copyright problem but we do not need to have an article on every single seasonal spacefiller from every single outlet. If the list is discussed by other sources in depth, then we can have an article on the concept of the Comedy Central "100 Greatest Stand-ups of All Time", but unless that is the case we should not have an article. Reprinting the list is a definite no-no, as noted above. As a point of principle, if you find yourself copying and pasting large blocks of text into Wikipedia, you are almost always doing something wrong. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A poll of comedians rated by other comedians on the largest comedy-based media outlet in the world has more informational value than "seasonal spacefiller." This list is referred to constantly in the press, including NY Times [8] -- try doing a Google News Search right now. Jokestress 16:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and list Thorough discussion on the copyright page concluded that list of billionaires based on the Forbes list was not a copyright violation, as the placement of names on a list was a fact, which could not be copyrighted in the US--as supported by the widespread use of such lists in newspapers and other media. Same applies here; the apparent intent of the organizations producing the lists is to have them used with their name. If wider discussion of this is needed, fine. But the use of speedy is for incontestable deletions, and this was an erroneous use of process. From WP:DP "Article is possible copyright infringement: List on Wikipedia:Copyright problems." And the Speedy category is for (WP:CSD: Blatant copyright infringement. This could not be reasonably consider incontestable, and one person should not make the decision for the community.DGG 17:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. DGG's statement is extremely compelling. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion but I have a question - Can the Feb 4 copyright discussion be cited as authoritative in AFDing other lists that are covered by the quoted legal opinion? Otto4711 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. More to the point, can it be cited as authoritative for a unilateral speedy deletion? Jokestress 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation of Comedy Central's intellectual property. Should be speedy deleted. Corvus cornix 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. JzG's comment that "[a]s a point of principle, if you find yourself copying and pasting large blocks of text into Wikipedia, you are almost always doing something wrong" seems to sum up the situation nicely. If it's not a copyright problem, or some obsolete PD source that we could do without, then WP:NPS likely refers. If the list was faithfully reproduced, and if the list is copyrighted as suggested, then the speedy deletion was valid. I'll change my mind if someone can point to a legal opinion, and not just a hunch, to the effect that this specific list was not somebody's intellectual property. There's little to gain, and potentially much to lose, by including this information. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the legal standard of copyright violation, nor is it the one in WP, but rather general advice. If you are copying from the old EB, it is permissible (although in that case it does not usually make for a good article)DGG 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Comedy Central made up the poll, set the criteria, chose the people to question, collected the data, and compiled it. It's their intellectual property, not a collection of raw, objective, public-source data. This is a copyright violation, period/full-stop. --Calton | Talk 05:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as objectively clear blatant copyvio, per case law cited by ChrisGriswold. Article cited no WP:RS sources, and the single NY Times source mentioned in this review discussion isn't enough basis to overturn the decision. I have no objection to creation of a new non-copyvio article describing (rather than reproducing) the topic if sufficient reliable sources are found; multiple genuinely independent sources, not just media outlets serving as conduits for promotion. Barno 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That NY Times article, the only new source cited here, does not feature this topic but only makes mention of it in one-third of one sentence. That coverage is independent and non-promotional, but not non-trivial for establishing notability. As I prefer consensus to unilateral action whenever possible, I would be fine with an AfD on a stub with the copyvio content removed; but we don't need to retain copyvio content, just as we wouldn't need to retain libelous content in a biography of a living person during the run of an AfD. Barno 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a confirmed copyright violation. Rossami (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published_list. Doczilla 08:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Doc, but I don't quite see the relevance of that link. It is concerned with the use of these lists to create categories. In fact the example used is precisely one where the cat was deleted (rightfully so) but where the article Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time remains. (though it's not so clear that it should be). Pascal.Tesson 05:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Afd seems a good idea I actually agree with the deletion but if the above debate shows anything it's that ChrisGrisworld's rationale needs to be debated in a forum more widely-read than DRV. I do believe that this list is at the very least the moral equivalent of a copyright violation and more likely a copyvio in the legal sense but some other cases like the Forbes list seems at least worthy of a debate. I know we already have our fair chunk of policies and guidelines but how about a specific guideline to clarify all of this? Pascal.Tesson 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Convert or die – deletion endorsed – GRBerry 00:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rush to delete a highly interesting phenomenon, not seeing the edited version or on the basis of blind intolerance or intolerance to critics of intolerant-jihad.

I created an entirely NEW page [9], which yesterday's aguments do not apply (IMHO), in deleting it so FAST... How can one see the difference?

The ones arguing for redirect or even rushing to delete... (most probably) did not see my edited vesion, which is 1) Not just an interview, 2) facts presented, 3) encylopedic terminology. 4) It is not about "race". 5) A rational person, a moderate Muslim would NOT regard exposing radicals as an "attack on all Islam". ~ Historianism 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Fixed nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 08:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect. Sources fall into two categories: unreliable sources, and sources which are not discussing this term (and in some cases don't even mention it). The article is original research, a novel synthesis from published sources. At best it's a little-used soundbyte. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Are the follwing sources "unreliable"?

Or did the Guardian invented the Steve Centanni story as a "novel"? Shall I guess, the editor did not see the sources?

[10]FoxNews on Al Qaeda's ultimatum to US[11]BBC on the Mandaeans 'face extinction'

[12]NewsMax in general

On the Steve Centanni 'forced to convert at gunpoint' by: [13]The Guardian

[14] IHT

And even: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2006

Why be one be so obscure in pushing to delete such important cases, current events & a goal by Jihad? ~ Historianism 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse redirect. None of the sources provided above establishes the importance of these specific words as a slogan. Most of them don't even use it. They simply refer to conversion on pain of death, which is already the subject of forced conversion. —Cel ithemis 07:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. A novel synthesis from published sources. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse redirect, but unprotect. Redirecting is an editorial decision, the protection is not valid. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is when the editorial action is inevitably re-creating content which fails policy. That is rather the point. Please stop making these strange assertions, you are not usually this wilfully contrarian. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not convinced that's the case, which is rather the point. I don't believe the assertion to be strange at all - there's certainly no consensus to protect the redirect, and I'm only finding one AfD which had nothing to do with recreating valid content, which should be allowed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 March 2007[edit]

Warriors (book series) herbs – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 05:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article Warriors (book series) herbs has been unfairly deleted. That article was very helpful and interesting. It told all the herbs and medicinal substances in the Warriors books and the uses for them. It was deleted due to it being "not encyclopedic" and because "most of these uses aren't specific to Warriors." Well, I can see where the person was coming from, but it was nice to have the information compiled in one area about the herbs used in Warriors. It was also very interesting to just look at the list. I am an avid reader of Warriors and I was highly disappointed when I discovered that this article had been deleted. I definitely think you should undelete it. Please consider my reasoning and undelete this interesting and useful article. Thank you. --Roseminty 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Usefulness is a very subjective criteria; I personally don't have a use for it right now. So, I can't consider that to be a valid reason to undelete it. It seems to me just to be a an indiscriminate collection of information, and the information doesn't seem to fit into what an encyclopedia is. Maybe if there is a Warriors wiki, it could be there, but not here. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no valid reason for undeletion provided. There were no procedural problems, the AfD was clear and unambiguous, and Deletion Review is not AfD round two. Xtifr _tälk 05:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletioin, the closure was valid. Trebor 07:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of the debate. WP:USEFUL is not an inclusion criterion, even if it were useful, which I don't think it was. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate article per nom. --164.107.223.217 16:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I find no process problems in the AFD discussion. According to the edit history, this content was originally cut out of the Warriors (book series) article. Moving it to a separate page did not make the content more encyclopedic. Rossami (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Procedurally valid closure and deletion based on well-reasoned and obvious consensus. -- Satori Son 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, not seeing the problem given that the information (the important part) is in the main article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, and let me also suggest that there are other wiki sites that might be willing to accept the information of the article. Wikia.com is one idea. If you do want to pursue this, I suggest approaching an admin to undelete the content long enough for you to make a copy of it. Please note that Wikipedia content is subject to WP:GFDL, so you may have to rewrite things rather than make a simple transfer. --Kyoko 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion valid AfD. This is an example of why "useful" isn't an inclusion criterion. List of DVDs owned by Andrew Lenahan would be very useful for me, but Wikipedia just isn't the place for it. As noted, most of the herbs and their uses are not exclusive to the book series anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Various American Idol finalists – Speedily closed. Please submit indvidually – trialsanderrors 07:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I suppose I just don't get why the sudden rampage to delete the pages for American Idol contestants. Considering how many thousands try out for the show and the incredibly high ratings, anyone who actually makes it to the final 12 is a recognizable figure to many and has accomplished something few others have. Plus, I anticipate others just recreating these pages eventually anyway. Finally, because of American Idol video games that include videos of contestants and programs like American Idol Rewind that re-air footage from past seasons with new interviews, the publicity of these individuals has been augmented all the more. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rampage? It's just janitorial work. They have no independent notability, and will be forgotten by the time I've finished typing this sentence. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's vandalism as far as I'm concerned, as with American Idol Rewind still airing and many of them having website fan clubs future albums planned, etc., the final 12 all do merit pages. Cheers! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which? Absent a specific case to review, this discussion will be closed fairly soon. GRBerry 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, the final twelve meet WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and have enough sources to squeak by. If anyone's speedying a finalist, it's improper. If you know of any that are being speedied, bring them here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages have been deleted or whatever unjustifiably:

Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this procedurally. Those are individual deletions that need to be considered individually. Please also try to stick to the template for nominations. ~ trialsanderrors 07:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Aly & AJ – no consensus closure endorsed, with no prejudice against relisting – GRBerry 22:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This category was CFDed and closed as "no consensus." This was one of 15 similar categories nominated at the same time and this was the only one not deleted. I renominated it and was advised to bring it here instead. So, since I think this was an aberration in the face of the other 14 deletions the CFD should be reopened/relisted for further comment to generate a fuller consensus. Otto4711 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure, I see no reason to overturn the no consensus at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one good reason is that based on his comments in closing the second CFD the closing admin obviously miscounted the !votes. He closed the second CFD with the comment take it to deletion review if you actually think two for two against constitutes consensus to delete when in fact there were three for deletion and two for keeping. Which is 60% in favor of deletion, and there have been categories deleted on closer !votes than that. Add to that the fact that of 15 categories nominated the same day, for

John Wayne

Rudolph Valentino

Barbra Streisand

William Shatner

Olsen twins

Marilyn Monroe

Audrey Hepburn

Mel Gibson

Hilary Duff

Steve Coogan

Sacha Baron Cohen

Ingrid Bergman

Fred Astaire

Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers

it's Aly & AJ that survives? That defies simple logic. And there's the fact that in those 14 other CFDs, not to mention additional CFDs on following days for Alanis Morrisette and ZZ Top, the reasoning advanced for keeping Aly & AJ was advanced in a number of them and rejected and the closing admin apparently took no notice of it, and I don't think it's unreasonable to allow the category to be further discussed. I'm not suggesting overturn and delete, just overturn and relist. I don't see what's so awful about just relisting it and allowing the community to discuss it further. Otto4711 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure The original closing decision of the March 4, 2007 CfD stated that the result of the debate was no consensus, which resulted in the category being kept. The community discussed the matter to the extent that it desired and the March 4, 2007 CfD matter was properly closed. -- Jreferee 16:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, no it wasn't, because the closing admin miscounted the vote. Otto4711 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist I've no problems with the no consensus call, but the speedy keep was crap. No consensus closures can be relisted any time. ~ trialsanderrors 07:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brian Townsend – Speedy deletion overturned, listed at AfD – trialsanderrors 05:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Almost every player who has appeared on GSN's High Stakes Poker has an article written about him or her. Sometimes, as in the case of Dr. Amir Nasseri and Fred Chamanara, this is all the article states. Brian Townsend appeared in several episodes of the 3rd season of this show. On top of this, he plays poker at the highest stakes online, and is successful. No one questions the notability of a poker player who wins a big tournament. But there are some players who choose not to participate in these tournaments but opt instead to play high stakes cash games online or in a casino. They are no less successful or notable than the tournament winners. Bunzobunzo 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)bunzobunzo[reply]

List the independent non-trivial sources from which an article may be written. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not grounds for overturning deletion. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how the speedy criterion works, though. Overturn, assuming that the GSN information was in the article at the time of the speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PLAYSPOKER is not, as far as I can tell, an assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:PLAYSPOKERONTV is, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jeff, seriously, what do you seek to gain by making badgering remarks like this one whenever I or some other people make a comment on deletion review? >Radiant< 08:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Guy. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't rationale for overturning (actually, the way it's stated in the nom, anyone who wins any online poker tournament is suddenly as notable as someone who wins the World Series of Poker, and besides, a new article can just be rewritten from scratch with reliable sources. --Core desat 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: why is Wikipedia overwrought with arguments like this? Your twisting the words of the nominator to make an invalid point. The way it's stated in the nomination, ~~anyone who wins any online poker tournament~~ anyone who is featured on several episodes of a nationally broadcast program is notable. --Romanempire 08:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is true. It's an assertion of notability, which is what the speedy deletion criteria looks for to avoid the discussion. The assertion is there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the assertion of notability was there at the time of deletion, then overturn. If not, endorse. This is pretty meaningless, anyway, as any article about this person will require independent reliable sources to be cited. If that doesn't happen the article will die at articles for deletion later on. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and list for AfD The statement that he person appeared on 3 shows at the highest level is an assertion of notability, whether the word "assert" was used or not. It is arguable whether or not this article should be deleted, and the solution is to dispute it on Afd. (I have no personal opinion on that and will not !vote). The request for sources is an argument to make at AfD, not here--Speedy has been repeatedly rejected as appropriate for processing articles that are only unsourced. Speedy is for incontestible non-notability. Jeff is right.DGG 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, list on AfD per DGG. JoshuaZ 19:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per assertion of notability above. Catchpole 10:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse & redirect to High Stakes Poker, add information about participants there. >Radiant< 12:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what, exactly? Please re-read CSD A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on WP:SNOW, and the general idea of WP:MERGEism. Please re-read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 16. >Radiant< 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you're basing it on an essay that's been discouraged for use by ArbCom, and you then pointed me to an AfD log that doesn't mention poker or this guy. You appear to misunderstand speedy deletion policy on this matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jeff, seriously, what do you seek to gain by making badgering remarks like this one whenever I or some other people make a comment on deletion review? >Radiant< 08:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What point are you missing here? You're basing your opinion on inappropriate rationales, thus I call you out on them. If you don't want to be "badgered", don't make inappropriate rationales for endorsing poor decisions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am getting the point that you are trying to win an argument by making ad hominems. We know that you consider some widely-accepted rationales to be "inappropriate". You know that we disagree. And yet you persist in pointing out your opinion as if it were fact at every opportunity. >Radiant< 11:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No ad homs at all here. Your rationales are inappropriate, this is fact. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't change what it is. If you actually understand the speedy deletion criteria on this matter, please demonstrate it as such and I'll be glad to apologise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not think that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies, there is a good-faith challenge to the speedy-deletion here. Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD. Rossami (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list for AfD, there is an assertion of notability through the television exposure, whether or not that notability is adequate is up to debate and thus makes A7 and WP:SNOW not apply. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zorpia – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 05:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
This discussion has gotten too long to transclude. Experienced, logged-in editors may opine at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 12/Zorpia. New edtiors and IP editors may comment at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 12/Zorpia.
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

11 March 2007[edit]

Sample chess game – Deletion endorsed – Core desat 09:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It shows skills that could be useful to new chess players — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.75.73 (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion, since usefulness does not make it encyclopedic, but this article was never deleted anyway. Do you have the wrong title? -Amarkov moo! 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (the title was incorrectly capitalised in the nomination). The article was transwiki'd to Wikibooks. It is currently at b:Transwiki:Sample chess game needing "bookified", apparently. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Twasn't encyclopedic, far more appropriate at wikibooks. Wickethewok 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse transwiki. It was more a textbook piece than an encyclopedia article piece. It was well-written but is more appropriate for the Wikibooks project than the Wikipedia project. Consensus was pretty clear and got it quite right here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closure was fine. Trebor 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I find no process problems in the AFD debate. The conclusion was clearly in accordance with Wikipedia (and WikiBooks) policy. Rossami (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional characters who have the power of vocal persuasion – deletion endorsed – GRBerry 01:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrongly closed with no consensus to delete. Five !votes to delete, two !votes to keep and two !votes to rename to address the concerns of the nominator does not a consensus make, especially when the reasons to delete are, frankly, absurd and unfounded and the category was included in a mass nomination of the entire superhuman powers category tree here which looks to be heading to a "no consensus" closure. Otto4711 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn And link it to the larger debate. JoshuaZ 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Listen to me, concentrate on the sound of my voice - you don' want this category, it's fancruft, you want it gone form the project, you are feeling very sleepy... Guy (Help!) 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This category is also included in a larger debate over Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power. --Stratadrake 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which, along with there being no clear consensus to delete, is why this should be overturned. Otto4711 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, most of these categories are a subset of Category:Fictional characters who are not notable and need to be merged into a parent article. We should be working more on that, not making more categories. I don't see any improper closure of the CfD, and a decision on the individual category should take precedence over a trainwreck mass nomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! And how many of them should be in Category:Fictional characters who are egregious fancruft and should simply be nuked ? Guy (Help!) 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closer, even the deletion review nominator only asked for a "weak keep" so must have had his own doubts? Tim! 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I change my opinion to "incredibly strong, never wanted a category kept more, keep" and you still made a mistake in closing this category on a 5-2-2 discussion when the entire category structure was under a new discussion that's clearly trending to a no consensus conclusion. The reasons given for upholding your actions range from "it's fancruft" to no reason so I hope the fact that no legitimate reason either for deleting or upholding your error has been offered will be taken into consideration. Otto4711 12:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listen to me carefully; overrrturrrrn. overrrrturrrnn. Did it work? Guess not. Keep Deleted.--Tbeatty 07:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, what Guy said. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's likely to matter given that people would rather make hypnotist jokes than comment substantively on the DRV, but another powers category nominated at the same time as this one was closed with no consensus in deference to the mass nomination. It does not seem unreasonable to expect that both nominations be treated the same. Otto4711 13:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Nom here evidently missed the point made that the the editor sho created the cat blanked it just after it went to CfD. Additionally, the nom seems to be "cherry picking" to an extent. This is one of three cats on the CfD that day that were under the latter CfDed parent. All three were closed as delete, on as "speedy & salt". IF one was wrong in light of the later debate, all are, as are any CfDs closed while the cat is part of a parent cat that is subject to a later CfD that is, or was, still in progress. — J Greb 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I don't see it as relevant that the creator blanked the category because several other editors utilized it. It's not like the category lay fallow for any length of time.
2) You are not correct in several points in your statements about the various powers CFDs nominated the same day. There were a total of four nominated that day: Vocal persuasion; Generate/manipulate radiation; Advanced hearing; Electronic data transception. Data transception closed March 4 as "delete (already emptied)" with no one in favor of keeping. Advanced hearing closed March 6 as "delete" with no one in favor of keeping but a couple of "rename" !votes. Note that both were closed before the March 7 mass nomination. Vocal persuasion closed March 11 as delete with a number of !votes to "keep" or "rename," after it had already been included in the mass nom and after the nominator had noted that the discussion was ongoing there. Radiation closed March 12, both after vocal persuasion closed and after the mass nom was opened and noted in the radiation debate, and it closed "no consensus" based on the existence of the mass nom. So, yeah, your assessment of number and the outcome of the nominations? Not accurate, and the conclusions you drew on the basis of those inaccurate assessments were similarly faulty.
And as for your suggestion that I'm "cherry picking," I find that nonsensical and insulting. I agreed with the decisions in the other three cases and disagreed with this one. What do you suggest, that I ask for review of decisions that I agree with? There's no reason for me to do that. Of the four this is the only one that I believe was handled improperly so trotting out this "cherry picking" business is just silly. Otto4711 20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this one as it's rather silly. Any fictional character who can speak has the power of "vocal persuasion". >Radiant< 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Reviewing the discussion, I find a narrow consensus to delete. This was within reasonable administrator discretion. As to the related discussions, Wikipedia is sometimes inconsistent. Rossami (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure I don't quite see the CfD discussion as being that productive in this case. The arguments for deleting the category were particularly weak (starting with the nomination itself). Just because some idiot might throw Matlock in the category does not mean the category is meaningless. That being said, the arguments in favor of keeping the cat were equally weak and all in all I see no need for the cat. Pascal.Tesson 01:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original closing decision. The rename positions reasonably could be understood by the closer to be comments on rewording the list membership criteria rather than a keep or delete reasoning. I count six delete positions and 1-1/2 keep positions. The consensus seems to have been delete since the topic does not lend itself to an unambiguous statement of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources as suggested in WP:LIST#References_for_list_items. The listed outcome of the deletion debate was delete. Also, significant new information has not come to light since the deletion. Thus I endorse the original closing decision. -- Jreferee 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Glitches found in the Pokémon video games/Missingno. – Undeleted, per user request. — A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Archived Talk subpage originally moved from Talk:Missingno.. Out-of-process deletion (no speedy criteria applies). --Stratadrake 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. The archive was deleted for being a "talk page of a deleted page". However, the Missingno. page was never deleted, it was merged and redirected to Glitches found in the Pokémon video games. I don't know of any policy that supports deletion of a talk archive in this case. WarpstarRider 21:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually talk pages of pages that don't exist are a valid speedy. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Subpages (including archive pages) are only deletable under this rule if the corresponding top-level page does not exist." Glitches found in the Pokémon video games, the top level page, exists. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Similarly, WP:SP specifically mentions Talkpage archiving as legitimate use #4. --Stratadrake 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

Category:Economy of mainland China – Undeleted, sent to CfD – trialsanderrors 06:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useful and neccessary category for articles related to the economy of mainland China (more commonly known simply as "China"). "Mainland China" is the official terminology to refer to the People's Republic of China excluding Hong Kong and Macau, which remain separate economies. There are topics related and relevant to mainland China. This category was voted to be kept in June 2005, but was emptied some time before the March 2006 CfD. It was deleted when a user "ignored all rules" and decided not to follow CfD procedures. - Privacy 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted It was deleted, rightfully, after extensive discussion, because it is a POV re-structuring of Category:Economy of the People's Republic of China. "mainland" is the adjective used to differentiate the PRC (the current government of China since 1949) from the ROC (the exile government on Taiwan from the 60 year old civil war). By argument, any "Chinese" article could be scoped to be "mainland". The usage to "exclude Hong Kong and Macau" is a red herring. We do not title articles and categories on parent countries because of administrative divisions that keep separate statistics. Hence, no "Economy of the Continental United States excluding Guam and Puerto Rico" nor "Economy of metropolitan France" nor "mainland Finland" etc etc etc. SchmuckyTheCat 19:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree it was deleted rightfully after "extensive discussion". It is not a POV (point of view?) re-structuring. "Exclude Hong Kong and Macau" is not red herring - it is official usage even by the People's Republic itself. Nor do I agree Continental United States and Metropolitan France are comparable to Mainland China. Guam and Puerto Rico are not part of the U.S. while French Guiana, Reunion and so on are integral part of France. - Privacy 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was left intact for a year after a CfD. Then discussed for a week, than a closing admin left it open for a week specifically to get more discussion. That's extensive. SchmuckyTheCat 23:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. "Mainland China" is the only accurate and precise term to refer to that part of China. It is not truly correct to simply call that part of China "China" or "People's Republic of China". This is particularly true in the case of economy which Hong Kong and Macau are considered to be foreign (to mainland China). It would be ridiculous if there isn't a subcategory specifically for the economy of mainland China. Without a mainland China economy category, it is not easy for readers to understand why articles right under Category:Economy of People's Republic of China would say investment from Hong Kong is foreign investment, and trade with Macau is counted towards international trade. It is much easier to understand when such articles are kept under a category specifically for mainland China. Michael G. Davis 22:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- POLLY WANT A CRACKER
Keep deleted, especially when the primary reasons to delete it after extensive discussions remain valid. Both Michael G. Davis and Privacy are not independent contributors, and have known to take a strong political viewpoint over the political status of the SARS of HK vis-a-vis the rest of China (informally referred to as Mainland China). Their continued promotion of the later term is politically motivated, is not NPOV, and is not "more accurate", just as User:Instantnood has done and continued to do so, resulting in three arbcoms. It is obvious that subject matter related to the concepts of "China", "Mainland China", the "PRC", "ROC" and "Taiwan" should be reviewed with care, which the above users consistently fail to.--Huaiwei 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "Mainland China" is official and is used formally. The government of the People's Republic of China itself uses it (either 内地 or 大陆 in Chinese; immediately verifiable by looking into gov.cn websites or the government-sponsored newspapers and wires). Non-Chinese English language press also uses it. It is because of political motivation that Huaiwei and Schmucky deny it's official and formal. They confuse readers on whether Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People's Republic of China, such as calling Hong Kong banks foreign in the People's Republic of China. (Hong Kong banks are indeed foreign in mainland China, but not in the People's Republic of China.)
- What SARS are you talking about? The SARS of HK vis-a-vis the rest of China? Two types of SARS? The Hong Kong type of SARS vis-a-vis the type of SARS in the rest of China? How far do you think Hong Kong is away from the rest of the People's Republic of China? - Privacy 07:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as explained upon DRV request. - Privacy 07:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, or else relist at CFD without restoration (i.e., defaulting to 'delete'), until such time as there's an evident consensus to scope the-entity-formerly-known-as-the-People's-Republic-of-China as a discrete concept for categorisation purposes, and to describe it as "mainland China" in such contexts. Absent such consensus, we seem to get total inconsistency in categorisation, edit wars, and arbcom cases. This seems to be especially evident in the stub categories, where any time there's an attempt to make things consistent with the rest of the category structure, several otherwise at-most-sporadically-active editors turn up en bloc, 'vote' "keep mainland China, no matter what", and then lurk off again. Their activity during Instantnood's supposed "absence" from Wikipedia seems especially striking. "Lack of consensus to make things consistent" is not a good argument for inconsistency, and in particular, for keeping the categories causing said inconsistencies. Alai 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Alai doesn't seem to understand that "People's Republic of China" and "Mainland China" are not the same thing. The two terms mean something different from each other. Encyclopedic materials should be able to reflect their differences. Neither should be used in place of the another. Passer-by (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- POLLY WANT A CRACKER
- I think I understand the distinction just fine, thanks, and I think it's in fact fairly clear I'm not suggesting using one "in place of" the other. What I'm concerned with is whether "mainland China" is sufficiently encyclopaedic scoping and naming at all, since it a) is precisely (or de facto precisely, at least) what used to be the People's Republic of China, which so far as I know wasn't formally renamed in 1997, b) doesn't appear to be a subdivision of the present PRC (but rather, 31 such subdivisions of various types other than SAR), and c) doesn't appear to be a formal designation used by the PRC for that area, but rather an occasional descriptor used in contradistinction to said SARs. As I've said, I have no objection to such categories if they're to be used on a consistent basis, and if there's a consensus for them to exist on such a basis (and if that happens only because the PRC^W^W MC is daft enough to filter wikipedia so that their editors don't turn up to tout the party line, then more fool them), but not if they're going to exist in a limbo of mutual inconsistency, and neither-consensus-to-delete-nor-consensus-to-keep, which appears to be the state of play at present. (Thank you for (mostly) fixing your sig, btw.) Alai 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This is not supposed to be a POV issue. There is very little, if any, dispute about following statement
HK is politically part of the PRC
The economy of HK is separate from the economy of Mainland, de jure as well as de facto
HK has its own currency, its own monetary policy, custom, court of final appeal, etc
Even supporters of Taiwanese independence (a separate issue) would agree with the above bullet points. Huaiwei repeatedly try to make HK and Macau to look like integral part of the PRC, such as this edit. He/she is trying to make a non-POV issue POV. The term "Mainland China" is only controversial in the context of Taiwan, ROC v.s. PRC. "Mainland China" is not controversial in the context of Hong Kong. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I and I alone was somehow able to turn a non-POV issue into one, then mind explaining if the current status quo was a result of my efforts alone? To say the term "Mainland China" is non conroversial with regards to the SARS is itself a POV, and that is not to say I do not have a POV of my own as well. Treating the SARs separate from the rest of China, and listing them as separate entities is not a non-contested issue, especially when one tries to promote the term "Mainland China" just to emphasize political differences. And may I point out that HK does not have a central bank, and has never officially designated any entity as one, hence the edit you cite above. HK may enjoy high autonomy in running its economic system, but it is not separate to the point of being equated with that of an independent state's economic system. The Central government can, and does, exert its influence on the HK economic system, including removing its autonomous status altogether.--Huaiwei 02:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because the previous decision was to delete doesn't mean it should stay deleted forever, otherwise we wouldn't ave this system of deletion review. Hong Kong is a separate economy from the Mainland, and it's hardly contested. If you say you're contesting it, then let me ask you, under what condition would you justify an "Economy of xyz" category created on Wikipedia? And year, Pakistan and Canada and form a political union and an integral economy. But until then, Category:Economy of Pakistan and Category:Economy of Canada should remain. If you want to put Economy of Hong Kong under Economy of the People's Republic of China, that's fine, but economy of mainland China is a real and meaningful entity. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The political situation of Hong Kong has nothing to do with the name of the People's Republic of China. There is no economy called "mainland China" except when it is useful for the PRC to distict itself with it's own constituent parts. SchmuckyTheCat 02:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam Readers of this debate may be interested in participating in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideogram (talk • contribs)
~~Overturn~~ Changed to abstain. Nominator's statement about its history seems to be correct. Back in the days when I was more involved with CfD, it always bothered me when a category had been suddenly emptied, and I usually voted "keep" when that happened. That seems to have been the case with last year's CfD. — Sebastian 08:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- POLLY WANT A CRACKER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secrecy (talk • contribs) 01:10, March 17, 2007

It was emptied, properly, as a POV fork of Category:Economy of the People's Republic of China. SchmuckyTheCat 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I remembererd from 2 years ago, when we had a similar discussion. However, I'm so taken aback by this weird contribution that I prefer to abstain from this vote. — Sebastian 22:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at CfD - The resolution of this deletion review requires review of the 13 March 2006 CfD, the 25 November 2006 speedy deletion, and the 12 March 2007 speedy deletion. (i) The 22:30 13 March 2006 close by Syrthiss was improper. Although Syrthiss wrote "The result of the debate was delete."[15] Syrthiss also commented that he/she viewed the results as "no consensus" and listed two proposal position for which Syrthiss solicited input as part of that 13 March 2006 CfD. Given the edit war going on over the use of "mainland" vs. "People's Republic of China" for China (which apparently still is going on a year later), this seemed a reasonable mediation attempt. However, since more CfD discussion was solicited, the 13 March 2006 debate was not properly closed. (Another reason that the 13 March 2006 debate was not properly closed is that closer stated that he/she viewed the results as "no consensus" and yet closed the debate with "delete" consensus. -- Jreferee 05:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)) Instantnood subsequently modified the 13 March 2006 CfD postings a year ago (which I just reverted).[16] (ii) The 25 November 2006 WP:CSD#C1 speedy deletion[17] was improper since the category had contain significant content. (iii) The 12 March 2007 speedy deletion[18] asserted recreation of deleted material. However, since the 13 March 2006 close was improper, the original material was not deleted as the result of a CfD debate. To resolve all this confusion, the 12 March 2007 speedy deletion should be overturn and the Category:Economy of mainland China material deleted as the result of the 12 March 2007 speedy deletion should be listed at CfD. -- Jreferee 15:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syrthiss's close was entirely proper. In the first place, prior to being on CfD there was a massive rename proposal where the idea to rename the PRC to mainland for categories was rejected. The category was an orphan/redirect to the proper PRC category and certain POV warriors kept populating it. That whole issue went to ArbCom. After it was over the category went to CfD, it had no consensus because the same POV warriors insisted on keeping the categories around for future use, so the length it was on CfD was extended. Syrthiss re-framed the discussion and after an extended discussion it was much more clear that it was a POV fork and he ruled it delete. In sticky cases like that we expect administrators to use discretion to make the correct decision.

And forget process! To accept that this category should exist at all you have to think it is ok to create a POV fork. There is a choice here, either the economy of the China is "of the People's Republic of China", ie, the name of the country, or the economy is "of mainland China" which is a term of convenience when it is necessary to distinguish the parent country from it's special regions and those KMT who still say they are the real China. To think there isn't a POV problem naming the place using a term originally coined by the opposite side of a civil war is ridiculous - the country is named People's Republic of China. When both names exist you simply get teams of editors from countries involved in a 60 year old real life war edit warring putting articles back and forth between the forked categories. SchmuckyTheCat 05:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Economy of the Unites States would be different than Economy of the continental United States, albeit there will be items that go in both. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily undelete to view the page, cannot make a decision without seeing the article's state. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not an article, it's a category: the contents of the category page are very much secondary to the structural and naming considerations. But for the record, on 1st July 2005, prior to its last listing at CFD, the contents in full were: {{catmore}}[[Category:Mainland China]]. Alai 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fields (band) – Deletion overturned in light of new sources – Core desat 09:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable Band on major record label (Atlantic/Warner)

Having not seen the original article I do not know what the content was. The band Fields are less than a year old but have been on two MTV sponsored UK tours, toured supporting Bloc Party and are doing their own headline tour [19] in April. They have had numerous articles in the UK music Press (including NME [20] and [21] & The Fly) and online with sites such as Drowned in Sound [22], the album is still being recorded and produced by Michael Beinhorn as far as I know and is out 2nd April [23] with a preceding single [24] on 26th March.

To be honest the arguments for non deletion in the article summary were vague at best and did not cite sources so were unconvincing, but they do meet the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC for bands as they have printed interviews, adverts, tour dates, single reviews etc. in many UK magazines as linked above.

Nli10 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's needed is for them to have been the primary subject of some non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Bands less than a year old typically have not been covered in this way. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the classic problems. I didn't challenge the result although they're obviously notable because I couldn't find the sources then. The sources have been found now, though, so overturn now that the sources exist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per presence of new sources. JoshuaZ 18:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as above. Catchpole 17:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for the new sources. Trebor 19:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Elmwood_Place_Farm – deletion overturned, temp page put on top – GRBerry 01:23, 17 March 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 farm & house that is listed on the national registry of historic places, and is a Ohio Centennial Farm. - The person that deleted it obviously did it in haste.

Undelete, notability clearly asserted here, although I can't find a cached version to see if it qualified for what it was deleted for (db-nocontext is consistently tagged wrong). --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse deletion being listed on a national registry of historic places and being an Ohio Centennial farm doesn't really say much. Many things are on the national registry. What we need is an indication that there are reliable sources that discuss the farm. JoshuaZ 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Given the presence of reliable sources, now going with overturnJoshuaZ 13:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...like the registry itself? Only speaking as someone who's served on a small-town historical society, typically places of historic interest have at least smallish historic writeups. I can't imagine a state-wide one not having it available to someone who's able to get their hands on it. Keep in mind that it doesn't appear that this was deleted as an A7, although it's unclear to me what it was deleted for - regardless, lack of sources is not a valid reason. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if someone can provide sources I'm all in favor of recreating, but I don't generally like undeleting something if we don't have any useful sources. JoshuaZ 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But we don't speedy delete due to lack of sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own deletion. This article was little more than a text dump, with zero context or assertion of notability. Considering the way it was written (writing style; big initial edit; all significant edits by User:Jackcmh9, a single-purpose account, etc), I also strongly suspect a copyright violation. It would need a complete rewrite in any case. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't prove a copyvio, and view it as a text dump, why not stub it? Can someone undelete the history so we can see this lack of context? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.ohioagriculture.gov/pubs/divs/cent/arks/news/COMM-bicentennialfarm-pierce.htm cites information on farm, also see: http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/OH/Union/state.html 67.142.130.42 05:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment History restored for review. GRBerry 13:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Upon further read, I understand why someone might believe it may be a copyright violation, but there's certainly no clear evidence of it being as such. Context is clear, notability is asserted, but the writing style was fairly atrocious. I'm definitely standing by my overturn now - deletion was a good faith, but poor, decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So where exactly is the context? the assertion of notability? It starts with "Elmwood Place is located just outside the small town of Irwin in Union County, Ohio". You don't even know it's a "small home" until the end of the second paragraph, and there's still no assertion that this building is in any way notable. I'm sorry.. I'm trying not to be argumentative, but I just don't see anything redeemable in this article. It even ends with "The future is bright for Elmwood place...", again strongly indicating a copyvio from a pamphlet or something. I will write a temp doc so that we can have something on this place, because if it's in the National Register of Historic Places I certainly agree that it's notable. But let's not restore this text dump/advertisement/copyvio. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've already lined up the context in your comments, it's just tough to derive due to the poor writing. The Ohio register is noted in the external links, so there's the notability. Since we don't know it's a copyvio, we can't simply assume it is, and the proper thing to do would have been to simply stub it and work from there. There's plenty of worthwhile information to use in the history, it's just poorly written. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have created Elmwood Place Farm/temp, with which to start again. By the way, it is not necessary to prove a copyvio before deleting it. I also believe that if we restore the original text, this would be another case of the {{cleanup}} tag sitting around for months and months with no action taken. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 14:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, what you did at the temp place is exactly what I would have ended up doing upon the overturning, so thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, doesn't fit any speedy criteria. Trebor 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this farm open to the public for tours and such, or is it just an old residence? Is it featured in brochures and such about the area? Has it been the subject of any significant media coverage? It seems like a reasonable enough article subject if it's a local landmark/tourist attraction, or is it just somebody's old house? If the latter, I'm inclined to say Endorse deletion. There are 85,014 places on the National Register of Historic Places (per their website) and the vast majority of them aren't suitable for articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I'd agree with that final statement at all, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Being listed on the national registry of historic places makes it survive speedy deletion. There seems to be sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about this topic. The Wikipedia:Attribution information probably is in the Union County, Ohio libraries, which is why I do not think it should be sent to AfD right away. Lets give the article contributors some time to come up with sources. Reduce to stub if there are copyright problems. -- Jreferee 00:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matball – Speedy deletion overturned, listed at AfD. – Daniel Bryant 11:09, 17 March 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, while the game is played in many schoolhouses across the nation. Should've been put up at AFD at the very least, not just speedied. FireSpike 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just instructions for the game and reads like some schoolchildren made the game up themselves. There are no sources, and the article has never been categorized. List of sports is the only article that links to this one. While I accidentally marked the deletion as A7, I deleted it due to lack of claim to notability. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list, invalid A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list, indeed, made-up games aren't A7, though I doubt it would survive an AFD. Better to list it anyway, just in case. --Core desat 04:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list, this is definitely not an A7. Onoes I am a process wonk. -Amarkov moo! 06:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No sources, 500 GHits, only played in one school as far as I can make out, WP:NEO, WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep, Google search reveals this is a real sport played in schools; we should have an article about it. No need to list. Newyorkbrad 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provided there are credible secondary sources, of course. Seems this is not the Eton wall game, which is played only at one school but is in many history books and gets 277,000 GHits. Matball gets about 230 unique of 500 odd, at least some of which are mis-spellings of meatball. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that I'm more of an inclusionist than you, but I believe this is the first time I've ever outdone badlydrawnjeff. My attitude on this one is that some kid or parent will hear "tomorrow we are going to play matball" and he should be able to find an article, and there are a few sources to choose from, and it's certainly not doing any harm. Newyorkbrad 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but are they actually good sources establishing that this is a separate game, rather than just a different name for a game that already exists? Mind you I was on the sailing squad at school, so what would I know? :o) Guy (Help!) 23:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list It is not an A7, but I have doubts about it surviving an AFD.-- Dakota 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep real activity for physical education. Maybe merge into other articles about playground games though as it is a simple game as part of the normal elementary/primary school curricula. Like Tetherball and kickball in scope, complexity and participants. --Tbeatty 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list, I don't think that one quite fits into A7, but it should definitely be considered on AFD, especially if no sources are provided (which still, thus far, has not happened). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. Invalid A7, but being real isn't enough to be an automatic keep, as it must be attributable. Needs an AfD for a proper decision. Trebor 19:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and list This is a classical example of the problems with Speedy. I assume it was just a mistake & the nom for speedy thought it uncontroversial. Knowing little about it, I might easily have made the same error.DGG 22:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kickball, problem solved. >Radiant< 12:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand the problem, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jeff, seriously, what do you seek to gain by making badgering remarks like this one whenever I or some other people make a comment on deletion review? >Radiant< 08:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What do you seek to gain by making statements like you did? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list as recommended above. Unlikely to survive an AfD but doesn't really qualify under speedy deletion criteria. It does seem a little counterproductive to undelete and list an article on AfD that is a clear-cut candidate for deletion, but that is merely my interpretation and hey, I could be wrong. Arkyan 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. Doesn't really qualify under speedy deletion criteria. Here's some research (which isn't much to go on): (i) Baldrige, Susan. (May 25, 2001) Lancaster New Era Game over Worried about kids' safety and self-esteem, schools shunning dodge ball and other playground favorites. Page 1. (writing, " "The kickball we play is not exactly kickball," explained Jerry McDonald, phys ed instructor at Warwick's John Bonfield Elementary. "It's matball. They run around four mats to score. It's for safety. If they slide into a base, someone could fall down. The ball we use is made out of blue rubber, and they are only allowed to throw at the legs." "We play kickball by softball rules, where you can't throw at a person," Ruth explained.") (ii) The Post-Standard (September 21, 2006) Pupils in grades 7 to 9 invited to play matball. Section: Local; Page B1. -- Jreferee 00:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cellador – listed at AFD – GRBerry 16:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The are clearly a notable band especialy within their particular genre of power metal. The are on a major label, Metal Blade. The article was speedy deleted. It should have at the very least been tagged and discussed first. They also have quite a lengthy write up on them at All Music Guide which is a lot more than many other notable bands have and it shows that they went on a national tour. They were even interviewed by MTV news, a lot to say for a band of this style.[25] --E tac 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Since 22:26, 15 February 2006 this has been speedy deleted 7 times.-- Dakota 23:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. Valid speedy deletion of the article by JzG. However given the MTV profile provided by E tac, let an AfD discussion decide whether there are enough sources to support an article. Pan Dan 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list JzG's speedy deletion was valid. At this point I think it should go to AFD.-- Dakota 01:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. Worth giving a proper look. Trebor 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. Proper A7, but plenty here to show notability now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at Articles for Deletion (AfD). Valid speedy deletion and there is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic (all I found were notices of the bands appearances). However, after seven speedies, I think it's preferable to send it to AfD rather continue on the same path. At AfD, someone please note that Celador is not Cellador, which might be come up in a Google search. Also, please do not bite the newcomers and please try to spell everything out with dynamic links so that the newcomers can understand what is going on. Thanks. -- Jreferee 00:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 March 2007[edit]

Disekt – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 22:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Content was posted by copyright holders for information purposes, not vanity as inferred by the deleting Admin. Request that article be reviewed by a different Admin. BeSinRadio 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article as a grand mix of vanity, copyright violation, and/or CSD A7. Take your pick with this one. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You deleted the article for those reasons yes, what you didn't do is give a chance for the article to be fully revised to remove the violations before you protected the article to the point where, if the issues were fixed, the article would be able to be reposted. Can we work with you at all to get this taken care of, submit the article to you for approval and consideration, and once it satisfies your requirements, have it unlocked so that as changes occur the article can be updated appropriately? Obviously reasonable requests are at the discretion of the person being asked, but if you deem this not a reasonable request I would still respectfully request that another admin review the situation to help get this issue resolved. BeSinRadio 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You say that this is not a copyright violation because the material was posted by the original copyright holders. That means the authors of the band's MySpace page and the owner of the record label (Aeternum). If so, you're correct that it's not a copyvio but that confirms that the edits were made with a serious conflict of interest. If you think your band is notable, you are far better off letting someone else write the article. The article itself must be based on independent sources - self-published sources may not be the sole basis for an article. Lastly, the band has to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for musicians. Please carefully review that page and the page about autobiographies.
    Until and unless there is an independent rewrite from scratch, I am forced to endorse the speedy-deletion. (I think the page-protection can probably come off at the end of this discussion, though.) Rossami (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion vanity, copyright violation, and/or CSD A7 ← I take all three. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, this was a PR blurb not an encyclopaedia article. Please see neutrality and [[WP:ATT|attribution] policies. Also see notability and conflict of interest guidelines. Valid speedy under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per reasons given above. The nominator says more time was needed for the article to be fully revised and that is fine - the article should be unprotected to allow the full rewrite but since it's a full rewrite there's no sense in undeleting the speedied content. Arkyan 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

NRD Studios – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 22:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted Based on a view from admin that our company is not notable, when our website is currently going under maintainence. from this our article was deleted and we see this as unfair, all the infomation we provied on our wiki profile was freely editable, the infomation was what we have on our website, just as it is un accessable people only have Wikipedia to access infomation relating to our projects and buisness, despite this we would like NRD Studios article restored or if not we want the history of this page so we may start another thread for people to start with and edit once the launch of NRD Studios website is up, NRD Studios will go through a Launch Party Process once this is finished. Robertjmizen 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. This appears not to meet out notability guidelines for companies. If you can provide evidence that this company does (preferably by showing mentions of it in independent sources) then there may be cause to reconsider. Trebor 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. If Wikipedia is the only place people could find information on your company, then there are certainly no reliable sources, so we can't have an article. -Amarkov moo! 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion wikipedia is not a free web host --pgk 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point Taken, i can understand the view of wikipedia not having something to link us to, is it possible to retain the NRD Studio profile in archieve until we have relauched our website, and we will all so provide a link, i can promise we exist just as the site is down there is no external source to prove a web based existance, i would of liked it if the admin who firstly was concerned talked to us about this issue and we may have been able to resovle this by launching site early. please expect a summer launch and we will add a artcile then, so people may edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robertjmizen (talk • contribs).

Simply existing is not reason enough to have a Wikipedia article. I don't doubt that your company exists or that you will get your website running. When that happens, you still do not automatically get to have a Wikipedia article. The requirements are that there are multiple, third-party (completely independent of you) reliable sources for us to use to write an attributable and verifiable article from. I doubt that reliable sources will cover your start-up so soon. It may be years before Wikipedia can include your company, if ever. — coel acan — 22:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, as long as we have 3rd party sources to back us up it matters not how long, due to the nature of our market i will assume this will be achieved very quickly. Robertjmizen

Endorse deletion. When and if the company in question achieves notability and can be included under Wikipedia standards the article can be rewritten. Until then it's a rather moot point, the deletion was quite valid. Arkyan 17:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:G_Ben_Thompson.jpg – deletion endorsed; article in which to be used also deleted – GRBerry 15:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image provided with clear fair-use rationale; speedy deleted by Angr. Objection made at his talk page, requesting undelete and procedural IfD.-- Leflyman^Talk 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, a fair-use image of a living person who is not in prison and not a recluse. The image was thus in violation of Wikipedia's fair-use policy. —An gr 22:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement for fair use rationale to be applicable only for those in prison or reclusive. As I pointed out to the speedy-deleting admin, the individual is notable, but non-public figure, so there would be no reasonable means to replace the image. As provided at WP:FU "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." The image used was of a one-time press conference held in Nassau, Bahamas so there is no way to replace it. --Leflyman^Talk 22:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image wasn't being used in critical commentary about the press conference, though, it was being used only to show what he looks like, in violation of counterexample 8. —An gr 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, since it is unavailable, here is the source of the image from the Bahama Journal: [26], the caption for which was "Ford Shelley, G. Ben Thompson, and attorney Emerick Knowles discuss the status of the disputed mansion at the British Colonial Hilton Hotel, Nassau, Bahamas on November 2, 2006". That's directly referenced in the content of the article, and not merely "only to show what he looks like".--Leflyman^Talk 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated the article on Gaither Ben Thompson for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 23:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn if the article survives AfD. Otherwise, the discussion is rather moot - Lefly's rationale is sound. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion critical commentary on the image is just that - on the image not on the subject of the image. The discussion in the article is about the event, not the image there are no doubt numerous other images which would fit without any changing of the text thus you can't say it had critical commentary on the image. --pgk 10:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Angr. The existence, or not, of the article is quite distinct from the absence of a valid fair use rationale per WP:FU for this image. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Baptist women in ministry – no deletion to review, merge is a variant on keep and subject to the usual editorial processes – GRBerry 01:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is a copy of the messages between me and admin Veinor: CME GBM 02:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE SEE NEW ARTICLE TEXT. ALMOST COMPLETELY NEW. Please note that it previously gave the incorrect impression that it was related to today's Anabaptists. I hope this new material is OK with User:Afaprof01, the originator of the article. CME GBM 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure how to proceed from here. I believe the consensus was to add the information that the old version had regarding "detriments" to Anabaptist. But I agree, it seems like Baptist or Southern Baptist Convention or something else seems like a better place. I honestly have no idea what to do with this; I'm new to being an admin. I'd suggest bringing it up at WP:DRV and saying that the closing admin has no idea what to do now :-P. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What?!? Someone care to explain the background rather than just dump this here? ~ trialsanderrors 03:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears he's challenging the merge decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like s/he wrote a new article after the merge decision, that would an be edit conflict if anyone ever executed the proposed merger. Endorse decision, merge = not delete, whatever happens afterwards is editorial decision. ~ trialsanderrors 05:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse whatever happened here, once the AFD's over, whatever happens after that is an editorial decision. --Core desat 08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. No deletion to review, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean it up, the article stinks. But I'm not sure what's supposed to be reviewed here, nothing seems to have happened. -Amarkov moo! 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 March 2007[edit]

WP:POINT (sk) – Dispute withdrawn – Random832 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note recent arbcom finding that such speedy closures are harmful.

Note WP:CSK, he claims #1 when I did not withdraw, then #2 when, even if he did feel the need to "question" that it was in good faith, it wasn't "unquestionably" bad faith as the criterion requires. He also leveled an absolutely specious accusation against me on my talk page.

RFD inappropriately speedy closed, un-closure reverted, false accusation of bad faith nomination Random832 22:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly endorse my closure, based on the "evidence" provided in the RFD nomination, I had no choice but to question the faith of the nominator in this case. The user in question nominated it for deletion solely because he felt that the guideline the shortcut links to was being misused, and got no response to threads about it on the guideline's talk page. That in itself is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Core desat 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even read the threads on the talk page I linked? None of the three I linked were posted by me. Don't say 'based on the "evidence"' without reading the evidence. --Random832 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC) And I did _not_ say the guideline is misused independently of the shortcut. The _shortcut_ is misused to misrepresent what the guideline says. --Random832 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reopen as nominator. --Random832 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Note that the arbcom finding says that there can be "some cases where the benefits of early closure outweigh the drawbacks." It is not a blanket "all speedy closures are bad." Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Misapplication is not a reason for deletion, and either way, it had zero chance of actually getting deleted. The behavior of the closing admin is irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. There was only one person advocating deletion at the RfD, and that was the nom.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Effectively a WP:POINT nom of WP:POINT. Had no chance of success and virtually no chance of even a second delete opinion. WjBscribe 00:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Only one person initiated deletion, and there's a snowball's chance in hell that there would be a second delete opinion as above: read WP:SNOW for details. This discussion should really go to WP:BJAODN. The irony of a WP:POINT nom of WP:POINT is humorous. But still, that's no reason to list it here. --sunstar net^talk 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a parting shot here. It was not a WP:POINT nom, and you've just demonstrated the exact problem this shortcut causes. WP:SNOW is invalid per the recent arbcom finding. That said, I'm withdrawing this to try to get out with a little dignity. --Random832 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Natural History of South Asia mailing list – Relisted at AFD – GRBerry 22:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page changed from a deletable entry to a valid article during the afd. Given that there was enough substance and precedent in category:Mailing lists it appeared that there was not enough reason to delete this. Perhaps those who voted for the original version under afd would have liked to rethink their own votes. Shyamal 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESTORE: I want Wikipedia Administrator help to restore this valid article about an important subject, as noted above by Shyamal, article improved in quality substantially and earlier votes became invalid as they had voted seeing a poorer quality article.

Famously contributing in saving the environment / planet makes the subject important enough to warrant an article in any paid Encyclopedia, leave alone a free web Encyclopedia.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, perhaps relist. The article significantly changed during the debate, and the count (5 deletes to 4 keeps) was hardly convincing to begin with. At least warrants another look. Trebor 23:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
make visible in its final for, per the above. Frankly, I doubt very much if this has any possible chance at being notable, but i cant judge without seeing. DGG 04:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deleteion. This seems to be a respectable list, but not notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia. The article was full of "references", but none of these references established notability. The article tried to assert notability using these arguments:
- the list has been in operation since 1995: that doesn't make list notable; there are hundreds of lists that have existed since 1995
- it has been "recommended" by ESA, IUCN, and people such as Frederick Noronha: The references provided include pages that have a sentence or two about the list. For eg. the reference provided for Noronha's "recommendation" is a actually a "List of India-related websites", which consists of many non-notable websites.
- Members of the list include people associated with groups such as WII and USFWS.: This doesn't establish the notability either. Me and my collegaues subscribe to many lists, and we work in one of India's top companies -- one can't argue that those lists are notable because people associated with India's top companies are the list members. The references provide for this are the messages posted or to the list.
- Some bloggers and academics speculate that Arunachalam Kumar may have predicted the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake in a message posted to the list: This may be used to argue whether Arunachalam Kumar is notable or not, but doesn't establish the notability of the list. The references provide[27][28] just mention the name of the list once -- they don't assert its notability.
- The existence of a new bird species, Bugun Liocichla, was first noted in a posting to the list: This can used to establish notability of the discoverer (Raman Athreya) notable, not the list. If such posts announcing discovery of new species were regular on the list, I'd consider it notable. One or two such posts doesn't make the list notable. None of the news articles that talk about Raman Athreya's discovery of new species talk about this list[29][30][31]. utcursch | talk 05:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would find it easier to accept if the following articles did not exist - Computational Chemistry List, LinuxChix, Linux_kernel_mailing_list, Dead_Runners_Society, Cctech, Tolklang, FlyLady, Futureculture, The_Filthy_Truth etc. I do not think there are going to be many references which go around stating that a list is notable, all the more so for a scholarly list running out of Princeton University. While I do not think there were many lists dealing with any particular aspect of India that existed in 1995. AFAIK the Internet was only entering India and was only in large academia that it was in good use. It is notable within the India related ecology community and it unlikley that one can find independent proof for something like this. On the other hand I do accept that equally scholarly lists like ornith-L and entomo-L in similar fields have as yet not shown up on wikipedia. In general I imagine that scientific lists which are notable and respectable within the scientific community are not likely to be "notable" to the lay public in the manner of something like Craigslist. Notability = number of links ? or number of people (in the thousands [32]) ? Maybe a debate like this can make it "notable". Shyamal 10:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are talking about a "scholarly list running out of Princeton University", let's consider the example of Humanist (another list at Princeton). Like nathistory-india, it's about a special branch of sciences and the lay public doesn't know of its existence. But the list is notable because it's it's published by ADHO, OHC, ACLS; it's allied with ALLC, ACH; it's used by humanities scholars as a digital resource internationally.

You rightly point out that the respectable scientific lists are not likely to be "notable" to the lay public and that there are not going to be many references. Similarly, number of links or subscribers don't necessarily determine notability (BTW, the nathistory-india doesn't have "thousands of members", it has 859). My argument is that how is this list notable? Somebody arguing that it is a "scholarly" list that has existed since 1995 doesn't make it notable. It's just one of the many similar lists (as opposed to a distinguished list like Humanist).

As about existence of other such articles -- if those are non-notable, they should be deleted as well. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Anyways, let me explain:

LinuxChix is probably the most famous open-source women community with chapters in many countries (including India). It has been mentioned in hundreds of newspapers, websites and magazines(eg. [33][34][35][36]).
Linux kernel mailing list (LKML) is the place where Linux kernel development community comes together (Google for "LKML"; you can also find it in the news[37][38])
Dead Runners Society is not just a mailing list (it started as one, though) -- it's a multinational community which holds annual world conferenecs, and finds mention in media.
FlyLady is not just a mailing list -- it's a group which has received coverage in a number of newspapers and magazines, including TIME[39] and The Guardian[40].
The Computational Chemistry List article lacks references and has been tagged such. (Though a preliminary search indicates that it is notable -- it has received grants/sponsorships from NSF, ACS etc. It is registered as a for-profit LLC that sponsors events and offers job-listing service among other things.)
I've tagged Cctech, Tolklang with {{cleanup-importance}} and will prod them after some time, if notability is not explained. The Filthy Truth is already tagged and somebody has already expressed concerns over notability of Futureculture on the talk page.

I don't have enemity with ecologists, but after reading the article and finding more about the list, I don't feel that this list notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia. If this list is notable, the burden of establishing notability lies on the creator. As I've pointed out above, nothing in article established notability. Vague arguments such as "famously contributing in saving the environment / planet makes the subject important enough to warrant an article in any paid Encyclopedia, leave alone a free web Encyclopedia" don't help. utcursch | talk 15:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I agree - but would like to see consistent logic and action on it. I am unable to see LinuxChix as notable, by the same standards. Ditto with Linux kernel mailing list - giving more google hits is not a great measure of notability. Linux is of course notable, but the list is probably not - at least not for an encyclopaedia by the same line of argumentation. Shyamal 15:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can easily be backed with references, but feel free to nominate them for deletion, if you think they are non-notable. I assume good faith, but after reading User:Atulsnischal's message on the mailing list, this looks like a Conflict of interest case to me ("I entered our "Natural History India Mailing List" in the Encyclopedia (Wikipedia the free encyclopedia on the web) yesterday. Please keep a tab on the Article, after few days waiting time for new articles it will put the Wikipedia Article on our List on top in Google and other Web engine searches."). I've no problem with relisting at AFD. utcursch | talk 04:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. In fact I think an article being created to serve a particular interest such as making something popular (read notable) should itself make a case for deletion. In fact I just wrote about this on another case and on notability of living people as a rule. The creator of the article in this case, has not spent time on reading wikipedia guidelines, policies etcetera although I find this unimportant and in this entire deletion debate I have kept the focus on the article subject and the general perspectives on notability. I have no strong opinion and do not see anyone being unduly affected by the deletion of this article. Anybody doing work in a particular field, conservation included, would have little time or interest in debating about their notability or the email discussion groups that they belong to. Shyamal 04:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: There are birding listservs for all regions, and they do laudable work in coordinating conservation, counts, and discoveries. However, there are dozens, and they are all about the same age, about the same in accomplishments, about the same in membership per capita, etc. The point being that this one must stand out against that background (others of the type) as well as listserves (the type) to be encyclopedic. Since Wikipedia is not a web guide, even to the good listservers and good pages, and since the particular is not outstanding, it is not encyclopedic. Geogre 15:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, agree if consistent policy is applied to all list related article including those listed under category:Mailing lists. Shyamal 15:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If DRV is supposed to be primarily about process, then the above two comments appear to be focusing on the wrong issue. The AfD was pretty close anyway, and a couple of the delete votes were before the rewrite and sourcing; is that enough to merit a relist at AfD? Trebor 15:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a list dealing with issues faced by Indian Naturalists, conservationists, and NGOs who network on it thankfully, including members of related Government institutions, IT CAN ONLY BE COMPARED WITH OTHER LISTS OF THE REGION dealing with similar issues and it stands head and shoulders above the rest, most of the top people in the field in the region are subscribers or know of its reputability. It is a notable achievement in India in its field, please digest that before you take the argument around the world comparing ORANGES with APPLES. Hello I need a wiser Administrator to assist with RESTORING the Article on this list. Atulsnischal 03:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way The debate here is on the notability of the list and having an article on it in Wikipedia, any messages "one" user wrote elsewhere or his personal opinion (even if he happens to be the creator of the said article) should not count, other users routinely take the bias out of Wikipedia articles, which is ofcourse needed. The list will reappear on Wikipedia and many other places, I am confident that is why I didnt hesitate in providing the link to the message mentioned in the debate above: message on the mailing list. By the way lot of people write about things they strongly feel, that is common nature to us, if there is bias in the article and there is conflict of interest, there are thousands of other users on Wikipedia who over time will weed this kind of bias out. Kindly just keep your focus on the right issues and please don't continue to compare ORANGES with APPLES. Give a chance to others to assist in this review, I would appreciate if others can help too. It took me almost a year to write the article about the list after observing what goes on in it after becomming a member myself. Maybe I wrote the article on the list in the spirit of assisting in Conservation, and if there is any bias everybody is free to weed it out. This kind of thing should not warrant a deletion of the article itself Atulsnischal 09:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overturn and keep Even the evidence presented here without seeing the list is enough to demonstrate likely notability. First, it has the highest quality sponsorship. Second, it is acknowledged to be a major list. Third, it covers important events. Fourth, even one of those urging deletion suggested its use as a R S. Fifth, if the !votes included mainly those based on an early version of the article which was then improved, then the closure was against the more validly judged !votes, and should have been relisted or closed as no consensus.
- And, I endorse User:Atulsnischal's request for it to be restored during the discussion. Those of us who are not admins should have the same opportunity to see the evidence. We all should be equal here, and base our views on all the material. The nature of the article is relevant, for its been the basis of the previous discussion. Others are urging endorsing the deletion on the basis of their view of the article. This is basic fairness. DGG 09:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind a relisting at AFD, but which "highest quality sponsorship", acknowledgment, and "important events" are you talking about? utcursch | talk 10:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Fails WP:WEB and other guidelines. Never the subject of multiple reliable articles. Wickethewok 03:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was the closing admin. I closed as delete because, i guess personally, DO NOT DELETE noms with no policy arguments behind it really dont jump out at me as a reason to not delete an article. The Delete noms expressed there concerns that the content was unencylopedic and the only response was "This was perhaps one of the first scholarly discussion groups that ever dealt with India." (not to discount this editors opinion). The argument did not strengthen the keep argument. keywords being perhaps, and being to specific, i.e. first group to deal with india? Where is the line drawn? does every group that is the first to cover a country or topic count as encylopedic? aside from that, the other keeps were based on sources added but did not seem to address the issue of it being encylopedic. If it was the first sholarly mailing list ever, that might have been a different story. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Content being unencyclopaedic is not a reason for deletion although subject being unencyclopaedic is. At first I had given a weak keep. Then some admin asked whether there were even any mailing list related articles, at which point I found that mailing lists of (arguably) equivalent notability such as Linux kernel mailing list existed. I also found the policies being cited and interpreted very variably by admins based on their personal fancy topics. Personally I would hope that admins can spend more time on making the policies tighter rather than merely follow slipshod guidelines. From my reading and understanidng of the guiding principles, so far I would not find a single mailing list worthy of inclusion in an encylopaedia including what is now being touted as notable such as LinuxChix and FlyLady. The creators of these groups may be notable and there merely needs to be one link on their page about these groups. That would only be fair in establishing enclopaedic guidelines. Shyamal 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about something more then a mailing list, it is often referred to as a NATURAL HISTORY NETWORK OF INDIA, it also serves as WILDERNESS TELEGRAM SYSTEM of sorts, the subject of this article has become an NGO in itself helping its members many of whom are grassroots workers in the field of Nature & Wildlife Conservation, students, scientists, prominent members of other NGOs, many "News Makers" in these field report directly to the NETWORK, simultaneously or before commercial news channels report on the matter, discoveries, poaching, habitat encroachments, proposed government protected area notifications and the unfortunate de-notifications, illegal wildlife trade observed, wildlife trade seizures, Endangered Tiger & Panther etc. etc. bone and skin seizures, proposed government policy changes affecting the environment before they come into effect, proposed dams which will submerge large chunks of the last remaining pristine forests etc are just a few things reported and debated by this NETWORK many a times bringing corrective action in time. Atulsnischal 12:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Atul, would you please lump together your comments instead of making three different entries in this review? Thanks. --Ragib 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion: Mailing lists are inherently unencyclopedic as a topic. That other such articles exist is not a justification to keeping a mailing list. There are literally thousands of mailing lists that are subscribed to by hundreds of thousands of people, and that are making huge impacts, but that doesn't make mailing lists a notable topic for inclusion into an encyclopedia. --Ragib 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The changes were substantial enough to give this more scrutiny. This should've been relisted rather than closed as delete. ~ trialsanderrors 00:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all including the Admins I have a problem with Ragib, he has been systematically following the Articles I have worked on and undoing many of the changes, on the Admin board I was told he is doing nothing against policy, since he is dimost obviously discreminating against me can his votes be made void, when deleting this article and now in the review. I thought it best to let all know, kindly report to Admins on my behalf, I have already done so, but no body seems to care. Thanks Atulsnischal 07:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not really the place to make such a request. But in any case, I've replied in your talk page explaining this. Thank you. --Ragib 07:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the folks at WP:ANI got that right. There's a reason every editor has a publicly viewable edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 07:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

North America (Americas) – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Incorrect interpretation of AfD debate by the Administrator. He gave the "delete" votes more weight than the "keep". The result should have been no consensus. A narrow majority (4 votes), is NOT consensus. The article was nominated due to the fact that it had few references, however it was a 1 day old article, under expansion at the time. However, more reliable, verifiable references were added in order to address this concern, expressed by the nominator. Another reason for the nomination was POV Forking. POV Fork article states that occurs when one editor decides to create a separate article about the same topic as a result of a disagreement, to represent a certain POV, or to avoid NPOV in a certain article. This article was not created for any of those reasons (e.g. there was no current debate/edit war on North America), but to provide a link to Template:Regions of the world, where the link for North America directed to the article about the continent (See Template:Continents of the world.

There are several geographical models about the Americas, and every of the other regions in the models have their own article:

Linguistically:

Continentally:

Regionally:

North America (Americas) <--Deleted article
Central America
Caribbean
South America
Northern America
Middle America (Americas)

Middle America (Americas), Northern America, Central America and the Caribbean, all of these regions, in fact, are part of the North American continent. Some of the reasons expressed to delete the article were that it "duplicated the name of an existing article and duplicated the information", then, should we delete the articles about all those regions part of the North American continent and merge them into North America?. North America as a region, and North America as a continent (that includes Central America and the Caribbean) are two different concepts, and as expressed above, every region of the continent has their own article. In the case of South America, there's no similar problem as in North America. SA meaning the continent or the region, occupies the same territory in both geographical conceptions. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aside from the facts that some of the sources listed do not support the content (e.g., Encarta; see AfD comments) and that this article did arise out of disagreement/inability to incorporate content where it belongs (North America), it remains a fork. As well (if my counting is correct ... someone please double-check), the result was this: 24 users voted to delete, 1 to redirect to North America, 11 to merge with NA, 19 to keep (a few of which had provisos to merge/delete if not improved) totalling 55 (excluding comments); it's also clear that 'redirect' and 'merge' do not mean 'keep'. Even with the vote-stacking/cross-posting throughout to 'keep' and the possibly confusing, repetitive comments/lists of a single user, a consensus ((24+1+11)/55 = 65%) has indicated that this article should be deleted, redirected, or its contents merged. Corticopia 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Actually, there are 23 votes to "Delete" and 19 to "Keep", that's a difference of just 4, and a majority is not the same as a consensus You're counting one vote expressed as "Merge/Delete" as a direct "Delete". It is obvious that his first choice was to "Merge". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I will leave it to someone else (as requested) to validate and interpret the tally; I apologise for any miscounts, but that doesn't fundamentally change the outcome ... particularly if you argue that the margin is 'slim' to begin with, ignore other integral flaws, or believe that 'merging' content from an article also illogically coincides with 'keeping' it. Corticopia 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment, I'm not saying "merge" equals "keep". Also "merge" does not equal "delete". Otherway, then why one votes "merge" if they can choose "delete"? The point here is that the opinions were so divided between keeps, deletes and merges. No consensus was reached. And consensus is not "majority", since "AfD is not a votation/poll". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )}

- - - - Comment I believe the point is that you're trying to push a point which even resonates through the article you created, and use the inequities of polling to draw out the topic. You say that AfD is not a votation (noted) but then assert that the fewer 'keep' votes (many of which were just that and canvassed) were unnecessarily deprecated. False -- yours sounds like a confirmation bias to me. Actually, you waffle and make little sense: a consensus clearly did not support retaining the article. One votes to merge content into North America (with no/few attempts beforehand to do so or with content already there, and where it should be), after which there is no need for its eponymous fork -- and that is the original problem with the article. Ditto for redirecting. This may not apply to other regional articles (effectively subarticles) which have unique points and reliable sources to round out content. This fork confuses the very topic it may be intended to clarify. Someone else can continue to argue with you, but I won't. And that's it. Corticopia 19:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. I recommend you to read WP:POVFORK, there is the CLEAR definition of what it is. This article was not a POV Fork and you know it. When I said that the Admin did not give proper weight to the "keep" votes, I meant it was like he ignored them, because there wasn't an overwhelming majority of deletes, in order to say that "a consensus was reached". 23 delete vs 19 keeps? That's a narrow majority, not even close to a "consensus". Lastly, unfortunately, the article was unfairly deleted and the PEOPLE cannot see the sources, so you have the "advantage" to tag them as "no reliable". All of the references clearly defined the North American region. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Uh-huh. As the nominator, I have fully read necessary content. Your 'interpretation' remains as clear as mud. Anyhow, end of this thread. Corticopia 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the article as per above. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore A lot of people were in favour of keeping the article and there was nowhere near consensus for deleting so I am somewhat bemused that the admin should have chosen to delete in spite of this, claiming that it wansnt a ballot and therefore s/he had the right to delete anyway. This deletion was clearly out of process, SqueakBox 17:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I'm not an administrator -- as neither of the two editors above are -- so I'm unsure of the utility of said comments to endorse, etc.; however, FWIW (and as the nominator of this AfD), I fully endorse the decision to delete this article and the closing admin was not in error (see tallies). Despite incremental editions and obfuscation during the AfD, the article did not change substantially from being a fork of North America, and a consensus of editors still asserted to either delete redirect, or merge it upon the AfD's conclusion. There remains no reason (if not already) why this information cannot be merged/expanded upon in North America. As well, note that many of the 'keep' votes are the result of canvassing of 'keep' votes externally by at least one participating editor (see AfD page; also brought to the attention of admins) and the author/challenger of the AfD was rebuked by at least two users (one an admin, from what I can tell) for related excessive cross-posting. Othrewise, I defer to my prior Afd comments. Corticopia 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Everyone can contribute here not just admins so if you want to keep the delete please put this at the beginning of your statement instead of the word comment, SqueakBox 17:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion - some of the keep votes were simply "Keep ~~~~". Others simply attempted to discredit the nominator. None of them presented any evidence in the form of reliable sources in order to meet the concerns of the nominator. The article in itself was also unsourced and appeared to be original research, and was a POV fork. --Core desat 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unsourced? Now, for sure I can tell you didn't read the article. How can it be original research, there are plenty of sources indicating the existence of North America as a region/subcontinent. In the geographic model that considers America a single continent, it is divided in North, Central, Caribbean and South. Unsourced? There were links to a site of the Government of Canada, Duke University, American University, The North American Institute, Encarta, etc. POV fork? NO way, (Read its definition at WP:POVFORK). The creation of the article was not motivated as a result of a disagreement about North America, but to provide a link to Template:Regions of the world (different from Template:Continents of the world), that already had a link to North America (but as a continent). As already said above, there was no debate/edit war in the article North America. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 18:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those sources do not work - sources that just say "oh, North America is only such-and-such region" don't work out under WP:RS. Random links that say only that and nothing else are trivial sources, even if they're departments of universities. They do not establish or indicate that there is any sort of consensus that there is a region of the continent called North America. Barring those, yes, the article is unsourced. --Core desat 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The references provided clearly indicated that North America is also a region, containing Canada, the US and Mexico. If you failed to see that, then I'd say you're clearly biased about the subject, and that you probably were not the indicate administrator to close the debate. There were also 2 books about the subject, both about North America as a region, again, clearly defining it as a region. More importantly, darely denying such a region exist, without even try to check if it really doesn't exist (in case you continue to say the references provided "don't say that"), is not just arrogant, but risky. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, closer's rationale looks sound. Fundamental problems were not addressed in the debate or in the content. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm afraid you can't say that, because you are not able to see the article. As I already said, it was a 1 day old article, and however, more sources were provided to specifically address this "reason" for the nomination. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 18:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse; as Guy says, the closing rationale seems solid. Many of the keep votes were not argued. Trebor 23:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist As I saw it, the result was no consensus. There were a number of !votes near the end for rationalising the group of articles with the different possible definitions. DGG 04:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually (if my counting is correct ... someone please double-check), the result was this: 24 users voted to delete, 1 to redirect, 11 to merge, 19 to keep (a few of which had provisos to merge/delete if not improved) totalling 55 (excluding comments). Even with the vote-stacking/cross-posting throughout to 'keep' and the possibly confusing, repetitive comments/lists of a single user, a consensus ((24+1+11)/55 = 65%) has indicated that this article should be deleted, redirected, or its contents merged. Corticopia 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Exactly I agree with you DGG, there are different geographic models used in the Americas. However, it seems that many people just denied to believe that the North American region exist, even with all the sources provided:

Linguistically:

Continentally:

Regionally:

North America (Americas) <--Deleted article
Central America
Caribbean
South America
Northern America
Middle America (Americas)

Again, (before somebody tries to make this "argument"), South America, defined as a continent (two continents) or as a region (single American continent), occupies the same territory in both definitions. As you can see, all of the other regions of the Americas have their own article. Central America, Middle America and Northern America, are also PART OF NORTH AMERICA AS A CONTINENT. Should we erase this articles and merge them into North America? AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 17:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, strangely, there does appear to be an article about Northern South America (with apparently the intent to create other articles for each of the cardinal directions), though I make no qualifications of its authority or content. Corticopia 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Consensus is not vote counting. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True: I merely pointed out the vote tally for our collective benefit because the challengers are using the crutch that the 'delete' votes (et al.) were given undue weight while, all the same, the 'keep' votes (many of which were minimal) were inordinately being deprecated. At its face (i.e., based on mere count), a consensus does support the nomination and the closing admin acted correctly based on other factors too. Corticopia 16:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: True, and a narrow majority of only 4 votes to delete the article, is NOT a consensus. The opinions were very divided. Almost the same amount of keep than delete votes. So, there was no consensus about what to do. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This is dubious, confusing illogic -- there was not almost the same amount of votes. You first say that the 'keep' votes were not given due weight. You then say there was no consensus, even though almost two thirds opted to delete, merge content into North America, or redirect there (the last two of which clearly do not mean 'keep'). Even if the delete/keep votes were taken alone (24:19), that yields 56% for the former option (which is generally statistically significant). And, after all, this isn't just about the quantity but quality of comments, and many of the 'keep' comments were essentially user signatures which were mostly due to canvassing to 'keep' throughout. Despite repetitive listing to maximize position here and there (where a link to Americas (terminology) would suffice), the article remained a fork upon its deletion. Corticopia 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Actually, there are 23 votes to delete and 19 to keep. You're counting one vote expressed as "Merge/Delete" as a "Delete". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Again, I will leave it to someone else (as requested) to validate and interpret the tally; I apologise for any miscounts, but that doesn't fundamentally change the outcome ... particularly if you argue that the margin is 'slim' to begin with, ignore other integral flaws, or believe that 'merging' content from an article also illogically coincides with 'keeping' it. Corticopia 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't take a stand in the AfD, though I commented extensively. Barring sock/meat/whatever puppets and canvassed voters, there was a fairly strong consensus to delete. And deleters did make stronger arguments than keepers. WilyD 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore: Oh really?, stronger arguments according to who?. The discussion wasn't finished yet, people were still voting, and it seems very convenient to me that they stopped it right when there was a slightly majority of votes for deletion. Supaman89 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to most, actually. And many of those that were '(still) voting' to keep the article were explicitly canvassed to 'keep' it (e.g., in the Spanish Wikipedia) by you. Corticopia 14:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to anyone - it's just a basic truth. With such a difference in article quality, and honest person can see that the delete arguments relied on facts, and were in accord with policy, while the keeps were essentially WP:ILIKEIT. For what it's worth, people were never voting, AfD is not a vote, and it seems like it's the singular fact that brings us here is the inability of some to grasp that. WilyD 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question How are North America as a region and North America as a continent different? What would be included in one and not the other? -Acjelen 21:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the basic difference is that the North American continent includes Central America, and the concept of North America as a region specifically refers to Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico (and sometimes a few islands.) As the page stood before it was deleted, if I remember correctly, there was a map, several definitions of the region of North America, and a brief description of NAFTA. Confiteordeo 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (general) That's just about it: the fork fixated on and sensationalized a single point of view about this nebulous region while minimizing others (like NA often being used to refer just to Canada and the U.S. as opposed to Latin America) and didn't contain a single reliable source defining "North America as a 'region'" as stated, compared to a plethora of reputable ones that indicate it is a continent or component of America. Besides: it contained nothing that couldn't be -- if not already -- in North America or elsewhere. Anyhow, of course the article couldn't benefit from various points of view because it wasn't discussed beforehand nor adequately sourced -- the article was created/flourished by one or two editors that decided to boldly go where the rest of us needn't, and who decided to not only fork content, but spoon-feed us a unique interpretation through straw man arguments. And all articles in Wikipedia are unfinished, but sometimes abortions early in the first trimester are necessary. Enough from me. Corticopia 00:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Many of the "keep" votes were either unexplained, simply stated things like "this is a good article," or agreed that the article was about the concept of North America as a region. Statements like that didn't address the concerns of the nominator, nor did they explain why the information presented in the deleted article needed to stand alone, rather than being included in one of the many articles we have on the different divisions of the Americas, such as North_America#Usage_of_the_term, Americas (terminology), and Americas#Usage. Confiteordeo 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the quality of the closing notwithstanding, it was a bad article. And as someone above said, "consensus is not vote counting." --Golbez 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original deletion.--cj | talk 02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I did not vote in a baseless fashion, nor did others voting in the AfD and I believe that the closing admin, who acknowledged that he was discounting many of the views expressed, over-reached. I am becoming more concerned that a cultural bias is at play here. En WP does not need to be about only things seen from a North American perspective. The notion that there is significant difference between a geographic continent and sphere of economic, political and cultural influence may not be obvious to the closing admin but he should be aware of the limitations on his point of view.Edivorce 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'Many of the views expressed' to 'keep' (and still outstripped by views to 'delete', 'merge' content, or 'redirect') were merely assertions (if that) and/or the direct result of canvassing by said editors to 'keep' -- one reaps what one sows. There's room aplenty for numerous viewpoints in Wikipedia, but the 'keepers' (as someone put it) have demonstrated either an unwillingness or inability to incorporate or enhance reliably sourced content and notions through reasoned discourse in the AfD and (in this case) where it belongs: in North America and related articles. And, unfortunately,accommodating various points of view does not allow for the bold forking of relevant content to achieve that. Corticopia 04:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- as you indented this comment beneath my own it appears that you are making a reference to my vote. A review of the AfD will show that this is a mis-characterization. Edivorce 05:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment To what are you referring? Mine are general comments that are intended to point out the vagaries or inaccuracies of your comments, so who is mischaracterizing? Corticopia 13:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not merely state a position in the AfD. I backed it with arguements. My arguemnt addressed addressed WP:RS. You and more importantly, the closing admin, ignored this. Then the closing admin characterizes all keep arguements as baseless. Even one keep arguement with a basis is enough to stop the admin from imposing his will. I see this all the time. An editor states A. B and C in support of a position. Any one is sufficient to maintain the point. An admin says A and B are not good arguments. So you have no basis. Ignoring that the argument he failed to address is itself sufficient. An admin can close for delete lacking a clear consensus if there is no - that is not any at all- argument for reliable sources. He can not just impose his view to close because he thinks the close arguments are "better." Remember it is "delete" that has the burden of establishing a consensus to remove the article.Edivorce 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, a consensus of two-thirds already exists to delete, merge content, or redirect this article. In addition, your argument has not satisfactorily addressed WP:RS -- since these weren't provided in the article -- nor has it dealt with other points in/throughout the nomination (e.g., misrepresentation of source matter, the notion that this fork wasn't created out of a disagreement or discussion elsewhere). Simply put, your arguments and (especially) those of most of the 'keepers' are simply less compelling or rather willful. Relatedly, you also seem to glaze over the explicit canvassing of many of the 'keep' votes (many of which were just signatures), which cannot so easily usurp reasoned counterpoints. Corticopia 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Need the history restored to see the original article before I make a decision here. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment History restored behind protected redirect. --Core desat 08:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore: Originally, I was going to endorse the deletion, but only because I didn't understand what this was about, and it seems to me that many people that voted for delete didn't get it. Outside of the US, there is a "one continent" model (we consider the Americas to be only one continent). In this model, America is still divided into smaller regions (or subcontinents), which are not the same as the regions in the two continent model (in this subdivision, Central America is not part of North America). The Encarta source clearly treats America this way, so the article was not unsourced, as has been stated by the administrator who deleted this.

Junto a Centroamérica, las Antillas y Sudamérica, Norteamérica constituye el continente americano.

Next to Central America, The Antilles and South America, North America comprises the American Continent

and

Norte America, subcontinente que abarca Canadá, los Estados Unidos de América y parte del territorio de México.

North America, subcontinent that covers Canada, the United States of America, and part of the Mexican Territorry.

--Solid Reign 15:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While one cannot deny other continental models, the above is a very selective, narrow interpretation of the source ... which is part of the problem. Let's clarify, shall we: the Spanish Encarta article clearly indicates that North America is a subcontinent(e) including Canada, the US, and part of Mexico and also includes Greenland, St. P. & M., and (in Spanish) Bermuda; these entities -- together with Central America, the Antilles (West Indies), and South America -- comprise the American continent(e). It does not specifically indicate NA is a 'region' (see below) and elaborates (roughly) that "North America is sometimes defined to include Central America and the West Indies, which are treated separately in this encyclopedia." Throughout, NA is just a subcontinent(e). Conversely, many English and other sources unambiguously indicate that CA and WI are included in NA, and no one has yet successfully argued why the content in this article cannot be dealt with in the NA article.

The Spanish Encarta article for Central America goes on to say that it IS a region of the American continent(e) and is "defined by geographers as part of North America." The same is essentially said in English for both NA and CA, except it substitutes 'subcontinent(e)' with 'continent' and 'America(n continent(e))' with 'Western Hemisphere.' Also, in English Encarta, all of Mexico and Bermuda are included in NA, and (in both) CA geologically begins at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. There is nothing new in this information, which harks of the nomination and is dealt with (or should be) in North America (see also South America), and it still doesn't justify the fork. Corticopia 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, READ WP:POVFORK, it clearly indicates what is and what is not a POV fork. The creation of this article was not a fork, so please, I invite every reader to take a look in to the POV fork policy. Repeating it was a "fork" won't make it a fork. Secondly, just because a valid geographical model is not the primarly taught in your country, it doesn't make it less valid nor "selective". Thirdly and most importantly, Encarta was not the only source provided. Two books and several other sources (some of them by a Canadian and an American University) clearly indicate and make North America as a region, their object of study. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Continual 'sophistry' aside, the sources you provided are substandard, some of which do not support your assertion or are ambiguous: see AfD comments. You also maintain a confirmation bias despite being unwilling or unable to discuss and incorporate the topic matter regarding this nebulous region (despite protestations otherwise and minimizing other perspectives) in North America (so you can take your own advice and read WP:POVFORK); you also seem to be in denial of explicit canvassing/cross-posting that you partook in to support this fork, which many (if not most) of the commentators in the AfD also mantained was a fork. And, I'm sorry, but denial is in another continent. That's it. Corticopia 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete, as I've said before it is not about the continent, it's about the region ! Cavenba^{talk to me} 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- No one is denying that that was the subject of the deleted article. Since this is not AfD, would you please comment on the interpretation of the votes and the debate, or at least address the concerns of the nominator? Confiteordeo 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete, simply because 65% is not consensus. The decision to delete was done hastily without allowing the parties to reach a consensus amongst themselves. This issue was treated as a simple voting system in which the "will of the majority" prevailed (i.e. democracy, something wikipedia is not), and not as a mechanism through which a consensus would be reached through dialogue. If 19 users voted against the deletion, the admin should have payed more attention to their concerns and should have encouraged both parties to debate. That 65% majority was far from a consensus and far from rough consensus (2/3). --theDúnadan 03:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it wasn't merely a 'votation': the tallies merely further solidified a consensus to delete, merge, or redirect this forking of content. Said commentators are unwilling or unable to acccept or integrate that many of the 19 'keep' comments were simply that and not argued and were explicitly canvassed by the main supporters of the article. Despite this imbalance and said tactics, the debate was quite extensive (and repetitive), and a perusal of the AfD reveals that -- the 'keep' commentators were given all the attention they were due. No one has satisfactorily addressed -- or just avoids -- why this redundant information cannot reside or be dealt with in North America. Moreover, I'm not sure what system of mathematics you're using, but (strictly by the numbers) 65% is a hair's length diff from 66.6...% (or 2 over 3) and definitely more than the 60% which is the minimum required for consensus in Wp. And if one continues to glaze over these arguments (et al.), I'm getting off of this bus right now ... Corticopia 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - closing admin took all arguments into account and exercised discretion properly. This was a procedurally sound close. Metamagician3000 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the article North America can easily address the issue of whether the continent includes certain territory or not. -Acjelen 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - As Metamagician points out, this is a valid admin closure, and I can see little or no discussion addressing this, as opposed to re-debating the merits of the article. - David Oberst 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator of this deletion review has canvassed (link) the talk pages of those who voted to keep the article on its AfD. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is not canvassing since it is only an invitation to express their opinions again. However, Corticopia, the user that nominated the article for deletion in the first place, did the same check here (Link) before I did. That's why I also started inviting the editors to express their opinions again, since he only invited those who voted "delete".

What I found really weird/surprising, is that you noticed my "canvassing" while not noting that Corticopia, in fact, did it first. However, I don't think any of us are doing such a thing, since we're inviting again those who already voted with a neutral message. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, eh? And incorrect. There's a difference between your actions and mine: I have invited a variety of editors, administrators, and (earlier) commentators at other articles (e.g., Talk:Canada, Geography wikiproject) -- not just those who opted to 'delete' -- to weigh in. Also, your message is hardly neutral since you clearly bolded text and pointedly stated the decision to be "wrong". Imitation is flattery, but you seem to have a penchant for pointing the finger when you need to look in the mirror first. Corticopia 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even with all your verbose talking... inviting people that you know will "vote" in a certain way, is considered canvassing. However, you're being hypocritical, since you started "inviting" people to "weight in", those who voted "delete" and perhaps some others. By just checking your contribution list and the AfD anybody can see it. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no response for continuous sophistry, but do apologise to others for any real or imagined breach of protocol. Corticopia 23:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Trying to resurrect this issue by discussing the merits of the deleted articles is NOT the point of deletion review. As the closing admin pointed out a large number of those wishing to keep the article did not cite any reasons for keeping it, valid or otherwise. The nominator of this review, also the creator of the deleted article, seems to have taken the issue extremely personally, and the whole issue has escalated into what feels like a personal dispute between him and the nominator of the deletion discussion. The closing admin did the right thing in realizing that consensus was reached to delete the article - please let the issue die in peace and don't relist this one. Arkyan 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and request - I don't know if I am out of line here, but may I humbly ask Corticopia and AlexCovarrubias to cease disrupting the discussion? Your points have been made again and again, and the back-and-forth between you is doing nothing to add to the discussion at hand. If you have a fundamental difference of opinion you want to hash out, please take it to your talk pages. The heated debate bewteen you two was overwhelming on the original AfD and it is beginning to overwhelm this discussion as well. Arkyan 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noted. Corticopia 23:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Couldn't agree more with the closing admin.--Hús ö nd 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I don't see anything here to make me think the closure was unsound, or to make me reconsider my original opinion (I almost said "vote", but AFD is not considered a majority rules plebiscite). 23skidoo 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The rationale for deletion was sound. older ≠ wiser 01:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. I still can't see why the article couldn't be left alone and stand by itself. After all, we have the article on United States, which talks about its history, population, culture, demographics, economy, and also, its GEOGRAPHY, but, hey...! There's also another article called Geography of the United States, which... wow! Talks about the Geography of the United States. Redundant...? NO! ...It's just something called expanding information, just as the deleted article intended to contribute to Wikipedia.
Comment. I don't necessarily agree with the admin per se, in that keep votes should be disregarded (at least thats how i saw it worded). Keep OR Deletion OR Merge votes that do not offer something to say (or, if you agreed with someone, that would, I suppose, be acceptable) should be disregarded. After looking through more of the content... I still think it should be merged (but I'm not really sure if I can suggest that in a deletion log), only because I think that this information SHOULD go somewhere (probably the North America article). Just weighing in here. Disinclination 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I commented extensively in the afd in favor of deleting, and I would just like to add that in my humble opinion, POV FORK concerns have been denied but not clearly addressed by proponents of this article. Likewise, the contention that one North America article could cover all of this information was not disputed with any clear reasoning. Certainly no one tried that option. Much of the afd debate consisted of voting, which we know is not grounds for either keeping or deleting. Therefore, the deletion was in accordance with consensus. Feeeshboy 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if the deletion was in accordance with consensus, and is a final irreversible decision, no steps whatsoever have been taken by either party to comply with the numerous requests to merge the information that was therein contained into North America. --theDúnadan 15:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There is a certain amoutn of discertion left up to the closing administrator. I agree with their decision and agree that any information in the article could probably be contained somewhere else. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:CopyrightByWikimedia – Category undeleted by deleting admin – trialsanderrors 09:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

One person requested that this be renamed to Category:Images copyrighted By Wikimedia Foundation (a reasonable title), but the other two participants in the CFD decided they didn't like the existence of a seperate category for WMF materials and now there is no categorization of the hundreds of Wikimedia images used on Wikipedia (see: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Copyright by Wikimedia). That two people, on a CFD with all of three participants, can decide to decategorize hundreds of images strikes me as utterly ridiculous. WMF images are a special class of materials on Wikipedia and deserve to organized as such (whether or not the category is renamed). Dragons flight 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Technically shouldn't it be Category:Images copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shrug. Whatever one wants to call it, the point is that the category deserves to exist as long as the images do. Dragons flight 15:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
relist - even as one of the delete voters, i don't feel consensus was reached. But, as for "WMF images are a special class of materials"? Why? They're unfree, invalid or no attempt at fair use rationales in many cases, and deserve to be treated as such. Wikipedia is not just for us. --Random832 15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And if they are going to be used on Wikipedia, having them seperately categorized would make it a lot easier for reusers to remove them. The issue of whether the images ought to exist at all is, in my opinion, an entirely seperate issue. Personally, I do find it fairly ridiculous that the Foundation has never issued formal guidance on the use and reuse of most of their logos and materials. Dragons flight 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to list exactly the reason they are a special case, they are unfree. They shouldn't form part of the real content of wikipedia, just the branding and project stuff (the project does belong to wikimedia, the resultant encyclopedia content does not). Most reusers would rebrand to meet their own needs.
  - But they're not a special case. They're no different from any other unfree media - well, except for the fact that they're almost universally lacking in fair-use rationales. I still say the best course of action is to delete 99% of them, reclassify the rest as fair use, thus depopulating the category, which would then be deleted. --Random832 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except they are different. Since the Wikimedia Foundation owns them, it means that Wikipedia can't be sued for using them. The Foundation knows they exist (having been asked repeatedly for specific use guidelines), but has never acted to delete them, which could be regarded as tacit permission. I realize that with permission images are normally banned, but this class of images have been a part of Wikipedia from the beginning and changing that would require a much broader discussion than afforded by a single CFD. Not to mention that the whole issue could be settled overnight if the WMF ever got around to really addressing the usage rights for such images. Dragons flight 23:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn seems no-consensus to me. --pgk 18:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list. Almost all image copyright tags have a category, this one should too, but there is not consensus as to what that category should be. Maybe Category:Unlicensed images copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation? That might be too long, but it certainly is descriptive. --Iamunknown 02:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist obviously there is a need for further discussion.DGG 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Images using Template:Copyright by Wikimedia are now uncategorized.--Jusjih 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist--but suggest it be renamed exactly as the same commons category CopyrightByWikimedia, the fountainhead source of all these. Note also, {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} just updated for interwiki compatibility. Only Wiksource, Wikiquote, and Wikimedia (no surprise there on the last!) do not have this Meta-tag. There is no sensible reason to have two names, and the commons categories can then be linked with {{Commonscat1}}. // FrankB 00:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "CopyrightByWikimedia" is totally non-descriptive. So what if these images are copyrighted by Wikimedia? Every textual contribution to Wikipedia that I submit — this one included — is copyrighted by me. But this and every other contribution I make is free because of the licensing (GFDL). We are not concerned that the images are copyrighted; every other uploaded image — except for those ones in the public domain in jurisdictions that recognize the public domain — is copyrighted; we are concerned about their license: that is, the fact that these particular images are unlicensed, the fact that you must ask for permission from the Wikimedia Foundation to use them. Why name the category with such a non-intuitive name? So what if the Commons category is named the same? Name it differently. --Iamunknown 04:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm the closing admin and there's an unanimity here, I'm overturning my decision and undeleting the cat. I think it may be useful to change the cat name on the template and perform a series of null edits, but I'll leave that be for now. >Radiant< 09:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steak and Blowjob Day – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 21:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Last removed in June 2006, it has grown exponentially in notability since that time. Some points of evidence for this: during the last deletion review, over 40,000 hits were retrieved. "Steak and a Blowjob Day" now returns 224,000 hits. Shirts and greeting cards (cites one vote for deletion: "When we start seeing holiday cards for this, then sure, we can have an article on it.") can be readily found for purchase, and I've encountered in discussion that I've not started. Facebook currently has 59 groups for the "Holiday", the largest holding 6,049 members. While it's considered not notable to plenty here on Wikipedia, it's clearly notable to enough people to keep coming up in discussion, and to have had another recent spat of creation attempts. In my conclusion, it has an obvious and citable history, enough mass to be notable, and given a stub article to work off, I'm sure I can string together a wiki-standards article. Autocracy 04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counting google hits isn't terribly useful. If you want to successfully make your case, you'll have to provide reliable sources. —Cryptic 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sources: Wired Posts This, The UC Davis campus newspaper: The UC Davis campus newspaper (publishing to a student body of near 30,000 enrollment)included this last year as well. Autocracy 05:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: "Steak and BJ Day" gets under 1000 ghits. "Steak and Blowjob Day" has 20,400, but I cannot find anything that this is on the levels of anything other than some radio gimmick, unlike Wintereenmas or Chrismukkah. Unless a decent third party reliable source (the Times, the Post, USA Today) has something about "Steak and BJ Day", there is no reason that the article should be undeleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some articles for which certain 3rd party sources are unlikely to ever publish. Notoriety should be clear from the collaboration of many other sources. Quoting WP:RS, "How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another," and what should be held as reliable for the OJ Simpson trial is a higher standard than this. Autocracy 05:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Jokes get passed around the internet. Sex-based jokes get passed around a lot. That doesn't mean they are appropriate for the encyclopedia. Reviewing the sources above, I don't find any that would support a neutral, fact-based article about the joke - they merely confirm its existence. Blogs, campus newspapers and joke-shop printers won't do it. Rossami (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Sorry, I don't see enough reliable sources to write an article from. I understand that the BBC is unlikely to cover this, but we still need sources with editorial oversight, which blogs don't have. — coel acan — 05:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endore deletion. per Ryulong and Rossami. They sum it up quite nicely and anything I would add would just be repetitive. --ImmortalGoddezz 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question What level of verification do we need that it exists? What metric do we use to gauge its popularity? Are the references for International_Talk_Like_a_Pirate_Day of sufficiently higher quality to warrant itself in comparison? Autocracy 05:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I exist, and I've got reliable newspaper articles specifically about me that verify this (and a few other) fact(s). However, I don't get an article because I'm not notable. And I'm OK with that. Rklawton 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Yes, what is a reliable source varies with subject matter, but blogs are never a reliable source. And verification of existence isn't enough; we need to be able to write an article. -Amarkov moo! 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, Wikipedia is not a gathering ground for every piece of crap off teh internets. No reliable sources = no article. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - per JzG. Lack of reliable sources, lack of need for article. Blogs are not RS, google-counting is on the ILIKEIT list. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: "It exists" is not sufficient. I'm sure the joke exists. I'm sure that there are many references to its existence. The question is whether it is significant, notable, persistent, and substantial -- whether or not it is, in short, encyclopedic. No reason to overturn the closure. Geogre 12:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. significant, notable, persistent, and substantial may be demonstrated without "reliable sources with editorial oversight". I would think Google hits are evidence of those 4 things.
Endorse deletion - As has been previously said, yeah it exists, but who gives a crap? No reliable sources, that's for sure. The Kinslayer 14:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. A lot can change - it got significant mention in the Village Voice in a piece by Rachel Kramer Bussel, another mention in Vancouver, the Aggie's been mentioned, a note in the Portland Mercury, and who know swhat else is buried under the blogs. It's worth another look, and appears to meet our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. The judgmental tone of many of the deletion votes indicates a bias, and few want to sift through all the thousands of Google hits to find a RS. "piece of crap" and "ludicrous concept" are irrelevant. If there are not sources for it now, there will be.
Endorse deletion. Sources do not agree on origin or date. Appears to be a non-notable Internet meme. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, because it's arguable as to when it started. It's not, however, an internet meme, it started on the radio. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, Guy pretty much hit the nail on the head here. --Core desat 20:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion No reliable sources, it does exist in a series of blogs and forums which are not good sources and Guy did make a good point.-- Dakota 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Points have been made, and consensus achieved. I am in agreement. Please close this AfD review. Autocracy 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (nominator of AfD review)[reply]
Endorse closure the fact that there are people who will go to the mat to defend the existence of such a ludicrous concept makes me weep for humanity. JuJube 01:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Everybodyfields – deletion endorsed, recreation encouraged, one new source found within – GRBerry 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The band has been active since more than four years and they always had a busy schedule of live performances all over the States, see [41] for 2006 and 2007. Google gives 20,600 hits (!) for them, supporting their notability. Only three users had voted for deletion and judged the band by criteria that more apply to mainstream studio pop music. Their third album is scheduled for June 2007 at Ramseur Records. The article has been stripped of several external links before the deletion, including the links to the band's website and to album reviews, leaving only a link to their myspace page. Cacycle 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close but allow re-creation based on possible additional notability based on events between November 2006 (date of AfD) and the present. If necessary, can then be re-listed on AfD for discussion with hopefully more participants. Newyorkbrad 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse but allow recreation per NYB. The close was correct based on the input. However, finding something like this (from just over a week ago) suggests that it may well now be attributable. If a sourced article is created, then it should be taken to AfD, not speedied. Trebor 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rites of Ash – deletion endorsed, copyright issue for all but two versions, and sourcing is not strong enough to encourage recreation – GRBerry 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since Rites of Ash has been deleted, the band has composed music for (and has aired on) nine MTV shows, including, "The Real World," "Next," "Pimp My Ride," Gauntlet 2," "Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Fresh Meat," "Island Life," "Livin La Haina" (MTV South America, etc. Also, Rites of Ash has collaborated with international DJ Paul Edge and Pablo Manzarek (son of Ray Manzarek of The Doors) on a remix album, and U.S. DMC Supremacy Champion DJ Idee on his music video "Eclectic Dreams" (which will air on MTVu and MTV2).

Can you provide non-trivial, independent sources for any of these claims? --Core desat 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see our credit for the music video here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_I-Dee
  As for song credits, most of the MTV online archive for our credits have since been taken down. I could only find this site with credit of our work: http://www.mtv.com/#/ontv/dyn/realworld-season17/episode/featured_music.jhtml?episodeId=96397
  I have the signed MTV contracts right here. We have numerous press releases and related materials on our websites: www.ritesofash.com -and- www.myspace.com/ritesofash
  User:ritesofash ritesofash 15:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Self-published materials do not meet the independence requirement for sources. Wikipedia entries also fail since they are edited pseudonymously. Can you point to substantive articles, books or journals verifiably written about you by other people?
    To be honest, you really shouldn't try to promote yourself or your group through Wikipedia. It's not good for the encyclopedia and it's rarely good for you. See WP:AUTO for more on autobiographical works. Rossami (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I'm convinced of notablility, but no reliable sources seem to be forthcoming. -Amarkov moo! 06:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion for now, the notability needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. They have not yet been provided. A ecis^Brievenbus 09:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - was this a valid speedy? Can we get a history undeletion on this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Every deleted revision (and there are a lot of them) except the first two are copyvios from [42]. The first two are mirrored here. —Cryptic 16:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that makes this whole exercise rather moot, eh? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per the relialbe source thing. The Kinslayer 14:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) – Deletion narrowly overturned; relisted at AFD – GRBerry 00:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Most of those involved in the discussion agree that the term "University of Wisconsin" by itself is in fact ambiguous Orange Mike 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't believe that the results of the AfD were interpreted incorrectly, but it seems that some of the people involved in the previous deletion debate have changed their opinions. Some of the votes to delete interpreted the deletion as a consensus to recreate the dab page at the plain title (University of Wisconsin, currently a redirect to University of Wisconsin-Madison). Further pages have also lengthened the hatnote on University of Wisconsin-Madison. The information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new disambiguation page. Mailer diablo is unavailable for comment. See this part of my user talk and Talk:University of Wisconsin for more information. Dekimasu よ! 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a UW system student, and a transfer from UW proper, the official name of the university is the University of Wisconsin. However, I'm generally in favor of more disambiguation and not less. However, in this case, I don't see University of Wisconsin as being a common search term for someone looking for say Eau Claire or Whitewater. What's more, the deletion seems to have been done in process and on consensus, so I'm not sure what the grounds for undeletion are. Wintermut3 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wintermut, I used to work for the Wis. Department of Public Instruction, and for a member institution of the UW system. The official name of the place in Madison is the University of Wisconsin-Madison, not "the University of Wisconsin" or "UW proper"! Check the webpage for the school in question (among many other places). This kind of Madison-centric misinformation is part of what we're dealing with.--Orange Mike 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting comment, and highlights the problem: Many if not most of the students and alumni of UW-Madison do think that University of Wisconsin is its official name, and many of the remainder are very strongly of the opinion that it should be. But as far as I can tell, it hasn't actually been the case since 1956 - a significant date one might think, but one currently missing from University of Wisconsin-Madison#Timeline of notable events. This omission may be another indicator of the problem! Andrewa 02:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Dekimasu touches upon, one of the pro-delete voices thought that by deleting the disambiguation page, we would be creating a redirect from University of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin system, which was his favored solution. Instead, we have the misleading redirect to the UW-Madison article. People outside Wisconsin are likely not to understand the way the Universities of Wisconsin are governed, which is part of what the disambiguation process is supposed to deal with. (And as Miaers among others has pointed out, from 1956-1971 "the University of Wisconsin" legally meant all two, then three, then four campuses, before the creation of the University of Wisconsin system.) --Orange Mike 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem with the disambig page lies in the title and what will be linked to it. As long as University of Wisconsin continues to redirect to UW-Madison, I have no problem with recreating it. However, I think you run into trouble when you change the redirect to point to the disambig page. As Wintermut points out, no one searching for UW-LaCrosse or UW-Oshkosh will type University of Wisconsin in order to find it.

Additionally, Dekimasu has exhaustively shown that University of Wisconsin almost exclusively refers to Madison in each instance it is linked on Wikipedia. By reinstituting the disambig page and changing the redirect, the meaning will be lost with hundreds of links originally meant to point to Madison. As I said before, recreate the page, but leave the redirect or you're preforming a serious disservice to Wikipedia.

Finally, its not "Madison-centric" thinking you're "dealing with", its standard useage. Cheers, PaddyM 02:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did not mean my previous statement to be taken as any kind of an endorsement of changing the current redirect to anything else. I would be fine with having the hatnote on University of Wisconsin-Madison change to a redirect tag for a dab page, but we shouldn't be trying to do any sort of out-of-sight content dictation here. Undeletion of the disambiguation page has little to do with the current setup of the University of Wisconsin redirect. Dekimasu よ! 12:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The dab header at University of Wisconsin does the job. No reason to recreate this. ~ trialsanderrors 09:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure of the AfD, given the input it seems reasonable. But is this really a deletion issue? If there is consensus on the talk pages, then I don't see anything wrong with reinstating the dab and using it as the primary redirect. Trebor 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (and revert to the previous three-way disambiguation as a basis for further edits). The decision was bizarre, and contrary to both policy and logic. There is strong evidence, throughout the discussion (and now including the above), that University of Wisconsin does mean different things to different people. Ummm, that's one reason we have disambiguation pages! Which is why I created it in the first place. To argue that the term is not ambiguous shows at best a lack of understanding of what the term ambiguous means. Andrewa 02:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: It's not that "UW" is ambiguous in searches, but that Wisconsin, like Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, and others, has gone to a multiple university system, all designated as UX at Y. In other words, "University of Wisconsin" refers to "University of Wisconsin system" within the state's own sponsorship system. It's not, in other words, a question of popular confusion as much as legal/state definition. The "UW" article should be "UW system" with links to each of the campuses. ... I'm not explaining this well, I fear, and I can imagine any non-US citizen being totally baffled, but no help for it. Geogre 15:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- University of Illinois (disambiguation), University of Michigan (disambiguation), University of California (disambiguation). Quick search tells me that dab pages are used are when the institutions have similar names but are otherwise unconnected: Queen's University (disambiguation), American University (disambiguation). In the cases of multi-campus university systems the disambiguation can be done in an editorial context: Indiana University, University of California. Not to mention that you have nothing to offer why the closure was invalid. ~ trialsanderrors 18:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. "University of Wisconsin" is 2 different things and thus should have a disam page. In Wisconsin, we almost never refer to UW-Madison as the University of Wisconsin. But I have heard it as referring to the system itself. And we have precedent for this. The University of California page is not a disam per say but it's more of a disam than a non-disam. I think the disam is necessary. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another AfD rerun comment. Also, Berkeley is never considered the University of California except in athletics, which is why the UC article is about the system. ~ trialsanderrors 20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, University of Wisconsin means three different things: From 1956 to 1971 it was the official name of a precursor institution to the UW System, see University of Wisconsin (1956-1971). It seems agreed that this is now a rare usage, but it will occur in historical contexts and especially in documents from this period. It was the discovery of this third meaning that convinced me that we should try a disambig page. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can tell that's the same Chapter 36 institution as the current system, with the WSU system merged into it. The fork article is barely longer than the summary in the System article. So because of this string of poor editorial decisions we need to run a deletion review that has yet to offer an argument why the closure was improper? And people wonder why Wikipedia is going down the shitter. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have a strong feeling that we agree about the editorial decisions you mention. However, this debate is not out of process; invalid closure is not the only reason to come to deletion review. Per the top of the page, "Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." I think I mentioned in my first statement above that it would be useful to see what the disambiguation page contained. Regardless of the valid closure, the page is likely to be recreated due to the lengthened hatnote. Recreation doesn't require a deletion review, but to ask to see what the dab page looked like before is a valid request. Mailer diablo was not available to help with this at the time the deletion review began. Dekimasuよ! 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, the full text of the page is:
        University of Wisconsin may refer to:
        University of Wisconsin System, the public state university system of Wisconsin
        
        University of Wisconsin–Madison, the largest university in this system
        
        University of Wisconsin, a former institution formed by four campuses in Wisconsin, later merged into the University of Wisconsin System
        
        And the dab footer. ~ trialsanderrors 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would have been most unwise IMO to recreate this page without DR. It's been a frustrating discussion. One of the hopes of creating the disambig was that it would provide a neutral target for University of Wisconsin and stop the related edit wars and repeated WP:RM requests. Obviously, this didn't work. Andrewa 06:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the topic of whether it's the same Chapter 36 institution, I think philosophically there are many ways it can be argued. I don't know what Chapter 36 means in this context, and neither does Google. And that's the whole point: The purpose of a disambig page is to get people to the right article, no more nor less. Few if any of the UW community need it. So they are not its customers, and it shouldn't be designed for them. Andrewa 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Antonella Barba – redirect unprotected – GRBerry 17:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Currently a protected redirect. While the AfD was valid then, she has skyrocketed in notability since - #1 on search engines, in the media everywhere. Now meets WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC (Others, 5). I think she is now notable and the redirect should be unprotected, but a decent article (not a stub) should have to be made. CrazyC83 03:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well she didn't make the top 12, won't be notable a week from now, endorse redirect Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be a redirect, because that means there's a self-referencing link in the semifinalists page of the American Idol Season 6 page. I'm not sure about the policy on articles linking to themselves, but I personally hate that. Therefore, I vote that either there should be an article (preferably not a stub), or the page should be deleted, but not a redirect. Im.a.lumberjack 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Take that to redirects for deletion. That is not something we handle on this page. We are just looking at making it an article, not deleting the redirect. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The right answer to the circular link is to unlink the American Idol page, not to delete a potentially useful redirect. Personally, I endorse the redirect but might be willing to reconsider if a high-quality draft were prepared in the userspace. Rossami (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect, seems unproblematic. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect redirect. A redirect is an editorial decision, not one governed by AfD. Protection is improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with this logic has already been shown. I unprotected the article and almost immediately, it was made into an article. So now we get to vandal patrol yet another page. But. Consensus rules. But hopefully you guys will watch the page and help out. I still don't see how a classic 15 minutes of fame deserves a full article. Yes Corey Clark has a page but I think that was bigger than this is. It could've gotten Abdul fired. This is just a college girl who posed topless a few times. Not exactly rare. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 17:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I wouldn't have unprotected it until this was over, but I decided to get a well-sourced article without all the blog links in before someone else could since you unprotected. If you want to AfD, I can't stop you, but based on our standards, it appears to be unproblematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect redirect per Jeff. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect redirect. I still feel that redirect is a valid outcome, equivalent to "delete but make the page title useful", but the arguments here are enough that it should be unprotected. -Amarkov moo! 02:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain but WP:MUSIC Others, 5 does not apply here. American Idol is not part of a subculture, even, unless we're using a definition so broad as to render that criterion useless. I highly doubt she meets WP:BIO independent of her Idol involvement, but I abstain because I can't be arsed to actually check that fact. GassyGuy 15:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's tough to say. Her photos added some extra publicity beyond normal Idol contestants who fail to make the final twelve, which indicates to me that we should have an article on it, but there was never an AfD on her specifically to begin with, so who can say? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold and unprotect the article due to the sentiment here and elsewhere. I'd also recommend that people add the page to their watchlist as I suspect it will be hit hard by vandals. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect redirect as per Jeff, which I see has now been done. She certainly is notable in her own right, for instance I came about this page due to coverage in the NZ Herald. [43] Mathmo ^Talk 09:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect or deletion - not really notable. BTW, article has been recreated. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect redirect, without prejudice for deletion in the next few months, since she's notable today. Maybe in a few months she won't so lets do the deletion process for that by that time. --Howard the Duck 10:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scott McGregor (television presenter) – speedy deletion overturned – GRBerry 21:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Met WP:BIO and WP:BLP of an Australian actor who has been prolific on stage and television from 1980 to the present. There was no debate or request for cleanup and nothing left on my talk page. Thin Arthur 02:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn; significance clearly asserted in the "Acting career" section. Tone's deletion is understandable, however; the preceding and following sections make the article appear, at first glance, to have been written by the subject. —Cryptic 03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to overturn. But the railways part can easily be omitted. --Tone 08:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as above. Catchpole 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Bit of a curate's egg, that one, isn't it? The author clearly either is or knows the subject. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that relevant? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:COI --Iamunknown 02:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, how is that relevant to the deletion? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not the guy to ask. I could conceive an argument, which I at times vehemently argue, that pages developed solely by people who clearly satisfy the criteria at WP:COI should be deleted. But, despite the frustrations I experience trying to clean up after people with clear conflicts of interest, my arguments are to no avail. --Iamunknown 02:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not nor have I ever met the subject. Thin Arthur 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another overturn per above. Trebor 23:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I saw this as a redlink in Wikipedia:New articles (Australia), so had a look, and it was a clear-cut overturn to me. I wasn't aware this discussion was happening until afterwards - but it appears that 'overturn' is the consensus anyway. -- Chuq 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 March 2007[edit]

The Strategy Paradox – second deletion overturned – GRBerry 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It has been suggested by my Adoptee that this deletion is inappropraite, and I am carrying out a deletion review for their concerns. See the block log [44], the concern here seems to be notability, which I agree is borderline, but this book is available from Amazon and ranked in there top 2000 sellers [45], and this book is in high regard in the management sector [46], [47], [48] - the last two links make it notable for me. Cheers Lethaniol 11:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, this is the version in the Google cache, and it looks like an entirely valid stub. Not spammy, and A7 doesn't qualify for books. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; yes, that's the version that was deleted. A previous version was deleted as advertisement (that was correct, IMO). Tizio 17:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, to be clear, I'm not making any comments regarding the G11 that came before the A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes please only comment on the A7 issues not the previous deletion which I think also was correct. Cheers Lethaniol 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, I am the Adoptee mentioned above by Lethaniol. The book The Strategy Paradox has major reviews in significant business publications including BusinessWeek and The Financial Times. If the posting had not been deleted, then those reviews could have been added as additional citations/references/sources. Today's Amazon.Com sales rank is #823 in Books. Bluestripe 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Financial Times Link [49] Bluestripe 15:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BusinessWeek Link [50] Bluestripe 23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note this book is also faring well on BarnesAndNoble.Com with a rank slightly greater than #3000. [51] Bluestripe 14:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Link to the AfD isn't working. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's, uh, because there wasn't one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would explain it. Someone mistyped "block log" instead of "deletion log" above, which didn't help the locating process either. Overturn and list per potential notability. Newyorkbrad 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy-deletion. This was an inappropriate application of G11 (and A7, for that matter). Take it to AFD if you must but with those Amazon sales numbers (now up to #748 in books), I think it will be kept. Rossami (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletionand speedy keep Based on the reviews, perhaps it wont even need to go to AfD. Reviews of a business book in such journals prove notability and serve as sources. I can't decipher what was speedied, so it might have been justified. But now is the time for a speedy closeDGG 09:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems that everyone is in agreement that this should be overturned - suggest that this process be closed. Note that though I have informed the deleting Admin of this process, they have not come here to defend this deletion. I would prefer that this did not go to WP:AFD as it seems clear that people think that this article subject is notable enough, and it would therefore just be wasting people's time to put it through a AFD as well. Cheers Lethaniol 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second. I second Lethaniol's motion to move this back to the live Wikipedia. It is shameful an Admin would kill an entry and then disown his or her action by not showing up to defend the deletion. Bluestripe 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Strategy Paradox makes it into the Blogosphere with a question and answer session between Guy Kawasaki and Michael Raynor (author). [52] Bluestripe 14:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Next nature – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 21:13, 13 March 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 poluted with some self promotional links and then wrongly deleted as non-notable. Multiple publications, conferences have had this subject as a topic and multiple institutions are working on the topic. I've cleaned up the article. Please do not delete but add constructive feedback to make this a good entry. Nextnature 09:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the self-evident fact that the article is a morass of meaningless jargon have any bearing on its potential for deletion?--Anthony.bradbury 10:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - spam, non-encyclopedic Alex Bakharev 13:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion--no truly independent sourcesDGG 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of spam and original research, noting that it's been reposted again by single purpose Nextnature (talk · contribs), who also created Mieke Gerritzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with a link to - you'll never guess! nextnature.net. Oh, you guessed. Spam weblinks removed from other articles. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a verifiable and notable concept and field of study. A Google Scholar search for "next nature" turns up about about 1,600 results. the article needs some cleanup and appropriate attribution, but that's not a reason for deletion. schi ^talk 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, out of the first page of results in your google scholar search, I see 0 where the blurbs show the usage of the phrase corresponding with the Wikipedia article in question. In every case where it shows up, the wording is completely coincidental, with one sentence ending with 'next' and the next one starting with 'nature'. Counting google hits isn't research, and using pure numbers without looking at the context as the only reason for restoring seems spurious to me. - Bobet 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. There were no process problems with the deletion discussion and no credible new evidence presented here to support reopening the discussion. Rossami (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. on the grounds that the article is an unencyclopedic essay with no potential for become more than that. The close was correct. GS needs to be used with care at the human end of the interface.DGG 05:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. A lack of process problems, with a clearly odd article, makes a strong case for deletion. The article in question seems to have little or no useful information, and perhaps no redeeming qualities at all.Branespace 06:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

TVO online – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 17:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was no debate. I posted a hangon tag and attempted to fix the problem. TVO online was very significant in it's time, just as Magic BBS was. 07tghard 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question If this is a significant game, can you provide multiple non-trivial sources that will assert the notability of the article? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a game.

After the Notice of Speedy Deletion was added to the page, I added more sources and posted a hang on tag.

TVO online is significant becuase unlike many other BBS's it was not run by a individual; it was run by a prominent public television broadcaster. TVOntario

The Government of Canada lists this fact. [[53]] Also look at this page [[54]]

I urge you to take a look at Magic BBS, it was a another notable BBS that operated during this time. TVO online is just as notable as Magic BBS.

07tghard 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion the links in the article and one of those above are links to what appears to be a web archive of the site in question, the other appears to confirm it's existence. Existence != notability. You may be correct that it is significant because of who operated it, but did/does anyone else (i.e. reliable third party sources) believe so? It is those who are needed, not just a belief of wikipedia editors. --pgk 19:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with current information but would not be averse to a rewrite and redirection to TVOntario if you can find sources. 1 directory-style information link (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory) and 1 primary source (TVOntario) cannot produce an WP:NPOV article. ColourBurst 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot more highly recommend TVOntario Online to anyone looking for a more personal identity, for a forum that thrives on the detailed examination of ideas, for a meeting place that authors, teachers, students, artists, lots and lots and lots of people in TV, scientists, homemakers, a few poets, as well as the occasional eccentric.
If the Internet were a McDonald's, TVOntario Online would be the Mom and Pop restaurant where they brought you your favourite beverage before you had finished sitting down. They'd know your name, and they'd know how you like your eggs." Dylan Gerard, veteran TVOntario Online Member

07tghard 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep we did follow the link to the tvo site and saw the quote, what do you thing it demonstrates? Take any random website you like and I'm sure you'll find a user who will write a rave review on it. If you want I'll write a glowing report on my pet cat, doesn't make my pet cat worthy of an article here, and certainly doesn't provide sufficient information to write an neutral point of view article attributed to reliable sources. --pgk 20:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the book "Internet BBSs A Guided Tour" by Richard Scott Mark ISBN 1884777309 Greenwich, CT : Manning, 1996 TVO online is listed. This book presents a list of top BBS's of that time. Such and TVO online and Magic BBS

The book's back cover states that it is the "best guide to these unique interactive communities" 07tghard 21:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any books which say "this book is rubbish don't buy it" on the back cover? amazon suggests that it is a book generically about BBSs with a 500 site directory. Again this appears to prove little more than existence, providing little more than technical data (phone numbers,costs etc.), this is not going to contribute to establishing notability and would only be of limited value elsewhere. --pgk 22:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article discussing BBS's in the Toronto Star. It mentions TVO online. Toronto Star - Toronto, Ont. Author: Joe Clark Date: May 19, 1994 Start Page: G.7 Section: FAST FORWARD

From your description this sounds like a generic BBS article and the free abstract seems to back that also. How much coverage does it give to this particular bbs? A passing mention, part of a list, a sentence, a paragraph...? --pgk 22:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the article along with 2 other bbses.

Question: How does Magic BBS meet notability requirements? I'm just curious because it might give me ideas on how to prove that TVO online meets notability requirements. 07tghard 04:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to view the deleted article, because I did not save what I wrote and I need to see it to find more sources. 07tghard 04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How will seeing it help with that? Non-trivial third party reliable sources for the BBS either exist or they don't. Regarding Magic BBS - see WP:INN --pgk 07:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed you a copy, though content wise you've repeated most of it here. --pgk 07:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and keep. I think it is clear from the discussion above that it is significant and notable. The deletion seems based on recentism. DGG 05:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you conclude that, it's based on their being no reliable sources for this. The sources presented so far have been a primary source (the BBSs own website), two directory entries and a passing mention in an article about bbs's (not about this particular bbs). These do not establish notability. --pgk 10:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one more source that I found:

The first two quotes are context that show third quote's significance TVO online was used as a tool to obtain public opinion for a project run by the government of Ontario.

In May 1993, the Province of Ontario established the Royal Commission on Learning "to ensure that Ontario's youth are well-prepared for the challenges of the twenty-first century."
After exhaustive public consultation, the Commission released its report, entitled For the Love of Learning, in January 1995. The report was to suggest a vision and action plan to guide the reform of elementary and secondary education. This would include values, goals and programs of schools, as well as systems of accountability and educational governance.

[[55]]

Our first priority was to seek the views of the people of Ontario. We consulted with as many individuals and groups as possible, both in and outside the school system; we visited schools and acted on several outreach strategies; and we used the opportunities provided by the media and computer-based town-hall meetings to involve, and hear from, interested people who addressed the four issues - and much more.

[[56]]

more than 1,500 messages were posted to a special Royal Commission on Learning computer conference on TVOnline/ChaiNET, TVOntario's/La Chaine's prototype bulletin board.

[[57]]

In this document TVOnline is mentioned as one of the networks used before the internet became mainstream. Page 358 - In addition TVOnline is mentioned on page 340 [[58]]

It is then mentioned as a tool that helps support learning is Ontario:

Our only TVO-related recommendation is that it continue to do what it does well. We hope that a common provincial curriculum will make it easier for TVO to develop programs, computer software, and such initiatives as TVOnline and videodisks, which support the learning objectives of the curriculum. It remains important for Ontario's education system that TVO continue its contributions to the learning goals of our schools, and in assisting students in reaching those goals.

[[59]]

Again it is mentioned as a tool that helps support learning is Ontario. [[60]] PAGE 21 - 5th paragraph starting with the word TVontario 07tghard 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

food for thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Deletion The only potential claim to notability I see in the article is TV Ontario Online is notable because it was not run by an individual; it was run and maintained by a public television broadcaster, which isn't really a claim to notability at all. I don't see anything in the way of independent no-trivial sources either. ~ trialsanderrors 03:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vista SP1 ("Fiji") – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the deletion log, it is referred to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows "Fiji", dating back to August 2006. And if you read the reason for deletion, you find out, at that point, one thought this would be the next Windows release. This is no longer the case, more information about "Fiji" has appeared, and we know now, that this will be a service pack for Vista. The article will no longer lead to more confusion surrounding the future of Vienna, as it now is clear it is not a part of Vienna. Since it will include a updated kernel, it is important to have an article about Fiji, because it is clearly a major service pack. Furthermore, for clarifying that Windows Vienna will be a minor release, considering the kernel update Vista will receive, it is important to have an article about Fiji. There are several sources talking about Vista SP1 and Fiji, and nearly all of them are from 2007, clearly a decision from August 206 is not valid anymore. Mr Mo 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC) (Note: added by User:Mr Mo inside the comment, moved outside by me). GRBerry 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide reliable sources attesting to that claim. --Core desat 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, are theese reliable enough? [61][62][63][64][65][66] Mr Mo 02:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I speedy deleted it as it had a db-repost tag and I found the AfD mentioned above; it earlier had a db-copyvio|http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/windows_7.asp tag. I do not have a view on any decision taken here. See User talk:Mr Mo#Vista SP1 ("Fiji"). --Henrygb 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what is the current status of the copyvio material--if it has now been removed I would say to relist. DGG 03:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist if not copyvio per DGG, otherwise you'll have to rewrite in your own words, Mr Mo. ColourBurst 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyvio should not be any problem, I can rewrite it. Mr Mo 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I wrote practically 75% of Windows Vista, and I've attempted to research this subject for several months with basically no success, so I'm probably in a better position to comment on this than most people.
To answer Mr Mo's question about reliable sources: The short answer is NO. The use of "Fiji" in all those articles ultimately feed off of one source: A single blog entry by someone nobody's heard of before, which was subsequently picked up by Slashdot. Precisely zero of those articles can attribute the word "Fiji" to a reliable source that is in a position to make such a statement. Unlike other codenames for future operating system products (Vienna, Longhorn, Crossbow, Singularity, etc.), Microsoft has never used the word "Fiji" to describe a release of Windows. If we believe in accuracy, neither should we. Always bear in mind that the tech reporting community is one great big clusterfuck/circle-jerk, where everybody is repeating what everybody else says, with no care given for accuracy or research.
Furthermore, Wikipedia has also never given a point-release or service pack for an operating system its own article. It'll merit a bit of space in Windows Vista once more details are available, but until then, there's really nothing to say about it.
We have a policy covering all this: Wikipedia is not a crystal-ball. This is an encyclopedia, not a blogger echo-chamber. Let's keep it that way. -/- Warren 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. Do not restore. While there is no doubt that Windows Vista SP1 is coming, there is no other concrete information regarding what will it be or what it will contain (save for the fact that MS is on the lookout for testers). There are varying schools of thoughts regarding it - some saying that it will feature a kernel update (something which MS has never done in an SP before) and others saying it will be just a regular bunch of fixes. Rumors, without attribution to any concrete and verifiable source, are flying thick and fast. If we join in this, it would be a direct violation of the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, as Warren has stated. Plus, even those who are reporting about SP1 are themselves not sure if it is Windows Vista SP1, Windows Vista R2, Windows codename "Fiji", Windows 7 and what not. A article cannot stand on its own when there is so much confusion out there. And, as Warren has already pointed out, Service Packs do not have their own article. --soum^সৌমোyasch 06:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and redeletion. The AFD discussion concluded that this was a Crystal Ball violation. The evidence presented above does not address that core concern - it remains speculation about a future event. Wikipedia has no need to scoop anyone. We can afford to wait until after the fact in order to ensure that the contents of our articles are verifiable, neutral, etc. Leave it deleted until it occurs. Rossami (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Warren. No sources meeting WP:RS directly support this, and the topic (when attributable content exists to get it past WP:CRYSTAL) will be appropriate only for a paragraph in a broader article. Barno 14:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 March 2007[edit]

Simpleton (Oklahoma band) – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

established notability for a local preformer Crazychris2704 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This artilce was deleted by NawlinWiki on March 7, 2007. I believe the musical group, Simpleton, has established notability through local media coverage. They are a rising music group based out of Central Oklahoma. Listed on the wikipedia page were several newspaper and magazine articles ranging from July 2003 to March 2007.

Can you provide the details of the local media coverage to enable us to make a judgement? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Local acts will get reviews and mentions in local media. To pass beyond the local and regional act, an artist needs non-trivial coverage on a wide scale. The band does not present evidence of this. The act fails WP:MUSIC guidelines and makes no claims to, so a valid deletion. Geogre 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about #5 under the criterion for musicians and ensembles. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." One member of the group, Simpleton, was a former band member of Tyson Ritter from the All-American Rejects. The same member also learned his instrument under the instruction of Nick Wheeler who is also from the All-American Rejects. ?CrazyChris2704 15:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't quite follow this. One member of this band was a member of another band that had a member who was in notable-on-its-own-merits band, the said band's article inevitably having lots of myspace links but nothing that might pass muster as a reliable source? There's at least one level of redirection too much in there, and probably two, not to mention far too few sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, articles require sources, not passing a subguideline of notability on a technicality. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

William_Sledd – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable and consistancy Reboot 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The William Sledd article was deleted without any real consensus and the reason "absolutely nothing appears to suggest that the subject has become notable outside the Youtube community/geek subculture" is dubious. The discussion linked to Television programs and magazine articles which mentioned Mr. Sledd. Moreover, the bar seems to be MUCH lower for other YouTube-celebrities: Geriatric1927, Esmée Denters, Chad Vader all linked from the YouTube article itself. Reboot 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are woefully inconsistent on YouTube people. Could you provide even a couple sources that you speak of? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, valid AfD, no new evidence, no indication of a problem with process. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This particular gentleman, Mr. Sledd, is a part of my community. He has a HUGE influence on the community, now has his own fashion line, and has been discussed on the view and numerous other national media outlets. I believe he is worthy of an article, and I'm not even gay.

Endorse deletion. The closure was valid. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no reason for undeletion; if you don't like the article on Esmée Denters, nominate it for deletion as well. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. This is news to me. When did he make his own fashion line? I highly doubt that fact. The article is being deleted I don't even have to waste my time. (Pleasantview)

Unless the information was factually inaccurate, I see no reason that this article should be deleted. He is a minor, though recognized, pop culture figure, as evidenced by his appearances on The View and in Elle magazine.

Could you provide a link to a source? superapathy man 17:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources (from this week's google news):

http://media.www.signal-online.net/media/storage/paper771/news/2007/02/14/Entertainment/Why-Wait.Procrastinate-2716487.shtml
http://www.thedailyreel.com/spotlight/politics/archive/2007/02/07/ask-a-gay-man-politics-edition?gnewsid=1170884545.57
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20070212bravo01

Additionally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oypnpnMWzSE - clip of mention on "The View"
http://www.instinctmag.com/ - January issue featured mr sledd. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZYQSEIMkXw)

There were others in the original discussion that were disregarded without comment.

Reboot 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently deleted. I don't think editors have the sources from the article memorized. Is there a way for an admin to check the claimed sources in the deleted article? -- Richard Daly 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its latest state has a simple assertion with no source mentioned. -- Hoary 09:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please undelete both the latest state and a selected more full earlier state. This discussion is hinging on the merits of closure in relation to the merits of the article, and cannot be judged without it. DGG 09:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The links given above show that he's not a nobody; he does have a modicum of recognition. Thanks to YouTube, thousands do, maybe tens of thousands. I don't see significance being asserted, other than in a context that accords significance very quickly indeed and then perhaps forgets all about it just as quickly. If he were written up (and not merely mentioned) in newspapers, magazines, etc., or if he won awards, that would be a different story. -- Hoary 09:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, see nothing here that would've substantially changed the AfD's course, sources mentioned here are either primary, unreliable, or trivial "blurb" type mentions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

myg0t – Speedily closed, sixth renomination based on spurious new evidence – trialsanderrors 02:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

4, count em' 4 notable mentions, in notable articles... are we notable yet??? Myg0tlefty 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://myg0t.com/?rage=articles
Nope. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution now can I get some words from an unbiased administrator. Myg0tlefty 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can have a warning for incivility from an administrator biased against inclusion of content which does not meet policy if you like. Has it ocurred to you that attacking the admins may not be the most effective way of achieving your aim? Guy (Help!) 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "mention" is not enough to write an article about. An article should only be written on a topic if a non-stub article can be written solely consisting of facts from verifiable publications. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even taken a look at the homepage with all sorts of information on myg0t? Myg0tlefty 19:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I find it hilarious that one of the so-called sources does not even mention myg0t, and you still think it's a source for myg0t! Clearly the deletion debates and previous endorsements have failed to achieve anything in the way of education on sourcing policy. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionWe need third party sources. Can you supply any of these? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. After 6 DRVs, I don't think we even need to pretend that reliable sources might appear. -Amarkov moo! 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Ok, first of all, i could make 4 tshirts on the market using a pc and a printer that prints labels. Secondly, those tshirts are hardly what you call "wearings". Third, his article was like it was describing someone who was about to drown or something. Fourth, [b]posting on youtube shouldnt be a prerequisite for an article on wikipedia[/b]. Now lister carefully, if we allow this last one, and the article is restored, then everyone posting at youtube is intitled to his or her wikipedia page. That is just not logical.. 24.132.108.178 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

NFL on Christmas Day – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relist for further debate, most voters for delete did so before the arguements to keep were expressed Nitsansh 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: I deleted the article because there isn't really anything significant about NFL games being scheduled on Christmas Day. Why not create NFL on Christmas Eve or NFL during Hannukah? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid AFD. Not having enough time to argue to keep the article is not a reason for undeletion, because the AFD ran the full five days. Even then, King of Hearts' justification makes perfect sense. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Core desat 18:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not indiscriminate collection of info. For most of its history, the NFL did NOT schedule matches on Christmas Day, because it was thought do be inappropriate. If I recall the years correctly, there was one match in 1971, and only in the last decade or so it became usual to play on Christmas Day.
  Maybe it doesn't merit its own article, but the info there is significant and should at least be included in articles on NFL and/or Christmas.--Nitsansh 19:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as nominator. Closing admin obviously correctly interpreted the results of the AFD by deleting the article. I saw the arguments for keeping before the AFD closed and meaning no disrespect thought they were so weak that no response to them was warranted. Otto4711 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The two late keeper opiners offered differing opinions, but nothing in the way of new facts, so sequence is inconsequntial. ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I find no process problems with the debate and no justification to ignore the opinions presented early. The arguments raised by the two "keepers" were already in the article itself and were found to be insufficient. That said, this topic might deserve brief mention in a larger article about the NFL. If such a change is made and if it survives editorial review, I would support history-undeletion and creation of a redirect in order to comply with GFDL. Rossami (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Asif Hossain – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 22:08, 12 March 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 due to non significance of the person, however he was a candidate who ran for Memember of Parliament in two seperate elections, and is mentioned in at least two seperate articles on wikipedia. Admittedly, I only had a brief paragraph but I mentioned his candidacy as well as his party affillations. --GNU4eva 12:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. No problem shown with the deletion process, and no new information such as featured coverage by reliable sources that have been shown since the deletion. GNU4eva, please note that it's been the consistent consensus over dozens of deletion debates that candidates for office are not automatically notable; and a few newspaper mentions that refer to one's candidacy and party affiliation aren't enough to satisfy the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the notability guidelines. Can you provide magazine articles, television programs, or other sources that show Mr. Hossain is much more notable than other MP candidates? Barno 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly consistent recent practice at AfD has been that major party candidates for national parliaments are notable, and if the afd was closed otherwise it might have been against consensus. So of what party was he a candidate?DGG 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Against what consensus, pray tell? There were no "keep" comments, and the nomination contained the information "Finished 5th out of 8 candidates in the only contest mentioned." If a major-party candidate finished fifth and there was no evidence of other notability, I would still strongly support deletion. Barno 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the last version of the article, he ran as a Progressive Canadian Party candidate. Rossami (talk)
Endorse the closure in 2005 and the redeletion in 2007. The only thing that changed since the deletion discussion is that he ran and lost a second time. According to our article on the election results, he received 392 votes (down from the 531 votes he collected in 2004). This alone does not convince me that a new debate would return a different result. Rossami (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse closure per Rossami and Barno. JoshuaZ 15:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Game (game) – Speedy endorsed. Yet another listing of this, as normal provides no actual information just vague assertions. If there are non-trivial reliable sources show them, otherwise there is nothing to review. – pgk 10:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

New third-party reliable sources have been found. Deletion was wrong. Apoplexic Dude 09:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse, no sources listed. You lose the game. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lackadaisy – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 21:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The comic's showing at 2007 WCCA makes it appear notable SanfordAbernethy 09:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC) — SanfordAbernethy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy endorse - proper AFD close. DRV is not AFD take two. – Chacor 09:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion, this isn't AFD part 2, and the close was valid, since none of the keep arguments was really valid (one criticized Wikipedia for the current state of its inclusion guidelines, the other admitted non-notability and unverifiability). --Core desat 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that since the deletion, it's won four awards and its forum community has increased significantly in size doesn't mean that its non-notability should be reconsidered? Because to me, it sort of seems like it might. SanfordAbernethy 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which awards has it won? If they are considered among the most major awards in the field, and if the awards were reported in multiple reliable sources, then you may have a good case for the article to be restored. Making an unsourced mention of its "showing" at an industry event isn't a strong enough nomination to get it reconsidered. Barno 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. One of these days, I'm going to get really annoyed, and replace my userpage with a block of size 7 text saying "NOTABILITY IS NOT THE ONLY CRITERION FOR INCLUSION. THERE STILL MUST BE SOURCES." To be serious, there are no sources, so there is no article. That is how it is, and should be, until/unless there are sources. -Amarkov moo! 01:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jewdar – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 21:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

First off, the word/concept has had an article in Wiktionary for a long time, but no one has objected to that. I also found a few new links that use the word and refer to the concept, including some sources from the Jewish Heeb magazine and others (also note that the original sources include the Washington Post, Salon.com, the Weekly Standard, the NY Press, the American Dialect Society, and others). Someone also told me once that "Jewdar" is also a Jewish dating service of some sort (maybe it is local somewhere?), yet I haven't found it on the web (remember: not EVERYTHING is found on the web). Also, just glancing at "Category:Neologisms" shows that there are dozens of other words that are 'allowed' to have articles here on Wikipedia, even though "Jewdar" is more notable, widespread, and more widely known than most of the words in that category. I also believe that, for whatever reason, the article was unfairly targeted by a group of tight-knit editors that ganged up on the article and unjustly forcing its deletion. The article was and is more well sourced that 90% of the articles on Wikipedia, and yet it was still deleted. I'd like to know why. --WassermannNYC 04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. There was a strong consensus that there were still no reliable sources, to the point where even some of the people that said to keep agreed. This isn't the place to say "But I disagree with the consensus!". And conspiracy theories of people wanting to delete the article are unconvincing, without any sort of evidence. -Amarkov moo! 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment - Article already deleted? Corpx 06:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (my) deletion. Note article was deleted two months ago following the AFD. If there are other articles that are unsourced neologisms, then the solution is not to have more of them ... can you guess what it is? Neil (not Proto ►) 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no new evidence. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not grounds for overturning. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion deletion process was fine, consensus on this pretty clear cut, failure to meet the required standard also pretty clear cut. --pgk 10:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure of the AFD discussion and the redeletion under case G4. I find no process problems in the AFD discussion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Rossami (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The consensus was not decided. Additional sources were found during the discussion, and not taken into account by most of those voicing an opinion.DGG 05:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per presence of new sources. JoshuaZ 15:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Per Neil. Wickethewok 03:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cities in the UTC timezone – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 20:51, 12 March 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 coup from all sides with a total lack of respect for wikipedia's deletion process. The sub-categories are being deleted but they are also all auto-generated via {{Template:Infobox city}}. This template was recently changed removing the list of 5000+ cities. The template was tampered with several times prior to the closing of the CfD to only support deletion. Furthermore the CfD is not even closed and appears to be far from a discussion and closer to a big nasty poll. Finally the category's explanatory FAQ, which could be found on the CAT was removed. Again this is a masacre from all ends without any discussion. Deleting admin did not follow the correct procedures. He is trying to sneek this one by via violating WP:CIV in failling to notify interested users, failling to have a conversation, and failing to notify interested paries. This CfD gives other reasons on why it should be kept. --CyclePat 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per (nearly unanimous) discussions on

(Note that the most recent discussions are not even closed yet; but there is no doubt that the cat's will be deleted; I have no objection to early deletion of the cat's because of re-creation of deleted content.) -- Eugène van der Pijll 13:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - This is overcategorization. If you want to create it again, get a consensus _before_ doing so. The argument about depopulation and the FAQ are specious - everyone by now knows exactly what you're trying to do with these categories, they just don't agree with it. --Random832 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - overcategorization, and I must say I don't much care for the assumption of bad faith and the accusations of dire conspiracy on Pat's part. Otto4711 01:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pligg – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do not understand the deletion of the article. I came accross this usefull piece of software by googling to its now deleted wikipedia page. I've not written the original article. And I'm not involved in the development of this software. The article was not perfect and certainly needed "Wikify" but was useful. Before deletion I added external sources, and a simple search on Google for "pligg" returns 2.090.000 results, thus I don't understand the "not notable" (WP:WEB and WP:ORG) argument. The deletion process was initiated by a false argument (User:Mattarata) saying that Pligg is a copycat of Digg: this is a mistake, one is a service the other is a software to create easily multiple services of the same kind. Benoit rigaut 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the closing admin; the original AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pligg. The point I guess I was trying to make to this editor on my talk page was that notability on Wikipedia is generally based on reliable sources, not google hits. Grand master ka 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am having trouble finding reliable sources; can someone provide them if they have any? -Amarkov moo! 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: Digg posting "Pligg Beta 9 Released, Celebrating One Year" with 564 "diggs", one out of numerous installation walk through, some of them as screen casts, an article about pligg's template files, one out of many blog articles talking about Pligg, a seomoz.org article, a company selling digg templates, another random article, and most of all concerning the notability of a software there's a large base of sites (as cited in 10 pligg sites worth visiting) using this technology as their main CMS (which explains the 2.090.000 results in google for a "pligg" search). Benoit rigaut 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Still fails WP:ORG, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB. Google results numbers can be used in arguments only if the subject already meets the primary criteria.
My argument of "copycat site" was in addition to the primary argument and used in the same vane as "cover bands" do not deserve articles unless they release albums or are mentioned in news articles (musical groups criteria for inclusion). Just because a piece of software is created to replicate the functionality of a service, doesn't make it any more notable.
None of the links you have provided are suitable sources as listed in these criteria. The only acceptable argument is that The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works, of which none of these links qualify. Most are blogs or "blog-like" sites, some even have the word "blog" in the link itself. --Mattarata 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion in agreement with Mattarata. Please see the reliable sources guideline which supports the verifiability policy. Barno 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fell short of arguments... Concerning this remark in the Pligg's forum "the funny thing is that the wiki page sat there for months with nothing on it but a paragraph or two and nothing ever happened. As soon as I added about 10 paragraphs about Pligg's functionality did someone notice it and probably didn't like us and decided to nominate it for deletion." do you have any WP: to make a short answer? I'm now stuck into this reccursive policy: WP:DOSPAGWYA. Let me add that I just feel sad for the people developping Pligg and giving the community an useful piece of software. Maybe it's just too early and that their work is indeed under the radar. Time will tell if a major external source review their software. Maybe it's just that beeing Category:User en-2 isn't enough for this kind of discussion. Benoit rigaut 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to rebut your last sentence. Few (if any) people on en.wikipedia.org care whether a contributor is a native speaker of English; most care only whether your contributions are supported by multiple citations from reliable sources, and whether they can understand your comments enough to grasp the meaning. People who write far worse English than you, including some native speakers, are sometimes successful in these debates. I'd also like to rebut that paranoid statement from the Pligg forum, in two ways. First, most editors would consider an article with some description of a program's functionality as being much more worth keeping than a short stub. It's far more likely that the change was noticed because more people watch the "recent changes" page than was the case months ago or years ago. Second, the point actually reinforces the case against Pligg being notable enough for its own WP article: There are plenty of computer programmers and others knowledgable about software among WP's editors, including myself. (I learned my first operating system, my first high-level programming language, and my first assembler language in 1978 and 1979.) If a program is so widely known and so widely used that it's "encyclopedic", then over several months, a few people will probably run across its article and improve it. This doesn't mean it can't be important in its niche, but it suggests that either it probably hasn't had much influence or that its niche is probably not of widespread significance. The WP:SOFTWARE guideline is not perfect or absolute, but it's generally a good guide in interpreting how software fits against WP's basic policies. As for WP:DOSPAGWYA, citing an essay (read the box that says "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline") that basically says "this other essay is wrong" is no help in explaining why you find the cited policies and guidelines to policy to be incorrect or to be wrongly applied to this topic. Barno 00:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The noob – request withdrawn – GRBerry 14:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm frankly at a loss as to why a supermajority for keep on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_noob_(Second_nomination) became delete and salt, and the administrator isn't responding to a polite request I made, so this seems the only way to find out. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD was 3 more for delete than keep, if nose counting is important, which is not even a numerical majority, and certainly not a super majority. Additionally, there were three administrators and one IP editor involved in the delete & salt, it seems. Geogre 04:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2: Looking at the last version, it was a really, really, really, really crufty, self-absorbed article with somewhat deceptive characterizations. It said that it's in print (at a web site) and relied on web site hosting as evidence of popularity. I deplore web comics, web comic coverage, and web comic fans, so I won't say anything about the deletion, but it was a bit treacle-ish as an article (more than 2 screens on the characters and running gags). Geogre 04:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Nobody managed to demonstrate the existence of reliable sources, even with all the hand-waving about notability. And "supermajority" does not mean "superbly yelled at the majority for being biased", which is what happened. -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. We just endorsed the deletion of this three weeks ago. --Core desat 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Endorse We did this recently. Unless there are new arguments to listen to and in particular some reliable sources to verify the article then we really don't need to be discussing this again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per previous review, no new information. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me, I couldn't find that, and didn't know how bad the old article was. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - With the current format of deletion review, you can use "What links here" to look for deletion reviews since November 2006. GRBerry 14:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nearsourcing – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

company's concept based on its own experience - please revise for not deleting Nevalex 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted per request above. It was tagged for speedy by me. The article was an unsourced & unverfied contention that Itransition created the concept of "Nearsourcing". Ignoring for a moment that the term appears to be something of a neologism, there are no reliable 3rd party sources that support this claim. Indeed, many companies appear to be advancing this concept and term, which would suggest it is not the intellectual property of the company that was claiming it in the article. Also note that the person who created the article and initiated this review would appear to have a conflict of interest.--Isotope23 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there are other companies which are using this concept and term, doesn't that imply that it is a well-used term and therefore an acceptable article can be made of it? Assuming there are reliable sources, of course. Corvus cornix 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some companies are using the term and it's occasionally popping up in business press. It can still be a neologism and inappropriate for the encyclopedia. This particular term doesn't even rise to the level of neologism yet - it would be categorized as a protologism - definitely not appropriate here. It may be appropriate in Wiktionary, though. Rossami (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was relisted, perhaps I should clarify my comment above. Endorse deletion from Wikipedia but permit a temporary undeletion for the purposes of transwiki to Wiktionary if requested. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G11 speedy, thinly-veiled spam. I'm not active on Wiktionary anymore (even to the minimal extent I used to be), but there's nothing there that will aid in creating a dictionary entry. —Cryptic 01:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Element td – deletion endorsed since no independent reliable sources about the topic have been identified, even after two AFDs and a DRV – GRBerry 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The first version of the article was deleted for not beeing notable, but the second version was not a recreation of the original version but an entirely new one. The second version was deleted by FayssalF in a speedy deletion and he messaged me: "Please do not recreate Element td article. If you want it recreated you must go through Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks. -- FayssalF", but I disgree with this, since this is not a recreation of the original version, and I claim that the notability has been achieved by me and this new article should be at least discussed before beeing deleted. It would be great if FayssalF, or anybody else, could point out what exactly is missing, so I can provide additional material/sources. Cisz Helion 13:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not sure to how the article can be reviewed, as there seems to be no trace of it left, so I made it temporarily available on my user page. Cisz Helion 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overturn and list if true, out-of-process G4. Deletion review is NOT for permission to create an article, unless it is the same content that was deleted in an XfD. --Random832 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC) However, the most serious problem with your userfied version is that it lacks independent references. I cannot support the article in this form.[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I really apreciate it. Let me ask for further assistance. Are the battle.net map vault, the maps webpage, the epic war entry and the flash page not what you consider "independant references"? Or do you mean that these are valid references for parts of the text, but too much of the article lacks such sources? Cisz Helion 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about like an actual news article about it. or something in IGN, wired, gamespy, etc. --Random832 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some (small) changes to the version. I would consider the news section of battle.net a valid source, do you disagree? Cisz Helion 10:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was voted upon weeks ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element TD) and the result was to delete it. It was recreated yesterday by User:Cisz Helion, who is a new user and i don't blame him for recreating it. User:Shenme reported the incident on March 1 before i deleted it. I don't have any problem with recreating it again if people agree. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In two details I have a different view of what happened. A totally different article got voted on and deleted weeks ago. I was planning to edit that one to get it into shape, but never did. So I have nothing to do with the old version. My new version of the article was never voted upon. And I feel uncomfortable with the term "recreation", as it carries the connotation of "the same text", which is not the case. I suggest that we discuss the latest version. I have hope that this is meeting wikipedias requirements, or can be brought to meet them by me. Since I'm new to wikipedia, and english isn't my first language, I'm gratefull for any tips or help I can get. Cisz Helion 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll summarize what we have got so far. An article about Element TD got deleted, recreated, deleted again. After that I created another acrticle about Element TD, but I wouldn't call this a recreation, because my version is totally different. FayssalF disagrees with my view, he calls what I did a recreation. This bothers me a bit, as it seems to me, I am held reliable for the bad work of other contributors, and I am concerned that my version might be kept deleted without ever beeing evaluated or looked at. I came up with what I call several independant external sources about eletd. The old version didn't have such references. I claim that at least the battle.net news section is a good source, and even if the maps homepage, the Epic War entry, and two independent flash games inspired by the map (this and this) are not meeting wikipedias standards for good sources, overall notability should be achieved. Random832 seems to disagree with this, although he seems to have missed some small changes I did to the latest version. All in all the question seems to be, if the number and quality of the references I provided is enough to establish notability. Cisz Helion 14:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse valid AfD, no new evidence. "Element Tower Defense (Element TD) is a Warcraft 3 custom map mod" - mods have a big hill to climb to establish notability, and this one did not get past base camp. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, valid re-deletion. The new version did nothing to address the concerns that led to the first version's deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower defense is also related. —Cryptic 01:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Casa By The Sea – deletion endorsed, article rewritten, old sources dumped on the talk page for evaluation – GRBerry 02:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree (based on my recollection of the article) that this was highly POV, and I can easily imagine that there was no good version to revert to. The underlying problem is that the institution discussed in the article was and is highly controversial, together with its parent organization, WWASPS. Unfortunately, deleting a subject because it is controversial does not make the controversy go away; it merely makes it appear that Wikipedia is suppressing free speech. I think a reasonable neutral article could be written from the various scraps of material that have been contributed at various times. orlady 01:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could we compromise by giving you a list of the sources in the deleted versions, to write an article afresh with. Having been involved with some of the discussion at WP:ANI that preceeded the deletion of this article, I'm also fairly sure there wasn't a good version available. And I know that some of the supposed sources used weren't reliable. (E.g. "copies" of newspaper articles on partisan sites, for some of which we couldn't prove that the newspaper ever ran the article, and if the copy had been 100% accurate then it would have been a copyright violation.) I think starting afresh is the best way to move forward, but there might be some useful sources in the history. GRBerry 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the discussions at WP:ANI? I have had the WWASPS article and most of their schools/institutions on my watchlist, but I was not aware that there had been a discussion on the noticeboard (although the sudden appearance of PROD notices led me to believe there had been a notification about the NPOV problems with the articles). I have been aware of the WWASPS organization and the myriad controversies surrounding it for several years. I don't have time right now to write articles (nor am I especially interested in the individual schools). However, I believe that the anti-WWASPS organizations provide reliable copies of the articles that appeared in newspapers; I read some of those articles in the paper or online editions of the newspapers when the articles were new, and the versions I see now look OK. --orlady 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the WP:ANI discussion...--orlady 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone else, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive208#OTRS related assistance needed. GRBerry 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Given good sources, writing a new stub from scratch takes about half an hour. If necessary, history can be undeleted afterwards, although in this case it doesn't seem to be judicial to do so. ~ trialsanderrors 19:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Good sources" can be difficult to find in this case. Objective information about WWASPS and its subsidiaries is hard to come by, and any information has a habit of disappearing (WWASPS is rumored to strong-arm the publishers of negative information, and when WWASPS facilities get a lot of negative publicity their names tend to suddenly change). If anyone is going to try to recreate the article, a list of the sources of the deleted article would be helpful. --orlady 19:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the deleted article is best left deleted, but I have no problems with someone writing a properly sourced one in its place. – Steel 19:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the status quo (i.e., keep the deleted revisions deleted, but leave the current stub in place), and perhaps paste the sources from the deleted revisions onto the talk page. The previous version was unsalvageable. —Cryptic 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and rewrite. Which amounts to the same thing as the opinion just above, but seems much more direct.DGG 05:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion but allow rewrite provided that all material is sourced. Orlady, however difficult it may be to find such sources, it is absolutely required that article content be attributed to a reliable source, not a recounting of personal study or experience. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 March 2007[edit]

Electric universe (concept) – SPEEDILY ENDORSED. WP:POINT nomination; nom admits he doesn't want this overturned, so we're done here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC) – - A Man In Bl♟ck[reply]

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

Note that there is a potential conflict of interest, as I started and contributed to the article.
I believe that "Irregularities" make the decision to delete the article, to be unsafe. For example, after User:ScienceApologist begun the AfD here with his own reasons...

My comments,[67] were removed by ScienceApologist to the discussion page,[68], contravening the "Wikipedia:Deletion policy" page, which states in the section "Commenting on a listing for deletion" that "Normally you should not remove any statements from any deletion discussion.". On bringing my comments to another editor's attention,[69], they responded that "That is alot more of a case than I ever saw on the AfD page"[70], (because my comments had been removed).
Less seriously, having moved my comments to the Talk page, ScienceApologist responded by intermixing his comments with mine, making it difficult for others to read mine. This practice is not allowed in ArcCom cases, and the "Talk page guidelines" section on "Layout" tells us to "Answer a post underneath it". ScienceApologist is not a new user, and is well aware of this.
ScienceApologist advertised the AfD on the proposed Wikipedia talk:Notability (science) page,[71], in contravention of the "Wikipedia:Deletion policy" page (see the section "Abuse of deletion process" tells us that "It should also be noted that packing the discussion .. meatpuppets (advertising or soliciting of desired views) does not reflect a genuine consensus,". It explains why another user commented "Why so many votes??"[72]
It was claimed that the AfD was brought as a "Test Case"[73] for WP:SCIENCE. This was wholly inappropriate as WP:SCIENCE (a) is only a proposal (b) is not the sole criteria on which to judge articles; indeed, the recent WP:A includes a link to a comment by Jimmy Wales on "Crackpot articles"[74] stating that "if those are valid concepts about which we need an article, we should patch these up or rewrite them so they aren't nonsenese"; he does not say that we delete them.
To summarise. (A) Most of the votes were in favour of deleting because of the reasons given in the orignal nomination, which I argued were misleading, but which few saw because my comments were removed. (B) Most of the voters were only aware of the AfD because the case had been inappropriately advertised at WP:SCIENCE (C) Scientific notability is not the only criterial for notability. --Iantresman 19:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The consensus was clear that the article was not sufficiently notable. Bucketsofg 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of the debate. Interesting concept, but as has been pointed out in the past by numerous well-informed individuals, complete bollocks and of no objectively provable significance. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Desperate clutching at straws. Refactoring is not removing. WP:SCI/TC makes clear what the purpose of test cases is: to follow up on relevant discussions to see how the community considers science topics in order to fine-tune the guideline. "Advertising" at WT:SCI is perfectly within WP:CANVASS since it doesn't target editors with a single bent (after all, it took half a year to agree on a proposal). It's also completely irrelevant that WP:SCI is only a proposal, editors can follow it or not depending on their own appraisal of its merit, the difference is that as a proposal it's not actionable by the closer. Consensus was established in the discussion and correctly interpreted by the closer. End of story. ~ trialsanderrors 23:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per Trialsanderrors. The closer's decision reflected the clear consensus of the discussion. Notifying XfDs to Wikiprojects and other interested portals, projects, et cetera, is routine, and certainly not canvassing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Obviously the debate had a very clear outcome. I do think that some of those in the delete camp were playing a bit fast and loose with some rules here: I do think that delete voters were drawn to the debate because of its being publicized as a "test case" for WP:SCIENCE which is fundamentally a deletion-oriented initiative. I also think it's wrong that ALL of Ian's comments were removed to the talk page. But, the outcome was so overwhelming, I don't think we need to try again, and the arguments for deletion are very solid. An entire scientific theory with sourcing, effectively, from a single Wired article? I can see why the community went for deletion. Mango juice^talk 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the article appeared to be sourced from a single article in Wired? Did you not read my removed comments (see 2b) and repeated here? The sources are numerous. --Iantresman 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScienceApologist did NOT Refactor my comments; they were not "redundant", nor "superfluous" (as they directly addressed his points), and nor did removing them improve their readability, it hindered them by requiring editors to click on a link.
The AfD policy "Abuse of deletion process" clearly states that "(advertising or soliciting of desired views) does not reflect a genuine consensus," irrespective of whether WP:SCI targets editors with a single bent. (eg. an interest in science, against pseudoscience)
Incidentally, I did dispute the consensus, nor the reasons given; but my comments should not have been removed, and the AfD should not have been advertised on WP:SCI. The policy guidelines are clear. --Iantresman 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, if you don't dispute the consensus, then what exactly are you doing here? Process is not an end in itself. You've already faced ArbCom sanction over disruption relating to articles like this one at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, and in fact you were banned from this specific article previously under that sanction. If you merely feel mistreated, but don't actually want the article to be undeleted, it would be appropriate to post at WP:ANI or somewhere similar. Or, for that matter, you could have reverted SA's refactoring if you disagreed with it, and you were obviously aware of it, as you commented on it directly afterwards. Could you just withdraw the request if you don't dispute the consensus? Mango juice^talk 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the consensus as easily as you can. There is no dispute that the majority voted to delete the article. But the voting process deviated from policy.
Surely you're not suggesting that because I received sanctions under an ArbCom ruling, that I should ignore the abuse of the AfD process?
I could have reverted the refactoring, the removing of my comments, and the inappropriate advertising of the AfD on WP:SCI. But as you have just pointed out I have "already faced ArbCom sanction", as other Admins have warned me too.
I dispute the deletion of the article on the grounds that the voting process was FIXED. You've already acknowledged that my comments should not have been deleted, and the AfD policy "Abuse of deletion process" clearly states that advertising the AfD (on WP:SCI) is not allowed. --Iantresman 14:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, you're stepping over that line again. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience provides for you to be banned from places you disrupt. You are disrupting this place. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you criticize me for reporting that another editor has abused the AfD process, and completely ignore my original reasons, and then threatening me with my ArbCom case. I'm taking you to Arbitration for what I feel is willfully ignoring and abusing your duties as an Arbritator.
This reminds me of police offers in the 1970s who would criticize women for having the audacity to report cases of rape against them. You're wasting police time! You were probably asking for it! He's your husband. The politician is a respected citizen! Oh, I see you were caught with an overdue library book... you'd better watch it. --Iantresman 19:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for God's sake Ian, get over yourself. I told you: you are in danger of crossing the line. You cannot fail to be aware by now that your view of these fringe topics is at odds with consensus. Your rude, aggressive and obnoxious response to what was certainly intended as a polite but firm reminder to tone down the rhetoric is a perfect example of why you have a problem here. I would be more than happy for you to take that comment to ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One's views on fringe topics does not give the consensus the right to abuse policy. It certainly doesn't give administrators the right to turn a blind eye to possible policy abuse, on which you made no comment one way or another. I have now begun a Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration --Iantresman 23:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I understood that the listing as a "test case" was to see how well the proposed rules matched the situation, not as a chance to prove that they would be used effectively to delete the article. There was considerable discussion of the article over there as well. DGG 05:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising the AfD on WP:SCI broke the Abuse of deletion process (official policy)
Removing my comments broke the Wikipedia:Deletion policy too; (official policy)
WP:SCI judges the scientific notability of an article. It makes no attempt to judge notability in many other subject areas, and consequently "scientific notability" by itself is not a valid reason to remove an article, and consequently breaks Wiki guideline on WP:NOTABILITY in general. --Iantresman 10:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:AfD debates (Nominator unsure of category) – restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 20:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to have been speedied in the belief that it's an empty category (there was no discussion about it, and the reason given appears to be some sort of automatically generated list). This category is meant to be usually empty, as articles appearing in it are often resorted quickly by hand. I'd recommend a speedy undeletion to avoid disrupting the AfD process while this DRv is ongoing (just deleting part of a process without altering the process first can be unintentionally disruptive). --ais523 18:15, 6 March 2007 (U T C)

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} refers to this category if the user specifies "?" as a parameter. I'm not sure if the deletion of the category was the result of a change in the AfD process, but either the category should be restored, or the "remove this template" template should be updated. My vote is for the former, so I'll endorse undeleting it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at Voice of All's deletion log, it seems pretty clear that this was a mistake during serialized deletions, not an attempt to change the AfD process, so I'd recommend a speeedy undelete to correct the mistake. --ais523 18:34, 6 March 2007 (U T C)

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

Rites of Ash – Speedy close, duplicate of this DRV by the same nominator, since relisted – GRBerry 18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since Rites of Ash has been deleted, the band has composed music for (and has aired on) nine MTV shows, including, "The Real World," "Next," "Pimp My Ride," Gauntlet 2," "Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Fresh Meat," "Island Life," "Livin La Haina" (MTV South America, etc. Also, Rites of Ash has collaborated with international DJ Paul Edge and Pablo Manzarek (son of Ray Manzarek of The Doors) on a remix album, and U.S. DMC Supremacy Champion DJ Idee on his music video "Eclectic Dreams" (which will air on MTVu and MTV2).

You can see our credit for the music video here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_I-Dee

As for song credits, most of the MTV online archive for our credits have since been taken down. I could only find this site with credit of our work: http://www.mtv.com/#/ontv/dyn/realworld-season17/episode/featured_music.jhtml?episodeId=96397

I have the signed MTV contracts right here. We have numerous press releases and related materials on our websites: www.ritesofash.com -and- www.myspace.com/ritesofash User:ritesofash ritesofash 15:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of real people appearing in fictional context – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 14:07, 11 March 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 working on this list a lot and some other people too, and I know many people find it very interesting. At least one person find his way to Wikipedia by once being directed to this page. It is not the most important knowledge of course, but still it is something which facinates many people. Of course it was not ready yet, it never will be, but Wikipedia is a place in constant work, isn't it? Maybe it could be divided into a couple of subpages so as not be so long. Many pages still have links to this page.

If it is not undeleted, I will have to create it again and adding all the information from my memory. It's much work, and I find it hard to see that I can remember even a fracion to start with.

Also, the page was deleted after just a short period of voting. Shouldn't a vote like this be on for at least a week, so that everyone concerned might have time to notice it? John Anderson 18:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Admittedly, there was no pressing concern that made this debate close 2 days early, but it's also not a big deal: consensus was very clear from the debate as it stood. John Anderson brings up no points against the reasons the community agreed to the deletion of the page. Mango juice^talk 18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin: I'll admit that I closed the debate early, but the consensus was overwhelming and highly unlikely to have changed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In saying that, the AfD was opened on Feb 27 and closed on March 4. It had therefore had five days and a bit during which people could discuss it, which is strictly speaking the length it should have had. The fact that a great many AfDs run 6 or 7 days is a backlog issue. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AFD made it clear people thought it was too broad, especially nowadays where guest stars in TV shows are very common. TJ Spyke 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and salt to ensure this guy doesn't go through with his threat. JuJube 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and salt - Admin correctly closed based on overwhelming consensus and user is threatening to disrupt Wikipedia by recreating deleted content. Otto4711 13:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think salting is unnecessary here: I left the poster a note to please accept the DRV outcome and not create the article if recreation is not allowed: let's WP:AGF that he will respond to the request. If he recreates the article, I'm watching it, I'll just delete it G4 (unless recreation is allowed by this DRV) and can salt it later. Mango juice^talk 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. If I'm counting the days correctly, it wasn't even an early closure. I agree that pageprotection seems premature. Rossami (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, when I understood that the article had been deleted, I was angry at first. After having given it some thought, I too think that this page might not belong on Wikipedia, as it is not any really important knowledge.

Let me just clarify, for the record, that the list was not a list of the people who has been appearing "as themselves" in different movies and TV shows. On the contrary, I think almost all examples given on the page was of real people being played by or described in literary by someone else. You know, when someone is playing "himself" on TV, it usually is in a context where his appearance is somewhat like semi-fictional at best, the fiction in these circumstances bordering very close on reality.

Also, I think it is unwise deleting a page without erasing all the links to it from other pages at the same time. John Anderson 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Woodbine Avenue – Artice restoration endorsed unanimously; no need to relist; renaming performed to disamb. – Xoloz 14:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I closed the AFD as a delete. SimonP undeleted this, but the reasons he gave for doing so are uncompelling to me. The argument seems to be "this is an arterial road in Toronto, therefore it should have an article". I agree that there were a number of votes for keeping it, but these were not based on any valid reasoning I can see. I use the "nontrivial coverage in reliable sources" yardstick, but the sources given in the article are mentions of the road in passing. I just don't see how there's an encyclopedia article to be had on this topic. Friday (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodbine Avenue? Isn't that the main drag? It would be smokin' if we could delete directory entries on roads. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, it's a notable, main artery. GreenJoe 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the sort of opinion I discounted when closing the AFD. Friday (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. His reasons are definitely compelling! -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the undeleters: It's misnamed. Woodbine Avenue exists in several cities, and it's non-trivial in a few. The Woodbine Avenue in New York City is large and heavily trafficked, and probably the site of some history, so it would be wise to locate the article at Woodbine Avenue, Toronto. Geogre 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Woodbine Avenue is in Toronto and York Region - a better disambig name would be Woodbine Avenue (Ontario) Dl2000 00:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's this Woodbine Avenue in NYC? I see a Woodbine Street in Brooklyn and Queens, but it's a relatively minor one-way street paralleled by a number of identically-laid out streets. --NE2 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that based on what I see at the original AFD discussion, there's a very clear preference for "keep Woodbine but delete the others". Again, I'm not really entirely convinced that Woodbine is sufficiently notable, and I think Wikipedia could probably stand to have a more thorough discussion on how to quantify the notability or non-notability of city streets, but the AFD preference was pretty clear. It's true that "it's a notable main artery", by itself, is a weak reason. However, I also personally expressed the opinion that if anything, Woodbine should be a separate AFD from the others, because an arterial road that extends for about 100 kilometres through five different municipalities is not equivalent to, or batchable with, a 20-house residential cul-de-sac like Rockingham Court. Undelete, and move per Geogre, but feel free to put it up for a new solo AFD if you still feel strongly about it. Bearcat 21:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, since the consensus of the AFD-discussion seems to have been keep. Disambiguate, if necessary, per Geogre. Bucketsofg 22:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see why nose-counting is relevant here. Are the people saying keep it undeleted arguing that this topic doesn't need nontrivial coverage, or that it has nontrivial coverage? Friday (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per others - also note the arterial designation in York Region has a legal and objective significance (as sourced in the article), rather than a subjective one. Dl2000 00:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep undeleted; this is why notability is flawed. There is enough information to write a comprehensive article, but the closer decided to discount that in favor of the opinion that only sources specifically about the road, rather than those mentioning it as part of a larger work, are valid. It should also be moved to Woodbine Avenue (Ontario) and disambiguated if there are other major roads with the name. --NE2 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guitar George – Deletion endorsed; redirect currently in place is unrelated. – Xoloz 14:16, 11 March 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 deleted because someone else also uses the same name (George Borowski)and that there was no proof that the other Guitar George had legitimate claims to the name aswell. Since the deletion of the page there has come to light many newspaper articles, TV appearences (in England and Spain) and Pictures of Guitar George using that name and showing his various appearances. This can be found at guitargeorge.net. His latest appearance being on the BBC1 TV show 'When Will I Be Famouse' on sat 17th feb which can still be viewed on the bbc website bbc.co.uk/whenwillibefamous. Only because of the coincidental use of the same name has Guitar George been deleted. If this person had had a different name there would have been no question of his inclusion in wikipedia. Guitarminator 12:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was the closing admin. In closing focused my attention on determining whether there was a consensus. In this case the unanimous view was "delete and redirect", the redirection being to George Borowski, the musician mentioned in Dire Straits' Sultans of Swing. The subject of the deleted article as far as I can see is a novelty act (guitar and unicycle!) that is probably not notable. If this is overturned, we'll obviously need a disambiguation page, since I'm willing to bet that 99% of people who search for "guitar George" want the Dire Straits reference. Bucketsofg 15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No evidence that the unicyclist knows all those fancy chords. Article was the work of two single purpose accounts, one of which also uploaded related images with no copyright status. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Unanimous afd; no new usable sources provided. The only one that's at all concrete is to the bbc variety show, which is wholly unuseable. —Cryptic 01:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure of unanimous AfD. Trebor 11:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

PortugalMUN – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 14:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

similar articles intact(ex:THIMUN) MiguelNS 11:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. If WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is the only argument, speedy close. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse self deletion no real reason for undeletion given. Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion in absence of any argument otherwise. Trebor 11:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

EGullet – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against new, reliably-sourced rewrite. – Xoloz 14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

eGullet has 10 cites in the New York Times in the last three years, is a site with interviews and posts by notable food personalities like Food Network hosts Anthony Bourdain and Alton Brown, former LA Times Food editor Russ Parsons, hosted a chronicle of the opening of the well-known new restaurant Alinea. I know there are a million food message boards out there, but eGullet attracts a significant number of important people in the food world, such as Mediterranean cookbook author Paula Wolfert, sommelier Mark Slater at Citronelle in Washington, D.C., one of the nation's top restaurant, and others. I hope that the deletion will be reconsidered. Wnissen 05:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion of self-created vanity article, without prejudice to working up a proper, cited version in user space which demonstrates notability by reference to multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. A better statement from the afd closer could've really helped here. I can see two straightforward explanations for his close despite the afd not reaching the normal 2/3 bar for rough consensus. The first would have been discounting the opinions of Perlow (talk · contribs) and Arvedui (talk · contribs) as very new users, judging from their redlinked user pages; however, this would be in error as both have substantial contribution histories.
The other would be to discount User:Perlow's argument that the article meets WP:WEB and User:RockMFR's assertion that sources can probably be found (though he didn't actually supply any). Looking at the deleted revisions of the article, this would be very understandable. Despite ten external links, it cites exactly zero secondary sources, and the afd didn't provide any either, except for a link to a google news search. The two most substantial sources from that search between them have enough information to write no more than a one-line article; no new sources are given in this deletion review, either. Endore deletion, I suppose; without better sourcing, I can't see us having a worthwhile article that passes the Amnesia test. —Cryptic 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is the first deletion I've been involved with. I didn't realize that the bar was so high. How about this mention [75] from the NYT?:

Mr. [Steven] Psaltis's assertions and job history became the subject of discussion a few weeks ago on the message boards at eGullet (egullet.com), a Web site devoted to epicurean life, which had been running excerpts from the young chef's book.

On Sept. 19, a member wrote in suggesting that Mr. Psaltis skipped over an important episode during his tenure at French Laundry, after he left Mix, one that might taint his account. After an innuendo-filled online conversation, Mr. Psaltis posted a response in which he said he had been frustrated with the restaurant and was certain "that others were frustrated with me." He wrote that one night, during a dispute, he slapped another employee's hand. "It was stupid of me to allow myself to be baited into crossing that line," Mr. Psaltis continued.

(When asked by phone about the circumstances under which Mr. Psaltis left the French Laundry, neither he or Mr. Keller would comment, Mr. Keller citing a confidentiality agreement he keeps with his employees.)

In other words, a chef with a published memoir was willing to post on eGullet but not talk to the NYT.

Not just food publications, but how about MIT's Technology Review? [76]

[Grant] Achatz and his Chicago contemporaries have not just placed themselves at the front ranks of the avant garde; they are the future of American cooking, in a self-conscious but valid way. Just as he has built on what he learned, proclaiming his roots in [French Laundry chef Thomas] Keller's teachings, Achatz knows that the 22-year-olds in his kitchen will one day have kitchens of their own and come up with the next cuisine. Many of them came to him through his frequent postings on eGullet.com, a website for chefs and foodies, where during the run-up to the opening of Alinea he kept a blog. His kitchen is already a self-selecting school, and his students will go on to grow without and perhaps beyond him.

On my last visit to the kitchen, I met a wide-eyed and extremely ambitious cook, all of 19 years old, named Chad Kubanoff, who had read some of Achatz's eGullet postings and started pelting him with e‑mailed requests for a job. ...

Another cite [[77]], from the dead tree magazine Food and Wine:

The charge of plagiarism was first raised on the Web site eGullet in March. Three weeks later, eGullet reported on a second copycat chef, this one in Japan. The Tapas Molecular Bar inside the Mandarin Oriental hotel in Tokyo was offering a tasting menu that appeared identical to one originally served at a Washington, DC, restaurant called Minibar, run by avant-garde chef José Andrés. Once again, the chef who seemed to have stolen the dishes—at least 15 of them—had worked at the restaurant where they were invented.

There are several more mentions of eGullet and its co-founder, Steven Shaw in the article.

Which publication, on- or off-line has the longest excerpts from the Feb 2007 book "Cooked: From the Streets to the Stove, from Cocaine to Foie Gras" ? It's not the publisher's page: [78] but eGullet [79].

I'm not saying it's the most important site on the web, but it has played a role in several controversies in the food world, and I believe it's the largest concentration of culinary professionals on the web, though I readily admit that figure is impossible to verify. Am I crazy for thinking that this deletion was a knee-jerk Wiki reaction against a vanity article? Wnissen 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion without prejudice per Guy. The closure was sound (based on the info provided), but it now appears there may be enough sources available to create a referenced version. Trebor 10:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Graham Mitchell – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 14:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

My article was deleted over and over and finally a block was put on the article name "Graham Mitchell". The problem is that not a single moderator responded to any of my 'hold on' requests or responded to my points/questions raised in the talk page. The reasons for deletion were inconsistent and inaccurate. For example, one admin deleted due to COI but Wikipedia's own COI page states that COI is not in itself grounds for deletion. When I point these things out to admins, they ignore me, or find another excuse (which I also disprove). It seems that the admins are not acting according to the Wikipedia spirit or rules. Full story too long to repeat here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Funkybear (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. Most versions created by User:Foto-z, which purely by coincidence is the subject's domain name. we know it's the subject's domain name because the article exhorted us to visit it for samples of his work. Redux: generic vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, your answer makes no reference to the merit (or otherwise) of the article. I am not Graham Mitchell but even if I were, COI is not grounds to delete an article. Funkybear 13:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But vanispamcruftisement is, WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. WP:COI is the icing on the cake. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you reading the Wikipedia definitions of what you are posting? For example, G11: "Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well". This article does not qualify as advertising under Wikipedia's own definition.Funkybear 21:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletions. See also Graham mitchell and /Graham Mitchell. Incidentally, I didn't once say I deleted due to COI. It was self-promotion, of which COI is a part. – Sock of Steel 11:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not surprising that Steel agreed with his own decision. Funkybear 13:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You missed out the bit where this was previously deleted by three other admins and tagged for speedy by four different users. – Sock of Steel 14:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And you missed out the bit where some of the admins merely followed the actions of previous admins rather than assessing the article for themselves, just as you are doing now. You also missed the part where admins didn't act with fairness or neutrality or in accordance with Wikipedia's own rules.Funkybear 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - Even in a deletion review, no assertion of notability has actually been made. Just an attempt to squabble over procedure. The Kinslayer 16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kinslayer, thanks for taking an interest. In which way did the article fail to meet the notability requirements? I attached two citations to newspaper articles about the photographer, for example.Funkybear 21:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion. No assertion was made in any deleted version of the article that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies. Neither has evidence been provided here to address that concern.
I am unable to find the two citations that Funkybear alleges to have attached. I can find only this link which was added by user:Foto-z and which, when run through babelfish (an admittedly imperfect tool), appears to return a fairly trivial human-interest newsarticle about a single exhibition by a "young person of Estonia". Rossami (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that you were searching in Russian and I don't know whether these papers are online. You can't search for 'Graham Mitchell' in a Russian article due to the transliteration. To make things worse, the transliteration is inconsistent. Perhaps you saw an earlier version of the article, but later versions had two citations included: MoлoдеҗЬ (Estonia), page 18, 6 October 2006, and BECТИ (Estonia), full back page, 5 October 2006Funkybear 13:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was searching strictly in this discussion (since this is the only place you've really edited) and it's entirely in English. Now that we understand that you were referring to the two print references listed in the last deleted version of the article which were added by user:Foto-z, I'll add the comment that they are, unfortunately, not functionally verifiable to the average editor of the English-language Wikipedia. In such situations, we often defer to the native-language Wikipedia. I can not find a reference to or link to the equivalent article on this person in the Russian Wikipedia. Does such an article exist? If so, please provide a link. Rossami (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No there is no Russian article although I could add that first. Is the article title banned for the English wikipedia only or across all languages? Funkybear 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The inclusion standards and deletion processes here only apply to the English Wikipedia (though most of the other projects have their own equivalent processes). You are always free to submit the article to one of our sister projects. For local artists, that's often a good idea since other participants on that project will be better able to confirm and correct the contents of the article and are in the best position to decide if the subject is appropriate for the encyclopedia.
        I'll also say that the title is not "banned" here - it's just not being accepted based on the sources currently available. If/when significant and verifiable new information is available, the issue can always be reconsidered. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How would I or anyone else submit an improved article when the article title is blocked? Funkybear 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The article title is not blocked at the Russian Wikipedia. Xoloz 14:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

BrettspielWelt – undeleted by deleting admin, further actions at editorial discretion – GRBerry 22:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This website is probably the most popular and best known place to play board games online. Principally German-style/Euro boardgames. It has had a feature article or two in Games Magazine and other hobby publications (unfortunately not available online, for the most part, though I’m looking). Chunky Rice 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from PC World [80]. The Games Magazine article was in the February 2004 issue.Chunky Rice 02:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list on AfD. Since it's been covered by 2 independent reliable sources, it shouldn't be a CSD A7. It's a German site, so it may be worth looking at the version on the German Wikipedia. Although I don't know the language, I see a lot of stuff that looks unencyclopedic, and a lack of sources -- can someone that speaks German see if there's anything useful over there? Dave6 ^talk 06:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion was proper but it is possible to have a decent article. In other words, there was nothing incorrect about how it was deleted. The references need to be non-trivial, non-passing. I.e. there needs to be an article on this portal, not an article on Java game sites that mentions a list of them. There is insufficient evidence now for overturning. This is in addition to the article stating that this is a web portal and then that there are "towns" for users. Geogre 12:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the article that I cited? It's only about this particular site. As was the Games Magazine article. I don't understand why that's considered trivial or passing,Chunky Rice 13:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't. I was talking about how an article with the references included would look. Basically, I was saying, "No prejudice against recreation in proper form" but "deletion of what was there was justified." I.e. the article as it was was a valid target for deletion, even if the subject could bear a proper article. Geogre 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh, okay. Yeah, I agree. Regardless, Merope restored the page and I'm going to work on it. Hopefully that will resolve it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chunky Rice (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

New Breed (ECW) – no deletion to review; merge/unmerge is an editorial decision for the articles talk pages – GRBerry 18:48, 6 March 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 by User:Quarl who said the result was Merge. However, only 1 person (of the 10 people who joined in) suggested a merger. 5 suggested keeping and 4 suggested deleting. Seems like the result should have been Keep, or maybe No Consensus (with default to keep). The AFD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Breed (ECW). TJ Spyke 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is a keep. If the information has been merged, then there is nothing for DRV to do with this request. Corvus cornix 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. The same thing happened with Everybody Votes Channel; the result was a merger, but one of the people who voted keep managed to get the merger undone with a DRV. I don't get how the closing admin (if they are an admin) got a Merge consensus when only 1 person suggested a merge. I could undo it myself (by just reverting the page back to its pre-merge version). TJ Spyke 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Result of AfD was to keep, nominator is not challenging that decision. AfD does not make binding decisions on merges, merges done following an AfD - including by the admin who closed the discussion - are subject to reversion and continued discussion (on Talk:New Breed (ECW)) as usual. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not the usual view, but the effect of a merge is to place the text in a less visible position. Perhaps should be seen as a half-way delete, not as a keep. It is exactly analogous to the decisions often made at AfD to merge the less notable material into sections of a general article. It is often a satisfactory compromise, but it keeps some of the material, but not the article. Having an article represents a higher degree of N than having it in a section or paragraph in a different article. DGG 05:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. No deletion to review. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 March 2007[edit]

Young Electric Sign Company – Deletion overturned, AfD at editorial discretion – trialsanderrors 02:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn. Was speedy deleted as spam. This is the major company for electric signs in Las Vegas and has a long history. To not have an article about this company is like saying that lights are not a part of Vegas. They are behind the Image:Welcome to vegas.jpg sign along with many other historic Vegas signs. Their bone yard itself is a museum and the location for numerous movies and TV shows! Vegaswikian 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources that discuss it? JoshuaZ 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locally, they are in the local media on a regular basis. Other sources might include: [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], and [86]. Google returns 13,500 hits for the company. Many of those are about their projects. Vegaswikian 23:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, invalid speedy. The article needed sources, but nothing was atrocious and it wasn't even tagged. Unnecessary unilateral action. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, could you clarify your assertion above? As an admin you should know that it is unnecessary for an article to be marked with a speedy delete tag for it to be deleted. Was this an oversight on your part above? If so, you may wish to correct your statement. Also, please explain 'unnecessary unilateral action', on the surface it seems to ascribe a motivation to my actions that's not proper, more information is requested. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion was unnecessary, and it was entirely done on the opinion of a single individual, who, as this discussion shows, wasn't reflecting consensus, hence unilateral. Tagging isn't necessary, but in anything but the most obvious cases, it's a good way to get a second opinion. I do it myself if I have any doubt. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the determination that it met a CSD criteria if I deleted it, it's hardly fair to argue that this was a decision made 'against consensus' if the consensus didn't exist at the time. By definition, every admin action performed alone is unilateral, a state that describes the vast majority of the work we do, so your use seems a bit strange. Also, your disapproval seems pretty strong, if you feel I've acted improperly, please consider the WP:RFC or WP:RFAR process. Otherwise, please consider reigning in the tone, I perceive hostility that seems unwarranted. If that's not the case, my apologies, but keep in mind that it's difficult to convey emotional inflective through text and you may find it useful to re-read things before sending them. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution is for when there's an ongoing pattern of trouble. This is a single flawed deletion that's obviously being resolved right here. There's no need to invoke any other process. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn,maybe take to AfD Enough sources have been that seem to meet WP:CORP although the ones given seem borderlinish. If any sources can be presented that very obviously satisfy the guideline I'll be happy switching to straight overturn . JoshuaZ 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, sources provided are a sufficient assertion of notability to prevent speedy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, this article easily asserts cultural notability but ruthlessly skive any commercial or advertising copy. Gwen Gale 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: The article's sources were definitely not sufficient. They were "see also" and "come buy from us" links, and the article does seem like nothing but advertising copy. The body is largely what one finds at their website -- we are the largest, we have outlets everywhere, etc. The deletion was not outrageous, so let's not be too shocked that an article that has been unimproved in over a year might suffer this fate. That said, the company seems to be substantial enough, and there are references enough, that AfD can consider whether or not this is advertising (which is a deletion guideline violation). Geogre 12:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the deletion is overturned, I'll work on adding references to the article. Taking it directly to AfD would appear to be overkill. Vegaswikian 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, AFD: Enough sources for a fine stub on google... - Denny 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Essjay/RFC – Deletion overturned – trialsanderrors 02:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
This discussion has gotten too long to transclude. Please opine at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5/User:Essjay/RFC.
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Essjay – Speedy reopen – Ned Scott 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Discussion put on a sub-page at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5/Essjay. Please review the discussion there.
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Walt Sorensen – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 02:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn based on the notability of Walt Sorensen as an artist, I shall quote from Wikipedia:Notability (artists) “notability as an artist is defined by the notability of his/her art. Notable art is: b) A piece acquired by government (national, state or major city) and put on public display.” Under this guide line Walt Sorensen has 6 notable art pieces. The 5 pieces that were displayed during the Nantou are part of a permanent collection on public display in the Nantou city hall. The Last piece was a photograph of West Valley City including the E-center in West Valley City, this piece was commissioned by West Valley and 2 Prints were made of it. One is on public display in the Nantou Taiwan city hall, the other is on Public Display in West Valley City’s City Hall.photodude 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse closure, nothing's brought up here that wasn't brought up in the AfD, consensus to delete was clear. DRV is not AfD take 2. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Author has brought to light some additional sources, so suggest that this be relisted (without prejudice to original closing). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment this information was added at the end of the debate minutes before the debate was closed. there was no time for a consensus to be formed taking into account this information.photodude 22:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was the closing admin. I have no deeply held opinion about this article and in closing focused my attention on determining whether there was a consensus, which I decided existed for deletion. I am undeleting the article for the duration of this review (since I think it important that reviewers get a second look at this.) Bucketsofg 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thank you for giving the reviewers a chance to review this under the light of this new information that had not been in the article and only made it to the debate at the last second photodude 22:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Upon request, I had a look back over the article. The only sources cited are primary and a college paper, which appear to be insufficient and probably would not have changed the AfD outcome, so I still endorse. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment ISBN 986-80230-1-7 and call number 958.232 for the book the subject of the article is in.photodude 03:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion I do not think the new information changes matters. The artist has won only regional awards, together with a display in 1 paired sister town; this is nt yet notable. The decision was reasonable and remains reasonable.DGG 04:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commentlocal interests are still qualified for articles. The issue of local notability vs larger notability has brought up several times in this discussion. The issue can be resolved by categorization. this was brought up in the afd and is a dead point without evidence to show otherwise photodude 15:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion per DGG. The "new information" is minuscule. According to his own website, he has perhaps two (it's unclear) pages about himself within a single large book; his photographs are not held by an art gallery or similar. Incidentally, I'm puzzled by photodude's continued reference to Sorensen in the third rather than first person. -- 133.25.145.111 06:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This just looks like a little bit more of the same kind of justification that was first presented. I see the book photographed at Sorensen's own site, and I'm willing to believe that the image of it isn't put together with PhotoShop or similar and that the book really exists. But Sorensen only has a few pages within it, whereas a noteworthy photographer usually has at least one entire book devoted to his or her work. (Try a few among the List of photographers, remembering that at any one time "COI" etc do succeed in getting entries for at least a handful of rather undeserving or anyway marginal people.) And while I don't know how to look up this book in any Chinese category, no academic library in Hong Kong appears to bother to stock it. -- Hoary 08:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the book was published in Taiwan not Hong Kong, click on the ISBN link and then search under Taiwan to find the book. The photographs in this book are held at the city hall of Nantou, Taiwan are part of a public display and permanent art collection. “Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".” Notability is also not the same as noteworthy. Fame, importance, or noteworthiness is something many wiki editors confuse notability with. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other.” The subject of the article is included in multiple non-trivial published works. as per definition of published works: What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. photodude 15:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Sorry, yes, of course you're right: Taiwan. (As is obvious from the first four hanzi of the title 中華民國攝影團體聯合攝影展覽作品專輯.) I still don't see "multiple non-trivial published works", though. -- Hoary 16:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply please define what "non-trivial" is according to wikipedia standards. As I read it, any published work that is about the subject and is not advertising is non-trivial. That includes a single page in a book. photodude 17:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply. "Trivial" does not appear to be defined. To Photodude, two or three pages in a single book, perhaps (it's unclear) when augmented by other bits and pieces that are even less substantial, are non-trivial. To me, they are trivial. If they were not trivial, then the number of photographers eligible for articles here would balloon into the tens of thousands. ¶ The three photographers whose articles I've edited during the last twenty-four hours are Hiroh Kikai, Ihei Kimura, and Yutaka Takanashi. Only the first of those articles has sourcing that's satisfactory, but even in their current state all three rather clearly depict photographers whose achievements are at an utterly different plane from those of Sorensen. (This is no criticism of Sorensen as photographer: when he too is sixty he may be as eminent as any of them, and richly deserve his own article.) ¶ Photodude (who on his user page has identified himself as Sorensen) would be well advised to read and digest WP:COI, where he's told: you should: 1. avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, . . . (And similar about participation in deletion debates.) After all, if/when he truly merits an article, it's likely that others will step forward to write an article on him. -- Hoary 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply. what is brought up here is an issue at the heart of wiki, what is a acceptiable published work and what is trivial. as stated in the wiki standards 1)"What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad" 2) "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work" 3) "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." 4) "The "multiple" qualification is not specific as to number" ¶ as for your statment "If they were not trivial, then the number of photographers eligible for articles here would balloon into the tens of thousands." There are thousands of photographers on wiki with simular notability if you can find the directory of photographers they are listed on. Most are of only Regional notablilty, with published works of the Regional kind. I used several of those articles as a guildeline of how to write this article. ¶ As for your re-disscussion of self-publication I would recomend that you should read DGG's comments about it and RedJerons comments in the AfD. Self-publication was a dead issue in the AfD. photodude 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Photodude says There are thousands of photographers on wiki with simular notability if you can find the directory of photographers they are listed on. Most are of only Regional notablilty, with published works of the Regional kind. I used several of those articles as a guildeline of how to write this article. I'd be interested to learn of just half a dozen of these. -- Hoary 03:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per comments/reply by Hoary. Robertissimo 18:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per statement by 133.25.145.111. Pitamakan 19:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per photodude comments Jeppe1982 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SPA. Incidentally, even AfDs aren't supposed to be votes; I'm surprised to see an undeletion review starting to resemble a vote. -- Hoary 03:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I see nothing new here that wasn't given the benefit of a doubt during the original AfD. The facts remain that this article is not verifiable, the subject is not notable, and this autobiography is an attempt to gain notability. This discussion seems merely to be and end run around the AfD process. TheMindsEye 14:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Communism Vandal – Deletion endorsed - These have been reviewed before and endorsed, nom is suprisingly the users first and only edit adding no new info beyond "I didn't like the original outcome" – pgk 11:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restore this to keep with the "X historical" notice. Same for Willy on Wheels, Pelican Shit, Supertroll, DNA vandal, North Carolina vandal, Videogamer!'s pages, and bring back the templates too, tag them with some notice about historical. I don't care much for the overinflated Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Just cut back the glorification and make it read like a school report: heh, now I got one over you wiki-admins! Dalbogue0 09:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I think these were all deleted by MFD in a perfectly valid manner. Also, these pages served no real function which helped us combat the problem. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:DENY, WP:BEANS and WP:NAVELGAZING. No longer active, so no need to have it around as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:DENY. Only some kind of inbreed could think otherwise really! The Kinslayer 11:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mecha as Practical War Machines – userfied as requested, overturn not requested, nothing more to do – GRBerry 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please temporarily copy this to my user space or e-mail me an XML dump so I can fork this article. I am primarily looking for the versions and authors before the first AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mecha as Practical War Machines), since I have an XML dump of it from its recreation to the second AfD (located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mecha as Practical War Machines (second nomination)). It was a fairly well-written article, but totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. Thanks. --Transfinite 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. User:Transfinite/Mecha as Practical War Machines. Only one usable revision, I think, so that's the one I've left it at, but the history is there. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fascist Wikipedians – Undeleted to allow for group nomination of political user categories. – trialsanderrors 02:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Someone keeps deleting my Category of Fascist Wikipedians. I am a fascist and I should be allowed to have a category. Why is no one deleting the Capitalist Wikipedians category? Why is my category being singled out? Someone keeps doing a "speedy delete" on it. It is absurd that same category can be deleted over and over without discussion simply because it has been deleted once in the past supposedly. Billy Ego 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note: Based on a significant subset of commenters (both overturn and keep voters) below expressing the view that political-ideology categories should not be used at all (and, frankly, I agree with that assessment), upon closure of this debate I will nominate all such categories for deletion at UCFD. --Random832 14:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User recreated category at Category:Fascist Wikipedias – Qxz 03:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake. I misspelled it there. Billy Ego 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a recreation of deleted content. I would suggest that it be returned to a deleted state. (To be more clear, keep deleted. Feel free to complain taht the folks at CFD aren't deleting other obviously bad categories, or contest those closures here.) Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was deleted once before, that that is justification to continually delete it? What kind of logic is that? What do you mean when you say it is a "recreation of deleted content"? Why was it deleted in the first place? And how can the content possibly be the same? What was the content the first time it was deleted? The content now is my username. Did it exist before I created it? If so, my username wasn't there. What "content" are you talking about? It's a category, not an article. Billy Ego 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I speedy deleted this a few days ago as recreation of deleted material, per this UCFD discussion. Please read WP:CSD#G4. You are going to need a consensus here to allow recreation of the category before it should be made again. VegaDark 07:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, as if it were not blindingly obvious. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So why have Category:Communist Wikipedians? This is a political judgement that has no place in wikipedia. There could also be a Nazi Wikipedian cat if someone wanted it. Nobody is banned from editing here or describing themselves however they want to. David Spart 11:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already nuked that, for the same reasons. Self-consciously offensive categories are divisive, inflammatory and have nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Billy Ego makes a valid point that has not been refuted. This is not even in the article space. It may be used for vandalsim but so what. Even a fascist like him deserves to be catergorised. David Spart 11:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Just sounds like flamebait to me. The Kinslayer 11:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like it either, but that's not a valid reason. --Random832 14:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. That is a completely different reason, and I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth in future. I am in fact indifferent to it, but think it should remain deleted as it has been proven to be mainly used for flamebaiting and other general disruption of wikipedia. To be honest, my mind boggles a bit at how you made an (apparantly) logical leap from concerns about flamebaiting to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. The Kinslayer 16:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess in my head i automatically translated "sounds like flamebait" to "i don't like it because it could theoretically be used for flamebait" rather than "it has been used for flamebaiting, here's the evidence of this". Sorry about that misunderstanding. --Random832 18:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC) - I guess it was IDONTLIKEIT after all, since you provided no evidence even after my prompting. --Random832 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for obvious reasons. Metamagician3000 12:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse only cuz I saw this whilst here for something else, this cat's a troll enabler if ever there was. Gwen Gale 13:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and relist, original UFD had no consensus, ought to have defaulted to keep. No real basis for deleting this and allowing other political categories. --Random832 14:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn because fascism is listed as an ideology and therefore they deserve a category if other ideologies have them. - Pious7 17:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, at best useless categorizing of users that doesn't help us build an encyclopedia, but really mostly flamebait. Kusma (討論) 17:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because unlike capitalists and communists, professing certain fascist and neo-nazi views and holocaust denial is a criminal offence in several european countries. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (I had posted Template:shrubbery here before, but decided it doesn't really fit the situation) The insinuation that fascism has anything to do with holocaust denial (or that, indeed, any of these problems with a nazi category would apply to a fascist category) is entirely unsubstantiated. --Random832 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think Wikipedia should conform to censorship laws of every country? Billy Ego 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Fascism is a longstanding and well-documented political ideology which has historically had (and to a much lesser degree, presently has) large numbers of adherents. There are hundreds of legitimate fascist political parties. As long as we have Category:Wikipedians by politics, there is no good reason why Category:Fascist Wikipedians should not be part of it. We should not delete this category simply because individual editors find the ideology to be objectionable. All user categories in Category:Wikipedians by politics are useful because they allow users to voluntarily announce their political point of view (and the possible biases that result), and to find Wikipedians with common interests and views for the purposes of collaboration on articles. —Psychonaut 19:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure I see a number of problems with this category. First there's the obvious flamebait concern. Secondly, this is a category that will likely stay very small and be populated by provocateurs and, well yeah, the occasional fascist. Sure, there's no bound on the number of ways we can categorize Wikipedians but what is really the added value here? Do we really need a category of fascist Wikipedians? of Wikipedians who plan to vote for Obama unless Giuliani wins the republican primary? Wikipedians interested in ketchup? Psychonaut's claim that "there are hundreds of legitimate fascist political parties" is dubious at best: I suppose it all depends on what one means by "legitimate" but very very few political parties today identify as "fascist" and all of them are beyond marginal. Pascal.Tesson 23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If fascist parties are "marginal" and "very few" in number, and this is a justification for the category's deletion, then the same thing can probably be said of many other user categories, such as those for libertarians and Communists. —Psychonaut 12:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse closure Yes, there may be actual facists, yes this amounts to content based discrimination and yes, the phrase " content based discrimination" is a euphemism for censorhip. That said, the disruptive potential of a such a category is so high and the usefulness is so obviously low that the decision of what to do should be obvious. Althouhg Wikipedia is not censored in terms of content, this is a cat for userpages so we can censor all we want if to do otherwise would likely lead to disruption of the project. JoshuaZ 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Changing to weak overturn After reading other comments and matters I'm not convinced that the presence of the category will be so disruptive as to disallow it. I'd rather have no political Wikipedian categories at all, but not is not the time to discuss that. JoshuaZ 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Who do you believe is going to disrupt the project as a result of having this category? Surely not the fascists themselves; if they were going to disrupt the project for political reasons then they would do so whether or not this category existed. I can only assume that you think that other editors would be wreaking the disruption, in which case I think you have a shamefully low opinion of your fellow encyclopædists. —Psychonaut 12:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though it pains me, Overturn. "For the obvious reasons" isn't a reason. Maybe it's argumentum ad populum. Maybe it means, "What other folks said," or, "Because I hate fascists and other people do too." Maybe it means, "I'm uncomfortable discussing Facism." Maybe it means something else, but we can't know unless we say. I welcome those who said, "for the obvious reasons" to make those reasons obvious. Now make no mistake, I Hate Fascism. But if a user wants to identify as fascist he or she will identify as fascist. Yes, we're not bound by article policy in user-space, but those article policies exist for good reasons that don't change just because we're not editing the encyclopedia proper. WP:N exists to insure Wikipedia's trustworthiness as a neutral reporter of facts. How trustworthy is Wikipedia on maters of Fascism if it censors fascists? The deletion betrays and encourages bias. WP:N, WP:NOT and the other policies aren't empty rules, they're a mind-set, a philosophy, and a and matter of wiki-faith. -- Richard Daly 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you feel differently if the category were "Nazi Wikipedians" or "Racist Wikipedians" or "Wikipedians who support White Power" (I know that facism doesn't necessarily imply any of these, but I'm curious where, if anywhere you draw the line). JoshuaZ 04:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're muddling the issue by bringing up categories (racism, white power) which aren't necessarily political. As for Nazi Wikipedians, though, I wouldn't argue any differently for them. Let the Nazis self-identify if that's what they want. The rest of us can keep an eye on them to make sure they don't push their POV on political topics. —Psychonaut 12:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is supporting White Power not a political position, and why do you distinguish between political and non-political categories? JoshuaZ 17:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, yes, I think we should be just as neutral in userspace as in articles no matter the subject. We're neutral in our articles on racism and white power and Nazism, and with good reasons: those are the same reasons we should be neutral in user space. Anything else is giving in to our bias just because we think "the rules don't apply here." Those rules have reasons, and the reasons still apply.

Suppose some smart 15 year old kid comes to Wikipedia because she's questioning her parents' fascism. We owe it to her to be a neutral, reliable source on fascism, so she can make up her own mind, but that's not sufficient. We must also demonstrate our neutrality, and - as best as we are able - show no bias anywhere on the site, or else that 15 year old is going to take one look and decide we're full of it. --Richard Daly 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Am I a fascist? Are you? How do you know? Was Essjay a fascist? There are screen names at Wikipedia, not people. Screen names don't have political philosophies. All "X Wikipedians" are illogical and ill conceived. Utgard Loki 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So nominate them for deletion en masse. Heck, there are a bunch of other categories you could delete on that rather extreme basis, too. Your argument is not a reason to delete the Fascist category and keep the others. --Random832 17:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If he did, I'd agree. There is also my favorite: the navel gazing aspect of it all. Wikipedians aren't notable for being Wikipedians. Attributes of them are even less interesting. Alleged attributes of screen names are way past useful, unless one's idea of Wikipedia is as a social networking site instead of an online encyclopedia. Geogre 03:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er, what? Essjay had to quit because of what he did! If anything, that shows that it does matter who you are and how you represent yourself. Jimbo said that Wikipedia as a community - like all communities - is totally dependant on the trust users are willing to place in one another. If Wikipedia asks editors to "assume good faith" then it must have an honor system that actually expects its contributors to earn that good faith through honesty. I am not a screen name, I am a man. And when I sign my Wikipedia edits, I sign them with the same name I use to sign anything else. --Richard Daly 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a side issue. The point that I was making is that we are personae, not people. If you tell me that you use your legal name, if you tell me that you are a mayor of Chicago, I have no verification and should not seek any, because our community exists as projections. We require that they act in ways according to policy, but we can no more invoke your mayoral term (and what you did to the SDS in 1968) than we can your kicking the dog this morning. We only know what you do here and defer your identity through a series of actions. "You" are made up of all your words, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The Essjay issue illustrates what happens when people foolishly allow the paper dolls to step off the page, when people believe that the sign of "Essjay" must have a referrent that is a person with all the attributes given by the name. There can be no "fascist Wikipedians," even if there are numerous fascists who are on Wikipedia, just as there can be no "communist Wikipedians" or "socialist Wikipedians" or "Jewish Wikipedians" or anything else, because "Wikipedian" already disallows any verifiability to the real world analog. Geogre 16:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't know if youre simply allowed to comment, but to Billy Ego, you may find that there is rather a large body of persons who will oppose you based upon your views, irrespective of any argument you may make. Cloveoil 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out that the Category does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion in the first place because the content is not the same from when it was first deleted in 2006, before I got here. The content is my username. Only the title of the category is the same. I feel I am being attacked and singled out and censored just because I'm a fascist. Where is the sense of community on Wikipedia? Billy Ego 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This does meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please read WP:CSD#G4. G4 - Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted.. Lets see- Is it a copy of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process? Yes, it was as I linked to above. Is it "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted."? Yes, absolutely. Members of a category changing does not constitute no longer being substantially identical. The category was intended for the same exact thing as the one that was deleted via UCFD, thus it also does not address the reason for which the page was deleted in the first place. I didn't speedy delete this category because I didn't like it, if that were the case I would speedy hundreds of other categories. This clearly met policy guidelines to speedy delete. VegaDark 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's absurd what you're saying. You're saying that any category on Wikipedia can be deleted over and over again without a vote, without question, simply because it was deleted once in the past. You're wrong that the content is substantially identical. The only content that can be in a category are the items listed in the category. My username was not listed in the category the first time it was deleted. Therefore it's not identical at all. The only thing identical is the NAME of the category/article. Billy Ego 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are missing a key factor here. It is true that any category on Wikipedia "can be deleted over and over again without a vote simply because it was deleted once in the past" only if if was deleted via an XfD discussion, which this was. It would be a waste of everyones time if that were not the case, as XfD debates would be meaningless since someone could just recreate the category and we would have to go through a new debate each time to delete it, wasting everyones time. When evaluating a category against this criteria, the category members don't matter. The category name, category description, and intent of the category are what matters. VegaDark 21:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're wrong. It's not different whether it's an article or a category. An article with exactly the same name can be recreated and it isn't subject to speedy delete as long as the contents of the article are not identical. It's the same for a category. A category name can be recreated and not subject to speedy delete as long as the contents of that category are not identical. Billy Ego 21:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Almost no category would ever be speedy deletable if that were the case. You are more than free to ask any other admin if they think I am wrong. VegaDark 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That is the case. If someone wants to delete a category/article there has to be a vote first, unless the contents are substantially identical. It's not about the TITLE of category or article but about its CONTENT. Billy Ego 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is just insane. Wikipedia is all about freedom to say what you want. If people want to call themselves fascists who are we to stop them doing so? And what potential for vandalsim? Is there s Catergory:Nazis for the love of God - now that is potential for vandals. They can add that cat to any bio and shazam! instant libel! Bu this is for users. THINK ABOUT IT!. People are just annoyed about someone here being a fascist. Would people object to "racialist wikipedians" or "white power wikipedians"? Probably. Would people here object to "wikipedians who support black power? Me thinks not. Oliver Wendell Holmes and all that jazz people. David Spart 20:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to point out that Fascism is distinct from any racist viewpoints. For me, it's a politico-economic philosophy. It doesn't have anything to do with race for me. Billy Ego 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is all about building an encyclopedia, nothing else. (It is in fact specifically not an experiment in free speech.) Things like user categories, user pages, even the wiki format are just a means to an end. They're tolerated only so long as they contribute to, or at least don't actively hinder, our base goal. If people want to call themselves fascists, they can do so somewhere else where it won't antagonize and distract those who are working toward our real goal. —Cryptic 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid UCfD, category is divisive. Regretably so, but divisive nontheless. Billy Ego is also advised not to recreate categories while they are under discussion. --tjstrf talk 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still learning all of this, but is there really a Wikipedia policy against divisive material? WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored means that Wikipedia will contain all sorts of divisive things. We can't and shouldn't manufacture consensus by deleting every real-world thing that would divide us.--Richard Daly 23:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not a moron. I can see that I'm being railroaded. The category was speedily deleted but wrongly speedily deleted. Just because an article has the same name as it did when there was a vote for deletion before, it doesn't mean it can be speedily deleted unless the contents of that article are the same. The contents of "Category:Fascist Wikipedias" is NOT the same as the first time it was ever deleted. The contents now is my username. So, what you are doing by speedily deleting it shifting the burden of obtaining a consensus away from those wanting to delete the category/article to those wanting to not delete the category/article. It's a scam and I can see right through it. Hopefully someone else can as well. It was wrongly speedily deleted in the first place. Billy Ego 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply As I said on your talk page, categories don't really have content. That exemption from the criteria is for cases where the article content has gone from being vandalism to a real article, or where it was previously an article on a non-subject and is now on a different and notable one of the same name. The fascist Wikipedians category was previously a category filled with Wikipedian fascists, and it still is. So the content has not changed in the slightest. --tjstrf talk 22:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That argument just doesn't stand because it's patently false. My username is different than the usernames of others. Therefore if my username is there other than someone else's then the content is different. Each time a new user creates the Fascist Wikipedians category after it has been deleted there must be a vote to delete it. It's not supposed to be speedily deleted, unless the contents are the same. That is, unless the same usernames are there. Billy Ego 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I give up. I'm convinced you're being purposefully dense now, since I've explained the policy to you several times. Please read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, and realize that we, not being mindless function machines, can see right through it. --tjstrf talk 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So now you personally attack me. I'm not "dense." What is mindless is the peremptory deletion of a category over and over for all eternity just because it was voted to delete it ONCE in the past. That is totally unjustified. It's being done to shift the burden on those who do not want to delete it. It is mindless and worse still unethical. An article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion simply because it has the same TITLE. Billy Ego 22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I supported keeping this category, but I believe the category was fairly deleted. It is irrelevant that this user was not involved in the original discussion; the content was deemed unsuitable by the forum that decides these things, so it should go.--Mike Selinker 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What "content"? The only content is usernames. Billy Ego 22:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The content of "A category grouping fascist Wikipedians". --tjstrf talk 22:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you're telling me that a small vote of only FOUR Wikipedians back in 2006 have decided the fate of this category for all eternity on Wikipedia? They have decided that the burden is now and forever on those that want to keep the article to obtain a consensus rather than on those that want to delete it, forever? Absolutely absurd. Billy Ego 22:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - CfD's tend to not be a jump on the bandwagon type of discussion. So if there is a nomination and any support, most editors don't fell the need to add another 'me to' comment. So the number of comments is not a significant issue. The fact that there is no opposition is a better indication of what the strength of the support is. Vegaswikian 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Vegaswikian, you are very wrong to state that there was "no opposition." There were a number of well-reasoned arguments to keep the article, from multiple users. As Random832 pointed out far above, the original decision to delete was flawed, as consensus had quite clearly not been reached. -Pete 23:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The definition of "content" is irrelevant. The category by that name or any variant of that name was deemed unacceptable for the Wikipedians section. Consensus to recreate is required. I might support that if it came up again, but the actions of the closer to speedily delete it were correct.--Mike Selinker 23:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        My comment was generic and the 'no opposition' was not intended as a statement of what happened in this discussion. The point I was trying to make is that, when there is no opposition you can assume that most editors support the action. When there is opposition, you can not make strong assumptions about the strength of that support, or lack of support, for the predominate position. Most CfD readers will not chime in when they believe that the outcome appears to be what they will support. Of course their silence can also be caused by other reasons. Clearly if there is a lack of consensus, or a weak consensus, the issue needs to continue to be discussed and if earlier discussions simply were not strong enough to swing consensus the other way, then future discussions, that add additional facts to support their position, need to be considered. Just don't try to read too much into the number of editors that contributed to the discussion. Vegaswikian 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for clarifying, VW. I understand and agree with your general point, but in this case it doesn't apply; there were multiple arguments on both sides. It seems to me that the issue underlying all of this is, how to appeal an inaccurate determination of consensus? Billy does not need to seek to overturn consensus, since consensus was never reached to begin with. Thus, finding uncontroversial consensus now seems to be too high a bar. Rather, whatever admin looked at the original discussion and made the determination that there was agreement to delete appears to have been quite mistaken; that is the issue that should be examined. In my view, the fairness of Wikipedia's review policy is far more worthy of our attention than the inclusion or disinclusion of a single category. -Pete 02:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I disagree with Billy Ego's politics (to the degree that I understand them), and I think that categories for Wikipedia editors are stupid in general. But none of the arguments I've seen here convince me that "fascist wikipedians" should be treated any different from "wikipedian musicians" or any other such nonsense. Some of the arguments are clearly motivated by political views, which is out of bounds in my view. Somewhere approaching 20 people have weighed in on the current discussion, which should be enough to take a fresh look at an issue that was initially made by four (I'm basing that on common sense, not a thorough understanding of WP policy.) -Pete 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, there were nine people in that discussion, not four. That's a fairly common number for a CFD discussion.--Mike Selinker 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I was mistakenly taking Billy's word for it - I think he may have meant that four people supported the deletion, but I haven't counted that carefully. -Pete 02:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying policy: I just read through the relevant policy, and want to clarify something that had confused me. The fact that an administrator determined that consensus had been reached is sufficient for VegaDark's speedy re-deletion of the category, above; but that determination is not officially considered relevant to the ultimate outcome of this discussion. This discussion is essentially an appeal of that determination.

Now that I understand it, the policy generally makes sense to me, but in this case, it seems to lead to an injustice, as Random832 has pointed out. The administrator's initial determination of consensus was clearly incorrect, and that administrator is currently on wikibreak, and unavailable for comment. Thus, the process leaves the category deleted, which to me seems a significant violation of the Wikipedia guideline of assuming good faith.

Finally, I feel that Utgard Loki's vote above should be disregarded, because a clear refutation of his/her reasoning was given, and no rebuttal ever came. -Pete 05:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing admin, I've been asked to come and explain myself. I'm not sure why, since my determination of consensus has already been deemed "incorrect", but whatever. If I may draw your attention to my user page, which has a paragraph explaining my CFD closings. In part: consensus is not vote counting. If you come to me saying "but it was 7 keeps to 5 deletes!", I'll probably just ignore you, so don't try it. It won't sway me. Consensus is determining what to do based upon what the community wants, but also based upon what is best for the encyclopedia. Everyone on earth could vote "Keep" on Category:Jimbo is a poo-head, but the end result will be a delete So there you go. And while I'm here I'll endorse deletion; nobody "deserves" to have a category. This is an encyclopedia. Why are we arguing about user page content? --Kbdank71 05:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Kbdank, thank you for offering some insight into your process, especially while on break. Sorry if I offended by calling your determination "incorrect" - that's what it seemed to me, I was going off the dictionary definition of "consensus" and was unaware of any other. I agree that vote-counting is not the appropriate way to reach a determination of consensus. But I would think that the what is best for the encyclopedia and what is best for the community of editors would come into play. I believe that trust among peer editors and trust of the power structure are important parts of that. Why am I engaging in this discussion? Because I want to understand how Wikipedia responds when someone has been the victim of something that looks to me like "mob rule." Because I hope that Wikipedia is capable of dealing with situations like that, and I want to contribute to making it so. -Pete 06:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- How are you counting 7 to be in that? [87] On closer examination I'm see 5 votes to delete and 4 votes to keep. One of the votes to keep is contained in a comment, so it isn't obvious. So 5 people have decided that forever on Wikipedia the burden of keeping the Fascist Wikipedians category lies on the one's who want to keep it instead of the ones that want to delete it? That ridiculous. To burden of obtaining a consensus for deletion is supposed to be on those that want to delete. Billy Ego 16:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't. What I said was an example, as in "IF you come to me saying 'but is was 7 keeps to 5 deletes'..." If you wish, I'll rephrase it: "You just said 'but it was 5 deletes to 4 keeps', and I already said I don't count votes, because that's not what consensus is about." --Kbdank71 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So that minute group of individuals that voted in the past is able to decide the fate of this category forever? From then and on through all eternity because of their decision, the burden to obtain a consensus is on who wants to category to stay instead of on who wants to delete it? Do you realize how many individuals are on Wikipedia? How can you even entertain the thought that they represent the consensus of Wikipedia? Do you have any idea how many Wikipedians there are? Those few people are not statistically significant at all. Again, I'm not a moron. I can see through this scam. Billy Ego 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's not what consensus is about (incidentally, I agree. The delete votes were essentially IDONTLIKEIT - there was not a single policy-based argument for deletion in the entire debate. We allow user categories based on political views. Why is "fascist" different? To claim that it is different is an inflammatory politically-biased judgement (not yours, but that of several delete voters there, and several endorse voters here) that has absolutely no place on wikipedia.) then on what basis _did_ you decide to delete it? You've explained why you ignore vote counts, but not explained what reason you _did_ have for closing that debate in the way you did. --Random832 19:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC) In a nutshell: There is no general consensus to disallow political usercategories. There was no specific consensus to delete this category. What consensus did you base your decision on? --Random832 19:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Divisiveness in the case of user categories is a valid argument. Perhaps a better way of reviving this category would be by renaming it to "Wikipedians interested in Fascism" or something similar that can be argued to aid in collaboration rather than splitting people into camps? --tjstrf talk 20:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is the category for Communist Wikipedians not divisive? Should that be renamed Users interested in Communism? Just because an ideology is unpopular does not mean it should be relegated to a special, safe place where it can't offend anyone. Algabal 20:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. If there is a category for Communist Wikipedians, there must be one for Fascists. I don't see how it can get any clearer. They are both major political ideologies, and we shouldn't let the ultra-sensitive prevent Wikipedia from acknowledging their existence. Algabal 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A category for communists is much less of a flame-magnet as one for fascists, we all know this. If you ask me, both cats are useless and so are 99% of the user categories but that's not really the point here. The reason why we don't want this category is not because we don't like fascists on Wikipedia. It's because we know full well that it will permanently be abused, populated maliciously, vandalized and whatnot. It's for that very same reason that we want to avoid the creation of the category: Wikipedians who think that Osama Bin Laden is way cool. We are not forbidding anyone to be a fascist or to root for Bin Laden. We simply want to avoid the childish drama that these cats are bound to create. And the potential for that drama is much worse for a fascist Wikipedians category because of the profoundly negative connotation of the term. Pascal.Tesson 23:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your overall concern, as you claim it is, is to avoid childish drama and flame-baiting, then all political categories should be removed. But until this is done, it is discrimination against Fascists (they do exist!) to not allow them to have their own category. Because, for some odd reason, the horror that is Communism does not attract as much trolling as Fascism, does not mean Fascism should be treated differently. Algabal 23:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal, that is the first compelling argument I've heard in favor of deletion. If only somebody had put it so plainly at the beginning, we might have avoided this whole mess. Unfortunately, I speak only for myself; it may be too late to win over those who are more invested in this particular decision (namely, Billy and Algabal.) At this point, convincing them that they're not victims of some kind of discrimination will be a pretty monumental task, considering the silly arguments and stubborn resistance others have made them endure. At any rate, I may consider changing my vote. -Pete 23:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Suggestion It seems that a great number of the concerns raised by the folks endorsing deletion could be addressed if the text of the category was "Wikipedia users who identify themselves politically as Fascist". This clearly delineates that this is a political categorization, and not a "d00d, that admin is a total FASCIST for deleting my pokemons fanfic!" category. While I feel that categorizing users politically serves no use to the project, as long as capitalist and communist user categories exist, a restructured cat using text similar to what I suggest above would seem to be ok. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps self-overturn your deletion to rename then, and do likewise for all the other categories here with similar naming issues? For example... Anarchist Wikipedians; Anti-communist Wikipedians; Anti-socialist Wikipedians; Antifeminist Wikipedians - Denny
- My deletion? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that--sorry! I completely misread the deletion log I suspect or had a minute of total brain stupidity as to who actually deleted it... - Denny 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just trying to suggest a compromise that satisfies widely. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha the admin who deleted the cat endoreces his own determination no WP:COI there! David Spart 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please be civil. The administrator who performed a deletion is most certainly entitled to defend it here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially since I specifically requested that he/she do so. Which he/she mentioned. -Pete 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse conditionally ...if all the political Wikipedian categories are deleted. - Denny 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is time to discuss the user categories in general. However this is not the place for that discussion. They are no longer included in the general category discussions, but have their own dedicated pages for CfD discussions. Vegaswikian 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From my experience there is a significant portion of users who think all the political user categories should go. If you nominated them all, I think it would have a decent chance of resulting in delete. VegaDark 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn for the same reasons given by Random832 and others. - DNewhall 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn After mulling it over, I've decided that the principle of fairness should prevail. Although fascism was discredited by Mussolini's alliance with Hitler, objectively Mussolini's crimes were not worse than those of communism, and we should not discriminate against that end of the political spectrum. Plus, the original discussion probably should have closed as no consensus. I wish, though, the nominator had been able to remain calmer. --Groggy Dice T | C 05:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn No real reason for deletion, other than editors allowing personal beliefs to interfere with editing. Cloveoil 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Equally repulsive as the Category:Communist Wikipedians, so either all those cats go, or none go. Overturn for now. Vandalism is no a priori reason. Somehow Communist Wikipedians are not suspect to be vandalised on their user pages? That nonsense. Intangible2.0 09:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Such categories are unhelpful. ElinorD (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 March 2007[edit]

Amir Massoud Tofangsazan – No consensus closure overturned by tiny margin, insufficient to delete outright; resubmitted to AfD. – Xoloz 17:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article unnecessarily publicizes embarrassing events in the life of an otherwise unknown living person. As noted in the article itself, the Internet publicity given to these events has seriously damaged this individual's life and we should not knowingly participate in further doing so. The page, although created and edited in good faith, is the functional equivalent of an attack page against a non-notable person. See my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad, and other participants' comments in that RfC, as well as recent threads on the notability policy pages for related discussion. In addition, it has been noted that this article's reports of unproven allegations raise WP:LIVING issues, and also that the proposed NOTNEWS guideline would also strongly support deletion. The closing administrator closed the AfD as no consensus, defaulting to keep, and it is not my contention that there was in fact a consensus to delete the article; but the "do no harm" test underlying WP:LIVING as applied to a non-notable person strongly supports deletion of this article, whose encyclopedic value is slight, as a matter of principle. It would be desirable for the community to have the opportunity to address this set of issues in a situation that is not wiki-notorious a la Brian Peppers and Daniel Brandt. A deletion review is requested. Newyorkbrad 22:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for calling this "no consensus" is simply that as I counted it, the vote was 9-10, certainly not a consensus. As for the BIO concern, the person is notable IMHO for wiki and the rest of that is discussed in the afd.Rlevse 22:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia policies are not determined by voting. —Centrx→talk • 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no assumptions (any new POV is removed) and is based solely on reliable sources, and passes WP:NEWS because it "has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services." This was a large internet meme the blog in question attracting millions of visitors a day. The subject and insuing publications have been the subject of media attention by at least three major news outlets. The subject is therefore not an otherwise unknown person. If this article should go, then all the articles under Category:Internet memes should also be removed. Sfacets 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Someone's blog is not a reliable source that qualifies as "secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services". —Centrx→talk • 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right call at AfD, almost. As one poster on the AfD noted, it is not the person that is notable, it is the overall incident. This guy is one of two or three main players in the overall incident. The article could be revised to be more about the incident to balance out the "attack" on this guy. Yeah, it's negative but BLP isn't a whitewash policy. SchmuckyTheCat 01:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the incident is notable, then information relevant to the incident belongs merged into a main article on that incident, not in a separate article about this person, or about each person involved in the incident. —Centrx→talk • 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not an issue for AfD or DRV, but for WP:RM. ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, just like in everything else like this. So long as there are reliable sources, being an encyclopedia trumps theoretical harm, because sourced information by definition is not private. -Amarkov moo! 01:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The mere existence of BLP concerns is sufficient to mandate actual analysis of the discussion and not mere vote-counting. AfD isn't a vote in any circumstance, but especially not in such a situation. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... okay, now could you explain why a proper analysis would lead to deletion, please? I didn't count votes. -Amarkov moo! 02:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read my comments at the RfC I linked to above for my answer to that. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, you didn't close the debate. I am taking direct issue with the methods used by the closer and suggesting that the close was improper. That's what deletion review is for. That I would have closed as delete is of secondary, if not tertiary concern. However, let me tell you why I would have done so. This is a wholly negative article on a person who does not meet any real definition of a "public person." As such, its mere existence is a tantamount to an attack page. That the Daily Mail saw fit to cover it in depth speaks to the Daily Mail's editorial policies, and I care not to be their critic. However, our policy is quite clear on such pages, and absent any proof of wider significance (and, for that matter, an actual court case), I am firmly convinced that the existence of this article stands in direct contravention WP:BLP. The keep !voters did not, in my view, offer a convincing rebuttal of these arguments which, I would note, were made by Doc glasgow and other parties during the debate. There you are. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I supported deleting this article under WP:NOTNEWS, but there's no way it meets WP:ATTACKPAGE. We have plenty of articles about people whose notability stems entirely from their roles in crimes or scandals. Kla'quot 07:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the article are all articles in newspapers from a single news cycle. That does not make for independent sources; that does not make for secondary or hindsight analysis; and that does not make for an encyclopedia article. If this incident and this person are notable beyond a paragraph in an article about the history of blogging, Internet vigilantism, or Internet crimes, then there would be other reliable sources, beyond that single news event. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly would suggest a merge in the article on ebay fraud. While it is not notable to stand alone as an article, it can help show examples of the kind of fraud that takes place on eBay. A possilble suggestion for the text is the following: "A widely reported case of eBay fraud occured in the United Kingdom when a ebay user took revenge on a seller by using internet vigilantism. The buyer was trying to purchase a laptop, but the seller sent him one that was below the state specifications. Using his blog, the buyer caused embarasment to the seller and caused the seller to diable his ebay account." Give or take a few words, and that sums up the whole article in a, hopefully, NPOV way. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
move The article is under the wrong name, As Centrx said above, it is the incident which is notable; if it has an established name, the article should be moved there. If not, as Mackensen said, it is possibly more appropriate under the name of the other participant, Thomas Sawyer. Selling a defective computer is not particularly newsworthy; what was newsworthy was Sawyer's response. I find it incredible that there is not even a redirect under his name. The present article is penalizing the victim and is an obvious example of bad editing. I have no objection to deleting--it will then only be necessary to construct a proper article under an appropriate title. Nor have I object to keeping--the article can be moved and the redirects entered. Neither takes Deletion Review. I am surprised it has remained in its present state for such a long time. DGG 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Relist, as the closing has been called into question and another five days of debate may enable us to find consensus. The BLP concerns are not necessarily a reason to delete, but they're a reason to make sure that we get this right. Kla'quot 05:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Very reluctant endorse per trialsanderrors. Even the nominator agrees there was no consensus here, and the AfD ran for over seven days. We can discuss later whether to move it, merge it, or AfD it again. Kla'quot 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus decision I don't see a single argument here that challenges the closure. There is no such thing as a "functional attack page" and certainly no such thing as a "good faith attack page". Nomination and comments from previos delete voters are simply an attempt to re-run the AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I courtesy-blanked the AfD discussion as it had attracted an inappropriate comment after the close. Feel free to un-blank it if you object. Kla'quot 07:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have un-blanked the page, but also removed the comment made after the close. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. None of the arguments here actually demonstrate that the closure was inappropriate. Rather, they are of the type "... but I made a valid argument!". Granted, and I'm not sure which side I would have come down on had I participated in the AFD, but it is obvious that there was no consensus. If anyone is concerned that the article should cover the incident and not the individual, simply merge this article into the incident article (if one exists) or create an article about the incident if it doesn't. That's a relatively simple editing matter that requires neither AFD or DRV. -- Black Falcon 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Comments above pre-suppose that all people arguing to overturn !voted in the AfD, which isn't actually the case. I've no interest in re-running the AfD which is precisely why I identified vote-counting as the reason to overturn. Oh well...Mackensen (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote-counting is perfectly proper way to close a discussion as long as the closer concludes that all opiners offer equally valid interpretations of Wikipedia policies. And as Black Falcon points out, nominations based on "my vote counts more" are very weak to begin with, not to mention nominations based on made up policies such as WP:LETSLEEPINGDOGSLIE or attempts to construct a higher morality than the reliable sources we routinely draw from. ~ trialsanderrors 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being the closing admin, let me throw in a few more tidbits here, the discussion here on the review proves, IMHO, that there was no consensus and such is still the case. I feel the article should stand as is or be renamed and tweaked to focus on the incident.Rlevse 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Meets relevant standards, that's all that matters. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure setting aside my own opinion as to whether or not we should keep this article (that decision can always be revisited in the future) the fact is that the closing admin was correct in finding no consensus to delete. Pascal.Tesson 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure and delete. WP:BLP requires us to weigh the encyclopedic value of an article against a non-public or semi-public person's reasonable expectations of privacy. The status of a person as a "public person" is normally measured by the actions taken by the individual to promote him/herself, not by mere media coverage. This little tiff adds nothing substantive to the encyclopedia. The AFD discussion shows a misunderstanding by some of the participants of the requirements of WP:BLP. Furthermore, the article could have been deleted under the rationales of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. The argument that "it's an internet meme therefore we must cover it" fails to convince me. Rossami (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn closure and relist We may now be a little more sophistication about these matters as a result of the lively discussion over other people. The question hinges on what is to some extent a content dispute: whether this guy was the relatively innocent victim--he sold a defective computer, but the person he sold it to was the only who made the notorious out-of-proportion privacy-violating stink about it. and it was that, not the fault in the machine, which wa responsible for the news coverage. If he is viewed as the victim the article is a violation of BLP, because he did not seek publicity--far from it. The other person was the one who sort publicity.DGG 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure and delete per Newyorkbrad and Rossami. I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a permanent record of trivial and harmful gossip concerning non-notable people. --Folantin 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete sometimes we need to rise above the tendency to vote count and source count. With the powerful medium we are comes some responsibilities - the fact is that we don't need this trivial rubbish, and we are a better encyclopedia without it. BLP isn't just a rule to be applied - it is a mindset to be adopted.--Doc^g 22:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Overturn and delete. This is a piece of hideous vileness masquerading as a dispassionate account of a disgusting and unconscionable attack on a private individual. This has no place on Wikipedia. In view of the nature of the content, I have taken the unusual step of blanking the article pending the conclusion of this review. --Tony Sidaway 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reverted your good faith blanking. Please wait for the review to complete and dont try to censor wikipedia. GameKeeper 22:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be done through an AfD, not this "secret" process, that isn't told in the article. And I think that this article should be kept, it is about an event that was prominently reported in the media. --Tilman 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a 'secret' process, it is linked from the article talk page. GameKeeper 13:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of the latest internet memes. This article violates BLP on several different fronts, and uses information collected from a single news source. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It does not use information from a single news source, there are 3 separate sources linked all major UK news sources , more could easily be found online. It was not just an internet meme. It was widely discussed in the British press as the sources show. GameKeeper 07:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse closure - notable incident reported by notable sources. It is your own POV if you don't like it - the fact is, it is a perfectly acceptable article under Wikipedia guidelines as they currently stand. The article has already survived two AFD's. Sfacets 07:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and delete per Rossami and Doc Glasgow. A quite unremarkable event involving entirely unremarkable people. The head-counting AFD result is contrary to the intentions of WP:BLP and cannot stand. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure - article has survived two AFD, has multiple reliable sources and should not be deleted just because some editors disagree with or disapprove of its content. --J2thawiki 12:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per Bastique, Doc et al above. Of the five sources proffered, one is duplicated and one is a dead link, leaving only three; of these two seem very similar indicating a possibly-common source. Furthermore all stem from a very slim time window, a matter of a couple of days; there is no follow-up, nothing to indicate that this incident was anything more than a wikt:nine day wonder. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barry L. Zubrow – Speedy deletion overturned; sent to AfD with a note on COI problems. – Xoloz 17:41, 9 March 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 article because this person is sited in a number of Wikipedia articles, most notably Goldman Sachs, Friends Central School, and Haverford College. The references stated in these articles were not added by me. I can assure you this article presents no conflict of interest besides the fact that he is related. I meticulously made sure that the article was unbiased and presented the facts, not opinions. This article should remain because Wikipedia should have an article at this person, which I wrote because no one else did. Barry L. Zubrow is a noted New Jersey diplomat and well-known former business executive. This fact is further conveyed through the many sources of information available on the internet about Barry L. Zubrow. I sited many of these sources in my article. There are many similar articles like this one which present greater conflicts of interest that Wikipedia should try to prevent instead of spending time worrying about this trivial conflict. It would be a travesty not to post this beneficial and unbiased article on this site.

Furthermore, there is no way to prove that this article presents a conflict of interest because one cannot prove that I have a relation to this person. Therefore, for all these reasons, this article should remain on Wikipedia. Mrzubrow 21:42, March 4, 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close. MER-C 04:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the reason is "invalid A7". ~ trialsanderrors 06:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mrzubrow says that it is impossible to prove that Barry Zubrow is unrelated, but this is after you state in the previous paragraph that " this article presents no conflict of interest besides the fact that he is related." And then there's the unfortunate point that your username has the name "Zubrow" in it. So, yes it is impossible to prove absolutely, but why don't you enlighten us with a "alibi" and say who he is then, if he is not related. And by the way, I really don't know of many conflicts of interest on Wikipedia, and certainly you don't suggest that we ignore problems deemed too "trivial" to correct? Sure, let's just ignore trivial problems and our encyclopedia will be almost as good! SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request Undeletion for Examination: It is probably worth looking at the page to assess if there is an issue of conflict of interest, because without that point, the argument is pretty flimsy; Barry Zubrow seems to be moderately notable. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 03:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Request Undeletion for Examination: This sounds like an unjustified speedy--let's see it.DGG 04:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: history restored behind DRV notice. Awyong J. M. Salleh 05:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Forbes mention definitely asserts notability. Awyong J. M. Salleh 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and suggest WP:TROUT for mrzubrow for attempted obfuscation of the COI issue, which can be construed as mild disruption (not major, certainly not blockable, which is why I suggested WP:TROUT.) ColourBurst 06:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Not a A7 but a horrible piece of advertising, not helped by the COI issues or the attempts to obfuscate them. Maybe someone else wants to write an encyclopedic article on Barry Zubrow, although I doubt it survives an AFD. Investment banking partners are like bishops, career officers or attorneys. ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List to AFD as a contested speedy-deletion. Include a note about the probable conflict of interest concerns. Personally, I think the subject fails our generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies but the page can stand discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Barry Zubrow, a rewritten repost of Barry L. Zubrow, by a suspected sockpuppet of User:Mrzubrow. I will be back later with evidence. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the histories together, protected the trailing redirect, and re-protected the original title so that it only contains a link to this discussion. —freak(talk) 20:38, Mar. 7, 2007 (UTC)

Delete: No necessary need for this article. Barry Zubrow is not known well enough to have a Wikipedia article. In essence, the former article is just a political campaign for noteriety. 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I had posted a speedy deletion request on that page as it is a re-post of the old deleted article Barry L. Zubrow. The author is none other than User:Mrzubrow, only trying to circumvent the rules by sock-puppeting as User:Ferraridriver303.

If you will look at their histories, all their edits are focused on Barry Zubrow (besides UserMrzubrow's discussion with the deleter of the first page, User:Merope, and the protests for undeletion of said page). User:Mrzubrow also makes two edits to the Pingry School article. Both users try to put the same picture on each page, only the first attempt was wrongly done, and on the second attempt, he figures out how to post it correctly. Both articles cite two of the same sources. Anyway, the two histories have been merged now, so after User: Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh edits, it is the second page Barry Zubrow and before that edit is the first page, Barry L. Zubrow. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 20:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know Mrzubrow; he is Barry Zubrow's son. I would give more details, but I'd like to respect his privacy. I believe this qualifies as a COI. Ferraridriver303 seems to be a sock puppet. Atungare 21:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't want to sacrifice his privacy, at least not at first, but I personally know Mrzubrow as Barry Zubrow's son. This is why I was the first to welcome him; he told me he was joining Wikipedia beforehand. Also- the damning evidence- he told me that he was sockpuppeting today. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop hating on Mrzubrow just because you're jealous of his 1337 skillz.

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

Tiny Mix Tapes – Speedy deletion overturned; sent to AfD – Xoloz 17:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It Is A Professional Reviews Source Mangle 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This definition was wrongly deleted as advertising spam. Tiny Mix Tapes is a professional reviews source that has been running for over five years, with a readership ranking in the hundreds of thousands. They reciently added three banner ads to the site, but they are ads for music related material and not invasive. Please add this back in. There is no reason why this page should be deleted and other music sites like Popmatters and Pitchfork are allowed to stay. Why else is that "professional reviews" catagory on every album page?--Mangle 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I deleted this. The above editor created this article and has admitted to a conflict of interest but fails to see how that should matter. His edits (which I am in the process of reverting) are about 98% adding links to this website throughout various articles. He seems to think that since he linked to individual pages all over as opposed to the main page of the website, that somehow makes it not spam. I happen to disagree. This article (along with the various links) is advertising. IrishGuy ^talk 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The page was deleted for not asserting or demonstrating notability per WP:CSD A7 - it was not deleted as spam, as the user above asserts. (Although numerous links to the website itself were deleted as spam.) Page shouldn't be re-instated unless sources are provided proving notability per the central criteria of WP:WEB. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, TMT reviews are syndicated through Metacritic, which meets WP:WEB criterion 3. Tiny Mix Tapes, especially its playlist generator, have been featured in reliable media as well. [88] and discussed in a scholarly journal[89] --Dhartung | Talk 00:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The media aspect of WP:WEB states that the subject must be the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works. The first article you gave requires a subscription so I know nothing about the contents beyond the two sentence mention at the top. The second article says: On the web, sites such as Art of the Mix (where users list and comment on one another's favorite mixes), Tiny Mix Tapes (with an "automatic mix tape generator" to match any word, phrase, style, or emotion one submits), and Mixtaper.com (with hundreds of mixes linked to free and legal mp3s) all reveal an enduring devotion to the plastic cassettes gathering dust in many a closet. That's it. A few words within a sentence that mentions two other websites. That would hardly count as non-trivial. IrishGuy ^talk 01:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the website you didn't have a subscription too. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. For further reference, Definitive Jux (home to Aesop Rock, RJD2), Young God (Devandra Banhart, Angels Of Light), Type Records (Midaircondo, Xela), Saddle Creek (Bright Eyes), Benbecula (Christ., Frog Pocket), and Madlib's Stones Throw, all very prominent independant labels, as well as Kill Rock Stars band Deerhoof (as seen here)all reprint tinymixtapes reviews the same as Pitchfork, among many others.--Mangle 03:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IrishGuy, I apologize, I'm having trouble finding one that isn't behind a paywall. Here's a google cache of a Knight-Ridder story (syndicated by the Dallas Morning News) that is 100% about TMT. Here it's a Yahoo! Pick. Here's Wired News, one of four sites profiled; blog capsules from USA Today and The Age; a college newspaper points out it's one of three indie tastemakers (similar). Nevertheless, as stated, they meet WP:WEB criterion three. If that means nothing, perhaps we should remove criterion three altogether as misleading.--Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

undelete for inspection so others can see if the deletion was reasonable. This is not a question of overturning an AfD where there are arguments available, but a speedy where the the nature of the process has made the evidence unavailable. DGG 04:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit history restored. ~ trialsanderrors 05:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Special:Whatlinkshere/Tiny_Mix_Tapes. ~ trialsanderrors 05:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's so many links to that page because the site was spammed all over Wikipedia. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be noted, all of mine have been deleted. What's left on that list is all other editors, of which I'm sure you'll find a wide selection. Thus adding to the notability.--Mangle 05:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Mix Tapes is a pretty well established online album reviewer. Not quite Pitchfork, but certainly something editors would quote if they write articles on particular albums. As Dhartung pointed out, TMT is a featured reviewer on Metacritic. The linkspamming by User:Mangle is a conduct issue and not a content issue. ~ trialsanderrors 06:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while the website might meet WP:WEB, the article I deleted met the criteria for deletion as there is no assertion of notability at all. No references. Nothing. It reads like an advertisement. IrishGuy ^talk 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. So you admit tinymixtapes is a professional review source, and is therefor allowed to be linked to in the professional reviews catagory on album pages. Thank you.--Mangle 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point to where I said any such thing. Stop attempting to find loopholes to spam more articles. IrishGuy ^talk 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't have to say anything. The professional reviews catagory is for professional reviews and tinymixtapes is a professional reviews source. Done and done.--Mangle 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you start spamming again, you will be blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On article spamming, I agree with IrishGuy. It may be the prerogative of editors to add TMT reviews to album articles they write, but that doesn't give a WP:COI editor the right to mas insert them into articles s/he didn't author. Re IrishGuy, I don't see any evidence of advertising in the article or in the edit history. Also, lack of references isn't, and never has been, grounds for speedy deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 17:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was deleted for lack of references, I said it was deleted for not asserting any level of notability or imporantace. Look at the history yourself. It was a valid delete per A7. IrishGuy ^talk 08:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intserting links in the provided professional reviews catagory to reviews of the albums in question. I ask, what else is that section for? I'm not trying to screw anybody here. I'm just trying to add content, which, whether it's mine or not, is relevant to the articles in question, as evidenced by the fact Wiki endorses a "professional reviews" catagory in album specific articles.--Mangle 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been trying to add your own content. You weren't trying to better articles. I note that the only links you added from TinyMixTapes.com were to articles that you had written. IrishGuy ^talk 08:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - It wasn't deleted for lack of references (or for being spam), it was deleted for failing to assert notability per CSD A7. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mangle, please try to understand that "massively" (I'm not sure how many links you placed) placing links in articles to websites that you are involved with looks very fishy (look at it from our perspective; we're one of the highest trafficked sites in the world; and yes, that means lots of people want to link their site onto it). If you really want those links in there, let other people do it. If I knew which Wikiproject to bring the issue up, I'd actually put the notice in there. ColourBurst 06:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ALBUM has a list of acceptable reviewers for infoboxes. I don't think TMT is among them. ~ trialsanderrors 08:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, yes, but right at the top of the list is Metacritic, which in 891 cases points to a Tiny Mix Tapes review. Nor does it anywhere state that the list is exclusive -- if anything it encourages searching and says that "professional review" should be interpreted broadly. (I certainly agree, however, that a review author linking all his own reviews is WP:COI self-promotion. The list of reviews for a particular album should be decided by consensus.)--Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Swastikas in popular culture – Deletion overturned, resubmitted to AfD – Xoloz 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closing admin based the closure on an inaccurate and unsupported generalization that there is "recent community consensus against 'in popular culture' articles" (there is no such consensus, more than 50% of pop culture articles are surviving AfD and there are no specific policies about in pop culture articles) - and also the closing admin called it a "mess" which is a personal bias. Request a neutral closure. Please close based on the specifics of the strengths of the arguments. In this case, WP:NOT says nothing specific about "in popular culture" articles, the nominator did not clearly establish the entire article is in violation of WP:NOT, nor did other delete votes - it is an opinion without supporting rationale, many of the entries are perfectly valid for Wikipedia. Stbalbach 05:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn clear consensus to keep on AfD. The opinion of closing admin shouldn't matter really. Grue 07:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own deletion. AfD is not a vote and acting in accordance with policy is not personal bias. Nor are different AfDs closed by different people in the least bit relevant. A list where no-one knows what it's supposed to include (due to the confusion between its use by the Nazis, Indian religions, Oriental religions and numerous others) and is entirely based on random primary sources clearly violates policy, and the fact that including something on a list of "People and organisations who have used a Nazi symbol in their work" has the potential to be an extremely virulent accusation only leaves us less margin for error. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There was a clear consensus to keep (or at least merge) the content. In addition to the fact that each article should be judged on its own merit, there is no "recent community consensus" against 'in popular culture' articles. Please see such discussions as: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hawking in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano in popular culture, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune in popular culture. If the problem was unsourced content, then unsourced statements could have been deleted and a merge performed of the remaining material performed. -- Black Falcon 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as an incorrect closure. It that closure it was stated that it was being done on the basis of the merits of "in popular culture" in general, not of the specific article. The result of the discussion was to keep, as justified in this instance at least. DGG 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as nominator. The keep !votes were supported by such comments as "I've seen far worse" and a desire on the part of some editors (including the initiator of the DRV) to keep the trivia from being transplanted into the featured article Swastika. "I've seen far worse" is in no way a reason to keep an article. Creating garbage dump articles to keep trivia out of the main article is not a good or a long-term solution. All it does is shift the problem from one set of editors to another. I said in the AFD that the best solution for dealing with this kind of stuff is to delete it from the main article and delete the context-free indiscriminate list articles, to which Stbalbach said that he agrees that this sort of stuff doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Given that he doesn't believe this sort of information belongs here, given that he was unable in the course of the nomination to refute the specific allegations about the article and given that his expressed reason for wanting to keep the article is to prevent its contents from ending up in the main article, I have to wonder why he wants to overturn the deletion. Otto4711 04:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say in response to the notion that 50% of "...in popular culture" articles are surviving AFD that I'm not seeing that to be the case and most of those that are surviving (as "no consensus") are doing so on the strength of the same sort of "better in this article than in the main article" argument as Stbalbach made in this AFD. Otto4711 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And (sorry, I'll shut up after this) in response to the linked AFDs provided by Black Falcon, only one of them, Wheel of Fortune, closed with a clear "keep" (and as nominator I will acknowledge that it was a poorly-done nomination, not that the article isn't still terrible). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano wire in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon references or spoofs (2nd AfD Nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Who in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IKEA in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes have all closed in the recent past with deletes, as have a slew of pop culture-type articles that didn't happen to be called "...in popular culture" including List of fictional foods, List of fictional beverages, List of psychadelic rock songs, Timeline of Batman and a passel of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire contestants. Otto4711 04:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus for deleting a lot of these articles was not due to the fact that they were "in popular culture" types, but rather that they failed other WP guidelines or were of exceedingly poor quality. There is no inherent consensus to delete "in popular culture" articles that are salvageable. Finally, Wikipedia's deletion policy requires that each article be considered on its own merits. Deleting a "no consensus" discussion based on the outcomes of other AfD discussions is not sanctioned (especially when such articles are different in their quality). -- Black Falcon 09:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do a point-by-point rebuttal of this reply but there really is no reason for me to do so. It's all been said already. This is really all coming down to the word choice of the closing admin. Because he included the phrase "recent community consensus" the keepers have a tiny peg on which to hang their overturn hats. Completely ignoring the actual reasons for the deletion, specified both there and here. Otto4711 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Closure against consensus. Spacepotato 09:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection - good call by admin.--Doc^g 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion closure looks fine to me. --pgk 21:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - In addition to above comments, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia. Wickethewok 04:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. A valid topic for an encyclopedia article. Macarenaman 08:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 13:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Wile E. Heresiarch 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unqualified votes are not considered here. Please provide a rationale. ~ trialsanderrors 20:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I'm fully signed up to delete the mass of the "..in popular culture" articles or sections as they are just a mass of films, TV shows, songs etc which have no real relevance to the topic. However, the swastika is a different concept. I have seen whole books on design devoted to it (this one and this one, for instance). I don't know what's in the article but I think it's a reasonable subject for an encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer 22:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Afd is not a vote; closing admins are allowed to use some degree of common sense, they don't just count yays and nays. The reasons for keeping the article revolve around WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and/or a desire to keep cruft out of the core article. While I do not deny that the swastika's place in popular culture is indeed worthy of some mention, this article is clearly substandard. Most of the occurrences are actually manji (which should not be listed there are all, and instead be a disambig line to List of manji in popular culture or whatever), others should instead be on Nazi symbolism or a page about Neo-Nazism in general (e.g. Harry the Nazi, where he wears a whole Nazi "uniform", not just the distinctive armband), or simply don't describe the significance of that work's swastika inclusion, either from an in-universe perspective or a real-world one. Its references are few and far between, and generally don't come from reliable sources. I would suggest a new section be added in swastika itself for the truly noteworthy uses, and that section be culled of rubbish entries the moment they appear. To me, A well-written featured article linking to a poorly-written child/cousin article reflects almost as badly on the FA as that content being in the featured article itself. Garrett^Talk 03:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - the majority of the keep arguments did not use any kind of argument based on Wikipedia's standards or practices. I would say more, but Garrett appears to have covered most of what I would have to say. --Haemo 09:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offering for consideration the existence of Western use of the Swastika in the early 20th century which still has problems but which appears to restrict itself to actual instances of the swastika and not manji or random things that an editor perceives as being vaguely swastika-shaped. So not only was the deleted article a mess, it was also redundant. Otto4711 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Was not the deleted article about use of the swastika in the late 20th century rather than the early bit? Sam Blacketer 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted article was about any appearance of anything that an editor decided looked like a swastika, whether it actually was a swastika or a manji or a coincidental coming together of sections of a stadium roof or runways. Otto4711 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn While AfD is not a vote, it is also not a debate in which the closing admin's opinion is more important than that of the debate's participants. I fail to see a clear consensus to delete even though some (but not all) of the reasons in favor of keeping the article are not so convincing. One day, we might decide to change the policies of "keep if no consensus to delete" and "don't delete if the article can be improved to be acceptable" but in the meantime those principles do apply and I believe that the closing admin went too far in finding the required clear consensus to delete. Pascal.Tesson 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the closing admin not have the discretion to determine that keep arguments are too weak to constitute blockage of consensus to delete? The arguments in favor of not deleting the article were "well-sourced miscellany article" (from a non-signing editor, and the article was not well-sourced), "merge three items" (out of a list of dozens, which is closer to a "delete" than a "keep") "I've seen far worse" (not a reasonable argument for keeping), "this is different from other similarly-named articles" (which doesn't seem that compelling on its face) "keep as a tool to avoid this crap being in the main text" (not compelling) and a cite of WP:SUMMARY (not relevant). There was no compelling or even decent argument offered to keep the article and the admin acted properly in discounting those arguments. Otto4711 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on man... An editor writes

While there are unsourced sections, article has multiple sourced areas as well. I've seen far worse. Could use some cleanup to better meet quality standards, but not worthy of being deleted outright.

and you summarize this by "I've seen far worse". Another one writes:

This is an extension of its parent, and a merge might create a long page. All of this is verifiable, and if the medium was notable, the incident should be included. This is pretty much how it has been done so far as I can tell, but there could be some cleanup to do. This is not 'indiscriminate', in that it is a valid piece of another article.

and you summarize it as "keep as a tool to avoid this crap being in the main text" and so on... Pascal.Tesson 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I've seen far worse" was the unique portion of that comment, as the sourcing issue was already mentioned in connection with another comment. "Extension of the parent" is an expansion on the rationale of "keep the crap out of the main text" and it seems odd to simultaneously claim that the content is both "crap" and "a valid piece of another article." And of course no one should be commenting here without having read the AFD to see the original comments anyway. Regardless of whether you think how I reported the sentiments of those two editors captures them or not, the point still stands that the arguments in favor of keeping the article were weak, the administrator recognized that and the admin deleted appropriately. Otto4711 23:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that, out of respect for people's honest opinions, you should make your point without twisting others' words. You might want to consider the possibility that others simply disagree rather than try to pass them off as idiots. Pascal.Tesson 03:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I just want to note that I don't appreciate your false accusation of bad faith on my part. Directly quoting the portion of someone's comments that I believe accurately represents their opinions is not "twisting others' words." I did not attempt to pass anyone off as an idiot. "They made a weak argument" does not equal "idiot" anywhere but, apparently, inside your head, which makes the perception not my responsibility. Otto4711 13:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overturn deletion this article can reasonably considered different from the other --in popular culture articles, as there is a great many potential items. I do not think thee was consensus at the debate on this one. DGG 04:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear as to what the number of potential items has to do with whether the article should be deleted or not. Otto4711 14:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It seems clear that the only strong arguments for keeping this were to keep the cruft out of the featured article... which is a very unconvincing argument: if the cruft is a problem, why not remove it from the article? I know it's hard doing that constant work, but it's the right answer to that solution. Mango juice^talk 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I have to agree with Mangojuice here. The strongest "keep" arguments were based on limiting the damage to the main article. That's not a good long-term solution for the encyclopedia. The closer clearly explained the reason for overriding the strict vote-count. Rossami (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn deletion - If it is a mess, it can be cleaned. If it doesn't exist it cannot. Sfacets 07:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Re:sound – Deletion overturned; sent to AfD – Xoloz 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was tagged with a speedy notice with as reason: non notable. Since this entry asserted notability as being a program on a notable radio station, I think it at least deserves an AFD discussion. This is not blatantly non-notable to be deleted under CSD A7. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and list on AfD. Notability is asserted. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not averse to a procedural listing to AFD as a contested speedy-deletion, I must endorse the speedy-deletion as an appropriate application of case A7. The total contents of this page at time of deletion were "Re:sound is a weekly one-hour program on Chicago Public Radio produced by the Third Coast International Audio Festival airing Saturdays at 1 pm on WBEZ 91.5 in Chicago. Re:sound is a remix of music, found sound, sound bites, and radio stories culled from around the world ranging from personal narratives to investigative documentaries, experimental sound art to humorous essays. The host of Re:sound is independent producer and essayist Gwen Macsai." I can find no assertion of notability anywhere in that content. If Mgm has an assertion of notability based on other sources, then overturn and list to AFD. If not, leave it deleted. Rossami (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Chicago Public Radio is notable, and this is a program on it. Kla'quot 05:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify this opinion. The city of New York is notable. That doesn't mean that every person or building in it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Harvard is a very notable university that turns out many thousands of perfectly average graduates every year. (In fact, I can say with confidence that exactly half of them are below average.) Notability of a parent does not imply automatic notability of the child. What makes this program special? Rossami (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Basically it's the same line of reasoning as the idea that if a band is notable, each of its albums is also notable. A radio station is only notable because of its finite set of programs. I wouldn't mind an AfD discussion on whether my logic makes sense. Kla'quot 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Instead of listing it on AfD, would you consider merging it into Chicago Public Radio and calling it a day? Kla'quot 07:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

9412 (Internet radio station) – Deletion endorsed – Xoloz 17:02, 9 March 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 under CSD A7 due to a lack of assertion of notability. I submit that the station, being the first result under a Google search for "9412" and #8 for "classic rock" "internet radio", as well as having been listed on the iTunes Radio service for two years or more, should make it sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, and I propose that the article be restored and edited to reflect that. (I'm not sure about actual listener figures, as such information is only readily available from Shoutcast stations, which this is not one of. Haikupoet 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability means that it has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, not that it is the top hit when you search for it. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even if something is notable, it can still be speedily deleted if the article fails to even assert notability. Did the article assert notability before being deleted? —Dgies^t c 07:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem to have been. That's why I propose restoring it and editing it to include that. Haikupoet 07:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who deleted it. The text of the article stated (formatted to reduce space)
9412.com is an Internet radio classic rock station based in Rochester, Minnesota and founded by Chris Popp. It began as a Live365 station with several subchannels, but eventually narrowed its focus to classic rock only, and expanded to become a listener supported station with a full air staff of volunteer disc jockeys (mostly operating remotely from their personal systems) and an IRC chatroom that is manned by the DJs. Popp, still the proprietor of the station, states on the website that a great deal of the station's play list comes from his personal collection, having been raised by hippie parents who were rock enthusiasts. 9412 is available on the iTunes radio service.
I did not see an assertion of notability in there. Let alone the fact that I'm pretty sure it wouldn't meet WP:WEB or WP:BAND, or some combination of the both, the article didn't even bother to make an assertion of notability. Hence, A7. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have deleted if it the first sentence had read 9412.com' is a notable Internet radio classic rock station? If you would have kept it, you are relying upon the technicality of wording-- there should be no specific magic word or phrasingDGG 04:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- For the record, from my talk: Google ranking is not a measure of notability, and being an iTunes radio station, in of itself, is not necessarily notable. A brief google search [90] indicates 68 hits for "9412 radio", of which only 23 are unique, and not all of those are valid pages (some are bookmarks, some are spambots etc.).⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse A7 speedy. No assertion of notability. Internet "radio" stations (i.e. webcasts / podcasts) have a big hill to climb to establish notability, and there is no evidence this had got above base camp. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse What's more, you get to be #1 Google ranked by doing loads of links. Now, how can you get links without necessarily getting listeners? Ooooh, I know! Get a Wikipedia article! No verification, no notability, and Internet radio stations are here today, gone this afternoon. (I liked Radio Gaga. It lasted 18 months or so.) Utgard Loki 14:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Virgie Arthur – Redirection to Anna Nicole Smith endorsed; history restored for GFDL compliance – Xoloz 16:59, 9 March 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 was wrong to delete that article because its a notable person and she is a celebrity in her country. I would like to see the deletion of that page reverted. i dont now if im sending this message right. but in ohter case help me.--Matrix17 16:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Misplaced nomination moved here. ~ trialsanderrors 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to endorse my own deletion, but I deleted this because there was no credible assertion of notability per WP:BIO (and it was a recreation of an earlier deleted article though not an exact recreation). The subject is the mother of a celebrity and involved in a court case that happened to be televised. That's it. None of that is even an assertion per WP:BIO, thus the article was speedily deleted.--Isotope23 19:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anna Nicole Smith seems appropriate. Corvus cornix 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave deleted and endorse redirect to A.N.S. article, which has since been created. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse current redirect as is usually done for family members of celebrities. If she does something that can't reasonably be included in Anna Nicole Smith, make it a separate article then. Kla'quot 17:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Das.jpg – restored under other title, please use dispute resolution rather than revert warring over which version to use – GRBerry 04:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I`m in a edit war with User:F3rn4nd0. He created another image, DepAdSegColombia.png in order to use it for the article Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad. That article used to have my image, which is a logo with better resolution, scanned from my personal documents. User:F3rn4nd0 added to my image a speedy deletion tag, under the argument that it isn`t the logo for DAS. So I added the hangon tag and replied on the talk page, but admin User:JesseW ignored all this and deleted the image. I left a message for him and he hadn`t replied. So I`m requesting reverting the deletion of my image, in order to use it in the DAS article and replace the current one because it have better quality. Also, if you check the history for DepAdSegColombia.png a previous version say that he created the logo (someone already changed that) so I`m also working under the theory that he re-created the logo on Paint or something like that. ometzit<col> 14:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment declaring yourself to be in an edit war with someone isn't a good thing, and is unlikely to gain you much sympathy. Given the image is being used under a fair use rationale the image is supposed to be of low quality, so the issue of the image you had being better quality is of limited interest. It was User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who did the recent deletion, I suggest you discuss the overall issue with him. --pgk 19:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: 1. yeah i would try to revert it to my image but it was deleted. 2. The image currently on place is from low quality, yeah, and it qualify as fair use, yeah if the image had the right layout of colors (the blue one is very wrong). The other image is from low quality too, but is enough to be able to read what does it say, this one is blurry. Also is from a personal file, so we would avoid any possible copyrigth problems if it`s copied from another web page. 3. User:F3rn4nd0 image say that is was created by himself for Wiki proyects, and that cannot happen since Colombia government is the owner of this image. 4. The deletion log for the image say that it was deleted first by JesseW and the second for Future Perfect at Sunrise. I suppose first one was delete the image and the second one to allow Das.jpg be used again--ometzit<col> 19:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1. You seem to misunderstand, I am not suggesting you should pursue an edit war, quite the opposite I am suggesting you discuss this and come to some sort of agreement (or follow some other dispute resolution) 2. I'll take your word for it regarding the colours 3. He certainly can create it (and evidently has), he won't have a 100% copyright stake however so licenses like PD or GFDL are inappropriate, but it appears to be listed as being used on the basis of the fair use doctrine 4. The date for JesseW deleting was 8 months or so ago, so I think you suppose incorrectly. --pgk 12:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok I`ll try contacting User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise cuz I don´t have any idea why there are two deletions--ometzit<col> 16:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse deletion. On one hand, the statement for the other image upload is very odd. (Trying to license a logo as a personal creation under the GFDL? And then breaking the license by saying that it can only be used on Wikimedia projects?) But on the other hand, this appears to be the logo, and I am very reluctant to undelete a low-resolution fair use image in favor of a high-resolution one. -Amarkov moo! 03:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the original decision and delete the DepAdSegColombia.png image. - The image Das.jpg was deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise on 24 February 2007 as being "orphaned fair use, superseded by duplicate."[91] However, the creator of Image:DepAdSegColombia.png appears to have admitted to making a derivative work, which would be a violation of the logo holder's copyright in many countries if created without permission. The licensing for DepAdSegColombia.png does not indicate that the derivative work was created with permission from Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad. While a low-resolution image of the logo might be fair use, a derivative image of the logo probably cannot be fair use if the underlying image violates the logo holder's control over the creation of derivative works. In other words, the image Das.jpg does not appear to have been superseded by a duplicate. Rather, it was superseded by a derivative work suffering from copyright problems. Thus, the image Das.jpg should be restored and the image DepAdSegColombia.png should be deleted. -- Jreferee 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yess: finally someone understand my whole point. I`m going to notify Future Perfect at Sunrise to see if he agree. --ometzit<col> 17:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi ometzit. I'm glad I could help you out. However, please do not enter into an edit war or declare yourself in an edit war. It is important that we act with civility toward one another. Also, please do not initially assume that an admin or anyone else ignored information presented to them. Usually, that is not the case and it is much better to discuss matters with people before drawing conclusions. As for JesseW not responding to you, he last was on Wikipedia at 00:04, 23 February 2007 and the post on his talk page by User:Alextrevelian_006 (is that you?)[92] regarding the Das.jpg image was posted at 8:09, 24 February 2007. He likely has not responded because he has not been on Wikipedia to check his messages. In any event, you will have a much more enjoyable time on Wikipedia if you assume good faith in people's actions. -- Jreferee 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah I know I`m just wikistressed cuz User:JesseW never answer me back, neither User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who deleted the image, neither User:F3rn4nd0 who added the image with a self work tag, then changed to a fair use tag, then returned to the self work tag and also was the one who added the speedy deletion tag for the image. But it`s good in case case, since i`m dealing with it via Mu Online so thanks to this mess i have been able to do reset a couple of times.--ometzit<col> 03:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note by deleting admin: Sorry I hadn't seen this was on review. My opinion: (1) I really don't care which of the two images gets used; they aren't that different in quality, they both have ultimately the same copyright status (legitimate fair use, arguably), and the issue of hitting the right shade of blue is not really that serious for me. I've seen a version on the organisation's website that is different yet again. I'm not sure about the problem with the "derivational work" described by Jreferee. (2) "Das.jpg" is a poorly chosen file name. (3) Whichever version gets used, the other must be deleted. - Therefore, I propose to undelete "Das.jpg" but under the name of the other file, so you guys can continue your dispute by just reverting between file versions of the same filename. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Restored as Image:DepAdSegColombia.png. Please modify the description page accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

DJ Red Alert – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 16:46, 9 March 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 deleted and protected by Lucky 6.9. There is no AfD log for the page, and the admin who deleted it has since left the project. The page was deleted as a vanity page. However, the artist does have some notability, and I believe that he passes WP:MUSIC. "DJ Red Alert" comes up with over 1 million hits on Google. His entry in the All Music Guide gives evidence of some notable accomplishments, including membership in the Universal Zulu Nation and Boogie Down Productions, and hosting a show on WRKS-FM. He was mentioned in the VH1 documentary miniseries "And You Don't Stop: 30 Years of Hip-Hop." Stebbins 02:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Current Deletion, but allow recreation the version Lucky 6.9 deleted was an very obvious vanity spam, copyvio page, with comments like With his attitude toward life and professionalism regarding his craft, surely we are in good hands! the rest of the deletions were db-empty type articles but I looks like a notable DJ, and an article should be recreated with non-trivial reliable sources Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletions, all seem valid to me, but as noted above there is no reason not to create a valid article if reliable sources can be found. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Pioneer of Hip-Hop:

Mentions:

New York Daily News "hooking up with rap act the Jungle Brothers through local hip-hop pioneer DJ Red Alert": [93]
Daily news article on DJ Red Alert "a living legend of the hip-hop genre" "He's one of the founding fathers of the hip-hop movement, with influences that extend into the genre's past, present and future." [94]
NYTimes: Highlited in DJ Domination: World Domination [95]
NYTimes: Performed at Hip-Hop appreciation week [96]
NYTimes: Hip-Hop pioneer [97]
DJ on Power 105.1 FM.
Show on Sirius Satellite Network [98]
Mix Show called "Artical One" on Youth Radio 92.5 in St. Martin, U.S. Virgin Islands.
DJ Grandmaster Flash's influence [99]
Honorary UN Ambassador [100]
Bronx Walk of Fame [101] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.122.177 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is just from a few minutes search. --69.203.122.177 15:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So write an article stating that. There is nothing in the deleted text that would help to create a good article. Seriously. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once its overturned I can use its basis, plus these sources to do just that. --69.203.122.177 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the deleted versions I'm looking at, you'd basically have to start from scratch anyway, there wasn't really anything worth using in the deleted versions.--W.marsh 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My main intention in nominating this for deletion review was simply to get the protection lifted (was deletion review the proper place to go for this?). I can't comment on the quality of the former articles. Stebbins 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can I have the article undeleted into my userspace so I can take whats above that the anon added, and mix it with the article. Then place a new article in its spot. Also need to have the protection removed as Stebbins noted. Thanks. --RapPhenom 13:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy, it meets standards. May have been valid at the time of the speedy, but the information provided here indicates it meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletions but allow recreation from verifiable sources if they are available. Reviewing the deleted edit history, I found no version worth recovering. Rossami (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Bambenek – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject is a notable columnist appearing both in The New York Times and Washington Post. A news.google.com search shows many hits, as goes a normal Google search. He's a candidate for political office and he's been interviewed in the media and on radio. In fact, he's going to be on The Daily Show on March 9, 2007. It's clear deleters have a POV agenda and aggressive bias. He's a syndicated columnist. UIUC.rhh 02:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. A whole 8 news.google.com hits, most of them from blogs or discussions about blogs. He's a candidate for a school board, Wikipedia doesn't do articles on school boards. Corvus cornix 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. That's an awful uppity attitude towards blogs from someone who spends there time on Wikipedia. User-created journalism not good enough for a user-created encyclopedia? It's not like you guys are encyclopedia britannica. -- Christopher.perardi 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. I just did a recent G-news search. [102] This reveals 11 hits, only 2 are blogs or about blogs. They include such non-notable sources of information such as ABC 7 News Chicago, the Chicago Tribune, and the News-Gazette. Mainstream newspapers are hardly blogs or discussion about blogs. -- Wistless 13:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. Per nom... syndicated columnist. -- Christopher.perardi 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC) ← Confirmed sockpuppet of John Bambenek. ~ trialsanderrors 18:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse all of the deletions. It is obvious that this man has no real world notability to have an article on himself. He only does self-publications, which are not reliable sources of anything. He exists, we know that. But his existance has not made an impact on society that he gets mentioned (not writes for) a major publication. And lately, this man has solely been a pain in the ass involving people who are attacking him because of his mentions elsewhere on Wikipedia. Also, note that Christopher Perardi while on Wikipedia is John Bambenek who has also been blocked indefinitely. Anyone who wants an article on Wikipedia so much as that they impersonate people who attack them (see AfD 3) should not be given an article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Christopher Perardi on Wikipedia is User:Perardi per the AfD. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 08:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletions, no credible reason advanced for overturning. Above all, no n on-trivial independent sources about Bambenek were shown in the AfDs. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Undelete. His so-called "self-publication" include being reprinted in newspapers, a quick Lexis search will show that his commentary has been in the New York Times, LA Times, and Washington Post (among others). He's an editor at BC Magazine wihch is a 2-edit publication. He's also written for MercatorNet, also an edited publication. A quick survey of the sites he writes for shows he has a readership of almost 200,000. More people would read his column then read this AfD. It's clear people have an agenda here because he wrote a hitpiece on Wikipedia a few months ago, hence the creation of WP:BAMBI. Get over it guys. -- Wistless 13:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the contributions - dates and subjects - it's pretty clear that Wistless (talk · contribs) is another sock of Jbamb (talk · contribs), aka John Bambenek, evading an indefinite block. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse 3rd AfD No argument is offered why it should be overturned. ~ trialsanderrors 18:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note. Here is one story that is basically exclusive on John Bambenek from ABC Chicago [103]. His interview on the Daily Show airs tomorrow night. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.95.122 (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

3 March 2007[edit]

Joey Boland – new article created during the discussion, history restored underneath, relisting at editorial discretion – GRBerry 04:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Senior hurler playing at the highest level, is quite notible Gnevin 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list. "Non-notable" isn't a speedy criterion, so "non-notable as written" is even less, implying as it does that the guy really is notable. -Amarkov moo! 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the closing admin, I'd like to point out that the article was unclear as to whether the man was playing at the highest level or not. I'm perfectly willing to believe that he is/was, but there was no indication that I could see in the article. Indeed, the fact that the article had been marked for a speedy deletion led me to believe that he probably was not. When I write "non-notable", I see that as another way of saying "db-bio" (a practice I'm willing to change if it confuses things for people), and as the assertion of notability was unclear, that was what I felt the case to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Four news.google.com hits. He plays for Dublin in the National Hurling League. Sounds like reasonable notability to me, allow recreation. Corvus cornix 02:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not objecting if that's the decision. I'll call it an education in hurling. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say overturn and relist - I don't think the National Hurling League is the top level of the sport - that would be the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship - but input from somebody who knows more about Irish sport would be appropriate. -- BPMullins | Talk 16:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeopardy! in popular culture – no decision so relisted at AFD for further discussion – GRBerry 04:24, 9 March 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 deletion with misinterpretation of WP:COI by closing admin.

Original AfD debate received 4 delete votes and 3 keep votes. Admin's closure of debate can be interpreted as a fifth delete vote. Is 5-3 a consensus decision tally?
In the explanation for his decision, closing admin considered keep votes invalid as they came from users with edits on the article, claiming WP:COI. This is a misinterpretation of WP:COI. The fact that users have contibuted edits to an article does not imply a conflict of interest, as would be the case if the page were a vanity page.
No "delete" voter addressed that the article is part of a family of articles spun off from a main article that is already much too large. One delete voter apparently wrote an essay which predates his delete vote in the AfD by a couple of days and mirrors my thinking as elaborated in my comments in the AfD (but comes to a different conclusion). It is worth noting here that this essay is neither policy nor does it solve the actual problem it purports to, viz., the growth-and-deletion cycle of trivia (as pointed out in the essay's talk page).
More broadly, I believe it is imperative for Wikipedia to discuss and set firmer guidelines regarding what constitutes trivia (or what is often denigratingly referred to as "cruft", among other terms) and what constitutes the sensible aggregation of useful information on a notable topic in an article apart from the topic's main article. Battles of the American Civil War consists of listings of facts not incorporated into the text of an article, but no one would call it cruft.
Finally, I would propose that what some users call "trivia" or "cruft" is actually the very thing that makes Wikipedia interesting and useful, as I touched on in the AfD in question. I would refer the reader to this post, which makes the point better than I could ("this is the kind of thing it really excels at: elaborate, collaborative categorizations of previously uncategorized items"), and note that one of the articles mentioned in the post appears to have already succumbed to an AfD. I should like to see a new culture that rejects and combats the culling trend which appears, from my perspective, to be entirely based on the (non-policy) feelings of a vocal minority of users.

Robert K S 09:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a side note (you can see that I voted to overturn below), I doubt that the closing admin meant his remarks on "conflict of interest" to be a reference to COI in the Wikipedia sense, as opposed to a standard-parlance observation that editors of an article like to see it stay on the site. The votes shouldn't simply be discounted, but he isn't wrong there. Conversely, I don't really understand the closer's points about a weak reason turning a strong keep vote into a keep vote. Weak reasons are weak reasons. Dekimasu よ! 12:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no opinion on this as yet, I'd like to here more from the closing admin since the COI comments do see most off. However some comments on the above - the standard AFD is not a vote, being spun off from one article doesn't make any difference (doesn't add any legitimacy to the content) and the the on the broader issue I'm not convinced there is any need, but regardless this isn't the place to try and define them. --pgk 09:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment like pgk says, AfD is not a vote, please don't directly use vote-counting as a way of saying that the article has no consensus. Secondly, Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles seems to be totally ignored when spinning these articles off - article content still has to be attributable, and no amount of usefulness will negate this need. The problem with the Battle of the American Civil War analogy is that is a list of battles with no interpretation - an "in popular culture" article is bound to have tons of analysis on what's popular culture, and if the mention is deemed to be a reference - thus the need for reliable sourcing, but almost always it's a trap for unsourced interpretation or speculation. ColourBurst 15:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was the closing admin. here is an archived link of a discussion I had explaning my decision. I am going to be away from the computer for a while. I still stand by my originial decision. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion in popular culture. Pop culture sections in articles are cruft-o-ramas. Split out into separate articles to remove the cruft, they lack any redeeming features. Trim "in popular culture" sections back to one or two every few weeks, leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Otto4711 00:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per my arguments on the afd, also, the editor should look at WP:ATA, as he is making some similar arguments (we have this, let's have that) and such as stated there. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to put every trivial fact, and we should not have pages just full of trivia, or in this disguised "in popular culture" moniker. Booshakla 09:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I hadn't seen that before. Robert K S 10:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. In response to the previous comments, please note that DRV is not "AfD part deux"--arguments should generally be limited about the validity of the close. In this case, the close does not seem valid. In addition to a serious misunderstanding by the closing admin as to what WP:COI does and does not entail, I will address two issues: raw numbers and the arguments themselves.
1. Numbers. AfD is not a vote. Majority does not and should not necessarily rule. However, numbers are a part of determining consensus. This discussions was split 5-5 on deleting the article and keeping the content (either as "keep" or "merge").
2. Arguments. The closing admin discounted the "keep" arguments in his explanation, but let's consider the delete arguments. At least two of the arguments for deletion were suspect, consisting of an unexplained reference to "fancruft" and a reference to WP:NOT#IINFO without specification of which of the 8 things listed there it meets.
I am not endorsing the article itself, but the close was inappropriate (and the three comments above all arguments relevant at AfD, but not so much at DRV). -- Black Falcon 17:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is a statement of principle with 8 specific examples. Those 8 were never intended to be interpreted as a definitive list of all possible kinds of indiscriminate information. Rossami (talk)
Comment - Maybye I am wrong but I viewed a merge as the article should not have an article of its own. I guess I have no issue copying the information somewhere so editors can determine what they want to merge. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you are quite right. A merge requires that the content be transferred into another article and that the original article be made into a redirect. So, technically the original title will still exist as an active link, but it's not an article per se (it's just a redirect page). -- Black Falcon 01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information is policy. There is a regrettable tendency to think that all facts of this nature are of encyclopedic importance. They aren't. Inappropriate info is added to the main article? Cut it with prejudice, don't create a fork. Interesting and useful? A reputable encyclopedia is more important. Moreover, it is also important that we are not caught up in excess bureaucracy at DRV. Bad articles should stay deleted, particularly when the AfD is within admin discretion. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reclose using actual consensus (or lack of) from AFD. It wouldn't be unreasonable to merge (and, obviously, redirect and keep history) as a compromise. --Random832 14:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; this article did have legitimate content about appearances in other shows and mediums, including parodies and references. I don't find this to be an indiscriminate collection of information; I find it to be an intriguing article. Ral315 » 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INTERESTING. Otto4711 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quote from WP:AADD: "Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many acronyms (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised, for the reasons explained above." -- Black Falcon 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - (sigh) For those who need it spelled out for being unable to grasp the shortcut..."it is intriguing" is not a compelling argument. Lots of things are intriguing or interesting or fascinating or really, really, neat without being in the slightest bit proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Arguing in favor of an article or in a DRV by saying that an article interests or intrigues you is not likely to be seen as persuasive by many of the people reading the debate. This argument is often summarized by linking to WP:INTERESTING so that people can read it and other similarly uncompelling arguments instead of typing the same thing over and over and over again in discussions, despite the fact that some people have difficulty grasping the utility of shortcutting. I further note that simply copying and pasting the "Naturally..." portion of WP:AADD is not a particularly compelling counter-argument either. Otto4711 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Naturally, ... and it was not intended to be a counter-argument. It was intended to point out that it is just as unhelpful to suggest the keeping/deletion of an article because one finds them interesting/uninteresting it as it is to merely write WP:INTERESTING or WP:IDONTLIKEIT after others' comments. And I fully well grasp the utility of shortcuts, but am adverse to their overuse without supporting arguments. But, if you insist on a counter-argument, here's one: Your application of WP:INTERESTING to Ral315's comment is inappropriate as s/he writes "I don't find this to be an indiscriminate collection of information", thereby disputing the primary reason for deletion. -- Black Falcon 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually she writes that she doesn't find it indiscriminate because she finds it intriguing. Thus, WP:INTERESTING. An interesting indiscriminate collection is still indiscriminate. Otto4711 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. While I disagree ideologically with the article's supporters (see my userpage, where trivia is one of the few things I complain about), I recognize the strength of User:Robert K S's argument from the original AfD that the separation was due to the overall length of the Jeopardy! article. I do not see anywhere in the AfD that his concerns were addressed, so on the weight of the arguments, I fail to see this as a consensus to delete. I wouldn't mind my own chance to see the article and sort through the opinions on that basis. "User:Robert K S should also realize that a spun-off article must be able to stand on its own two feet; if it can't, it's an indication that the length of the original article is an artifact, rather than due to the actual breadth of the subject," I might say, if I'd had a good look, and we were rehashing at AfD. But I don't see it as process for process's sake. There's a good chance that the article could be successfully defended from the likes of me. Dekimasu よ! 12:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion -- the consensus is more clear than the "vote count" implies. Two of the comments supported only merging "notable" mentions back to the main article. On further inspection, the notable mentions were already at the main article. The only remaining issue: whether the history should be preserved behind a redirect. No one addressed this but maybe the closer can comment. To me, I think the history we need is already around, since the trivia section was forked off earlier to create this subpage. Mango juice^talk 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I disagree with the closer's arguments about conflict of interest being a sufficient rationale for the discounting of opinions. Nevertheless, deletion discussions are not votes. Even after adjusting for the COI misunderstanding, the closure of this discussion was within reasonable admin discretion. Note: I will admit that my opinion is influenced by the incredibly poor quality of the article at the time of deletion. Rossami (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, keep, and cleanup. AFD was not the correct way to handle the situation. — CharlotteWebb 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 March 2007[edit]

Click on the date link above to review the following discussions:

1 March 2007[edit]

Click on the date link above to review the following discussions:

Off The Chart Radio – deletion endorsed, without prejudice against the creation of a sourced article – GRBerry 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor – close undone by non-admin closer to be closed by an admin; he will repopulate the category if the final closure is to keep – GRBerry 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonney Eberndu – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial St. Patrick's Day – deletion narrowly endorsed – GRBerry 01:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter – deletion endorsed with creation of a new article from additional sources found here encouraged – GRBerry 01:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]