Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2007 Deletion review archives December 2007 >

30 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steve Pavlina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV|AFD2)

Blog has tens of millions pageviews monthly Puredemo 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, speedy close due to lack of reasoning. We don't undelete things due to pageviews. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He runs the number one most visited personal development site on the web with a daily reach of millions of monthly pageviews. See http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/stevepavlina.com

The forum alone has more than 10,000 members. Steve Pavlina is the most prolific personal development writer online, with thousands of published articles available on his site. His nearest competitor in the field would Tony Robbins, who only has approximately 10% as much web presence (compare via alexa), yet Tony Robbins has a huge wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_robbins

Steve Pavlina is also a 10k / hour keynote speaker, was the CEO of deterity software (which has a stub), the president of the Association of Shareware Professionals(ASP) in 2000, etc etc.

To say that a bio page for him is advertising is ridiculously obtuse. Someone generating tens of millions of monthly pageviews doesn't need an advertising page on Wikipedia. That kind of traffic puts his site in the league of powerhouse new media companies like boing boing and reddit, but with only one publisher, and if that isn't notable, what exactly is?

edit - Here is the cached page from google, with notable links to articles from USA Today, the Guardian, etc. http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Ndo526_9PCgJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pavlina+%22steve+pavlina%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us Puredemo 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While an AfD discussion over a year ago resulted in a deletion of the article, and subsequent re-creations may not have been in line with Wikipedia with regards to neutrality, non-advertisement, etc., it does appear that he may now satisfy WP:BIO, as he's been mentioned in a number of news articles, here are a few examples: (Not all may be considered WP:RS per WP guidelines, however,) The New York Times, USA Today, Guardian Unlimited 1, Guardian Unlimited 2, MSNBC, CNET news, Web Worker Daily, California's Job Journal, and Evolving Times

Puredemo 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong overturn and restore -- ^demon's deletion was directly contrary to the result of the 2nd AfD, which ended with a near-unanimous keep decision. The article may have spent a bit too much time talking about Dweep, but it certainly wasn't blatant spam, and if there's a need to delete it it should be nominated for deletion in the normal way. Mangojuicetalk 21:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, according to Mangoe's reasoning. We don;t get to substitute our own views forth community--at least not when it was as clear-cut as this. DGG (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore - it should be rare indeed for an article that has been kept at AfD to be speedy deleted and this is not such a case. The admin should have tested his concerns at a further AfD. BlueValour 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore per Mango and, as always, DGG, who once more properly reminds us that adminship is ministerial. Joe 00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore per Mango, there is no justification for overturning a near-unanimous keep AfD and applying a "stylistic" speedy category such as G11. --Stormie 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above section that begins with "While an AfD discussion over a year ago" was a comment I made when this issue was brought up to the Help Desk, and so I went searching for sources, and that is what is given above. It should be noted that I do not think any of those sources were given in the article at its deletion, so if restored, work would need to be done to ensure it was properly sourced, and neutrally written. Ariel♥Gold 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I made sure to source everything when I recreated the article prior to the 2nd DRV. If it was not properly sourced at the time of deletion, then later editors have removed the information. I retained a copy on my user page at [1]. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 06:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Is there a way to protect the article from vandalism / speedy deletion once it has been restored this time around? A couple admins on the helpdesk did not read the 2nd AfD when I first asked about this deletion, and instead went into tirades about advertising. I would like to avoid future vandalism / speedy deletions if possible. Puredemo 01:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Page protection is not done preventively, but as a last resort when an article is hit by excessive vandalism, or there is an ongoing content dispute that has not resolved with normal discussions. Wikipedia is freely editable by everyone, and as long as the article begins with no advertisement tone, cites reliable sources and is neutrally written there should be no problem. Ariel♥Gold 02:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore - Wow. Only person to actually argue validly was ignored in favor of lots of WP:VAGUEWAVE's. Clearly notable, as stated above. And a WP:TROUT for all contributors and MailerDiablo (sorry, man). The Evil Spartan 09:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do so wish that the requester wasn't quite so obviously either the subject himself or his PR... Guy (Help!) 16:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore - WP:CSD states "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements.". Enough said. BlueValour 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When will the article be restored? Puredemo 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediately this discussion is closed. Normally these discussions are held open for five days. However WP:SNOW seems applicable so it might now be closed anytime. BlueValour 04:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians by contact information (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CFD 1|CFD 2)

Also:

These categories were deleted as being "recreated deleted content" (from this CfD) by User:After Midnight after User:Black Falcon left him a message on his talk page. [2] Process wankery. Not knowing about the first CfD, I created the two categories and a parent category. As I was editing another userbox, I saw the link to the old CfD, and I immediately stopped creating them and posted a message to the Village Pump.[3] This message was also posted to WT:CFD#Wikipedians by contact information. The original CFD discussion was commented on by a total of four users, and was likely unnoticed by most. My own rationale for having these categories was to promote additional contact information for collaboration. The categories were based on IM protocol, instead of client, and only included userboxes that actually indicated a user ID for these services.

Four users makes for a very weak consensus, and other arguments were not given a fair chance to be represented. I would have much rather tried to simulate the existing discussions to get better feedback from the community before taking any further action, but since they've now been deleted, I'd like for these categories to be undeleted and relisted in a new CfD. -- Ned Scott 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn: Although I have complete faith that User:After Midnight and User:Black Falcon are acting in good faith, this is a problem in general with WP:UCFD. Specifically, most people don't add user categories to their watchlist so they don't realize when user categories they care about are being discussed. There's no doubt that it was the consensus in July, but as the Wikipedia mantra goes, consensus changes—especially when the consensus involves a relatively small group of editors. (Also, I think you make an excellent argument as to why this category can be useful for collaboration. Without this argument, I likely would have voted to delete the user category myself.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus was reached in three separate discussions for user categories for instant messengers:
With regard to the technical issues:
  • The three CFD discussions involved a total of 9 unique participants and two closing admins.
  • All categories were tagged for the appropriate period of time, so due notice was given.
Although there have been repeated assertions that the categories could be useful for collaboration, there has been no explanation of how this would take place. Being able to contact a specific user via IM may be useful, but that's completely diffferent from browsing through a category of everyone who uses a particular IM. I can understand wanting alternate means to contact particular users, but that function is filled by userpage notices and userboxes. A category is needed only if one specifically seeks out editors who use a particular IM. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here was the main gist of Ned's arugment for how they could be useful for collaboration:
"There are many times where I jump on #wikipedia to ask a quick silly question, like a naming convention, or to see if anyone remembered where a template was that could be used for format some external link. I've listed my own AIM screen name on my userpage and user talk page also as a method of collaboration."
To me this sounds like a novel argument that warrants a thoughtful discussion, instead of a speedy delete. (Note: Although I support overturning the speedy delete, I'm not criticizing the speedy delete itself, as User:After Midnight made a valid decision based on the knowledge available to him.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the issue is that you wouldn't want to contact just any random Wikipedian who uses AIM, as chances are that they do not have the answer to your question. You'd want to contact someone who knows about naming conventions or knows about the template you're seeking, and for that you'd go to the userpages of individual editors and not a category. (Another option is Wikipedia:Help desk, which is a good place for both general and specific inquiries.) I don't really think there's a novel argument that justifies another CFD, because that argument was considered in the prior discussions (after all: that is the most obvious argument one could offer in defense of the categories). – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to stress that this is not a hypothetical "it could contribute to collaboration" argument that Ned is making, but an actual "this is how it would contribute to collaboration". That in itself makes it noteworthy. In order for the delete opinion to prevail it is not sufficient to produce a hypothetical "here's how it might harm the encyclopedia" argument, but an actual "here's how it did or will harm the encyclopedia" argument.
Note: I'm not saying that hypothetical arguments are no good. I'm just saying that one or more actual arguments on one side should be counter-balanced by at least one actual on the other side for the other side to prevail. Well, unless I agree with the other side, of course. ;) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't help but notice that one of the listed CfD was nothing more than a single cat that wasn't tagged by one of the other two. -- Ned Scott 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it had been speedily closed, that'd be one thing... But the discussion was left open for more than 10 days, so it can be considered separate from (even if not unaffected by) the others. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm forced to say this: So what? No body cared at that time, and that's all. Don't put undue weight on a discussion simply because it was formalized. Even though I struck it out in my first comment, I might have been right that time, that's just process wankery, and not a reflection of community consensus. You nominated it because it was left out of the first CfD, and a single user commented on it other than you, and only to say that it should be speedied because of the other CfD. There's no value in that discussion at all. Silence is not consensus. "-- Ned Scott 06:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, silence often is a sign of consent. Every deletion discussion page is patrolled by editors, and if they object to a certain proposal, they will voice their objections (I was told something to this effect when I once relisted a fairly uncontroversial CFD nomination merely because it had failed to gather any comments). But, that's a broader issue best left out of this DRV ...
  • I readily admit that the "Adium" discussion was, for all intents and purposes, a continuation of the "Wikipedians by instant messenger" discussion. I do not wish to place undue weight on it. However, you should not entirely dismiss it, as it was a separate nomination that was open for 10 days, and anyone who disagreed with the first result could have voiced their objections. It's not what might be called a precedent-setting discussion, but it's a weak precedent-confirming one. – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have notified the two closing admins other closing admin affected by this deletion review. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php . Hopefully we'll have such a feature more embedded into MediaWiki, but it is a function that is available to us now. I can cross reference a contact category with a WikiProject Participants category, instead of making a specific category for that WikiProject (far more preferable to having such categories). -- Ned Scott 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as worth a re-arguement at CfD at the very least, after much more general notice.. i do not like making decisions that affect others without their actual knowledge. I know UCfD does this all the time, but that does not make it right. It is not actually prohibited by our guidelines, but politeness is recommended. I look forward to the time when it will be actually required. DGG (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I know UCfD does this all the time, but that does not make it right." All CfDs do this when the authors of or contributors to articles in a category are not notified about the deletion, merging, or renaming of a category. What is the rationale behind overturning a closure merely due to the lack of such mass notification, especially since no new argument has been offered as to why a category (not a userbox or userpage notice) is necessary? – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have given good reason, more than enough, to re-evaluate the situation. Multiple users in good standing see the benefits of such categories for collaboration, while you and After Midnight cling to a few flimsy discussions with some irrational fear of being a social network. I have to ask, why are you being such a stick in the mud about this? With no evidence, whatsoever, that not being a social network even applies to this situation, or that it was even being used that way, why do you care? Not being a social network does not mean we forbid categories that note how to contact other users off-wiki, plain and simple. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really think that the participants in the discussion did not consider this possible collaborative value? Given the titles and nature of the categories, it would be the first pro-retention argument that comes to mind. Also, though I do not dispute that multiple users in good standing (three, to be precise) see the benefit of these categories, please do not ignore the fact that the users who supported deletion in the discussions listed above also were/are in good standing. It is not right to suggest that this situation is a disagreement between "users in good standing" and users "with some irrational fear" (and presumably not in good standing?). I do not believe that you actually intended to suggest that, but that's how the above paragraph reads. – Black Falcon (Talk) 08:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four users on-wiki, if you count Wikidemo's comments at the village pump, and at least two more off wiki via #wikipedia. I would try to gather more attention to this, but people like to scream "WP:CANVASS" when you do that. And I am not saying that the other users are not in good standing, but none of you are perfect. Had it been me I would have had no reason to object if a number of people wanted to rediscuss the issue, getting more attention from the community. You've made an assumption that this category can only be used for social networking, and deleted it on those grounds, but you only have vague speculation and fear to back that up. Meanwhile, I've provided several good reasons to have such a category, and you're forcing me to fight tooth and nail just to be able to discuss it with more people. -- Ned Scott 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikidemo's comments at the village pump included an admission that he's not sure why or how the categories would be useful. In any case, please do not attempt to portray me as attempting to restrict discussion on the issue. Since the original CFD closures were procedurally correct, novel arguments should be presented and the level of their novelty evaluated in this deletion review. Rather than discuss whether we should have another discussion, let's just discuss the issue here. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV is not the appropriate venue for such a discussion. -- Ned Scott 20:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoted from WP:DRV: "This page exists to correct errors in the deletion process, but that may also involve reviewing content in some cases." Since there were no errors in process in the previous discussions, this review should involve discussion about issues of content (i.e. arguments about the merit of the categories). – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument is that this has not received adequate community comment, and that not all arguments were represented (how many of the 8 users you talk about thought of using CatScan with these categories?). In other words, there were errors in the process of the previous discussions. Your response to that is to force discussion on an even more hidden page than CfD, here on DRV. Whatever happened to not being a jerk and saying "hey, here's a Wikipedian who has an idea and would like to get more feedback on it. Even though I don't completely agree with him, I'm just a user like he is and feel it is only fair to give this situation more exposure". But no, you have to act like some stick in the mud because you've got some irrational and laughable fear that these categories make Wikipedia a social networking site. You take a couple of poorly exposed discussions and have made them THE LAW, when they were nothing more than flimsy discussions that do not reflect community consensus. Had the same people who know about this discussion known about those CfDs when they happened, I have no doubt the CfDs would have, at the very least, ended in no-consensus to delete, and would have had a fair shot at having a consensus to keep.
  • But hey, whatever, no hard feelings, right? Just make me waste a few hours jumping through hoops and I come up with a way to use CatScan without a second category, but still being able to filter out users who don't provide an ID. For example this. So hooray, you've won, you've saved us from becoming myspace, and managed to strong arm a deletion that should have never been an issue in the first place. -- Ned Scott 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help but note the irony of the fact that not a week ago I was told that CFD is too obscure a place to make deletion decisions. By the way, as DRVs generally get more participants than UCFD discussions, your claim about a "more hidden page" is inaccurate.
  • Perhaps if you'd stop spending so much effort trying to determine how much of a jerk or "stick in the mud" I and others are being, perhaps you'd notice that I've outright offered to engage in the community discussion which you apparently seek right here. Certainly that would have been more productive than trying to keep track of who won or lost, debating whether 4 or 5 or 7 or 9 users participated in the previous discussions, arguing whether it's 2 previous discussions or 3, or questioning the good standing of 2-10 editors (depends on how you count it). In the end, none of that matters. A single good argument made here, and on which people can agree, could, should, and would override the prior agreement of 50 users in 10 discussions. You seem to have focused only on the fact that I endorsed the CSD G4 deletion, ignoring the fact that this endorsement is conditional on a continued absence of a convincing argument for collaborative value. Now, granted, we might disagree on whether an argument is convincing, but it would be a disagreement as any other, and could be approached and resolved as appropriate.
  • If you are interested in discussing the categories, then I am both ready and willing to do so (here, on a talk page, via e-mail, etc.). However, there is no point in continuing this particular thread of discourse. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that DRV requires a consensus to undelete, despite the lack of consensus to delete in the first place. Forcing this to DRV like you are places an unfair burden on the editors who do want these categories. There is a reason why we work with a consensus to delete, and not a consensus to create. Not to mention that most people come to DRV with the mentality that undoing actions is some kind of hassle, and would rather endorse previous actions not based on the merits of the discussion at hand, but because they are not personally interested what is being discussed.
  • For example, both you and After Midnight assumed I created the categories knowing about the past CfDs, and neither of you even contacted me or left a message in the active discussions about the matter. Who the hell do you think you are? Get off your high horse, because you are no more qualified to judge these categories than the next user. Is it not possible for you to just stop and think about what is actually happening? A complete lack of any evidence whatsoever of these categories being problematic or that they somehow promote Wikipedia as a social network (which doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Really now, who the hell goes to a massive category to drum up some random discussion unrelated to Wikipedia?) being faced with plain and simple facts on how a category is useful, not just in theory, but in actual, practical, use.
  • Not being a social networking site does not involve being paranoid and fighting your fellow editors tooth and nail when they wish to use something for legitimate reasons. The categories I created have far more collaborative usefulness than categories such as Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox. Even if only a minority uses these categories like this, that is not a valid reason to delete them. -- Ned Scott 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is really unfair of me to blame the shortcomings of DRV on you, and I can't honestly believe that you are trying to force anything. You're doing what you think is right, and I'm yelling at the wrong person. -- Ned Scott 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus to delete was already achieved in the previous discussions. As for the second part of your paragraph, suffice it to say that I do not share your view of DRV participants. I believe that most DRV regulars try, in good faith, to evaluate the merits of a review request and decide on that basis, and do not endorse simply for the sake of avoiding a hassle which they won't have to perform in any case (it's the closer that's hassled, not the participants).
  • "For example, ..."? I don't know about AM, but I'm not a DRV regular, so please find another example. As for the fact that you weren't contacted, I explained that to you on my talk page: you had at least one of the templates watchlisted, so you'd know about any change to them, and I assumed you would contact the deleting admin, which is standard procedure in cases of contested deletions. (As a matter of fact, you should have done that once you found out that the categories had previously been deleted.) And what "active discussion" are you referring to? Surely it's not the thread at WT:CFD that consists of your comment, a neutral comment that admits to not knowing what the category could be useful for, and two comments suggesting that the issue be discussed elsewhere?
  • Finally, while I do not dispute that I am "no more qualified to judge these categories than the next user", I wonder why you feel that the same statement doesn't apply to you... My offer to discuss the categories still stands; however, please note that I will no longer respond to any comments (irrespective of the subject) that continue to insult me and other editors. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do struck lines not render on your browser? (I'm actually going to unstrike some that were not meant to be personal, although they would have been better presented as a general comment) If it was not clear, I have already admitted to letting my frustration get the better of me, and directing comments to you that you did not deserve. While I do think you are off the mark on the categories being applied to WP:NOT social network, and that line of reasoning to not hold much water, the "high horse" comments were made in haste, and I don't believe that was your mentality. I believe that all of this is needless red tape, but I was wrong to blame you for following policy how you felt it should be followed. -- Ned Scott 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason, I was not edit-conflicted when I clicked "save", and so did not notice your change. I have stricken those portions of my comment which were made in response to the paragraph you've stricken, and would like to extend my apologies for the various bits of sarcasm present in the text (all now stricken). Even though I do not agree with you about the categories, I think I see where you're coming from and can understand your frustration with the process and my persistent support for and/or insistence on it. :-) – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - this is a simple case of recreation. Whether or not > 100 users were notified about it several months ago is not a valid reason for un-deleting it at this time. The prior deletion was valid and the category should not be restored unless it can be proven that consensus has changed in the interim. --After Midnight 0001 02:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not clearly a simple case of redirection as I noted I was not aware of the first CfD. Regardless, other valid points were not represented in the CfD, and you can't judge if consensus has changed by not allowing another CfD. Four users make for a very weak consensus, and it stands to very good reason to re-evaluate the situation. I've already shown how this category can be directly used to find specific users from a WikiProject who have a specific contact method using CategoryIntersect (a feature that en.wiki will hopefully have built in once they have the bugs worked out. IIRC, other Wikipedias already do have this feature.) and I doubt that was even considered in the CfD. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few points: First, as I noted above, 9 editors (not four) and two administrators were involved in the related series of discussions. Second, when it comes to consensus, the quality and strength of arguments should matter more than raw numbers. Third, if you want to contact "specific users from a WikiProject", you'd want to go to their userpages, not to a user category, which doesn't even tell you if the user is still editing. I did a quick sample of the first 10 userpages listed at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User aim: 5 of 10 haven't edited in 3 weeks or more, and 2 have made only 1-2 edits in the past 3 weeks. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're including the editor who wanted to delete a category because someone was indicating brand preference, and had nothing to do with the social networking argument? Or the user who thought that another category that was left out of another CfD could just be speedied as no big deal?
  • Just because you use other methods of contacting people doesn't mean these categories should be deleted, or at the very least, that we shouldn't be allowed to even rediscuss the issue. Out of no where I get IMs from people about quick wiki questions, and just today someone sent me an e-mail asking me about a citation question for an article I've never edited. We don't always know the method people will use to contact us, but that's no reason to limit how they can find us. I really don't understand why you have such a strong objection to this, nor can I understand why feel that you have anything near a strong consensus to keep these categories deleted. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox for expressing consumer preferences" is essentially a WP:MYSPACE argument, not a WP:SOAP argument. So, yes, I'm counting him. I'm also counting the user who thought that the Adium category could be speedied should also be included - it was a separate discussion and he could have objected to the deletion if he had so desired; instead, he chose to voice his support for it.
  • Before suggesting that we rediscuss the issue, I'd need to be convinced that there is a need to rediscuss. The reason I object to these categories that I fail to find the reasons for restoration compelling: the usefulness argument for these categories requires one to make assumptions about the manner in which these types of categories are used that I consider to be unrealistic. The reason I feel that there is a consensus to keep them deleted is due to the fact that three separate discussion produced the same result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 07:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you bullshit me one more time about three discussions I swear I'm going to lose it. -- Ned Scott 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two, three ... who cares? It doesn't make a qualitative difference, and I never claimed that it did. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't care then why is it a main part of your argument to endorse deletion? -- Ned Scott 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not. There is no qualitiative difference between "Consensus was reached in two separate discussions" and "Consensus was reached in three separate discussions". – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And when someone hasn't edited recently, that makes alternative contact methods even more valuable. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, a category is not needed when the goal is to contact a specific user. Deleting the category does not remove the alternate contact method(s) - the userbox - from their userpage. – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when the goal is to contact a specific user" That's not the goal. Again, this is a much preferred alternative to creating "by contact information" for individual WikiProjects and groupings of editors who have special interests. Right there, staring at you in the face, is a perfectly legitimate and extremely useful method. You not being able to understand how some editors, even if only a few, could use it that way, does not forbid such tools from being available. -- Ned Scott 20:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - Do we want alternate ways to "get ahold of" another editor? IRC is already controversial enough. That aside, AOL was straight G4, and the other followed that precedent. The rest is just a question of whether consensus has changed, so whether a WP:BOLD action in recreating is fairly speedily deleted. To me it sounds like "speedy bold" was met with "speedy delete". WP:BRD , anyone? : ) - And I think that this recent nomination/discussion was a great idea. Though I would oppose requiring it, it's a nice proactive alternative to BRD. - jc37 10:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Methods of contacting other users is not up for discussion here. Personally, I do want users to have alternative ways to get ahold of each other, and see nothing wrong with that. This DRV is not the place to be making such arguments, CfD is. -- Ned Scott 20:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And at least one of these has been deleted before based on CfD/UCfD. I think the best I can suggest is to please find consensus before recreation again. - jc37 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created three categories without knowing about the previous discussions, and stopped as soon as I became aware of one (while looking at the edit history of a userbox for MSN messenger, which was going to be the fourth category). Specifically because I wanted to seek consensus before continuing, I attempted a discussion at the village pump that unfortunately never took off. So thank you for the advice, but I'm already ahead of you there. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the ironic part of your WP:BRD mention is that discussion is specifically being suppressed in this situation. -- Ned Scott 20:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking up over the long threads above, and also considering that categories can be discussed without them actually existing... Where exactly is discussion being "supressed"? - jc37 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppressed was probably the wrong word. Exposed discussion is more accurate. I do see your point about the categories not having to actually exist, and there is nothing stopping me from trying to further stimulate discussions elsewhere. However, it's not really necessary anymore, as a template back-link is able to work with CatScan as well. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheesh, do we need a WP:DRVU now? >Radiant< 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion these do not help build the project. Categories that are social in nature don't belong here. Carlossuarez46 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are just as valid as the project's own built-in e-mail support, or irc link formatting and interwiki link markup for Wikipedia IRC channels. ([[irc: and [[freenode:]]). As a collaborative tool they do help build the project, so you can't say that it doesn't. (You're welcome to say that the pros don't outweigh the cons, or that any help is not of sufficient value, but to say that it does not help the project at all is just absurd and proven false.) Nor would it make sense to use these categories for social networking, as people are not going to be looking for people to talk to at random via Wikipedia. (unless they're very stupid and have not learned about the concept of public chat rooms) I'm social in nature, do I not help the project? My talk page is social in nature, does it not help the project? The guy I helped with a citation tag over AIM the other day, did that not help the project? -- Ned Scott 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Street Fighter: The Later Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Despite being a parody of the video game Street Fighter II, Street Fighter: The Later Years is a legitimate and ongoing internet show similar to that of Pure Pwonage and lonleygirl15. BackLash 17:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems a bit unusual to (re-)create an article page simply to put a deletion review template on it. Other deleted articles seem to be red links. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion you'll need to show us some claims of notability along with some reliable sources to back them up. The deleted version was a classic example of an A7/nn-web speedy deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't need a deletion review, it needs reliable sources establishing the notability of the subject. If you believe you can provide them, I'd be happy to userfy the deleted content, or email it to you. --Stormie 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion for lack of notability and sources. - Philippe | Talk 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Internet shows have a mountain to climb to prove encyclopaedic merit, and this has not passed the foothills yet. Similarity of nature does not imply equivalence of notability. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 deletion. If it can be demonstrated that there are reliable sources about the subject, then the article could be userfied or restored. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse - No justification for reinstatement. DRV is not a toy.--WaltCip 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion proper; no claim of notability. Carlossuarez46 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Daft Punk Live Chat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It is a short documentation about a very significant even that took place marking the 10th anniversary of the group's rise to popularity. It is the only time the group has spoken to the public in such a way, and I wanted to tell everyone. Eriegz (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion The bulk of the text was a transcript of the chat text, and thus completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Even if it were rewritten to be an article about the chat as opposed to a transcript, it would still be a valid speedy as non-notable web content. If you can find that this chat was covered by independent reliable sources, perhaps a case could be made for mentioning it in the Daft Punk article, but it's such a microscopic fragment of the band's long history that even that seems unnecessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD - unsourced, unencyclopaedic, it is all those. However, it is about a media event of a notable band. I don't see anyway it would survive an AfD. However, it is not an A7 and therefore the speedy should be overturned. BlueValour 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Not an A7? It was an "article about .. web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." I recommend adding a paragraph in the Daft Punk article and linking to the transcript of the chat somewhere off-wiki. --Stormie 04:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - oh dear, I am far from comfortable in arguing for the restoration of this article because I am not into Daft Punk, it is a wholly terrible article, and it will not survive an AfD in anything like its last form. However, I think a canter through the purpose of speedies is worthwhile to show from where I am coming. Speedies were introduced to deal efficiently with the hopeless - the attack pages, the copyvio lifts, the vanity pages by schoolboys, would be popstars and the rest, the corporate spam, and the personal blogs to name just a few. The underlying principle, however, is that because it involves deletion without consensus it should only be used in the narrowly specified circumstances determined by the Community. Where there is an element of doubt then the page should be listed instead. In this case you "recommend adding a paragraph in the Daft Punk article" which is, I think fairly, at least some acknowledgement of a degree of notability. The article stated that it was "a live internet-powered chat with the members of (notable band)" and I think that is also some indication of its importance. Independent reliable sources are needed to survive an AfD but not to avoid an A7 speedy that simply requires an assertion of importance. I still think that restoration and listing is the way to go with the likely outcome being your suggested solution, a small addition to the main article. BlueValour 23:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're suggesting another round of bureaucracy just to get the same result I'm proposing? Speedies were originally designed for the "truly hopeless" case, but it's my understanding that the A7 category was deliberately broadened to cover the increasing quantity of non-notable subjects having articles created about them. Anyway, it quite deliberately states "web content" as opposed to, for instance, "websites". The transcript of an online chat is "web content", in my book. --Stormie 09:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Countering BlueValour's opinion this is absolutely the type of article that WP:CSD was created for. ~ trialsanderrors 16:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Morgantown Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

significant new information has come to light. It ranked as the Worst in its class (thus satisfying notability) in a major industry survey and publication. Claim to notability was never refudiated or explained why ignored by closer. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). No, that one reference does not automatically meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. If you parse any list narrowly enough, eventually the population will be small enough that you can be best (or worst) at something. That doesn't make for a sustainable encyclopedia article. Even though that one source was found late in the discussion period, it alone would not be sufficient to give this article any chance of survival if the discussion were relisted. Rossami (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, that one cite demonstrates only that for US retail spaces of the sub-genre of "power center spaces" which happened to be evaluated by NAI], Morgantown, WV had the lowest occupancy rate as of Q4 2006.
      First, the best definition I've found so far for a "power center space" is a 250,000-to-600,000-square-foot property dominated by three or more generally freestanding, large anchors, such as discount department stores, off-price stores, warehouse clubs and category killers. By that definition, the Mall would not have been included - it would have been in the "mall space" category higher on the page.
      Second, even if malls were included in that statistic, it is a measure for a geographic area, not a single facility. (Note, for example that Philadephia is number 2 on the list. Philadelphia has many retail spaces - with an aggregate vacancy rate of 18%.)
      Third, That one statistic also tells us nothing about trends or reasons. Does the area, for example, have low occupancy that month because there were some newly built spaces which had not yet been occupied?
      That one citation holds a single statistic which isn't even specific to this mall. It alone can not support an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The link provided shows that the city of Morgantown has the highest retail vacancy rate. Not the mall. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - the AfD was properly closed and, as the analysis above shows, the single source doesn't change anything. BlueValour 20:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as nominator, AfD was properly closed. Single source is insufficient and is not directly related to mall in question. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - Afd was closed properly and the source doesn't alter that. Carlossuarez46 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mountaineer Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

significant new information has come to light. this mall has won an award for one of its programs and subsequently announced in a major industry publication. no simple feat when compeating with the rest of the malls in America. please note this article was accidentally recreated prior to this DR request. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). Your new information appears to be that "In April 2005, ICSC and the EPA announced Mountaineer Mall had won an award entitled Best Community Partnership (Large Shopping Center) for its recycling program [4]" That award was one of 10 made in 2005 from that organization alone. ICSC's FAQ describes this award. You get it for donating your recycling proceeds to some humanitarian cause like helping a sick child or planting trees. While noble, getting a single award for a successful marketing tactic two years ago is not sufficient to overturn a unanimous deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then you dont believe that any International Councils backing of an award would be significant? This can in no way be construed as a "marketing tactic", as was mentioned in the AfD "a search for sources online found nothing of note" which, as you imply, this surely would have created in (atleast) local news. I believe that an industry award of this nature is grounds for notability as was disputed in the AfD, and at least deserves a second look at the issue. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request - may I have this page 'userfied' as I believe the AfD nom's "search for sources online" was flawed. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as properly closed by the admin. Actually, I do think that the award was significant. However, this is an otherwise undistinguished, declining mall. I don't think that this single award is, by itself, quite enough to overturn. BlueValour 20:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as nominator. This was properly closed as a delete; the new source provided by the user is insufficient in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to allow Exit2DOS2000 to continue his search. The one award doesn't seem to be enough, but if they found that so fast, they might be able to find more stuff within a reasonable amount of time. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Afd was closed properly. Carlossuarez46 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tim_Phillips (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article should be reconsidered as sufficiently notable for the US-CEO Stub Category. Compared to the current uncomprehensive collection of CEOs in this category this page lists an acceptable number of contributions to business, community, and politics (not only with a run for congress, but also current activity and political commentary). The reliable sources cited in the page confirm this. This would be a positive addition to a lacking category. Sturatt (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems in this discussion. The article failed because no sources were provided demonstrating the subject's notability. The links on the deleted page were evaluated and considered by the community to be insufficient evidence. No new sources have been provided here. Until new sources are found, there are no grounds to overturn the prior decision. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. A very worthy businessman. Founding his own firm, being a failed congressional candidate and sitting on the boards of various organisation make a core case for inclusion. However, for notability secondary sources are needed on achievements and none were produced during the AfD and in this DRV. This was a tight decision but, on balance, correct. BlueValour (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure First off, nothing was procedurally wrong with the AFD closing. The original page was quite spammy as well. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 04:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Restore Strong restore per nom. 203.220.105.139 (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC) user blocked indef. Carlossuarez46 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other than vandalizing Xoloz's user page, this user has made few contributions except on this subject. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a chance to explain what was wrong with the deletion process, not to run to the other parent in the hope of a different decision. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

: Comment Oh Dude! xoxo 203.220.105.139 (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC) user blocked indef. Carlossuarez46 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other than vandalizing Xoloz's user page, this user has made few contributions except on this subject. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If there are significant reliable sources on this person, as required by WP:N, I might reconsider. But we don't restore (or keep) articles just to fill up a category; see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Mangojuicetalk 15:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion just nn. Carlossuarez46 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Connections Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Calling this unimportant is clear discrimination. Pastor Rocky veach has a weekly tv show, is the chairperson of an international church organization with thousands of churches in his church network, and has one of the most active community churches in his region. He used to be under COC america which was well known, but is no changing thigns over to the Connections Name, this is why there is confusino as to his importance. How can you decide that just because something is not important to you it's not important. He has thousands of people checking every day to see how he is doing. He is running humanitarian efforts with missionaries in the Dominican Republic, Chile, Africa, and Argentina. Connections also has several church locations that have branched off of this one. In addition, I have searched and found over 100 singular church pages that have existed forever. What criteria does one use to determine he impact a church is having? Are you an expert on Church Relevancy and Church Ministries? When I read the person who flagged me's articles on Harry Potter Actors it didn't mean a thing to me, because I had never seen the movie. Does the fact that I wouldn't recognize them make them any less famous? Clearly not. The fact that you are not from any of the places they operate, doesn't make them less important. If they are important to 500 people does that make their information less credible than 500,00. Or is it jus that admin's like to discriminate against anything religous, while they let other insignifigant garbage like from the person who flagged me's site slip through. I Guess his cult following of one character from Harry Potter is ok, but Church isn't. This is not the first time I have had Admin's revert an edit made for something christian only to revert to somethign anti-christian. Somehow they don't get that a negative bias still makes you biased. I would just like you to know that I am a managing editor in for a newspaper outside of NYC and I know the difference between spam, and equal access. If we call this spam, then we'll have to be fair across the board, and any small following of anything or anyone has to go. If this site is so unimportant and irrelivant, please tell me why this is so important El Celler de Can Roca If I need to right awards that they've recieved I will, but as my note said, I was still editing and searchign for sources. They have recieved several community service awards that I could list, as well as international recognitionImpact2d (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article did not make any serious claim to notability (as defined in our Wikipedia guideline) for the church. The notability of Rocky Veach, dubious though it seems, is irrelevant to the notability of Connections Church. Perhaps you can provide one reliable independent source about Connections Church (this Connections Churhc, that is, as the name is in use by many unrelated churhces apparently)? Or make at least a clear claim of notability for it? It has been noted by reliable independent sources for...? Fram (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There is a clear claim made for notability: "has built a tight knit network with churches from Anchorage, Alaska to Colorado to New York." I think that is enough to avoid speedy for no assertiion of notability. It is not necessary to chow notability for this, just to claim something that could reasonably be so interpreted, and they've met that. Nor are sources needed. to pass speedy. Incidentally, I am not sure a church or association of churches is a "group" within the meaning of Speedy CSD A7. Possibly we need to specify "group" more precisely. (The article is a hybrid with a paragraph on an association of churches with claimed national reach, a specific church in Wappingers Falls, NY, and the pastor. ) I think the importance of churches is a matter that needs further thought. But this article will fairly clearly not pass AfD unreferenced--but it is started at the article that the article is in progress, and I think that should also have been respected. DGG (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has some settled general precedents. We usually delete articles on individual churches, unless there is significant evidence of notability. We almost always keep articles on denominations, unless there are copyright or other similar problems. The grey zone is in the middle, where this article lies. In part it is an article on a single local church. In part it is an article on a new/proto-denomination. This did claim some significance, and thus should not have been deleted under WP:CSD#A7. It merits an AFD nomination, as there is no evidence of independent reliable source coverage used to write the article. So list. GRBerry 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read through the entire article as it existed at both points when it was speedy-deleted. I didn't see any credible evidence that this organization meets our generally-accepted inclusion criteria. But as a speedy-deletion being contested in good-faith, it can be restored and listed to AFD. Rossami (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per GRBerry and Rossami. Please note that the article will need to have some independent, reliable sources in order to be kept around, assuming that it is restored. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, I'll undelete the article and list it AfD. Being a network of churches can probably be seen as a claim to notability. As the original deleter, I guess no one will complain that I haven't waited the full five days here. Fram (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Besides PCWorld, Wrike was covered by such trustworthy media as eWEEK and Entrepreneur. The Technology Magazine marked Wrike as one of the best Collaboration tools. Moreover, Wrike was reviewed by such competent blogs as fastForwardblog, WebWorkerdaily, SME blog and tens more.

I would emphasize that being recognized at LeWeb3 means a lot. Wrike won in the b2b category among hundreds of other start-ups. Obviously, some google hits aren't in English about the conference, since it’s worldwide and it was held in Europe Abdullais4u (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permit re-creation Not all the sources were included in the original article, and the notability of the award seemed to be un-demonstrated. If it is notable, then the article can probably stand. DGG (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting admin.; If there are proper sources then the reasons for deletion are no lomnger valid and the article can either be undeleted or recreated. I'd have done this myself had the nominator bothered to ask me before raising the DRV. Since its here, I'll leave it to the community to0 decide. Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation - the nominator has found further sources and should be allowed to recreate. However, I am still cautious about the future of this article. The LeWeb3 reference doesn't mention Wrike and the reference bullishly referred to as "The Technology Magazine marked Wrike as one of the best Collaboration tools." is simply a long list of such tools without any distinction being applied. BlueValour (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the LeWeb3 reference that mentions Wrike: The winners of the start-up presentations at leWeb3. In March, 2007 Wrike caught the attention of Folksonomy and was interviewed. I found a couple of other passionate references to Wrike: The Innovation Evangelist, along with Google’s news StartupSquad mentions launch of Wrike’s professional version, Dave Garrett, the leader of the online community for IT project managers, describes Wrike as “an interesting, very very simple tool” etc. Abdullais4u
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Arab Student Organization (Kent State University Chapter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have explained to the creators of this page why it was deleted and have helped them understand the concept of notability. Could an administrator please restore the page to my userspace for… er… sentimental purposes? The page will not be recreated. Thanks! — atchius (msg) 08:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Politicians by religion – Deletion endorsed without prejudice against deletion review of selected individual categories. One of the problems that Jc37 has brought up seems to me an enormous one: verifiability. Categories have no footnotes, and thus must be used with great care when, as these do, they imply a political bias or position. For that reason, it makes no sense to me to undelete all of them so as to relist them individually; most of them are going to be NPOV and BLP violations. On the other hand, as Xoloz points out, in countries outside of the Western democracies (and in a few cases within them) political parties or candidates are often explicitly associated with a particular sect. Such cases can be brought up for review individually. – Chick Bowen 03:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Politicians by religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

jc37 (talk · contribs) recently closed to CFR discussion at Category:Politicians by religion as a delete, claiming the keep votes were the same. Noting the discussion, there was 9 votes to keep, and 7 to delete, which at least should have merited no consensus. Also the creators of categories like Category:Hindu politicians were not made aware their cats were up for deletions and much painstaking work has been undone by this deletion. Some of the queries brought were that politicians that describe themselves as Methodist , Hindu, etc may hold totally divergent views. Yet I see that WP:BLP#Categories supports categorization based on belief, especially because of the connection between Religion and politics and because even if they hold divergent views, politicians still self-identify and profess beliefs that affect their work in politics. I respect jc37's decision but must disagree, being one of the users that has painstakingly documented religious beliefs that do affect politics in the world. Bakaman 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure - The crux of the issue is whether categories should exist for these, not whether the information may be relevant to to be inserted in each's article. Categorisation is more than just a note at the bottom of an article. And as I noted: "Several of the suggestions for "Keep"-ing apply more to whether such information is relevant/"notable" for inclusion in each politician's article, than whether such a grouping system should exist." - (I didn't claim that: "the keep votes were the same".) And of course the typical comment about consensus not being equivilent to counting "votes" applies here too. - jc37 02:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories are used to mark people who share two things in common. Politicians that feel that their faith affects their politics, or which is relevant to their politics (minority legislators) should be categorized by their religion and occupation. The marriage between religion and politics is so deep that it is impossible to divorce the two in many places. Even if politicians hold divergent views while professing the same religion, the fact that they self-identify and the fact it is relevant to notability should allow for categorization as noted by WP:BLP. BLP incidentally is an official policy, unlike WP:OCAT, which is merely a phrase used to stymie discussion. When jc talks about consensus, there was definitely no consensus to delete, so it should have at least ended up as no consensus.Bakaman 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Categories are used to mark people who share two things in common." - No they're not. That's called intersection, and may be done in many ways, including noting in articles, in lists, in templates, and, of course, categories. But it's not only not a definition of categories, it's frowned upon in in many cases. (See WP:OCAT for some examples.) - jc37 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OCAT as noted is not a policy. The intersection of religion and politics is inherently notable and searching for politicians that share the same beliefs falls well within the spirit of WP:CAT. When we look at WP:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference, we can see it really does not apply. Articles like Political aspects of Islam, Christianity and politics, Hindu politics, Religion and politics are certainly head articles, since politics cannot be undertaken without politicians. Ergo this meets WP:BLP and does not fall under the purview of WP:OCAT.Bakaman 03:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I read the discussion as no-consensus. Maybe a wider discussion will demonstrate consensus--though I rather doubt it. The argument for deletion seemed to be that it would cause arguments over inclusion, which i do not consider is not a valid reason. DGG (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I'm concerned that this discussion may have improperly deemphasized issues of systemic bias. In the West, while religion is important in political life without question, it is one among many factors that influence elections. In India, for example, it may be the dominant factor, to the exclusion of anything else. I don't feel a group listing did justice to these differences. Xoloz (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and consider other alternatives. Xoloz's argument is persuasive. It may be appropriate to have sub-categories of national cats for some nations. For the U.S., a "christian right politician" category might be appropriate even if no other religion category is. Send it back for some thinking outside the box. GRBerry 15:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion (or, at least relist) - I don't find the closing interpretation following in-line with the consensus (or lack thereof) in the CFD discussion. True, the categories need to be better organized heirarchically, but they are both relevant and useful. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to those suggesting relisting - Not to be cliche (smile), but I'm not sure that this addresses the closure. Honestly your comments are similar to the ones at the CfD. Just because something may be "notable", doesn't mean that there need be a category for it. And that's not being addressed in the "relist" comments above. If this was an AfD discussion, it could have been No consensus, or possibly even Keep. But this is a CfD discussion, and we have to look at more than the question of "notability". We need to determine whether a category grouping is to be kept. And that wasn't addressed by those supporting keeping the category, but it was by those opposing. As noted above (and in WP:CLS), one of the failings of categories is the lack of ability for references. And Xoloz's comment above indicates a prime example of why references and clarification would be needed for these. And I would presume citing WP:BLP, would actually suggest deleting the category due to lack of references. There are several precedents on CfD for this as well. (I'll have to find some links) And I note that several of these are actually recreations (including the Hindu one). - jc37 21:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories are the Wikipedia equivalent to an index of related topics. I stand by my opinion that relisting is right, so that we can determine the proper way to categorize. My argument is that, in some cases, these are in fact appropriate groupings, and that one or more CFDs that actually try to figure out which ones are appropriate needs to be held. The mass listing very clearly didn't even try. GRBerry 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to get sidelined too much here, but just a queck clarification: "Categories are the Wikipedia equivalent to an index of related topics." - No, they're "categories", groups of things, which may be organised in many ways, but are not necessarily indices (per WP:CAT#Categories do not form a tree). Wikipedia:Quick index is our index, and Portal:Categorical index is our categorical index. - jc37 06:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To restate my point in a different form, if religion in politics is the dominant factor that I believe it to be, it is reasonable to expect that readers might wish to navigate among related articles on that basis -- this is the purpose of categories. Xoloz (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but without references showing that these are truly "dominant", who's going to arbitrarily decide on the category's membership? No Wikipedian who's following WP:BLP or WP:V, I presume? - jc37 09:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether this assertion of mine is correct is one element that the relisting would investigate, and one reason a relisting is warranted. Xoloz (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I don't think vote-counting is valueless, but here, the argument weight was definitely on the delete side. In places in the world where religion defines politics, those religions have built political parties to which these people can be assigned.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all people espousing a religion in the public sphere choose to be part of a religiously based political party. The Indian Union Muslim League is there in India. However most "Muslim politicians" like Abdul Rehman Antulay, Hamid Ansari, Tariq Anwar, and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi (who belongs to a generally "Hindu" party, the Bharatiya Janata Party) do not associate with a "Muslim political party". And religion definitely defines politics in India.Bakaman 02:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus, or relist. The closer's rationale for dismissing the keep arguments is bad - in fact only a couple of the keep arguments didn't address issues they were supposed to address, and even there, there is a good reason behind those comments when we read between the lines; the only comment that is truly worthless is the "athiest propaganda" one. Plus, religion is a defining issue for politicians much more often than when there are religious political parties. It may not be especially important if an American politician is Anglican or Baptist, but it is certainly a defining characteristic that they are protestant. Certainly, religion is a defining characteristic for any American politician that isn't protestant; Mitt Romney's religion, for instance, gets a lot of mention in the news. Mangojuicetalk 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion The closing interpretation was not in-line with the consensus.These categories are useful and relevantShyamsunder 08:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - As per above.-Bharatveer (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion here's the damned that we did for a multiple nomination: I for one think that the stated religion of various politicos isn't defining: Giuliani is pro-gay rights, divorced, an admitted adulterer, and pro-choice so we categorize him "Roman Catholic" because he is, so it shows little of what someone lumped into this category really believes. So, the labels are simplistic and one-dimensional and people aren't. However, as some have said religion matters in some countries' politics. But that argument certainly doesn't apply to many of these categories, particularly where the population is virtually uniformly of a particular religion or has a state religion and the politician is in that religion: Category:Afghan Muslim politicians, Category:Indonesian Muslim politicians, Category:Iranian Muslim politicians, Category:Iraqi Muslim politicians, Category:Libyan Muslim politicians, Category:Pakistani Muslim politicians, and Category:Palestinian Muslim politicians, are totally non-defining. Can someone even find a non-Muslim politician in Afghanistan or Libya? So, any overturn should really reflect the reality of the arguments of the overturners (and no doubt they'll be the majority), and not overturn categories that really fail WP:CATGRS. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous non-Muslim politicians in Pakistan and Indonesia, and many of them have attained some fame, such as Krishan Bheel, Khatumal Jeevan and Dewa Made Beratha. In Afghanistan, Awtar Singh is there, a lone Sikh politician in Afghanistan. The label is there as a label. If Giuliani says he is Catholic in the political sphere, we mark him as a Catholic politician, its that simple. Religion is generally a uniter (among those who follow a certain one), not a divider.Bakaman
  • Overturn deletion religion has a big part to play in politcs.--D-Boy 18:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two quotes:
    • Wikipedia:Verifiability - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
    • Wikipedia:Categorization of people - Limit the number: Try to limit the number of categories. For example, a film actor that holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. However it is also important to ensure that categories contain all of the most relevant articles. This means that some prominent people, such as senior politicians who have held many different offices, will be in a considerable number of categories. Apart from these factual categories, for those categories that require an assessment of personal characteristics (e.g. art movement style...), try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."
  • So (if, as it seems, we're replaying the CfD discussion here), are these politicians verifiably notable for being members of a religion? - jc37 19:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are really no issues with your first quote (covered by BLP) and your second quote would also validate the "overturn" idea. This would happen because the most famous politicians overtly specify their religious beliefs in the political sphere meaning that it is essential to their identity in both private and work-related spheres, ergo the Politicians by religion would be valid.Bakaman 01:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No actually, the latter quote invalidates your postulation. In other words, if they were not a politician, would being a member of <x> religion be notable for the person, so as to categorise them by it. In most cases, the answer is: no. And here's the fun part: even if it turns out that a certain politician is notable for being a member of a religion, next we'd have to determine if the intersection of the two is notable, or if the person should just be categorised separately under the two separate categories. And in this case, the intersection isn't any more notable that "Politicians who support the war in IRAQ", or "Politicians who are pro-choice". And we typically don't categorise politicians "by issue or belief", as is noted by at least a few editors above. I'm sure I can find innumerable precedents to support that. It's just simply not "clear-cut" enough for a generic category heading.(Again, see WP:CLS, which explains the weaknesses of categories.) - jc37 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases the answer is a resounding yes. Mitt Romney's Mormonism, Keith Ellison's Islam(ism?), Joe Lieberman's Judaism all make them notable. Obviously people are notable first for being a politician, but religion is something that (gasp?) trasncends issues like pro-choice, anti-gay, ten commandments in schools. The intersection of the two is sufficiently notable in America, and extremely notable outside it, especially in the Indian subcontinent, Africa and South America. Looking at notability, the phrase Islam and politics nets about 5x as many ghits as "Iraq War and politics". The term "christian politician" nets 10x as many ghits as"pro-life politician". It is much more notable and clear cut. Religion and politics are intertwined, and the fact is that religion is the most potent force of self-identification around the world. Please do look at the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or the recent Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case. It was due to the actions of two Muslim politicians from Britain that Pres. Bashir, another Muslim politician' decided to pardon the teacher, Gibbons.Bakaman 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I think some users might be overstating the importance of religion in politics, and need to adopt a more worldwide view. In the US, it is probably true that religion plays a part, but in most of Europe it is simply not relevant. (Except in extreme circumstances such as Northern Ireland, but even these issues are better described in political or sectarian, rather than religious terms). Religion is only a factor if it informs, and is seen to inform, the person's political views. Anything else is meaningless over-categorisation, and in any case serves little purpose as two people can be technically in the same category but still have vastly different beliefs (see previous comments). --carelesshx talk 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we categorize by religion and not by belief. We dont categorize people as "Anti-War Gay-hating Democrats" because that would be meaningless. However categorization of people's religion is allowed on Wikipedia, and as such it is a useful means of seeing the influence of certain religions on certain political spheres, and viewing the diversity of viewpoints claimed religious brethren can espouse.Bakaman 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, good call by Jc37. It's not that we don't want the information (we do want it) but that categories are not such a good way of representing it. >Radiant< 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - if the religion is an important part of a political affiliation, that will be made obvious by the article and categorization of the political party. --After Midnight 0001 14:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Paintings by artist – Endorse closure as no consensus. Uncertainties seem to exist regarding art world conventions in this matter, and Jc37 took these into account in his closure. The wikiproject seems an ideal outlet for further discussion per DGG. Further discussion is clearly needed here, and relisting (particularly of individual categories) at editorial discretion is certainly another option, but I see no rush. – IronGargoyle 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Paintings by artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Jc37 (talk · contribs) recently closed the CfR discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 20#Paintings by artist as no consensus, defaulting in keep as is. I've had a discussion with him/her about this (see User talk:Aecis#Question about your CfR closure), and after some thoughts, I have decided to request a review of this closure. I had requested that ten daughter categories of Category:Paintings by artist be renamed to include the full name of the painter, based on the title of the corresponding article. This rename would conform the ten categories to the standard category naming within the daughters of Category:Works by artist. During the discussion, User:Johnbod expressed some doubt, in view of the fact that some of these full names were actually nicknames. The only oppose !voter was User:HeartofaDog, who stated that "I would only think this was justified if there were two or more artists of the same name - otherwise it seems superfluous." Basically, both editors appeared unhappy with the existing naming standard of including the full name of the artist. But as I said to Jc37, this might result in a discussion to change the convention, but I see no ground for suspending the application of the standard/convention altogether. AecisBrievenbus 00:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is where "deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) is discussed." -- Jreferee t/c 02:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but this review is to assess the closure of one such CfR, as I indicated in the very first sentence of my request. AecisBrievenbus 12:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Rather than attempt to re-comment here, I ask that the closer (and those reviewing) to please take my comments at User talk:Aecis#Question about your CfR closure into consideration. - jc37 00:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like of six comments, one was oppose, and two were endorse (I took "rename" and "support" as "endorse the suggestion"). I would accrue significance to consistency too, but I'm surprised there is no apparent consensus to that effect among art editors? And a result of no action when there is no consensus seems reasonable. Pete St.John (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When looking strictly at the numbers, I agree with you: one person opposed the CfR (HeartofaDog), two supported it (Mike Selinker and SMcCandlish) and two provided some additional considerations (Johnbod and Peterkingiron). I'm obviously biased as the nom, but what they appeared to oppose, or what they were reluctant about, was imo the naming standard in general, not so much the application of the naming standard to these particular categories. In terms of the weight of the arguments, I see a consensus to rename the categories, with the option of a new naming standard being formed, resulting in a CfR the other way around. AecisBrievenbus 13:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discuss at WikiProject_Visual_arts. The matter at issue was the renaming of the pages within the category to include the full names of the artist, and there seems no agreement on the question. Whether this should follow the convention for writers is not obvious one way or the other. DGG (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, but relist some individually. I wanted them all renamed, but some salient arguments about nicknaming should at least give the closer pause. The "No consensus" close allows us to tackle each independently, and I'm sure Jc is cool with that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted above, please consider User talk:Aecis#Question about your CfR closure, in which I said some similar things : ) - jc37 06:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - per nominator. Only opposer gave a pretty weak argument for a fairly common sense move. I see 3 supports for a move, and the one aforementioned oppose. No reason for this to be closed as no consensus. The Evil Spartan 09:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide up and relist. The problem is that these are not all equivalent. The Botticelli problem has already been brought up. Carpaccio is always Carpaccio; I believe he ended up at his full name to avoid conflict with the similarly named dish. Chagall and some others, on the other hand, should definitely be renamed. Chick Bowen 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Moreschi/If (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases. Administrator Angr's claim that "consensus doesn't outweigh WP:CSD#G11" is, to put it delicately, insane. Speedy deletion policy is clear that "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead [of speedy deletion]." The discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Moreschi/If clearly demonstrates reasonable doubt. Overturn and keep. ➪HiDrNick! 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note The page User:Moreschi/If is spread through out Wikipedia since it is linked to Moreschi' signature which appears as "Moreschi If you've written a quality article..." -- Jreferee t/c 10:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RelistOverturn and keep - Although WP:CSD#G11 applies to all namespaces, the MfD discussion indicates reasonable doubt regarding the promotional nature of the user subpage. One of the major arguments raised during the discussion was that Veropedia, although advertising-funded, is a sister related project that provides its content free of charge and adheres to GDFL licensing. Given that this page is a personal recommendation from a user (specifically, from an administrator) who does not stand to benefit commercially, it is hard to justify speedy deletion under promotional criteria. Relisting would enable the community as a whole to reach a consensus on what needs to be done with the page. After reading the arguments below and looking more carefully at the MfD, it seems that it was indeed heading for an early close as keep, and there is no need for further discussion to obtain consensus. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 03:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to object to any reference of Veropedia being a "sister project", since that implies it's a Wikimedia or Wikipedia-sanctioned project which it isn't. They're a commercial mirror of Wikipedia content - and as such as to comply with the GDFL anyhow. It particularly worries me that an administrator linking to it may also be seen as making it "official", when it's nothing of the sort. -Halo (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll concede my point above referring to Veropedia as a sister project, but it is certainly related to Wikipedia. And my point about the user in question being an administrator refers not to any official air they bestow upon it, but rather to the fact that the page does not belong to a spam artist or SAP but rather to an editor in good standing, which in turn allows them a certain degree of the latitude outlined in WP:UP. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 06:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and admonish closer Looks like consensus was achieved, and the admin just steamrolled right over it. Close was handled badly and was in the wrong outcome. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (aec) Overturn and close as keep I need not, I suppose, to undertake, as sometimes I do at DRV, to address at length the impropriety of one's speedying a page about the consistency with policy of which there is some dispute, especially where that dispute is codified in an XfD, and especially where those partaking of the XfD, having at least nominatively considered policy, support keeping; Nick makes the case quite well (much more cogently, to be sure, than might I). Were the MfD discussion inconsistent on its face with WP:USER and WP:CSD#G11, were the discussion visited by but a trivial number of editors, or were the outcome not plain, a relisting might be in order, but it seems clear to me that the MfD, having been perfectly valid, ought simply to be reclosed, to-wit, as "keep". Joe 04:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as keep It should be more than obvious that the participants in the MfD were aware of WP:CSD#G11 and thought it didn't apply. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2007
  • Neutral - as the original nominator, I agree that it seems to break WP:CSD#G11, but also that there does seem to be a keep consensus. It does lead me wonder where the line should be drawn as to what is spam and what isn't, though, because if someone promoting a commercial site in their signature to encourage contributions to that site isn't "spam", what is? If it's deemed acceptable by the community to link to sites in this way, then relevant policy pages should be updated, since it really shouldn't be an exception. -Halo (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Given the substantial expression of support for keeping the page speedy deletion was inappropriate. Redeletion was more so. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own closure – this was the single most blatant piece of advertising I've ever seen at Wikipedia, and no number of people voting WP:ILIKEIT can change that. The whole point of speedy deletion is that it applies without discussion first. It is simply unconscionable that anyone should ever have written the page to begin with, and I'm disgusted that anyone else would want to keep it. As for the nature of the content, Veropedia is not run by the Wikimedia Foundation and therefore by no stretch of the imagination a sister project of Wikipedia. Whether anyone stands to make money from it is irrelevant; advertising non-profit websites here is just as much a violation of WP:NOT#ADVERTISING as advertising for-profit ones. I quote from that policy: "those interested in promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." —Angr 05:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've conceded my point about Veropedia being a sister project; you are quite right there. However, I must point out that if the content you deleted was the "single most blatant piece of advertising" you've ever seen here, then you have been very fortunate indeed. As for your claim that a single user subpage linked to on the user's mainpage and in their signature constitutes spam in violation of WP:NOT, I would point out that WP:CSD, another official policy, specifies that only the most clearcut violations are deserving of speedy deletion. It goes on to say that pages where reasonable doubt might be raised should be taken to another venue for discussion--not only was this page well into discussion at one of these venues, but the consensus was clearly in favor of keep, which means there was more than reasonable doubt involved. As such, it is not difficult to argue that by unilaterally deleting it you were in violation of policy.
Although it is not uncommon to tag AfD or other items for speedy deletion based on arguments raised, given the advanced nature of the discussion at the time of your deletion I have to suggest that either bringing the issue up at the ongoing MfD or tagging the article for review by another administrator would have been preferable to unilaterally deleting and then redeleting it yourself. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 06:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:CSD specifies that only the most clearcut violations are deserving of speedy deletion, and as I said, this was an incredibly clearcut violation. This page is the reason WP:CSD#G11 was written. —Angr 06:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is common for pages pending at XfD to be speedy deleted. The speedy deletions then may be brought to DRV. Angr's speedy deletion should have been brought directly to DRV, not wheel restored. In addition, Moreschi should not have used his admin tools to restore a page that he created and Angr was correct to redelete it. -- Jreferee t/c 09:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that speedy deletions happen during XfDs--I've tagged a fair share myself, although to the best of my recollection this has been in response to the chorus of people asking why a given article hadn't been speedied already. But my point about the presence of reasonable doubt (incidentally, a random search through the WP:CSD history shows that this has been around at least since April, so it's not a recent policy change) has not been addressed, and as such I am not convinced that the deletion was appropriate under Wikipedia policy. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, this was fairly blatant advertising, even if for a sister project. It still doesn't belong here, and I think it's a valid G11. --Coredesat 07:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep. MfD really needs to stop interfering with people's user spaces. WP:USER gives people pretty broad latitude here. I'm largely indifferent to the whole veropedia thing, but I read Moreschi's essay and, from what I recall, it's largely about improving content on Wikipedia. How exactly is that something that we need to urgently delete from his user space? It's no more advertising than thousands of user pages that link to real world interests. --JayHenry (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CSD#G11 claims it applies to all namespaces, and WP:USER includes advertising clauses in it. I also think you've remember Moreschi's essay wrongly - it largely said "Created something good on Wikipedia? Ensure it doesn't get ruined by posting it on Veropedia" (or something along those lines), and he prominently included it in his signature with a link "If you've written a quality article...". I wouldn't have cared or submitted it to MFD if it wasn't for the latter. -Halo (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse WP:SPEEDY applies anytime, including before, during, and after XfD. This was the most blatant advertising I have seen. WP:CSD#G11 applied. User:Moreschi can try to get such information listed at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, but keeping blatant advertising is not the way to go. -- Jreferee t/c 09:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, no it doesn't. From WP:CSD "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements". While this had not technically survived its MfD as it hadn't been closed, it was clearly on ts way to a keep result, so speedily deleting the page went against the spirit of the policy, if not the letter. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 09:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pages whose AfD keep close are overturned at DRV are CSD G4 speedy deleted all the time, even if they survived a prior AfD deletion discussion. Whose been monkeying with the speedy delete policy? -- Jreferee t/c 10:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blatant advertising was spread throughout Wikipedia by Moreschi because Moreschi's signature included a disruptive internal link to the blatant advertising and appears as "Moreschi If you've written a quality article..." Speedily deleting the page clearly was with the spirit of the policy, if not the letter. -- Jreferee t/c 11:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy has had that wording for as long as I can remember - certainly for months. [5] Obviously it's not meant to apply to recreations of material which was kept at one AfD and deleted at a second, but otherwise I think it's sound - speedy should not be used to override good faith objections to a deletion, such as those which resulted in it being kept. As for Moreschi's signature, several people have suggested that he change it, but that's a different matter from the deletion of the page itself. I also think that the bottom line is that if sixteen people at the MfD didn't see this page as blatent advertising, it can't be blatent. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Speedy is for uncontroversial, clear-cut cases; the discussion at the MfD should be more than ample evidence that this wasn't. Obviously the community didn't see this as blatent advertising, or if they did, they thought that the potential benefit to Wikipedia outweighed any annoyance it might have caused. Even the nominator described it as "a borderline case". If Angr disagreed with the emerging consensus he should have expressed his opinion in the debate and tried to persuade the keep voters of it, instead of simply trying to impose his own interpretation of a subjective clause over that of the rest of the community. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 09:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn What and what isn't blatant advertising is determined by the community. Admins who disagree can add their arguments at the bottom of the discussion in the hope to sway the community. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion, and close MfD as keep. The policy issues here do not justify going against clear consensus in the MfD debate, which was that this page does not constitute advertising. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and reprimand Angr for blatant abuse of admin tools to further an ideological goal. This is an example of why we need a much easier way to desysop people. WaltonOne 11:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and consider sanctioning Angr for misuse of his tools and for ignoring consensus. The article was not a clear cut speedy deletion candidate, rather, it was something that required discussion and consensus was in favour of the article being legitimate, and that it should be kept. Nick (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Guitar controller compatibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

contains useful information 206.169.113.251 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion "useful information" is not the same as "encyclopedic information"; closer's comments summarised the debate correctly. WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason to keep or restore. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undue deletion: The admin clearly overstepped by going against consensus when there was a clear and overwhelming decision to keep the article MusiMax (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted admins aren't vote counters. Useful info isn't the same as encyclopedic. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 02:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I applaud the closing administrator for his close, which I support. I (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Blatant original research. Guy (Help!) 04:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table itself makes no comparision conclusions. However, the Yes/No conclusion that a particular Guitar controller has a certain features was original research. Certainly, it was not based on independent reliable sources material as only the manufacturer would likely detail such information and any reliable source would merely repeate what the manufacturer published (so that such repeating would not be "independent"). -- Jreferee t/c 08:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undo deletion: Comments:
  1. How is it original research? Every entry in the table was sourced to IGN, 1UP, or the Harmonix press release. The information was well-sourced, notable, and in no way violating WP:NOR.
  2. WP:USEFUL wasn't the only pro-inclusion argument. The alternative is to duplicate this info at Rock Band, Guitar Hero III, and Guitar Hero II, which unnecessarily clutters all three articles.
  3. The only pro-deletion arguments I've ever heard were that it's "not an article or list" (since when is there a rule that a page has to be one of these, there are numerous articles that are primarily tables), that the page was a mess (true, but not a reason for deletion), and WP:GUIDE (it was never explained how this is remotely game guide information), and WP:USELESS.
I'm still yet to hear one policy this page violates or one reasonable reason why the page should no longer exist. My understanding of the AFD process is that there needs to be a consensus to delete something based on a reason, as opposed to requiring a consensus to keep something. The consensus in the original AfD was clear and the pro-deletion folks didn't even try to discuss it. So I ask again, is there a valid reason for deleting this article? Oren0 (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely WP:IINFO. -Halo (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the information was indiscriminate. -- Jreferee t/c 08:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I did try to discuss it. No one replied to any of my comments except for some bad faith assumptions and personal attacks on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Based on a bold assumption of what was there, can I suggest changing to a template for transclusion? It's probably not worth an article on its own, but it is relevant for the three games -Halo (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and closer's reasoning. Something possibly being useful isn't a reason to keep, as lots of things can be "useful", but not for an encyclopedia. --Coredesat 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:NOT seems the likely outcome. There are many, many of these product feature comparison table articles. While it seems that Wikipedia is not a features guide to be used to compare the features of competing products, WP:NOT does not seem to specifically cover this situation. Wp:not#sales was written to keep prices out of these comparison table articles. Someone should write an essay as a first step of getting WP:NOT revised and to provide something that may be cited to that specifically addresses these feature comparison table articles. -- Jreferee t/c 08:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion pretty good example of why AfD is not a vote: The delete voters had valid concerns about WP:NOT and original research. The keep voters more or less just repeated "It's useful!" Well sure it is. I'd find a wiki page with the menus and phone numbers of all the restaurants that deliver to me useful too, but it isn't something that would be right for wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat again, why is this original research? It is all well-sourced, published info. As for WP:NOT, who decides what's indiscriminate? The menus and phone numbers of your favorite restaurants aren't likely to be published in multiple reliable sources. This info is. I don't see how this is less encyclopedic than any of the comparison articles that exist all over Wikipedia. Oren0 (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. The closing admin used a pinpoint focus on a few of the keep comments (Useful information not available anywhere else) as rationale for deletion. I think this was read out of context. IIRC, the comment refers to the fact that a comprehensive table did not exist, not that the information was not referenced. If the information wasn't referenced, I believe it could be by reliable sources. This table contained very notable information, due to the games' chart-topping sales, and the over $50 price of controllers, purchasing an incompatible one is a big deal. -- Norvy (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - I'll Wikify this article in Encyclopedia Gamia, or at least put it somewhere where it can go to use. Obviously consumer advocacy is not in Wikipedia's best interests.--WaltCip (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse But then, I would, wouldn't I? More seriously, Starblind articulates my reason better then I can. Also, 15 people saying its useful and the information isn't available elsewhere don't significantly overcome policy based discussions and this is a classic example of why consensus measures arguments not numbers. Spartaz Humbug! 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (as original nominator). "Useful" is the reason for almost every comment in support of keeping. Most of the table was blank space due to controllers for one system obviously not working for any other system. Most of the actual prose was just a summary of the occasional unexpected compatibility issues. Mr.Z-man 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - as per closing editor's rationale. Maybe also as original research. Useful informatinon ≠ Encyclopedia (and therefore better) information. — Rudget contributions 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). As several have already said, this is an excellent example of why deletion discussions are decided based on weight of argument, not by vote. No objection to a temporary undeletion if someone wants to move the content to some other GFDL-compliant site where this content might be appropriate. Rossami (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a Propose: Not Features Guide at WP:NOT that links to this DRV. Please consider adding your comments there as well. -- Jreferee t/c 22:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - an outstanding example of a closure based on policy consensus, which trumps local ILIKEIT !voting. Eusebeus 14:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 November 2007[edit]

  • Yankee go home – Closure as redirect endorsed. As with any redirect, it can be replaced with a new, fully sourced article, but there must be a clear improvement over the article as it existed at the time of the AfD. – Chick Bowen 02:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yankee go home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

As frustrated as I am about a page I created being deleted without anyone popping a note on my talk page, and at that after someone had removed the prod for it, and with very little discussion, I decided I could take it. Except that page, being transwikied, will almost certainly not appear in its current form on wiktionary: see wikt:Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. Not only that, but the text itself will never actually be placed on the page to which it has been redirected, as the deletion discussion was saying it should. The phrase is one of the most notable ones of the 20th century (as can be seen from the sources given at wikt:Transwiki:Yankee go home, which were just a few among thousands that I found, and in that fact that someone else created a page on the English term in the Turkish language: tr:Yankee go home). If Wikipedia has decided that some terms are worth their own articles (e.g., truthiness, which isn't half as notable in that it's only a fad for the past couple years), then the standard should be applied across the board and equally. As such, this discussion did not have enough participation (only 3 participants, not including nominator, 2 of whom fell under WP:JUSTAVOTE), especially given that a prod was removed, and the deletion proposer didn't even notify me, the creator. As such, we should overturn the redirect. User:Part Deux (on extended Wikibreak) 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure (keep as redirect, though I do not have a firm opinion on which target is better). I see no process problems with the discussion. Deletion discussions do not have a quorum requirement and it is explicitly not a requirement to notify the page's creator. (In a wiki, you can't really say who the creator is anyway.) The AFD tag was on the page for the required 5 days. There was ample time for anyone watchlisting the page to see the tag and comment.
    As to the content of the page, it was a mere dictionary definition - meaning and usage of a word or phrase. It had 7 months to be expanded and could not. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The deletion discussion got this right. The nominator is correct that the layout of the definition will probably be changed when it is moved to Wiktionary. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. The nominator also notes that we have articles on other terms. The solution is to move them to Wiktionary as well, not to propagate the problem here. I see no grounds to reverse the AFD decision. Rossami (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirect close - There was no other way to interpret that AfD. AfD does not require notification to validate the process. Removal of the prod without improvement of the article is a reason to delete the article, not to void the AfD discussion. Also, one AfD participant is enough if the AfD is listed for five days. The text itself was unsourced so it wouldn't improve Wikipedia by placing that unsourced text on the page to which it had been redirected. -- Jreferee t/c 08:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & relist failure to notify is already considered impoliteness by the policy, and its unfairness here with the editor on a wikibreak is clear. Unfair AfDs should be sent back and redone. Removal of the prod, with or without improvement is not a reason for deletion until brought to AfD and consensus obtained. It is not assumed the original prod was correct. It would be appropriate to hold a fuller debate--the inadequate discussion should have been continued, not closed. DGG (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Failure to notify is not, and has never been, a requirement, and to suggest that a unanimous AfD be overturned because the originator of the article was not notified is absurd. And then on top of it, the person who wants to be nominated was on wikibreak? So some crappy article (and I'm not saying this article was crappy) has to stick around forever just because the original editor is on wikibreak? That's not policy and hopefully will never be policy. Corvus cornixtalk 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - Article looked alright, didn't really qualify for deletion in my book, and didn't see any process problems the closure. I even remember editing this page when it was created, thought it was in August though, not April! — Rudget contributions 20:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep and redirect closure Since the edit history was kept the redirect consensus only holds for the article as it stood during the AfD. Anyone can access the edit history and use it to replace the redirect with an improved article. Looking at the dicdef that was there I agree that the redirect was better, but that doesn't mean it's impossibe to write a viable article on the term. And nothing in the closure prevents that. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure seems appropriate and within admin discretion surely. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. No arguments based on policy or guidelines were provided for keeping or deletion, so there was no basis on which this could be closed either way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I realize a lot of people are currently commenting on the fact that the review was done according to process. But what about the fact that this appears to be an extremely notable saying? As said above, this statement is known worldwide, and goes way beyond other Wikipedia favorites such as truthiness. I would be glad to create a true article, not just a dictionary definition of it, given the chance. A lot really could be said about this notable subject. It will be a real shame if the administrator simply closes this debate based on a head-count without allowing recreation of a very notable subject. 128.118.226.88 09:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Berry Chill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please undelete the Berry Chill page. It is extremely significant to one of the hottest food crazes to hit the US -- froyo. What began with Pinkberry, ended with an investigation of the products real yogurt status. It was, in fact, NOT real yogurt. While the yogurt wars wage on in the US's East and West coasts, the fad has yet to hit the windy city (Chicago). Berry Chill will be the city's first yogurt restaurant, and one of the category's first to receive the National Yogurt Association seal, which proves that the product contains enough live and active cultures to be called real yogurt.It belongs on Wikipedia, along with its competitors that will surely find their way to Chicago soon. Berrychill 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has great significance Berrychill (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read our guidelines on handling a conflict of interest. The usual problems applied to this article: it wasn't written from independent and reliable sources; it didn't assert notability; too much of the content looked like advertising copy; and it smelled like a copyright violation (of advertising copy). Endorse deletion. Don't recreate unless there is independent coverage published in reliable sources. GRBerry 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heck...too much of the DRV request looks like advertising copy... --SmashvilleBONK! 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lizz Robbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm voting to overturn the deletion of the page, there was no justification why this page was deleted. It is agreed that the page could use reformatting due to the fact that the author was new to wikipedia. I would like the opportunity to re-do this page in the correct format. The person is notable because of relation to a National distributed product as well as a cult following per the notabililty (bio-persons) page of Wikipedia. It contained enough importance and even a little more compared to the other models in the same catergory "Hip Hop Models".Knicksfan4ever (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The AfD debate was small but correct, and correctly closed. This article barely rose above the level for a speedy-deletion per WP:CSD#A7, but is not on an encyclopedic topic. She's not professional in the area, and it's not even her day job to appear in such things, and there is no evidence that any of those routine activities have earned her particular third-party note. The Washington Post 'article' was just a mention that a local girl might win a competition and the only possible route to notability - the Maxim competition she failed to win. Endorse deletion. Splash - tk 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems in the AFD discussion. The original contribution was pretty clearly autobiographical (with all the normal problems that entails). Subsequent edits still failed to demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted criteria for inclusion. No new evidence was presented during the deletion discussion to rebut that point, nor has any new evidence been presented here. If there are other models with articles with equally low notability, the right answer is to nominate those for deletion, not to propagate the problem. Rossami (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per my reasoning on the AFD. Per this dif, the user who nominated this page for deletion review is Liz Robbins. Miranda 23:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep [6] You suggested someone having longterm, Lizz has been in the industry for over 12 years. Longer than quite a few people listed on Wikipedia. What evidence do you have that the deletion review is Lizz Robbins? (2 z's). It seems that hip hop models are being singled out on wikipedia, when you have other models with less significance. Knicksfan4ever (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the above dif. Miranda 00:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been invited along as the deleting admin, but I deleted the recreated page (East718 closed the AfD as "delete"). A substantial similar article was then created, after this deletion review had been opened; it was tagged for speedy deletion as a recreation, and (after checking it was, and seeing there was a DRV open anyway) I deleted it as such. Endorse my deletion of the recreation, which (it seems to me) does not address the points of the original deletion; endorse the original deletion by East718 as an insufficiently notable biographical article. BencherliteTalk 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still learning, I'm fairly new to this. Did you have the chance to review the updated page compared to the initial deleted page? How do you get invited as a deleting admin?Knicksfan4ever (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, admins can see deleted pages and I have compared the two. I was notified of this discussion by you in this edit - that's what I meant by "invited along" i.e. "notified of this discussion". BencherliteTalk 00:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorseOverturn and Keep User above has a very good point. Certain topics like hip-hop models and porn stars are being targeted by a certain group of wikipedians for deletion. The reasons given are usually notability when actually its the wikipedians proposing the deletion who are just not familiar with the particular genre or sub culture. Let's look at the facts Lizz Robbins was featured in a full spread in King Magazine one of the most popular black mens magazines in the US because she won their national contest. Lizz Robbins has twice been in Jet Magazine one of the most popular and most historic black magazines in the US. Lizz Robbins was in Maxim Magazine one of the most popular mainstream mens magazines in the US. Lizz Robbins was mentioned in the Washington Post one of the most important newspapers in the world. Lizz Robbins was a national spokesmodel for Remy Martin one of the largest and most prestigious liquor brands in the liquor industry. In fact there are lifesize cardboard cut outs of Lizz Robbins in liquor stores from coast to coast. Article needs cleanup to meet Wiki standards but the subject matter meets basic notability standardsTroyStewart (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions after comparing both deleted versions, no difference = valid CSD G4, valid AfD deletion. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep still no justification of reason for it to be deleted or if it's not meeting the "wiki" standards, give the author a chance to make adjustments. There are so many other pages maybe should not be on here, but this page has a strong caseKnicksfan4ever (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By listing the page here your opinion is implicitly understood to be "overturn". (If you wish otherwise you can say so now and we can close this review and get on with our lives, which I have no objections to.) There is no need to repeat "overturn and keep" multiple times and a lot of people see it as plain rude. Thanks. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still learning the rules, I saw that it was crossed out which I see as plain rude so that's why I repeated it, I wasn't trying to be rude, just re-stating what I saw was crossed out. Don't meant to take time out of anyone's life, it's the internet, just debating something I feel strongly about. Thank you for the clear explaination. Knicksfan4ever (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted nothing procedurally wrong with the deletion. No reason to undelete has been given. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 04:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was removed without discussion and when I noticed it, I added it to the discussion. At the time only 1 person had an opinion about it which I clearly felt like it wasn't justifiable and after adherring to the policies and rewriting the page it was still deleted. I'm still trying to learn what can be included in wikipedia, however, I feel the initiator stumpled across the page while on another page and felt the need to remove it because they felt it wasn't relevant to the page it was included on which was a sorority page. This page was not given a chance to be edited see TroystewKnicksfan4ever (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note: Can someone please STOP this? I am really tired of this user stalking my edits and speculating. I don't want to pass it to ANI, but enough is enough. Miranda 04:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not stalking, just discussing and making a case about why you nominated a page for deletion [7][8]Knicksfan4ever (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But at a talk page of a user not involved at all with this issue? Let alone, that edit does not bring up the deletion case, but about another issue entirely. I suggest to not make edits like what Miranda pointed out again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, AfD was not broadly commented on but there was a unanimous opinion of all but the article's subject/creator that notability was not sufficient. If TroyStewart thinks notability can be established, it would probably be best done in userspace and brought for consideration. --Stormie (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes please note that it was not unanimous I objected to the deletion. I think this is the inherent problem with Wikipedia that users who are not experts in a certain feild can exert undo influence like they are experts. I am an entertainment professional so I don't profess to know all the current chemistry scholars so I would not edit those pages and the same goes for people who are not in entertainment specifically urban entertainment. An example is Lacey DuValle a porn star who has been a top actresses for over 10 years, has done well over 300 movies, is considered the top black actress in the field and will soon be voted into the AVN Hall of Fame. Her entry was recently deleted for notability!!!! Yet as I look at the actresses still on Wikipedia there are about 75 much lesser known and new actresses who have pages. This was clearly the work of a rival actress or a vendetta against her somehow but it went under the radar. So on this subject that Wikipedia has a project ongoing by the way, the Wikipedia information is compromised and incomplete. This kind of thing is common on Wikipedia and needs to be cleaned up somehow. I just feel very uneasy with the ease that pages are dismissed and deleted no matter what the facts are. King, Jet, Maxim, Washington Post how can there be a question of notability?TroyStewart (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This comment was originally made by anon user:63.148.4.2 and subsequently signed by user:Troystew
      • Can you point to the article you're talking about? There doesn't appear to have ever been an article at Lacey DuValle. Corvus cornixtalk 19:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry Troy I don't see any dispute from you at the AfD discussion, and that's what I was referring to when I said "unanimous". Again, the delete opinion was on the grounds of notability, if you feel that it was incorrectly judged, and that you can create an article on Lizz Robbins which establishes notability by citing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, please do so! Ditto for Lacey Duvalle - you have made more assertion of notability in one post here than the entire article on her did in two and a half years of editing. Again, if you can create an article on her which establishes notability I'm sure it will be looked on favourably. --Stormie (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Non-admins can see the dif here. The article can be notable if re-written in a certain manner for inclusion and sources added, but barely IMHO. Miranda 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article Lizz Robbins that was highlighted above was not the edited version, the edited version was not given a chance before being deleted. I am not the originator of the article, but I was alerted when it was up for deletion so I came on here trying to receive some help, which I did not. Fellow Wikipedians, this is not a personal issue for me. Just trying to receive some help on how to get it corrected so the authors work was not done in vain. Thank you to those who have offered their assistance. I do plan to contribute to Wikipedia, especially on subjects like Alpha Kappa Alpha that I am a member of to ensure that is correct. Not trying to stalk or badger anyone, in a sense I am feeling that wayKnicksfan4ever (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't have to inquire about people editing certain articles, and diminishing their credibility about reading certain resources. That's stalking, which could have had you blocked from editing. I as well as others have been repeatedly trying to tell you that you are not notable for the encyclopedia, but you keep on repeating...the same point and beating the same dead horse, which is wasting my and others time. And, after we keep trying to tell you that you are not notable, you stalk me and personally attack me about my edits to sorority and fraternity related articles after I had hinted and told you to stop doing so, and didn't apologize for your actions. So, I and others highly suggest to you to NOT WRITE AN ARTICLE ABOUT YOURSELF, because that is a conflict of interest, fails notability and fails neutral point of view. I change my position. This article needs to be kept deleted and salted from re-creation. Miranda 03:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion which was proper. As for salting, I'm ambivalent, but given the COI which Miranda points out, I'm leaning toward that as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miranda is turning it into a personal war. Stalking? Are you kidding me? Isn't there a such think on here as BITING THE NEWBIE, which you are clearly doing and have cleary done to make your point. You are using the fact that you have been on here longer. If you read your talk pageI CLEARLY ASKED FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE. If you check the record I DID NOT create the article, the person who did obviously wasn't aware of the Wiki rules. Which is why I joined to help, which I did plan to edit. If you look at the other articles on Hip Hop Model, they were written the same way. Being including on that article justifies notability as well as other points that were made by User:Troystew. As far as editing the sorority pages, yes, I myself or anyone else can edit those pages for clarity and history, I am a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha, so if I want to edit that page as well as any other related pages I can. You are not the expert just because you read the history book, for anyone that is a part of a sorority or fraternity, knows it's more than that. You are clearly someone who obviously has interest in the sorority and I wish you luck with that. Someone else is going to correct and format Lizz Robbins, I didn't know that I couldn't edit, but when I tried it got deleted, but now that I'm aware someone else can handle it ANY VOLUNTEERS OUT THERE???. I also want to thank User:kww for all of his assistance in helping me out. I have not insulted or badgered you, you personal attacked me and it's human nature to react, so I think I as the newbie deserve the apology. Users like you will drive people away. Unlike Alpha Kappa Alpha or any other society, you don't have to go through any type of process or ritual to join. This is an informational website.Knicksfan4ever (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read WP:CIVIL. Keep your comments civil, discuss the situation and not the people involved. Corvus cornixtalk 18:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have been civil and have discussed the situation, if you read back you will notice that I was called out initially by the another User. Again I think it's personal or something against models in the hip hop worldKnicksfan4ever (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • this whole thing is really disturbing. why delete it? apparently lizz has an audience that interested in reading information about her. i think he body of work speaks for itself. if there is info that needs to be updated/revised, that's one thing, but to summarily delete the page and not consider her worthy to referenced as a 'hip hop model' is utterly ridiculous! Thapossibilities (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the comments about why Lizz Robbins should or should not be allowed to be in Wikipedia as well as searched for “hip hop model” and scrolled down to successful Hip Hop Models. What I can't understand is why someone mentioned that Lizz lacks notability when she is listed as one of the “Successful Hip Hop Models”. On top of that, Lizz is one of the few women who have their accomplishment next to their names in that section. However, Lizz is the only one under the “Successful Hip Hop Models” section who doesn't have a link to their own Wikipedia page. I read the discussions and I felt that Lizz communicated in a pleasant matter in order to absorb what the person was complaining about and ask for suggestions on how one should create her page so that it fits Wikipedia guidelines. There's no doubt to me that Lizz deserve her own Wikipedia page given her accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to concur with recent posts about Lizz Robbins. While I too am a newbie to Wikipedia, I have followed my soror's professional career and I feel as if she is being slighted and she should have her information posted on Wikipedia as she is a professional model/actress and a notable member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Incorporated.LaJuan LoveLaJuan Love 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • — LaJuan Love (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BencherliteTalk 18:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to those of you who can see what this is really about, I do appreciate it. I also appreciate determination and a fair debate amongst non-biased adultsKnicksfan4ever 01:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - no procedural issues with the AfD. Eventually, someone will create an article on her written in a neutral and verifiable manner. In the meantime, I suggest those with a conflict of interest avoid the subject for now. -- Kesh 23:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Music City Legend Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list - The article contained enough importance/significance to overcome WP:CSD#A7. -- Jreferee t/c 18:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deleted as A7 although there were clearly presented assertions of importance. -- DGG 18:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. Copyright violation of what appears to be their MySpace page. However, I would note that the deletion entry log was rather inaccurate - it omitted to mention that it had also been tagged as a PROD. Nevertheless, this cannot be restored. Splash - tk 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Skyliners Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy deletion; early DRV close - CSD G12 Blatant copyright infringement of nyskyliners.org. -- Jreferee t/c 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there any non copyvio content? There might be enough noncopyvio to stubbify DGG (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Comment - I believe this can be easily rewritten to be factual without being a copy/paste of their history page. Just requires a little bit of time and effort.Werecowmoo (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is copyvio content in every revision. In even the first revision, every paragraph contains copyvio material. None of them can be restored. Splash - tk 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio is clearly present from this specific page in the earliest revision and all later, and also likely from their 60th anniversary yearbook advertised thereon. GRBerry 20:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Grenadiers Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at this point, all that is there is a short copyvio description. DGG (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Crusaders Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly longer this time, but still copyvio.This is not the way to develop articles for a project. DGG (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I believe this can be easily rewritten to be factual without being a copy/paste of their history page. Just requires a little bit of time and effort.Werecowmoo (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can recreate the article at any time... the deletions were only of the copyright violations, it wasn't a permanent denial of an aritlce on this topic. --W.marsh 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Atlanta CorpsVets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page is an ongoing project by WP:WDC and would like a chance to rehabilitate page to meet standards Werecowmoo (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list - The spamy article was not so blatant of an advertisement to be considered a CSD G11 advertisement masquerading as an article. Also, the article contained enough importance/significance to overcome WP:CSD#A7. WP:SPEEDY doesn't apply, but deletion per AfD seems likely. -- Jreferee t/c 19:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very poor article, likely to be deleted by AfD. It does not meet the requirements for blatant advertising, since it requires nothing fundamental to remove it's over-enthusiastic tone and, quoting, "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.". Do not endorse G11, but wonder if there's any point in sending it to AfD where it is sure to die. Splash - tk 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is reasonably well mirrored here, at a GFDL site. Suggest improving it there until it clearly meets notability standards. GRBerry 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I see on the notability page, CorpsVets has gone on a national tour, won a major award(DCA Championship), is the most prominent representative in the field of drum corps in Georgia, and has performed for a work of media that is notable. This can all be referenced easily within the article. Werecowmoo (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fair enough, good-faith challenge to a questionable speedy. Such things belong in a full AfD. I have nominated it there so please, Werecowmoo, be quick to prove your claims. Splash - tk 20:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Slon in Sadež (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article suited all veriability criteria with the source being the article at the slovenian Wikipedia. --Cptukbo (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except another Wikipedia article can't be a reliable source. At any rate, it was deleted for not asserting any importance... and really, it didn't. It just described what kind of music the band made, but didn't explain if it was at all popular, important, etc. --W.marsh 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, the duo got the allnational Viktor award for being promissing young musicians. Would that, a list of less important achievements and a short description of their importance be enough for the restauration of the article? --Cptukbo (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts as the deleting admin are on my talk page which in part brought this here. I can't really find much on the "Victor award" as a notable source for this band. Khukri 17:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find any official record about the 2004 Viktor-s (out of date; otherwise,here's the official Viktor site with the list of this year's awards), but I got the 2004 list at a forum (please, take my word for it being true). You can read: V kategoriji strokovnih viktorjev: Igor Bračič in Jure Karas (the Slon in Sadež duo) za obetavno medijsko osebnost.
    If the lack of importance would remain the only problem of the article (notability was also questioned - here is their short description at a popular music site and three articles about them in the weekly politics magazine Mladina (here, first three)), then I would ask to get back the article so I could add information about their Viktor and their overall popularity.
    --Cptukbo (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion - CSD A7 No reasonable assertion of importance/significance applies. -- Jreferee t/c 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just mentioned that if the article would be restored, I would add the information about their Viktor award and about their importance for the Slovenian musical scene. Let me repete that the article was made following a red link at the List of Slovenian musicians and that other pages from that list (Pudding fields, Racija) have even less information about their importance. I would like to know why those pages are better than this one.
    --Cptukbo (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at those, an editor if so inclined, wouldn't have alot of problems having them deleted via AfD either. Khukri 08:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, my question didn't get an answer. If I
    *add information about their Viktor award, the ranks of their songs on the charts and describe their importance for the Slovenian musical scene, perhaps describe their popularity and
    *add the forementioned sources, perhaps cutting down on the information that could be considered original research,
    then, can I get the article back? One good explanation for a "No" and I'm off. --Cptukbo (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to give you an answer without WP:BEANS coming into play. You need to overcome the reason for deletion to recreate the article. It is not a matter of Slon in Sadež being important enough for an English Wikipedia article, there needs to be enough reliable source material that is independent of Slon in Sadež to create a Wikipedia article. If you recreated the Slon in Sadež article without referencing reliable source material, the article likely would be deleted at WP:AfD five days from the recreation. You can always create a draft article in your user space and get an admin to move it to Wikipedia space if it uses enough reliable source material. -- Jreferee t/c 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So if we agree that the band is important enough for its own article and if I use material from the forementioned sources (notable enough, I hope), giving a broader description of the band's activities and achievements, am I granted permission to recreate the artice? --Cptukbo (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Bring the completed article back here for discussion before you recreate it. You can write a draft in your userspace.Spartaz Humbug! 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as proper A7, Startaz has a good recommendation although not strictly required as speedy deletions have no preclusive effect. However, repeated recreations that keep failing just make more work for everybody, so best to do this in user space. If this group is notable, there should be lots of press coverage of them in the lively Slovenian press. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the Slovenian music scene seems a valid encyclopedic topic. Any red link from this list should not be speedily deleted. Sources can be added from discussion above. Catchpole (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
King George II Inn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Contested Prod. Would like a chance to expand the article. --evrik (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In fact, this was an A7 speedy. However, the article had been rather unfortunately edited in a rather zealous application of WP:V. I'll restore, revert and leave it to you to source the claims quickly enough that it doesn't suffer a repetition of the same fate. Splash - tk 15:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if this really is "the oldest Inn in the United States" and "the oldest continuously operated business in the United States" then obviously we should have an article on it. But I find those claims both to be a bit dubious and would like to see a good source. --W.marsh 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Christopher Caldwell(programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Still working on it adding references, reasons it should be there. This article is used by other articles (Multiplayer, Net Daemons Associates) ChristopherCaldwell (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christopher Caldwell(programmer). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ChristopherCaldwell (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 November 2007[edit]

  • Silver Screen Classics – Overturn as no consensus. Although the nomination rationale is not strong (i.e. vote count), later arguments in the DRV are much stronger, particularly those considering the poor deletion rationale and the fact that reliable sources were present but disregarded. The argument that there were no reliable sources would be the stronger argument if that were actually the case. This is pointed out eloquently by DGG and Mangojuice in particular. Triviality of sources is an issue of notability, not verifiability (and it is by no means clear that they are trivial). Issues of notability when criteria are ambiguous are left to community consensus. As this particular issue was not strongly focused on in the AfD, I will leave possible relisting at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle 02:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Silver Screen Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was recently an AfD debate on this article and if you count the votes, there are more in favour to keep the article then to delete it. This is a clear issue, more wanted to keep the article then delete it, but it was still deleted. The article needs to be restored. 99.236.63.51 (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Background - The page was deleted 11:23, 13 November 2007 per Channel Zero Inc. AfD. That deletion was improper because Silver Screen Classics was listed too late in Channel Zero Inc. AfD. Silver Screen Classics then was recreated by Musimax 20:08, 13 November 2007. The recreation was a proper recreation. The Silver Screen Classics page was nominated for deletion seven days later, on 20 November 2007. The AfD nomination was a proper nomination. The Silver Screen Classics AfD closed 26 November 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own Deletion AFD is not a vote - its a discussion against consensus. I stand by my reasoning on the AFD. Note that the page was recreated shortly after I deleted for the second time. I have salted the page and deleted it under G4. Spartaz Humbug! 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore: There were more votes to keep and it was found to be notable by the users in the debate. 99.236.63.51 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Musimax is the same individual as the ip editor as confirmed on my talk page Spartaz Humbug! 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because channel Zero Inc. was deleted, that should have no effect on Silver Screen Classics. MusiMax (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The phrase "silver screen classic" goes back to at least 1982[9], writing "Novelizations have been a staple of the book world ever since the 1920's, when Publishers Row first joined hands with Hollywood in hiring freelance writers to transform the plots of silver-screen classics into pleasantly readable fiction." The phrase is widely used by a variety of media outlets. That makes it difficult to sort out what info belongs to Silver Screen Classics (Channel Zero) and what silver screen classic info is not relevant. Silver Screen Classics (Channel Zero) launched on September 2, 2003. However, there doesn't seem to be enough info to support an article. There might be some info here (search Silver Screen Classics). Despite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc., there is more than enough reliable source material for a Channel Zero Inc. article and info on Silver Screen Classics (Channel Zero) should go there (if consensus permits recreation of Channel Zero Inc.). -- Jreferee t/c 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure there is more than enough reliable info for an article on Channel Zero, as gets clear in the AfD. And I'm doubtful its channels (see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_22#Maleflixxx_Television) can help a lot with that. Basically, I would like to see some "real world" connection - that channelcanada.com mentions a Canadian channel doesn't really tell a lot. (And I might be mistaken, but when I tried your search above, the articles in the search results would not be about this channel - it seems it simply searched for "silver OR screen OR classics"). --Minimaki (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep. The closure here was against consensus and went significantly out on a limb in interpreting policy, and in dismissing reasonable arguments. I don't see why TV channel that is included in lineups non-trivial numbers of people receive should be treated so skeptically. There were sources: just because they weren't online doesn't mean they don't exist. I see no reason our coverage of TV channels in real lineups shouldn't be comprehensive, but the closer felt this was a principle that shouldn't be up to the community, and in doing so, was overstepping. Mangojuicetalk 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse close Endorse close - The keep arguments centered around the topic being important. However, being important is not enough to satisfy Wikipedia's article standards. There needs to be enough independent reliable source material to support a stand-alone article. The delete arguments focused on the lack of independent reliable source material and that argument was not sufficiently challenged. Since the delete arguments were the stronger arguments, the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. -- Jreferee t/c 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I revised my position in view of the bad deletion rationale. Close reasonings are important because they allow the losers to accept the outcome. The closer needs to present an impartiality and a reasoning based on the consensus discussion. Presenting a close reasoning that implies that the close reasoning was based on a personal decision and not consensus doesn't help in maintaining acceptance of process. Please choose your closing words more carefully. Instead of "I don't buy that every channel is notable", a statement such as "Consensus doesn't buy that every channel is notable" may have made a difference. -- Jreferee t/c 19:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be just as bad a closing rationale in this case since first of all consensus does not have to be 'obtained' to keep an article, which is what your suggestion would imply and second one of the deleters was meaningfully challenged on their point and failed to respond to that in any way. Splash - tk 20:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would have been a better closing rationale, but agree that it might not have been a good closing rationale. I'm thinking WP:BEANS could have been invoked as well. -- Jreferee t/c 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for bad deletion rationale There were sources, but the closing admin said "I couldn't verify either source listed without logging in" that is not a reason for deletion. Paid sources are acceptable, as are ones requiring login. They arent for external links, but they are for references. DGG (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can't evaluate a situation because you can't or won't login to something, then do not close the debate. Simple as that. Given the impermissible closure rationale, and the clear lack of consensus, overturn and close as no consensus. Splash - tk 20:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, keep arguments were exceedingly weak and based only on WP:OUTCOMES and the existence of articles on other, more notable television channels; one such argument was to keep only because it is a TV channel at all - no guideline states that they are inherently notable. No one bothered to indicate how the subject was notable with reliable sources. AFD is not a vote. --Coredesat 07:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion arguments were based solely on the fact that it was deemed "not notable" by the fact of no reliable and independent notable sources to confirm its notability, which there are! How can you not say that there were no sources, there are two there and still you say there were none. MusiMax (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of the sources are trivial. All we can gather from them is that the channel started broadcasting. --Coredesat 21:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There needs to be enough independent reliable source material and the two cited sources don't seem to provide enough independent reliable source material for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Since Silver Screen Classics sends signals out over the public air waves, they probably have government licenses up the wazoo. If this is real important to you, you might want to hoof it to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and see what documents they have produced on Silver Screen Classics. You also might want to check court filings and publications at a local library likely not available on the Internet. -- Jreferee t/c 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion AFD is not a vote count, the DRVer's basis is purely vote count results which is insufficient reason to overturn anything. Even if we thought that it merited consideration, the closer got it right. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain why? The closer wasn't arguing from policy, they were simply setting their own opinion above everyone else's. "AFD is not a vote count" doesn't give carte blanche to ignore the majority opinion. Mangojuicetalk 14:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the closer thinks certain arguments are weak, he or she can say so. --Coredesat 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carte blanche, no; discretion, yes. Majority opinion is embodied first in our policies and guidelines, and only secondarily in the rough concensus of who shows up during the XFD discussion to weigh in. But you know that. I think that the discloser got it right, and sometimes when things aren't a vote, the majority who show up on election day(s) doesn't prevail. Carlossuarez46 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Junip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Edit- I'd like the source copied to my userspace so I can address the problems that led to deletion. Thanks. LiamUK (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable, though it may not have been asserted. Certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. Along with Black Refuge EP, I'd be glad to try and fix them up if someone put the articles back up. LiamUK (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and expand/cleanup/source. The group was formed by José González and a Google search churns up plenty of hits, including reviews and profiles. Chubbles (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, involvement of José González meets criterion #6 of WP:BAND, that's assertion of notability sufficient for this not to be a CSD A7 speedy. --Stormie (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy - The assertion of importance/significance needs to be in the article to overcome CSD A7. There was nothing in the article to indicate that José González was otherwise notable and the article contained no assertion of importance/significance. -- Jreferee t/c 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore- If it was restored, I would fix it up. The problem here is not that the band and their EP are not notable, it's that this fact was not asserted in the article. This would be easily fixed, and if a prod or cleanup/improvement tag had been used instead then I'm sure it would've been. A speedy was unnecessary. LiamUK (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per A7. If someone wants it in their user space there's a place to ask above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooh, I didn't know that, thanks. LiamUK (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Japanese citrus – Keep deleted. Although this discussion has focused too much on the somewhat over-the-top content of the nomination statement (such issues and accusations on both sides should be taken elsewhere), and the regrettably shallow closing statement is swept under the rug, there is still a strong underlying consensus that recent CfDs and this discussion reflects a much stronger prior consensus existing for the deletion of this sort of category. – IronGargoyle 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Japanese citrus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Deleted against consensus, which was clearly "Keep." Add censure (one-week block) against the admin who performed this deletion against well-reasoned consensus. We do have rules at Wikipedia, and flagrant violations of our own rules, again and again, lead the general population of editors to believe that admins are above our community's own rules. Badagnani (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn — besides being a tit-for-tat nomination contrary to Category:Korean fruits, the reasons given for deletion (indeed, which were the only argument made for deletion) were addressed in the negative by the reasons for deletion — namely, the argument was that said citruses were native to Japan, and were properly judged "Japanese citruses", and that the category was underpopulated. However, all of the arguments for keeping argued that three was enough, and there was no compelling reason offered from why it was insufficient; the purpose of categories being to group like objects, and this being a valid and encyclopedic grouping. I don't see a proper interpretation of the debate here — instead, it seems the closing admin substituted their own reasoning, or interpretation of how many is "sufficient" for discussion. --Haemo (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/speedy close - The closer interpreted the debate correctly; bad faith DRV nomination reasoning. Using "Japanese" citrus, "Korean" citrus, "China" citrus as categories apparently gets into POV contests. There is plenty of reliable source information to improve the Japanese citrus article. Once that is done, I don't see any problem with using Japanese citrus in articles such as Yuzu, which is listed by many sources as being a Japanese citrus fruit. However, country citrus categories seem to give too much POV ownership to a citrus. Using Japanese citrus in prose permits reliable source citation and proper, NPOV characterization of the citrus. -- Jreferee t/c 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. I don't see any inherent problem in classifying fruits and vegetables by their country of origin, and the discussion was not related to this consideration. Instead, it focused on the population of the category under consideration. The nominator here is a bit histrionic, but his argument is valid. --Haemo (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classifying fruits and vegetables by their country of origin seems like it would be fine since there likely is an ultimate authority that can be cited. If you know of that book, please list it in this discussion. Classifying fruits and vegetables by their country of use is not acceptable, obviously. It does appear that the delete reasoning focused on personal opinions more than what reliable source material says about the categorization. The CfD does not seem to apply to a category such as Category:Citrus originating in Japan. -- Jreferee t/c 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Subcategorizing by country of origin is simply one method; however, if you would take a moment to familiarize yourself with how Asian ingredients are subcategorized, you will see that this category is valid and valuable for our users editing and researching such topics. "Japanese citrus" or "Korean fruits" are both highly important subcategories allowing one to easily find the information one needs, when editing or searching about ingredients used in these East Asian culinary traditions. This has nothing to do with "ownership" of these fruits, but the fact that they are integral to the nation's culture, cuisine, and culinary traditions. Badagnani (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was the point of the discussion; everyone agreed to remove citruses used in Japan, and include only citrus which are Japanese in origin. That was not being discussed here, as it was settled. The outstanding issue was whether or not the three remaining fruits were sufficient for a category. --Haemo (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have made Category:Fruits originating in Asia and Category:Japanese fruit. They have a bigger scope and could list many more articles than just citruses. There are various dog breeds, cattle breeds, etc. that could be categorized by national/regional origin also. So it should be ok. --Mfugue (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any need for it; the parent Category:Citrus is far from being overpopulated, and dividing it up is merely over-categorisation. - MPF (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was not the consensus of the discussion on the page. There was no consensus that the category was overpopulated, which was the reason for deletion. Substituting your personal opinion as closer is not appropriate. --Haemo (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was NOT the closer; I knew nothing about this until I was asked to take a look in here a few minutes ago - MPF (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Haemo almost certainly simply used "your" to mean "one's". Joe 23:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Editor MPF has great expertise in botany, but clearly hasn't thought out his/her support for this cuisine subcategory's deletion. The category does not regard fruit trees but instead fruits, as used as ingredients in the cuisine of Japan. There is a difference. Badagnani (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - grammatically, 'Japanese citrus' isn't a category (both are adjectives I believe), but more importantly, Mfugue's categories appear to capture any entities that may fall into this category. WLU (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You need to take a wider view. It may be "over-categorization" for your purposes, but for the purposes of properly subcategorizing Japanese ingredients, it is a logical and appropriate subcategorization. Further, the intent of this deletion review is the highly improper close of the discussion by the closing admin, showing flagrant disregard of WP's own rules. Thus, your opinions regarding supposed "over-categorization" are rather immaterial in light of this more important issue. Badagnani (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I see no reason to have this category; none of the arguments given above are compelling. Inappropriate action by an administrator is not a reason to have a category. Perhaps an administrator acted incorrectly, but this is not the forum for that discussion. This forum is for the discussion of categories, not administrators. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from CfD closer. CfD is not a vote, it is a discussion: the job of the closer is to weigh consensus, and (per WP:DGFA#Rough_consensus) "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)".
    My first step towards closing was to check the nominator's assertions and to see if they were "based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious" (per WP:DGFA#Rough_consensus, again):
  1. "except three species in the category such as Natsumikan, Iyokan, Amanatsu, the rest of the fruits are all from China or other foreign countries and are found throughout East Asia". I read every single of the articles listed, and it did indeed seem to be the case that these fruit were nearly all described as being either indigenous to China or indigenous to East Asia
  2. "Wiki has only a few country names tagged onto fruit category like 'Category:Wine grapes of Italy, Category:Wine grapes of Greece." I checked the categories, and that was correct
To check the background to the second point, I compared it with Category:Vegetables: no by-nationality subcats there.
Then to the "keep" arguments:
  • Badagnani: "Citrus is a huge category and splitting off citrus fruits that are endemic to Japan is a very logical and valuable subcategory". Maybe, but the nominator was correct: only 3 of the fruit are exclusive to Japan. If the "endemic" was to be read as "native to Japan, but not necessarily exclusive", that might be more appropriate, but the proposal did not suggest categorising the fruit by all the countries to which they are endemic, only Japan. That sounded like a recipe for who-owns-which-fruit category wars.
  • Hermeneus: "per Badagnani"
  • Haemo: "I don't see any reason why "only" three native plants are not sufficient for a category". (WP:OCAT#SMALL cites several precedents)
So there was no plausible rebuttal of the nominators assertions, and the only other issue introduced (by Haemo) clashed with a guideline. The most pertinent comment was probably the non-voting suggestion by Peterkingiron: "would the solution not be to have a category something like "East Asian Fruits".
Given all that, it seemed to me that the arguments for deletion were by far the strongest, and that Peterkingiron's suggestion seemed to provide an alternative approach which would probably prove workable.
If Badagnani believes that there are grounds for blocking me, that proposal should be made at WP:ANI, not here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, I do feel there are grounds for a one-week block, for your violation of community norms. Further, your comment shows that, again, you have not read the comments that have stated that the categories do not show "ownership" of fruits but instead are subcategories of "Japanese ingredients." This is how Asian cuisine categories are subcategorized, allowing our users to more easily find specific types of ingredients. Thus, these are citrus fruits that are not necessarily "owned" by, or first grown in these nations, but intimately associated with the cuisine of that nation. Again, the closing failed to take this reasoning into account. The fact that you show you apparently haven't even read this reasoning nor taken it into account is disturbing, nearly as much as you closing a delete proposal clearly against consensus. The fact that the categories were actually removed from all the articles without replacing them with a "Japanese ingredients" category (even leaving some of them without any category at all!) shows even further bad faith. Please explain in greater detail how I may go about proposing censure of your behavior. thanks. Badagnani (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One thing I certainly agree with Badagnani here is that when the tag was taken off for Japanese citrus, the category tag for "Japanese ingredients" should have bee added back and this was a poor over site that does happen occasionally and should be properly addressed with the bot that removed the "Japanese citrus" category tags.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above clarification. --Haemo (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - And I appreciated the clarification between country of origin and country of usage by those above (and of course, BHG's clarifications). - jc37 22:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse decision to delete - This is a nomination not only to over turn the decision, but as well punish an admin. whom used proper deduction to delete the category. Addressing the decision to delete, the admin. BrownHairedGirl gives proper reasoning for deleting the category. CFD is not a "hand vote count" it is based upon proper arguments on each side. As consensus is built over proper arguments, I believe the admin. made a proper decision, and even if it is deemed she did not, we are all human, and in making a non-malicious mistake, she should not be punished by being blocked the request for such seems extreme and unwarranted, especially with the fact I believe she made the proper decision. To address the actual category, there is no need to have so many finite categories as they end up confusing users of Wikipedia. Especially when it comes to this topic, if we were to categorize every citrus item into countries, we would find ten+ tags for some citrus, as they exist in so many countires. Origins of citrus are dubious as well, as much of the origins of produce items are argued by scientists and anthropologists, let alone those who do not study those topics. It is better to place the citrus items under an article labeled List of Japanese ingredients and let people see them there.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - One would think that a long-time and skilled editor specializing in cuisine articles would see the value of subcategorizing ingredients by type. This is a long-standing procedure and citrus fruits (or fruits in general) are not different in any regard from other forms of ingredients. Such subcategorization does not "confuse" any editors; in fct, it has the opposite effect of subcategorizing a profusion of ingredients of all types, in subcategories by type. It would be greatly helpful if editors would visit the various national cusisine categories and take some time to familiarize themselves with how they work before voting "delete." Maybe, however, this is a bad idea, as the "delete page regulars" will show up and begin nominating all ingredients subcategories for deletion, under the justification that nations don't "own" ingredients--without taking the necessary time and thought to see that these ingredients only include ones that are integral to the cuisine being categorized. Badagnani (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what your intention is Badagnani, but I really wouldn't even think that a category called French citrus, Italian citrus, Greek citrus etc., labeling them under one cuisine would give the connotation that the fruit is relegated to that one cuisine. So let's say in Italian cuisine, the Blood orange which is originally from Italy was labeled as such, does that mean that it is from Italy, or that it is only found in Italian cuisine or that one can only get it from Italy. None of which are true actually, because much citrus found around the world originates from the Middle East, which is how the blood orange got to Sicily. In turn, as some of us know the origins of the blood orange, do we label it with Italian citrus, Middle Eastern citrus, and even American citrus because it is popular in America or even to Sicilian citrus because they are grown in Sicily. So hopefully, you see from this example how one can get confused by that sort of labeling. I think the list page which I'm sure you just saw a comment from me on suffices as well as a link from the List of Japanese ingredients page which in turn is linked from the Japanese cuisine article.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As we've discussed before, the same criteria don't apply to all categories. Thus, "Finnish citrus" would not be a useful category but "Japanese citrus" (or Korean fruits) quite useful as a subcategory, assisting our users in breaking down the very long and varied list of ingredients in the "ingredients" subcategory. Badagnani (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, interpretation well explained by closing admin, and DRV nominator has no counter arguments, just querulous demands that User:BrownHairedGirl be blocked for coming to a conclusion that he disagrees with. --Stormie (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BHG at the time gave no reasoning whatsoever--an explanation might have made the bad feeling expressed in this review unnecessary. DGG (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I'm not even sure Category:Japanese fruit is all that useful, and this certainly isn't. I don't have enough information to comment on the censure, but in my experience, admins are often lax in explaining their reasoning, and that ordinarily leads to controversies such as this.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On the contrary, the review is necessary because the closing admin did so clearly against consensus, and, from his/her comments above, failing to show understanding or take into consideration of the reasoning of the majority of editors commenting in the discussion. Further, the closing admin shows, from his/her actions and comments little or no understanding of the practice of subcategorizing Japanese ingredients (or even the entire idea of subcategorizing cuisine categories). Badagnani (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The nomination on Korean fruits two days earlier was clearly a delete, and this was a logical outgrowth of that. BHG's rationale stated there was good enough, and didn't need to be stated twice (though she may wish she had). Finally, Badagnani, suggesting a discussion closer should be blocked in the DRV nomination is a guarantee that I (and likely some others) won't agree with the nominator.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We all experience bad feelings. However, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. The lack of a closing statement by BrownHairedGirl (BHG) does not justify assuming bad faith and making Ill-considered accusations of impropriety in this DRV. It was not necessary to act on those bad feelings and continuously act on those bad feelings in this DRV. It is clear by the growing consensus in this DRV that BHG's actions were within a closer's discretion and certainly were not so out of bounds to warrant the disparaging remarks about BHG in this DRV. I think that apologizes to BHG are in order. -- Jreferee t/c 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Deletion so far against consensus must be countered, lest our general population of editors come to the belief that admins are not bound by any of WP's own rules whatsoever. This is the issue, not one (the only, here?) editor's assertive pursuit of this crucially important ideal. Don't ignore the root necessity of this DR, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am the person who physically deleted the category. But please, before anyone is blocked, allow me to explain. I was working on cleaning up WP:CFD/Working. Someone else had listed this category under "Empty then delete". I'm not sure who physically depopulated the category (most likely a bot) but this category was at the stage where it was ready to be deleted because it was empty and the deletion discussion was "delete", so I processed the request and deleted the category. I had nothing to do with the CfD discussion, nor was I the one who closed the discussion as delete. I was simply clearing an admin backlog. And if I am at fault for not being more careful, I apologize and I would not consider it wheel warring if someone overturned my deletion. I'll forgo commenting on the merits of the closure or reasons behind the deletion.-Andrew c [talk] 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for the long explanation; however, simply taking care and replacing/substituting the proper upper-level categories for the deleted ones (and certainly not leaving any article with no category, as you did) is imperative, in this case and in all future cases. Thanks for your attention to this. Badagnani (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm crazy, and I just checked my contribs to be sure, but I clearly did not leave an article with no categories. If I am mistaken about this, please show the diff for where I removed all the categories from an article. People make mistakes, and I apologize if I am mistaken now, but I believe your accusation against me is mistaken. It was someone else who depopulated the category. All I did was delete a category that was empty which was on an admin-only list called "Empty then delete".-Andrew c [talk] 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diff. This is only one part of the problem; the essence is that you tried to save time by having a robot make the edits instead of an actual human brain. For example, Shekwasha and several of the others remain in no citrus category at all, days after the category deletion. This sort of unthinking mode of editing should never be allowed to happen, then, now, or in the future. Your attention to this is greatly appreciated; a number of bot-operators do not even bother to answer when they are alerted to such errors. Badagnani (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough. Please consider this a warning: If you (User:Badagnani) uncivilly accuse another Wikipedian in this discussion (here or on some talk page elsewhere) once more, you'll be blocked for at least 24 hours. (please note the accent on "incivilly". This is in no way to suggest that you can't positively contribute to the discussion.) But as it stands now, your remarks have been repeatedly uncivil, and are just becoming rather disruptive to this discussion. - jc37 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. Would you now take a moment to kindly inform me of the status of fixing the problem that was outlined above? Many thanks, Badagnani (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very kind of you if you would let me know the status of fixing this problem (outlined above), which has as yet not been addressed. Again, many thanks. Badagnani 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion closer properly interpreted debate. A word to the wise (who don't need it) and the rest who (won't heed it) - when someone comes to DRV wanting to punish someone for closing an XFD not to his or her liking it is an WP:AGF violation on the DRV nom as well as an WP:AAGF violation. It is a prelude to wikidrama, and just not fair. Admins are people too, if you want to pontificate on who is above the rules, DRV is not the forum. If you want punishment, this ain't the complaints department. And were I anywhere near the borderline on whether this was closed correctly, I would have tipped toward defending the actions of a good admin working in good faith against a punishment-seeking DRV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Bazuka – Speedy deletion overturned per WP:DP, notability was clearly asserted through chart position and speedy deletion had already been declined by an admin – trialsanderrors (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bazuka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted out of process. Was speedied as an A7 when the group scored a major hit in the 1970s and the article cited sources (All Music Guide and/or Joel Whitburn's books). The group (or perhaps one of the redirects, which were also deleted) was even listed on one of the Missing Encyclopedic Articles list as having a song that deserves its own page. Requesting that the article be restored. Chubbles (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore I was inclined to speedily restore this, but I can't find any evidence for the #10 claim, although it seems to have charted. In any case, a clear assertion of notability that needs to be investigated. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Chart data is available here. (Contingent upon restoration, I will add full US chart data.) Chubbles (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list - Speedy wasn't so out of process. However it is a group from the 1970s and thirty+ years makes it likely that someone wrote about them and that such information probably is on dead trees not published on the Internet. AfD might help bring out reliable sources. The topic probably could be covered in a Tony Camillo[10] article (and there might be room for both Tony Camillo and Bazuka to have their own article. Comment - The info I found on the topic is (1) The Star-Ledger (May 1, 2004) Retro Legend: Tony Camillo . He put Gladys Knight on that midnight train to Georgia.; Page 31. (2) Management Team at VMG Poised for Industry Shift. -- Jreferee t/c 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Pros from Dover – Deletion endorsed. Like many DRVs in the past, this debate shows consensus that there is no quorum required at AfD. – Chick Bowen 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pros from Dover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No quorum, should have been relisted or closed as no consensus; deleted with zero Delete comments made. Closing admin has retired hence cannot request undeletion that way. (FWIW I would argue that this is an extant albeit minor American idiom, I wrote the article because I heard the idiom used on a current TV show.) Apparently the article was improperly changed to be about some non-notable magazine or something, and was deleted in that state; but the solution should have been to restore the proper state rather than delete. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Articles with zero reliable sources can't be restored. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But (1) DRv is supposed to be about the AfD, not the article, and anyway (2) the article says the the source of the idiom is the book M*A*S*H, which anyone can confirm by reading the book. Herostratus (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be original research. Corvus cornixtalk 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really. We don't need a secondary source to confirm that "Pros from Dover" was used in M*A*S*H. The other points have been rebutted below, so I don't need to repeat the arguments. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). We have considered and rejected the requirement to have a quorum for deletion discussions. Others are presumed to have read the debate and consented to the then-current opinion by not expressing a contrary opinion.
    Note: My opinion is influenced by the content of the deleted page which was clearly not encyclopedic in that it was a mere definition and origin of a phrase. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That content belongs at our sister project, Wiktionary. I have no objection to a temporary undeletion for the purposes of transwiking. Rossami (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no quorum at AFD so the deletion seems okay. I would suggest a redirect to the M*A*S*H novel... the idiom might not be notable enough for an article, but that a book coined a popular phrase is a notable thing to mention in the article on that book. --W.marsh 17:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close/permit redirect to MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors. - The nominator's position was delete and that was not rebutted. The AfD lasted at least five days, so everyone who wanted to comment did so. The closer interpreted the debate correctly. Comment: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has a nice write up on the topic. "Pros from Dover" has made its way into being used by a variety of sources. Also, it is the name of a business and an acting troupe. Add new "Pros from Dover" material to the MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors and spinout with consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 19:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse — incorrect; the original nomination was an argument for deletion. No one contested it, or rebutted it during the discussion, so the closure was proper. --Haemo (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but hopefully the closing admin will relist next time there is no discussion. —ScouterSig 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second that - hopefully the closing admin will relist next time there is little discussion. -- Jreferee t/c 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with 150+ articles on AFD daily, we can expect many of these - someone made an argument for deletion, the article was neither improved nor defended in the afd debate - deletion seems proper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Donor Offspring Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe this page should not have been deleted. It parallels the page Donor Sibling Registry which is currently listed in wikipedia. Could you please tell me how the two are portrayed differently? I am happy to make modifications DCHealth (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I deleted this article... it seemed to be copied from various pages on their official site (see Google cache [11]). I consider copies of official material to be blatant advertising. If this describes another page that hasn't been deleted yet, I'd probably support deletion of that page too. --W.marsh 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While there is plenty of independent reliable source material for Donor Sibling Registry, I didn't find any for either Donor Offspring Health or Donoroffspringhealth.com. It is inappropriate to copy postings outside of Wikipedia and post them within Wikipedia since such actions likely violate Wikipedia's copyright policy. -- Jreferee t/c 18:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see, so if I recreated it without copying the verbiage from the original site, that would be okay? It seems that the donor sibling registry did the same? or even wait until the company is more established so there are more independent citings? --DCHealth (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way to do it is to summarize in the Wikipedia article in your own words the information presented by independent reliable source material and provide a footnote at the end of each sentence to that reliable source. The Donor Sibling Registry article is not a copyright violation of any website that I could find. -- Jreferee t/c 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a recreation which addresses the problems that led to the speedy deletion of the original article would certainly be OK. You might wish to create it in userspace, e.g. at User:DCHealth/Donor Offspring Health and invite comment before moving it to article space. --Stormie (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the admin's action was proper. If another version shows up that doesn't suffer from what ailed the deleted version, G4 doesn't apply, and whether this organization meets WP:CORP or WP:N is for another day and another forum. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice to the creation of a clean version. However, the creator needs to find some WP:RSs to establish notability. BlueValour (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image talk:Arrivavoyager.png (edit | [[Talk:Image talk:Arrivavoyager.png|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as the talk page of a deleted "fair use" image. However, it contained the debate as to whether the image was fair use or not, and is the continuation of the discussion at Talk:CrossCountry#Photographs, effectively the deletion discussion. May also be needed for a sockpuppetry investigation. RFBailey (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as per CSD G8. The image itself was deleted by Carnildo (talk · contribs) because a replacement image (freely-licensed) was found. Note that the talk page contained claims that a replacement image could not be reasonably obtained. Of course, if the page is needed for a sockpuppetry investigation, I would support undeleting it. I am unaware of any sockpuppetry investigation; had I known, I would not have deleted it. --Yamla (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I was only requesting the talk page to be restored, not the image. The trouble with the replacement image is that it turns out to be a copyvio. I suspect the uploader of the replacement to be a sock of the uploader of the original, but wanted to wait for a response from him before listing the case at WP:SSP. --RFBailey (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Seekda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The admin Tone has requested (Talk) to put on the deletion review the article about seekda. He admits that the style is now ok, but his only consideration is notability. It was my fault that the article got deleted several times, as I had no clue about using wikipedia when starting preparing it. Every time I was making a save, an admin was coming and deleting it. Anyway I took all the comments into consideration, I spent lots of time to study how similar articles about other companies look like. I believe that currently this article meets all the standards and its quality is comparable to similar articles about companies, which can be found on wikipedia. If you believe that there is still something, what could/should get fixed, please let me know and I will adjust it to required standards.

Tone believes that because several admins deleted it, he prefers having some more opinions in favor before restoring it. Please see his talk page Talk for our discussion. I would appreciate your positive response. Mzaremba (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should be restored. It has been deleted on grounds of both A7 non notable, and G11 advertising. Since it asserts it "has developed the first global Web Service Search Engine based on focused crawling, " it asserts notability, and A7 can not hold. It is seems a straight descriptive article on the software company without puffery, and so I do not see how it amounts in any sense to advertising. If notability isdoubted, afd is the place to test it. DGG (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was enough content that it should not have qualified for speedy deletion under either A7 (notability). The history shows that it was also speedy-deleted under criterion G11 (spam). That one is harder to call. The sources provided do not make a clear case that this company meets our recommended inclusion criteria for companies. I note that this draft was speedy-deleted 5 times by 4 separate admins. However, I also not that it was deleted each time within mere minutes of creation. Overturn speedy-deletion and immediately list to AFD. That will give 5 days for improvement, discussion and consensus to determine if an encyclopedic article on this company is reasonably possible. Rossami (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy restore/list - Tone was the last deleting admin, so it would be appropriate to permit Tone speak for the other deleting admins. Rossami's comment that the deletions by separate admins occured within minutes of each others justifies a conclusion that their actions effectively were that of a single admin, so comment by each of them is not really necessary to speedy act on this DRV. Speedy restore and list per above comments. Comment There is a Florida company called seekdata, but I was not able to find any info on the Austrian spin-off company Seekda. -- Jreferee t/c 18:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think you may be misinterpreting my analysis of the history. Each of the deleting admins gave a different justification. Each appeared to be acting independently and each appeared to conclude that the page was deletable. My comment about time was the duration between creation (or recreation) and deletion - my guess is that this page apparently got caught each time through the New Pages patrol. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • JAMAA – DRV on 24 November reopeoned at my request, it's original closer didn't notice the intervening AFD – GRBerry 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
JAMAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) (DRV1) (DRV2)

The previous deletion review was closed within hours of its opening and was not given sufficient time to run its full course. See DRV1 and DRV2. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close this nomination. Please stop abusing the DRV process. The first DRV endorsed closure but didn't prevent a reliably-sourced article from being created. That was ten days ago. The second DRV was speedy closed because nothing had changed in the ten days since the first DRV. Now, go create an article or give it up. Corvus cornixtalk 21:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Glitz – Permit creation The overlap of the Glitz software article onto a deleted BLP edit history resulted in the speedy deletion. The Glitz software topic has never been deleted so there is no basis to prevent its creation or anything to review at DRV. Since there is nothing to review at DRV, I closed this DRV early. The Glitz software topic now is at Glitz (software). Please feel free to improve on that article. – Jreferee t/c 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Glitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There were multiple procedural errors in the deletion of this page. It is fundamentally a notability dispute (and not in one of the A7 categories), so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. The most recent deletion uses CSD G4 (recreation), but my recreation is about the graphics library, while the previous article was about an avatar in a MMORPG. Furthermore, the article was tagged with {{db-nn}}, but the subject is not in any of the categories. Simply put, if someone wants to delete this article for notability, it needs to through the standard WP:AFD process. Superm401 - Talk 06:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Deletion Latest deletion cites G4, which does not apply to previously speedied material. Procedural flaw. the_undertow talk 07:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. not a valid G4 delete. By the way, if the previous article was about an MMORPG avatar, it does fall into an A7 category (web content) --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion - Public disclosure of private information of a person under 18 using an avatar for which there is no reasonable assertion of importance/significance in the article falls under CSD A7 and possibly CSD G10. -- Jreferee t/c 17:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation only if the article is renamed to Glitz (software). The name is appropriate per www.freedesktop.org/Software/glitz. As noted above, my own review of the matter was mislead by the prior deleted content. It makes no sense to continue with an article name that makes deletion mistakes likely. -- Jreferee t/c 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not appropriate to use parenthetical disambiguation when there is no other article by that name. Superm401 - Talk 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want an article on Glitz software or are you really after the confusion likely to be generated in overlaping the edit history of a BLP problem article (Glitz) with a different topic (Glitz software)? In any event, my purpose is so that we can keep track of attempts to recreate Glitz software once Glitz (software) is deleted at AfD and also manage attempts to recreate the BLP problem Glitz article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Overturn, allow creation of a feasible article G4 might not apply, but either A7 or A1 certainly do. Generally, I consider DRV nominations that are longer than the deleted article borderline disruptive. The last deleted article ("Glitz is a widely used image compositing library that relies on the OpenGL capabilities of graphics hardware.") neither asserted notability nor did it even explain properly what it was about. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand how, as we are here voluntarily, that a DRV can be disruptive. In this case, you may be correct with A7 or A1, but that was not why the article was deleted. This is about the administrative action, not the article itself. the_undertow talk 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Almost everything in Wikipedia is run on a volunteer basis, yet there is more than enough disruption going on. Your argument is like saying that there is no vandalism since all vandal fighters are volunteers. If you can't be arsed to write an article that meets even minimal quality standards you have no right to hold admins to a high standard of performing what is for a most part an annoying and repetetive chore. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do not overturn my deletion in present state, but allow re-creation. Exact text when I G4'ed was

    Glitz is a widely used image compositing library that relies on the OpenGL capabilities of graphics hardware.

    So that fails WP:CSD#A7. Suggest userfying of article by creator pending review by another editor. Although G4 may be procedularly incorrect at the time I speedied it, the article still failed A7 and borderline A1 so could have been speedied anyway with a different rationale. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see where software fits the A7 criteria. It's not one of the categories listed. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was also an external link: [12] --Stormie (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate. If this gets undeleted its just going to get redeleted under A7. Why don't you just write a proper article that actually says something instead of wasting our time with a deletion review? Also, have you discussed this with the deleting admin in advance or notified them of this review? Spartaz Humbug! 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC) - Oh I see you went stright to DRV without the discussion with the admin. Gah. can someone close this as recreation allowed? Spartaz Humbug! 21:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was clearly a short stub, but it was in progress and the deletion was inappropriate. I did notify the admin, though I didn't have a separate discussion, as discussion here seems to be fine. Superm401 - Talk 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation - completely invalid G4 deletion, as G4 does not apply to speedy deletions, and additionally, the article deleted per G4 was a completely different article on a completely different Glitz. But yes, as above, no point undeleting, just create a new article which asserts notability, the version deleted certainly does not. --Stormie (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wonk in me is aghast at this being deleted as a G4; previous deletions at this title were a copyvio (deleted as such) and somebody's Audition Online persona (A7ed), so have zero bearing on any other possible article here. Trying to justify this as an A1 or A7 after-the-fact isn't on, either; there was more than enough context, and doublethink like considering software (libre software, at that) articles to qualify as company articles just so they can speedied is one of the main reasons why getting a real consensus to expand speedy deletion criteria is so difficult. Overall, though, I agree with Trialsanderrors - this single-sentence substub wasn't worth bringing to DRV; I'd be able to bring myself to care more if, y'know, there had been some meat here.

    As an aside, I looked at the copyvio versions. While that text does appear at http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/glitz, the history there shows it predates our version, and there's no apparent license grant on that wiki, much of the same text also appears in e.g. SuSE package descriptions; that wiki page may have in turn been culled from free documentation. —Cryptic 01:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware the previous article was a copyvio, as I tagged it as such (part of the reason I felt obligated to start a new article). That has no bearing on my stub, though. Of course, I will help expand the article as soon as deletion is overturned (or recreation is allowed). Superm401 - Talk 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of database tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|CSD G11)

Last version had developed to a reasonable level of inclusion, no longer G11 or G4 in my opinion. After the first deletion of this page, subsequent pages were not identical recreations. The last full version [13] was fairly well developed. It wasn't perfect but it was certainly not speedy delete material. I believe this new user's page is currently getting unfair treatment. Note: I speedy deleted this article twice at the beginning of its life; my opinion has changed to at least give it a chance for development. (I'm a little unsure of procedure here: Should I undelete the article to show non-admins what it looked like?) Pigman☿ 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just did. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all, and a thorough troutslapping to all deleting admins. None of the revisions of this article were speedyable spam - though I personally believe they belong elsewhere, perhaps as part of wikibooks on their subjects, there is a very long-established and widespead practice of tables of software comparisons, as would have been shown at the AFD if it had been left open for more than an hour and a third. We don't speedy articles as spam because they're incomplete (particularly when they're an hour and a half old); we speedy them as spam where there is no material that would be included in an NPOV rewrite. The G4 deletions were particularly objectionable, as the article has no complete AFD debate, and the re-creations addressed the reasons for deletion in the aborted debate. —Cryptic 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I plead mea culpa on the first speedy deletion and my failure of WP:AGF. The initial version I saw had the feel of a circuitous form of advertising to me. A comparison article with only one product in it? But I should have realized that such a new and ambitious article would require some time to fill in. The creator even put up the "being worked on" template to tell others what was going on. To my deep chagrin, the creating editor's poor English skills in messages also influenced me. My only saving grace is I saw my error through the persistence of the creator in contacting me and I brought it here to rectify the mistake. Once a few others had deleted it as well, it seemed the easier course than merely undeleting it and convincing the others. My shame is boundless but I think I've learned the lesson. (stoically accepting troutslap as just dues.) I intend to offer my sincere apologies to the editor as well. Cheers, Pigman☿ 00:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a deleting admin I must say I was going on the other G4s previous. When said user left me a note, however, I re-checked the latest deletion, and the article seemed rather OK to me. I'm all for giving it a chance, it looks fine. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put the original AFD on the original article, as it looked to me like masquerading spam; (see [14] and especially the edit comments and lead paragraph of the article). However, in its current state, and with the work of several editors, I can see how this could be a worthwhile list article, and comprehensive as any of the other similar comparison tables. I withdraw my original objections, and would say that the article should now be kept. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think everyone concerned has agreed to let the article stand,so i suggest a Speedy Close to this discussion, with the article remaining as kept. Obviously it could be nom for AfD again, but I don't really think anyone would want to. DGG (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
JAMAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) (DRV1)

The deletion of this article was entirely unjustified and biased. The article was well-sourced and provided citations as to its origins and to its existence as a high school and college service club. Policies such as WP:CSB have been blatantly violated, and Metros, who has a personal bias against me, has once again used his influence to have this legitimate article deleted. See the AfD for more information. Also please see the article's first deletion review, after its absolutely ridiculous speedy deletion. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleting admin's comment. WP:SYN is part of the WP:NOR policy, and forbids us from synthesizing sources to support a claim that is made in none of the sources. None of the sources presented established that any two of the various groups called JAMAA had any relationship to one another. Accordingly, that claim is forbidden by policy. The consensus of the debate recognized this. With both policy and numbers going this way, there was no other way to close this debate than delete, because the article as written relied upon that original research claim. So I closed the debate as delete the existing article about the international movement/organization. There were a pair of reliable sources about the JAMAA group in Burundi, hence it is probably notable, and an article focused solely on it would probably be viable. Nominator is overly concerned about bias of editors, and inadequately concerned with the core content policies WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. (Additionally, WP:CSB is a group of editors, not a policy or guideline.) Articles that go beyond the available sources aren't viable. Endorse closure. GRBerry 01:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no process problems in the deletion discussion. I do not see any evidence of systemic bias in this deletion decision. Rossami (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted/speedy close - The same issues were raised fifteen days ago at DRV1. The present DRV2 request -- "I am unwilling to put together a draft article based on reliable source material but my assumption of bad faith about another editor is reason enough to permit article recreation" -- is not a basis to permit recreation of an article whose deletion review was proper. -- Jreferee t/c 16:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure there was nothing wrong with the closure of this debate. I see no evidence of systematic bias, or that an administrator misused "influence" and no-one has provided any. Hut 8.5 17:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How can so many people be so ignorant? How could two organizations named JAMAA, in all capital letters, not have anything to do with eachother, when they both are based on racial unity? Sources were provided as to its origins and to its existence in U.S. schools. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I closed this in error - I thought this was a rerun of DRV1. Sorry. Now open again. Spartaz Humbug! 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AfD. The claims that this article is being deleted due to "personal bias" against you is both ludicrous and dangerously bordering on a personal attack. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Mary G Peterson Elementary School – Consensus was to endorse the status quo. The same argument about a different article may be interpreted differently, given the shift in circumstances; this is why deletion here does not work by precedent. – Chick Bowen 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mary G Peterson Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD | AfD2)

I closed this AFD as no-consensus. The immediately following entry on the AFD-day was closed by another editor as Delete with almost identical input from discussants: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrtle E. Huff Elementary School. I did not provide a detailed argument for my no consensus decision at time of closing - my reasoning is based on all three potential outcomes providing valid (in my opinion) arguments for their suggestions. I don't like to see this inconsistency between two closures that have very similar inputs. Therefore, I'm asking for a review of both decisions to see whether I made the wrong judgment or, in fact, different judgments were justified in this case. Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There remains one unclosed AFD in the same day-set along a similar vein: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois (2nd nomination). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed this related debate as delete, based on a lack of sources after two years of existence. Xoloz (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Millburn School District 24 has two K-8 Schools: Millburn Central School and Millburn West School.[15] I believe the one you deleted was actually called Millburn Central, not Millburn School. It's old name probably was Millburn School. If no one cared to fix the name in over two years, I don't see this article as being missed. -- Jreferee t/c 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both, speedy close This seems to be an appeal to write policy on notability for schools rather than a procedural issue. As much as we strive for consistency, borderline cases such as elementary schools will end up in keeps, merges and deletes depending on the merits of the article (and a certain random element) until an agreed-upon guideline is established in the appropriate forum. But DRV is not that forum. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I had no intention of this being "an appeal to write policy on notability for schools". I am more concerned about whether I properly closed the AFD that I brought here on my own accord because I have been accused before of improper AFD closure and wish to avoid similar incidents going forward. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how you could've closed this any differently. The nomination rationale was weak, the discussion was mostly along the lines of "elementary schools are not notable - yes they are - are not" - etc. If the article itself is too poor to keep you can set a redirect with the stipulation that if improved upon the article can be restored. But I don't see a sufficient consensus for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Ignore, I was looking at the wrong AfD. As about the Nov 2007 AfD, I would've closed as a delete. The sole keep argument is unpersuasive after a year of no improvement. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both closures above (and my own of the related debate, if that is discussed.) As Trialsanderrors says, inconsistent results over a field of related articles are an expected fact of wiki-life. The articles may have displayed differentiating elements, not necessarily obvious from the AfD discussions, that led to conflicting results. A speedy closure of the DRV doesn't seem necessary to me, however. It may be that commenters (including the other closing admin) can offer evidence that will prove whether or not such differentiating elements existed -- in which case, an overturn of one decision or the other might be supported by a consensus. Xoloz (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - What about article x? is not a basis to request a deletion review. Comment Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument. Even if all three potential outcomes providing valid arguments, the closer still needs to determine the strength of the arguments. The nominator stated "Article still has no citations indicating any notability", there was a prior AfD that brought up the same concerns, and no one in AfD2 rebutted the lack of reliable source material. Delete seemed the strongest argument to me, but just about all of the discussion centered around the non-policy personal opinions "it's important"/"no it's not" which doesn't make the strongest argument strong. In any event, the present DRV review request is not directed towards such a review and I have no problem with a no consensus close. -- Jreferee t/c 17:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was the closer on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrtle E. Huff Elementary School referred to above. Perhaps I haven't been keeping up on the broader consensus on elementary school inclusion on WP but the opinions on the AFD definitely leaned to the delete side. I considered a redirect to the school district but when my investigation showed the school district mentioned in the article didn't include this particular school, this seemed to both cast doubt on the accuracy of the info in the article and its verifiability. The sole keep opinion, while detailed in its links, boiled down to referring to another AfD decision. While precedent is a legal method I am quite familiar with, my understanding is that Wikipedia operates on policy and consensus in these cases so I based my decision on those. I realize this DRV isn't about the AfD I closed but I thought it worthwhile to detail my decision-making process since it's referred to here. Pigman☿ 18:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the delete Overturn the no consensus and relist in AFD in the other one. If an article is loaded with merges/deletes only, it's under the admin opinion rather to merge the article or delete, no close as no consensus, as that's a keep. It's better to overturn the AFD for a better outcome This is a Secret account 23:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the only point I would make is that a relist should not be made procedurally in isolation from the present state of the page; the article has been radically improved since the close; I think the relist should only be supported if you are both unhappy with the close and you still think it's deletable. TerriersFan (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we are sometimes inconsistent (and acknowledging that that's not always a bad thing), I don't see any reason not to relist this particular decision. "No consensus" decisions can be renominated pretty-much at will. In the relist, please mention the related discussions. Rossami (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Amazing that we don't even trouble ourselves to look for consistency--the true sign of an primitive system, with neither explicit standards nor tacit agreement on either basics or details.. DGG (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both - this article had a couple of sources and some encyclopaedic content with a claim to notability that was slight but present. Consequently the delete !votes who stated no claim to notability, rather than challenging the extent of the notability, could be devalued somewhat. The other article had no sources and no claim to notability. Consequently, I don't think that the decisions were so inconsistent as to be of concern. TerriersFan (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both within closer's discretion - I might have closed the first as delete and kudos to Xoloz for the cojones to delete the other. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jamie Szantyr – Deletion endorsed. The named articles will be salted. If notability is claimed come back here to present the case with sources, please, and if consensus determines that notability has been established or warrants a new AFD, then an unsalting can be done. – Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie Szantyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)(DRV1) (DRV2)
Miss Talia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Talia Doll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Talia Madison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Talia Madison (Jamie Szantyr) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) (see One Night In Hackney's post below)
Velvet Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Velvet Sky (TNA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Currently employed as a pro wrestler by TNA, I believe that makes her notable now Emurphy42 (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Some relevant pages include:
  • Comment Have any reliable sources to back that up? Whispering 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has been discussed previously also with respect to the name Talia Madison and at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_19.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - I added a salt list above. -- Jreferee t/c 18:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted until someone creates a proper article in userspace, which I'm sure someone from WP:PW will be working on. It's also salted at Talia Madison (Jamie Szantyr). Practically every version I've seen (and there's been many) has only consisted of sources that consist of her website, Myspace or other sources affiliated with her. One Night In Hackney303 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for now. At the moment, I believe that the best option for the proposer is to create an article in userspace that is properly sourced from independent reliable sources and unambiguously meets the WP:BIO criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all listed articles deleted and salted until someone can show that an article is possible with reliable source material that shows the subject meets WP:BIO. As of yet no one has done so, and it doesn't seem likely that will be the case any time soon. --Coredesat 07:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, unless some reliable sources can be found. Mushroom (Talk) 09:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted perennial candidate who STILL has no reliable sources. Suggest future DRV attempts that do not include additional new reliable sources be deleted on sight. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate All the things/problems have been addressed and corrected (noteUser:ThisDude62/sandbox) as for Jreferee's claim to keep deleted, salting does not make for valid reason to keep keep deleted what if people were to delete Tyra Banks and salt it for sources/notability problems and we had every source known to man on Tyra thus making her notable and sourceable but we couldn't recreate because of salting where does that leave you?

--KingMorpheus (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unfortunately, that article has nothing new in it. --Coredesat 05:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pax_Galaxia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This game is notable. The reason for deletion was that the game was not notable and information about it is not verifiable. According to Wikipedia:Notability (web), at least one criteria of notability has been met: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". The game is distributed through RegNow, a software publisher: regnow.com I can't say anything about verifiability of the content because I don't know what the page had before being deleted, but I think anyone can verify the basics: this is indeed a working casual strategy game that is played by at least several hundred people around the world. -- 24.34.80.231 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comments: (1) please read my reply to Bobet before continuing the same line over and over. I have posted reliable, verifiable and independent sources on this game. Just because you say they are not reliable, verifiable, or independent doesn't make it so. (2) [especially to Cryptic] There are many people who contributed to the Pax Galaxia article; furthermore, why does it matter? (3) The deletion of the article was based on a half-hearted search for sources, resulting in a few poorly detailed reviews of the game and therefore a judgement that there is no information on this game. That is completely untrue, and I have provided the sources to prove it.--Agamemnus (talk)
  • Comment - Not only is there a lack of reliable source material for Pax Galaxia, there is no reliable source material for Dio Games[16], the company producing the game, and Diodor Bitan/User:Diodor Bitan,[17] the game designer. The topics are from Bucharest, Romania,[18] so there may be reliable source material in that location not available on the Internet. -- Jreferee t/c 21:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source material was obtained from the Diogames forum and the website of the game itself. If this article is recovered from deletion, the only things that should and will stay on it are factual information on this game as exists on any other game as this: development history, tactics, common game terms, etc. All of this information is obtained either from the game's forums, one of the many publishers of the game's current version, and the game's website itself. Surely you cannot deny the existence of the game (download it and play it), the author of the game (email him or look at his company's website), the existence of the company/organization diogames (look at the website)? --Agamemnus (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: None of those sources would be acceptable as the sole basis for the article under Wikipedia's prohibition against original research. The issue is not the existence of the game but, in this case, the lack of independent sources on which to base a neutral and encyclopedic article. Rossami (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." Really? What fact or concept would you suggest is unpublished out of any of the above? If the issue is not the existence of the game, what is the issue, then? I stated what would be included in the article, and they are all pertaining to already existing _factual_ information (neutral information) that is in the game (verified by simply downloading it) and concepts in the game., how can you argue that the game forum is not independent? True, it is moderated, but different independent people post on the forums, the only way people converse about this game en masse.--Agamemnus (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, that is not merely what we mean by "original research". Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. We synopsize the writings of others. Anything you learn by "simply downloading" the game is a primary source. While some elements from primary sources are allowed, they can not be the sole basis for an encyclopedia article. And no, game forums are not independent. They are staffed and populated solely by players of the game. Independent reviews would be, for example, those published by paid staff in magazines with established standards of editorial review, etc. Please go reread the policy again. Rossami (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Anything you learn by "simply downloading" the game is a primary source." I never claimed that this is not the case. I merely stated the obvious: mentioning that the game exists, the game mechanics, and the game concepts can be verified by downloading it. An actual description of the game can be sourced from other places besides the game website itself or the forums as I mention below Bobet's comments.

              And no, game forums are not independent. They are staffed and populated solely by players of the game. Independent reviews would be, for example, those published by paid staff in magazines with established standards of editorial review, etc. Please go reread the policy again.

              I never said that the game forum should be used to review the game. The people in the forums *are* independent from the game creator at least in the sense that the terms that they use about the game is not something the developer rammed down their throats. I am not claiming that this forum should be used to describe the merits of the game but merely the terms that players use.
              • Even if the forums are independent, that are not Wikipedia reliable sources. So you can't beef up the article with info from the forums, either. -- Jreferee t/c 01:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, since there's no new information given that would help in writing a real article. You're looking at the wrong notability guidelines. The one you cite is meant for eg. web comics that have later been signed up by a notable publisher, and doesn't really have any merit when judging games, especially games that aren't web-based (and that isn't the same as multiplayer games played through the Internet). I don't think there's a specific guideline for games, but the basic notability guideline still applies: has any reliable third party written about the game, so that there are some verifiable and neutral sources that an article can be based on? (Rehearsing press releases or the developer's own description of the game doesn't count). Simply existing isn't a good reason to a write an article about something. - Bobet (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The one you cite is meant for eg. web comics that have later been signed up by a notable publisher" That is your definition, but certainly not the Wikipedia definition. Its definition is: "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." This game is distributed solely on the internet through RegNow and other companies, as far as I know.
      The issue here is the existence of the game and enjoyment of it by at least several hundred people, and you would suggest that this is not enough? Should we then go ahead and delete entries of towns where there are less than a few hundred people, simply because they exist, and the small community around them can be completely ignored? Just like any other such game, the reason for this article is to let people know about the game and about its concepts, which have been defined by its community.
      Again, here we go:
      "has any reliable third party written about the game, so that there are some verifiable and neutral sources that an article can be based on"
      "Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria."
      "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"
      Therefore, that fits with the definition of what RegNow is, and we can confirm that RegNow can be a source. Since (by Wikipedia standards) we now confirm that Pax Galaxia is an actual game (which we can also test by downloading it for free), we can use that as a basis for factual information about the game, as well as any of the reviews of the game. (which include manifestogames.com, download.com, gametunnel.com, cnet.com, kingdownloads.com, gamedesignreviews.blogspot.com, and pc.ign.com) Since any of the reviewers have not played the game enough to know, we must refer to game concepts, strategies, and terms by examining the forum posts because that is virtually the only place where there is an ongoing discussion of the game. --Agamemnus (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They still do not meet our creiteria for reliable sources. An absence of information means we don't have an article not that we change our guidelines to allow one.
Source? --Agamemnus (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse until reliable secondary sources are provided. Afd closure was correct; Wikipedia is not a compilation of everything that exists, and if nobody else cares enough to write about a subject, neither should we. —Cryptic 22:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Please provide real world reliable sources if you want to have an article on this. Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse / Keep Deleted no reliable sources = no article. It's that simple. On a side note, I sincerely doubt a game played by "at least several hundred people" (as the nominator claims) has any serious hope of an article. While it's true that we do not make such decisions based on numbers alone, I've seen articles deleted on games with download counts well into the millions. While the reason for deletion is verifiability, it's also apparent that this simply isn't notable enough for an article and will not be unless circumstances drastically change. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read my response to Bobet? Are you claiming multiple review sites have no validity? --Agamemnus (talk)
  • Endorse deletion, seems clear-cut - forums are not reliable sources, so that leaves nothing for verifiability or notability, as the closer stated. --Coredesat 07:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Spime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD1 | AfD2)

Closer over-ruled a substantial keep vote on the rational that "No evidence of any serious usage beyond Sterling's writings and some blogs". He may have a valid opinion (I'd say it's untrue, if you search for it you find all kinds of references, especially in google scholar, and yes I;m aware theres a certain amount of noise there), and I wouldn't question a delete vote based on it, but to overule the debate and close it as a delet on the basis of such an opinion seems like it steps overstepping a line. Artw (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - A relevant page: User:Casey Marshall/Spime. -- Jreferee t/c 19:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Spime (theory) related to Dr. George Kayatta's mathematical Spime Factor,[19] not Bruce Sterling. -- Jreferee t/c 21:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD is not a vote, and that may be why the closure seems odd to you. We base closures on the quality of argument and how in line with existing policy it is. In this case the arguments for delete were directly based in policy, and the arguments for keep did not address those concerns. I think it was a valid close. 1 != 2 17:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ivan Illich, not Bruce Sterling, coined the term "spime". See New York Times 1982 (writing "They live in a different "space-time," which he calls, unfortunately, "spime," because - are you ready? - they can be mothers and the rest of us can't.") No, I'm wrong. Dr. George Kayatta came up with the mathematical revolutionary Spime Factor in 1972.[20]. Actually, Jazz legend Mose Allison totally made up the spime word.[21] No, I'm wrong again. Shankar Narayanan through Spime, Inc. owns the spime trademark. (trademark search). So Bruce Sterling already is behind the eight ball with his 2004 claim that he coined "spime". However, there is some reliable source material (1) August 10, 2004, (2) Missoula Independent. (August 19, 2004) Mose better blues; Legend Allison is loving the life he lives (search Missoula Independent for "spine") (3) Los Angeles Times. (January 29, 2006) When worlds collide. Shaping Things Bruce Sterling Mediaworks Pamphlets/MIT Press: 152 pp., $17.95 paper Book review by Susan Salter Reynolds (search archive); (4) February 1, 2006; (5) March 1, 2006; (6) May 15, 2006; (7) February 27, 2007; (8) March 12, 2007; (9) May 17, 2007; (10) Google books; (11) Google scholar. -- Jreferee t/c 19:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse Based on JReferee's exhaustive work, there might possibly be an article here, though the one deleted isn't it, or a usable start towards it. I'm even in doubt about the validity of the redirect. No objection to someone doing a proper article not based entirely on Stirling. DGG (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

Closing admin's reasoning is based upon a false dichotomy. They suggest that since there is no one infobox that can replace this one, it should stay, and that having a fundamentally flawed infobox is better than not having one at all. These arguments were not even raised in the TfD discussion. {{Infobox Criminal}} is more appropriate for convicted criminals (this hasn't been disputed). Fugitives who have not faced trial can use {{Infobox Person}} (or another if more appropriate). In the discussion, no-one addressed the undue weight that the FBI template places on the FBI's allegations. -- Mark Chovain 05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This seems more of a manual of style issue than a deletion issue. Predominate facts about a person have been used in templates. For example, {{Infobox President}} as seen in the George W. Bush article puts "43rd President of the United States" below his photo. The color scheme and placement of banner text in {{Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted}} seems to give too much emphasis and conveys tabloid sensationalism, but that should be fixed through a manual of style consensus discussion on the template talk page, not through deletion of the template. -- Jreferee t/c 07:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: It's a crap infobox but I don't see it being "fundamentally flawed". In the absence of anything else, the closer called the debate correctly. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I agree with prev remark: the infobox is kinda useless, but is based on a real and verifiable definition. `'Míkka>t 19:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I think I too would prefer a more subdued infobox design, and perhaps even a disclaimer (most wanted posters generally include something along those lines). But it's valid and verifiable, and as noted cannot be subsumed into {{infobox criminal}}. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And since the nom asked, I will address his last. The FBI is not "alleging" that someone is a fugitive. It is factually verifiable that these persons have convictions, indictments, or warrants against them, and the whole point is that they should be facing them in a court of law. The allegations are the things that have been used to make the argument for the legal status. The article should, of course, address these in a neutral manner. But being on the Top Ten Most Wanted isn't an allegation, it's a status. --Dhartung | Talk 01:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing administrator statement: WP:BLP makes us do funny things sometimes. Had this been almost any other infobox, I would have deleted it as there is a similarly themed and more widely applicable infobox in roughly the same category. ({{infobox criminal}}) However, for the reasons outlined in my closure, this usually satisfactory solution was not tenable. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Circles (comic book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Request email of source and usernames of significant contributors (or the entire history list) for attribution purposes. I am not currently contesting the deletion of this article, but I would like to merging Wikipedia's article onto WikiFur, as the deletion suggested it had some substance to it, and ours does not. GreenReaper (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Request that the edit history of this previously-deleted article be restored. The deletion was based on a view of the notability of the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards which was subsequently reversed. GreenReaper (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Interac (Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I think the discussion in the deletion AFD was flawed, and the decision should be overturned in favour of delete. J (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in what way? there seems to have been a good deal of irrelevant discussion, but the consensus of the more to-the-point comments seemed to accept the notability. DGG (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're not notable, the g-hits alone showed that. J (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This quote from DDD DDD sums it up best:
"The fact that there is so little information available about a company that does indeed plays such a large role in the education system here in Japan is troubling." J (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute! That was me arguing in favour of not deleting. Initially, I was arguing vigourously in favour of delete. However, over the past few days, my position has changed. Interac IS large here in Japan. I've always known that. And somehow, it seems, the company is able to create white noise around itself. That IS troubling. Very. My quote above was saying just that. To use my quote in favour of a delete is misconstrued. I was unsure as of two days ago. Now, it's an endorse keep. DDD DDD (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. I see nothing in the discussion that indicates any manipulation or other defect. I think the close as keep (rather than no consensus) was also valid. —C.Fred (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - They've been around since 1972 and they are over in Japan, so there likely is reliable source material but in Japanense publications. Keep an eye on the article and if no reliable sources are added by 22 February 2008 (3 months from AfD close), list it again at AfD citing lack of reliable sources. That usually carries a lot more weight the second time at AfD if the first AfD is close such as this one. -- Jreferee t/c 07:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep - there is no indication of any problem with the manner in which the AfD was conducted; discussion went on for quite some time, the article was edited and improved throughout the process, and the debate was closed in a fair and timely manner. This is now the fifth attempt by "J" to delete this article. The user has also unilaterally tampered with the posted AfD results on the article talk page and the AfD discussion page, changing "keep" to "no consensus" with the edit comment "fix the lie". --Ckatzchatspy 07:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wrote "This is now the fifth attempt by "J" to delete this article." What Links Here only shows one AfD. Would you please post links to the other four attempts by "J" to delete this article. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 07:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - here are the links for the deletion attempts (dates based on UT):
--Ckatzchatspy 07:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep - Jreferee....I checked and I think the article had been deleted but was re-created on 12 Sept 2007. I know there had been an article there before...very strange... it's not an article that I normally watch but I will do so now. User:GreenJoe had placed a proposed deletion box on the discussion page here [22] on 13 Sept 2007 a day after the page was re-created. I find User:GreenJoe's modification of the AFD result from keep to no concensus here: [23] extremely problematic and honestly it's the first time I have ever seen a user do so. I feel notability has been established and I already added a reliable source and will continue to do so. Statisticalregression (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 November 2007[edit]

  • Crysis 2 – Redirect endorsed. History was restored by Xoloz if needed for a future article. – Chick Bowen 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Crysis 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Since we have articles like Untitled Sonic RPG and Crayola Game I don't see why we shouldn't have this. There are sources out there to prove Crysis 2 exists and has been stated in the Crysis article. Thanks. Marlith T/C 19:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The difference is that those have official press releases, whereas the only source mentioned on Crysis 2 was a chatlog - not an official source, since there's no weight behind it. I have no problem redirecting it to Crysis until such time as there's an official source, but anything else is crystal balling. --Golbez (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the above. For goodness sake, Crysis only just came out! And now we're expected to believe a chatlog saying there's a sequel in the works? L337 kybldmstr (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive my, my mistake. Marlith T/C 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the same chatlog, though. Not an official announcement. Note it in Crysis, anything else is crystal balling. --Golbez (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that that might be a good reference for the article. It could be deleted should it prove wrong. Marlith T/C 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would make the Crysis article more interesting if Halo Wars, World in Conflict were listed in the Crysis article via a factual statement such as "Halo uses the names Halo Wars and World in Conflict." Of course, we can't draw any conclusion or link between the names, but we certainly can let the reader fill in the blanks. -- Jreferee t/c 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirection. For the moment, there are very scant reliable sources. I'll note that WP:CRYSTAL is NOT in the CSD, so a simple redirect in the first place would have been about 1000% better, and would have avoided this DRV. History should be restored, if anyone wants it. Xoloz (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Willa O'Neill – Restoration by Trialsanderrors of the edits that did not fall under the copyvio deletion reason. – Jreferee t/c 15:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Willa O'Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Undelete - article was deleted as a copyvio by a blocked sockpuppet but before it was deleted I had substantially re-written it. The subject appears to be notable as a multiple award-winning actress. The deleting admin is on a wikibreak, otherwise I'd ask him. Otto4711 (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion; write anew if possible, as that is the right way to fix a copyright violation. The sources in the article, if they were used appear to be IMDB and FanSite, neither of which ranks high on the reliability scale. Is there any solid sourcing available? GRBerry 14:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going by the cached version, the article was substantially re-written. That version bears no resemblance to the deleted version. Otto4711 (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm confused. None of the versions of the article were copyvio. The entire text of the delete version was "Willa O'Neill is a New Zealand actress." and it had a list of three awards and a list of ten filmography entries. Your substantial re-write essentially consisted of deleting the list of ten filmography entries and adding four sentences. -- Jreferee t/c 14:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I restored Otto4711's edits as non-offending. If someone think the article fails A7 or another CSD criterion, please speedy delete. Otherwise we can close this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Maleflixxx Television – Four deletions overturned, with consent of deleting admin. These will be relisted individually. – Xoloz (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Maleflixxx Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
AOV Adult Movie Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Movieola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
XXX Action Clips Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

These TV channels were deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. After User:Musimax recreated them, I speedily deleted it per WP:CSD#G4. Musimax states they are indeed notable, so I'm bringing this here to see if they can be recreated. I've left out Silver Screen Classics because it's undergoing an AfD. Spellcast (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn all - The above four articles were listed in the AfD four days after the AfD opened. The discussion prior to their 22:36, 10 November 2007 listing in the 6 November 2007 AfD did not apply to the four articles. Out of process deletion at AfD. Without an AfD deletion, WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. -- Jreferee t/c 07:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see how the articles were added a few days after the AfD. But if the company that owns the channels, Channel Zero Inc., is deemed non-notable, the company's channels would be too. It's like deleting a song of a musician that has been deleted. Channel Zero Inc. cited more sources than the other articles yet it was still deleted. Anyway, if they need to be listed properly at AfD, so be it. Spellcast (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as they were improperly joined to the AFD, but relist them separately. PS - as the deleting admin, feel free to undelete, speedy close this, and put them on AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: All of these articles should be restored. Just because Channel Zero Inc. was deemed to be not notable, doesn't mean that every article associated with it be deleted as well. Several of these articles had references and enough substance to deemed them notable. And for those who didn't, then a tag should be placed on them to notify users to add content and expand on them, not to speedily delete them, give users a chance before you delete these articles. MusiMax (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Chicken Soup Game – Article now rewritten at new title; title in question at this DRV is now redirected. Per consensus below, history will be restored under the redirect, should anyone wish to undertake further merging. – Xoloz (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chicken Soup Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

1979 Cotton Bowl (more commonly known as the Chicken Soup Game is a very notable event in college football history. It is referenced in the Joe Montana Article. I think it was deleted because a banned user created it. Thats all fine but if the article was good - it should be kept. 24.128.23.117 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - without prejudice - as deleting admin. Anyone is welcome to re-create (I'll even provide the external links used as references). This article was created and mostly fleshed-out by Jmfangio (talk · contribs) who was proven by checkuser to be a sock of the community-banned Tecmobowl (talk · contribs). Per WP:CSD#G5 and WP:BAN the article needed to be deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - There is a children's book, some articles [24], [25], [26], [27]. Per WP:CSD#G5 and WP:BAN the article needed to be deleted. Please prepare a draft article in your user space and present that to DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 07:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete deleted article looks okay... it's in the best interests of the project to undelete it. We shouldn't get rid of encyclopedic content just to spite banned users. --W.marsh 13:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete All speedy deletion criteria are discretionary not mandatory; we can choose to ignore them if it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia - G5 even more so; the equivalent clause for edit reverting instructs us that if a banned user reverted vandalism, we shouldn't restore the vandalism just because it was reverted by a banned user. So while it was legitimate to delete the article, it is not required. Tecmobowl was banned for edit warring and ignoring consensus to remove external links, not for poor creations of articles. This article is decent - although probably improvable with the additional sources that Jreferee found. This is a situation where we are better off with the article than without, so we should restore. GRBerry 14:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. It doesn't make sense to delete in this case. --NE2 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears to me that even this DRV was started by a sock of the same banned user. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't surprise me; the closer would likely disregard an IP editors opinion anyway for the weight of numbers aspect of measuring consensus as there it is no way to be certain who it is. So long as our primary objective is building an encyclopedia, I put the issue of encyclopedic content as more important than racking up points in the vandalism/anti-vandalism MMORPG. GRBerry 14:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism/anti-vandalism? I'm talking about a user who was community banned for sockpuppetry. He wrote plenty of good content in the meantime so why not unban him? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He was blocked for very good reasons, as far as I can tell, but those reasons obviously didn't include that he wrote good articles sometimes. Say I went nuts and blocked Jimbo today, would you delete a FA I wrote a year ago but that no one else has made substantial edits to? It's a more extreme example, but the same basic scenario: is good content made... not good... just because of who wrote it? I don't think so. If the guy had been blocked for created hoax articles or faking references, yes, I could understand nuking his articles just to be safe. But the reason he was blocked had nothing to do with creating articles, as far as I can recall. --W.marsh 16:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite the same situation. He was banned for exhausting the community's patience and then came back to continue editing as Jmfangio. If we don't want him banned and allow him to create new articles and then created DRVs for the articles, then why not officially undo the ban. Hell, I'd support that action. (I wasn't paying attention when he was banned or I may have voiced an opinion supporting him). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably he didn't exhaust the community's patience, though, by creating well-referenced and neutral articles. No one's saying you're wrong about the letter of the law here... but this is decent content, do you actually think the project is better off for not having it? --W.marsh 16:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: What GRBerry said. Zocky | picture popups 14:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Valid topic and article. Catchpole (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and redirect to the version I just created at 1979 Cotton Bowl. It is shorter than the deleted version but more neutral in tone, in my opinion, and it has the advantage of not being created by a banned editor. Chick Bowen 00:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AFD1|AFD2|DRV1|RFC|RCU|DRV2|DRV3|AFD3|CP|DRV4|DRV5|DRV6|DRV7|SSP|AFD4|DRV8|DRV9|DRV10)
John C. A. Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)(Identified as the 3rd AfD nom for John Bambenek)
John C. Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) ((Identified as the 4th AfD nom for John Bambenek)
John C.A. Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I know this is a heated issue but I ask participants to approach with an open mind. John Bambenek is the other of 300 or so columns that I can find in Lexis-Nexis and he is referenced in about 200 other articles as the main source or as an expert. These articles include a front-page article in the New York Times, several articles in the Washington Post and an article in TIME Magazine. He's contributed to about a half dozen books I can find on Amazon including a book chapter that will be out on Friday in Botnets: Countering the Largest Security Threat. He's given several talks, he's referenced widely in academic papers on information security, and his own articles have appeared in several print outlets such as the News-Gazette, the Peoria-Journal Star, the Chicago Tribune, Liberty Magazine and others. He also has been explicitly profiled in no less than 3 articles I can find on Lexis. Between his academic and professional expertise, his wide citation in the field and recognition of his experience, his prominent role in several organizations already with Wikipedia pages (Internet Storm Center and Blogcritics), I think its time to review this question on John Bambenek. Many people commented a few years ago he was "almost notable", it has only increased over time to include several hundred more mainstream articles being published by him or about him. I can list them all, but I trust people know how to use Lexis to find them and Google is plenty informative, as is Amazon and his resume that he has online. The previous DRV's and AfD's seem to have been stacked by those with an overt dislike for John Bambenek and it shows because the sysops without evidence immediately label any supporter, regardless of evidence, as a sock puppet and indef. ban him or her. This is no way to build consensus, it's simply establishing your way by force. Let's reexamine the facts this time 130.126.146.201 (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note This was the book I was referencing above that's out Friday. 130.126.146.201 (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In September 2007, Bambenek's Federal Election Commission filing against Kos Media, LLC, DailyKos.com, and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga for "failure to register as a political committee" was rejected.[28] Likely, this has generated more bad blood that may play out within Wikipedia. Here is a more detailed history of this topic:
    • Keep, 25 December 2005 , AFD1
    • Delete, 2 March 2006, AFD2
    • Kept deleted, 15 March 2006, DRV1
    • Closed, 16 March 2006, RFC
    • Checkuser 17 March 2006 RCU
    • Speedy endorse, 19 November 2006, DRV2
    • Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD, 18 December 2006, DRV3
    • Delete, 24 December 2006, AFD3
    • Copyvio, 27 December 2006, CP[29]
    • Deletion endorsed, 4 March 2007, DRV4
    • Speedily endorsed, 15 March 2007, DRV5
    • Deletion endorsed, 21 April 2007, DRV6
    • Deletion endorsed, 2 June 2007, DRV7
    • Sockpuppet 10 July 2007 SSP
    • Delete, 12 July 2007, AFD4
    • Speedy close, 25 July 2007, DRV8
    • Deletion speedily endorsed, 21 August 2007, DRV9
    • Endorsed, 6 September 2007, DRV10
-- Jreferee t/c 16:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Barnardstar2006.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Public Domain status confirmed. See source page. After undeletion, will restore the correct PD attribution it had previously. IanOsgood (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Barnard2005.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Public Domain status confirmed. See source page. After undeletion, will restore the correct PD attribution it had previously. IanOsgood (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Balloon fetishism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) (DRV#1)
Balloon fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Well referenced article with community links, commercial websites and articles - a copy can be seen on my sandbox. The deletion vote processes (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Balloon_fetishism) was plagued with WP:AADD without propper sources verification [30] [31] [32], insuficient discussion and consensus. Also consider other languages Wikipedia has articles about the subject as well like Japanese, French, German and Portuguese and Google returns 190.000 results. Thanks. Gothamelia (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - This is a request to restore the Balloon fetishism article using User:Gothamelia/Balloon fetishism (draft) as the next post. Related topics include:
Inflatable fetishism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
{{sex fetish}}
DSM-IV Code 302.9 - Paraphilia NOS
-- Jreferee t/c 23:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gothamelia, the balloon fetishism draft has been in your user subpage since 12 January 2007 and only two edits to the draft article have been made since then.[33]. Per Wikipedia:Subpages, you cannot use user subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. Normally, you need to edit draft user space articles within two months or else it may be considered permanent content to be deleted at WP:MfD. You might want to close this DRV and edit your draft article to include footnotes to Wikipedia reliable sources. Google scholar and Google books brings up some information. Also, you might want to focus the draft article towards a medical sense (see DSM-IV Code 302.9). -- Jreferee t/c 23:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse, nothing has changed since the last DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there might be an acceptable article on this topic, but the one on the user page does not seem to be it--the bulk of it is an unsourced discussion of the possible psychological origins of the fetish. I think Jreferee's suggestions for improvement are sound. DGG (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Democrat In Name Only – Relist. This DRV has brought up many issues, primarily situated on whether there are reliable sources. The last AfD is in stark contrast with the prior AfD and VfD, where the article was kept by a large margin. This indicates that this might need to be looked into more. Additionally WP:BLP is a big issue with this page, and an AfD would be the best place to decide whether the page needs to be deleted due to it, and if anything is salvageable. – Prodego talk 03:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Democrat In Name Only (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is related to Republican In Name Only. It should at least be mentioned in that article if it is not worthy of its own article. A redirect could be of more use to a reader than a redlink. --208.138.31.76 (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant articles:
Republican In Name Only (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
List of liberal U.S. Republicans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
-- Jreferee t/c 22:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not need a DRV to create a redirect or to add information to another article. You can do the latter, and anyone with an account can do the former. Was there anything else, or any reason you wanted the AfD (which looks perfectly valid to me) reviewed? If not, this DRV can be closed. Chick Bowen 22:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion as deleting admin. See my comments in the AfD for why. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). It failed during the AFD discussion due to a lack of reliable sources. No new sources have been offered in this request for review. Several options were offered during the AFD to turn this page into a redirect. If the community decides that's warranted, it does not require the undeletion of the pagehistory. Rossami (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist the issue was not raised of consistency. Its hard to argue for keeping RINO and not DINO. Its time we paid some attention to these things DGG (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • RINO hasn't been nominated for an AFD discussion since 2005. Consensus can change in 2 years. GRBerry 03:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per DGG, and because I find it hard to believe there isn't sourcing for this. I will investigate Zell Miller to find some. Xoloz (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment lack of sources alone sahould not result in page deletion. Sources are not difficult to find. If RINO is defined, then surely DINO is also defined. Just Google it, maybe you can find something. --208.138.31.76 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation as nominator per substantial new information (below). No AfD#2 is needed. Also, even though the article was a BLP problem magnet, it probably needed more supervision rather than deletion. Recreation does not require the undeletion of the page history (which is a BLP mess).
  • Newsday (October 23, 1994) Campaign '04: Some Democrats in Name Only Many of Assembly's GOP incumbents face weak, poorly funded challenges in Suffolk. Section: News Page A55.
  • South China Morning Post (July 24, 2004) A democrat in name only. Page 2.
  • Miller, Dawn. (October 30, 2004) The Charleston Gazette Dinos and Rinos and liars, oh my! Section: Editorial; Page 4A.
  • Jacklin, Michele. (March 13, 2005) The Hartford Courant Democrat in name only? Leftist bloggers dog Lieberman. Section: Commentary; Page C3.
  • Rubin, Richard. (June 17, 2005) The Charlotte Observer Out of the mayor's race, Cannon fires off shots. He criticizes Madans, McCrory, "Democrats in name only." Section: Local; Page 5B.
  • Boston Herald (January 11, 2006) Editorial; Where DINOs now roam Section: Editorial; Page 28.
  • Zremski, Jerry. (July 12, 2006) The Buffalo News At times, Higgins votes with the GOP. Record on key issues prompts liberals to attack congressman as "Democrat in name only". Section: News; Page A1.
  • Ashby, Charles. (August 20, 2006) The Pueblo Chieftain GOP challenger says give voters a choice: Susan Pelto says she's out for "DINO" votes.
  • Groves, Isaac. (November 5, 2006) Times-News Many local voters are Democrats in name only.
  • Ferguson, Andrew. (November 26, 2006) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette A rare bird joins the Washington Aviary. But will Jim Webb, a Democart in Name Only, turn out to be a dynamo or dodo? Section: Editorial; Page H3.
  • Koff, Stephen. (August 16, 2007) Cleveland Plain Dealer "You're a Democrat in name only" Ex-candidate Hackett reveals Kucinich slam. Section: Metro; Page B2.
  • Google books
  • Google scholar
-- Jreferee t/c 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with recreation, though I still endorse my original deletion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Croctotheface's arguments were at least reasonable, and prove that the term is not a random neologism. Those arguments appear to have had a fair amount of support towards the end of the AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Recreation makes much more sense to me than restoring or relisting. The original article is full of unsourced, POV speculation about who is a DINO and who isn't. Jreferee has provided a great list of sources above. A new article should be started with those. Chick Bowen 16:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at WINO, someone asserted that it means "Whig In Name Only" as a disparaging term for members of the United States Whig Party. I'm not sure if that is true, but it seems that there might be a X In Name Only article that can serve as a master article on these topics. -- Jreferee t/c 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, possibly recreate Too much of the content is not permitted under WP:BLP. The article explicitly described the term as an attack phrase, and then went on to describe multiple living politicos as being one, without sourcing and while attempting to say why they are one, again without sourcing on the reasons why. This isn't a new issue for the article; it was part of the nomination reason in 2004, years before BLP existed as policy. Having concluded that the existing article should not be restored, I haven't checked the newly identified sources to see if they provide enough substance to allow recreation. GRBerry 03:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue with recreation is that a lot of the content is bad, why not just omit or delete that content and re-create as a stub? If people add new bad stuff, it can always be reverted. Croctotheface (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid recreating BLP concerns, I think the DRV closer can restore the text that does not mention anyone by name. We can let the "naming names" start a new and monitor the situation a little better. -- Jreferee t/c 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, none of the original would be restored. The only source is a blog, Daily Kos. That's simply unacceptable for a controversial term. It needs to be restarted from scratch. Chick Bowen 23:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine either way. The lead paragraph seemed to have some good non BLP information, but it probably would be better to restart from scratch and use reliable source materials. -- Jreferee t/c 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate/relist/whatever the term is for having this article. I believe that this was, at the time, wrongly closed as a delete. I believe that my arguments were persuasive and caused a significant number of editors to support keeping the page, and therefore there did not exist a consensus for deletion. On the merits, I believe all of my arguments from the AfD stand--including those about sourcing, which Jreferee has expanded upon greatly, and regarding content (basically, remove bad content from the article, don't remove the article from Wikipedia). I fail to understand how Friedman unit, whose AfD looked similar except that there was much less robust sourcing, was closed as "no consensus to delete" when this one was closed as delete. "DINO" is a much more salient and widely adopted term than "Friedman unit", and it deserves an article. Croctotheface (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sky Eats Airplane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) (DRV#1)

This is a real band. An abusive admin deleted their page, but they are legit. check www.myspace.com/skyeatsairplane, these guys deserve a page, just like any other band. Deletion appears to be due to someone not liking the band. -- 63.228.207.219 (talk · contribs · logs) 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While there might not be enough reliable source material to include a Sky Eats Airplane article, there still is reliable source information that could be included in a relevant, existing article. See dailypress.com. (Post copied from here. -- Jreferee t/c 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse again as per discussion in prior DRV. If there is enough content for an article, write one. The old thing was not a viable Wikipedia article. GRBerry 19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Salting Deleted four times between Feb and May 2007 by four different admins, before finally being salted by User:Eyrian. I'm visible as the final deleting admin because I later converted the page to cascading protection, but I did not do any of the content deletions. Given the history of repeated recreations, I would really prefer to see a version created in user space that passes WP:BAND before the salting is lifted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Whether the band exists is not the crux of the deletion argument. My left foot exists, but that doesn't mean we should have an article on it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come back when you can have a sensible discussion that does not involve the usual argument of "an abusive admin did x,y or z". Nick (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Megalithic geometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I sincerely regret your decision of deleting the article about Megalithic geometry, because I believe Alan Butler's now 8-year-old amazing theory deserves at least an article here. His hypothesis, again, has been covered by renowned British and French media. What is more at least 3 people in the Wiki discussion (apart from me) supported the idea of merging the 3 articles into one rather than deleting the whole. Maybe 366-geometry is not as famous as UFO's or Nessie, but still, here it is, whatever we can do or think. For example, as far as I'm concerned, I came to know about it back in 2001 - six and a half years ago (!) So why not merging the articles into one, for example by deleting the superfluous and adding more details of the hypothesis? And may I stress that Butler's theory is very convincing. What is more it seems (to my knowledge) unassailable. In Britain, for instance, it counts many supporters. So what we have here is a coherent, well-supported, covered-by-reliable-and-independent media (such as the London Daily Mirror, Radio France International and the Guardian) hypothesis that offers a plausible explanation of the origin of geometry (366-day calendar giving birth to 366-degree geometry, later transformed into 360-degree geometry). I'm sorry to say that none other single theory I've read either on Wikipedia or in countless historical mathematics books seriously explains the origin of the 360-degree circle. So again, why not leave at least one article on Wiki? To sum things up very clearly: Butler's discoveries look more than NOTABLE, hence my appeal.--Snicoulaud (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a full Wikipedia article on the Megalithic yard with plenty of references to 366-degree geometry in it. The Megalithic yard being cardinal in Butler's demonstration, there is absolutely no valid reason to dismiss an article about 366-degree geometry (again, to state it clearly, the Megalithic yard is only part of the 366-degree system: to be clear, divide the 40,009-km polar circumference of the Earth in 366 degrees, each of these divided into 60 arc minutes, each of these divided into 6 arc seconds, and each of these into 366 equal parts, you end up with a length of... exactly 82.96 cm, the exact value of Thom's Megalithic yard).--Snicoulaud (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background - A megalith is a large stone which has been used to construct a structure or monument, such as at Stonehenge. Megalithic geometry is a geometry system based on the stone dimensions and their use. It is based on a belief that the cavemen didn't just cut big rocks into rectangles and place them in circles, but did so based on math principles that are different than modern math principles. -- Jreferee t/c 00:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted until a rewritten, evenly balanced, NPOV draft is created. The problem here isn't the notability of the topic, it's that the original article was pushing one particular theory (the same one being aggressively pushed in this DRV). Reliable sources do exist to create an article with this title, but it would have to give equal space and weight to all notable theories on the subject, not just one. Chick Bowen 00:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and redirected. There is no new evidence offered to overturn the AfD. Xoloz (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Athenaeum Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was deleted citing CSD:A7 - I feel that it was unreasonable to delete this article (as well as Runnymede Hotel) as they have been live very little time and have had no time to evolve. If the article needed more development I think that this should have been flagged instead of choosing speedy deletion. Is there any way that this article could be restored? The content on this page could possibly have been seen to be limited but it was factual and I believe that there is a good reason to have this information available trough the Wikipedia as many other related hotels have their own pages. As I am fairly new to making edits on the Wikipedia it may be that I have misunderstood the reasons for deletion and - if this is the case - perhaps it could be made clear why the page was deleted without discussion. Thanks, Jonathan Ellis (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • The Hat – Contested prod, undeleted. Relisting at AFD is optional if anyone wants this article deleted still. – W.marsh 17:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Hat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Contested Prod --evrik (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • GOOOH - Get Out of Our House – Deletion endorsed. The November 21st version is too similar to the AfD version from September, too unencyclopedic in style, and too reliant on non-independent sources for recreation. If someone writes a draft in userspace based on reliable, independent sources (not interview articles), a new DRV can consider it. – Chick Bowen 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GOOOH - Get Out of Our House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Originally deleted for lack of verifiable citations. Since then a book on the subject has been published and made available on Amazon and Barnes and Noble called Revolution! A New Plan for Selecting Representatives by Tim Cox. There has also been an article on the movement published in the Austin American Statesman with a WebCitation at Liberty Hill man wants to shake up politics . There many recorded radio interviews listed at the GOOOH web site at GOOOH in the News. I've perused other articles on Wikipedia with less references than this so I would request a List or an Overturn. Bogdan Odulinski (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permit recreation - Substantial new information. -- Jreferee t/c 06:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy but send to AFD. While there is new information which defeats a G4 speedy deletion, I am still doubtful that the subject is of sufficient notability to have an article. If restored, move to either GOOOH or Get Out of Our House with redirects from the other and the current title. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly endorse my deletion. I am not really competent to judge, I am apathetic about British politics and care even less about American politics. However, I do recognise blatant COI when I see it. Bogdan's profile on the GOOOH website. I also note that they have 26 members signed up - which don't exactly bode well for notability. (There is also a fallacy in the whole concept: it don't matter how you elect them - they will still turn into politicians once they get to Capitol Hill!) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as recreation is premature. Especially with the COI issue, I would really want to see the revised version before it is restored. Suggest a withdraw of this DRV, userfying the old version, and then a new DRV once a well sourced and NPOV version has been created. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    People might not want to devote time to writing a full version of the article until it's been established that the subject is inherently notable enough to merit one. David Mestel(Talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per new information. David Mestel(Talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AFD. I think that the addition of some sources (and the increased notability they imply) is enough to re-list the page at AfD, rather than speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. (That being said, if this were an AfD discussion, I would go for the article's deletion.) Bluap (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had speedily deleted the page as a recreation of deleted content, but I hadn't looked too closely at the differences. The article is not written in an encyclopedic style and reads more like an ad than an informational page. ~MDD4696 20:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AfD it's worth the discussion at least, and the closer agrees he's not competent to judge. sure, it is about as stupid as possible but perhaps that's the reason for the attention. DGG (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The Google book by Cox is a party pamphlet, the Austin Statesman article mostly furnished by information from Cox. I don't see enough new independent information to overturn the clear and unanimous Afd. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Trialsanderrors. As he says, there is new information, but it stems from sources highly likely to be unreliable. I don't think this provides sufficient weight to overturn. Xoloz (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mappila Malayalam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article appears to be untrue after further investigation. The discussion on AfD was frozen by non-admin shortly after it was started and the decision was keep. I researched this dialect and found nothing of substance to corroborate it. Most of the links are misleading and deal with Islam or a connected word in the article's title not with a possible Indian dialect. Also, several individuals from this region of India have chimed in on the Afd page and on the article's discussion page and said this is not a dialect. I know people in this region of Kerela who also said this dialect does not exist. There does appear to be an Islamic (Arabic) connection in the region but it does not claim to have its own dialect from what I can tell. There is a connection between the Arabic (Mappila) community in Kerela, and the actual language of the people Malayalee but I feel the primary contributer is a bit confused on this being an actual Indian-Arabic dialect , using original undocumented information and not substantiating the article. He is choosing to list multiple links to the Islamic faith unrelated to the article. The article looks good in format but is basically not true. Either further research is needed or the article and links to it should be deleted Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Based on what I can see this looks legit... but it is an area that I am unfamiliar with and not going to spend an overt about of time to fully investigate.Balloonman (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The early closure was executed by a non-admin. While the current weight of opinion was in favor of keeping, the discussion did not meet the strict speedy keep criteria for early closure. I have administratively re-opened the debate. In my opinion, the length of time that the debate was closed is not enough to justify resetting the clock on the discussion. Let the reopened discussion run it's course. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note : In the Malayalam wikipedia, there was an article named Mappila malayalam, which was redirected to Arabi Malayalam ("Arabian malayalam"). The discussion in the talk page seems to indicate that nobody there is aware of anything called Mappila Malayalam (but that a version called called Arabi Malayalam does exist). I'll drop a word in the talk page of a few users there. Tintin 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brady Leaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was redirected to his brother, Ryan Leaf, who was an NFL quarterback. Brady Leaf was the backup quarterback for the Oregon Ducks football team, but since a recent injury to former starter Dennis Dixon on 11/15/07, Leaf is now the starter. Oregon remains a top 10 team in the NCAA football polls--this will result in increased notability of Brady Leaf; by way of comparison, all the other starting quarterbacks in the top 10 have their own articles. In addition, the starting quarterback for #10 Oklahoma was injured and replaced by backup Joey Halzle, who has a Wikipedia article. Therefore, I propose that this article be once again created as an independent page. --Esprqii (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the page is currently a protected redirect with all history undeleted. This is a request for unsalting. GRBerry 01:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the redirect college players, even if they are on top 10 teams, are generally not notable. Being the brother of a notable person does not change that fact.Balloonman (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD/unprotect/allow recreation - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. No reliable source material was presented in the request so there is not anything new to review. Protection seems a little harsh, so unprotect. -- Jreferee t/c 06:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I revised my position to allow recreation per Scientizzle's post. The AfD was four Wikipedia years ago (3 months = 1 Wikipedia year). Since the AfD, there has been substantial new informaton (per Chick Bowen), at least enough to justify getting a fresh AfD on record. Permit recreation and let the chips fall where they may. -- Jreferee t/c 22:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect Change of status makes an article at least feasible. If there are still notability issues they can be discussed at Afd once the article is written. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but unprotect and allow recreation. There's no suggestion the original deletion result was wrong - it was over a year ago and nobody has challenged it. But circumstances change, so decision should not be indefinitely binding. We normally allow good faith recreation of articles and do not speedy if anyone can overcome the original reason for deletion. In practice that may mean that any admin should feel entitled to send the contents to a recreating user or restore the article if asked reasonably for GDFL reasons. Page protection (after editing contents, a no-no) is a bad administrative call because it circumvents this process, and should be immediately lifted. Wikidemo (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect and allow recreation. Circumstances have changed since the AfD. Here are some good, independent sources from the last few days: [34], [35], [36]. Chick Bowen 18:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first one source linked is a blog, and the last one is a local opinional, not reliable 23:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret (talk • contribs)
      • I assembled them fairly hurriedly. But columns in independent student-run newspapers (i.e., the last one) do meet our reliable sources policies. There are briefer discussions in non-local papers, and many lengthy discussions in Oregon papers. Chick Bowen 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the newspaper of the University of Oregon themselves, isn't indpendent and college newspapers are rarely reliable, and normally biased This is a Secret account 03:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect & allow recreation...There appears to be plenty of sources now and the AfD was over a year and a full season ago (and I question whether the folks participating knew anything about either Leafs (Leaves?) since they all called Ryan Leaf "Bryan"...amusing at least). I really don't understand why the protection was ever necessary. — Scientizzle 20:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect Recreate. Per above, but also seems to pass notability. Jmlk17 04:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt. This seems to have been protected recently based on a rather old AFD, and I'm not sure it was warranted. If he's going to be starting for a highly ranked 1-A team, I think that's significant enough to allow an article to be created. If he stays in the slot for long, I'm sure sources will show...otherwise, well, the redirect can always come back. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 November 2007[edit]

  • List of cricketers banned for match fixing – While I accept that WP:BLP allows for the deletion of content the consensus here is clear that this article cannot be deleted per that policy because appropriate references are present. I would ask JzG to be careful not to allow his personal opinion about the worth of an article cloud his judgement about a BLP deletion - this clearly should have gone to AfD and that would probably be the best way forward. Closed and restored per WP:SNOW. violet/riga (t) 20:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of cricketers banned for match fixing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted a couple of days ago by User talk:JzG. I was not informed that it was going to be deleted and thus didn't have a chance to review the article and if required improve it so that it met wikipedia standards. The reason given seems to be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and after querying this with the gentleman who deleted the article I've come to the sad conclusion that he seems disinterested in discussing it and giving me any specifics other then directing me to the BLP page. I've read BLP guidelines and I am still none the wiser as to why this article was deleted. I would like to direct you to a AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricketers called for throwing which was discussed around the same time, I think both articles have similar cases for inclusion. Match fixing is sadly a part of cricket and there have been about a dozen people who have been banned by their cricket boards as a result of being found guilty. Each person on my list had a reference to an article stating that the information I provided relating to their ban was correct. Crickettragic (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Not only did each of the 10 people listed have a ref., there was a WP articles for each with further refs. WP isnt authority, but summarizing the content of WP articles which do give multiple reliable sources is sufficient. The BLP views of the delting admin in this case do not represent consensus. DGG (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion and keep article. This is (unfortunately) one of the most important issues in cricket in recent years, and all of the entries are verifiable by reliable sources provided in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - BLP info was sources, so speedy BLP didn't apply. Although the list might be a selectively populated list with a narrow theme, a better BLP way to present the information might be through merging the list into Betting controversies in cricket as prose. -- Jreferee t/c 23:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above. Consensus isn't quite dead yet... take this to AFD if anywhere but a speedy deletion was not a good call. --W.marsh 23:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - as above. Suitable subarticle for match fixing and cricket. Not a speedy. Not BLP. It's not exactly hard to find out if someone is banned for fixing matches. Whether they actually did or not, isn't up to the article. - hahnchen 01:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overtun With all the steroid scandals, this will be a useful resource. If its a BLP issue, improve, don't delete. Mbisanz (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn agreed as it is citable/cited.Balloonman (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I approve of JzG no nonsense stance and principles though whether someone has been banned for match fixing is a matter of fact and not opinion. MLA (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn bad speedy. Tim! (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: apparently well-sourced, and if these are prominent cricketers, they're clearly public figures, so BLP is less stringent. David Mestel(Talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn looks well sourced, about public figures (international cricketers), factual not speculative and a list about an unfortunatly important cricketing issue. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn well sourced. ViridaeTalk 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article adds nothing to a treatment in context in an article on match fixing in cricket, and serves to highlight the worst possible aspect of a player's career with no balancing good material whatsoever. Not really a wonderful idea, IMO. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As long as appropriate sources are provided for each of the individuals listed, there is no reason whatsoever to preclude the existence of the article. As usual, WP:BLP is being used as a rather sorry excuse to delete anything that contains any negative information without regard to sourcing or context. The persistent abuse of admin privileges and refusal to make use of the AfD process to establish consensus rather tham impose one's rather arbitrary views is simply not on. Alansohn (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Dorothy Walker Bush – since less than 2 hours had passed, the best solution was to speedy reopen the AFD – GRBerry 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dorothy Walker Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD closed prematurely (less than 24 hours after beginning) by a non-admin. Early non-admin closures are appropriate when the AfD discussion is weighing heavily to one side or the other. However, since the point of AfD is to bring the discussion to the wider Wiki community, a closure this rapidly is premature particularly when the result is "no consensus." The closing user stated, "no consensus...looked likely to be reached." Since the editor cannot predict the future and the discussion was ongoing between multiple editors, the decision should be overturned and the discussion relisted. Strothra (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moot G.R. Berry has now properly reverted the close on the ground that early closure as no-consensus is never appropriate, no matter by whom-- which is certainly correct. DGG (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Paul Yingling – Incorrectly formed request for deletion. This forumis for reviewing resolved deletion debates. You will nee articles for deletion if you wish to nominate this article for deletion but will need to register an account first – Spartaz Humbug! 18:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Yingling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

notibility, see discussion page 71.59.104.219 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Wikipedians in the Association for Computing Machinery – Deletion overturned. The weight of precedent at Wikipedia is traditionally weak, under the terms of WP:NOT a court of law. This is good thing: precedent works at law because lawyers are very good at distinguishing -- they teach a whole course simply on the topic of making court cases that seem similar look very different from each other. Wikipedians aren't lawyers, and might "paint with an over-broad brush." For this reason, simply citing "precedent" in a deletion discussion or closing is not good -- one must explain one's reasoning for how the precedent might apply, at a minimum; and even then, under WP:NOT, consensus is free to ignore precedent. Consensus here at DRV supports these propositions in finding this deletion incorrect. – Xoloz (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC) (For further remarks explaining this closure, interested users may see User talk:Jc37.)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians in the Association for Computing Machinery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCFD)

Only reason given for delete is "precedence" (all other "votes" for delete cited nom). Collaboration (which no one challenged) seems more important than following a dubious precedence, as precedence seems to be just another name for WP:ALLORNOTHING in this case. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Define "collaboration."--WaltCip (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See collaboration. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Define collaboration in the context of a Wikipedia category such as this without blue-linking me to an article. You have chosen a position with which to justify your stance; let us see you defend it in your own words if it means so much to you.--WaltCip (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought it was crystal clear. Collaboration in this context refers to editors in wikipedia working together to improve articles related to issues that members in the ACM can be expected to have expertise on. Is that clear enough now or do I need to define "context", "editors", and "improve"? I apologize for being somewhat snarky, but I fail to see how this wasn't clear from the outset. You've been here long enough to know what collaboration means, haven't you? (On the off chance that you don't know what those articles might be, I'd recommend that you read the Association for Computing Machinery article and visit the ACM themselves.)Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What you're missing is: duplicative. Other than the article of the association itself, there are no other articles to "collaborate" on, except those which we "presume" that those who are members "might" wish to collaborate on. Too many maybes and wishful thinking there. There are plenty of computing "by interest" categories with which to foster collaboration. Why duplicate them with this less-than-helpful category? - jc37 11:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/relist- Wikipedia:Overcategorization was put forth as a basis for deletion, but I couldn't determine from the discussion why this category was Overcategorization. "Other societies/fraternal organisations have been recently deleted" is not a good reason to delete. More discussion was needed to determine a delete consensus. Relist with a nomination that is focused on Wikipedian category points to be discussed. -- Jreferee t/c 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nom obviously doesn't know how WP works. In addition to nothing be wrong with the AfDs...everything he is proposing is in violation of some policy...whether it be ownership of an article, conflict of interest, not adhering to a neutral POV, etc. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment doesn't seem to apply to either me or the original nom (of the actual UCFD). Is it possible you replied to the wrong section? (For one thing this is a UCFD not an AfD, for another, I do not see how I nor the UCFD nom have anything to do with WP:COI, WP:OWN, or WP:NPOV…) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct...I must have clicked edit on the wrong DRV. It was meant for the one below. --SmashvilleBONK! 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the closure was on the basis of "nomination is in good faith and is valid. " which is certainly not a reason for deciding one way or the other. I note one of the comments at the discussion, repeated several times by the same person, was "If there is equally no reason to keep and no reason to delete, then the will of the nominator takes precedence" which is equally contrary to established policy. DGG (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - just because the phrase "nomination is in good faith and is valid." followed the decision does not mean that was the basis for the decision. This was merely a comment in response to the comment on that and similar UCFDs from that time period which all had a comment posted to the effect that these nominations were not valid. My comment was meant only to show that, as the closing admin, I had read that comment and found it, in fact, to be invalid, rather than the nomination being invalid. Furthermore, the balance was not tipped by the will of the nominator comment, so the decision should not be overturned on that basis either. --After Midnight 0001 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - It is bad enough when DRV nominators do not attempt to discuss with the closing admin first, but is it too much to ask that they at least be notified? --After Midnight 0001 00:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There is ample precedent for this decision. Keep rationales of "time to reverse the trend" and this is not a valid deletion reason are not particularly persuasive in the opposition of that precedent. --After Midnight 0001 00:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the commenters who said it was invalid deletion reason, I would like to point out that, as far as I know, no one ever claimed the nomination was in bad faith. Quite the contrary, I believe it was in good faith. However, "precedence" is an invalid deletion rationale as it equates to essentially WP:ALLORNOTHING.
    As for not discussing it with you first, I was unaware that this was a part of the process. I apologize. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as has been noted elsewhere, both "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" and "ALLORNOTHING" are less applicable to Category discussions than for other discussions, since categories are sets of sets of sets (ad infinitum). So usually, attempting to rename something contrary to the obvious "convention" of a category will get numerous "ALLORNOTHING" responses, which would be deemed appropriate, since the goal is to reduce bureaucratic overhead and not have listed out "conventions" for every category. The same applies here, if in the past a categorisation scheme was deemed a "bad idea" (that's right, this wasn't a precedent of a single category folks, it was several, over several separate nominations), then - "per precedent" - this one is likely a bad idea too. It's very much a "valid" nomination statement, and one which is common throughout CfD, (not just UCFD). - jc37 11:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn: I tried to tell them at CfD they were being disruptive by nominating a shitton of articles based on "We deleted other things before", but nobody wanted to listen. Maybe now people will listen that that's not a valid reason for deletion!!!!!!!!!!!!⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSER If, as Swatjester suggests, there are a bunch of recent (e.g., within the past few weeks) CfDs like this were "precedent" is the basis for the deletion, please close this DRV with a statement that permits you to apply the close of this DRV to those CfDs. There's no reason to receive a flood of CfD appeals to redecide an issue already considered at DRV. Perhaps the close of this DRV can be applied by the DRV closer to CfDs listed on or after 14:09, 5 November 2007 and closed before 14:09, 20 November 2007 (the posting time of this DRV). Something similar to this was done in Multiple reality show categories DRV-- Jreferee t/c 07:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the case. There are 6 cases to which Swatjester's comments apply, and most of them have not yet been closed. Most CFD discussions in the period 5 Nov - 20 Nov are unrelated to professional organisations. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also: User_talk:Swatjester/archive13#CFD which has a more in-depth discussion regarding this. I think I'll WP:AGF and presume that this is just a case of someone used to AfD and is un-used to CFD discussions. - jc37 11:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - it is well-known to the closer and other UCFD regulars that a substantial group of editors have expressed concerns regarding the representativeness of UCFD "precedents" that have formed over the last few months, with too many of the same faces. XfDs should not be closed based on such highly contended precedents -- if there's merit to the precedent, then it should be discussed in more depth, not asserted against present consensus. Besides that, there isn't really any substantial history of professional organization cats being deleted. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this argument is fallacious, since the situation depends on the type of precedent we're discussing. There have been 6 discussions for professional organisation categories, and one should not generalise any principles from those few discussions to all user categories, or to UCFDs in general. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to [37], there have been over 900 different contributors to UCFD - 925 (26 IP addresses). This argument has been tried before, and has been retracted on the face of evidence, looks like it's your turn... - jc37 11:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - faulty reasoning for close per precedent-related arguments above. Wikidemo (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe UCfD discussion on Category:Wikipedians in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers [38] with essentially the same issues is clearly headed for a keep (4 keep, 1 delete, plus the nom.). This clearly shows that the above-mentioned shift in consensus is real, so the discussion of this one should be reopened. 18:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I do not oppose reopening the discussion for this category, but I think it's erroneous to claim a "shift in consensus". It's more accurate to state that professional organisation user categories are considered to be more useful than others of their class, and that there never was clear consensus on them or their deletion. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems like you're saying that professional organizations (which both the ACM and IEEE are) are not affected by the precedent that was cited as the deletion rationale. I am not attempting to put words in your mouth, and I strongly doubt this is what you're actually saying, so could you clarify your position? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you're mostly correct. I think that the precedent for deleting fraternal society user categories applies less to user categories for membership in professional organisations, which is why I've not recommended deletion of these categories except when there are other special circumstances. (Please note my deliberate use of "applies less to" in place of "are not affected by".) Whereas the former are simply MySpace-type hobby categories, the latter indirectly provide information about profession and, therefore, knowledge, skills, and access to sources. They do so rather inefficiently, when compared to actual profession categories (e.g. Category:Wikipedian psychologists), but it's a matter for individual consideration whether the particular circumstances – such as degree of redundancy, the nature of the organisation, the nature of membership in the organisation, and the potential for use of the category – justify retention or deletion. Precedent applies generally to all cases, but the degree to which it applies varies across different types of user categories. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make that 5 keeps and 1 delete, including the nom. Furthermore, the nominator's delete is conditional on "if that is to be the general policy with professional organizations". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: deletion arguments were basically a combination of "no valid reason to keep", whatever that means, and, as Ben Hocking put it, "the deletionist equivalent of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS". Additionally, I think that closing as delete where comments are split 50-50 requires more of a rationale than "nomination is in good faith and is valid". David Mestel(Talk) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Let's take each comment on-by-one:
    Mine: I quoted a line from the article, hopfully showing what it was (a "society"), and then explained that such societies have been recently deleted.
    User:Scoutersig - per nom
    User:DGG - comments about "reversing the trend", and wishing for a policy change of some kind.
    User:Benhocking saying the nom was "the deletionist equivalent of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" - which, as has been illustrated here, is not true. (Especially since that same argument could be used against anyone, regardless of keep or delete.)
    User:Swatjester - "not a valid deletion reason". Well, that isn't a "useful" comment either. At this point, who cares about the nomination? Explain why the category should be kept! So far in that discussion, not one person had done so.
    User:WaltCip - "No reason was given to keep." - I presume that this is in response to the comments above his. Because he's right, at that point, there were no reasons given to keep, just "meta-reasons" to not delete.
    So since all the others have been "given the weight that they were due", let's look at the nomination rationale: societies/fraternities have recently been deleted.
    Check out these several nominations, starting with this discussion and continuing down that page with Fraternal organisations, Category:Wikipedians in the Hospitality Club, Student organisations, Save the Plants; IQ org categories, Category:Wikipedians in Theta Chi, and Category:National Honor Society Wikipedians. Several of which refer to this previous discussion.
    Looks like precedent to me...
    And also since "overly broad" categories are also typically deleted, someone may wish to note this part of the article: Association_for_Computing_Machinery#Special_Interest_Groups.
    I think the main thing I'd like is for there to actually be discussion of the topic, rather than attempting to bypass discussion through variations on ad hominem and other such actions, well-meant though they may be. - jc37 12:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per my several comments above. - jc37 12:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pawn (MMO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Pawn Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD | DRV)
Pawngame.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
PAWNGAME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Pawngame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I (Firstmate) represent Pawngame as a mod, and I feel your deletion of the page should be reconsidered. The reason being that the previous writers did not consult the pawngame staff and rashly made the page. And because of this happening so many times, Texas Android deleted the page. Another reason that was provided for the deletion was that we were trying to promote the game. That is not true, like said above, the article would have been much better if done from a mod or admin's view. Not only that but the article is purely meant for people who may wish to learn more about the game. IF you do decide to undelete it, please notify me so that I can post the article instead of letting someone else. This may be in the wrong format, and for that I'm sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstmate22222 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note that other forms of the article title are protected titles after repeated deletions and a full AFD. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive307#PAWNGAME reveals that the article was repeatedly attacked by anon editors and had to be semi-protected during the AFD. GRBerry (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the AfD, as an improper nomination. The AfD seems to have been interpreted properly (don't see how it would've been speedied otherwise). It also mentioned the author may be a single-purpose account, and their blank contribs seems to support that. I'd like to see the page histories temporarily restored so this can be confirmed. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator of this review has no deleted contributions and has not participated in any of the previous versions of the articles - at least under this ID. Short of CheckUser, there's no way to tell if this was the same person under a different ID. Nothing in the pagehistories shows any evidence either way to the SPA question. Rossami (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as deletor.Was deleted as an A7, still is an A7. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, obviously given that it's been through AfD at least twice and in each case the decision has been unanimous that it be deleted, I don't see this coming back, ever. And don't bother re-creating it under different titles, that's not exactly fooling anyone, you know. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, two unanimous AfDs, one unanimous DRV to keep deleted. Provide reliable sources as to its notability, write a version in your User space, and then come back here for further consideration. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nom obviously doesn't know how WP works. In addition to nothing be wrong with the AfDs...everything he is proposing is in violation of some policy...whether it be ownership of an article, conflict of interest, not adhering to a neutral POV, etc. --SmashvilleBONK! 03:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per all of the above.Balloonman (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you I will make a copy of what I want in my user page, and Ill post back here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstmate22222 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tang Yuhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page was deleted as not notable. But the result of the discussion was just 1 for Keep, 1 for neutral, and 2 for delete. This cannot be interpreted as consensus. The article should be kept as non-consensus in the deletion discussion. Four editors, not including the creator of this article, participated in the deletion discussion. Only two, Paul Pieniezny and I, got substantially involved in it. Paul's main reason for deletion is that Tang Yuhan is not a notable physician. But I pointed out that Tang was a notable benefactor. Paul then kept silence and have not replied. The administrator AGK deleted this article. This incorrectly interpreted the result of the debate. And AGK also said: "Whilst the addition of citations is commendable, unfortunately the fact that they are in Chinese means that cannot be confirmed as Reliable Sources." This statement is not fair. Chinese sources are clearly valid sources according to Wikipedia:Citing sources. They can be confirmed by other Wikipedian who can understand Chinese language. All of the citations are from reliable sources including People's Daily, Sina.com, etc. And some of theses Chinese sources have been translated in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tang Yuhan. Even English-speaking editors can read them. Therefore, the deletion should be re-considered. Thanks. Neo-Jay (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and relist - this probably needs a more thorough discussion. As it is, only three or four editors commented, and while some deletion debates can be correctly interpreted with numbers like that, this isn't as clear-cut a case. So let's give this more exposure and see if any improvements can be made in the meantime. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist. Foreign language sources are certainly citable, granted that they are reliable. bibliomaniac15 06:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist - Foreign language sources are certainly citable, but usually need a little bit more than English language sources. For those of us who do not read Chinese, we look for an editor who does, who is reliable themselves, and who vouches for the sources. Neo-Jay comes across as someone who could be believed if they say there is enough reliable source material in the Chinese language. Send back to AfD and post notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China and the relevant related projects solicitation those who read Chinese to participate in the AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 06:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist - I simply cannot see a consensus to delete in that AfD, nor do I think the article warranted deletion per any other grounds. 1 != 2 07:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete (and relist) - I made a mistake here. I certainly rushed my decision here, and it was a lapse of judgement on my part. I apologise for the inconvenience caused to those involved, and I'll happily endorse my action being overturned. Anthøny 09:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I can't find anything in Wikipedia policy or guidelines which says that foreign-language sources should be regarded as any less reliable than ones in English, only that English language sources should be used if they are available and are of equal calibre. Also please note that the nominator himself said the subject "is more than probably notable in China". Being notable in China is enough to make him notable in Wikipedia, so that statement is tantamount to being a withdrawal of the nomination. The only other editor to support deletion provided no arguments in support. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist. I was the nominator for deletion. While I do not agree that "is more than probably notable in China" means he is notable in English Wikipedia (that sentence of mine was based on him being both a graduate of a European university and a member of a British medical college - something very unusual for a Chinese doctor, but still applicable to at least 10,000 people worldwide - and let's not forget that he lived in Hong Kong during his professional career and that Hong Kong had English as its official language, which makes it rather awkward that precisely that part of his life is still largely unaccounted for) I do agree that the article as far as sources are concerned is completely different from the article that was nominated. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy undelete and relist - per original closer's rationale above. In any case, this does warrant further discussion.--WaltCip (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brent Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

"Brent Blake" was deleted April 22, 2007, Because "Building the Worlds Largest Lava Lamp" was probably an hoax,Doubtful notability. Brent Blake and the project are real. See Seattle PI January 1, 2005 and Seattle PI January 26, 2006. Additionally see www.giantlavalamp.com PLEASE CONTACT ME AND REINSTATE THIS INFORMATION ON YOUR SITE. [email protected] 509-246-1692 Mail. Brent Blake P.O. Box 422, Soap Lake, WA 98851 Brent Blake (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WritersUA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)(DRV#1)

This article was deleted for failing WP:CORP, based on the fact that the WritersUA company is not mentioned in many significant secondary sources. In the deletion discussion, people mentioned that the company represented a specialized technical niche (help documentation and user assistance documentation), and also mentioned that the only sources found for the material were blogs. I submit the following points for consideration:

  1. WritersUA is itself a communications medium through which very notable companies make public announcements about future products (many of which are notable). It is unlikely therefore that other news organizations are going to make note of news which WritersUA helps to produce, especially considering the relatively small and specialized target audience.
  2. User assistance and technical documentation is not itself a "sexy" topic, and it is wrong to assume therefore that traditional news media or other regular secondary sources are going to take pains to cover it. That many documentation writers blog about the topic is evidence that the WritersUA conference is important to the discipline.
  3. Help documentation itself is used by many people and is very notable, but yet you would be hard pressed to find many secondary sources (with the exception of WritersUA) that discuss the topic. Following that, WritersUA is mentioned in a handful of Wikipedia articles on the topic: Microsoft Help, Microsoft Help 2, Adobe RoboHelp, and Microsoft Compiled Help. These articles are all stubs, which helps to demonstrate that help documentation software is not a popular topic to write about.
  4. Due to the nature of the subject, because it is unlikely to be covered by traditional sources, blogs are likely to be a very good indication of the importance of WritersUA. Notice that blogs were dismissed out of hand in the deletion discussion, with the quip "after all it is gathering of tech writers - of course they are going to blog about it". It is precisely because so many tech writers are blogging about it that we know it must be important. It is an important source of information for people of a particular profession, and many blogs on the topic of help documentation mention it.

Notice that WP:CORP does not exclude blogs, but instead allows for "reliable published works in all forms", with several listed exceptions. Notice also that corporate blogs, or technical blogs (or any blogs, for that matter) are not listed here as specific exceptions. WP:RS makes no specific mention of blogs as an unreliable source, only that self-published works may be unreliable. Since the blogs in question are not written by WritersUA, but are written about it, often by notable companies, it is fair to assume that these could be taken as a reliable source for this topic. A final point here is that blogs are increasingly being used as a primary method of information dissemination by large companies and organizations. To dismiss this article because it receives coverage from blogs to the near exclusion of coverage from other news sources is, I believe, a side-step of the spirit of the notability guideline. --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permit recreation (see my "Revision post" below) Weak keep deleted - WritersUA formerly was known as WinWriters. If you actually looked for reliable source material under WinWriters in addition to reliable source material under WritersUA, you probably would not need to argue against Self-published sources (online and paper) position on blogs. In answer to your post, WritersUA need to get newspapers and other print media interested in them if they want to make the Wikipedia cut. If newspapers, books, and the like are not interested in WritersUA, there is no reason Wikipedia should either. Comment Here is what I found for WritersUA (1) April 10, 2006 Press release, (2) January 3, 2007 Press release, (3) January 7, 2007 Houston Chronicle meeting notice, (4) March 26, 2007 Press release, (5) August 10, 2007 San Diego Union-Tribune, (6) November 13, 2007 Press release], (7) Google books, (8) Google scholar. -- Jreferee t/c 00:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here is what I found for WritersUA (1) March 1997. Volume 16; Issue 3. Computer Shopper. "HTML-based help will overtake WinHelp by late '97." (2) August 26, 1999 Press release, (3) July 17, 2000. Computerworld. Conferences.(Calendar of Events) Page 52. (4) July 24, 2001 Press release, (5) Google books, (6) google scholar. With all the info and given how old the AfD is, there might be enough info to create an article that might survive AfD #2. -- Jreferee t/c 00:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I specifically omitted the WP:SPS policy, because the blog entries I am talking about do not strictly fall under the category of "self-published". Blogs by organization X discussing (but not necessarily endorsing) organization Y are more reliable because organization X has nothing to gain from the free publicity to Y. Ie, these are not blogs written by WritersUA about WritersUA, but are blogs by other technical professionals about WritersUA. The volume and diversity of such sources should quite fears of undue bias and therefore a lack of reliability. In short, WP:SPS doesn't apply here. --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 00:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think if you specifically omitted SPS policy you made a mistake because it trumps both the CORP and RS guidelines. The blogs would only be acceptable if they meet the SPS list and the injunction above it: "acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'm not saying yea or nay in this particular case, just offering the suggestion. Marskell (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What i'm concerned with is that this topic may never pass the notability guidelines as they are laid out currently, because of the specialization of the topic and the self-referential nature of the discipline. Regardless of the size and importance of this organization (and I would venture to say that for a certain group of people it is very important), I don't foresee this ever being prominantly listed in many secondary sources. It is the nature of the discipline, not a failure of the WritersUA PR team, or an indication of the non-notability of the topic. There are some references as JReferee has pointed out above, and I would expect that number to increase (albeit slowly) over time as well. Also, in the spirit of the notability guideline, this topic is notable even if it can't be proven conclusively through the traditional methods (i.e. reliable secondary sources, etc). --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Revision post" - I changed my position to permit recreation. With Google books and the other links I provided above, I think there is enough new material to at least generate a mixed keep/delete AfD. It would be much better to have on hand an AfD that evaluated the above source material rather than the present AfD. Significantly improving the reasoning behind an AfD seems to be progress, even if the outcome of AfD#1 and AfD#2 are delete. A significantly improved reasoning is much easier to apply such as through CSD G4 and at DRV, for example. Eventually, WritersUA will make it into Wikipedia. I think I could scrape together a source article that might survive AfD. I am impressed with Whiteknight's DRV request and his/her ability to split hairs.[39] I think Whiteknight is capable of squeezing the reliable source material for all it's juice in a way that might not cross the line into using non reliable source material. DGG's post below also has influenced me. I think allowing recreation will only improve Wikipedia. -- Jreferee t/c 15:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems in the AFD discussion or in the previous DRV discussion. As a side note, blogs do not meet my understanding of reliable sources and are insufficient sources on which to base a stand-alone article. Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. We synopsize the writings of others. If the topic is not "sexy" enough for anyone to write the necessary secondary sources, there is nothing we can use as a basis. That may be unfortunate but it's not our problem to solve. We can't make something notable that nobody else cares about. Rossami (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the first items in the Google Scholar result are items in IEEE MICRO, which is NOT a blog, but the major professional magazine. If they think the company is important enough to discuss it's financial prospects, it's notable. Apart from the blogs, that's sufficient reliable secondary sourcing. The general blog issue can be discussed elsewhere. DGG (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you are talking about these hits? If so, I must respectfully disagree. They are passing mention at best, mostly made in the context of a single conference held in 2005. I'm not finding anything primarily discussing the organization. If you're looking somewhere else, would you mind showing your sources? Thanks. Rossami (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:Cmurphy-discopigs.jpg – Jreferee makes an interesting point: while the image under discussion is not exactly identical to the existing Image:Cillian-as-pig.jpg, the two pictures are functionally identical for any discussion of the role in the article Cillian Murphy. This fact essentially renders this DRV moot. If the deletion opponents are correct in their description of the behavior of the deleting admin, then the admin would have behaved in an unfortunate manner, deleting an image whilst he was in the midst of discussing it. Such discussion, however, could now continue with Image:Cillian-as-pig.jpg as its subject. There seems no reason to undelete an image now redundant. – Xoloz (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Cmurphy-discopigs.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

This image was removed without discussion from the Cillian Murphy article as an invalidly used non-free image, and was later deleted by an admin, again without any additional input from others, as a replaceqable fair use image, despite the fact that the article had only within the past two weeks achieved FA status with the image in it. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs) deleted the image as "replaceable fair use image", but I don't think it was tagged as such, nor was the uploader (or others) given an adequate opportunity to discuss it either on the IDP itself, or at an WP:IfD. Uploaded after 2006-07-13, WP:CSD#i7 requires notification of the uploader to then delete within 48 hours; as far as I can ascertain, Melty girl (talk · contribs) was not notified of such. Full disclosure: I ultimately support the deletion decision (and reasoning behind it), but I feel I disagree with the fashion in which it was implemented. See Image talk:Cmurphy-discopigs.jpg#Fair use rationale was already ratified by multiple reviews.

    The appears to be something technically wrong with the instigation of this DRV, as the header refers to an AfD redlink, and the "talk" link doesn't work. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The DRV nomination template calls {{la}}. This needs to be switched by hand to {{li}} or another equivalent template when a non-article is nominated. The regulars have decided it is easier to do it by hand than to write very complicated template code to figure out which sub-template to actually use. I've updated. GRBerry (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The film is only tangentially mentioned in the article so this clearly is not an image that details a particularly important element of the article. As such its inconceivable that this can be justifiably used on a non-free licence in this way. Fair use is for illustrating the subject - that would be the film not the actor. Spartaz Humbug! 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- The image clearly satisfied WP:FU as a screenshot of low resolution that was being used to provide critical commentary regarding a key performance of C. Murphy. It had a clearly written fair use rationale, which together with other FU images, was thoroughly reviewed during the WP:FA process and had been rightfully found to be appropriate. The deletion was without any discussion or explanation. The user who had tagged the image with {{fairusereview}} did not open any discussion at WP:FUR, and when asked to provide an precise statement as to how the image violates WP:FU, his explanation was "i find the rationale silly". The actions and behaviors aforementioned violate WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FU and I recommend the remedying of this situation by overturning this deletion and restoring the image. --Kudret abiTalk 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Critical commentry of a film that is not discussed in detail in the article. Please... Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own deletion per WP:NFC. It has been our consistent policy for at least the past several months that images of living actors, musicians and other performers cannot be used to illustrate their biographical articles. In that context, they are replaceable. The issue whether these images satisfied NFC was not discussed at FAR. (FAR will often review whether there are too many non-free images, assuming that they are valid under NFC.) -- But|seriously|folks  22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading WP:CSD#i7, am I misinterpreting the requirement to notify the uploader 48-hours prior to deletion? I'm not even sure if the image was tagged with {{replaceable fair use}} or {{dfu}} so as to notify anybody of a pending deletion possibility. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as an out-of-process deletion. Speedy deletions in general are only for obvious, uncontroversial cases. In cases like this there was clearly a consensus as of very recently that the image was appropriate under our non-free content policy. Deference should clearly be given to decisions already made on featured articles. Inasmuch as the entire issue is a disagreement as to the application of a relatively non-urgent policy like NFCC and there is no argument at all that the use is illegal, we should not disrupt the project by taking images out of featured articles. A single administrator (even a respected, thoughtful administrator like Butseriouslyfolks) should not delete images it at whim. Arguments that the image is deletable should be discounted - this is not the place to make such arguments. The deletion did not follow procedure and the procedure cannot be rehabilitated here. If any still feel the image should be deleted the thing to do is to list it at WP:IFD. Wikidemo (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Images of living celebrities taken from their performances are fair use violations. The image can be used to illustrate an article about the program or the character, but not about the actor, unless there is extensive discussion in the actor's article about their appearance as the character. Corvus cornix (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply an incorrect statement of policy. Nowhere does the non-free use policy or guideline page say that; quite the opposite. An argument to change the policy should apply, if anywhere, on the policy or guideline page, but should not in an image deletion review. Wikidemo (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the part of the non-free use page which specifically says Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. ? Corvus cornix (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section you quoted contradicts your first statement, yes. But you also misconstrue what the examples says as well as the role of the examples in the guideline. The example does not stand for the proposition that a screen shot cannot be used in an article about an actor. Commentary on an actor performing a role is discussion of the cinema and television. Moreover the individual examples listed are incomplete, not exhaustive. It says screenshots may be used for certain purposes. It does not say they cannot be used for other purposes too.Wikidemo (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a contradiction, it's an exception. Commentary on an actor performing a role is not the sole criterion. It must be more than just "he played this character". I don't see anything in the article as it now stands which is "critical commentary and discussion", just that he was in it. Corvus cornixtalk 17:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As an out of process deletion. The reason for deletion given in the deletion log is "replaceable fair use image", implying that the image was used to identify Cillian Murphy. The image was not used to identify this person, the free Image:Cillianmurphy.jpg does that. This image was deleted after three film screenshots were taken out of Cillian Murphy on the grounds that no screenshots can be used in any actors' article [40] [41] [42], even if there is extensive discussion about the film in the actor's article. This reasoning has been greeted with surprise and disagreed with on Talk:Cillian Murphy and WT:NONFREE, showing that the policy has not yet reached consensus and needs further discussion and clarification. Bláthnaid 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Corvus comix and Spartaz. Failed to comply with NFCC, and indeed the other two non-free images currently do not meet those criteria either. Undeleting the image so we can delete again after some arbitrary period of time has passed seems, to be charitable, misguided. Can anyone in favour of overturning this deletion explain in detail how the use of these images complies with NFCC 8 and 10? Absent such an explanation, there is no choice but to endorse the deletion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any problems with NFCC #10 are fixable. As for #8, the argument is that a limited amount of screenshots do significantly increase readers' understanding of an actor's biography. This is, however, a discussion best suited to WT:NFCC. This deletion should be overturned because it was deleted while people were discussing its suitability for the article. Now, non-administrators cannot fully take part in the discussion. (For example here, where an editor thinks that there were originally just two nonfree images in the article.) Also, the image was deleted so quickly User:Melty girl and other interested parties were not given the time to make their case for this image's retention. Maybe they could have expanded the relevant part of the article, or found a better image. Bláthnaid 00:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion - The deleted image Image:Cmurphy-discopigs.jpg essentially is a redundant copy of Image:Cillian-as-pig.jpg. Speedy delete under CSD I1 redundant copy applies. -- Jreferee t/c 01:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as an out-of-process deletion per Wikidemo and Kudret above. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as an admin overreach without review and even while a discussion was underway at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content on the article's talk page and most people were in support of keeping the image. --Melty girl (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn there was a reasonable ongoing discussion of the copyright question, and no admin has the right to substitute his own opinion on the matter. Speedy for copyvio is for obvious, not good-faith contested. DGG (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has just come to my attention that this image is part of a larger problem concerning the use of fair use images in the Cillian Murphy article, which somehow managed to get through Featured Article Review without a single person noticing that three of the image were in violation of Wikipedia's Fair Use image policy. There is now a disruptive edit war going on as to whether or not the existing images which have not yet been deleted should stay in the article. User:Wikidemo and User:Melty girl argue that the images are allowed because the article contains "critical commentary' about them, whereas I see absolutely no critical commentary about the images, and therefore feel that none of the fair use images should be allowed. Corvus cornixtalk 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one edit warring, removing two different photos from the one being discussed here, even though review and discussion is still underway and no clear consensus exists. My one revert of you did argue that critical commentary exists in the article regarding those two other images (I think The New York Times, The New Yorker, The San Francisco Chronicle etc. certainly qualify), but it also requested that you wait until review has taken place before removing images from the article, since there is ample discussion but no consensus yet, and reviews of the images have not taken place. Additionally, you sought to take the whole article to FAR over these three images, but were rebuffed. You are the one who has been behaving in a disruptive manner. Please let the process work itself out before taking action over something clearly controversial. --Melty girl (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the images one time, before I knew there was a general discussion about how any fair use image can be used for any specious purpose, is hardly edit warring. Corvus cornixtalk 21:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read an interesting passage at the WP article on Fair use:

The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above derive from the classic opinion of Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841), in which the defendant had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George Washington in order to produce a separate two-volume work of his own. The court rejected the defendant's fair use defense with the following explanation:
[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy....
In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.
I see the bolded phrase to be most critical in our assessment. These images while loosely defined as criticism, certainly do not supersede the use of the original work, nor do they: prejudice the sale, diminish the profits, or supersede the objects of the original work. To the contrary these uses probably enhance the sales and profits for the original works -- free advertising! --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: Firstly, this deletion was improperly done no matter whether you agree with, or disagree with, the image use or not. Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs) knew full well that a serious discussion was taking place (he was part of it) AND that he was opposed to the view that the fair-use images are still allowed. Oh, and his deletion claimed that the image was a "replaceable fair use image", but with what? Another fair-use image because a PD of the actor would not show him portraying a role in a movie.
  • Comment The implications of this action being upheld are very serious indeed and a real discussion must take place about fair-use images in actor article, and possibly about fair-use in general. It seems that Corvus cornix (talk · contribs) is also against fair-use in general, as he states this is a larger problem, and therefore supports this specific deletion as well as the deletion of all the other fair-use images that are in the Cillian Murphy article which he is now promoting by putting the Cillian Murphy article up for fair-use review at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Cillian_Murphy even while this discussion is taking place - that is way to bold for me. I think that before deleting any more fair-use images we need to discuss fair-use policy in essence at WP:RFC/POLICIES because there are apparently quite a few editors who disagree with the current policy and take action, or support action taken, based on the opposing views rather than on the policy. ww2censor (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted for non-notability. I suggest the page be undeleted and replaced with the contents of User:Shritwod/Ayman_Ahmed_El-Difrawi_(draft). This page contains, to date, 27 secondary independent citations and many primary citations. According to WP:ATA, the inclusion of a subject in secondary sources is a primary indicator of notability and trumps the opinions of individual editors. The article does need to be cleaned up and original research deleted, but the reasons for deletion due to non-notability are gone. There may have been the appearance of consensus originally, but those weighing in included employees of the subject and the subject himself. SaltyDawg (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm not sure what's best here. I will note that the article was well-sourced when it was listed for deletion, and more sources were added throughout the process, while the delete comments continued to pile up. I think weak keep deleted: this is not the opinion of one or two editors, there seems to be a strong feeling from the community that this topic is inappropriate, despite the existence of sources. No topic can be included without sources, but not every sourceable topic must be included, especially if consensus is against it. Mangojuicetalk 16:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote WP:ATA, "Those working at newspapers, magazines, journals and other secondary sources have to make sure that a subject is notable before they write a piece on it, because if they do not, no-one will read it, their employer will lose money, and they will get fired. So we can rely on their judgement of "how big is big" - but we cannot rely on ours."
To quote WP:Notability,"Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic....A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
If notability is met (clearly it has here) then the topic is suitable. I believe that 27 independent sources is more significant coverage than many Wikipedia entries which would not be deleted. This person has been shown by independent secondary sources to be the principal behind some of the largest scams in teh United States. As a topic he worthy of an encyclopedic entry.--SaltyDawg (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - The draft still is highly POV. The lead paragraph starts out misusing the alternate names for the article to indict El-Difrawi through "also know as" innuendo, then label's his entire life "controversial", and then calls his model scouting company a scam without any conclusion by a court of the same - all within the first sentence! That is not an appropriate approach to a Wikipedia article, even for people widely disdained or disdained by those preparing the Wikipedia article. The third sentence in the lead paragraph lists an unproven accusation and then, zamo, right into a criminal conviction. The article then goes into his criminal history instead of his biographical history, establishes a guilt by association to accused pedophiler Lou Pearlman, then goes into detail about El-Difrawi's significant current activities, implying that everyone needs to watch out for these current activities because El-Difrawi is a bad guy. It is written in a way that is more of a road map of where those who oppose El-Difrawi can locate him rather than an encyclopedic conveyance of information. The article segregates the chronological history of El-Difrawi in a way that increases the negative impression the article conveys. The draft article isn't a biography. It seems more of a WP:BLP, POV hit piece on El-Difrawi. See WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. The draft article has been worked on for the past month and a half[43] and I don't think it is there. -- Jreferee t/c 17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to be reading different articles. The lead paragraph does nothing to indict El-Difrawi by displaying his aliases, merely by showing that he is known by alternate names - period. It says nothing about what those names are used for. This is not misuse, other articles in Wikipedia list aliases and nicknames. I find absolutley zero innuendo, and there are citations for the person's aliases. the article says he is a controversial businessman - it doesn't label his entire life as controversial as you state. What's published of his biographical information is referenced here before any criminal convictions. I can point that out to you if you are still unable to see it. It is a small section because nobody has published a biography of this guy. The current activities are what they are there is no implication whatsoever, if you INFER that, because the man is a criminal that you should stay away - so be it. This person is a career criminal and scammer, to date there are no publications listing legitimate businesses this person has been involved in if there are indeed any.
Quoting NPOV, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." It is a fact that the modeling business was branded a scam by a government agancy and numerous media outles. This is a precise fact that the article included.
Please read this: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (emphasis added) this article fairly represents all reliable sources which have been found and proper weight has been given to each of those. I cannot find one single independent source that lists legitimate business activities for El-Difrawi, or paints his early biography, or has any other information about him. The majority (read as 100%) of published reliable sources about this person are focused on his criminal activity. You have to go to primary sources for the other scraps of biographical information that is here.
Again from NPOV: "When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner." - There are no contradictory relevant sources, at least that I have found. If I can find any, they will certainly be immediately included here. Or feel free to make constructive edits yourself.
  • comment Please try again, and include only the most important material, and only that which is documented in truly reliable sources. Possibly an adequate article can be written, but the amount of detail is totally inappropriate for and encyclopedia. The excessive detail amounts to a personal attack beyond what would be justified here.DGG (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I endorse my original closure of the discussion as accurate, this new article is not encyclopedic in tone. As DGG mentions, the level of detail is far, far too high and amounts to a personal attack. A lot of this article relies of synethesis of original sources, like court documents and articles, which have no indication that these incidents have any notability — this concern was brought up in the AfD and never addressed. However, from some of the sources provided I think you can write a good article about this subject; however, this is not it. --Haemo (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Update:Userfied version substantially improved, moved to mainspace by me. New AfD is by the usual editorial option. Xoloz (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Capture bonding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Request reconsideration on the basis of new information. The AfD was started thus:

"This article is either conflict of interest or pseudoscience or, as I believe, both. [...][44]

Subsequently (but too late for the AfD decision) a WP:RS was located (peer reviewed article in _Mankind Quarterly_).[45] Re CoI, Google lists 3,390 for "capture bonding" -Keith -Henson vs 3,890 for "capture bonding". Keith Henson (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The quote on that Arbcom page would make a reasonable source to back up the use of the term "Capture bonding" at Stockholm syndrome, since it describes the two as different names for the same phenomenon. This doesn't establish notability for capture bonding as a separate topic. (IMO it would be okay to create a redirect, though.) Mangojuicetalk 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The article in Mankind Quarterly is by none other than Keith Henson. This doesn't give me any confidence that anybody except Keith Henson uses this term. The self-promotion argument still applies here. But the more important point is that this is a term coined by Keith Henson, that no one uses but Keith Henson. By the way, Mankind Quarterly is peer reviewed, but it doesn't have a very good reputation due to its position on race and intelligence; it doesn't strike me as the kind of source we want to use for Wikipedia articles, especially if it's going to be the main source for an article. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am amused by your political correctness. Keith Henson (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amused or not, it's indisputable that Mankind Quarterly is held in very low regard by a great number of academics. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was a time when a great number of academics thought bleeding was a cure for a lot of illness. Were they right? Read this http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/ and tell me if the academics you are talking about are right. Keith Henson (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: That is a very common comment in Wikipedia's deletion discussions and it is utterly irrelevant. Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. We synopsize the verified writings of others. To do anything else falls afoul of the prohibition against original research. If we had been writing Wikipedia back when established consensus of the informed and educated academics was that bleeding worked, that's exactly what the encyclopedia would have said. Right or wrong gets proven outside Wikipedia. Once the scientific consensus changes, then it has a place in the encyclopedia - not before. Rossami (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - The topic is covered by Stockholm syndrome. I only found the term being used in Henson, H Keith. (July2006) Mankind Quarterly Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War. Google books brings in a few hits; Google scholar does not. In any event, captivity bonding seems more descriptive than capture bonding since it is not the seizure of the person that causes the bonding but the confinement. I don't see the term "capture bonding" being widely used in the future. I don't have a problem with Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War. being used as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles within reason. However, it doesn't provide enought reliable source material to sipport an article on capture bonding. If you still think there is enough reliable source material for the capture bonding, draft an article using that relaible source material and present that draft to DRV for review. -- Jreferee t/c 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To keep me from having to start from scratch, how about temporarily undeleting the article or sending me the last versions before Sadi and Publicola edited the article. Email is ok, [email protected] Post the new draft here? Keith Henson (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
another admin how now moved it to User:Hkhenson/Capture bonding. DGG (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Peer review, shmeer review. An article authored by Henson is evidently not an independent source. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fictional applications of real materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD | DRV#1)

Grounds for deleting look rather weak. Restore? Its AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - The October 12, 2007 DRV addressed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials. -- Jreferee t/c 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure per the reasons I gave there. The keep arguments were basically WP:USEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:HARMLESS and WP:ITJUSTNEEDSCLEANUP. Deletion reasons, on the other hand, included points like WP:NOR and WP:V. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Looks rather "no consensus" to me, with leanings toward keeping, actually. Even the nomination leaned that way (unintentionally, I would presume), since: if the information is worth merging, it could be argued that such information could/should be listed in a central list. It's one of the specific uses of lists... The deletion concerns seemed to be over whether this was trivia or whether the list inclusion criteria was too broad (which was clarified, and even caused one commenter to change from delete to weak delete). As for trivia, in looking over the list, it would appear to need some pruning, but I think this is like any other list of "fictional things" (as was also noted in the discussion). - jc37 (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn not much different to listing fictional characters. DollyD (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The delete arguments were based on policy while the keeps were not. Whispering 13:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I almost closed this one as delete myself last month, but decided I didn't want to deal with the whole web of related AFDs. For my read of the discussion, the sound arguments for deletion are those based in WP:FICT, as nobody demonstrated any secondary sources on the topic of the list (if we had a solid article on the topic of the list, we might or might not be able to defend a list), WP:NOR, and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. That each item in the list may in theory be sourcable is nice - but to truly source it, we'd need to source 1) the name & use in the work of fiction, 2) the name & use in reality, 3) that the real material existed before the work of fiction was authored, and 4) that the authors actually meant the real material and didn't just apply a random name generating algorithm. If all of those were sourced, stringing them together to reach the conclusion the article needs would violate the WP:SYN section of WP:NOR. Nobody in the AFD presented a single secondary source that would support the inclusion of any items in the list. One supposed search was purely a set of example single panels from comics with no discussion, one mentioned no materials. GRBerry (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Ah, that is why it is familiar and where I concluded on this previously. Thanks Sasha. GRBerry (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse good closing. AFDs aren't headcounts. And for the record, this was at DRV before. Happy Thanksgiving! (Sasha) 14:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The WP:OR/WP:N concern here is a killer, and was not addressed at all in any of the keep arguments. Plus, enough already; the AfD was delete and was endorsed at the prior DRV that Sasha points out. Mangojuicetalk 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). The closer clearly explained his/her reasoning and made the decision in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. If/when this topic becomes the subject of independent analysis and research (in other words, when we have secondary sources to work from, not merely compilations of primary sources), the article can be considered for undeletion. By the way, decisions like this are precisely why we don't use voting at Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In looking over the comments above, I'm wondering who has said anything about counting heads? And pointing at policy doesn't mean that such policy applies, any more than listing a source in a discussion automatically means that the source applies. - jc37 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Impossibly broad, virtually unsourceable. Wrong Wiki, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Nothing new presented over the consensus at DRV#1. -- Jreferee t/c 18:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn there was no consensus at the AfD, and it should have been so closed. Incorrect use of admin discretion, and that it was supported at an earlier DRV is another mistake that ought to be corrected. Given that opinion here seems--however mistaken-- so firmly against the article, it might be most practical to try to recreate some of it in a new and better manner in user space. DGG (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Do you want me to temporarily undelete Fictional applications of real materials so those of you who are not admins can see it? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't seem necessary, anyway DRV is about whether the process has been followed and AFD operated correctly, not a chance to get a second (or in this case third) bite of the cherry to get the article kept. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn there was indeed no consensus at the AfD. Closing should not be based on whether an administrator is personally convinced by the arguments, but by whether the arguments are representative of, or would be convincing to, a wider Wikipedia consensus. No evidence for this was shown. It is claimed that the delete arguments were "based in policy" but only one policy was even mentioned in the AfD (original research) and it was incorrectly applied—the nominator said "Entirely original research (from primary sources)" but the actual policy specifically allows "descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source" and no argument was made that any "claims" about primary sources in this article were anything but descriptive. The other arguments to delete, essentially "trivia" and "too broad" (or "potentially infinite") were not based in policy at all and were simply individual opinions no more representative of consensus than any other. Given the lack of a true policy-based reason to delete, and the lack of consensus to delete, the close should have been "keep" or at least "no consensus"—even if none of the keeps were based in policy. DHowell (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The delete arguments were more in line with policy than the keep arguments. It is not a head count. 1 != 2 07:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would seem to me to be a reason to overturn...? Stifle (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I typed it wrong this first time, I have repaired my statement. Thanks. 1 != 2 22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "essentially "trivia"": Often trivialness is relative. E.g. I have no interest in football, and to me most football matter is footballcruft and I change channels or turn the page over; but football is important to many people. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
similarly, i would be perfectly happy with a WP with no information about individual UK railroad locomotives, professional wrestlers, members of State legislatures, porn stars, and dozens of other topics which I regard as intrinsically trivial. I dont attempt to remove them. DGG (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Worth noting that the article isn't salted and there's nothing stopping people from recreating a different article which cites sources appropriately, irrespective of the outcome of this. That should not be G4ed. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Trivia gives some good guidance. "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list. ... A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." If the list article can be recreated in a way that makes it a selectively populated list with a narrow theme, that would help overcome CSD G4 as well. -- Jreferee t/c 14:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - admin made a good call, in line with appropriate policy and procedure. Nothing new here since the last DRV a month ago. Otto4711 (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as above. Eusebeus (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 November 2007[edit]

  • Radio station AFDs – Relist, mostly on procedural grounds. Wikipedia:Speedy keep has very specific criteria that must be fulfilled order to be invoked. As the application of the guideline is debated, it is impossible to predict a surefire keep or delete, hence the discussions should be reopened for further discussion. However, you guys have to start the AfDs, not me, as that is not my responsibility. – Kurykh 05:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WRNY (AM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
WRRC (FM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

All the reasons for keeping these were completely ridiculous, not based in any policy or guideline, and ignored the policies cited in the nomination reason. They were based on some unwritten rule that a FCC license makes a radio station notable. However, that is directly contrary to the notability guideline and most of the article content fails WP:V. Other reasons for keeping were in the range of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - comparing these minor stations to the BBC World Service. The AFD tag was removed from one article before it was closed with a very OWN-ish reason. I should also note a request for keep votes made at the radio station WikiProject. There is currently a discussion about whether or not a license makes a station notable at the village pump. Mr.Z-man 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn - The very idea that a station is notable because it exists is debatable. The same criterion could be applied to companies. Incidentally, why aren't we using WP:CORP to decide notability? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the problem with using WP:CORP is that broadcast outlets are in direct competition with those sources that would otherwise report on them, establishing notability. If I'm the local newspaper, I'm certainly not going to cover what the local radio and television stations do, unless they screw up. There's a conflict of interest that does not exist with other businesses covered under WP:CORP. For example, I live in Phoenix. Last year, the NBC-affiliated television station became the first in the state to broadcast their local news in high-definition. I would consider that newsworthy. But who would cover it? The newspaper would, but they're owned by the same company as the television station, Gannett, so that disqualifies them as an independent source. Certainly no other television station would cover it; you don't build up your competition. Same with radio. dhett (talk • contribs) 06:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, relist. "Having a license" =/= "notable". Standard notability/referencing/sourcing guidelines and rules still apply. --Calton | Talk 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Is - If you remove these two, you might as well remove each and every single radio and TV station, radio and TV program, radio and TV network. An FCC license makes the station notable. WRNY is no more and no less notable than WABC and KDKA and on the same token, WABC and KDKA are no less and no more notable than WRNY. Removing them opens up a can of worms that puts each and every single radio and TV station article at risk of being deleted and sets a precedent that if it is small and even remotely "non-notable" then it shouldn't be here, which would put the entire project, Wikipedia itself, in jeopardy. Think before acting. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Is - FCC-licensed radio (and television) stations are inherently notable. It's true that some radio stations are more notable than others but the policy isn't "very notable" or "most notable" it's just about being notable. Down this road you could put 95% of the content of Wikipedia in jeopardy. (Do we really need articles for every US President? Or country? Or chemical element? Hint: We do.) - Dravecky (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A well-meaning non-admin closed the discussions, but probably wasn't aware of the canvassing done here: [46] (note that there is a similar note for WP:WPRS members to come to this DRV). I see no reason why radio stations should be exempt from WP:V and WP:N, and I find the argument that they are inherently notable unconvincing. henrik•talk 00:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. The arguments in these discussions aren't very good, but one of the articles nominated for deletion is WRRC (FM), founded 45 years ago. According to the article, this station went on the air in November 1962, and is old enough to have been a part of the the classic Mutual Broadcasting System-era Golden Age of Radio, when radio stations were still airing a large number of radio sitcoms and soap operas. Surely the original nomination was a mistake. I can't imagine deleting an article on a 45-year old "golden age" radio station. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a college radio station with a broadcast area of 10 sq mi, surely if it is so notable there are reliable sources. Mr.Z-man 01:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The radius is 10 miles, not the coverage area. The coverage area is around 350 square miles... on the well-populated East Coast of the U.S. The potential audience is 313,000 persons,[47] as already linked in the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist in light of canvassing. Being licensed does not automatically indicate notability, and there are no guidelines that say this. A non-admin probably should not have closed the discussions. --Coredesat 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should be at the very least relisted, because of this gross canvassing. Not to mention that they were closed very shortly, which gave very little time for people to refute the ridiculous "license=notable" keeps. And finally, it was a non-admin closing, and there isn't currently a decision on whether or not those are germane. I (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist without reliable, non-trivial indepentent sources, an article can't exist, also see WP:CCC, all the elementary and middle schools articles that are being deleted in droves are a perfect example. This is a Secret account 01:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist because of the incorrect close and canvassing. The well-meaning non-admin who closed as WP:SNOW somewhat understandably assumed from the weight of comments that "FCC licence = notable" was policy, when this is obviously not the case. My personal feeling is that one of these stations is probably just about notable and the other probably isn't, but another AfD is certainly required here. ELIMINATORJR 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the fundamental issue is whether or not FCC-licensed stations are inherently notable, which was the primary "keep" contention. Currently, although probably not officially stated anywhere, we have a short list of inherently notable things: settlements regardless of how low the population is, legislators at the highest non-national level (US state assemblypeople, e.g.), chemical elements, high schools (still some controversy there, but I can only vaguely recall a high school being deleted on notability grounds and not recently. Adding FCC-licensed US-based radio stations to this rag-tag list of inherently notables is probably not too inconsistent with practice here. Cable & web & satelite radio stations get deleted with some regularity; but, I cannot recall a licensed terrestrial station being deleted. Rather than test each of them by some criteria, it's probably best to globally note their inherent notability and move on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you comparing small radio stations with chemical elements?! I'm sorry, but that just jumped out at me and I seriously needed some clarification on that one. JPG-GR (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a value judgment, it's what the WP community is considering inherently notable, which is not to say that some small town in Madagascar is more or less notable or worthy than the chemical elements - it's just that we as a community have decided that each is inherently notable. Adding licensed radio stations to that list is making no value judgment any more than saying anyone who meets WP:BIO gets a biography here - you don't need to be as famous as Julius Caesar - not a value judgment that the average joe who hits two or three newspaper articles about his deeds/misdeeds is as important or worthy as Caesar or Christ or Queen Elizabeth, it's jut rough consensus here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist as no valid arguments for the notability of these stations have been presented, this is the only option. JPG-GR (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moreoever, due to the large scale canvassing, a relist is necessary to seek a greater consensus across the community. JPG-GR (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep: As mentioned above, all articles with an FCC or governmental license is notable, regardless of ratings, reach, or ownership. Delete these, then it will like be saying that only corporate-owned stations that are the top five in large markets are allowed to stay, while lower-rated, independently-owned stations, especially in unranked markets, are given the boot. And if these stations go, you might as well forbid all articles related to radio and television. delete all or delete none -- it's your choice. -- azumanga (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how we only have those 2 choices and why radio stations are so special to be excused from so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines based on one unwritten rule, which I have yet to see any evidence of being a community created consensus. Mr.Z-man 03:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Azumanga1, this isn't AFD. This is a discussion of whether process was properly followed in the AFD, which it wasn't. Besides, your arguments is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS anyway. --Coredesat 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what if the Television and Cable Factbook and Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook, two important tomes in the broadcasting industry, is just as selective as you are? I know we can't compete against them, but still it is best to be just as complete. Wikipedia has one thing in common with those books, in which they are reference materials. To omit important information dismissed as "unimportant" would practically corrupt the integrity of Wikipedia. Think about it. -- azumanga (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
False dichotomy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a universal reference guide. Should we also be as complete as the Urban Dictionary and the Yellow Pages? Mr.Z-man 05:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
False dichotomy. Hey! So many familiar faces on IRC! Shameless canvassing goes both ways, it seems... Firsfron of Ronchester 06:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're clearly referring to me by quoting me twice, I have not used IRC in at least 8 months, perhaps longer; I frequently comment at DRV, though, which, ironically, is how I came upon this discussion. Amazing how that worked! I would ask you to back up your baseless claims or retract them. My statements are far from baseless. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Bbatsell, I am not referring to you in any way. I very much like you. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist due to short incubation time, shameless canvassing by Neutralhomer (talk · contribs). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; the slippery slope argument is completely fallacious. — Coren (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To whoever put the "This is not a majority vote..." thing at the top. I didn't and won't tell people how to vote. I said it needed to be stopped, but if those people wanted to side with Mr.Z-man, then there isn't anything I can do about that. Me telling others about something doesn't affect a vote. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was me, regarding "We need to let Mr.Z-man know that changing the notability standard for Radio and TV stations is a bad idea...REALLY bad idea." being added to WT:WPRS as well as the talk pages of all "super-active" members of WP:WPRS. JPG-GR (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep - I was informed of this discussion by Neutralhomer, but was not informed of and did not participate in the AfDs for each article. I do not cite inherent notability provided by a license alone, but I believe that the results of each AfD should be upheld, as both stations should be considered notable. In the case of WRNY (AM), the station originates programming and can be cited to help establish notability in other articles. Can a station provide notability to others and not be notable itself? In the case of WRRC (FM), the article needs serious work to bring it to Wikipedia standards, but given the citation by Firsfron of Ronchester that the station's broadcast range gives it a potential audience of 313,000 people, hardly trivial, I would deem it notable if it also originates programming and is not a mere translator. dhett (talk • contribs) 06:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is not a rehash of AFD. DRV is strictly to review the closure of the discussion. Since the closure occurred after a number of hours, rather than 5 days, and since the majority of the contributors had come from either a Wikiproject or their talk pages, where they were specifically instructed to keep the article, and since the only keep rationale was per a non-existent policy (the only notability criteria we have on Wikipedia is whether there is significant third-party coverage in reliable sources), it was clearly an incorrect closure. If you feel that after a full discussion, the article will be kept, then you should have no qualms about a relist. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I read the previous posts, trying to figure out how to respond appropriately. I had no intention of rehashing the AfDs, but I guess my assertion that the results of the AfDs should be upheld wasn't sufficient, so let me try again. The closures, although hasty, were appropriate, per WP:OUTCOMES#Entertainment. There are thousands of media articles, and time after time they are inappropriately nominated for deletion, citing WP:CORP, which is an inappropriate standard for media. These don't need to have a full five days' discussion; they shouldn't exist in the first place. Rudget's actions were correct, even if he isn't so sure of it. dhett (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So media is compltely immune to deletion? That doesn't sound right. Also, it would have been nice if these articles said all these things that have come out in the deletion review that might show notability. Rather, WRNY (AM) only discusses the station's format, it gives almost no historical background, not even when it started broadcasting. WRRC (FM) gives some historical info, but mostly trivial details ("There was a main studio, an auxiliary production studio and record library..."), and nothing about why it is important. Mr.Z-man 19:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't sound right, because I never said that media is completely immune to deletion. I'm puzzled how you came up with that. What I did say is that the closure of the AfDs was appropriate, due to WP:OUTCOMES. What I did say is that WP:CORP is inappropriate to apply to media. What I did say is that your noms were inappropriate. We need a sensible standard for media article notability, and WP:CORP is not it. dhett (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep - per Dhett. If it hadn't of been me, it would have been someone else. Rudget.talk 09:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • or Relist - as per concerns that Hiding brought up. If there was a consensus, then if it is relisted, it will demonstrate a further support for keeping the article. However, I am concerned that as this is deletion review, the AFD will suffer because of this. The whole mention of whether a radio station has a license or not should have been first discussed by the nominator at the appropriate umbrella project. But, this did not occur. Rudget.talk 13:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since when does one have to ask permission from projects before nominating articles for deletion? Mr.Z-man 14:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Never. It's just a suggestion, so a nominator can get a better picture of what they are nominating. Rudget.talk 15:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep.Relist - possible canvassing and hastily closed, although these do look like obvious keeps and the AFD discussions so far were overwhelmingly for keeping these two articles. The rationales were solid. There is a consensus at the radio station wikiproject, and among the participants in the AFD discussion, that radio stations are inherently notable. I tend to agree. Standard notability guidelines clearly do not apply well to media outlets, but that's an argument to be made elsewhere. Anyone who does not like this should make the argument at the policy/guideline level, not by taking potshots at individual articles for deletion. Wikidemo (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Less than one day is not long enough to discuss the issues raised in the debate or challenge the opinion by some Wikipedians that their view is consensus. This smacks just a little of weighting the debate, in that the debate was closed before we had a chance to see if a differing consensus would emerge. I would also point out this was a close performed by a non-admin, something guidance tells us should typically be performed during periodfs of backlog. I can't at any point see how closing a debate the day it opens is aiding in any backlog, and I can't see any evidence of a backlog at afd. There are legitimate concerns of vote stacking here, and it is in the interests of all parties that the consensus the people here declare exists is tested with a five day debate. If the current consensus is that this article should be kept, the relisting will do no harm, in fact it will be strengthened. If there is no such consensus, then it should be relisted even more so. Those that believe the consensus to keep this article exists should have nothing to lose in re-opening debate. Hiding Talk 10:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Due to possible canvassing and the fact that the AfD's were closed after only one day. Whispering 13:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep - The closing admin made the determination that being a licensed station is enough for notability. Unless that specifically violates a policy here, then the decision to keep is not out of order. Stop making this into AfD Part II, please. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which closing admin would that be? You have read this discussion and seen the debate was closed by a non-admin, yes? Hiding Talk 14:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the by, yes, a closing admin is certainly out of bounds in deciding "that being a licensed station is enough for notability", that is a decision for a consensus of wikipedians. It's an even greater bound for a non-admin. Is there canvassing in operation here too? Hiding Talk 14:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing admin made the determination... That's not a determination, that's a claim -- one VERY much in doubt. --Calton | Talk 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note I am not an admin. And it was a determination, not a claim. Rudget.talk 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it was inherently contrary to policy, I would term it a claim. Sorry. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I misspoke when I said "admin", but it doesn't really affect anything here. It is not contrary to policy though, that is the whole point here. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy? If you want to argue for a relist or overturn on procedural issues, how about this one? Were these steps followed? If not, then these AfDs should not have occurred in the first place. dhett (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia:Notability is actually not "policy", but a guideline, and is "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." DHowell (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant procedural issue is Wikipedia:Deletion process, specifically the section on non-admin closure. Two parts are partciularly relevant However, at times the various deletion discussions become backlogged. Editors in good standing who have not been made administrators may close deletion discussions and Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator. A WP:SNOW close is typically controversial, and indeed even states An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome that requires the full process. Hiding Talk 09:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the nominator did not follow WP:N guidelines for non-compliant articles, and that media deletions were already treated in WP:OUTCOMES#Entertainment, due to the results of about 30 previous AfDs where the broadcast station article had been preserved, the nominations never should have occurred in the first place. So you can bang on the non-admin who closed the AfDs for WP:SNOW, but it doesn't change the fact that he did the right thing, if perhaps for the wrong reason. Process has not been offended here; there is no need to rehash this debate. dhett (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator did follow WP:N, which guides about half a dozen different possibilities, deletion included. We also have the ideal that consensus can change. If we are prepared to do more than simply pay lip service to that ideal, then we have to let the five days ride. Since you believe the articles will not be deleted, you have nothing to lose. The only reason I can see for not having a full five days is that there's the doubt the consensus may change, which is precisely why we should have it relisted. That's why a WP:SNOW close is so contentious. Let's not forget that per deletion process, as an admin I can simply reopen the debate. I think we'd all agree that way disaster lies. Hiding Talk 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I am not persuaded that any of the endorse/keep votes have given a valid reason for not reconsidering this, bearing in mind the clear violation of process. --Smalljim (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist on procedural grounds. The canvassing was bad. The non-admin close may be understandable given what appeared to be a genuine WP:SNOW case but from what has now been uncovered, this closure is contaminated. A full deletion debate needs to be run. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse or relist. Canvassing = bad, so a relisting would be required to determine the consensus. But there is not going to be a consensus to delete these articles, so I don't think we should bother. Mr Z-man's deletion rationale was weak; the articles are stubs and will improve with time. Mangojuicetalk 16:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No sources for the article's content is a weak reason? Mr.Z-man 19:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The "unwritten rule" is WP:OUTCOMES - "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." --SmashvilleBONK! 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also important to note that no one ever asked in either AfD where that argument came from or it could have been presented. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OUTCOMES isn't official policy, thats the same page that said all schools, even elementary schools are notable a few months ago (that was later reworded to high schools only), also the issue here is with sources for me, having a mention in the FCC isn't enough anymore, more sources need to exist. This is a Secret account 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And consensus can change. Mr.Z-man 19:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:OUTCOMES#Entertainment seals the deal as far as I am concerned, and it isn't supposed to be or designed to be "official policy"; what it is is a summation of arguments that have been made in the past, to serve as a guideline for future, similar arguments. Kinda like a court ruling that sets a precedent for later courts to follow. The issue of canvassing is rendered moot, as whether it is one vote or a hundred, the argument of notability is settled. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So not only is it not policy, but it can't be changed by consensus and it overrides actual policies/guidelines? Mr.Z-man 00:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist reluctantly due to the canvassing noted above which combined with the early closure makes a procedural relisting on AFD probably necessary. However agree with some of the arguments of those arguing for the article to be kept and cannot see a consensus emerging for them to be deleted. Davewild (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - I'm only going to review one request, WRNY (AM). First, does an FCC licence provide enough reliable source material to write a Wikipedia article? I see the links in the article, but they lead to trivia information. I would appreciate it if someone can provide me a link to such a contractual license so that I can look at the text. The AfD discussion seems to imply that if something is important, there should be a Wikipedia article on it even if there is not enough reliable source material to support such an article. That's just nonsense since it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's article standards policies, such as WP:V. Comment Here is some info on WRNY: "Hugo Gernsback had founded radio station WRNY, located in New York's Roosevelt Hotel, in 1925. Three years later, the station began one of the world's first regular television broadcasts."Smithsonian August 1990. Here is a blurb:New York Times August 11, 1991. "New Jersey claims many other TV firsts: standard broadcast station to transmit an image, from WRNY in Fort Lee across the Hudson River to a New York University lecture hall in 1928." The Morning Call (July 25, 1993) (search). George Mortimer Chadwick provided program notes for radio broadcasts sponsored by the New York Edison Company over Station WRNY[48]. "The first scheduled television programmes were broadcast by WRNY in New York."[49]. -- Jreferee t/c 19:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Possibly relist for a better discussion, that will conform to WP policy, but with respect to WRNY I think Jreferee has shown pretty conclusively why it would be notable. An inadequate article is not proof of un-notability. There is not and should not be a policy that mere government licensing --of anything --is alone enough of a source for notability. I can;t see how that is any sort of rational inclusionism. The FCC does an adequate directory--they are however not an encyclopedia. And vice versa. . DGG (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment.The reference[50] cited in the WRNY (AM) article mentions the facts that Jreferee traced too, but it also says that it was bought out by WHN and closed down in 1934. So is it the same station? If it is, I'm mystified by the 60-odd year gap and why these facts are in a reference quoted in the article, but not in the article itself. I'd suggest that the guys at WP:WPRS have a good tidy-up of these articles...(later)... Oh I see they are doing so, and Azumanga1 has deleted[51] that reference as "unrelated defunct station". Sorry, we've just wasted our time. --Smalljim (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Believe me, the members of WP:WPRS and WP:TVS are constantly improving articles. When we're not battling persistent and prolific vandals, that is. As for wasting time, the two AfDs that brought us here and these following discussions could be viewed as a waste of time, since below, DHowell has pointed out 30 previous AfDs where the station's existence was upheld. dhett (talk • contribs) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. Was the non-admin closure inappropriate or too early? Perhaps. Was there canvassing? Probably. However, there is indeed overwhelming precedent and consensus for articles on licensed full-service broadcast stations, which are not merely translators, to be retained. Policy and guidelines follow from consensus, not the other way around. If there is strong consensus to ignore a guideline in some specific case, then that is an example of ignore all rules being correctly applied. Evidence for the strong consensus, documented in WP:OUTCOMES#Entertainment, is established by, in addition to discussion at WikiProject Radio Stations and WikiProject Television Stations, many prior AfD discussions, including those for the following radio and TV stations: KGRG-FM, KKWK, KPLI-FM, KMXV, KPDF-CA, KPTY-FM, KPXC-TV, KSIV, KTAR, KFTL, KUPN-LP, KXRZ-FM, WDRQ, WEZG, WFNO, WHHS, WKIT, WKTG, WLCM (Lancaster), WMLN, WMME-FM, WOJO, WPKN, WPPJ, WPSR-FM, WRCG, WRDZ, WRFD, WTVT, WXYK. However, to address the points about notability not being established by reliable sources, there are many: besides the FCC database, there is FQMB, 100000watts.com (fee required for full access), RadioStationWorld, and Radio-locator, and there are many printed reliable sources about broadcast stations which are not available for free online, such as industry publications like Broadcasting & Cable, Inside Radio, Adweek, as well as local newspapers within each radio market which usually cover the local radio scene. A thorough search of all these publications would very likely turn up a significant amount of information about every FCC-licensed broadcast station which does not simply translate the programming of another station. However, not all of these sources are easily found and immediately available: that is why the principle that "FCC-licensed" equals "notable" make sense. DHowell (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you add some recent examples of AFDs, not ones that was closed years ago back when AFD was a vote count This is a Secret account 04:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Wait until the Wikipedia:Notability (media) proposed guidelines are either accepted or rejected, and then (if they are rejected) relist. Under the current proposal, both of these stations qualify. There is no urgent need to delete these articles; we can wait until the consensus determines the fate of the notability guidelines. Horologium t-c 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: arguments for keeping the article were coherent (licensed radio stations are a class of topics that generally meet notability standards) and the "canvassing" was not meaningful. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - Simply closed too early with canvassing and poor keep arguments. Running this through AFD again won't do any harm and should bring a clearer consensus. -Halo (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DHowell has already provided links above to 30 radio/TV station AFDs from 2005 to 2007, which all resulted in keeping the nominated article. I can't imagine how much more clear the consensus needs to be. Although consensus can change, does there really need to be a 32nd nomination before editors realize a good portion of the community feels these articles are both worthwhile and within WP's notability guidelines? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sadly, yes. All the points made are good, but they should be made in an afd, not a deletion review, to strengthen the consensus even more. I'm certainly interested in revisiting the debate if only to add a keep comment. I think it is important to Wikipedia and in our best interests that we have the five day debate, attract a wide number of editors and get a resounding keep, and make that the flag for a guideline. Hiding Talk 09:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, relist I can't agree that the arguments at the AfDs were compelling. I don't see an FCC license as conferring notability. What next a plumber's license. I'm for inclusion, but not setting a poor precedent for why. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist The AfD discussion completely ignored the relevant standards for keeping an article (such as WP:N and, as mention by the sole deletion vote, even WP:V). It should not have been closed before addressing those. --Minimaki (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep result. Closure was not proper, given that a non-admin evaluated a case with some complexity; however, it is a fairly decided outcome that existing radio-stations are kept, so I don't think a relisting will achieve anything meaningful. Xoloz (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • The Spikes – Speedy deletion overturned. Listing at AfD by editorial option. – Xoloz (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Spikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted out of process. This page was about to get speedily deleted shortly after its creation, and I added a source for the band's having charted in Ireland. Looks like it got machine-gunned again anyway a few days ago. Charting a hit qualifies under WP:MUSIC and thus would make the group ineligible for speedy. Haven't heard back from the deleting admin. Chubbles (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The link you provided which supposedly proved the contention doesn't go to any page which actually proves that. Corvus cornix (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's difficult for me to see what you mean, since the article doesn't exist for me right now. Besides which, an assertion of notability was made, so regardless, a speedy deletion is invalid. Chubbles (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not available, but the cache still is. Click on "cache" above, and you'll see the previous article, including a link to a newspaper website which doesn't contain any references to the Spikes at all. And allegations of notability with no proof are pretty worthless. Corvus cornix (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the page was updated since then. I provided an access date which should link to this article [52]. Chubbles (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that looks like a good link. Overturn speedy deletion, there's a reliable claim of notability. Corvus cornix (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - fair to overturn as out of process; however, I imagine you might need a better source than that to survive AfD (is charting a single in Ireland enough to establish notability?) so maybe keep looking for more! Wikidemo (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Enough importance/significance was listed in the article (praised by The Irish Times and album, "Monster", charted) such that CSD A7 did not apply. -- Jreferee t/c 19:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Shibby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I manage a pop punk band from the UK and need to create a wikipedia page for them, however the term Shibby is not allowed to be used. Can I ask for a FULL REVIEW as we really do need a page and I'm unsure as to why Shibby would not be allowed. For proof of Shibby's existence please see www.myspace.com/shibbyrock or www.shibbyrock.co.uk Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark msamusic (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion No evidence that this band meets WP:BAND notability requirements. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep salted. The page Shibby appears to have been protected as a repeatedly recreated nonsense page which had nothing to do with the band. However, as the band appears to have released a single EP, available only through iTunes, they don't seem to meet the notability requirements for bands, and so any page on them which would just get deleted very soon anyway. Additionally, the person requesting unsalting acknowledges his conflict of interest and has been inserting promotional material for this band into other articles (eg [53]). Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote your nascent pop-punk band. Come back when they're famous, or better still, wait for them to get famous enough that someone else wants to write an article about them. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted/Salted per WP:COI, WP:RS, and WP:BAND. Happy Thanksgiving! (Sasha) 21:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - as per COI, no reliable sourcing and band policies. Rudget.talk 09:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit creation - The topic Shibby (band) regarding the UK pop punk band has never been deleted from Wikipedia. Comment Not that this affects my reasoning, but there is a band called Not Shibby. The term shibby comes from "Shibbying - stoner slang, used in the film Dude, Where's My Car? It means get stoned/drunk. Eg 'I shibby', 'we shibbed', 'that was some serious shibbying we did last night.' Shibby as an adjective can mean cool. ' They're a shibby band."[54] The "joke" of posting "shibby" in Wikipedia likely is the source of the multiple deletions. Clean up on isle 7! -- Jreferee t/c 19:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, we would at least allow the contributor a chance to draft the article before being asked to defend the notability of the band. However, given the extensive history of vandalism at this title (even though it is not related to the band), I think the right thing to do for Wikipedia is to reverse the normal process in this case and request evidence that this band meets the generally accepted inclusion criteria before opening ourselves up to the cost and effort of fighting off the inevitable recurrence of vandalism. Keep deleted until and unless a draft has been created in the userspace which provides evidence that the band meets the inclusion criteria. And by the way, the band's manager should not be the person drafting the page. When they're famous enough for an encyclopedia article, someone else will write it. See WP:COI for more. Rossami (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Multiple reality show categories – Deletions overturned. The consensus achieved in the November 11 DRV does apply exactly to these categories, which were deleted contemporaneously under similar circumstances, with exactly the same insufficient rationale. The prior decision is directly applicable; these categories should have been listed on 11 November, and that procedural failure shouldn't prevent the right result, since WP:NOT a bureaucracy. – Xoloz (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Multiple reality show categories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There were eight reality show participants categories all closed as delete, precedent by the same admin on the same day. One of them, Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants CfD was overturned at DRV. By the same logic the remaining deletions, Category:The X Factor contestants, Category:Pop Idol contestants, Category:Fame Academy participants, Category:Dancing on Ice participants, Category:Celebrity Fit Club participants, Category:Big Brother UK contestants and Category:The Apprentice (UK) candidates should also be overturned and restored. Otto4711 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um yeah, that's what this would be, the DRV request for the unrestored categories. Otto4711 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Pumpkin Of Nyefar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

PROD contestation. Maurice Noble is one of the famous cartoonists, he worked and co-directed with Chuck Jones. At Maurice Noble, I find out that his last cartoon was done posthumously in 2004, but the link is red and says that an article was summarily deleted. I have not seen its content, but I would like to. Good article or lame stub, the last cartoon of Maurice Noble is a notable topic and I could develop what existed. (I've googled it a bit already.[55]) So I have contacted the delete admin who said to follow DRV, and here I am. Thank you. — Komusou talk @ 07:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion - There doesn't seem to be enough reliable source material for the topic. Anchorage Daily News (search Pumpkin Nyefar AND section(all) AND date(12/1/2005 to 12/30/2005) brings up a mention of a showing at the Anchorage Museum of History and Art. Google books bring up something. Google blog has only three hits. You can add information about the 2004- Short animated film in Maurice Noble. The deleted text in its entirty was

    The Pumpkin of Nyefar 2004- Short animated film written by Tod Polson and Maurice Noble. Directed by Tod Polson and Mark Oftedal. The second film in the "Noble Tales" series created by animation legend Maurice Noble, and Maurices trainees, the "Noble Boys". The story is about Prince "Abadalluh" (named after Maurices Doctor), a prince who could marry any woman in his kingdom, but chooses to wait for true love. The Pumpkin story was inspired by a trip to Turkey that Maurice and Tod took while researching stories for "Noble Tales". Maurice passed away in 2001 before production began. Tod produced the film at the Thai Wang studios in Bangkok, with friend, and former Pixar animator Mark Oftedal. The "Pumpkin Of Nyefar", has shown in various festivals around the world. For more information visit www.pumpkinlover.com

-- Jreferee t/c 08:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per Jreferee. Also note tha tthe article was written by Tod Polson. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comment: Fair enough. So I'm going to make it a dedicated subsection at Maurice Noble and turn the deleted article into an anchored redirect. If the subsection gains enough credentials there'll always be time for a split. Thank you for the review and links, you can close the DRV early if you wish. — Komusou talk @ 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 November 2007[edit]


This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

16 November 2007[edit]

  • Joe Garagiola, Jr. – No non-vandalized revisions to undelete. Permission to create a sourced article granted (as it usually is). – -- Eluchil404 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joe Garagiola, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted in 2006 by administrator Golbez, who is still active. (I could have asked him to undelete, but I prefer to try the formal process so that other opinions can be heard.) There is no explanation in the deletion log, so I don't know whether the page was deleted as a copyright violation or because of notability concerns.

If it's a copyright problem, I'll write the article myself, or I'll ask WP:BASEBALL to do it. If it's a notability issue, you can be certain that Joe Garagiola, Jr., who is the general manager of the Arizona Diamondbacks, is no less notable than Theo Epstein, Mark Shapiro, Jim Hendry, and others in the same profession. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only thing in the history is page-move vandalism (somebody moved an airport article to that name. The man is clearly notable, but you (or anyone) will need to start fresh. -- Xoloz (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) The deleted article was not about the baseball executive, but rather an inexplicable direct copy of Stapleton International Airport. It was probably vandalism. Note that the user who created it is now indef blocked. MLB General managers have never been deleted at AFD as far as I know, and holding the position is a reasonable assertion of notability. So in other words, you can create the article now if you want... but the deleted version is of no use to you. --W.marsh 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - The Joe Garagiola, Jr. topic was never deleted so there is nothing to review. Just post your Joe Garagiola, Jr. material at Joe Garagiola, Jr. or Joe Garagiola Jr. (whichever one complies with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- Jreferee t/c 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • The MacCast – Closed, recreation with sources is allowed anyway as the article is not salted – Coredesat 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The MacCast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am writing to request that you re-list the page related to my podcast. I currently have a page listing my bio here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Christianson and the Wiki link to the information on the podcast itself is a dead since this page was removed. Alphachimp de-listed the page citing CSD A7 - Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. My podcast is listened to by over 25,000 people worldwide each week. I would argue that is "significant". The show provides entertainment value on par or equal to that of other radio and video shows that are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please reconsider the decision to remove this content. Thank you. -- Phylaxis (talk · contribs · logs) 17:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - A related article is Adam Christianson. -- Jreferee t/c 18:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation - The CSD A7 speedy delete was back on 27 December 2006. I did not locate any attempts to recreate the article. Also, Phylaxis notified the deleting admin of this DRV.[56] In addition, I found some reliable source material. The best one I found was The Independent Other information I found was usatoday.com, Advertising Age, Macworld, Johnson, S. (2005) “Navigating the podcast concept" Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, 31 July, p.1, Revolution, Columbus Dispatch , and Macworld. Google books and Google scholar bring up some hits as well. I think we should permit recreation of the article and see where the chips fall. -- Jreferee t/c 18:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation per Jreferee above. The content in the deleted history isn't of great value; the best course is simply to rewrite from the available sources listed. Xoloz (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Latitude Group – Speedy deletion overturned. Content is likely to be merged editorially; if it is not, AfD listing is also at editorial discretion. – Xoloz (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Latitude Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was speedy deleted on the basis that they were an advertisment/spam. This may have been the case however I believe that the company in question is in factnotable per WP:NN as it has recieved significant coverage by reliable secondary sources independant of the subject. These include Deloitte[57], The Financial Times [58] and The Daily Telegraph [59] as well as numerous other sources [60], [61], [62], [63] the company and those associated with it have also won several awards [64], [65], [66]. If successful I would also like to nominate Latitude White - a page speedy deleted for similar reasons - which covered a subgroup of the company. If restored some of this content could be merged into the main article. Guest9999 12:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete as the deleted article wasn't purely blatant advertising... the infobox and the 1st/3rd paragraphs for example wouldn't need to be totally gutted to write a decent article on this subject. G11 is really only for pages that contain nothing we'd use in a hypothetical good article on a subject. --W.marsh 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. Note that the listed page was only a redirect to the former article Latitude Group. The page was about a web advertising and "search engine optimization" firm. AFAIAC businesses such as this need to be scrutinized very closely to make sure that they meet WP:CORP. They do not market consumer products that attract truly independent reviews.

    More importantly, their business involves gaming the Internet for promotional purposes. The former text was quite bad and reeked of conflict of interest, neutrality issues, and puffery: Latitude’s stated aim is to help companies achieve the best possible position on search engines’ results pages and obtain high click through rates and ROI from online marketing. Latitude’s services are underpinned by COBRA, a unique bespoke bidding, reporting and tracking software product that has Microsoft Gold Accreditation . . (Do we need the barbarous word bespoke?)

    Recognition within internet advertising industry publications and awards is not really enough to get this one over the hump; and, like I said, businesses like this need to be scrutinized very strictly and don't get the benefit of a doubt. Suggest that the result of an AfD on this article would be a foregone conclusion. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:CORP - which you mentioned - states "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." The company has been written about extensively by Deloitte[67], The Financial Times [68] and The Daily Telegraph [69] - how do these not count as reliable secondary sources, independant of the subject. Are you suggesting that a non-notable company managed to "game" two major national newspapers and a big four financial services firm. The former text may have had COI and NPOV issues but with the curent number of reliable sources available it could be cleaned up and made into a decent article. [[-- Guest9999 (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion absolutely correct application of WP:CSD. Carlossuarez46 16:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I have speedily deleted an article about a subsidiary, Latitude White, and nominated an article about the CEO for AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites. If somebody unaffiliated with the company would like to start a properly sourced article, I have no objection. The former articles were utterly unsuitable for an encyclopedia. If an editor would like me to retrieve a copy of the old article into their userspace so they can copy the infobox, I would be happy to do that. Also, there should just be one article, not separate articles on the company, its subsidiaries, and its CEO. There isn't enough to say right now for more than one article. - Jehochman Talk 16:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The intro from the deleted article "The Latitude Group is a UK search engine marketing agency that specialises in pay-per-click advertising and search engine optimisation. It was founded in 2001 by Dylan Thwaites and is headquartered in London with offices in Cheshire, with more than 100 employees." it really wasn't that bad, and if sourced, would be a fine intro. Also the infobox was good. There was stuff in there that wasn't just spam... blatant advertising is just that: there's nothing in there we'd actually want to keep in a decent article. --W.marsh 18:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - CSD G11 requires that the advertising be blatant. The deleted article wasn't blatant advertising. The article had chronology, an infobox, useful information such as the awards it won - things you ordinarily would see in such an article. -- Jreferee t/c 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete for the reason give by Jreferee. Possibly one problematic sentence. Certainly needs sources. Neither is a reason for deletion, let alone speedy deletion. But the article on the subsidiary has no real justification & can best be merged into the main article. DGG (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per W. Marsh and Jreferee, in that the idea behind G11 is to rid ourselves easily of spam for unnotable companies and there was enough to say notability might be met here, meaning AFD would be warranted at best. It's counterproductive, though, for editors to treat every dodgy article about a company as if it were "blatant" advertising. No, it doesn't need to go so far as "click here to buy" to be promotional but we have templates such as {{advert}} that should be tried first, especially if there are indicators of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 10:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Labour India Publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Labour India is a notable ISO_9000:2000 International Organization certified by American Quality Assessors, because the activities are national and international. This org is associated with education (national and international schools), publications, educational journals, newspaper and currently ventured into the arena of tourism. Associated articles are: Labour India Gurukulam Public School, Bluefield International Academy, Santhosh George Kulangara, Sancharam etc. and there are also more ref I can furnish such as news articles and all. (search for "Labour India Publications" in google, more than 600 results So I request for retrieval of deleted article. Avinesh Jose 08:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this user is abusing the process by simultaneously running this DRV and recreating the material in blatant disregard to what the outcome of the review s/he initiated here may be. This appears to be a WP:GAME violation. Carlossuarez46 16:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy take appropriate action - One who comes into equity must come with clean hands. -- Jreferee t/c 17:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • close discussion as there's no action necessary here--the article has been recreated. It makes some show of notability, and is not a blatant advertisement, so I do not see how it can be a speedy. It would have been better to do one thing or another, but I AGF about not realizing that. Anyone who thinks the article unjustifiable can take it to AfD, which is the place for a discussion. DGG (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Patrick A. Reid – Overturned. Though there is some notability here, there is not enough to overcome the original AfD, nor is there a change in circumstances or in content, and thus this must be considered a WP:CSD#G4 as recreation of deleted content. – Chick Bowen 23:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Patrick A. Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick A. Reid as a pretty obvious keep. It has since been brought to my attention that the content is very similar to Patrick Alexander (cartoonist), an article deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Alexander (cartoonist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5, and this fact was not mentioned in the original discussion. I'm bringing it here to decide what to do with it. Hut 8.5 07:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete The stealth recreation of this article under a different title has done nothing to address the arguments that have now been done to death numerous times. The same concerns still apply which led to the article's deletion and the subsequent endorsement in the review, even given the fact it's been sat there for well over a month now. If anything, given that the name of the subject is apparently so unimportant that it can be swapped and changed around at will, the claim to notability now appears even more flimsy. It may be worth noting the user responsible for the stealth rehash of this article was made aware of the procedure of resubmition in the deletion discussion, so one starts to question the motives at play here. Hen Features 08:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Further comment: it appears worth pointing out that this is precise reproduction of the material which was deleted and then subsequently failed a deletion review. There has been no new information brought to light to justify yet another deletion review debate, and so is clear G4. -- Hen Features (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4, another WP:GAME violation of which we're seeing many in DRV land lately. Carlossuarez46 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn AfD/Speedy delete - The failure to address at AfD the prior activity for this topic made the AfD out of process. The use of multiple names for the article to game the system should not be encouraged. Without a valid keep AfD, G4 applies. Disclosure: I was promoted by this post to address the matter. -- Jreferee t/c 17:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm bothered by the AfD in that it seems legitimate and only is illegitimate if you bring in outside information such as the name change and the failure to list prior AfDs. We normally don't import outside information into a close AfD and we take the consensus as we find it. Here, the AfD was open for five days and all who wanted to comment did comment. And those who did comment did to the extent they saw fit. One of the participants, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, now is an admin. The closer did interpreted the debate correctly. I don't want to encourage gaming the system, but it appears that the AfD system was used correctly. And if we missed the five day AfD window to bring out problems, then we missed it. I'll leave my mixed message for the closer of this DRV to take into account as he/she sees fit. -- Jreferee t/c 07:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain or Relist The keep in the latest discussion seems to represent the present consensus. It's no more abusive than repeatedly renominaion an a kept article--the exact same idea. The latest determination holds. DGG (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not comparable. When an article is repeatedly brought back to afd, previous participants who expressed their continuing interest in the article by watchlisting it are able to find the new discussion by virtue of it being the same article. Repeatedly recreating a deleted article at varying page titles until our inherently inconsistent afd process results in a keep makes a mockery of consensus. —Cryptic 22:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist One of the sections of WP:CONSENSUS that I consider a true gem of wisdom is Wikipedia:Consensus#"Asking the other parent". Because no participant in the AFD knew of the prior history of the article, the arguments of the prior discussion were not engaged, and the participants in prior discussion didn't participate, we don't actually have a consensus. Send it back to form a consensus, notifying both the participants in the October DRV and this AFD, and link all prior discussions in the new AFD. Whatever that comes up with is the consensus. Right now, we don't have one. -- GRBerry (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I modified my !vote above--as it would clearly br brought to AfD again, Sustain is the same as Relist in practical effect . DGG (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User_talk:203.220.106.157 has a copy on his/her talk page. -- Jreferee t/c 23:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's another copy at User talk:203.220.105.66/patrick a reid. Hut 8.5 11:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and speedy delete, a recreation is a recreation. Delete the version on the IP's user talk page, as well. --Coredesat 02:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the AFD and speedy-delete. The edit history clearly shows by the timing and nature of the repost that this was created by a sockpuppet in direct response to the prior discussions and in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the results. Between the bad-faith nature of the repost and the fact that two of the "keep" voters have since been banned/blocked, I do not see nearly enough to suggest that consensus has truly changed. By the way, kudos to the closer for finding the problem and bringing the issue for review him/herself. Rossami (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take back to AfD - the article may have been recreated but the recent AfD suggests that there may be a concensus to keep it, it has been over a month since the failed eletion review and it is possible that the consensus has changed. [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Keep Closed AfD forms a new consensus. The instigator of this review [70], Hen Features, is the sockpuppet of an enemy of Patrick A. Reid in real life and almost all of her edits relate to him, as can be seen from the very first edit of the puppet [71] 203.220.105.66 (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, the whole situation is messed up, since the most recent consensus was formed without all available information. The best you can do now is to put it up for a new discussion to gauge the real consensus, when provided with all the relevant information, including the previous deletions. - Bobet (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: article has been improved upon, and IMO with the new information, it no longer reaches the notability requirements. Relisting would form a shiny new consensus. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist

-

  • Coment Thank you for inviting me back into the debate. I was neutual in the 1st AfD. I felt there is some notability here. I resent that someone is trying to scam the editors/adninistrators, but there is still some (albeit marginal) notability. Maybe delete all the duplicates, but keep one that is proper. Tiptopper (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "DollyeffingD" was not me, although I have a fair idea who it might be. I don't really care what happens to this article. I have a much better newly sourced article on the artist which I might put in userspace and bring to DRV for discussion some day. Not for some time though. I really have no interest in edit warring with "Hen Features" and its puppets again anytime soon. Credit must go to "Hen Features" for diligently patrolling Wikipedia to make sure that unnotable cartoonist Patrick Alexander is kept off. You're doing God's work. DollyD (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say it's a relief to see you renouncing edit warring. Your behavior during the previous deletion debates often left something to be desired. If you have an improved article which, unlike all those which have repeatedly been deleted thus far, is able to withstand an AfD, then we can finally put this issue to bed. Sure I wouldn't be alone is being happy to see a resolution to this issue! In working together to that end, you really don't have to come across so sarcastic and provocative. This is only Wikipedia after all, and if you take a step back you'll see it really doesn't need to be taken so seriously! In relation to your accusation on my talk page, I am not DollyeffingD. Hen Features (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Hen Features, I do not enjoy edit wars. They are bad. Which one of your puppets did I have the Patrick Alexander edit war against? I forget. I am glad to hear that "DollyeffingD" is not one of your puppets. I was just asking and did not accuse. I sincerely apologise for any offence. I do indeed take this very, very seriously. The debate over whether Patrick Alexander should be included on the Encyclopedia that anyone can edit™ is quite possibly the most crucial issue facing the world today. DollyD (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn most recent AfD; speedy delete as CSD G4. Given the sparse participation at the latest AfD, and its failure to understand the underlying circumstances of the article's history, I think overturning its decision is the best result. On the merits, this article doesn't seem substantially different from that which was originally deleted at a much more thorough AfD. I don't a relisting in light of all information will yield a "keep" on the merits, and I do worry about the possibility of rewarding parties who circumvent the deletion process through reposting. If the article were different, or there was real evidence of the subject's circumstances having changed, I would support relisting, but it doesn't appear to me that either of those possibilities applies at present. Xoloz (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Manuela Darling-Gansser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Contribution deleted by Sandstein because of CSDA7. Reason unjustified as Darling-Gansser is renowned author of cook and travel books in Australia, has written numerous articles for major australian newspapers and weekly magazines (incl. Womans Day), artciles for Swiss magazines, is a repeat guest on Australian lifestyle TV shows and has been a guest speaker to cancer charities. her books have been translated into dutch and she has a strong following in Switzerland, Canada, South Africa, Italy and an even stronger one in Australia. She has a long history of famous cooks in her family. I'm one of many passionate amature cooks in Australia who are taken aback by the fact that such a person can not be included in your user orientated encyclopedia. If there are changes that have to be made to the content then i'll be happy to edit the page but to delete it all together with no notification is unjustifiable. thank you. -- Birri85 (talk · contribs · logs) 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 11 by Aecis (talk · contribs)
I found one at November 17. -- Jreferee t/c 02:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: some of the claims to notability in the article are quite vague. Could you explain which television shows she has appeared in? And could you give us some more information on for instance sales figures of her books? Has she worked for any important restaurants? Such information could establish her notability. AecisBrievenbus 01:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Contributor to lifestyle magazines and appeared as a repeat guest on Australian television shows is enough to get it past CSD A7 importance/significance indication requirement. -- Jreferee t/c 02:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Reply'": I can tell you what i know, but as i;m not her business manager etc i don't know the exact extent or the figures of her success, but i'll be revising the article with further information and am confident that others will add their knowledge on the subject. Darling-Gansser has been a repeat guest on channel 9 popular TV show 'FRESH', she has written for Vogue Entertaining and Travel, Voi Tutti and Womans Day (plus others that i can't recall), has been the guest speaker on ABC and Adelaide Radio, she has guest lectured at the italian school Dante Aligherie, has been the celebrity cook for charity fundraisers (ie. cancer and homeless youth). Yet it is her 3 books (soon to be a 4th and then kids cookbooks) that sell in over 15 countries that are the most notable attributes. please don't deny her thousands of supporters around the world the right to this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birri85 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Jreferee thanks for your input. You agree with me that CSDA7 is unjustified and since you are an administrator could you please restore my entry. i'll be sure to refernence it and add citations where appropriate. Thanks.--Birri85 04:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once a consensus discussion is started as you did with this one, participating admins and non-admins are in the same boat and usually have to wait for the outcome of the consensus to take any action. Your best option is to start a draft article in your use space here to reference it and add citations where appropriate. Once you have completed the draft, present it to DRV and ask that the Manuela Darling-Gansser article be restored using your draft as its next post. -- Jreferee t/c 17:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin's comment: Writing articles and being on TV is not an assertion of one of WP:BIO's factors of notability. I'll restore the article myself if references to multiple substantial coverage of this person by reliable sources are provided. Sandstein 06:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thinking on CSD A7 importance/significance was that it was a quick way to gauge the likelihood of available source material sufficient to potentially raise at least mixed keep/delete opinions at AfD. Using WP:BIO's factors of notability seems an interesting CSD A7 approach and actually might be better than my approach because your approach does not rely on the subjective opinion of the deleting admin to determine what is important and what isn't. WP:BIO is good for CSD A7 because what is and is not important has been predetermined by consensus. Food for thought. -- Jreferee t/c 17:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion no assertion of notability, vague comments are not enough: what you need to do is assert notability (see WP:BIO, which doesn't say being on TV makes you notable for example or writing a book makes you notable). Carlossuarez46 16:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy and permit re-creation. asserting the authorship of multiple books is an assertion of importance. If an admin think it insufficient they should take it to Afd. I see a very disturbing trend here to permit admins to delete articles on the basis that they think it non-notable. That is not the criterion for speedy, but rather a good way to get into a free-for-all, here we each use our own standards. No admin has no right to require sources for restoring an incorrectly deleted speedy, since unsourced simply is not one of the speedy criteria. "My thinking on CSD A7 importance/significance was that it was a quick way to gauge the likelihood of available source material sufficient to potentially raise at least mixed keep/delete opinions at AfD." is a proposal to overthrow the deletion policy for speedy. Thats simply not what it says there, and we do not proceed according to what we think the policy ought to be. Discuss it there if you want to change it.DGG (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not delete the article because I thought the subject was not notable. She may well be, although we don't know that due to the lack of sources. I deleted the article because it did not assert the notability (as established in WP:BIO) of its subject. -- Sandstein (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, then, on the basis that you an editor personally did not think there would be "the likelihood of available source material ". DGG (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that quote is not by me, but by Jreferee. I do not know or care whether there are likely to be sources about this person. I deleted the article because it did not provide any sources, it did not assert that there were any sources, and it did not assert that the subject had any other characteristic that meets the notability criteria of WP:BIO. Sandstein (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC) (sorry about that, I fixed the comment above)DGG (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:CSD#A7 does not require an assertion that the subject meets WP:BIO. It requires an indication that the subject is important or significant, and makes clear that this is "distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources". In this case the fact that she's a published author with appearances on many TV programmes should be more than enough to overcome that hurdle. A7 was intended to deal with "vanity" articles for obviously non-notable people. It should not be extended to delete articles on people who are quite likely to be notable simply because the unfortunate newbie who wrote it hasn't learned about citing sources yet. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors Sources Thank you to those admins who've added to this debate. I've gathered a whole bunch of secondary sources on Manuela Darling-Gansser that will surely put this matter to an end and reinstate the article. I just want to add that i will add citations to the re-established article as i'm sure the editors to follow will do also. Here are the published sources (note that her 3 published books sold internationally are not included):

Darling-Gansser has written for Vogue Entertaining + Travel (Australia) May 2004, Nov 2004, Feb/March 2007, Fashion Capital 'Chadstone Launch Issue 2003', Vive Dec 2003, Jan 2004, Voi Tutti Issue7 2007, Issue 8 2007, Issue 9 2007, Sydney Morning Herald: Good Living Nov 14, 2006. Darling-Gansser has revieced reviews and been interviewed in Gourmet Traveller (AUS) Nov 2003, Feb 2006, May 2007, Vogue Entertaining + Travel Dec 2005, Jan 2006, July 2007, Hoofs & Horns Summer 2005, Woman's Weekly March 2007, Voi Tutti Issue 3 2005, The Weekend Australian Dec 17-18 2005, March 24th & 31st 2007, Wentworth Courier 2nd & 16th May 2007, The Age 22 Nov 2005, NW 18 July 2007, Australian Table July 2007, Hobart Mercury 28 March 2007, Good Reading May 2007, Courier Mail 10 April 2007, Weekender 16 Dec 2005, The Australian 17 Dec 2005, Sydney Weekly 3 May 2006, Eatdrink.com.au Nov 2005, Vive Dec 2003. Darling-Gansser's book Under the olive tree (2003) won 'The Ligare book printers best designed cookbook' prize at the The Australian Publishers Association 52nd Annual Book Design Awards 2003. Celebrity cook on Channel 9 Fresh TV program on 16 march 2007, 14 march 2007, 20 march 2007. Interview on 102.3fm July 2007.
NB: There are numerous other radio, magazine, newspaper interviews and articles, as well as many lecture appearences and guest chef appearences that occured but that i can not find sources for (future editors will help in adding to this field).--Birri85 (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, send to AfD Published author who seems to have appeared on tv for her books makes this a case for community investigation. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • N-Dubz – Ordinarily this would need the full 5 day DRV to overturn the previous AFD but in this case it would be process for process' sake. The AFD in April noted that they were not notable and reportedly on the verge of signing for Polydor. They seem to have just won a major music award. Ergo the AFD is no longer relevant and the group are clearly notable. Articles unsalted. Please drop me a note on my talk when you have recreated and I'll undelete the history for you. – Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
N-Dubz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Created and deleted an enormous number of times, accumulating an AfD and a salting along the way. It's since been re-created 4 times as n-dubz (which is also salted) and 3 times as N Dubz as well. Why would so many different people recreate an article on a non-notable band? Simple; the band isn't non-notable. They've clocked two chart hits in the UK this year, including one that peaked at #26 this month. I'd like to have this Unsalted (along with n-dubz) so I can establish a decent article for the group. Chubbles 00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsalt - Chubbles hasn't let us down yet. In addition, there is reliable source material avaiable and their coverage by news sources seems to be increasing: BBC news, here's a bunch. 'da gonna blow up so we might as well be ready. -- Jreferee t/c 02:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brian Valentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Brian Valentine is notable business person in the computer industry. He is a senior vice president at Amazon.com and was lead the developement of the micrsoft windows operation system for 15 years. Tag420 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of notable opponents of PETA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Restore: Deleted as per CSD G6 - this really looks to be in error. CSD G6 is for non-controversial deletions such as maintenance, and there is no trace as to where the information went.--Ramdrake 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was moved to List of opponents of PETA (AfD discussion); content at time of deletion was a historyless redirect to a non-existing page. —Cryptic 19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - List of notable opponents of PETA was created 30 April 2007. On 4 November 2007, UnitedStatesian moved List of notable opponents of PETA to List of opponents of PETA citing "Per WP:MOSLIST guideline, lists should not have "notable" in their titles." List of notable opponents of PETA was made into a redirect on 4 November 2007. List of opponents of PETA was deleted 14 November 2007 at AfD. Redirect List of notable opponents of PETA was deleted 15 November 2007 per (CSD G6), non-controversial housekeeping deletion. However, it should have been CSD R1 Redirect to a deleted pages. This DRV probably can be closed. -- Jreferee t/c 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawing nomination and thanks for the info.--Ramdrake 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Issaquah Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)


Notability. I did not find the article Issaquah Middle School as a unnotable article because the school does exist as part of the Issaquah School District in Issaquah, WA. The proof is as followed http://www.ims.issaquah.wednet.edu/ . Just recently, the article was deleted for recreational deletation, however this is untrue because it was deleted multiple times regarding is un-nobility which is an incorrect statment. The school does exist. -- Brmuchim 02:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - I don't think anyone was under the impression that the school didn't exist, just that it was not sufficiently notable to merit an article on Wikipedia, which is a reasonable assertion. If you haven't already, please read the general notability guideline (I really wish there were a more specific guideline I could point to, but so far all attempts to create one have failed). — xDanielx T/C\R 04:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. Then there is common AfD outcomes for schools. However, there is plenty of reliable source material for the topic, such as * Forbes. (June 7, 1993) "The Issaquah miracle." Volume 151; Issue 12; Pg 114. * Lindblom, Mike. (February 6, 2001) Seattle Times. "Death" event upsets some parents. Anti-violence dramatization planned today at Issaquah school." Section: ROP Local News; Page B1. Feel free to develop a draft article to present to DRV in a request to recreate the article using your draft. -- Jreferee t/c 07:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the apparent working compromise is that all high schools get kept, all primary schools don't. Not written, not firm but rare to see an outcome otherwise. Every elementary school will have reliable 3rd party sources to their existence: the phone book, the district's website, probably some school board resolutions, local press coverage, but no cumulative collection of those establishes notability - because nearly every person mentioned in such sources would have the same claim to notability. A line must be drawn, and here de facto elementary schools fall on the non-notable side of that line, barring something exceptional. Carlossuarez46 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). As others have already said, the issue was never the existence of the school, only it's lack of notability. Recommend replacing the page with a redirect to the "Education" section of the page on the local community. Rossami (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Deleted as part of a catch-all of dietary subtypes for user categories on 5 Nov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/November_2007#November_5 closing Admin stated no prejudice against creating interested in Vegetarian categories. Having only ever found out that my user categories were being deleted when a bot removed them from my page, the deletion does seem to end the category's useful purpose. There appears to be nothing contentious about having a category to do with interest in Vegetarianism though apparently it is related to sexual preference and factionalism in a way that I can't see. Not a great deal of discussion at the CFD and some was directed towards other elements of the group for deletion. I'll admit that I don't know whether a successful DRV would solve anything as the category will have been removed from it's users and so a revived one will be empty but I would have hoped for an outcome that merged/renamed it into something that conforms to the latest policies. MLA 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Consensus was that Category:Wikipedians interested in vegetarianism would be allowed as an expressed Wikipedia topic interest but Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians is not allowed because it is an expressed lifestyle choice. Wow. Talk about slicing hairs. However, that seems to make sense. I've always been bothered by these user categories being deleted because they fail to discuss Wikipedia:User page, which gives people a lot of latitude to do what they want. However, now I've seen the light. Wikipedian category directly expressing interest in certain Wikipedia topic(s) - good. Wikipedian category expressing interest something not directly tied to the encyclopedia or its topics - bad. Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians may have indirectly implied an interest in a Wikipedia topic. However, it's direct message was towards something not related to the encyclopedia - a personal choice, a dietary interest, a lifestyle interest. On one hand, this seemed like a disagreement over the category name. However, the CfD discussion was correct in that compiling into a category an expressing who you are along with other usernames compiled in that category does not necessarily mean that you are interested in writing about such topics. And when the Wikipedian Category additionally serves to form cliques (an informal and restricted social group formed by people who share common interests or patterns of behavior) that works against operating our Wikipedia:Consensus policy. -- Jreferee t/c 14:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm not done. If you want a questionably titled category to survive CfD, add consider adding a membership criteria to the top of the category that says something like "The usernames listed in this category are Wikipedians who are interested in developing articles on Vegetarianism." It might (or might not) help. -- Jreferee t/c 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BEANS, please... :) It would probably be better to create a less-questionable category rather than changing the inclusion criteria of an already-populated one. Also, user category discussions are guided primarily not by Wikipedia:Userboxes but by WP:NOT, as well as practical considerations of naming consistency, redundance, and so on. I think a guideline is unnecessary, but I believe that an informal description of standards and a listing of prior precedents is in the works. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I attempted to remove a few beans with my above edits. : ) -- Jreferee t/c 19:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Simply renaming a category for editors who self-identify as vegetarians to 'Category:Wikipedians interested in vegetarianism' would have been miscategorisation. The fact that I eat fruit does not mean I'm interested in fruit. Any editors who has an actual interest in vegetarianism is free to simply create Category:Wikipedians interested in vegetarianism and to allow it to populate naturally (that is, without making assumptions about the interests of editors and renaming the category, modifying the text of the userbox, and so on). – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Bring to a community discussion I am personally not interested in listing myself in such categories, but I know that thousands of other wikipedians are. I have seen no indication of any event where they have ever harmed the encyclopedia--the possible cabal formation is entirely hypothetical. I do not intend to decide myself what other people can have on their user pages, or what categories they can list themselves in, as long as it does not harm the encyclopedia either directly, or by giving an impression of divisiveness or lack of seriousness. The encyclopedia is edited by humans, and I think all readers know it. I think the way some user make use of user pages are quite frankly silly, but i have learned that such silliness does not correlate with lack of serious positive contributions. Let people organize and list their interests as they care to, in any open nondestructive way. Possibly the community as a whole would prefer otherwise, but a few people at UCfD or here should not decide for the community. DGG (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few issues with the above comment that I feel compelled to point out. First, we do not know that "thousands of other Wikipedians" are interested in placing themselves in such categories. What we do know is that thousands are interested in adding userboxes to their userpages, and it takes only one editor to categorise all transclusions of a userbox by making a small modification to the userbox. Moreover, no one is out to delete all user categories, so there is no inherent conflict with the desires of thousands of editors. Second, the argument against frivolous user categories is mostly unrelated to "possible cabal formation" – the main argument is derived from WP:NOT. Third, the existence of certain user categories is not an issue of how users "make use of user pages". No one objects to personal notices typed on userpages, via text or a userbox; it is only an issue when categories are created to group users on the basis of these characteristics. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about the "thousands"--if they actually do not care, then the wider discussion will so demonstrate, which will I hope settle this once and for all. I meant to say that, in fact. As for NOT, this and other content without direct relevance serves to make this a community in which people are comfortable. The environment is for the community, as long as the community is for the encyclopedia. If the personal statements help, why is the grouping any the worse--the only worse aspect I can see is the possibility of cabals. DGG (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure we've gotten rid of sexuality cats, now the diet ones, and the march goes on and on. To restore this would seem to indicate that WP's determination that one's diet is more important than one's sexuality - despite laws in many jurisdictions that demonstrate (for better or worse) that that's the wrong way round. Carlossuarez46 23:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
is this an argument to endorse this, or reverse this and the other decisions too.? I would most certainly support the latter. DGG (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and decide by tossing a coin. Once again, a huge row over next-to-nothing. On the one hand, no evidence that these categories have been abused, and on the other hand no evidence that these categories do much to help build the encyclopedia. And whatever harm there is on either side, it doesn't seem to be half as great as the ill-feeling generated by these debates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I can barely understand what the nominator is looking for here, but the closing rationale was clear and there seems to be no challenge to the process of my decision, which is consistent with precedent. --After Midnight 0001 11:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - useless --Docg 09:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Facebook (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Facebook|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

This MFD was closed in an hour and a half with only one comment aside from the nominator's. Other users have expressed that they would have participated in the MFD if it had been kept open. Nothing I can see here leads this to be a candidate for speedy keeping per deletion guidelines. It is my belief that this should be reopened and allowed to run the full course of the MFD. Remember, this is a discussion of the MFD process, not the actual merits of the page, so please keep comments focused on that idea. I personally have no opinion on the page one way or the other. Metros 11:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Overturn – Re-listing the article on MfD would be in conformance with the process, but personally, I would like this page to exist, simply because "anonymity impedes communication and fuels misapprehensions". If a group of users are willingly posting their photographs on Wikipedia, it should be considered a part of a community-building process and should not be discouraged in any way. Having this page is not taxing on our resources any way, since the images themselves are not going to get removed. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Early closure was not appropriate or in keeping with speedy keep guidelines. Leave it for the five days. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - Personal preference does not override policy process.--WaltCip 13:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist discussions run for 5 days, not 1 hour and 34 minutes. Nominator clearly wanted it deleted, so no speedy keep reason applies. GRBerry 14:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - per WaltCip, Stifle, and GRBerry. I MFDed this originally, and the closing admin clearly closed this out of process. Not to mention the nonsense that took place at AN/I afterwards. Nobody of consequence 14:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My signature is not nonsense, but the ensuing complaint about it is PATENT nonsense, Jreferee. There is no rule saying people have to create doppelganger accounts when they choose to use a pseudonym in their signature, or at least none that I've found. And the sock was created by the same admin who speedy closed the MFD. In any case, I like my signature so I'll just move my account to a similar signature, but with a small difference. Okay? Seems I don't have a good reason for that... nevermind. Nobody of consequence 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, signature issue is now resolved. Nobody of Consequence 18:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Your personal opinion on the page should be a comment in the XFD, not the closing statement. --W.marsh 15:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - Wikipedia:Facebook/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians has never been through MfD. Somone thought that it should be deleted and posted a reasonable request for review. Overpowering the nominator by speedy closing a legitimate MfD and then creating a redirect out of Wikipedia:Facebook so that it directs to Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians[73] is not the wikiway. Comment - Wikipedia:Facebook was mentioned at This IMfD because someone photoshopped a Wikipedia:Facebook image of Jimbo into Image:Creation of jimbo.jpg (it's a funny photo). Comment - Redirect Wiki faces → Wikipedia:Facebook was listed for deletion today as well. -- Jreferee t/c 15:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per the above, inappropriate speedy. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Closing admin allowed no time for discussion, looks like they applied their own personal preference in the close. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist-I've seen some fairly inappropriate early closures from time to time, but this is by far the worst example. Regardless of how one feels about the page, refusing to even allow a discussion on the subject is ludicrous.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist I'd love to see this page kept, but the attempted circumvention of process exhibited by the closing admin is baffling.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per all of the above. The closing admin used just about every argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. AecisBrievenbus 01:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dr. Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notability Msr iaidoka 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I understand that, in the past, many articles have been made about Dr. Steel that were of questionable veracity. I am proposing that the block on creating a Dr. Steel article be removed so that I may create an article well within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I have a draft drawn up for a Dr. Steel article at User:Msr iaidoka/Dr. Steel. One administrator stated the the sources cited were not reliable, independent sources. Since the links came from the individual interviewer websites then I propose that there is a fallacy in that contention. Also, there is a belief that the Jay Leno appearance by Dr. Steel was conjectural. A clip of the Jay Leno appearance can be found here: http://worlddominationtoys.com/drsteel/show.html : Slide Show/Live Clips -> Live Clips -> Second video file. (A direct link is not possible since it is embedded within a Flash file). Further information supporting the notability of Dr. Steel can be provided upon request. Msr iaidoka 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As you can see, our definition of a reliable source is not just independence from the subject described, it includes "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Chick Bowen 04:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's been anything new made available since the last time this article was discussed. The Leno appearance was available back then, and was (IIRC) generally considered to be a passing reference; it certainly looked that way to me, being about 30 seconds or so and with no actual explanation as to who he was involved. The references provided don't look to be good reliable sources. Basically, there needs to be some mainstream (or at least more notable alternative press) coverage specifically focusing on Dr. Steel for him to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Keep deleted Tony Fox (arf!) 05:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Dr. Steel appearance was an interview in the segment "You Learn Something New Every Day" with John Melendez. As for the reliability of sources, it seems like the definition is subjective. I would count the SuicideGirls as a highly reliable source since they are quite popular and have a substantial following. Also, VM Underground is a respectable interviewing group and radio show, currently being broadcast on numerous major radio stations (WIRN, WFLM, CAYA) as well as on many internet radio stations. Aside from the two released albums, what else will it take for the notability of this artist to be verified? Msr iaidoka 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/keep deleted - It takes sufficient reliable source material for the notability of this artist to be verified. He appeared on Jay Leno yet no news outlet covered this appearance. How does that make him notable? In fact, it seems to work against a claim of notability. Even if the SuicideGirls interview is a Wikipedia reliable source, you can't use anything Dr. Steel says in the interview since that information is not independent of Dr. Steel. That really doesn't leave much content available for the Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee t/c 06:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • News outlets do not cover every segment of variety/talk shows. At most they mention who the main stage people will be and ignore everything else which does not discredit the rest of the people to appear on the show. Also, why would Dr. Steel talk about anything other than himself in the interview? I feel I must be missing something here. Msr iaidoka 06:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See General notability guideline. There are two requirements in that statement. 1. Reliable source and 2. independent of the subject. If Dr. Steel says it, then that information is not independent of Dr. Steel. -- Jreferee t/c 06:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I think we are talking in circles here, either that or we are missing each others points. Dr. Steel will, of course, talk about himself as will the interviewers, thus the reason for the interview. Am I mistaken? Msr iaidoka 06:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your point is that the SuicideGirls source is 1. a reliable source. My point is that it still needs to be 2. independent of Dr. Steel to be usable in the article. -- Jreferee t/c 07:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • They are independent of Dr. Steel. They are their own organization and exist for their own purposes and their interview is hosted on their site. Msr iaidoka 07:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think what Jreferee is saying is that there needs to be more coverage of a serious nature - articles, rather than in-character interviews such as the Suicide Girls one, done by publications with actual editorial oversight policies. Magazines, newspapers, websites of a similar nature. I don't personally feel Suicide Girls fits that bill, and that seems to be the general consensus. If there have been articles in actual media outlets, mainstream or music, then those are the references you need for this article to fly. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Mr. Fox, thank you for actually taking the time to give an explanation instead of merely referencing a subjective rule set. So, despite the site having an official editor-in-chief (since they do actually do more than merely take pictures), they do not fit in with the ideals of a "respectable" website? If I am misinterpreting your statement, please correct me.. Msr iaidoka (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's not respectability, it's usefulness as a reliable source; as I say, it doesn't really fit as a news/reporting type of website, so it's a bit questionable as to whether it's a reliable source. That's the question here. My opinion is that it's not. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • So the only sources that would be acceptable would be those provided by "pure" news outlets?Msr iaidoka (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • SuicideGirls is independent of Dr. Steel. If they wrote an article summarizing what he said, that written material would be independent of Dr. Steel. In reprinting verbatim comments by Dr. Steel, the reprinting might be independent, but the verbatim comments by Dr. Steel are not independent of Dr. Steel. Dr. Steel's verbatim comments do not count towards meeting WP:N because Dr. Steel's verbatim comments are not independent of Dr. Steel. -- Jreferee t/c 19:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So, if I understand you correctly, an article wherein the subject is paraphrased is legitimate but a transcript of an interview is not? Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken. Msr iaidoka (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Info from an article wherein the subject is paraphrased can be used but the transcript of the subject's interview statements cannot be used. It seems backwards, but that's the Wikiway. -- Jreferee t/c 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh no, not again. Endorse all the dozens of deleitons and reviews at various different titles. Wikipedia is not for viral marketing. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You jump to a conclusion that I intend to misuse Wikipedia. If you check my user history you will notice that I have never misused the site and that every edit that I have submitted has been appropriate. I am not out to turn an article into a "viral marketing" tool which I am sure you would notice if you were not allowing prior, unrelated, actions to bias your opinion. Msr iaidoka 06:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and add to WP:DRPR. Sources are nowhere near reliable/independent enough. Stifle (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The last review I find is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22. Anything more recent or referencing other titles? GRBerry 22:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hitachi Data Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as a copyvio by User:The-G-Unit-Boss, but there was a revision from March 2007 before the copyvio which was worth keeping, although not a wonderful article. I raised this with the deleting admin at User talk:The-G-Unit-Boss/Archive 15#Hitachi Data Systems, and got a reply at User talk:Gadfium#Re:Hitachi Data Systems which I don't consider adequately addresses the March 2007 version. gadfium 02:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concede as the version I thought worth reverting to is also a copyvio. This deletion review can be speedy closed.-gadfium 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the revision you mentioned was the only one in the history I would speedy delete it right away as not asserting the company's notability. (A diverse product range doesn't count.) No objection to having a clean, non-ad version written from scratch, but nothing in the deleted history's worth restoring IMO. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that version is a copyvio of this. See google. It has advertising problems, too. The topic has endless relaible source material available for it, it would be much easier to write a sourced article then to spend so much time asking for the deleted material to be restored. -- Jreferee t/c 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, blatant copyright infringement. Write a new one if you like. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, without prejudice for recreation. henrik•talk 18:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Easyworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The administrator stated that the article was on a band that had no significance. The Wikipedia rules clearly state that to have musical significance the band in question must have had a charted musical work or have performed on national radio or television. Easyworld as a band had 6 singles from 3 albums, 5 of which charted in the UK, the highest chart placement being #24 in January 2004. The band also had a #14 Indie-Chart album in the UK. In addition, the band satisfy the performance on radio and television. Easyworld made a total of no less than 32 radio perfomances over 30 minutes in length, and 3 television performances, one of which was a documentary aired nationally on UKTV lasting 45 minutes. Please undelete. 82.45.227.205 02:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like they have made the charts which would certainly help them move towards meeting WP:MUSIC (I find two songs that charted, though not the #24 mentioned above), but I can't see the last version of the article to say whether it asserted notability or not. Might I suggest that your better bet would be to register for an account and create a draft in userspace, with the sources proving that they meet the guidelines well placed, then come back for consideration? Tony Fox (arf!) 05:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Claims charted singles which would meet WP:MUSIC so it is worth a full evaluation on AfD. Eluchil404 05:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The only importance claim "releasing two albums on major label Jive Records" is not so clear cut important that I can fault the CSD A7 deleting admin. Just because they are released does not mean something happened to them. That something needs to have been in the article for it to count towards A7. Also, the deleted article also appears to be a copyvio of this.. I did a search and there is more than enought reliable source material for Easyworld to meet WP:N. Feel free to recreate a footnoted article. -- Jreferee t/c 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Jreferee said. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not strictly speediable but no real point in overturning and sending to AFD where it'll undoubtedly be deleted anyway. Endorse without prejudice to a proper article being created. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion as the article contains claims of importance. While WP:MUSIC is not a criteria for speedy deletion, this band probably meets it anyway... it has reviews on AMG and 115 other media sources. Lack of inline citations is also not a criteria for speedy deletion. --W.marsh 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Openbravo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

(Disclosure: a friend working for Openbravo pointed out that this page was protected, but I took initiative in asking for review). The original reason for deletion (see [74]) doesn't (or no longer applies). Openbravo is one of the SF projects with highest activity (see stats here and notice that we have pages for all the other projects listed there (Audacity, Azureus, phpMyAdmin, Ares Galaxy...). A Google search also makes it evident that Openbravo is indeed quite popular. Considering we tolerate pages about much more obscure software, I believe this protection should be reviewed. Phils 00:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist - The AfD was in June 2006, but the earilest info I found was a mention in August 2006 - two months after the AfD. The latest November 2007 Hindustan Times. Google books and Google scholar have some hits. There is a lot of press release coverage, but there still might be enough independent reliable source coverage for the topic to meet WP:N. I agree that the prior AfD does not apply. Also, there haven't been a whole lot of recent attempts to recreate the article and the DRV nominator provide an interest disclosure. I think relisting at AfD would be the best course of action since it would either give an up to date AfD deletion or reveal consensus in favor of the article. Undelete the article so that it may be edited and relist at AfD for five days. -- Jreferee t/c 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the spirit of Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, perhaps it would be best to temporarily restore the article, wait a week, then relist? Otherwise I fear it will will be piled with a lot of "sources haven't been added yet, and I don't want to see if they exist" !votes. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Jimfbleak 06:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we have sources, a claim of notability, and a non-conflicted editor with some significant contributions outside of this subject (none of which appears to apply to the deleted version from May, which was a directory entry by a single-purpose account) than I don't see a problem with having another look at it. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All this requestor wants is an unsalt. As per Guy, I see no reason not to. Unsalt. GRBerry 18:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt per GRBerry and Guy. The company's press page might be a good place to start looking for sources, and there may be some Spanish-language stuff out there as well. #1 Sourceforge activity isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:N, of course, but it's a reasonable claim of notability. JavaTenor 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 November 2007[edit]

  • Template:Spoiler – Deletion endorsed. Although the contention that the closer was not the best person to end this debate has some merit, the consensus below clearly endorses the result as the only one that could be reasonably made. Community frustration with this template is obvious, and a more appropriate limited substitute now exists. – Xoloz (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Spoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache| TfD#1 | TfD#2 | TfD#3)

Abruptly deleted by JzG, a strident opponent of spoiler warnings, despite being a clear example of no consensus. The arguments used in the closing bear no relation to the balance of the discussion, and are simply the viewpoint of the anti-spoiler admins taken as holy writ. The use of spoiler warnings on talk pages is ignored. Should at the very least have been closed by an uninvolved admin. Nydas(Talk) 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close. This template has been effectively deprecated for six months. In those six months, its deprecation has been forum-shopped to every location imaginable, and, in every case, no consensus could be found to return it to any significant use. The latest proposal seems to be to try to gather support for spoiler tags via a sitenotice on people's watchlists. (I will resign my admin bit the moment this happens, and ride off to the frozen realms of hell on the back of a flying pig, but no matter.) Six months is enough. This debate needs to end, as nothing remotely productive has happened in it in months. The only way to end it, ultimately, is decisively - via the deletion of the long-deprecated template. Good for JzG for taking the initiative and doing it. Sorry he's about to suffer a barrage of grief for it. Phil Sandifer 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, a new version of the spoiler guideline was drafted, but has been summarily ignored by the spoiler police.--Nydas(Talk) 23:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And a lot of bad faith personal attacks like that one were thrown around. Can't forget that. Phil Sandifer 23:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you feel you have a case about personal attacks, take it up with whoever, rather than trying to score cheap points to influence the debate.--Nydas(Talk) 23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And you think your random comment about the "spoiler police" is appropriate to this discussion? Shame on you. Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • A "tsk, tsk", will do for Nydas' minor OT response to Phil's roundhouse OT distractions. I've reserved "shame" for the admins here who have openly endorsed COI and TFD rule-breaking. Thanks for your honesty below in telling truth to power. Milo 11:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the arguments for deletion bear "little relation to the discussion" it's probably because most of the discussion bore little relationship to the issue of the template and its use. We have a better template, {{current fiction}}, which is objectively quantifiable as a concept in a way that "this might spoil your pleasure" is not. It's not clear which of the two (count 'em) articles on which this tag was in use at close demands the use of a tag distinct from {{current fiction}}, or perhaps a minor variant for the CVG genre. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong undelete clearly biased closure, and the deletion argument ("virtually unused") is based on lies and dishonesty of anti-spoiler clique, who removed this template from thousands of articles despite strong opposition.  Grue  23:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong undelete a clear no consensus result, and an inapprooriate close by someone who has been strident in condemning the use of that template in the past. ViridaeTalk 23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse close per Phil Sandifer. --John 23:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously the debate should have been closed by a pro-spoiler administrator! I don't care much about the template, but it saddens me to see the language used above by long-term members of the community. Surely it's possible to indicate disagreement with a closure in measured tones? Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The TFD shouldn't have been closed by a pro-spoiler tag admin either. The discussion should have been closed by a admin with no prior involvement with the issue. A neutral party. Not an admin with prior involvement. There are hundreds of admins without prior involvement. --Pixelface (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It saddens me that some "long-term members of the community" still haven't learned to determine consensus from no-consensus. Or learned that reiterating TFD arguments is completely irrelevant for deletion review. Or the fact that former arbitrator can't see the difference between "uninvolved" and "pro-spoiler". In fact, it more than saddens me; it makes me absolutely mad.  Grue  23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, I'm not a former arbitrator yet. You'll have to wait another month. Second of all, just because you think other people are badly behaved doesn't give you license to do it. Third, I'm not singling you out, I'm simply sick of this entire mess, and the wanton accusations of bad faith--on both sides. Your warmth and kindness towards other users is, as always, greatly appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may wish to read my other comment below. Or not. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. JzG's closure was perfectly sound. --krimpet⟲ 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is almost a bad faith nomination. At any rate, the template is deprecated, there's no need to have it anymore. Seems like a reasonable closure to me. --Coredesat 23:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering this is the only template deletion debate Guy has touched in recent days and he has been a vocal critic of the template in the past, I would say the close is bad faith, not the DRV. ViridaeTalk 23:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems deeply unfair. Whether Guy's close was based in part on his personal opinions of spoilers or not, do you seriously doubt he made the close in anything other than what he saw as the best interests of the project? Has this travesty of a debate actually gotten so acrimonious that you doubt that? Jesus. Phil Sandifer 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, but what Guy believes is the best thing may not actually be the best thing (and in my opinion, surprisingly frequently isnt - see recent discussion on his talk page from GRBerry) That he closed a contentious debate in which he had a strong opinion rather than let another admin who was neutral on the matter do it is bad faith, especially when he appears to have sought out this debate to close, given that he has not closed any similar debates in the days before. If you have a strong opinion on the matter (which Guy has demonstrated he does) you shouldn't be closing the deletion debate. ViridaeTalk 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Calling someone's actions "bad faith" is a very Bad Idea. Besides being unprovable, it's never helpful. The topic of this discussion isn't Guy's personal motivations, but his action in closing a deletion discussion. Talking about his good or bad faith is a non-productive distraction, which tends to erode the collegial and cooperative atmosphere that we try to maintain here. It's just as easy, and less harmful to assume that someone is acting with bad judgment than to believe that they're acting in bad faith. Thank you for understanding. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I normally do not use any kind of judgments on a persons behaviour, be that calling them a troll, or calling their motives bad faith (at least on wiki). But Phil questioned the faith of the nom several responses up, and Coredesat questioned it in this thread so the term having been used, it seemed fair to use it about the deleter too. Possibly not the best reason, but it comes down to this: Guy hadnt closed any TfDs for at least several days before he closed this one (it could be weeks - I only checked a few days) and then steps in and closes this debate, in which he had been heavily involved in the past and made his views abundantly clear. How you can get anything BUT bad faith from that I don't know. Someone once commented about admins holding off from commenting on a contentious discussion so they could (paraphrasing) "apply new and ever more creative close measures". What that comes down to is this: if you have an opinion on the matter, then express it in the debate not force it through on the close. So at worse, I see bad faith, Guy seeking out and closing the discussion on something he had expressed a strong opinion about in the past, in line with the views he had previously expressed. At best that is a misuse of admin powers, hence being at DRV. ViridaeTalk 05:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The way you "can get anything BUT bad faith" is this: you don't raise the question, and if it's raised, you refuse to address it. It's not part of our problem-solving strategy to make conclusions about people's faith, because it's utterly irrelevant. Should the template be deleted or restored?: that's the question. If you want to talk about Guy's behavior, open an RfC. This is not the place to talk about each other's motivations; at best doing so sets a bad example, that such is the way to pursue a content dispute. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The motivation is perfectly open to question, as this a deomonstration of misconduct; closing a debate in which he has previously been heavily involved. That misconduct is 50% of the reason for my overturn. ViridaeTalk 07:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Suit yourself. I think DRV is a place for decisions about articles, not about users' motivations. The question is whether the closure was improper, not whether it was improper because of "bad faith". It should be overturned equally if it was deleted in bad faith or simply as a result of bad judgment. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't deprecated. As of yesterday, WP:SPOILER recommended using {{spoiler}} in some circumstances. — PyTom (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This recommendation was unsupported by actual use - policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and the page was not reflecting actual usage. Phil Sandifer 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which would not have been the case without mass removal using AWB in the first place. ViridaeTalk 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This might be surprising to some people, but, I do actually think this didn't have consensus -- the TEMPLATE that is -- to be deleted, based on the comments. If I were the closing admin, I would have kept it (as 'no consensus', which defaults to keep), again, based on the comments. As I said, it was used on talk pages a lot, which is why perhaps its deletion shouldn't have been so hasty. But I don't want to bring up the issues beyond that HERE any more than that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Took the "endorse" out of "overturn" to prevent possible confusion, hope you don't mind. (If so, feel free to revert it back.) — xDanielx T/C\R 03:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - it may or may not have been interpreted correctly, but the years of debate have gone nowhere - 2 or so years have not resulted in any consensus, much less a stable discussion. Accusations are being thrown in all directions from both sides; people merely giving their view of the debate are attacked; from what I've heard a so-called "spoiler police" deletes spoiler tags wherever they are found (I've even heard rumours of them using bots for this purpose) . . . it's simply gone too far. The only way we'll hear the end of this is if we take the source of the debate out of the equation. If this keeps going, then it'll only be a matter of time before someone, perhaps the Foundation or even ArbCom, steps in to settle this. I'm sorry, but I think the deletion was for the best. L337 kybldmstr 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it appears that the debate was closed about six hours early, which seems to be inappropriate in such a controversial case. I don't know much about the closer's history WRT spoiler warnings, but if (as mentioned) he had been active in removing them then someone else should have done the close. — PyTom (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion – The template was virtually unused in the article namespace, and there was no reasonable prospect of it ever returning to regular use. Despite six months of debate (dominated by a hard-core few), this template has not returned to any significant level of use, and probably never would. Marc Shepherd 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it dead as a dead thing or redirect to {{Current fiction}} - this template has been literally all but useless for the last six months - 132.185.240.120 23:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tiresome irrelevance. If the template isn't transcluded in the main namespace (setting aside, for the moment, why that might be), then there's no point in it existing. To wit: the warring spolier parties should not be using the mediums of TfD and DRV to settle a policy question. Getting back to the main idea, JzG probably rises to the level of an involved party, so on procedural grounds overturning the deletion makes sense. However, whether it is kept or not does not fundamentally alter the central issue: that when it went up for deletion, it had barely any article-space transclusions at all. This debate will not change that. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good riddance, this is an encyclopedia, not Usenet, and the only spoiler warning we need is already carried in the general disclaimer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The close reasoning show a clear, thoughtful weighing of all issues raised and reflects the developed consensus. However, I think the statement "the Great Spoiler War is over and the encyclopaedia won" might be premature. There still are a few spoiler templates, some spoiler projects, a few images, and a category. -- Jreferee t/c 00:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The Wikipedia:Spoiler style guideline says right in the nutshell: "Wikipedia contains revealing plot details of fictional works; this is expected." If people expect it, what is there to warn about? -- Jreferee t/c 00:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The template had all but fallen into desuetude and is contrary to emerging consensus that articles should not give spoiler warnings. TfD is not a vote and the close was in line with the substantive issues discussed in the debate. Sam Blacketer 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Spoiler warnings are really no different from any other type of content disclaimer, and this issue was never satisfactorily addressed in the discussion. Of course there are minor differences, and they were noted in the TFD, but the underlying justification is the same for all. Also, a lot of the arguments to keep presented in the TFD pointed to the fact that film, game, and book reviews frequently use spoilers; this ignores the fact that Wikipedia is not a review site. It is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction requires a brief summary of the work's plot. It is unavoidable that this summary contains spoilers. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No adult looking up a plot in an encyclopedia needs a warning. No child does either--the first time will teach him. DGG (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am redirecting the template and all redirects to it to Template:Current fiction for now. Feel free to revert this if the template is restored. L337 kybldmstr 00:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above. Eusebeus 00:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, sometimes templates outlive their "use by" date. I see that somebody has recreated the template as a redirect to {{Current fiction}}. This is reasonable, though I suggest that cold turkey might be more appropriate. I endorse this deletion. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • edit history should be restored, then blanked, and then protected Given the long history and controversy around this template, I believe we should keep it for historical reasons, but make it unusable. -- Ned Scott 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is a dead parrot. LondonStatto 01:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Keep deleted, keep the current redirect. KTC 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn - there was anything but a consensus in this CfD. Template:current fiction is explicitly for recent works of fiction, which ignores the other half of works in which Template:spoiler is used. We could create a similar tag for fiction in general, but then we'd essentially be recreating the Template:Spoiler tag, except that it would clutter the tops of articles and couldn't be used on talk pages. The general disclaimer is completely irrelevant since Template:Spoiler doesn't exist for any legal purpose, but as a courtesy to readers. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Black Falcon and DGG nicely sum up my views on this discussion. Horologium t-c 05:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, strongly reject this effort to re-ignite the Spoiler War. This is an encyclopedia. We do not have spoiler warnings. End of story. --Stormie 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn - JzG/Guy with COI wrongly ignored two wikiguides to declare delete:
    • First, this delete decision was made in an improper venue:

    Wikipedia:Templates for deletion: "If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately,..."

    • Second, the debate closer, JzG/Guy, was a highly opinionated anti-spoiler-notice participant – in the earlier stages of the spoiler notice mass-removals debate beginning May 2007 – yet he closed anyway while having an unmistakable conflict of interest, which is not permitted by admin wikiguide:

    Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: "3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."

    Since two wikiguide process abuses occurred in a no-consensus debate, I call for reversal of the conflict of interest deletion close. Milo 05:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion to end this silly war now so people can get back to editing the encyclopedia. Mr.Z-man 05:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closing admin has a clear conflict of interest. On May 16, 2007, the closing admin voted to delete the template. Later in May 2007, the closing admin removed the spoiler template from 194 articles using AWB with the edit summary "Removing overused template. Spoiler warnings are generally redundant and often silly, especially in classic fiction. using AWB)" while the spoiler guideline read this. After removing 194 templates, the closing admin added the following to the spoiler guideline:

== Where spoilers may be inappropriate==
Spoiler warnings are generally redundant in sections covering plot summaries or synopses; it is expected that such sections will include details of the plot. They are also generally inappropriate in respect of factual works, classic works of fiction (including films), or subjects where plot twists have been the subject of considerable external debate. Where plot details genuinely are not widely known, take especial care that including them does not violate policy against original research.

The closing admin then removed the spoiler template from 28 more articles using AWB. The debate should have been closed by an admin who is an uninvolved party of the "Great Spoiler War" as the closing admin put it. --Pixelface 05:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It would be a good idea if an univolved admin placed an indefinite block on the Milomedes single-purpose troll account as part of this process. --Gene_poole 09:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you've added wikistalking harrassment to your repertoire: [75], [76], [77]. Milo 11:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think he's a troll. I would recommend he read WP:IAR, WP:COMMON and WP:DR though. L337 kybldmstr 23:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the "Milomedes" account has already been explicitly identified as a troll and single-purpose account by several senior WP admins and other longterm contributors. That point is moot. There is also compelling evidence currently under review that the account is a sockpuppet. It should certainly be blocked on the basis of the former, and doubly so should the later prove to be true. --Gene_poole 06:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are there any links to these? L337 kybldmstr 07:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the horse is dead now. Endorse. Kusma (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For shame Kusma, you're an admin, and now you're endorsing COI rule-breaking? I had thought better of you than to put POV politics above the rules. I notice Mackensen supported the rules even though he shares your POV. Milo 11:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • JzG didn't quite follow standard procedures, but this is not a standard case. Following the rules and arguing over them didn't get us anywhere in the last 6 months. I would have preferred to see a closure by a completely uninvolved admin (are there any left?) but welcome to see an END to this discussion instead of postponing it by declaring "no consensus". Of course this has nothing to do with Wikipedia's COI rules, which were written for a different purpose. If you want to wikilawyer, JzG might actually have followed the letter of the Deletion guidelines for administrators, though. Kusma (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "JzG might actually have followed the letter of the Deletion guidelines for administrators" ?? I don't see how - he directly violated rule 3. '"As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in."' Milo 12:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • He had not participated in this TFD before closing it. But this is wikilawyering anyway. Kusma (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Following the rules and arguing over them didn't get us anywhere in the last 6 months." You may want to reword this, Kusma, because to me this reads as "we tried playing fair and couldn't win, so we decided not to play fair." Even if we suppose that you are on the correct side of this, ends don't justify the means. So I have to assume that's not what you meant. Wanting to see an end to this conversation is all well and good, but remember: most situations are not urgent. The discussion is as important as the outcome. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Behold, the Wikipedia of the Future: JzG didn't quite follow standard procedures, but this is not a standard case. Following the rules and arguing over them didn't get us anywhere in the last 6 months. When following the rules doesn't get a clear consensus for your side in a quick enough time, break the rules to get your way. Wandering Ghost (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Following The Rules didn't get anyone anywhere in the last six months, not just the anti-tag people. Kusma (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Our rules are principles, not rigidly-interpreted laws. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 09:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avoiding even the appearance of conflict of interest is a bedrock principle in maintaining public trust of judges. No — and I mean no — good judge will ignore it. Milo 11:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Common-sense decision made to end this mess. Let it die. FCYTravis 09:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the right thing to do. Even if WP:IAR wasn't cited in the close, its spirit is certainly applicable here: we have wasted too much (precious otherwise) time on this silly debate. Let the dead horse rest in peace. Duja► 10:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Phil Sandifer, DGG and others, and let this poor dead horse rest in peace. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 10:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete, no consensus result defaults to keep. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong undelete. Clear conflict of interest, and no consensus, the default should have been keep. WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE THAT SPOILER WARNINGS SHOULD BE THERE, you should not support abuse of process, because that threatens Wikipedia as a whole. You guys are seriously undermining my confidence in Wiki as a whole, because if stuff this obvious gets past, what hope for the rest of the project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandering Ghost (talk • contribs) 13:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears that WP:COI is the new WP:POINT - that is to say, invoked with no real regard for its applicability. May I please remind everybody that our COI guidelines come nowhere close to covering this situation, and that we have not historically treated months-old comments as sufficiently prejudicial to constitute "prior involvement." I can't find any record of JzG participating in the TfD, and he made exactly one !vote in a six month old MfD. He participated, 5-6 months ago, in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, where he was mostly a moderate voice. The degree of harping over his unsuitability to close this TfD is unfortunate, and the accusations of bad faith and deliberate abuse are simply beyond the pale. Phil Sandifer 13:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't discuss a template so an admin can come in and replace consensus with their own opinion. If an admin is going to completely ignore a discussion, there should not even be AFDs or TFDs. The closing admin "retired" from Wikipedia on October 18, 2007 and he just so happened to close a TFD (7 hours early I might add) for a template that he removed at least 222 instances of with AWB. He has a close connection with the subject and his motivations and conclusions are suspect. If I had a personal bias against a template and I was an admin, I would not be closing a debate. I would leave it up to an uninvolved admin. Assuming good faith is one thing. Blind faith is quite another. --Pixelface 05:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mostly moderate? He banned people for adding them.--Nydas(Talk) 20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commnet: JzG banned people for 3RR violations regarding the spoiler tag. Nothing more, nothing less. It just so happened that the editors violating WP:3RR were the spoiler tag supporters. --Farix (Talk) 00:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rebuttal: Incorrect. He also blocked at least one user, an occasional editor and WikiProject member, for single reverts under the pretence that the user was a "single purpose account." This despite other edits by the member having nothing to do with spoilers. Blocking users who reinstate spoiler tags and then claiming that there is a consensus against spoiler warnings is rather circular, if I do say so myself. Postmodern Beatnik 04:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and closure per spoiler police ➥the Epopt 14:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - dead horse. Stop beating it. Will (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn-undelete Clearly no consensus for deletion. Closing admin has a strong opinion about spoiler templates. In fact, his close statement makes that apparent when he says that "the Great Spoiler War is over and the encyclopaedia won" - he has a prior bias about these templates being unencyclopedic. His claim that there is a consensus not to use these templates is not grounded. Systematic removal by a small clique is not evidence that the templates are not wanted. Gothnic 19:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion it's pure procedure or WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY to have a re-do because of how it was done when the correct decision was ultimately applied (per Phil Sandifer's cogent discussion way up above). Don't we have a wet fish to slap someone with? Carlossuarez46 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Undelete - I have been largely neutral in the spoiler debate wars, entering only to expose the rampant logical fallacies being used in the arguments. My purpose here is the same, though I have also taken advantage of the opportunity to vote. Much has been made of the fact that few pages currently use the spoiler template, but what has been overlooked is that this debate exploded following a mass bot removal of the tags. The pro-spoiler warning campaigners have (typically) been kind enough to try and settle the debate before reinstating the tags, while the anti-spoiler warning campaigners have (typically) continued their deletions in the face of opposition and a lack of consensus. Given that, the current lack of tags fails to be a relevant factor in this deletion debate. Postmodern Beatnik 04:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the vast majoprity of these comments amount to a rehash of tfd arguemnts, whithout adressing at all wether the deletion was valid or not given guys obvious bias (hell he revealed that bias in the closure - if that doesnt tell you its an invalid close, nothing does) and the obvious no consensus outcome of the debate. ViridaeTalk 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As viridae says, all the endorsers here who are still making arguments saying template is bad ("it is depricated" etc.) should be ignored, this is deletion review, it is about the proccess. As Milo says: the closing admin was already heavily involved on one side of the issue,

    Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: "3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."

In anycase the debate was CLEARLY either no-consensus or a not-delete (if it was allowed to be a vote then it would have resulted in not-delete). For these reasons the deletion should be overturned. -- Tomgreeny (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proof, please. Where is the proof that the closing admin was either "a strident opponent of spoiler warnings" or otherwise significantly involved in the spoiler debate? These allegations have been repeated several times, but I have yet to see a single diff in support of them. JzG did not participate in the TFD in question, so the repeated quotes from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators are largely irrelevant to the issue. Moreover, of more than 7700 edits made to Template talk:Spoiler, Wikipedia:Spoiler, and Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, only 13 (i.e. 0.16%) were made by JzG, mostly in May and early June of this year. For an admin as active as he, that is negligible. Also, I read a few of his comments at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and he is most definitely not a strident opponent of spoiler warnings. In fact, his comments suggest that he - at the time - supported their use in situations where there was consensus to do so. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black Falcon, you may be interested in looking at this page for evidence of a conflict of interest. --Pixelface (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See here. JzG even created an anti-spoiler tag userbox. Keep in mind that the anti-spoiler admins mean 'unanimity' when they say 'consensus', effectively granting themselves a veto over all spoiler tags. It sounds moderate, but it's not.--Nydas(Talk) 21:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also see my comment at the bottom of the page for those diffs you wanted. --Pixelface (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The userbox seems to be directed mostly against the manner in which the tags are used, as well as being a frustrated response to the userbox expressing the other extreme. And if, as suggested here and here, spoiler tags were added to articles about Greek, Latin, and Biblical works, and to sections titled "Plot", then it's quite fitting to say that this type of use "varies between the redundant and the absurd". To me, his comments on the subject reveal more of an apathy toward the issue (as in: it's not worth spending this much time over the issue) than a vehement opposition to it, especially in light of his support for the use of spoiler tags when there is consensus on an article's talk page. If he felt so strongly about the issue, we would have seen many more of his comments at those talk pages. Honestly, a few comments made five months ago doesn't seem like much involvement. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, so it's been revealed (to you) that making an infobox which says "This user believes that spoiler tags are a waste of space, a waste of the community's time and the foundation's server resources, and that their use generally varies between the redundant and the absurd" shows apathy. What about the block of User:Killer_Poet? Feeling strongly about spoiler warnings does not entail taking a heavy role in the discussion; David Gerard sightings were few and far between.--Nydas(Talk) 00:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't say it was divine revelation... :) Anyway, substitute "reveal" with "suggest" for a clear statement. To reiterate, I think "his comments on the subject" reveal an .... irritation(?) with the amount of time and effort expended on the issue, rather than a deep opposition to spoiler warnings themselves. The userbox itself, while certainly failing to convey apathy, seems to have mostly been a reaction based in frustration. As for the block of Killer Poet ... the indef-block was blatantly excessive, but Killer Poet was basically asking for a warning of some sort: [78] [79]. He may or may not have had a valid point, but his approach to proving it (especially the nature and content of the comments) was disruptive. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Come on! Can you honestly think that that userbox fails to convey a "deep opposition to spoiler warnings"? You've got the proof you asked for. Tomgreeny (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not really ... What we have is one userbox created 37 minutes after the block of Killer Poet, in all likelihood out of irritation and frustration (anyone truly worried about server space wouldn't have created a separate page for the userbox), a few comments that express support for the use of spoiler warnings on articles where there is a consensus to do so, and a general trend of expressing the sentiment that too much is being made (both by those in support of and opposition to spoiler notices) of a minor issue. While all of this may be reason for some pause, it should be taken in context of the fact that the grand total of his involvement in the issue ended 4-5 months ago. Incidentally, David Gerard (whose name was brought up above) has a total of 123 edits to Template talk:Spoiler, Wikipedia:Spoiler, and Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, in comparison to JzG's 13. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I really don't think that's the right metric to use. —Cryptic 05:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So, to recap, creating an anti-spoiler userbox, unapologetically perma-banning someone for restoring spoiler tags and removing hundreds of them with a bad-tempered edit summary is evidence of 'irritation and frustration', not a conflict of interest. What would a conflict of interest look like in this case? Would you have to create multiple userboxes and a Wikiproject, perma-ban dozens of volunteers and remove thousands of spoiler tags, all the while swearing like a trooper? --Nydas(Talk) 13:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It is also worth noting that Killer Poet (whose block I reference in my rebuttal to Farix above) stopped his edits shortly after being warned (we can't expect him to see the warning immediately), but was still blocked. By explaining his actions on the project talk page, he was no more "asking for it" than a rape victim "asks for it" by wearing a short skirt. He called them on their logic and they used the bully pulpit to send Galileo to the gallows. To block those who revert the deletion of spoiler tags and then argue that the lack of reverts is evidence of consensus is clearly fallacious reasoning. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Not quite sure what you mean by "we can't expect him to see the warning immediately", as any time you refresh a page, it shows you have new messages. If you don't see the messages immediately, that's your fault. Granted one, MAYBE two edits after a warning, but anything more is blatenly ignoring (I don't know the history here, just your comment strikes me as 'oh well maybe he didn't KNOW'...when he should have.)
                        • I meant that there might have been one other edit in between Tony's warning and Killer Poet seeing it. As it turns out, however, there are no spoiler tag replacements following Tony's warning. Killer Poet stopped immediately, and was still blocked. Regardless, the point remains: blocking those who revert spoiler tag deletions and then arguing consensus on the basis of no reverts is fallacious reasoning. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
←Comment "all likelihood out of irritation and frustration" Exactly. You have highlighted JzG/Guy's heavy emotional involvement in anti-spoiler-tagging POV, no matter the modest number or how early he made posts to the discussion. Some editors who were highly biased one way or the other, simply couldn't take the grind of a six month debate. That doesn't mean they weren't still emotionally charged six months later – many people remain peeved about things that happened in primary school. JzG/Guy displayed substantial evidence of retaining and then fulminating that charge.
JzG/Guy is a textbook example among those who should not be judging an extraordinarily difficult, controversial deletion close, and most certainly not in direct violation of WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators #Deciding whether to delete rule 3 "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."
(1) JzG/Guy "retired" on Oct 18, and the retirement banner remains in place. User talk:JzG says: "This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia. • I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases." Oh? Who asked him to close the Template for deletion:Spoiler ? Presumably no one, so, that flags a compelling personal motivation to reinvolve himself, after he had telegraphed his emotional wikistress with Wikipedia in general. From October 18 to the present, JzG did not qualify for a well-balanced frame-of-mind barnstar, according to his own "tired" testimony.
(2) JzG/Guy suddenly comes roaring back on Nov 14, and jumps the seven-day closing time by 8 hours, 33 minutes – giving an appearance of making certain that he would be the one to close, thus making sure the close ended as he decided it should. Remember: the appearance of COI erodes public trust as much as the fact of COI harm; therefore, appeals for proof of COI harm are classically deemed irrelevant.
(3) In his guide-heedless haste JzG/Guy didn't even post a regular {{Closing}} template, so that with hours apparently available to hone closing arguments, Samohyl Jan and I (Milo) had edit windows open and inadvertently saved after the close (there was no edit conflict warning).
I'm perfectly willing to assume JzG/Guy either didn't notice or didn't properly consider any of this rule-breaking, precisely because he appears to have been so hot under the collar to 'get' those pro-spoiler-taggers. That's what emotional bias does to a person, and that's inclusively why there are private institutional rules, judicial canons of ethics, and strict laws near-universally prohibiting conflict of interest entanglements.
Now let's deconstruct the appeals to WP:IAR and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY
To use WP:IAR, one is supposed to supply a good reason to ignore the rule. What's the reason for ignoring a COI rule against bias or the appearance of it? Answer: none – there's no known reason for ignoring this rule in a virtual space without life-threatening emergencies..
WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY is intended to uphold principles over principle-defeating wikilawyerable rulesets. What COI principle might be defeated by rule 3? Answer: none – avoiding COI in fact or appearance is a bedrock ethical principle of good judgment, good leadership, and good governance.
WP:IAR and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY never justifiably override COI-avoidance, because it is the real world's implementation of Neutral Point of View. Beware the shallow judgment skills of anyone who claims otherwise.
Following a 1,850,000 byte debate, contentious over previous process abuses, both evidenced and suspected, no one who was involved in any way should have done this close, much less someone who created an anti-spoiler-tag userbox. Claims of that userbox as humor are transparently apologist, and in any case subject to Freud's analysis of typical humor as a veil for aggression.
Emotional involvement is the most intellectually irresistible of biases, clouding both judgment and memory. Does JzG say he wasn't biased? I believe he believes that, because most people believe that, but one learns from law and psychology studies that most people believe that wrongly. I'll AGF that JzG is a well-intentioned 'guy', but, he too was wrong to jump into a controversial close, tired and metaphorically muddy, where only a refreshed Mr. Clean was unquestionably qualified. Milo (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure and relist. This was a contentious discussion and I applaud JzG for attempting it but I don't see a clear consensus on the topic yet. Rossami (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To prevent any further conflict of interest, I think that any admin who has been involved in any TFDs and MFDs related to spoiler warnings (or this very Deletion Review) should not close this discussion. You know who you are. But to remind everyone here, these admins are the ones I am referring to. Let someone else close the discussion. I may have missed some names, but there are plenty of other uninvolved admins that can do it. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, any admins who have commented at WP:SPOILER or related pages should not close this discussion. If you're an admin and you've forgotten if you've commented at WP:SPOILER (or related pages), here's a reminder. We need a neutral, previously uninvolved admin to review this. --Pixelface (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work, Pixelface. Assuming its accuracy, you've done impressive reference compilations. I recommend you to some future employer.
I notice there is still an admin COI problem in other spoiler-related venues. For example, admin Dan100 is not listed. (Dan100 made the process-abusive edit removing notice of RFC from Template:Spoiler after a little over two days, with the smoking edit summary "Get on with your lives" – yet poll #1 remained open for five more days. Others permitted Dan100's edit.)
Given this vexing string of spoiler topic process abuses, I think it's completely reasonable to request that any admin who has ever made a spoiler or spoiler-tag related edit, or, as Pixelface recommended, ever commented on the subject of spoilers or spoiler warnings/notices, should recuse him/herself, and not close this deletion review or any spoiler-related process that follows.
Pixelface has listed 78 admins involved in the TFDs or MFDs, and 79 admins in the WP:SPOILER commentary archive. The 78/79 overlap but each is about 8% of the 955 active administrators (as of 2007-11-17). Even if double of 8% have ever commented on or made spoiler-related edits, that leaves 84% of admins who are technically uninvolved, so there are plenty of candidates from whom to chose.
There is also the traditional COI problem of technically uninvolved admins who might be overly influenced by, their personal acquaintance with, or the reputation of, those who orchestrated the May 2007 spoiler-tag mass-removals, worked as spoiler police, or took positions in the debate.
Proposal to reform admin COI-entanglements in deletion closes
There is a two-pronged solution to this problem:
  •  Prong one is traditional recusal, and
  •  Prong two is a newly-available technical search of relationship history with those proffered admins who do not recuse.
In the real world, judges are experienced lawyers who studied impartiality in law school through arguing the laws favoring each side of the same case. Judges are expected to apply the canons of judicial ethics to themselves, and recuse to avoid accepting any COI case for hearing.
For the recusal prong, admins in this (or any future controversial case) can be asked to make a COI disclosure statement of the degree to which they know anyone involved, whether knowing them will significantly influence their decision, and whether they have any (spoiler-related) opinions which would prevent an impartial closing decision.
The technical solution is to use a Google test to examine the relationships between proffered closing admins and lists of spoiler-involved users.
A significant feature of my proposal is that even if proffered admins refuse to make COI disclosure statements, any interested user, including IP anons, can unilaterally make and post the key results of a COI-relationship search.
This is good for the project, because it will tend to focus admin attention on a neutral point of view toward Articles, etc., for Deletion. On the other hand, if admins continue to make COI-entangled closes, sooner or later the online techie-consumer media, Wired, Slashdot, The Register, etc., are going to tell potential donors about it. Milo 08:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Milo, thank you for reminding me about the history of Template:Spoiler. I have created a list of admins who have edited it here. I have also created a combined list here. I don't mean to suggest that every admin on that list is biased, but this deletion review should be closed by a neutral admin without any prior involvement concerning spoiler warnings. I have not created a list of admins that have added or removed spoiler tags, because this may be more difficult to research. I don't think we need to show relationship histories of admins. I think disclosure by the closing admin would be appropriate. There are hundreds of uninvolved admins who should be qualified to close this deletion review. --Pixelface (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Spoilers (correctly) stopped being used, and the deletion was correct as a consequence. — Hex (❝?!❞) 03:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment That works for you personally until you find yourself on the wrong side of an unfair close. In a deletion review, whether spoiler templates should or not be used is not at issue - at issue is whether the decision was made fairly under the deletion guides, and whether consensus was achieved.
My quick, possibly inexact count of the votes was 26 keep and 24 delete. Prior to analyzing the quality reasons, that close a vote flags a possible no-consensus result, default to keep. Note the two sides are polarized; in 50-some votes and 129K of debate, no one changed their vote.
To overcome this no-consensus vote divide, a strongly persuasive and logically valid quality reason would be needed. That didn't happen, which is obvious from simple inspection of the decisive reason that JzG/Guy cited: "A template, {{current fiction}}, exists; this is more specific and better suited to the purpose for which spoiler was generally used."
(1) The Wikipedia:Spoiler guide is about spoilers and notice tags for specific spoilers. A {{current fiction}} template is obviously less specific to the Spoiler guide.
(2) A {{current fiction}} template goes at the top of the article, so it is obviously not as well suited to spoiler-avoidance as a {{spoiler}} tag that should appear immediately prior to the spoiler details.
This fallaciously inverted reasoning lacks the necessary quality of logic to prevail as consensus over a divided vote count. It's yet another reason to overturn a bad decision. Milo 08:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If "consensus doesn't mean voting," it stands to reason that the vote count isn't relevant. It's the reasons people gave. What is most persuasive is the fact that the template was always removed from any article on which it appeared, and there was no prospect of this situaton changing. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Dead horse. Garion96 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn An early close of a TfD by an involved admin just raises too many red flags, especially in such a controversial case. — PyTom (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, as I can see from the TfD, it was actually closed after 6 days which is plenty of time. There was no early close here. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote WP:TfD, "Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised." (Emphasis in original.) — PyTom (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope this comment doesn't get buried in all this talk of expired equines, but I think it's clear that the closing admin of the TFD, JzG, had a clear conflict of interest based on evidence of prior involvement with the issue of spoiler warnings. This page shows a series of edits where he removed the spoiler tag from 222 articles using AWB in May 2007. The following diffs also show prior involvement by JzG concerning the issue of spoiler warnings:
  1. Comment in RFC
  2. Comment at WT:SPOILER
  3. Comment at WT:SPOILER
  4. Comment at WT:SPOILER
  5. Comment at WT:SPOILER
  6. Comment at WT:SPOILER
  7. Comment at WT:SPOILER
  8. Comment at WT:SPOILER
  9. Comment at WT:SPOILER
  10. Comment at WT:SPOILER
  11. Comment at WT:SPOILER
The TFD should have been closed by a neutral, uninvolved admin, with no prior involvement, with no prior bias either way. JzG supposedly retired, yet he showed up to close a discussion he's previously been involved in? --Pixelface (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting rather tedious to find the same 3 or 4 people piling on comments as if this were their personal turf. Although those 3 or 4 people have added hundreds of kilobytes Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because of not following the rules. I'm a new editor and started a couple months ago so this is sort of confusing, but it looks like the rules did not get followed so it should be overturned. I started trying to figure this out because I added a spoiler warning and somebody erased it and told me I had to use the template. Then I used the template and someone erased it right away. That happened on a few articles and seemed totally official so I gave up on spoiler warnings even though I didn't want to. Then I decided to read WP:SPOILER that someone referred to when they erased the spoiler warnings. I found out there was conflict about it all along and I wasn't the only person to be upset about it. I also saw that some of the people who erased the spoiler warnings have been writing on the debate pages about it.
Then the WP:SPOILER page changed and now it says that we can't use spoiler notices at all! Why do people want to spoil the stories for people who haven't read the books or seen the movies yet? So then I followed more links and came to this page. If I understand it right, this is about figuring out if the rules were followed to delete the template, and not about if people want to use spoiler warnings or not.
I agree with what a bunch of people have written here that the administrator who stopped the other debate did not follow the rules, because he had already made up his mind a long time ago and made the result end up the way he wanted it. I clicked on the links that Pixelface listed and they show that the administrator was totally against spoiler warnings all along! That's not fair, he should not be the one to decide for everybody else what happens. So it should be overturned. I agree with the people who wrote on this page that the administrator who decides what happens should be someone who has never been involved in the spoiler question, and who has no prejudged position. It should be someone who has never added or deleted a spoiler warning too. --Linda (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's getting rather tedious to find the same 3 or 4 people piling on comments as if this were their personal turf. Although those 3 or 4 people have added hundreds of kilobytes, their views don't become "more true" by virtue of being endlessly repeated. I have no view on whether the closing admin violated the rules, especially given that one of the rules is ignore all rules. As long as the admin closing the present discussion is satisfied that the right result has been reached, the alleged biases of the previous admin become irrelevant. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Falling sand (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was speedy deleted under CSD A7, as lacking any indication of its significance. Since I can't view the page or talk page anymore, and there was no debate, I don't know what exactly the problem with the article was, but it seems to me that this sort of thing could be resolved by editing rather than speedy deletion. A Google search for "falling sand game" got 58,700 hits, and there's been at least a couple variations on the game created. That seems notable enough to warrant an article. PaulGS 06:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The entire contents of the page were '''Falling Sand''' is a video game that lets users mess with a [[namekuji]] by providing certain elements from a list. Falling sand has it's own forum and also incorporates other versions such as pyrosand. The website can be found at [http://www.fallingsandgame.com here]. [[Image:Falling Sand.JPG|thumb|A screenshot of fallingsand. Please pardon the dithering.]] I don't find any assertion of notability in that content. The google search PaulGS describes returns primarily game mirrors and blogs. I don't consider it to be a particularly good indicator in this case. Alexa is perhaps a better indicator in this case. The website has wildly variable traffic, mostly not making it onto the Alexa chart at all and never breaking an Alexa ranking of 40,000 even at it's best. I suppose it could be posted to AFD for decision but I don't see much hope for this topic. Rossami (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I didn't find anything on Falling sand (video game) or fallingsandgame.com. However, this article talks about Falling Sand Game at chir.ag, writing "Sand falls. You draw lines to manipulate it. More tools are available at the bottom of the page, including "plant," "fire," and "???." Listen to "Falling Sand Song" while you play. Very Zen." You can set the sand on fire. Very cool game if you are looking for something to do. Also, per this article, Greywillow Point/Fallingsand Point is located immediately southwest of the Maurice Bay Uranium Deposit. -- Jreferee t/c 21:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but creating an article in userspace for review shouldn't be a problem. The basic issue is that this has blog mindshare as a non-goal-oriented game but very few reliable sources of any depth. Using just "sand game" and skipping a lot of results, I found these: [80][81][82][83]some of which are beyind paywalls. It's in the same position as Tower Defense, which has become a whole genre unto itself without strongly meeting notability standards. --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that the problem is that "falling sand" is a difficult search term to flesh out references to the video game. The topic might be covered in alternate media not easily found. On the other hand, Google books and Google scholar don't seem to bring up much. Dhartung's find does raise the possibility that creating an article in userspace for review shouldn't be a problem. It is a cool game and would be a good link to have in Wikipedia if we can get it to article status. -- Jreferee t/c 00:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mainly it's just too new. It hit the blogs over Christmas 2005. (Tower Defense web games are even newer, but they are rooted in a PC game that's been around for several years.) There are about 50 blog hits for every semi-legitimate potential source, most of the form "Cool falling sand game!". I think most people just didn't know what to make of it (i.e. in context as a physics game or a non-goal-oriented game). --Dhartung | Talk 22:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I played the game. Now, when I close my eyes to go to sleep, I only see colored sand falling with grace and shifting and intermixing in response to various forces. I think the falling sand game is something akin to the game in The Game (Star Trek: The Next Generation), but without Ashley Judd. -- Jreferee t/c 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Touchpaper Software plc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I asked for this to be deleted on AFD as I didn't think they were notable. Imagine my suprise when I noticed them on the Gartner Magic Quadrant! On the strength of this alone, I think we had better clean the article up and restore. Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revisions prior to 10:47, 15 May 2007 are lightly-edited copyright infringements. Revisions following are so hopelessly promotional that I can't imagine what worth you see in them, but I have no objection to their undeletion so long as they're hidden behind a current version that makes at least the barest passing nod to NPOV. —Cryptic 03:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content is attrocious, I agree. However, it's more the notability of the company that I am highlighting. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't undelete without a new NPOV version in place. The article is not protected so TSBDY can write it in-situ if she wants. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 04:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write anew if there are adequate independent and reliable sources. Nothing useful in the old revisions. GRBerry 17:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - They seem to have a few press releases - Tenders Electronic Daily, PR Newswire, Business Wire, Computerwire, New Straits Times, M2 PRESSWIRE. Here's one. There seems to be no regular press coverage, so it is unclear what a recreated article could contain. -- Jreferee t/c 20:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was never really deleted as the result of a deletion discussion (the AfD was closed early as the article was speedied), so I would encourage anyone who wishes to write a new well-sourced version to do so, I will not allow it to be deleted per CSD G4 as a recreation of deleted material. --Stormie 05:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's different, it's not G4 - if its the same ole same ole, probably speedy bait. Carlossuarez46 00:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Four Points by Sheraton (Dubai) – A restored speedy belongs on AfD, not on DRV. Particularly when there are plenty enough 'overturns' to have a proper debate in a content-based forum. I will now nominate to AfD. – Splash - tk 13:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Four Points by Sheraton (Dubai) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was tagged for speedy deletion as being non-notable as not asserting notability under CSD A7, which is appropriate for people, bands, clubs, companies, organizations, and web content. However, this page was about a building. In addition, the page met notability requirements by clearly stating the building's significance, referencing information with an inline citation and a verifiable external link, providing an infobox and including an informative image for visual representation of the subject. I believe the article met all notability requirements per WP:NOTE. Rai-me 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: To assist in this discussion, I have restored the article to article mainspace.
Note to closing admin: If this discussion does not overturn the speedy delete decision, please re-delete the article. --Richard 05:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be precise, A7 is not about notability per se (that would require an WP:AFD discussion). A7 is about the lack of assertion of notability. It's a fine line but the point is that the article didn't say anything which indicated that the building was notable. --Richard 05:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not about the hotel, it was about the building. Stating that the building will be one of the tallest all-hotel buildings in the city is an assertion of notability. Rai-me 05:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Hotels are businesses, no ifs, ands, or buts. Being housed in the 28th tallest building in a city - and not an especially large one - is not a credible assertion of significance. The citation mentioned above contains only raw data; it might help make an infobox, but not an article. —Cryptic 03:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the subject is not about the hotel, it is about the building. The fact that an opening date of the hotel that will be housed inside of the building is mentioned does not make the article solely about the hotel. If an office firm is headquartered in a building, and there is an article about that building, does that make the building article solely about the business it houses? No. And the reference provided offered data that was was being used in the article, not just the infobox - height, year of completion, number of floors, etc. While it is true that these were used in the infobox, it is also true that they are major components of almost all building-related articles. So, I fail to see how it does not add to the article. Rai-me 05:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per User:Cryptic. I was the admin who speedied the article and my reasoning was prettymuch as Cryptic laid it out above. If it was one of the two or three tallest in the city, it might arguably have been considered notable but as 28th notable that would suggest that we should have articles on the 27 taller buildings (not!). That it is located on a notable street does not inherently make it notable (or else every building on Rodeo Drive or Fifth Avenue would be notable). Emporis is a directory of buildings. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Richard 04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why can the 28th tallest not be notable? Actually, artciles on the all but one of the 27 taller buildings already exist; it is common for individual city tallest building lists to have articles going down to the 42nd-tallest in a city, as all buildings must have articles in order for a building list to be featured. And, the assertion of notability did not lie in the fact that it is located on a notable street; that was included to provide relevant information about the tower's location. The assertion of notabilility was that the building was one of the tallest all-hotel buildings in the city. Rai-me 05:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Emporis is a directory, does this mean that all "lists of tallest buildings" articles are unencyclopedic, since those lists are pretty much the same as Emporis? This cannot be, as this would mean that several FL-status tallest buildings lists are unencyclopedic in which they aren't. I fail to see how Emporis is a directory. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-deletion. By Rai's logic, why stop at 28? Why not go to the 100 tallest buildings in the city? Or the thousand? Being the 28th-tallest building in a city is not a credible claim to notability. I'm not even willing to concede that being the second tallest is sufficient to establish notability, though that's at least a closer call. If the building is famous for something else, its height might be a contributing factor but it's not sufficient alone. By the way, if we really have lists going down as far as Rai describes where the sole assertion of notability is height, that's a problem we need to clean up, not to propagate. Rossami (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are height cutoffs per Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Building lists, so there won't be articles of the 100th tallest or the 1,000 tallest buildings in a city. For example, if there are 30 tallest buildings listed in a tallest buildings list, there would articles for the 30 tallest buildings, not just some large arbitrary number. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Comments.
    • Per the discussion at Fl-review, again, all completed buildings in a city must have their own articles in order for the corresponding city building list to pass Featured list review. The List of tallest buildings in Dubai is undergoing improvements in order to become a featured list; the deletion of this article does not help. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion appears to be part of a broader conflict between editors who are trying to improve tallest buildings lists to FL-status and WP:N.
    • Notability is not the only factor to consider if an article is suitable for Wikipedia. If it were, then there would be a lot of articles deleted since they 'don't assert notability'.
    • This is one of the better quality skyscraper-stubs that was deleted. It had a picture, infobox, reference, external and internal links. Compare this article to India International Trade Center.
    • On another note, if this article really should be deleted, why isn't India International Trade Center speedied as well for being 'non-notable' (a long time ago for that matter)? It has no pictures, no references, and no infobox, but the one-sentence article has been here for almost nine months.
    • SkyscraperPage also takes note of this building. I am pretty sure that this is not a directory website. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 09:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Mountains, highways, buildings are not subject to A7. ~ trialsanderrors 08:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD if necessary - the article is clearly about the building more than the company, and A7 does not apply to buildings. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 09:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send it to AfD. I hate to be a process wonk but trialsanderrors and Iain99 are correct, it isn't subject to A7. That said, I don't think it needs an article, there's nothing special about the building. James086Talk | Email 09:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it was purely a process issue then I probably wouldn't have bothered voting to overturn; however I think that for a skyscraper there's a reasonable chance that decent sources will exist - people with an interest in skyscrapers should be given the chance to find them before it's deleted. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 10:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, being 28th tallest in a city is enough to no CSD and at least AfD --Jklamo 09:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 November 2007[edit]

  • Katie Beers – Article has already been recreated; nothing worth restoring in the history. The new article badly needs carefully sourced expansion, if anyone wants to give it a go. – Chick Bowen 02:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Katie Beers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I want to make it into Kidnapping of Katie Beers, and include the trial, the kidnapper, and other elements of the case Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was nothing of any use in either sentence of the article. It was deleted due to (partially spurious) biographical policy rules, and given that and the total lack of anything that would help you, there is no need to undelete this. Just go ahead and write a proper article, bearing in mind the content policies. Splash - tk 23:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur. The closest the deleted revisions come to usefulness is this link to a search of The New York Times' archives. —Cryptic 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cut and paste to my page, if it was a stub, its start. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd be willing the undelete the sentence Katie Beers was the subject of a heavily publicized kidnapping story in the early 1990s, and survived., but not the slightly longer version which has serious BLP problems. But remember that even the longer text is an unsourced stub of no real value in creating a substantial article on the case. Indeed I see that you already have more information and better sourcing in the article. Eluchil404 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, the new stub is already better in sourcing. I don't see anything we can undelete while complying with WP:BLP that would help in anyway. The only other factoid in any version of the deleted article probably came from the 3rd result in the NYTimes search cryptic posted. But, why are we bothering with this article? Is there some significance or notability that isn't yet asserted in the new article? GRBerry 00:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jim Jagielski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I would be interested in attempting to bring this article up to standards. Please restore it and its history to my User space. ⇔ ChristTrekker 23:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This DRV's been resolved, can an uninvolved admin please speedily close it? east.718 at 23:29, 11/13/2007
This is entirely ancillary, and there is no need to feel you can't close it off yourself. I'll do it, though. Splash - tk 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Taneraic – Deletion endorsed. Consensus seems to indicate that relisting this for a deletion sort would be process for the sake of process. This process would have little substantive result in drawing greater participation (and the process is not required by policy anyway). Although the participation was low, it was not unreasonable. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Taneraic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No real discussion, and was not listed at the relevant deletion sort so that interested editors could contribute. Please speedy relist for AfD so that a proper discussion can take place. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 21:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page was tagged for deletion for over 8 days. In that time, no one spoke up in defense of the article nor did anyone make any edits to the page in an attempt to improve it. The request to validate the notability of the topic sat unchallenged since January 2007. While there was only thin participation in the deletion discussion, what discussion there was was unanimous. I find no process problems with the discussion. The nominator here has offered no new evidence to suggest that a relisting would result in any different answer. I am going to endorse the closure with the specific not that, according to our policy and precedent, it is not our responsibility to list deletions in the deletion sorting splits. Rossami (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Does anyone even use those seriously? Similarly that slightly irritating template that I keep having to remove on every AfD I close? Bare few are the debates I've seen where there has been any evidence of interest arising from a deletion sort. Splash - tk 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. I wasn't aware that anyone followed the deletion sort, but it's nice to know that efforts to include the proper deletion sort are not wasted. However, I don't think it is out of process to not list the proper deletion sort. -- Jreferee t/c 00:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some deletion sorts are used frequently. I watchlist some that are used frequently - or at least regularly when there is a relevant AFD - one of which I suspect is being misused by a group of editors - but I've never seen solid enough evidence to act on, and it is a problem of editor conduct rather than the delsort page itself. Others I've flagged specifically because I thought pseudo-expert attention was needed for a specific discussion and it was the best way to get it; it has generally worked for that purpose when I've tried it. I know of one or two people who use the categories driven by that irritating template, and have even once seen here an argument that those templates are an adequate substitute for listing on a daily log page - that argument was soundly rejected when it was brought up. 00:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps we ought to have a system where each dynamic link to an article turns a certain color while the article is pending at AfD. That way, you can load a user subpage with links to all the article you want to watch and if any links turn that color, you'll know it is listed at AfD. And once the AfD is closed, then the links go back to their normal color. Perhaps propose that at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). -- Jreferee t/c 01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey if you have any reason (i.e. evidence or counterarguments) to suspect relisting would produce a different result, fine, I'll relist, with or without a DRV. But there's no quorum at AFD, 8 days with no opposition is generally enough unless the closer is skeptical that the people involved have really thought things through. --W.marsh 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I think you only need two participants to have a consensus and this AfD had three, all of whom agreed. The closer interpreted the debate correctly. Google books and Google scholar bring up some information. The private language was invented more than forty years ago, so there may be more information on it, most likely not easily available on the Internet. No prejudice against recreating an article using and citing these and other reliable source. -- Jreferee t/c 00:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse unless someone comes up with a plausible reason this might be kept. I see no reason to overturn in the AFD, the nomination, or the deleted article. If the creator is notable and this is significant in his life or work it might someday be worth merging to his page, which doesn't exist today. GRBerry 00:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to argue here the specific reasons why it should or shouldn't be deleted; that is a matter for AfD. My request for relist is solely on the grounds that the original AfD did not get substantive discussion - no counterpoints, no attempts to discover new facts, no participation from WP:CL members or editors of the article, nada - and I believe that a relist with mention on the WP:CL deletions page would get it. While it may not be your responsibility to list it multiply, and it went 8 days without someone noticing, not everybody notices everything in 8 days, especially when you don't tell 'em about it. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 08:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if you can't explain what new arguments or evidence might be provided by these people who watch the category... it's really just process for the sake of process. Do you actually think relisting would produce a different result? If there's a reason why, beyond process, we'd be happy to relist it. --W.marsh 13:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have evidence, because I personally don't have any opinion on whether it should be deleted or not and am not familiar with the language. However, as a maintainer of WP:CL, it came to my attention through the deletions page that it was deleted without real discussion, which concerns me. I believe that relisting would get more substantive discussion because the editor who notified about it would participate, as well as other watchers of the WP:CL delsort. I don't know what the result would be, I'm just annoyed when I see a deletion "discussion" that includes no participation from people actually involved in the topic (whether the specific article or conlangs generally). Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why not initiate a discussion at the talk page of WP:CL and request undeletion/relisting only if that discussion produces a useful result (i.e. evidence of notability or counterarguments to the deletion nomination)? Relisting a discussion if there is a new argument to be made is one thing, but relisting simply to see whether new arguments may be made seems like process for it's own sake. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Basically, because that seems to be a rather roundabout approach. The editor who posted about it to WP:CL presumably wishes to present an argument against its deletion; I am just helping make that happen. Moreover, AIUI, DRV is intended more to address problems in past XfDs - e.g. improper closing, inadequate discussion, lack of coverage of some new data, etc - rather than being an argument about whether it should be deleted per se. So that's how I'm treating it - I'm complaining about the lack of discussion there, on the basis that I believe that would change with a relist. (I also think it's a lot easier to have a discussion about deletion when one actually has access to the article and can perhaps edit it to address concerns...) Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • DRV is for new evidence and new arguments, though. People say "DRV is not round 2 of AFD" because some people start a DRV just to say "Nobody agreed with me at AFD, maybe some people will agree with the same stuff at DRV" and that's generally agreed to not be a good use of DRV. Anything new though is welcome at DRV and gives us a real reason to overturn a decision. However, speculation that something new could possibly be thought of probably isn't going to fly. --W.marsh 13:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Geobox categories – Deletions endorsed – Coredesat 07:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Geobox categories (restore|cache|CfD)

I was the closer of this discussion, and am requesting a review following complaints by the maintainer (User:Caroig) of the {{geobox}} template, which had been adapted to auto-populate a series of categories listed in the CfD, including Category:Geobox Range, Category:Geobox River, Category:Geobox Valley and Category:Geobox Settlement.

The nominator (User:Darwinek) described the categories as "redundant" and "violates several Wikipedia policies and guidelines WP:NC, WP:ASR, WP:CAT".

Other "delete arguments included:

  • Categories in the main namespace are intended for the reader, but these are intended for editors
  • We don't label articles based on the infobox they use, unless someone finds a good reason
  • Geobox", an in-wikipedia abbreviation, should not be part of content displayed in main namespace

These geobox categories refer not to an attribute of the article's subject, but to the use of a presentation feature, so I examined the debate to see if there was a strong consensus and/or persuasive argument to override guidelines in this case.

I didn't see anything persuasive. Arguments for keeping included:

  1. The precedent of the maintenance categories "Articles with unsourced statements since September 2007"
  2. The categories don't "trace the usage of the Geobox template but rather denotes articles in a given area which are described using easily parseable geodata"
  3. anyone commenting on Geoboxes as such to at least have a look at what they are before suggesting such a far fetched measure as to ditch the whole system
  4. To keep track of what's done

None of those arguments looked well-grounded in guidelines.

  1. "Articles with unsourced statements since September 2007" is one of a number of categories identifying articles in need of attention, but these categories were for articles which had already received attention: they tracked what was done, rather what was left to do.
  2. denoting articles which have geobox data is a self-reference
  3. looking at the geoboxes as a whole seemed a bit superfluous, because there was no proposal to delete the {{geobox}} template; the issue at CfD was simply whether geobox should auto-populate these categories
  4. We don't have other mainspace categories for jobs done, only for critical jobs awaiting attention

In closing the debate, I noted that in addition to the guidelines cited, there were many precedents at CfD for either deleting or moving to talkpages categories which referred to sourcing of data or features of how the articles were structured,most notably CfD 2007 March 24#"By-source categories".

There were three !votes for deletion, 4 to keep, and one to rename, but per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus, I attached little weight to the arguments of the "keep" voters, whose arguments run counter to the existing guidelines; in particular, they offered no reasons for making geobox an exception to the principle of avoiding self-references which could not be equally applied to many other infoboxes.

So I closed the CfD as "delete", noting (because of the strength of feeling expressed) that I expected some editors to be dissatisfied and asking any concerned to raise the matter on my talk page. I received one message from Caroig (see Deletion of Geobox categories). I was wary of replying, because so much of what was raised seemed to have little to do with the deletion, and more to do with other related disputes; so I set the issue aside to think about, but unfortunately got sidetracked and didn't return to the issue.

The next point thing I heard was a note from Darwinek that the categories had been re-created. The names were slightly different, but all included the word "geobox" and were substantively the same, so I took these to be re-creations and speedy deleted them per WP:CSD#G4.

Subsequent discussion with Caroig, (on my talk and on Caroig's) shows that Caroig is deeply dissatisfied. My suggestion of a DRV was declined, and Caroig says that this requires arbcom and ANI etc, but I thought it would be helpful to seek a review here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to this new. Now that the categories have been deleted, I am unable to visualize how they work and what they look like. If this is going to get general discussion, it needs some generally understandable examples for those who do not work on such articles. DGG (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original CFD closure and the subsequent G4 speedy deletion. These categories grouped articles on the basis of the type of infobox that they use; we don't categorise articles on the basis of the type of infobox that they use. (It is an attribute of the article, not the article's subject; maintenance categories are an exception because - as noted by BHG - they indicate work to be done). The 'keep' arguments at the CFD, aside from including elements of WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, mainly insisted that the categories were useful. However, they never explained why the category absolutely must appear in the mainspace. Templates used by a WikiProject belong on the talk page, and simple tracking of "work done" can be accomplished through Special:Whatlinkshere or, again, via the talk page. (More technically-knowledge people can probably think of other options.) No reason was offered for making an exception to categorisation guidelines and ample precedent. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll add my detailed reasoning as soon as my time (and tiredness) allows, I hope for some patience. There were actually two auto-categorizing systems, the first one had indeed some issues (and was rather badly designed) which the second one tried to address.
As of declining the DRV, BrownHairedGirl first suggested posting objections to her closing the CfD which I did (here), unfortunately, it went unanswered for almost two weeks. Nonetheless, when I added the second auto-categorization scheme, it got attention almost instanteously and was deleted immediately and only then my original comments got some answer and apologies. This post is the first one where all the objections are clearly summarized.
As of my reasons for arbitration, there were other discussions before CfD, where various false allegations and statements were made and the reason is not just this deletion. I'll post the links with time chronology and comments together with my detailed explanation (they can be found in the above mentioned link too), they're paramount to understand my dissatisfaction. – Caroig (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, the reason that the recreated categories got my prompt attention is that I was promptly notified; I had otherwise forgotten about this issue. I understand that you have had some disputes with other editors, but unless those are really related to the outcome of this CfD, issues such as false accusations might be better suited to an WP:RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and ??????? - I looked at Category:Geobox Monument. Some how, it redirected to a template or from a template and read: "1. REDIRECT Template:Geobox message/category". To me, that was a red flag. The above discussion mentions something about the categories linking to infoboxes. These categories appears to be used in some fancy, shmancy system. What's wrong with using Category:Monuments and memorials? You slap it on the bottom of a monument article and move on. If you want to develop a bot that assists in categorizing articles, that's fine. But don't mess with the categories to create some sort of Rube Goldberg system. We're better off following the KISS principle on this one. -- Jreferee t/c 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In deleting the recreated categories, I came across several categories which #REDIRECTed to others, rather than using {{Category redirect}}. I think that they are all gone now, but it might be worthwhile for someone to see if there are more such categories lingering out there. As a side note, irrelevant to this DRV, the comment about a Rube Goldberg system prompts me to note that {{geobox}} is a huge piece of code (just short of 100KB), and it relies on several further sub-templates. I don't know what the conventions and guidelines suggest about this, but I can see a possibility of server load issues and questions about maintainability. The results look good, but geobox is not an application of the KISS principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - As someone who does a lot of infobox work, I can see how see the categories could be helpful for some type of maintenance function, but the question is: could these categories be recreated when an actual maintenance task is needed to be performed? When a task becomes evident where the categories would be helpful; just recreate them. When the task is done, ask to have them deleted again. One can also use the "what transcludes here" function in AWB to run tasks on the pages linking to geobox. —MJCdetroit 05:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Keep it simple and use common sense. General precedence is to not use system categories in main namespace (excluding several crucial ones). Keeping these categories would set a dangerous precedence which could lead to one day when WP would be just a garbage can. Wikipedia should be simple for readers and should not endorse dangerous experiments. - Darwinek 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The story This issue now speads on too many pages and thus is too difficult for anyone to follow so I'll try to sum it up a bit here, giving the necessary links for those who'd wish to look into the matter more in deatil. I accept I might sound a bit edgy and that's now difficult for me to expect good faith from certain users after all that's been written, after so many discussions were dismissed, numerous false statements were made, so many off-topic comments … I simply think that this issue could have been handled in a decent way, if there were any objections, they should have been clearly stated first at one place and then a normal discusssion should have followed.

The Geobox The Geobox is an infobox template that can be used for any geographical feature. It produces a neat output while the data is entered in a simple way that is transparent without a need to study the documentation unless the user whishes to use it's advanced features. There are many of these such as unit conversions, automated locator dot placement or location overlay maps, automatic field value calculations. If a user wishes to add an infobox to some geography related articles with a map from their area they can use just one template, without a need to look for a suitable infobox for river, settlement, national park, cave … They can learn to use just one template. It also gives the reader advantage of always being presented the data in a unified style. The unified data format also enables any automated tool to easily parse it. See a Geobox for a mountain range, a mountain, a valley, a river, a protected area, a settlement, a castle ruin, a bridge, a bell, it's being considered for User:Kranar drogin/Geobox race track.

There are two version of the Geoboxes. First, there were feature specific templates such as {{Geobox River}}, {{Geobox Mountain Range}}. These have been replaced by a more powerful single {{Geobox}}, which is fully backward compatible with any previous Geobox, to upgrade all you need to do is replace e.g. {{Geobox River … with {{Geobox | River …. The new system is easier to maintain, enables the template to be used for any geography related feature without any additional coding. For the record, {{Geobox River}} is, as of writing this, used in 5120 pages with most major river using it, {{Geobox Settlement}} in 1825 pages, {{Geobox Mountain Range}} in 189 pages (there's no other template for ranges), {{Geobox Protected Area}} in 230 pages, {{Geobox Region}} in 134 pages and the new {{Geobox}} in 1273 pages.

The code's pretty big, yet the technical Pre-expand include size, Post-expand include size and Template argument size are well bellow any recommended values (check e.g. Necpaly, where most of these values are generated by the Geobox template and compare it to e.g. New York City with no Geobox but numerous referencing templates and also notice the terrible lag in generating the page after any edit.) This is another example of off-topic comment. It's fair to object to the size of the code but that's not what we're discussing here.

None of the original versions created any categories whatsoever nor did the new geobox until on 2007-09-23 a user expressed an interest in some tracking system and I suggested two solutions. In Template talk:Geobox#News as of 2007-10-14 (bottom part of the section) the first auto-categorization was announced, while some users appreciated some users were objecting but their objections were of just personal opinion nature. Anyway I clearly stated that should majority of users disagree the feature would be removed, that it was simply a try out and asked for any ideas.

CfD On 2007-10-19 User:Darwinek put a suggestion on my talk page. The section started with "May I have a suggestion?". He and later another user made just vague comments: "I think these categories shouldn't show up", "I am sure there is something in WP:MOS/WP:CAT". The discussions should have been better put on the Geobox talk page as the topic had already been discussed there. Anyway, if these users were so sure there was something bad with these categories it should have been clearly expressed. I repeated the catgories weren't necessary and looked-up a part of the policy I thought they might have been referring to and offered my view. Nothing happened for some time.

I was surprised the discussion didn't continue and some days later the category appeared at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 25#Geobox categories. Only then I discovered Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 2#Question and was real shocked, I was accused of breaking dozens of policies by snapping in their links only, accused of being unwilling to cooperate and claiming ownership, "dunking" the Geobox 2 template was brought too, it was claimed the previous discussion hadn't lead anywhere (while those who objected didn't continue in the previous discussion), off topic issue of creating an unapproved bot was used; no-one ever stated the "categories were needed" etc. After numerous calls to start a discussion it was opened at Template talk:Geobox#Auto categories.

I thought the main discussion was being held on the Geobox talk page and \s the opinions expressed didn't create any consensus I concetrated on explaining my views at the Geobox talk page. Yet a few days after, the discussion was closed, the result being, though they were so many conflicting views, to delete and it was carried out promptly. The admin who closed the discussion suggested any objections be posted on her talk page first which I did yet didn't get any answer for almost two weeks. I also started, as the guidelines suggest, RfC but it failed to get any attention. So I created the second system, first offered for discussion at RfC and also explained at Template_talk:Geobox#News_as_of_2007-11-11. Yet the new categories were deleted without any comments. Earlier I expressed my view if the topic was obviously conflicting it could have been relisted to allow for discussion, other editors might have been invited.There are many reasons why I disgree with the closing of the dabate, e.g. it is said the admin evaluates the voices which I find OK seeing the texts some editors produce, yet why is Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus's vote taken into consideration at all as it doesn't state any reason for his vote and is absolutely off-topic (a WP:JUSTAVOTE)?

Auto categorization The first auto-categorization system was not the best because of more issues which I acknowledged at RfD, namely:

  • The names of those auto categories were not very helpful to uninvolved reader
  • The scheme created too many "red-linked" categories which had to be set-up manually
  • The names didn't follow the recommended category naming guidelines

I first asked at the RfD if the suggested new scheme would be OK and as there was no further input I implemented them in good faith I addressed most of the problems, mainly as expressed by User:SEWilco, he/she offered various versions, e.g. "Category:Wikipedia Geobox Settlement in Slovakia". And how the scheme worked:

  • any article using the Geobox would have been put into a "Category:TYPEs with geodata" (e.g. Settlements with geodata) unless
  • a region related template were set-up, e.g. {{Geobox category/settlement/Slovakia}} which could have put the articles into any categories, both existing or some new ones. I set-up temporary categories such as "Category:Settlements in Slovakia with geodata" and reasoned these might be used while the region (at that time Slovakia, Czech Republic and Illinois) were being worked on, i.e. a Geobox was being added systematically for each and every settlement (not by myself, I added just a few, for regions I knwo or where I could supply some images, e.g. Blatnica, Slovakia). It would help differentiate from those settlements which didn't have a geobox so far. And when all settlements had been "geoboxed", the {{Geobox category/settlement/Slovakia}} would be tweaked to put all Slovak settlements into the standard "Villages in Slovakia" etc. categories. So those "with geodata" categories would have existed only temporarily. I do not undestand one thing, while it is reasoned the categories are for readers, the technical, editorial only categories such as "Articles with unsourced statement since August 2007" are OK though they are hardly of any benefit for the reader, esp. ehen there are five of them as in Bratislava. If they are there to inform the reader there's something wrong with the article then why is there the big box at the top of the page doing the same? I do not think the boxes are a good idea at all because a reader who's not familiar with Wikipedia policies might, when coming to the page, think something like "I shouldn't read the article at all, there's some serious trouble with it, it's been hacked or what." While a user or a reader, who would click on "Villages in Slovakia with geodata" would see there were many pages in the area which use that infobox, which is therefore probably a standard one and if they wanted to add their village, they would probably use it. Even if they were not going to do any edit, they could browse thru villages which are described in the same way, always with maps etc. From these reasons I do not think the use of creating further category-like templates which would only serve for tracking using the "What links here" would be helpful. Besides, while these would be usable with e.g. AWB, where you can create a list and sort it in any way, the categories can be used directly from the browser, even by inexperience users. One editor also asks if it is such a problem to paste a category at the bottom of the page. It's not, but it only works if the user knows what category to use for the location and if they don't forget to do so. If the categories are emitted by the template, the categorisation will always be systematic and transparent and should anyone want to recategorize the articles, they would just tweak one template. I would still prefer those Geoboxes which do not have a detailed category assigned to be put into Category:TYPEs with geodata though using multiple blank templates (using just one whatlinksher for the {{Geobox}} deson't help at all as it might be used for river, mountain, bridge) might work as well, yet it is not so practical. I consider this the core of my proposal.

Objections While I personally don't care very much whether the categories are allowed to exist or not, I defend them as many users find them useful and as I strongly object that this feature which doesn't violate any basic principles on which Wikipedia is built, which is created in good faith to help both readers and editors is dismissed just beacuse they go against some rules and policies, while according to other policies thay might exist. There are obviously two contradicting approaches, a technical one: they go against policies thus they're bad and users': they help. It's my understanding of how Wikipedia works (which is expressed in WP:WIARM) that the rules and guidelines aren't to be followed blindly but be used to help improve Wikipedia. I'd also appreciate some comments on this issue as this was something I wanted to be brought up at arbitration.

I'd also like to ask anyone if they think something's not OK and in conflict with the policies to quote the line from the policy instead of just pasting "breaking WP:XXX". I wrote at the beginning I didn't find anything in the WP:CAT that would say the auto-categories were bad. The problem's these are just guidelines, a lot of things are expressed rather vaguely and when I read the chapter I look (and possibly everyone does) for the points that support my views and even this is subject to interpretation of each and every guideline. For me personaly lines saying "this is not to be followed blindly" or "unless a good reason exist" weigh more than lines saying "this shouldn't be" (which is not: this mustn't be).

And finally, I was accused of claming ownership by User:Darwinek. It's true that I'm the main editor who set these templates up and does most of the editing. However I'm not the main user at all. In the recents months most of my wiki-editing related to dealing with various users' requests, comments, bug reports which were all addressed. All the debates are recorded at Template_talk:Geobox and my personal talk page. I do not understand User:Darwinek's accusation as I always responded and reacted to his comments User talk:Caroig#Collapsible list, implemented what he was suggesting User talk:Caroig#Barnstar and even in past sped up creation of a template following his request ({{Geobox Region}}. He seems to have recently a problem with the Geoboxes for reasons unkown, he discourgaed User:Kotniski from using the geoboxes on Polish settlements saying the Infoboxes were aggreed to be used on Poland only while other templates are in used as well, and he also reverted User:Mikeshk's edit in which he switched an Infobox to a Geobox (he's putting the Geoboxes systematically to all Czech settlements) with a "I like Infobox more" summary, which he later explained (in Czech): "but I want to have the municipalities in the Těšín region in Infoboxes" (WP:OWN?). I've never wanted and expressed that many times the geoboxes were enforced to be used, or were used to eat-up other templates. They are just here to serve those who find them useful. – Caroig (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply This is a deletion review, not a dispute resolution process, and it would have been more heplful for Caroig to focus on the specific question of whether the categories should have been deleted. That question is adressed near the end, when Caroig "There are obviously two contradicting approaches, a technical one: they go against policies thus they're bad and users': they help."
    I'm afraid that missses the points raised at CfD: that categories referring to the technical features of webpages do not, overall, help the reader, and are in fact an impediment to the reader in he ways discussed at CfD. This is not a question of blindly applying rules, but of finding that there was no persuasive case that the benefits of these particular categories outweighrd the disadavantges. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was the reason I didn't consider this the best forum for the case, I wrote at the beginning the problem was more serious then the deletion of the categories, User:BrownHairedGirl urged me to post here. I'm taking a short break for a few days (real break, going hiking to the mountains) and then go for arbitration. I'd apreciate some help from another admin on how it is best to address this. There are two more contradictions in the previous post, if User:BrownHairedGirl suggests me to focus on just CfD then what about the off topic comment on the Geobox size. Secondly, if "categories referring to the technical features of webpages do not, overall, help the reader, and are in fact an impediment to the reader" then the same must apply for all other technical categories, such as "Articles missing …" which do not have any advantage for the reader whatsovever. Also, User:DGG asked for explanation what the categories did. – Caroig (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On "articles missing" etc, see the comments above from me and from Black Falcon about maintenance categories, and similar comments at the CfD.
As to arbitration, see WP:RFAr: "A Request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia" ... "it is expected that other avenues will be attempted first". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of nationality transfers in football (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I hereby contest the prod/deletion of the list of nationality transfers in football (soccer). Please undelete this article and send it to AFD instead. I won't do it myself, because I have edited the article, and because I have created two related articles: list of nationality transfers in sport and list of nationality transfers in chess. AecisBrievenbus 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 November 2007[edit]

  • Emilio – Article moved and unprotected per request. Prepare for lots of vandal fighting. – trialsanderrors 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Emilio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted several times, mainly as nonsense. I have just created a page at Emilio Navaira, a notable Tejano singer who is frequently credited as just Emilio. I would appreciate if Emilio were undeleted, so that I can move the content of Emilio Navaira to the Emilio page, and thus make Emilio Navaira a redirect. (I'm not sure where else to take this besides DRV.) Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added some referenced information to the article. The trouble came from editors wanting to use the "Emilio" space to post information about Emilio Collado ("born October, 15, 1985, in Santiago, Dominican Republic. Emilio was adopted by Jim and Laura Sullivan, raised in Plantsville, Connecticut. In march 2007 Emilio started to record his 1st solo album. If you want more information on Emilio, go to http://emiliocollado.hi5.com ." The article history and talk page history related to Emilio Collado, so there seems to be no reason to restore them. I created Emilio (disambiguation) so that we can better watch for creation of Emilio Collado. -- Jreferee t/c 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Mobile phone culture – Overturned, no harm in a CFD to determine whether the category was indeed non-neutral. In my opinion the depopulating was fine under WP:BOLD; the deletion was not, as the 4-day rule is there for a reason. – Chick Bowen (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Mobile phone culture (restore|cache|AfD)

Claimed speedy: "Speedy deleted per (CSD C1), was an empty category for at least four days." This is incorrect and seems somewhat odd as it was deleted by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) one minute after being totally depopulated by Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Betacommand managed to remove the category from all 15 articles (claiming POV) in little over a minute (all but one at 03:50, 12 November 2007), then East718 deleted it a further minute later (at 03:51). The speedy deletion reason was incorrect and I fail to see the stated POV reason for depopulation. While it might be decided that the category was unnecessary given Category:Mobile phones, Betacommand failed to change the articles to that category. I would consider restoring the category but don't want to mass revert over 15 articles. violet/riga (t) 20:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recategorize while the category is PoV (what does half of the articles listed there has to do with cell phone pop culture), and that has no chance of surviving CFD I believe. The articles has to do with cell phone, thus the category Category:Mobile phones should be there. This is a Secret account 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recategorize as per Secret; any admin may also unilaterally overturn this deletion without asking me. east.718 at 21:32, 11/12/2007
  • leave as is, the addition of the other category should be all that is needed. On a side note I was asked to empty that category because it was POV. (I have a tool for emptying categories) which is why it happened as fast as it did. βcommand 22:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. The "at least four days" requirement is in WP:CSD#C1 so that we can see if there really is universal agreement that the category isn't needed. This sort of speedy depopulating and immediately deleting is obviously directly contrary to the intent of this CSD, as it doesn't allow for disagreement to be voiced. We don't have a practical mechanism to enforce that condition, so admins who delete categories need to accept their responsibility to get it right. This category has been around since May of 2005, so it clearly wasn't an urgent problem. Nor has anyone said here what the POV problem purportedly was. I thus can't see a reasonable reason for these actions having been taken. GRBerry 05:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and repoulate. Betacommand's depopulation of the category might have made some sense if the articles had been recategorised, rather than merely being removed from this category. However, looking at the list of articles removed from the category, I find it hard to see where the alleged POV was, and it seems clear to me that there was a case to be made for keeping it. A CfD nomination only takes a few minutes, and if Betacommand wants to nominate this one for CfD, (s)he should do so. I'm puzzled by this, because Betacommand is a highly experienced editor and should know better than to simply depopulate a category a category because someone else thinks it's POV; editors have to take responsibility for their own actions, and I think that a rap on the knuckles is in order for this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and repopulate I agree with BHG that a rap on the knuckles is in order as well. Ridiculous depopulation. DEVS EX MACINA pray 02:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Alex Smithies – Deletion endorsed; there seems to be little will to restore this based on benchwarming for a notable team. Perhaps the definition of "plays" should be visited at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), though at least in this forum consensus seems to be clear that it means getting into a game. There seems to be consensus to restore the article if and when Smithies gets some playing time, so at that point any administrator can be directed to this conversation and asked to do it. – Chick Bowen (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alex Smithies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I should like this page restored, please. Since the page was deleted in the AFD circumstances have changed and Smithies has become Huddersfield Town's reserve goalkeeper. He has been on the bench for nine games this season and is therefore effectively part of the team. He is an England youth international with media coverage, for example here (he is no.13 in the photo). He is the only member of the Huddersfield squad without an article (see Template:Huddersfield Town F.C. squad). The discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 31#Gavin Hoyte states that squad players at major clubs are now regarded as notable. BlueValour 16:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore on BlueValour's request, but only after the sportsman has actually been in play, as per the AfD and WP:BIO. Sandstein 21:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, per WP:BIO "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league" - being part of the squad named for a game is "playing", imho, even if not called up off the bench (which is going to happen less often for a reserve goalkeeper than a reserve for any other position). --Stormie 22:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do see his name in the media, but only to cover his sports play.[84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91]. I didn't see any biography information, so there doesn't seem to be much that could be added to a Wikipedia biography on Smithies. -- Jreferee t/c 08:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is core bio information here. However, most Wikipedia articles on footballers concentrate on their career and performances and on this there is plenty. BlueValour 02:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with www.htafc.premiumtv.co.uk is that it is not independent of Smithies since they have a relationship with Smithies. It is not a matter of finding true information on Smithies, the trick is that the information has to come from a reliable source that is independent of Smithies. It is the ability to get independent reliable sources to write about you that makes you Wikipedia notable. A person can accomplish a great deal but if independent reliable sources do not write about it then there isn't anything to put in the Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee t/c 21:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I originally deleted this article per AfD, on the basis of four firm votes for delete with only two weak keeps; and it appears that it has been re-created and re-deleted since. Nevertheless, if the player is now a genuine playing member of the squad then he may well qualify for an article. Whether he as yet qualifies as a "playing" member I leave for consensus to decide. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 14:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore if he is on the team when it plays, and it is the highest level of the sport, then it is notable even if he never gets on the field.Balloonman 17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Smithies still fails WP:BIO (has not played in a fully-professional league) and also the new criteria being discussed at WP:FOOTY. In reply to BlueValour, Huddersfield Town have not been a major club since the 1920s. He can have an article when he actually appears for the first team. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, do not restore. "Playing" for a team is different than being part of it, even the Cambridge Dictionary knows that [92]. In any case, once he plays a competitive match you can recreate it. --Angelo 09:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold deletion - nothing significant has changed - he still doesn't meet WP:BIO notwithstanding the (in my opinion incorrect) decision on Gavin Hoyte. - fchd 09:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, As per No 57. When he plays for the first team the article can be recreated.King of the NorthEast 10:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion If Smithies career was to end tomorrow (through injury or whatever), we would be left with an article about someone who sat on the bench for Huudersfield a number of times and had played for the England youth team. That's not a notable sportsman. Restore it if and when he plays in the league, there's no rush. --Malcolmxl5 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion again without prejudice to when he actually plays. Carlossuarez46 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:UffeWasANazi.jpg – Deletion endorsed, as there is currently no article for the image to go in. If the article listed immediately below is recreated with proper sources, the image can be revisited. – Chick Bowen (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:UffeWasANazi.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted citing BLP, should be fixed now. Liftarn 11:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a fair use element here.--Docg 16:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this "fixed now"? Spartaz Humbug! 17:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources added to the Ulf Ekberg article asw ell as the image itself was well sourced. // Liftarn
  • Endorse deletion. The image shows an identifiable man doing the Hitler salute, with the caption "UFFE WAS A NAZI!" superimposed. Even if that man is indeed Ulf Ekberg, I can't immediately think of an encyclopedic use for this picture, whose only purpose appears to be to disparage its subject (WP:CSD#G10). Sandstein 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you have missed something. The image is in fact the cover of the album called "Uffe was a a nazi" and the image comes straight from the website of the record company (do a bitwise compare if you don't trust me). The use would be in the article about the subject. // Liftarn
      • This album at [93], can someone translate the Swedish text? Because it sure looks to me like a bootleg released in order to disparage Ulf Ekberg, not any official Ace of Base or Commit Suiside release? --Stormie 23:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While there are legitimate sentiments here, and Stormie is essentially correct in his characterization of the release, it seems to have received some media attention in Sweden and is apparently one of the easiest ways to get the music from the band he was in. Interview in Aftonbladet, story via Avisa Nordland, What is clear is that Ekberg acknowledges this period in his life and it became a subject of media attention, i.e. notable, and Wikipedia is not publishing this disparagement, we are reporting on its existence. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My best effort at summarizing the Flashback Records link:
Flashback enjoys publishing obscure records of small circulation.... "Uffe was a Nazi" compiles the early songs of Ulf Ekberg when he was in a white power band "Commit Suiside" (note spelling!) .... Flashback searched many old records and is now issuing them in a 1000-copy special edition .... The disk includes all the major songs from that period .... It includes a cover of Skrewdriver's song "Smash the IRA" as "Smash the VPK" ...
There are then some song lyrics on the order of "Black people, hate yourself! Niggers get out out out! Nordic people, wake up!" and so forth.
This disk shows his political leanings. It shows that he lied on American television to 60 million viewers.
It's clear the record was meant to embarrass him, but it seems to have unavoidably become notable in the process. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Just because someone prints a record jacket for a 1,000 run print with potentially defaming information printed across a photo on it does not make it a reliable source to convey that potentially defaming information in an article about the person in the photo. -- Jreferee t/c 07:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The record cover is a "source" for the record cover. The claim that he was a neo-Nazi is sourced to credible media. We may not be able to prove he was a neo-Nazi, but we certainly can prove that people said he was a neo-Nazi. Otherwise, I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that they made up the music and forged the photo? --Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, as far as I understand we now have reliable sources indicating that this man is Ulf Ekberg, who was in a Nazi band, and who is now on that cover of a bootleg CD created by someone else specifically to disparage him. Under these circumstances, I still don't see how this photo would be useful in an article about him, unless the disparaging CD cover is notable as such. Otherwise, an unmodified photo of Ekberg (whether in Nazi gear or not) would be more appropriate. We do not exist to propagate disparagements. Sandstein 09:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the record cover is a "source" for a Wikipedia article about the record, then you are not planning on using the image in an article about the person? -- Jreferee t/c 16:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (You were talking to Sandstein, but) I personally had no plans for this article until I saw the DRV. Because the fact that the lead singer was a onetime skinhead was practically the only piece of trivia I knew about the band (this is very old news, you realize) and because I have rusty Swedish I took a shot at the sources. As to whether a record cover constitutes a "source" I'm not sure about wording here. To me it constitutes an artifact or a topic. The news coverage is what I deem to be "sources". If consensus stretches to include record covers under sources, then fine. This was so widely known at the time (I can practically visualize Kurt Loder talking about it intermittently for several weeks) there are sure to be offline sources that can eventually be dug up and used. The use of the record cover in an article about the person or the record itself I deem an editorial decision. But there are certainly sufficient reliable sources to note Ekberg's skinhead past short of being in the band. --Dhartung | Talk 00:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse we need to be very clear that WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are met before using such images. I see nothing above that would satisfy that high hurdle.--Docg 10:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn if the band's article's deletion is overturned or otherwise recreated. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image has the text "pressed with 1000 copies" how is an album with 1,00 copies notable enough to risk BLP?--Docg 23:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you'd be in favor of deleting all unsourced BLP's becuase there are likely to be 1000 wiki mirrors. Perhaps an idea worth considering... Carlossuarez46 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it was a limited edition record. Is that a problem? // Liftarn
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Commit Suiside – Deletion endorsed as BLP article with no sources. This is not a protected title, and a sourced version can be created at any time. As long as the recreation is neutral and cites reliable sources, it should not be deleted. – Chick Bowen (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Commit Suiside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted citing BLP, that has been taken care of in the Ulf Ekberg article. Request undelete so it can be fixed there too. Liftarn 11:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment although the article was speedy deleted for BLP the band itself is only notable for its relationship to Ulf Ekberg, and the nature of the band and its content is already summarised entirely in a single sentence in that article. Even if this is overturned I'm not sure this band deserves an article. –– Lid(Talk) 13:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite some independent non-trivial sources primarily about this band. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion as such, because the article was in fact negative in tone and unsourced. I do not recommend allowing recreation, because the band appears to be entirely non-notable apart from supposedly having Ulf Ekberg as an ex-member. Consequently, the band should be covered in his article, if at all. That may change once Anders Klarström gets an article. Sandstein 21:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See my comment above for the album cover (Uffe was a Nazi), which seems to me a notable bootleg of the band's material. I have a neutral feeling about the band itself rating an article, as it seems likely we could cover it all (and already do) in the Ulf Ekberg article. Anders Klarström does seem to kick up the potential notability a bit, but again this was early in his career. It wasn't notable THEN, it's arguably notable looking BACK. In any case there seem to be sufficient sources in mainstream Nordic media to allay BLP concerns. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - This is nothing more than an attempt to prove that a band member was a Nazi, something that band member denies and something that is a crime in some locations. In addition to the lack of reliable source material and the POV efforts, there is nothing to indicated that such a topic is important enough to add to any article. Wikipedia is not the place to give importance to issues. The BLP battle already is taking place at Talk:Ulf Ekberg and there is no reason to start a second BLP battle front by restoring this article. -- Jreferee t/c 07:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - what band member? Ulf Ekberg doesn't deny he was a nazi, but blames youth and getting involved with the wrong persons. There are plenty of reliable sources the the BLP issue is already settled as far as I know. // Liftarn
    • Comment "lack of reliable source material" -- uh, Jrefereee, Aftonbladet is one of the largest newspapers in Sweden. So is Expressen. In the Aftonbladet interview, he evades the question, saying he's tired of discussing the subject. That doesn't sound like a denial to me. Aftonbladet's reporter writes "On the record Uffe was a Nazi we find an image of Ulf doing the Nazi salute." --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's grave problems with this. A reported non-denial is NO WAY a sufficient source for Wikipedia to make such a claim - so that's irrelevant by 1,000 miles. So all you've got here is translation of an assertion by one reporter - that's not enough enough either for a serious BLP claim. You are going to need 100% verifiable and corroberated sourcing to satisfy BLP. Have you got it? Endorse for now.--Docg 09:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? We have several reliable sources supporting it ("former Nazi youth gang member"[94], "a media storm about Buddha's past as a drug and alcohol-abusing teenager, when he was a member of a neo-Nazi skinhead gang."[95] and in Aftonbladet[96] he is asked "Is is also about that the violent nazi persons you hanged around with during your youthfull years died an early death?" and he replies "Some of them are persons you have been able to read about in the papers".). // Liftarn
  • Comment I think you should use the term "notable" in replace of the term "important." A topic's importance could be a subjective point of evaluation, but wikipedia has clear standards for notability. - foisenolk 22:36PM, 13 November 2007 (JST)
  • Overturn, send to AfD mistaken application of BLP. ~ trialsanderrors 09:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please also consider the option to merge the content into the Ulf Ekberg article. // Liftarn
  • Absolutely not. I am already concerned that you appear to be on some sort of crusade to highlight this guy's past. See this.--Docg 14:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why his musical background should be kept secret. // Liftarn
    • "you appear to be on some sort of crusade" Please refrain from making unsupported bad faith insinuations. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not unsupported, actually. See the diff.--Docg 22:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I noted in the image DRV, this was pretty widely reported at the time (i.e. when Ace of Base were still a major band). There is no need to throw around accusations of bad faith. I don't see how it can't be in the article, although the depth may be subject to weighting concerns. --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To a Swedish speaking editor or reader, the external link in the deleted article (which has been there since the first revision) is a source. Not a best possible source even for the Swedish speaking editor or reader. It would be better to use high quality reliable sources, preferrably in English. Given discussion above, they probably exist although maybe not in English. This is a borderline BLP call; it wasn't unsourced, it just didn't have good sourcing. Additionally, only the translation to English is really saving this from being a copyright violation problem. Given the combination of problems, I think rewriting is the right solution. GRBerry 00:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The fact that Ekberg was in a Nazi band, acknowledged it, and expressed remorse, is duly recorded and sourced in Ulf Ekberg article, in an appropriate manner. Anything beyond that, i.e. insisting on article about a NN band and cover image of their ~1000 copy album can be (quite appropriately) seen as attempt on mud-slinging, violation of WP:UNDUE, and in sum, a blatant WP:BLP violation. Duja► 08:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The band probably sold more. The 1000 copies you are refering to was a limited edition published after Ace of Base became known. // Liftarn
  • Overturn ah the reaping of the harvest of letting articles about bands and music to be sourced by their record companies. If you take the source here from the record company as reliable, which seems the norm at DRV (by applying WP:IAR to WP:RS policies, perhaps?), there is no BLP issue now nor was there at the time deletion, so "Overturn" is clearly in order. I for one do not read WP:BLP to preclude dredging up unfortunate facts about the past of someone who has thrust himself into the public eye to make money. Carlossuarez46 22:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PADD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The PADD is an integral part of the Star Trek franchise. It has factored in many plotlines, spanning across multiple spin-offs. Whether the content of the deleted article was OR or not, the article should be restored and tagged as OR so editors, such as myself, can clean out the original research and replace it with relevant information. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 06:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. WP:NOT Memory Alpha. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion unless non-trivial, reliable, indepentent sources indicating notabilty outside of fiction comes up per WP:FICTION. AFD isn't a head count. This is a Secret account 21:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As the closing comment noted, the keep side had not one policy-based reason. Sandstein 21:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The article had been tagged as needing sources since May. In all that time, three references were added but they were all trivial mentions of the topic and did not address the core sourcing concerns. The article also went unimproved during the entire AfD discussion period. Reviewing the deleted content, I'm not finding anything that would be left after you clean out the original research. If you really think you have verifiable information on which to base this page, just start over. Rossami (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - no question the closing admin interpreted the debate and lack of reliable sources correctly. Otto4711 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PADD also can be written as (1) Personal Access Display Device, (2) Personal Access and Display Device, and (3) Personal access display device. -- Jreferee t/c 17:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closing admin interpreted debate correctly. There are no independent sources to establish notability and nothing significant left after the removal of the OR to merge. Eluchil404 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Correct close, no independent RSes. Carlossuarez46 23:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 November 2007[edit]

  • Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants – Deletion overturned; relisting may be done by editorial option. There really was insufficient closing rationale here, especially given the relevant possible distinction between reality shows and other television series. – Xoloz 13:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Despite the fact that no one had voted to delete, the category was deleted after this discussion. The reason given was "precedent", although no precedent was stated in the nomination and reasons why this cat was an exception to the rule "no performers by performance" were mentioned in the discussion. A few days later in this discussion the US equivalent of the category (Category:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) participants) was kept, and the admin who closed the discussion wrote "reality shows have their own rules in our categorization scheme". Why is it one rule for the UK version and another for the US? Either both should be kept or both should be deleted, I favour keeping them as some participants in these categories are known more for dancing in SCD or DWTS than what they did before. Philip Stevens 22:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see mention of customary exceptions being made for reality show contestants. I don't see any mention of the reality show exception at WP:OCAT. I believe that reality show participants should be included in the "performers by performance" overcategorization guidelines. However, if there has been CfDs to the contrary, it might be worthwhile to discuss the topic in more depth. I'd like to see some links to any precedents pro and con. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's rationale: I closed the Dancing with the Stars discussion by the logic that there are many categories of this type, and it made no sense to delete this one by itself. Specifically, these shows are a lot closer to sports than they are to dramatic fictional series, and so their contestants are categorized more like athletes than actors. That was my rationale, anyway; your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 06:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument sounds reasonable and there are many other reality based tv shows with similar lists, don't see why this one should be removed. I say restore -- UKPhoenix79 10:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should also say that I too support an overturn and relist result. There certainly was no intention to favor a US show over a UK one.--Mike Selinker 15:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, I hope you don't feel that is being suggested here. I certainly don't believe that to be the case. Regan123 00:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist the US and UK together to obtain a better consensus. I happen to think both should be deleted, but we need to gain a wider perspective. Regan123 13:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist US and UK categories together - for reasons identical to those given by Regan123. I also think they both should be deleted.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - along with Category:The X Factor contestants, Category:Pop Idol contestants, Category:Fame Academy participants, Category:Dancing on Ice participants, Category:Celebrity Fit Club participants, Category:Big Brother UK contestants and Category:The Apprentice (UK) candidates, all deleted "per precedent" by the same closing admin on the same day. The huge number of categories for participants in reality shows means that the entire categorization structure ought to be considered as a whole, not picked at around the edges. Otto4711 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do not relist. Not a single delete vote. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Television series considered the greatest ever – Deletion endorsed. DHowell is correct that an administrator should not, in most cases, make policy determinations against consensus. But, as the AfD stood, there was no consensus that the article was not original research. As such, this determination of policy violation is left to administrative discretion. – IronGargoyle 04:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Television series considered the greatest ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

(AFD discussion | Last version of the deleted article)
I think the reasoning behind deleting this article is flawed, and its deletion is not in the best interests of the project. The article is not original research. It listed instances where TV shows were cited as being the best. There may have been a few bad or missing citations, but that is not a fatal flaw. The article did not reach any conclusion about which shows are the best, it did not try to quantify the citations for which shows have been called the best. It just listed them. I've spent the last 3 years looking after Films considered the greatest ever and find this and many similar AFDs very disheartening. The beauty of a wiki is that someone can create a flawed list or article, and over time it can get better. The Films article went through two AFDs and was kept. People do study which films and TV shows are acclaimed. A wiki is a great way to collect this information. Collectively it may be original research to have some shows mentioned and others ignored, but this criticism can be made about virtually every article in Wikipedia. As long as an article does not present itself as being comprehensive, it must be able to exist in an incomplete, partially formed state. To delete articles and lists because they are not yet comprehensive is like throwing the baby out, not with the bathwater, but because it doesn't yet know how to walk. The original closer has stated that it was deleted because "the article comprised original research because it is predicated on the idea that these sources or criteria equate to these shows being considered the greatest ever, and I think that is a flawed premise that goes against policy." However the article is not about which show IS the best ever, only listing those which have been selected or considered at one time or another to be the best. If this is not clear in reading it, it can be made clearer. I think the article is very clear that these shows are "considered" the greatest by some measure, and the measures are clearly stated and cited. So what make this OR? There is a long precedent for citing other's opinions as long as the opinion is cited and not misrepresented. What is wrong with Wikipedia reporting which TV shows (or films -- which is why I'm here advocating reversal) have been selected in a poll, are the longest running, have the most awards, etc...? What makes any work "great" is certainly of interest and studied by many people. I see no reason why this information shouldn't be in Wikipedia. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn in an AFD like this the close should interpret consensus... this close doesn't mention consensus and perhaps the closer should have just made a comment in the AFD if he had such a strong opinion on the article. --W.marsh 22:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming you mean this as "Overturn. In an AFD like this the closer should interpret consensus"? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... I guess I add a full-stop after bolded words. --W.marsh 23:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by closing admin, just to be clear, I have no strong opinion on the article, other than in regards to the fact that I think it pretty clearly goes against policy, which I stated in my closing notes. I closed based on policy, strength of argument, and consensus in that order.--Isotope23 talk 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that feeling that an article "pretty clearly goes against policy" is a strong feeling about it - this is fine, and you have two choices: (i) participate in the AfD or (ii) analyse the debate carefully to show why the keep arguments based on refs to policy are mis-founded. You can't just arbitrarily waft in at closure time and have your way, except in the few cases where all the participants have missed the key point(s). Splash - tk 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't call that a "strong feeling", I would call that an assessment of the article based on policy. Just because I didn't post a point by point rebuttal of the arguments in my closing notes made doesn't mean I didn't read and consider all the arguments made. Personally I don't see this as "having my way"... I have no personal opinion on whether or not there should be an article on this topic.--Isotope23 talk 13:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I think he fairest thing to do overall is to have a renewed and wider discussion. DGG (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see little value in relisting, since we've a good-sized debate in front of us and a meaningful article that it is based on. We can evaluate the debate and the article without pointlessly rerunning it and that is the purpose of DRV. Splash - tk 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is for evaluating whether a debate should be held, not for debating the merits. The original debate was confused, ad a new start might clarify matters.DGG (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dismiss close. A debate of that size cannot be validly closed without some analysis in the closure notes of the substance of the debate. Splash - tk 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extended rationale: The closing admin did not reference the debate and its arguments at all, either in their closing or in the comment above here (we are still left in mystery as to the evaluations of the 3 items Isotope23 mentions). My analysis of the debate would have to centre on whether it is established that the original research claim stands, as that's a powerful reason to delete. I would be inclined to dismiss POV arguments and also unreformed "subjectivity" arguments since the keepers do explain clearly what the non-subjective criteria are (cf Jayron32's comment for example). By way of dimissing some further low-grade comments, I would do away with: DBZRocks (unintelligible) and Burntsauce (yawn) and partially Yury (also yawn at the redlinks).
    • So, among the remaining coherent opinions, are the OR claims justified and irreparable? I think that the more subtle suggestions that the basis for the list is in other lists that are riggable, overly-granular and open to producing most any result the (magazine) editor wishes is very valid and passes undiminished through the debate. I also note that DGG's point about wanting to develop meta-criteria for what constitutes a meaningful "greatest ever" compilation is one that bears investigating, and that Guy's suggestion of refactoring is also worthy of pursuit. These points are not successfully challenged in my opinion - they merely are asked valid, investigatable questions - meaning that the article may be repairable.
    • I find on reading the debate again that the charges of "is OR" versus "is not OR" reach no clear conclusion: on the one hand, it reports other peoples' original research in a way that appears to have little discrimination before synthesis but on the other, it is not original to Wikipedia and cites its sources. I do not think that the debate reaches a clear conclusion on whether this is beneath the OR standard, and I do not think the debate demonstrates that the problems with the article are irreparable. Thus I do not think there is a rough consensus to delete it.
    • In summary, close as no consensus at the present time, with warning to the editors that improvements are expected or a much tougher AfD experience is likely to follow. Splash - tk 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside by way of dispensing some advice: Guy's comment is a useful one: the titles of these articles are amongst their greatest problems for being woefully indescriptive. Splash - tk 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, the fluff about "longest running" is totally out of place. Get rid of it; it has nothing to do with "greatest ever" and weakens your case. Splash - tk 00:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The closer made a proper interpretation of the debate in line with our long-established non-acceptance of original research. --krimpet⟲ 08:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think makes it original research? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - just because a source says in passing that something is great neither makes it so, nor makes the opinion noteworthy. This is subjective subtrivia and offends against core policies WP:NOR WP:NPOV - as much as people may want it here, it is unfit for an encyclopedia. Delete all subjective lists.--Docg 11:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - correctly deleted morass of synthesis with a weasel title. Neil ☎ 14:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not accurate. The article does not synthesize the information. It is an incomplete list of citations. To remove all lists of subjective opinion would remove all mention of literary criticism, awards, polls, etc... There is nothing wrong with discussing opinion if it is third party mention of the opinion. This article (and those similar) are policed by editors who remove uncited opinion. There is possibly a case for saying that the longest running shows should not be in this list. Whether they are or are not included, should not be relevant to whether the article should kept or deleted. If someone finds a third party citation that discusses a connection between greatness and longevity, I think they could be kept. This is an editorial decision that can be discussed on the talk page. The same thing happened at Films considered the greatest ever, related to box office results, and the decission was to remove the information. The term "considered" is an attempt to make it clear that this is an article about opinions, and that that it is not an attempt to synthesize the information or reach any conclusions as to which shows are the best. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this deletion decision considered the greatest ever. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both User:Burntsauce and User:JohnE.McClure, who contributed delete !votes to the afd, have since been banned as, respectively, a meatpuppet and a sockpuppet. DGG (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. According to our deletion policy, pages are deleted "if there is consensus to do so", not "if the page violates policy in the administrator's opinion". The closing admin states that his close was "based on policy, strength of argument, and consensus in that order," but this is not proper. Policy and strength of argument are tools in determining consensus, not for overriding it. Policy may represent a wider consensus if a prior wider discussion has shown a consensus agreeing with a particular interpretation of policy. Strong arguments may represent a wider consensus if those arguments have been shown to sway consensus in other discussions. But in this case, the closing admin did not appear to make any attempt to actually determine consensus; instead, it appears he deleted based on his own personal interpretation of policy. There was clearly no consensus reached in the discussion that the article was original research, or that it violated any other policy, and it should have been closed that way, i.e. no consensus, defaulting to keep. DHowell 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, per WP:DGFA, policy trumps consensus. "A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." --SmashvilleBONK! 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I interpret that to mean an admin can ignore opinions like "I don't care if its original research, it's useful!", but that doesn't mean admins should ignore opinions on whether a page violates policy. To do so would be placing the individual opinion of the admin above policy and consensus. To the extent that the wording in WP:DGFA is unclear and contrary to how policy is normally backed by consensus (with specific exceptions determined e.g. by Jimbo or the Foundation), rather than by administrative fiat, that wording ought to be changed. I also don't believe it has been demonstrated that it is "very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy", even if we were to presume that the article as it existed did breach policy. DHowell 05:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DHowell. The OR claim is in my opinion rather dubious; in any case shouldn't have been used to delete without consensus. — xDanielx T/C\R 02:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly interpreted the debate and gave appropriate weight to the arguments on both sides. Those wanting the list kept did not overcome the policy and guideline-based objections and the suggestions for renaming and repurposing crashed on those same policy and guideline rocks. Otto4711 04:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DHowell and Daniel - OR claim is highly dubious, and going against consensus with such a claim is also highly dubious, and the decision deserves to be reversed. DEVS EX MACINA pray 06:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - First, I was swayed by the DRV's nomination statement "People do study which films and TV shows are acclaimed" as to the issues that this is valid topic. However, I was more swayed by the AfD closer's statement: "Some of these entries are being touted as "greatest ever" based on time aired, some on determination in various magazines. At this point there isn't even anything worth merging or refactoring in this article but if I had to give any recommendation it would be better to do fresh lists that were source specific (i.e. Best Television shows according to "Reliable Source X") and tie them together with a master list." That is good reasoning, but it did not reflect the AfD consensus as noted above by the closer. The close of an AfD needs to be tied more to the discussion. -- Jreferee t/c 07:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - this article is the oposite of Wikipedia: this article should work in theory but in practice...doesn't. I'm all for referencing. And I can't fathom how people argue that the article is original research, because it just isn't. What it is, though, is a "list or repository of loosely associated topics", something that Wikipedia is not. It appears to have a unifying theme, great TV shows according to reputable sources. But in reality, the premise of the article is wrong: "These are great shows". Even though the editors try to back it up with references, at the end of the day, a reader can just say a big fat "says who?" I know opinions abound at Wikipedia, but this is never (or should never) be the basis of an article -- to spout opinions. We should still be looking for notable topics (bands, discoveries, people, nations, ideologies) and then presenting a general summary of that topic's significance. The same criteria belongs to lists. List should always serve a notable topic. For example, discographies serve a notable artist's page, or someone earlier mentioned Nixon's Enemies List. But would we make an article called "people who have been on an enemy list - with references"? Of course not. In the case of this article, the only substantial info is the sources, since the opinions are a dime a dozen. As a reader, I found myself saying things like "Who on earth is Newtype USA" or "the Radio Times Guide to TV Comedy actually thinks The Phil Silvers Show is the best sitcom...ever? Weirdos." These opinions are transient, date quickly and really only as good as the reader trusts the source. I just want to cut it at the quick before the authors invest anymore time in it. I think the deleter made a good call.--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse garbage topic, unencyclopedic, POV-fraught with an inevitable English-language bias. Good close. Eusebeus 01:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Endorse. This is utter unencyclopedic garbage. I am shocked - yes, shocked - that anyone would vote to overturn (or to keep) it. It's a bunch of unrelated things lumped together into a made up list. I cannot overemphasize how bad that overturning this kind of garbage would be for the project. --SmashvilleBONK! 04:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is is unencyclopedic to discuss things that are considered great? There are two common meanings of "encyclopedic". One meaning is "found in an encyclopedia, like the EB", the other is "pertaining to all fields of knowledge". What makes it garbage? Certainly, it could be much better, but the way to make it much better isn't by deleting it. They entries in this list are not unrelated. Each entry relates to the topic. Some reasons behind your shock and outrage would help move the discussion forward. As for the damage to the project, I believe it is being greatly harmed by removing lists such as this. The biggest loss is by demoralizing those that contribute to them, and those that appreciated finding them here. The down-side of being more "low-brow" is small in comparison. Instead of removing these community generated lists, they should be labeled to make their deficiencies transparent to the reader. Every article at Wikipedia is flawed. Over time, if given the chance, they improve. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, unencyclopedic listcruft. Right result. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse unencyclopedic opinonlistcruft. Carlossuarez46 23:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Universal Savings Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Out of process. See User_talk:Spryde#DON.27T_MISUSE_speedies*. I HEREBY REQUEST a temporary restore of the article and its FULL history (Further back than 7 June 2006, including Upfront Rewards), as it's needed for the discussion. Historical versions contain claims of notability, as well as references. Elvey 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Content inlined here for the multitude apparently unwilling to follow the link.

DON'T MISUSE speedies On a related note: Universal Savings Bank was tagged improperly by User:spryde; there were links in the speedied article to several pieces of significant news coverage. These are a prima facie evidence of importance/significance. --Elvey 17:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Elvey, I read through the article and I did not see anything that claimed notability. I therefore tagged it as such. It looked like any other piece of advert that tries to get put onto Wikipedia on a daily basis. spryde | talk 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The sentence I bolded, above, is obviously untrue. The version you marked for speedy deletion was, if anything, overly critical. Again, your speedy tag was improper and careless. --Elvey 19:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Irrelevant, even if it were true, and based my recollection it isn't, for reasons already given. You're not commenting on the deletion in question. Let's stick to the topic. I can't respond as I can't see what you see. I had about 2 HOURS TO RESPOND TO THE SPEEDY. Plus, telling me to start from scratch is rude, given I've already responded to that suggestion, as you should know if you did what you say you did. What part of "Out of process. See User_talk:Spryde#DON.27T_MISUSE_speedies." did you not read, not understand, find lacking, or not agree with? --Elvey 22:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my comment on the deletion in question: the article made no assertion of importance or significance, it merely asserted that Universal Savings Bank "is a US thrift institution that is in the consumer credit business", then went on to provide some links regarding the president's murky past. A perfectly valid CSD A7 deletion, the fact that a company is run by someone who was fired from some other company is hardly an assertion of notability. Upfront Rewards, on the other hand, was deleted entirely within process after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upfront Rewards where every contributor other than yourself called for deletion. On what grounds do you believe these deletions were out of process? --Stormie 05:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already asked and answered. I have said before -that is NOT all the articles contained. What part of "Out of process. See User_talk:Spryde#DON.27T_MISUSE_speedies." did you not read, not understand, find lacking, or not agree with? Samuel Blanning also deleted Upfront Rewards out of process: the "Always explain your reasoning." part was blatantly violated.--Elvey 05:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the answer at User_talk:Spryde#DON.27T_MISUSE_speedies unclear? WP:CSD#A7? Not! Re.'Secondly": There are substantial references in Upfront Rewards, as I said. That is NOT at User:Elvey/Universal Savings Bank-NeedsRestoredContentKeepHist. Correct your statement or I'll do it for you. I said before: "I HEREBY REQUEST a temporary restore of the article and its FULL history (Further back than 7 June 2006, including Upfront Rewards), as it's needed for the discussion. Historical versions contain claims of notability, as well as references." A restore to userspace is fine.--Elvey 01:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite the article first I can think of several reasons for rapid deletion, besides A7, such as attack page. A really unfair and uncited article. Maybe a fair and documented one would end up giving readers the same conclusion, but it would be better all-around t you were to write one in user space first.DGG (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong order. The article has been deleted out of process. The deleted version in question is quite different in tone from what's at User:Elvey/Universal Savings Bank-NeedsRestoredContentKeepHist!!! That version an attack page? No way! It was nuked as being a company ad for crying out loud! And uncited? Nonsense! The full pages histories have a shitload of cites; that's what I'm insisting be restored; that's stated clearly in recent versions of the page too. --Elvey 02:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a friggin userspace temporary restore, people. Is that too much to ask??? Is asking you not to re-ask questions already answered too much to ask? What part of "Out of process. See User_talk:Spryde#DON.27T_MISUSE_speedies." did you not read, not understand, find lacking, or not agree with? --Elvey 02:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
DCC Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reverse PROD.

I went to place a link from the mention of "DCC" on q:Mark Shuttleworth to the DCC Alliance Wikipedia article. This article was removed within the last 48 hours following a PROD (and apparently) no discussion. I have had no previous involvement with the article in question. I do believe this article may have a place, along with the United Linux article (again no involvement). Both articles document (now defunct) alliances and attempts at consolidation with in the Linux industry. —Sladen 18:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:NREAGANKISSCASKET1.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:NREAGANKISSCASKET1.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IfD)

This image (if you are unable to view it,here is a similar image) was brought to WP:IMD (see entry here), and concensus was wrongly tallied. I voted to keep the image, as well as User:Cumulus Clouds and the only opposition was from User:RG2; I uploaded it, provided the source, a fair use rationale, and the reasons to show why the picture is valuable. It is iconic within itself, representing, aruguably, the most famous image of President Ronald Reagan's funeral. Happyme22 (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior deleted uploads by Happyme22:
  • Overturn - irreplaceable, and no consensus for deleting it. It isn't strictly necessary to the article, but that's true of virtually all images, and consensus does not favor eliminating fair use images. — xDanielx T/C 13:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not irreplacable if there are several versions of the image. Spartaz Humbug! 17:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it is unlikely that any of them are released under a free license. (And if one is, then none of us are aware of it, in which case it isn't doing much good.) — xDanielx T/C 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at IMD, for a better discussion. As far as I can see, there was no clear consensus. Rudget zŋ 14:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Endorse. Consensus is determined by arguments against policy and the only arguments for keeping under policy were addressed in the discussion. IFD/IMD rarely has extensive discussions and there is no reason to relist and we won't see any more contributions then we already had. Has anyone contacted the deleting admin yet? Spartaz Humbug! 17:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC). I see the closing admin has been informed of this discussion - shame about the failure to discuss the deletion with them before bringing this here. Spartaz Humbug! 17:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Overturn, no consensus was reached to delete this image. Also fair use rationale was provided, and I have to agree with Happyme22 that this image is iconic and should not have been deleted. TonyBallioni 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - The nominating reason "Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves" seems like a personal opinion rather than per policy/guideline consensus. The nominator's "are not"/"unless" language scheme turned the Images for Deletion process into an Images for Retention process, which is wrong. The relevant guideline that needed to be discussed was Unacceptable images criterion #6: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos." That was not discussed and the image needs to be sent back to IfD with the specific request that Unacceptable images criterion #6 be discussed. The license failed to provide a detailed non-free use rationale as required by Template:Non-free fair use in. That would be enough reason to delete the image. Because this is a valuable press photo and likely worth significant reproduction money to the copyright owner, I do not see this image overcoming the fair use factor "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." However, that is for IfD to decide, not DRV. Happyme22 tagged the image with Template:Withpermission. Because this is a valuable press photo and likely worth significant reproduction money to the copyright owner, the validity of that template should have been vigorously pursued. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are more than sufficient to address this image. We just need to use them. -- Jreferee t/c 06:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me run full circle on my above post. An iconic event may overcome the fair use factor of "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." The iconic event issue was discussed at AfD. After all is said and done, perhaps that was the only real issue regarding this image. Perhaps the statement "Press photos are not to be used on Wikipedia unless particularly iconic themselves" really is saying a press photo with clear, significant market value is an unacceptable image unless it is an image with iconic status or historical importance. The IMD closing actions did implement the debate correctly by deleting the image. If the closer of this DRV thinks what should have been discussed in that IMD was discussed, then my position would be endorse deletion.-- Jreferee t/c 14:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. In the course of his comment above (supporting overturn), Jreferee has actually made a case that supports deletion fairly conclusively. I understand his view that this case is best heard at IfD, and he's right, it is best heard at IfD: under the circumstances, though, restoring this image seems futile, since it is reasonable to question the truthfulness of terms of the license. I cannot support the restoration of an image where it appears more likely than not that the license is false, perhaps intentionally so. Xoloz 13:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The false license thing bothered me, too. It is a big deal if it was intentional. Happyme22's image uploading and licensing probably should be looked at. -- Jreferee t/c 14:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happyme22's initial February 2007 image uploading was based on if an image does not explicitly carry with it a copyright statement, the image was in the public domain. RP88 gave Happyme22 some detailed copyright advise in March 2007[97] In August 2007, Happyme22 uploaded Image:REAGANSKISS2000.jpg, which he said he BOUGHT at time.com, "which also granted me rights to use this on Wikipedia, provided there is no copying, distributing, and/or plagerizing of this image." The Image:REAGANSKISS2000.jpg was deleted as being taken from img.timeinc.net. I only looked at the kiss images. Many of Happyme22's images are being deleted at present. I'm not sure if this is a case innocent ignorance in a string of copyright areas or, as Xoloz mentions, intentional. -- Jreferee t/c 14:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Default pantheon of Dungeons & Dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Edition supplements ("Complete") (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
List of Forgotten Realms source books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

These were deleted citing CSD A3, but are needed so that the proposals for inbound mergers can each be gathered in one place and discussed on one talk page. NeonMerlin 04:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Content of the first title was {{Mergefrom-multiple|Olidammara|Garl Glittergold|Hextor|Pelor}}; the other two were identical, except for naming different articles. Having a page in mainspace consisting solely of a merge notice is actively harmful to the encyclopedia. Just put the merge notices on the source pages and direct the discussion links to all point at the same talk page (using subst if necessary). Alternately, go ahead and do the merge to begin with, and temporarily omit the final step of redirecting the source articles; with a good, comprehensive article in place to show people the quality of the end result vis-a-vis the separate articles, the merge discussion will be much better informed. —Cryptic 12:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - be bold and merge to begin with. Rudget zŋ 14:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


10 November 2007[edit]

  • Kuririn – Keep closure endorsed. If the concerns (particularly those about sourcing) are not addressed a future AfD may be appropriate after a reasonable interval. – Eluchil404 23:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kuririn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The keep comments had nothing to back them up. First, they claimed he was notable in DBZ, and therefore WP notable. This is not true. One other said AfD is not a place for cleanup — this is true, but there was no indication the article met criteria for inclusion, cleanup was not an issue. The other keep rationales claimed there were lots of sources that could be added. However, even after I asked several times, no legitimate sources were provided. Finally, there was an exchange between myself and another editor, and I don't believe he demonstrated that his version of the notability criteria was correct. There were deletion-supporting comments addressing lack of sourcing (both primary and external), in-universe writing styles, and notability. All of these are based in guideline and policy, and they were not refuted. I (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure A main character in a popular series. Deletion nomination instead of article repair where it's obviously possible reeks of WP:POINT. JuJube 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure - as per main character in a popular cartoon series. Most intermediate edits between removal of AFD notice and now, show mostly reverts of other users comments. Possibly an effect of the AFD. Rudget zŋ 11:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. It would have been wrong to delete the article on the back of that sort of AfD. There was no clear-cut sway to deletion and no agreement that the subject was real-world insignificant. I do note that there was little effort to add sources during and since, however, but AfD sometimes has a chilling effect (the deleters would have done well to more forthrightly challenge the "i don't want to till it's kept" mantra). However, I would suggest that the article may face a serious possibility of deletion in future if efforts are not made to demonstrate the claims in the AfD immediately. Finally, bringing an article to AfD and in the nomination asking for a merge is wrong in the first place. Splash - tk 01:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure The consensus at afd was pretty clear: This article was worthy of inclusion because he is a major character in an extremely notable cartoon series. I too am troubled with the lack of sources, but DRV's goal is not to have another discussion on the notability of the article, but to determine if any errors were made in the close. As it appears that the close determined the consensus correctly there is no reason to overturn it. TonyBallioni 14:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The way these things sometimes work, unfortunately, is the first AfD brings a flood of keeps, but no references. The second AfD might bring the same, but more likely with different results. I suggest posting yourself an automatic email reminder to relist the article at AfD on or after 2 February 2008. Here's a reference to "Kuririn"[98]. -- Jreferee t/c 23:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The first two were closed by a user who participated in the dicsussion, which presents a conflict of interest, and thus should not happen. Secondly, he is a non-admin, and there is currently contention as to what the community believes on non-admins closing discussions. Finally, I do not believe they were closed in accordance with consensus. The third one was closed by an admin without COI. However, he admitted that his closed so as to not go against the other two closes, since the three articles are in essence the same thing. I do not belive any of them were closed according to guideline and policy-based consensus. The major factor was a recent peer review that suggested they break these three sections into their own articles. However peer review is not authoritative; it does not override guidelines. The information is not notable; it isn't even verified. If the information is not important enough to be included in the main article, then it is surely not important enough for its own article. At the very least, I would support relisting them, preferably together so we don't end up with different results for each AfD. I (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist. Just from a look at the AfDs and not at the articles themselves, it's clear that the closures of the first two were out of process. Non-admins shouldn't be closing discussions as "keep" when other users heve expressed "delete" opinions and when they themselves have registered "keep" opinions in the discussions. Deor 00:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as one AFD is the best I can figure out. They're so closely related that a single AFD will be best at determining consensus... we saw here a textbook case of why seperate AFDs can sometimes be a problem. --W.marsh 00:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as one - the three articles are very similar and should be considered together in order to truly gauge support levels. Too, there was notable delete support which was unnecessarily ignored by the closer, so we should have a more equitable discussion this time round. Biruitorul 02:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure that "needless trivia" and "random trivia" is a notable delete support rationale, wouldn't you agree? Rudget zŋ 11:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in the interests of this review, please consult here for reference to my actions of closure. Rudget zŋ 11:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you - I'm sure none of us are aware of the rules for non-admin closing of an AFD /sarcasm. You closed a discussion you had expressed an opinion in and this isn't allowed. Non admins shouldn't close discussions where the outcome is not explicitly clear. Spartaz Humbug! 17:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as one: The point keeps being raised that this is "trivia" if that is what people think then they should take a look at every other airport article, they all have long lists of the airlines and destinations. If the decision is "delete as it is trivia" then somebody needs to tell the people at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports as they are the ones making it their policy to add these lists to all airport articles. I was the one who moved them to new pages and did so as I felt they cluttered the article deeming the general style to be somewhat horrific especially as Manchester Airport serves more destinations than any other UK airport. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 13:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as one: Per above. However, the delete comments "needless trivia" and "random trivia" in my opinion, aren't good opposes to the keeping of the article. I felt that the greater support opinion demonstrated a better argument. Regards, Rudget zŋ 14:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
LI-BS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Why does a voluntary organization, along with the people that invest work, get kicked out of Wikipedia? Is that usual procedure today? What will be next? Removing the Red Cross from Wikipedia because it too represents a voluntary organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranjid (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 November 2007

  • Comment Topics are only covered on Wikipedia if the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:N). Also read WP:ORG, which has the guidelines for inclusion for organizations. If you can provide reliable secondary sources about this organization, then it can be included. --Phirazo 17:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Secondary sources are the two founding members mentioned in the article, the 1000+ members, the community website as well as the mission statement on the website itsself and on LinkedIn. --Ranjid 17:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those aren't secondary sources - those are entirely primary and non-independent sources. Secondary sources would be an investigative journalist publishing in a paper of record, or the organization that gives a meaningful award in its description of why the group won an award, or ... GRBerry 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah, the good old slippery slope. A truly convincing argument, that one. (You also might want to consider, I dunno, changing the name of that organization. The last two letters, I mean... yeesh.) JuJube 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid WP:CSD#A7, article did not assert significance or importance. GRBerry 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, with no point in restoring following challenge because it's definitely a speedy deletion. This would be true of almost 100% of volunteer organisations started in "mid-2007". Splash - tk 01:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - One thing that separates Wikipedia from the rest of the Internet is that Wikipedia strives to keep organizations from writing their own Wikipedia article. That's it. If newspapers and other reliable sources independent of the organization are not interested in facts about the organization, then those facts should not be added to Wikipedia. Why does a voluntary organization who can't get independent reliable sources to write about them think that is what Wikipedia looks for in a topic? Why should that be a usual procedure? What will be next? Adding to Wikipedia information about an organization that no one is interested only because it and the Red Cross each represents a voluntary organization? That would turn everything Wikipedia has worked for during the past seven years on its head. -- Jreferee t/c 23:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vangteh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • It was deleted "hoax?, no sources", but User:Khumpita has listed claimed references in User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Vangteh. In summary, Vangteh seems to be claimed to be a small (WP:NN?) petty kingdom that existed in Burma before British times. The odd style is likely because his first language is not English but Burmese. Anthony Appleyard 09:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AFD since that's how to deal with non-libelous, non-obvious hoaxes. I guess this deserves a fair shake at AFD rather than speedy deletion. However, the referencing provided seems dubious to me, a lot if it seems to just be Wikipedia mirrors... although there are some Google books results. --W.marsh 14:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD It should not have been speedied. But, as W.marsh says, if not a hoax, it will need a good deal of work.DGG (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have undeleted it and AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Erdős numbers – From the discussion below, I think two conclusions can be drawn on which there is wide agreement: 1.)Erdos numbers are trivial, and in general do not correlate to the significance of a mathematician or her/his work; 2.)Mathematicians value Erdos numbers as a significant facet of their shared common working culture. It is for this reason that Wikipedia has an article on Erdos number, and no one in this discussion has questioned the encyclopedic worth of that article.

These two conclusions are in tension with each other. Trivial information is not used in categorizing encyclopedic material; yet, although this information is trivial, many Wikipedians in the mathematics field are passionate about this trivia, and find it worthy of mentioning.

It is argued that Erdos numbers are not "a defining characteristic", and are thus inappropriate for categorization; it is counter-argued that many current categories appear to exist for characteristics whose "defining" nature is ambiguous at best -- eg. "People from Ohio".

What seems to have been lost to some of those commenters urging that deletion here be overturned is that deletion of the categories does not serve to eradicate Erdos number data from Wikipedia. Individual Erdos numbers may be added to each mathematician's article; and lists, as appropriate, may be maintained. Categorization is about reader navigation and no clear compelling case has been made regarding why readers would wish to navigate among mathematicians on the basis of their number. Passion aside, an individual's number is not known to be that highly significant.

Having said that, the proponents of undeletion have one significant point in their favor -- the nature of the previous discussion did not completely delineate among the various Erdos values, and it did not have the ability to consider the full range of options (listing, "infobox"ing) now suggested. Hence, it is logical and just to relist "cat:Erdos number 1" at CfD. If arguments for Erdos numbers as a "defining charactristic" can be made, they should apply most strongly to this "high" number. A limited relisting will also allow full discussion of the "list" and "infobox" alternatives.

Erdos numbers will survive at Wikipedia, and it should remain easy to determine the number for any modern scientist who might have one. Given the admitted trivial nature of the numbers, it seems categorization on that basis is highly unlikely to be appropriate. Hence, the deletions are endorsed. Nevertheless, further discussion is warranted to ensure that no evidence in favor of the importance of Erdos numbers was overlooked in the previous en masse CfD, and to clarify the question of what to do with the Erdos data of individuals, in the full light of all alternatives. Hence, a limited relisting at CfD is proper. – Xoloz 21:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Erdős numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)
This is a relisting of the 7 November DRV, per its closure.
The original DRV nominator provided this link as an explanation.
The closer further explained his closure at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28.
I'd like to add to that to suggest that while I agree with User:Kbdank71's closure rationale for the discussion as it stands as a single discussion (and accepting that consensus can change), if I were to take into account the previous discussions, and a few of the comments at the recent DRV (including my own), I think that a case could be made to restore the 1, 2, and at most 3 of the numbered categories. Anything larger than 3 isn't supported by the "keep" arguments, as far as I could see. So I'd like to request that, since this is a "group nomination", if you feel that the closure should be even partially overturned, please specify exactly which categories you would like to see restored.
And since the canvassing of the previous discussion(s) has been seen as an issue, I would also ask that no canvassing be done during this discussion. I'll leave a notice at the original closer's talk page, and at the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics. That should be more than enough. - jc37 09:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused about the scope of this discussion here. Although I did comment myself on large finite Erdos numbers in my comment below pasted from the previous DRV, it was meant as more of an aside in the context of others mentioning a preference for small finite Erdos numbers in their own asides, and not intended to be a pursuasive arguement for their inclusion. The closer of the CfD makes no mention of the size of the various Erdos numbers in his arguements for deleting the categories without a consensus. [99] Is the debate taking place here in this DRV being expanded to a general back and forth discussion of the merits of categories of the specific Erdos numbers? Or are we still simply discussing whether or not the deletion should be overturned? If the scope of this debate is indeed being widened to this extent, then alot more discussion will need to take place, because this issue has never really been placed before us formally in any forum up until now. --Ramsey2006 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse closure, for the reasons above. If closure is overturned, only supporting the restoration of Erdős numbers 1 and 2. I think even 3 is probably stretching it. - jc37 09:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. (Copied and pasted from previous DRV) There was no consensus to delete. In addition, several of the supposedly stronger arguements don't make any sense to me. For example, how is the fact that not all 8000 mathematicians with a particular Erdos number (or range of numbers) are not notable enough to have a wikipedia entry even relavant to the discussion, much less a reason to delete? We don't delete categories about people who were born in year 1957 just because not everybody born in 1957 is notable enough to have a wikipedia article. As for accuracy, this has not been demonstrated to be a problem. Wikipedia has policies reguarding truth vs verifiability using reliable sources. As for Erdos numbers not reflecting ones skill as a mathematician and similar comments, unless a person's Erdos number is 0, this is a strawman. Erdos numbers have never been presented as such, although no doubt many mathematicians with Erdos number 1 are extremely and uncommonly good mathematicians. But this is not what they measure.
As a mathematician, I like being able to see somebody's Erdos number at a glance when I come across a math biography. It makes wikipedia a more useful and valuable online encyclopedia for me. (Yes, I could go over to MR and type in the guys name, but I generally wouldn't bother to do so as a wikipedia reader, unless it was to add the information as an editor.) It is a significant part of mathematical culture and folklore, and a part of mathematical culture which has been popularized to a great extent in the general public, also. People are interested in the individual Erdos numbers of individual mathematicians, even if this is not the most important and significant peice of information contained in a biographical article. And the list of those interested does not only include other mathematicians. (As a side note, in my opinion, large Erdos numbers of individual mathematicians is just as interesting as small numbers. If the subject of a math bio has an Erdos number of 14, this is something that I would be fascinated to stumble across in an article, and after stumbling across this little peice of information, I would definitely be inclined to go over to MR and start tracing the collaboration paths, at least late on a friday afternoon. I would also click on the category to see who else has a bio here who has such a large finite Erdos number.) --Ramsey2006 13:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If "people are interested in the individual Erdos numbers of individual mathematicians", that's a good reason to include them in the article, but that's one of the crucial misunderstandings behind the opposition to deletion. Categories exist to assist navigation by grouping articles on a limited number of defining characteristics, not to somehow tag articles with points of interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer for same reasons as last DRV. --Kbdank71 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should either disregard this vote, or count nominator's (User:PeterStJohn) vote to overturn as well. (Igny 14:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)) The PeterStJohn did vote below. (Igny 21:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Endorse, the reasoning looks completely sound to me. Part of mathematical subculture and folklore? Fine, put it in the infobox. No doubt many fields have in-jokes, but that doesn't mean we need a category for people in on the joke. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on AFD more precisely I would like to see a debate where all the possible option are considered. Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28 has a number of alternatives including Category:Mathematicians by Erdos number (note narrower cats), a field in infobox scientist (or possibly infobox mathematician) or listifying. (personal preference for the latter). --Salix alba (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on CfD - need a completely new discussion to try and avoid the drama of the previous discussions, and because lots of alternatives have been suggested in the meantime. Hopefully people can be a bit more reasonable this time round. Carcharoth 16:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because there was no consensus to delete; see previous DRV for more explanation. I would also support relisting on CfD per Carcharoth. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do not relist. This is the second DRV of the third AFD. All this listing and relisting seems likely to fatigue the regulars (as has already seen in the last AFD, where many comments of the form "see my response in the previous AFD" were ignored by the closer) leading to progressively less-informed discussions where only the few most stubborn and argumentative holdouts remain and prevail (see SparsityProblem and BrownHairedGirl's badgering of all other participants in the last AFD). That's not the way to achieve a convincing consensus. (Disclaimer, since BrownHairedGirl will jump on me if I don't mention it: there is an article about me that would be affected by this decision.) —David Eppstein 16:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL, please; "badgering" and "will jump on me" are not good ways to refer to the actions of your fellow good-faith editors. SparsityProblem 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for wider discussion Though I said delete, and will probably say so again, probably there was insufficient consensus; possibly the sponsors of the item will want to restrict it somewhat--that would improve it's chances. DGG (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn Deletion for EN 1 and 2, weak overturn or relist for EN 3, endorse deletion or relist for EN>3. Seems like a good compromise to me. (Igny 18:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • (Weak?) keep An eminent mathematician who is also a regular Wikipedian said Erdos numbers are a joke. But that's no reason not to take them seriously. They're a cultural meme that needs to get reported. I have often pointed out that Wikipedia categories are vastly inferior to lists, but maybe categories are a good way to handle something like this; lists may be too sophisticated for this occasion. Michael Hardy 21:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion trivial, Michael Hardy's statement above is a good reason to endorse, because those criteria apply to astrological signs, which nearly every newspaper caters to those who believe that matters, indicating a far greater cultural significance - but just as trivial. The same could be said for marital infedilities, breast enhancements, DUI convictions and many similar intrigues that sell millions of papers and mags, but categories based thereupon have been deleted previously, this trivia category is no different. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per reasons on previous DRV. --Cheeser1 23:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn: keep all cats (EN1 to EN6), and do not relist (per excellent argument of David Eppstein). The fact of the matter is that there was a strong consensus to keep these categories, both in this AFD and in the previous one, and the decision to delete was not based on that consensus. The same consensus emerged again on the previous DRV, perhaps even stronger. I mean, how many time do we have to go 'round and around with this? Till most everyone gets sick and tired of it, and only those left standing decide? Aside: This is the very first time I participate in a DRV, and I am left totally baffled by the process, and what it takes to establish consensus. Turgidson 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion as trivia. There was lots of evidence that the subject of Erdős numbers was notable, and no argument on that point as plentiful references were produced to papers and other publications which discussed Erdős numbers and the graphs derived from them; but abolutely no evidence has been offered that the Erdős number of an individual was anything other than a point of trivia widely regarded with in the mathematical community as a joke, and in no way a "defining characteristic" of a mathematician per WP:CAT. (Repeated requests for evidence of Erdős numbers being used as a defining characteristic by official academic publications (rather than on individual's homepage etc) produced only one example, in which they were described as "silly". The failure of many "keep" !voters to acknowledge the difference between on one hand the notability of the topic as a whole and on the other hand the question of whether an individual's Erdős number is a "defining characteristic" was one of the major reasons why the debate became so heated. Further discussion on the talk page after the CfD closed exposed further fundamental problems with categorisation by Erdos number, including that:
    1) there is no consensus on the definition of an Erdős number (whether it should be restricted to collaboration in mathematical papers or extend to all scientific papers or even to all academic papers)
    2) the mathscinet database regularly claimed as a reliable source can validate only the first definition of an Erdős number, which is not the definition used in the head article Erdős number
    3) Other assessments of an individual's Erdős number amount to original research.
    Some contributions to this DRV claim or imply that the views of mathematicians are more important in a deletion discussion related related to mathematics than those on non-mathematicians, a principle which would set a far-reaching precedent. Will admins closing future debates be expected to try to verify the professional credentials of individuals who are all entitled to anonymity? Or do we continue the existing practice of treating all wikipedians as rational editors who can weigh the evidence offered by those claiming expertise in a particular subject, by verifying the evidence against reliable sources?
    The closure of this debate as "delete" would be wrong if WP:CAT accepted that a widespread joke was grounds for categorisation, but unless and until WP:CAT is changed in such a fundamental way, there were only two ways to close this debate: by making a headcount and saying "keep", or by measuring the arguments against wikipolicy and saying "delete". Kbdank71 was quite correct to choose the latter, and the existence of a campaign amongst a few mathematician wikipedians to attack the decision does not alter existing policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, again. My comments from the previous DRV stand: "First, a reminder to all that this is not the place to rehash deletion arguments. This forum is only for discussing the closure itself. Many of the Overturn and even some of the Endorse !votes above fail to remember that fact. Since the topic at hand is the administrator's closing of the discussion, I would have to say that the reasons given for said closure are valid. The !votes in the discussion for 'keep' based on 'Nothing has changed since the last time' were properly ignored. Similarly weak were the 'keep' arguments that seemed to be addressing the notability of Erdos numbers as a concept, rather than the appropriateness of categorization by said numbers. Such arguments would have been valid for an AfD on Erdos number but not on a CfD; they were likewise properly ignored. The remainder of the 'keep' arguments, while making a decent case for keeping, were clearly not sufficient to overcome the significant 'not a defining characteristic' concerns." Powers T 04:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. There was no consensus to delete. The close was inappropriate. Paul August ☎ 04:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, do not relist. I agree with David Epstein's concern over fatigue in continuing to relitigate this issue, and I think it's beginning to feel like a war of attrition. Although several people here have said that the closing admin's arguments were solid, the reasons given were actually based on misinterpretation of the relevant guidelines and were extensively and effectively rebutted at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28. For instance, I challenge anyone to defend the first argument, not all of those 8,000 people are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, with a straight face. I am also concerned that the closing admin, Kbdank71, and the reopener of this deletion review, jc37, may be out of step with the wikipedia community's view of policy and guidelines concerning categories based on their positions on the deletion review for Category:Wikipedians by alma mater at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_7 Category:Wikipedians by alma mater, opened the same day as the original DRV for the Erdos number cats. Both endorsed deletion of the Wikipedians cat and its subcategories based on policy and guidelines, but that deletion was overwhelmingly overturned and the policy and guidelines argument for deletion was rejected. Decisions against consensus are fine if they are strongly supported by policy, but an application of policy and guidelines to overrule consensus must be done carefully and correctly. This is a much more heavily contested and far less clearcut case than the Wikipedians cats, but I think the guidelines reasoning provided for the close here was also incorrect. Quale 06:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered not responding, but if the comments above are sincere (and I suppose I should presume that they are), then I should probably clear up some confusion you seem to have.
    "Relitigate"? - These are discussions, not trials. We're all Wikipedians here, and shouldn't be viewing each other as "adversarial".
    "not all of those 8,000 people are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles" - Apparently not all are?
    I find it's interesting that you decide to group me with Kbdank71. (and while I take such as a compliment, I realise you didn't intend it as such). And I would think that a couple DRV discussions in comparison to his myriad of closures would illustrate quite the opposite. Also, DRV discussions can be a bit more complex than just "keep/delete", as is shown by this very discussion.
    And finally, I think it's amazing that you attack me as the DRV relister. I'm acting as was suggested by the closer of the previous DRV, and am at least somewhat supporting that at least some of the information be kept "somehow".
    And in reading the above, I question whether you've actually read, or at least understood those "policies and guidelines". Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, might be two places to start. - jc37 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • what a bloody pain. The arguments for deletion were, I think, stronger; the arguments for closing in the face of 2-1 against, not so much. So I guess overturn and relist; the result was correct but the closure was improper, so we'd better do it again. Then can everyone please let it go, however it comes out? It's really not that big a deal. Oh, to be explicit, the main issue here is the propriety of the closure, and my judgment on that is that it was improper -- the "relist" part is secondary, because it's not what we're really deciding here. --Trovatore 09:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. What is interesting to me however is that if CfD or AfD results in no consensus it is by default keep. In this case, "no consensus" defaulted to delete for some reason. Now DRV will likely end in no consensus as well (to no surprise). What is default decision for no consensus in DRV? That is right, overturning the deletion and then undoing overturn and relisting the DRV is no surprise either. Now it will end up in relisting CfD I guess, which will end in no consensus again. What then? It looks like wikibureaucrats are baffled by this situation. We should definitely have a monarch who can make final decisions for us. But then it'd be endless appeals... (Igny 14:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable call, replace by List of people by Erdős number because a clear list on the topic is more comprehensive than a bunch of categories. >Radiant< 12:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore for Erdős numbers 1-3 -- same reasoning as before. — xDanielx T/C 13:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - as per DGG. IMO the CFD didn't receive a consensus, so relist for a greater discussion. Rudget zŋ 14:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn the deletion For reasons given in the numerous preceeding attempts to delete the category. Pete St.John 16:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion at least for Erdős numbers 1, 2 and 3 as per reasons in previous DRV. Gandalf61 17:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do not relist. Per David Eppstein and Quale. Despite three recent attempts and heavy lobbying for deletion, including here where it is inappropriate, there never has been anything remotely approaching a consensus for deletion, nor is one likely to emerge any time soon. The close with deletion was incorrect. Relisting would be another tedious waste of time. --KSmrqT 20:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Salix alba. I have been one of the supporters of the categories. I still think that this information belongs on Wikipedia, and that categories are the right way to include it. But the entire process of this, the third CfD for these categories, has been too rushed. We need more time and more participants to come to a consensus. Ntsimp 04:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. For any Erdos number greater than 1, having an Erdos number is not a defining characteristic; Erdos had hundreds of collaborators, and they could have had any number of collaborators. Reportedly Georg Frobenius's Erdos number is 3 -- and he died in 1917, when Erdos was 4 years old. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, Frobenius has Erdős number 3: He wrote a paper in 1906 with Issai Schur, wro wrote a paper in 1925 with Gábor Szegő, who wrote a paper in 1942 with Paul Erdős. So how does this prove we need to delete the categories EN2, EN3, etc? Turgidson 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Same argument as in the last DRV, as per Paul August and Quale. Running this DRV over again looks like pointless bureaucracy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, at the very least for Erdős numbers 1, 2 and 3. I do not understand how the closing admin can claim to have seen a consensus for deletion as the result of the CfD discussion, also not considering strength of argument. A few discussants kept repeating the same argument, but that does not make it stronger. Also, from the CfD discussion it was evident that even among the few proponents of deletion several were in favour of keeping the categories for the lower numbers, giving perhaps even a consensus to keep these. And please, do not relist.  --Lambiam 08:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. No consensus to delete. Shanes 09:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion A substantial majority with coherent arguments argued "keep". The views of those expressing the same opinions as previously should not be discounted. The close was not in accordance with the debate. (This is as I argued at the previous DRV). I am only addressing the merits of the closure (which were rather few). Any discussion about the merits of the categories should be at a CFD. I have no view as to whether or not there should be another CFD. Thincat 10:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (copy&paste from my post from the previous DRV, mostly). I have closed several debates against the votecount myself, sometimes even blatantly so; when I do that though, I try to carefully craft the closing statement, and its foundation on relevant policies, practices and precedents. Sorry, but "because I think side X had better arguments" doesn't cut it for me. Having read the debate, especially the discussion, I see many valid and coherent arguments in favor of the keep. Yes, it was asserted that EN are trivia; however, it was also reasonably argued that EN are far more than just trivia. Having seen the debate on the CFD's talk page, the closer's argument were also reasonably challenged there. Yes, there were many WP:NOTAGAIN !votes on the keep side, but also many WP:PERABOVE !votes on the delete side; but in total, I don't see how this could be closed as anything else but "no consensus". Preserving only 1-3 is a viable option in my opinion, but AFAICT this idea emerged only at this DRV, thus it's possibly out of DRV's scope (though we're not bureaucracy) Duja► 11:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was discussed quite a bit in the original discussion. See comments by User:SparsityProblem, User:DGG, User:Quale, and several others. It's threaded throughout the discussion. - jc37 19:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I am also concerned and confused about the scope of this DRV. (See my indented comments in reply to the original nominator of this second DRV above, as yet unanswered.) I can't tell if that scope has expanded or not, and I think that we need an answer before an administrator closes this DRV, possibly with a split decision. Are we just discussing the action of the original deletion (which didn't make any distinction between various Erdos numbers), or are we supposed to be making arguements here on the merits for and against the categories for different specific Erdos numbers? If it is the latter (as the nominating statement seems to suggest), then we really need to know that before this DRV is closed, so that we have a chance to make our arguements on this wider question. --Ramsey2006 14:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, bury the categories under fifty feet of dirt, and stomp on them repeatedly. For the reasons why the closing admin's decision was correct, see User:BrownHairedGirl's comments above. As for the reasons why these are bad categories, these are not particularly relevant now, but all the same, I'd like to quote User:R.e.b. here, as he said it better than anyone and is also likely more qualified to speak on this issue than anyone else who has participated in the discussions:
"The concept of Erdős numbers is a mathematicians joke. The point of the joke is to rank mathematicians by a number that is obviously of no significance whatsoever, in order to see how many people are fooled into taking it seriously. Quite a lot, judging by the discussion above." [100]
I also question the wisdom of re-listing this at DRV so soon after the first DRV was overturned due to canvassing -- surely it would be better to leave some time for the bias introduced by canvassing to undo itself -- but that doesn't change my vote. SparsityProblem 20:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It is difficult to assume good faith on the part of editors who are not content to disagree and state their opinion, but who actually feel the need to put down the cultural traditions of others with offensive talk of burrying them under 50 feet of dirt and stomping on them repeatedly. But perhaps such editors could enlighten the rest of us by providing a list of those of us who are not felt to be qualified to speak on this issue. A little civility would go a long way here. --Ramsey2006 04:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. I find it astonishing that SP is objecting to the relisting. The CfD was overturned, and when he reiterated his complaints (which were already made plain in the first DRV) he got his way and it was un-overturned, explicitly providing for relisting, and even that isn't good enough?? --Cheeser1 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur, too. As for the "bury the categories under fifty feet of dirt, and stomp on them repeatedly" speech, I can only say it reminds me of We will bury you. Turgidson 05:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not interested in "getting my way", I'm interested in building a good encyclopedia. Saying that I'm trying to "get my way" by trying to make Wikipedia better (according to my opinion of what constitutes "better", which may differ from yours) is rather reminiscent of those who said that the 2000 US presidential election candidates were "trying to get their way" by attempting to make sure the votes were counted correctly (while we're making political analogies). SparsityProblem 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a wonderful argument in techical symantics. However, it is completely irrelevant. You wanted the last DRV to fail (for whatever reason, making Wikipedia better okay, sure). And it didn't go that way. And then you simply repeated your objections until somebody un-overturned the DRV, with the obvious and necessary provision that it be relisted. Why? Because your complaints where technical, and had nothing to do with the merits of any arguments in the DRV. And yet now you complain about it being relisted. --Cheeser1 18:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you weren't focusing (IMO, irrelevantly) on my motivations, you would be asking whether it's good for the encyclopedia for the DRV to be re-listed, rather than questioning whether it's good for it to be re-listed only because it happened to be me who pointed out that the DRV was closed inappropriately early and that the closing admin didn't seem to be aware of the issues over canvassing. Whether or not the DRV should have been re-listed, the reasons whether it should or shouldn't have been have nothing to do with me. SparsityProblem 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I just said that your motivations are irrelevant. Claiming that they are positive seems like you're the one focusing on your motivations. I don't know or care why you're insisting that it's unfair to relist this DRV, but it's absurd to insist that relisting it is anything but exactly what should have been done. --Cheeser1 05:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stated in my original !vote why I thought it wasn't wise to relist this DRV so quickly after the first DRV was cancelled: because the first DRV was cancelled due to canvassing, and given that the !votes on the first DRV were skewed by canvassing, it would be silly to think that the !votes on the second DRV were not also skewed by that same canvassing (did everyone affected by the canvassing forget about it immediately?) SparsityProblem 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment is sheer, wanton, head-in-bag nonsense (and before anyone invokes WP:CIVIL again, note that I'm referring to your comment and not you.) It is useful, though, in that it points to the problem with this entire discussion: confusing an objection to abusing the Wikipedia category system to promote the trivial interests of a few with an attack against mathematical culture. Anyway, if my comment was putting down any cultural traditions (which it wasn't), it was putting down my own cultural traditions, as I am as much a mathematician as many of the people participating in this discussion who have identified themselves as such. SparsityProblem 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you actually read WP:CIVIL, including the section on Examples? If I were to state that your above statement is a form of demagogy, the likes of which the world has not witnessed since the Völkischer Beobachter, would you still think this is not a personal attack since it only refers to the utter drivel with which you poison the discussion in order to further your interest in building a good encyclopedia, but not to your person?  --Lambiam 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've read it. What part of the section on Examples are you referring to? I don't see anything relevant there. And if you were to state that, I wouldn't see it as a personal attack, only as a criticism of my comment. By definition, that would not be ad hominem. At any rate, could any further comments on my motivations, my agenda, or my resemblance to deceased Soviet leaders please be directed to my talk page or someone else's talk page, and I'll try to do the same? This is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the question of whether the closing admin acted properly in choosing to uphold the votes for deletion of the Erdos number categories. SparsityProblem 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the example of the judgmental edit summary "snipped rambling crap", obviously referring to a previous editor's contribution and not the editor themself.  --Lambiam 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion with prejudice: This is absolute madness. Every time the categories have been put up for deletion, they have had overwhelming support for 'keep', 2:1 or 3:1. The CfD was closed by an admin with a clear and stated POV, leading to a deletion review. The deletion review (with strong support for overturning the decision) was then overruled for no good reason. Regardless of how I might feel about the category, I would certainly ask for the deletion to be overturned -- procedure is clearly not being followed. More than that, though, the category is useful, notable, and supported by great quantities of research. No amount of hot air from the small minority who want to delete will change that.

It's a funny thing -- I don't actually feel strongly about the categories, making my decision to keep them in the original CfD after some research. I think that I came to the right conclusion then. But this process is clearly driven by a small group hostile to the category, a group which does not have the support of Wikipedia at large. It's amazing that this has taken so long to resolve -- the unsupported deletion result should have been overturned quickly. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CRG, I think it's worth addressing (maybe not here) such meta-issues. For one thing, I belive that at least one of the opposition admins has a truely vast contribution history. That doesn't excuse obviating apparent consensus, but it does, IMO, excuse hesitation on the part of an admin who considers acting on this. My theory, fwiw, is that the opposition believes "law precedes justice", what I would call the moralistic view, while I believe "justice preceeds law", what I would call the ethicist view. In other words, they fight (terrifically) for their interpretation of Wiki Policy, while mathematicians tend to fight for the content. Just my hypothesis. Pete St.John 23:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, PSJ. I had some inchoate thoughts along these lines, but your hypothesis is much better stated. From what I already knew empirically, and from what this long series of debates has taught me, I think your theory is substantialy correct. Turgidson 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer's interpretation of the discussion was correct. No substantial argument has been provided that Erdős numbers are in any way a defining attribute and not just the mathematical research equivalent of the Bacon number (i.e. a statistical curiousity which may or may not imply certain things about specific people). The two options offered at the post-close discussion seem more viable: create and maintain a sourced list or add an optional parameter to {{Infobox Scientist}}. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BlackFalcon, do you believe that Kbdank71, in closing and deleting, respected a consensus, or that he was constrained to do so? Thanks, Pete St.John 23:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for more detailed options. The initial closer misinterpreted the arguments given. As noted below in this section, most of the "delete" arguments would cause such categories as Category:People from Ohio also to be deleted. Now, as for the arguments I would have presented in the AfD: The information should be moved to text or an infobox, and arguments for categories #'s 1, 2, and possibly 3 may be different than for 4, 5, 6, etc. The presence of Category:People from Ohio makes the "defining characteristic" argument moot, and does much to eliminiate the ambiguity argument due to different definitions of "co-authored a paper with"; is that category for people born in Ohio, or those who grew up in Ohio, or those who consider Ohio their home, or those who are currently stationed in Ohio looking for a way out. (No offense intended to Ohio; that was just the example given in one of the other commentary threads.) We don't ask for sources as to whether someone is "from" Ohio or even born in Ohio, although perhaps we should. Categories corresponding to numbers greater than 4 are more problematic, as the person with that number might not know when one of his collaborators wrote a paper with one of the thousands of people with Erdos number 2, making his number 4. I would probably !vote: Strong keep on 1 and 2, Weak keep on 3, neutral on 4, weak delete on 5 and 6 provided that, if mathematicians, it should go in the infobox. Perhaps then we should use the MathSci definition of Erdos number unless we can prove otherwise. Disclaimer: see Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 1. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and relist separately Per Arthur Rubin, CRGreathouse, and David. I personally think that Erdos number 1 makes sense to list and after that it is hard to see why we need a specific category (and I agree that we can can add it to the infobox). However, deleting the level 1 collaborators clearly had no consensus nor was there anything resembling a general consensus and the admin in question appears to have let his POV affect the close. JoshuaZ 14:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Which other scientists would you advocate creating a "Collaborators of [whoever]" category about? If none, why this one in particular? If because Erdos numbers have special cultural significance, does the concept of "Erdos number 1" have greater cultural significance than the concept of "Erdos number 2"? SparsityProblem 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wonder if a compromise on this could be to "keep" 1 (and possibly 2); "relist" 3 (and possibly 2 - separately); "delete" 4 and up? - jc37 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment The only issue here in this DRV, so far as I know, is whether or not to overturn the deletion of the categories. The reasons given by the closing admin for closing the categories are listed here: [101] There is no mention of specific values of Erdos numbers mentioned in the reasons given. I've asked twice above whether the scope of this DRV has been widened into a general discussion of the specific values of the various Erdos numbers on their merits, and have recieved no response, which would seem to indicate to me that this is not within the scope of this DRV discussion. If the scope of this DRV is to be widened, then we need to have some notification of this fact, so that we have a chance to fully discuss and debate the additional issues involved that would fall within that widened scope. --Ramsey2006 18:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note the response to Duja, directly above your question. - jc37 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see the reply to Duja, but I still don't know the answer to my question. --Ramsey2006 21:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • JAMAA – Deletion endorsed without prejudice against recreation. – Stifle (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
JAMAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a notable service club that is present at many schools across the United States. That fact alone is sufficient enough to credit JAMAA as a notable club and surely worthy of an article at Wikipedia. Again, I believe that this deletion is a personal attack on me by a certain administrator. Please review at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Rhythmnation2004 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some references for JAMAA:
Rhythmnation2004 04:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st source proves it exists at one school (it just lists it). The second proves a girl was once in it in another school. The 3rd proves that the same school as the first one exists (in a list of other activities). The fourth proves it exists at another school in a list of other activities (plus Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source). None of this proves notability. It proves existence, not notability. Metros 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting admin Nothing in the article proves notability to me, that's why it was speedied as a non-notable organization. The closest to establishing notability is the line: "It appears in several schools throughout the United States" which is far from concrete notability. Metros 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to deleting admin Metros, I am a little confused by your interpretation of what qualifies as "notable". A club that exists at many schools is surely notable, as there would be users who would search for JAMAA and contribute to the article. The entire goal of the Wikipedia project is to create a free encyclopedia that users can come to to get information about any subject imaginable. Since JAMAA is a reputable organization, there will surely be curious minds who want to know exactly what it is. Therefore, an article not only contributes but is essential to the project. In this case, existance indeed establishes the notability of the club. Rhythmnation2004 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable in that according to the page you referenced above, "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." The activities are indeed national in scale, as I have given evidence of three schools, all in different areas of the United States, that have this club. I also provided sources that are independent of the organization. Rhythmnation2004 04:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respectful request for third-party intervention. I believe that this is an unfair conflict, as we are both aware that because of former biases which you hold against me, you have no intention on restoring this page, regardless of how many sources I provide. Therefore, I hereby respectfully request that an administrator other than Metros, or any administrator with whom he is affiliated, give their input in this issue. Rhythmnation2004 04:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. "Appears in several schools throughout the United States" is not an assertion of notability. Sandstein 09:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Well then can someone please tell me exactly what classified as "notable"? Because according to the direct quotation from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), this article indeed qualifies. What additional proof does this article need to prove that this is a notable organization? Rhythmnation2004 12:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Organizations has been informed of this ongoing Deletion Review. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion that article contained no indication of significance beyond "Appears in several schools throughout the United States" which, as Sandstein states, is not an assertion of notability. No sources have been presented since to establish notability other than very short mentions which show nothing more than it exists at multiple schools. To show notability, non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources is needed and we don't have it here. Hut 8.5 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's stopping the nominator from simply writing a much better article, with sources demonstrating notability? Guy (Help!) 14:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Because I have already established notability through four third-party sources. What is your example of a third party source that established notability? Rhythmnation2004 14:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revision. Please view my proposed revision of JAMAA at my sandbox page. Rhythmnation2004 14:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permit re-creation if truly Reliable newspaper or magazine sources can be found. DGG (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My current revision cites an article from New Internationalist magazine. Rhythmnation2004 18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restoring due to lack of admin participation. Since my current revision cites credible sources, I'm going to restore this page since there has been no administrative comments in the last several hours. Please feel free to continue discussion here should any further issues arise. Rhythmnation2004 01:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation using new version JoshuaZ 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that allowing Rhythmnation2004 to recreate the article with the New Internationalist and Women's Commission sources is the appropriate action here. --Iamunknown 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that this would be reasonable.DGG (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion/Allow recreation using new version - CSD A7 importance/significance is easy to overcome if you know how. Given the listed references, it seems likely that an article can be put together that may receive a good AfD discussion regarding WP:N. -- Jreferee t/c 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for speedier response. This review has been far too inactive. Can this be further looked into so that the article may be created as soon as possible? Rhythmnation2004 21:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no deadline. Are you representing this organisation? Guy (Help!) 12:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy, recreate with the version in userspace if someone feels like it, but it'd just get deleted through afd. Read the article, the 'worldwide' claims come from a misunderstanding, the organization in Burundi isn't the same as the organization in some US colleges, they just share the same name since it's a common swahili word. There's at least one more organization with the same name [109] (on the first page of my google results), but there's no indication that any of them share a relation in any way other than their name. Based on the sources, you couldn't even say that the organizations in the US schools were related, since the mentions are just in passing. - Bobet 11:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Camp Arrowhead (Washington) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted because of an expired prod. Not enough notice was given. Please undelete the article and let us have a full discussion. --evrik (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Camp Archbald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted because of an expired prod. Not enough notice was given. Please undelete the article and let us have a full discussion. --evrik (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dan Jacobson (Taiwan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I suspect that as the main passtime here is deleting things, you are all just waiting for me to finish translating it whereupon you will delete it, is that correct? Jidanni 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, gratuitous insults, an article that hasn't been deleted or flagged for deletion. Nothing to see here but an apparent temper tantrum. Corvus cornix 00:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that I can now finish translating in confidence that no sharpshooter is just waiting for the article "to walk out of the (translation) bank loaded (with the most hours expended), for maximal drive-by hit-job pleasure. Jidanni 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Josephine Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Did you check http://www.google.com/search?q=josephine+ho ? Is she not famous? Why won't you put back the article so one can further document how famous she is? Instead you gleefully penalize us by telling us to recreate the article from scratch. How can one remember what was there already?? Jidanni 01:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, one can hit the "cache" button above. But still you exact your pleasure of spite by not providing the action=raw article. Jidanni 01:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Alansohn/Gordon Wilson (CEO) (edit | [[Talk:User:Alansohn/Gordon Wilson (CEO)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

While the deletion of the original article in mainspace may have been justified, this deletion covers the deletion by User:JzG, of a userfied article, which had been restored by an admin for the purpose of expansion and sourcing using the ample reliable sources available. Admin JzG's rationalization for deletion, that this was "end-run round deletion policy", flies in the face of Wikipedia policy, which explicitly offers restoration of an article in user space as a means to address issues raised in a deleted article. This DRV also covers User:Alansohn/Jeff Clarke (CEO), which was deleted using the same excuse. Alansohn 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the outcome of this is to restore, please perform a history merge with the originals, as the userified articles have none of the history of the originally deleted articles, which is, I believe, a potential GFDL issue for us. ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; if the result is undelete I shall history merge. TerriersFan 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, great idea, and while we're about it let's recreate all the other articles on company executives written by the company's employees - or at least those where said employee has made a long-standing practice of agitating for restoration of their walled garden of articles. Hmmm. I wonder how Alansohn got to find out about those articles in the first place? I don't see him in the edit histories, and I'm sure he wouldn't be watchign my talk page looking for ways to piss me off. What could possibly be behind this? Guy (Help!) 00:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete Both articles are referenced at Travelport, yet another one of JzG's deletions overturned at DRV, which I have been working on as a New Jersey-based company. As JzG seems to be utterly unable to separate his administrative role from his personal vendettas, it's probably time to firmly remove the administrative mop from his hands and place it where it might be more useful. Until then, I have gathered sources to expand both articles with independent reliable and verifiable sources, with the goal of satisfying notability to even JzG's own arbitrary interpretations and will do so as soon as the latest in JzG's reign of error is undone. I had tried to address the issue with this admin and recommended that he pass the articles on to someone else to update as he himself had suggested, only to have the request (you guessed it) deleted. Alansohn 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you restrict yourself to comments on the merits of the deletion in this debate and save comments on JzGs merits as an editor for his talk page or dispute resolution. ViridaeTalk 00:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete I know very little about the company (other than that it and its subsidiary Orbitz clearly satisfy WP:CORP based on some brief Googling), but I see no reason why Alansohn can't be allowed to improve these two articles in his userspace. JavaTenor 00:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for two reasons - firstly policy, there is no speedy deletion criteria that covers "end-run round deleetion [sic] policy", and secondly userfying deleted content so that it might be brought up to the standards of the encyclopedia is allowed, if/when it is moved to the main space it can be re-afded if someone thinks it is not up to standard. ViridaeTalk 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete (as userfying admin). Both articles were deleted, entirely properly, by Guy as corporate promo pages. I received a request from Alansohn for the userfying of these articles to allow these pages to be sourced. I AGF and userfied. Because a page has been deleted as, effectively, corporate spam doesn't mean that the subject is inherently non-notable, nor that it cannot be brought into compliance with policy, simply that much work is required. I made it clear, and Alansohn fully understands, that there must be no suggestion of bringing the pages back into mainspace without each statement on the pages being closely sourced and the articles unequivocally meeting WP:BIO. Sadly, personalities have crept in and this is distracting from objectivity, on both sides. However, no argument has been adduced to show that userfying was improper. TerriersFan 01:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn userfying to improve an article is a perfectly valid thing to do. --W.marsh 01:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD#1 | AfD#2)

Inappropriate close Pilotbob 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait a few months, then relist it if you still feel compelled to. This does essentially fall short of the conditions outlined in WP:SK, but I agree with Kizor's comment concerning asking the other parent. We shouldn't demand very long grace periods following XfDs closed as no consensus like we would for those closed with a decisive result, but renominating it after just a few weeks is pushing it slightly too far, in my opinion. I don't mean this as an accusatory statement (you've done nothing unreasonable), but as a genuine request, please don't tickle the border between sufficient and insufficient grace periods -- I think everything would be smoother if we just stayed out of the gray area and renomonated after everyone is satisfied. — xDanielx T/C 21:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist; "Premature" isn't a valid reason for a "Speedy keep" when the previous AFD closed as "no consensus" (as part of a group AFD) one month ago, and the consensus here was already for deleting it. I have seen many articles nominated for deletion less than a month after the previous AFD. I've seen some re-nominated four days after a previous AFD which weren't speedily kept. I have no opinion on the article itself, but the closing was wrong. I agree that there should be a time limit to allow editors to improve previously nominated articles, but one month is more than reasonable. Masaruemoto 22:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist is reasonable, it was not a "keep" it was "no consensus", and it was a group nomination at that, so it's fair to consider this one separately. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The previous AfD was not a keep, and thus affirming notability, it was a no consensus. Furthermore, it was a multiple listing, which are proccess killers. Finally, it was a month ago. All of these things combined make it a fair listing, and thus should be relisted. I (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. There is process abuse and forum shopping at times but a month is plenty of time for a no-consensus default-keep to have undergone sufficient improvement (or not) for reappraisal. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per the above. A month is plenty of time for a no-consensus close. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, let it run 5 days, and see if consensus can be formed.--Isotope23 talk 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For cross reference purposes, please see:
--Jreferee t/c 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist, improper close, improper closing reason, and improper person to do the close. Corvus cornix 19:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Rules of thumb are three months between a Keep AfD#1 and AfD#2. Less than three months between a no consensus AfD#1 and AfD#2 (depends on the no consensus reasoning and can be as short as a day). As Guy points out, AfD#1 was a group no consensus, so it would have been fair to immediately consider this article separately at AfD#2. On month passed between group no consensus AfD#1 and AfD#2, the closer had a conflict, and the close reasoning was not justified. -- Jreferee t/c 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist definitely, improper close; deserves proper uninterrupted discussion. -- Ekjon Lok 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to withdraw this request at this time. I am under investigation for sockpuppetry (WP:ANI#User:Pilotbob) and don't feel that Wikipedia is well served by continued discussion on this issue. After these issues are resolved, I may renominate this, but don't feel that is appropriate at this time. Pilotbob 07:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, and note that one cannot withdraw a request once it's already had this much support. It's clear that there was a consensus forming at the previous AfD to send it to a Wikia or fansite, where it belongs; that discussion should be allowed to continue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thats fine, I just didn't want to be involved with these AFDs right now due to the accusations of sockpuppetry. Pilotbob 21:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • User:Pdelongchamp/Zeitgeist (video) – Move to article space at Zeitgeist the Movie; relist at AfD. As everyone is aware, the ideological message (or accuracy) of a work is not grounds for deletion (or the maintaining of a deletion.) Wikipedia has a fine article on Triumph of the Will. Notability and verifiability were the grounds cited in a prior deletion, and consensus below is that, new sources having arisen, a reevaluation of those is warranted. – Xoloz 15:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Pdelongchamp/Zeitgeist (video) (edit | [[Talk:User:Pdelongchamp/Zeitgeist (video)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article is rigorously sourced and asserts its notability. Notable sources stem from the United States, to Ireland, to New Zealand. The film is notable for having been selected for screening at the 4th Annual Artivist Film Festival on Saturday, having attracted massive interest[110] and having been downloaded approximately 5 millions times on Google Video.[111] (and about another 2 million times on youtube[112]). Previous unencyclopedic versions of this article have been deleted and salted. This DRV is by request of admins that want to see a reliably sourced userspace version in order to properly reinstate it. Pdelongchamp 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please assume good faith. If it makes any difference, I'm as much a fan of this movie as I am of What_the_bleep_do_we_know. That is to say I personally think the film utilizes pseudoscientific techniques to bolster it's arguments. From misleading claims of suppression and excessive logical leaps when the actual data is insufficient to support the preordained conclusion to a focus on anomalous data and anecdotal findings that are inconsistent with the vast majority of current data supports the predominant theories. However, I do consider this bullshit movie to a notable bullshit movie and one that warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also, the fact that it has been created and recreated so many times should give us an incentive to give a genuine attempt at recreation it's due respect in DRV. Thank you. Pdelongchamp 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - clearly notable, discussed, and often-watched. That we dispute some of its methodology is beside the point. We are here to report on our the world around us, whether we agree with facets of it or not. Such a downloaded and popular movie, regardless of its merit, deserves an article to explain it, if not for those who wonder about its veracity. It should be called Zeitgeist (film). --David Shankbone 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone has already said that Zeitgeist, the Movie is the official title and should be the article title which makes sense. When is it appropriate to add (title)? Is it appropriate in this case? Pdelongchamp 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC) btw, i just reread my reply and it sounds confrontational. there should have been a "I agree, the title isn't appropriate." before the first sentence. Pdelongchamp 00:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I have my doubts about the notability of almost all of the sources, I think that a relist is in order, so that others can look at the sources for themselves. I don't know the Scoop, so I don't know how accurate it is. I don't know The Stranger, so I don't know how accurate it is. The Arbiter - student newspapers are generally not reliable. The News Blaze mention is just that, a mention in a list of what movies are showing at a film festival, so that's no much to go on. The Irish Times article is, I guess, somewhat a claim of notability. Corvus cornix 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although in principle I agree with the questioning of those sources, I caution the desire for us to always wait for the Mainstream Media to point out that something is a phenomenon. I realize this is an issue when it comes to sourcing, but phenomenons overlooked by the MSM should still be given our consideration. --David Shankbone 19:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist There is enough sourcing here to be worth an AFD discussion. The article falls far short of adhering to WP:NPOV, given the sources, but since the sources exist that is an editing problem, not a deletion problem. (Flagrant example - letting it sound like the reliability of the film is merely criticized, when the Kinney review closes with a reminder that even the producer has said "It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth . . .".) GRBerry 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, I'll review and see what I can do about your WP:NPOV concerns. Pdelongchamp 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was cool with this being relisted before, since this version looks scads better than before. --Haemo 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - the sources are still sketchy in some cases (IMO), but it's at least sourced and worth an AFD discussion to see what consensus turns up. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AfD - In the last DRV, I posted properly formatted footnote strings. Your draft's references lack dates, author names, and Wikipedia links to the source and otherwise do not meet the citing sources style guideline. I think this may work against your efforts, especially if the single purpose accounts show up at the AfD. Before the article is listed at AfD, you should considered Request for comment or Wikipedia:Peer review. -- Jreferee t/c 20:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. Sorry, but I still don’t see enough non-trivial coverage by reliable sources to overturn the consensus to delete established at AfD and confirmed at the 1st DRV and 2nd DRV. -- Satori Son 20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As was mentioned in a previous discussion, this article needs to be bulletproof before it is put up yet again. I do not think the sourcing yet shows bulletproof notability. Also believe it is jumping the gun by at least a few days. This festival it is being introduced at has not even happened yet. I also have a problem with the use of the term "massive interest" without overt attribution. Yes, it says that in one source, but it is not verified as "massive" in any way, so that word needs to be directly attributed to the source, and not just stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. These rapid-fire recreations only make it harder for me to make a finding of notability, not easier. At the very least, wait until after the festival, and hope that there are a few RS mentions that come about from it. - Crockspot 20:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point on the "massive interest". I changed it to "public interest". Readers can now determine themselves from the sources if they consider the level of interest to be "massive." Pdelongchamp 21:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and wait another six months at least. I am heartily sick of the relentless campaigning to get this on Wikipedia, and bringing it back here every time another passing mention comes up is only reinforcing that. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I'm as tired of the campaigning as the next man, but this looks like a good faith attempt at producing a passable article, and it's sufficiently different to version which was originally deleted to deserve its own hearing. For me it probably barely passes notability, but that's jut my view - if you follow Crockspot's suggestion and wait until after the festival there might be a few more sources which would give it a better chance of passing an AfD. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I've reviewed the userfied article, and while they're making an effort, it is still a conspiracy theory. There are few news sources, and only two that I would consider notable - The Stranger (which is, as a Village Voice paper, so marginally reliable it's almost not even marginally so), and the Irish Times (which itself calls it, in not so many words, a nonsensical conspiracy theory film, and gratuitously makes fun of the film). I will give the authors and producers kudos for their passion, but that isn't something to save this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How many times do we have to endure this utter waste of everyone's time? This is just a silly youtube video peddling baseless conspiracy lunacy seeking to get spurious credibility by appearing on Wikipedia. The articles authors aren't interested in writing a properly balanced piece, which would point out repeatedly that it's complete bollocks, but are just trying to spam their pet project everywhere and every chance they get. This may sound a bit harsh but the author of the Zeitgeist article left a message on my talk page informing me about this deletion review and asking me to comment, so I have done.

Let's remember what this 'film' is about:

"Part II: All The World's a Stage Part II argues that the United States was internationally warned of imposing attacks, that NORAD was purposely confused on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 and that the World Trade Center buildings were underwent a controlled demolition. Additionally, the film arguments that some hijackers are still alive, the Bush administration covered up details in the 9/11 Commissions’ Report and that a plane never hit the Pentagon.

Part III: Don't Mind The Men Behind The Curtain Part III attempts to describe how the powerful bankers of the world have been conspiring for world domination and increased power. According to the documentary, the rich of society have been using their wealth to increase financial panic and foster a consolidation of independent competing banks. The film details a theory that the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States was created in order to steal the wealth of the nation. It showcases the amount of money that has been made by these rich few during World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War and now the war in Iraq. It describes the goal of these bankers as world power over a completely controllable public." The reason the film lacks proper sources is because it was written by, and appeals to, twelve year old lunatics. Nick mallory 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nick, please don't insert claims of antisemitism in the article without a source. Thank you. Pdelongchamp 04:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you're peddling a film which exists merely to push ridiculous conspiracy theories don't pretend to get all offended when you get called on it. I actually edited the article on your page to add some sources debunking its silly assertions - the international bankers conspiracy for example - I trust you've left them in there to balance the piece as per Wikipedias neutral point of view policy? Nick mallory 10:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked, the sources I added on the article - which gave an alternative view of the validitiy of these conspiracy theories- have been removed. Colour me stunned. You ask me not to make claims without sources, having removed those very sources yourself. Nick mallory 10:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who reads the history and checks the discussion page will know this is completely misleading. That's all I'm going to say. Pdelongchamp 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - There's only eight sources, and of those, one is a very good one, two are trivial mentions, one is straight "this is what's in it", one is a youTube link to the movie, one is a mention of the upcoming screening, one is the claim of "multi-million phenom" only, and Globe and Mail is a pay-only article. for something that claims to be such a phenomenon, the lack of mainstream coverage even to debunk it is strange, and the very small number of non-trivial sources even from indy media doesn't really reinforce its notability. There are Windows patches with high download numbers, but we don't have articles on them, because they don't have any impact. The theories in the film aren't new; it's just that the watchers of the film haven't read other sources. There's nothing about the film that makes it any different than any other conspiracy film - how "suppressed" can it really be on YouTube? In short, I concur with the need for the article to be bulletproof, and it is not. MSJapan 23:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse deletion I feel like the film is approaching notability, conspiracy theory fodder or not. However, since it's already been through so many itterations on these lists, I'd rather see it get a little futher before going back to AfD. As mentioned above, waiting until after the festival may bring in some non-trivial, notable sources that aren't there yet. Most of the sources at this point are a bit weak. One or two more I think would put it over the notability threshhold. Scott.wheeler 00:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Enough sources to establish that the issue of deletion should be at least revisited. There are problems with the article in its current state, but they can be solved by editing it. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Notability issues are not something that can be fixed by editing. We have notability standards that require non-trivial reference to reputable sources. If reputable sources discuss the film in a non-trivial manner, then we will have sufficient information to summarize in a neutral encyclopedic article. Let's not let vigorous efforts at self promotion cloud our judgment.  MortonDevonshire  Yo · 04:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it strange that editors continue to argue against self promotion when I feel that I have made my views on the film pretty clear in this discussion. I am, however, happy to report that two excellent sources discuss the film in full. The Irish Times article and The Globe and Mail article. Copies of both can be found on Google with little to no digging. Pdelongchamp 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, your efforts to promote your film through Wikipedia just aren't going to work. Wikipedia cannot be used as a springboard to create notability -- it's the other way around.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment is seriously lacking in good faith. What reason have you to believe I'm trying to promote the film and who is Tim? Pdelongchamp 06:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Morton thinks that Pdelongchamp is really someone named "Tim" who is somehow associated with the film and thus promoting it then he should provide evidence for that connection--it would obviously be highly relevant to this deletion review and should therefore be made explicit. Argument by innuendo generally does not get one very far--be it in DRV comments or in conspiracy-mongering films like the one we're discussing here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Agree with others that sending this back to AfD may be a bit premature, but the Irish Times, Stranger (certainly a respectable weekly newspaper, it is indeed like the Village Voice but I don't see why that's a problem), and Globe and Mail articles do establish at least a low level of notability in my opinion. It probably would have been better to wait until after the screening at the film festival for this (too late now obviously), but by the time this hits AfD maybe there will be new sources to talk about. I feel it's inevitable that we will (and should) have some article about this film as it is quite a phenomenon and presumably will be for awhile (personally I haven't seen it and don't intend to anytime soon). Pdelongchamp's version seems like a decent first effort and has the advantage of not being written by a rabid partisan of the film (though I'm sure they will be drawn to any new article with a quickness).
FYI, I did a Lexis/Nexis search on the phrase "Zeitgeist the movie" (which turns up exact instances of that phrase, including those with a comma after the first word) and got exactly 5 hits for the last year on all newspapers, blogs, tv transcripts, etc. In other words there do not appear to be other significant sources that we are missing, at least not yet. Thus I think the film passes the notability bar barely and arguably not at all, though the screening at the film festival will increase its notability somewhat.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pdelongchamp contacted me out of the blue asking me to comment on this article, which I duly did. As I don't think he agreed with my views on the film he is continuing to badger me about it on my talk page. I've told him there and I'm telling him here that I don't think this film is notable and I don't think it should be on Wikipedia and no amount of um..pleading on its behalf by him is going to change my mind. He apparently thinks the film is rubbish as well but takes issue with my disdain for it, which is a bit um, strange. He states on his first comment here that he thinks the film is 'bullshit' but then writes that it's had 'massive' interest and includes virtually no material pointing out that its claims are idiotic. One might think the lady doth protest too much but assuming good faith I've added a couple of short quotes from the Irish Times article he is so keen to trumpet here. The Irish Times called it 'unhinged' and 'surreal' of course but as he is so eager to proclaim a disinterested stance about the films veracity, however strangely that sits with his obsessive interest in seeing it on Wikipedia, then somebody who really thinks it is 'bullshit' won't be jumping to remove them again. We'll see. Nick mallory 10:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would invite everyone to review Nick Mallory's talk page before jumping to any conclusions. Everything after "He apparently..." in the above comment was added after he thankfully decided to read through the DRV. Nick, I removed your Irish times Review quote from the introduction. Let's wait until the festival is held and then we can create a formal review section. Pdelongchamp 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why remove the quotes? You yourself called the Irish Times piece an 'excellent' source earlier on and now you remove a quote or two from it from the article. You think the film is 'bullshit' but remove a quote which agrees with your opinion? Your rationale here is making no sense whatsover. Remember you asked me, out of the blue, to comment on this film, which I have. I'm not close to this film at all, I'm simply giving my opinion on its notability, as you asked me to do. Nick mallory 11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of yet another conspiracy theory notable only to its promoters and within its walled garden. Tom Harrison Talk 15:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of the people posting here, particularly Nick Mallory and Pdelongchamp, are too close to this issue to offer an unbiased opinion as to what should be done. I think it's more than reasonable to wait until after the premier at the Artivist Film Festival to make decisions about this article. A side note: for me, the issue of this article is upsetting because of wikipedia's inability to incorporate or validate underground media. If an article is on a topic that isn't in the mainstream, then people jump on it and send it down the river with little consideration for the fact that there have been very few films in recent years to gain such widespread distribution without mainstream media backing. This is a deep flaw in wikipedia, even though there isn't much alternative. Were I in the mainstream media, I would absolutely discourage my peers from publishing anything relating to Zeitgeist, the Movie because it would be dangerous to my source of livelihood. If someone can make a movie with nothing more than editing software and distribute it to literally millions of viewers for free, why would people go to the movie theatres? (I don't know how to sign my posts because I'm an idiot when it comes to using wikipedia, but if someone knows how to and wants to do it for me, I would appreciate it if someone deleted this parenthetical text and replaced it with a signature for me.)
  • I realize the issue is the reliability of the sources that cover a given topic. But, does anyone have any reason that The Stranger is an unreliable source other than that it has a smaller readership than Washington Post? Or is that enough? The Stranger isn't mainstream enough, therefore it's completely unreliable. Everyone who has seen the movie and read the article knows that the journalist is completely reliable in his report on the subject. (I don't know how to sign my posts because I'm an idiot when it comes to using wikipedia, but if someone knows how to and wants to do it for me, I would appreciate it if someone deleted this parenthetical text and replaced it with a signature for me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foisenolk (talk • contribs) 15:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:SPAM does not really apply here in my opinion, I think endorse deletion comments need to revolve around lack of notability, which is obviously a perfectly legitimate point of view on this. The userfied article is certainly not clear-cut spam, and in order to think that it was I think we'd have to assume the user who made it was misleading us when they deemed it a "bullshit movie." Certainly other past creations of this article were probably blatant spam, but this current version seems like a good-faith effort to create something encyclopedic--at least so far I see no evidence to the contrary.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, only lack of notability (substantial new information) needs to be addressed. For this article, there are two hurdles. The first is behavior. E.g., will the SPAs come out of the woodwork to muck things up? Mongo's WP:SPAM post seems to address the first hurdle. The second is lack of notability addressed at a new AfD. Only if the closer of this DRV thinks that behavior related to this topic is no longer a significant issue will we get to the new AfD. The initiation of this DRV fifteen hours after the close of the prior DRV brings up "Asking the other parent" issues. Also, there seems to be some troubling posts above. -- Jreferee t/c 20:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe a low number of SPA editors is a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, the previous DRV related to the fact that Zeitgeist (video) was incorrectly nominated and deleted per CSD G4. In the end, though G4 was found to be technically inappropriate as criteria, it was decided that the article would need to be userfied and sent through DRV before being relisted. Which is what I'm doing. It's not an issue of "Asking the other parent", SPAs, and certainly not WP:SPAM. Pdelongchamp 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the possibility of SPA's coming "out of the woodwork to muck things up" is seriously a "hurdle" we must surmount in order to decide whether or not it's okay for us to have an article about something than we are in serious trouble. First of all, there's no policy along those lines of which I'm aware, second of all it would be total folly to create such a policy. Notability is what matters here--not the fact that the topic (like many) attracts annoying SPA's. We have many ways of dealing with them obviously, and saying that we won't create an article until SPA spamming on the topic is "no longer a significant issue" has the de facto effect of turning over control over that topic to those spamming SPA's. Also Jreferee's reference to "some troubling posts above" without explaining what or who specifically is causing trouble is, in my opinion, troublesome. Vague insinuations are usually not helpful in any forum.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as per above. I don't see why editors are arguing about the films content, when this should be an argument about notability. Even if you disagree with the content, that is no reason to have the article deleted or have it remain deleted. It is amazing how some of the american editors above, who claim to support the ideals of the American constitution and the concept of free speech, in practice here on wikipedia, squelch it by agressively deleting content which does not match their own POV, using wikipolicy as a facade. Travb (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Paul H. Smith – There is consensus below to endorse deletion given a lack of reliable sources focusing on the subject. – Eluchil404 03:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paul H. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Biographical article that does not assert significance Dazdude 13:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can delete an article about one of the main people involved in the field of remote viewing for over 20 years. Paul H Smith was an integral part of the military remote viewing program and is now one of the foremost remote viewing trainers as well as head of the International Remote viewing Association. The article clearly showed his input in the field, with multiple text and video references to his credentials. The article also detailed his importance to the subject of remote viewing as he authored the only official Military training manual for remote viewing. This manual serves as the basis for nearly all existing forms of remote viewing. The article is not biographical but clearly shows Pauls input into the field of remote viewing

  • Because being involved in the small, closed world of remote viewing is not in and of itself a claim of notability, and nobody outside that world appears to have taken any notice of the guy. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion – I was not able to find one reference to the gentleman from outside of the remote viewing community save for a single mention when he appeared as a guest on a radio talk show called Coast-to-Coast AM. Every other reference was to his own website or to his own blog or to a book he wrote or for which he wrote the foreward, etc. An article's subject should be notable outside of his own community of influence. Consider the following admonition from Note 4 on the Notability guideline: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself... have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the first, copyright violation deletion of the oldest two edits. Whatever happens, those should not be restored. I don't sense that this has a prayer of passing AFD, as I can't see that any independent and reliable sources exist on the topic. Even if they did, per WP:BLP1E, the appropriate place to cover is Stargate Project which already has an adequate paragraph on him. So I endorse deletion. GRBerry 14:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow speedy and send to AfD All that is necessary to pass speedy for notability is that the article makes some claim to notability. The article clearly does. Whatever one things of the merits ofthe subject he works in, its a real subject notable enough for a wp article, & books have been published on it. That the article asserts he's important in the field is fully enough. The notability guidelines are irrelevant to speedy--they're for discussion at AfD. The admin who deleted it as A7 seems to have been confused between the different standards--whether the claims could be verified is not a consideration there, though of course it will be at AfD. -- And "unreferenced is not a reason for deletion at speedy either. DGG (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Not much to add to what DGG said; this article made a claim of importance, and isn't blatant enough spam to G11. Inadequate sourcing is a question for AFD to decide; this sort of article should go there, so when it comes back again and again (as they tend to), the admins G4ing it don't get unduly harassed. —Cryptic 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - While Paul H. Smith may be important/significant, the language of the article did not convey it. The article stated that Paul was a major part of the remote viewing project, but it is not clear from the article what "major part" means (sounds like puffery) and did not explain enough about the remote viewing project to get an important/significant from the article itself. I am more swayed by the references listed, but I don't think those get the article past CSD A7. No prejudice against recreating an article that overcomes the reasons for deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and send to AfD, article made at least some assertion of notability. --Stormie 22:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable fraudster and fantasist. Being a notable remote viewer is like being a notable fairy. If the writers of the article are interested in a balanced article then their lack of acknowledgement that 'remote viewing' might as well be done on a magic carpet or from the top of a beanstalk grown from magic beans is rather puzzling. Nick mallory 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our personal POVs about the subject of Smith's study have no bearing on whether or not we should have an article on him. JoshuaZ 23:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garbage article+not near enough sourcing for a biography+POV pushing=endorse deletion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion' I can't find any reliable sources that talk about him and this has almost no chance of passing AfD. Together with the BLP1E matter I can't see what having an AfD would accomplish other than needless red tape. I am, of course, willing to change this position if non-trivial, independent reliable sources are presented. As a side note, we should probably have Paul H. Smith redirect to Stargate Project. JoshuaZ 23:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy-deletion and list to AFD. I don't think it has much chance of passing, especially given the comments here but there was a credible assertion of notability and the speedy-deletion is being contested in good faith. Give the page it's 5 days of visibilty for the community to discuss. Rossami (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pirelli Internetional Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page which has been up for almost 2 years and improved as a result of various consensus edits was recently summarily deleted with no discussion based on the assertion that it is "blatant copyvio". The page is a brief description of the Pirelli Award, a brief history of events, and a list of winners followed by some references. I fail to see how this is "blatant copyvio". If there are sentences using similar (or exact) language found elsewhere, then lets correct them, but don't throw out the entire article. Administrator, "Future Perfect at Sunrise" ☼ has so much as stated that he has problems with anything I have authored (see my talk page recent history and his talk page), so I suspect that this unilateral deletion is more punitive than objective on his part. I would appreciate it if some other administrators would review this. If it is copyvio, then I'm OK with taking it down, but I think at best, it might only need revision, and I really doubt that. Firewall 04:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your initial post of January 2006 had as its main section, titled "Pirelli Award," a paragraph that was word-for-word identical to the description at http://www.pirelliaward.com/. This is not a matter of a few sentences; it is, as the deleting admin said, a blatant and unsalvageable copyright violation. The article must be started over, written in completely original language. Chick Bowen 05:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Due to the nature of the GFDL, the only viable way to remedy a copyright violation in the original version is to rewrite from a blank page. GRBerry 14:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it will in this case be easier to start from scratch, for which you do not require Deletion review. (Sometimes an copyvio article can be stubbified, but since the main description here is part of the copyvio, there's no real basis for rewriting.) DGG (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK now that it is clear that the intro paragraph is the offending copyvio, I will rewrite it and start the article over again. So I accept the deletion. The intro paragraph was an early quote from Pirelli President Marco Tronchetti Provera where he described what the award was in his own words, and was therefore perhaps the most authoritative source. I should have referenced those words as a quote (I assume quotes are allowed and not copyvio if referenced). Likely there are other Pirelli phrases and buzz words used. The new revision will be from my knowledge as a subject matter expert and I will not refer to the Pirelli site for quotes of any sort. Thanks. Firewall 16:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Sylvanas Windrunner – Deletion endorsed. It is true that the AfD discussion was not ideal, but as JoshuaZ says, the sources just don't seem to be out there right now; this can be revisited if someone will provide a sourced version in future. – Chick Bowen 02:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sylvanas Windrunner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Improper evaluation of AFD discussion. I fail to see how this can be considered proper deletion of an article as there was virtually no consensus in either direction. The admin simply took personal feelings on the issue into account, flippantly deciding which user's inputs had merit based on how much they said. Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 03:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I believe this deletion should be overturned and then relisted in order to allow a proper deletion discussion take place and reach consensus, something the closing admin clearly has no respect for.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 03:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the offending admin edited the closed debate in an attempt to hide his rather flippant attitude about the debate. Given the amount of response in the previous AFD for the articles as a whole, more time should have been given for this to flesh out. I would have no objection to this outcome were it actually the result of proper procedure but I can't really see that being the case here.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion AFD is not a vote, the delete voters had a valid reasoning, while most of the keep voters didn't (one was a protest vote pasted though many AFDs of the similar game characters, almost all but one closed as delete, another one didn't give a reason to keeping just saying that the article needs cleanup, the last one is per above), with the exception of Oni, and even that was rebutted without discussion. This is a Secret account 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Well, the people supporting deletion had support of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOTE and WP:WAF supporting their arguments, and the keeps had...specious claims of notability, and irrelevant precedent worries. Consensus is agreement among editors whose arguments are within policy. Seems like a correct closure to me. I (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, per the above evaluations of the quality of the "keep" rationales. Alai 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No policy based argument was given to keep this article, whereas many different policies were in my view correctly cited in arguments to delete. Bobby1011 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, delete votes were based in policy, keep votes were not. Recommend that anyone who wants to work on an article on Sylvanas Windrunner does so at [113]. --Stormie 06:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, deletion arguments based in policy, keep arguments not. It's a fairly open-and-shut case. --Coredesat 07:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Neither the keep nor delete comments, nor the closing, discussed the actual article, but rather such articles in general. The article was listed as one of dozens separated from a group nomination, on the grounds that some might be notable. That needed to be discussed (though not be me, as I know nothignabout the subject). The listing of dozens of them separately all at once at AfD is an abuse of process--the intent of splitting the first AfD is to give an opportunity for such discussion, not for saying the smae things about each article. In fact, an erroneous nomination altogether, as the nominator admitted " the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. " Relist with relevant reasons. Frankly, a bad nomination like this should be thrown out immediately. If a nom can not be bothered to discuss the article, he shouldn't nominate it. DGG (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. None of the arguments presented by either side were particularly compelling. As per DGG above, the arguments should have ben about the article and not a class of articles - and should be relisted until the discussion is more germane to the topic. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The AfD nomination itself was compelling and set clear policy issues that needed discussion for this article. The keep reasoning avoided discussing the policy issues, particularly the lack of third-party sources. Each delete posting cited to policy - strong arguments that were never overcome by any part of the discussion. The closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee t/c 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clear and unambiguous delete reasoning. MLA 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist per DGG. Also, this one in particular is a very major character. I'd be surprised if people familiar with the genre could not find independent sources about her. (I'll go hunt around for a few - I've found two already which mention her [114] [115]). JoshuaZ 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC) I may make re-DRV this at some point in the future but right now I can't find enough sourcing. JoshuaZ 20:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, close was well within the bounds of administrator discression. Neil ☎ 14:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the fact remains, no out-of-universe source material=no article, no matter who likes it. There are fansites and Wikias for a reason. And as always, good on the closer for reading the unbolded words rather than counting the bolded ones. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion There isn't a shred of material in the deleted article or presented yet in the DRV (including JoshuaZ's pair of mentions) to support an article on her that can comply with Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), as there is no real world significance or context described in any of the sources. I don't see what needs to be merged elsewhere either, so deletion is appropriate. GRBerry 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). This was within reasonable bounds of admin discretion. Rossami (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Starkey International Institute for Household Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The afd for this article was closed based on the closer Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s apparent misunderstanding of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy and a flagrant disregard for both Wikipedia:Consensus (the afd had three participants, one of whom wasn't in favor of deletion) and Wikipedia:Notability. The BLP concern highlighted is iffy - the questionable sentence had a source, so the issue is whether the source is reliable. If it was determined that this sentence didn't belong in the article (which it wasn't, the closer instead taking it upon himself to make that determination), then the sentence could be removed until a better source was found. However, instead of resorting to a reasonable method of resolving the issue, he just deleted the whole article, listing the pathetic excuse for a deletion debate as a reason. When I asked him about, he not only refused to undelete and send it to a proper afd, he suggested I was guilty of writing a non-neutral "attack page". If consensus here determines that I wrote an attack page, I'll happily resign my adminship and leave the project. As to notability, the institute has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources - Richistan (2007) by Robert L Frank, this article in The Campbell Reporter, and this article in The Times, to mention three. I request this deletion be overturned as nonconsensual and unsupported by policy. Anyone who cares to should feel free to send it to a new afd - as long as this afd contains more than three participants. Picaroon (t) 02:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my deletion Picaroon is taking this overly personally. I asked him or her to write a neutral BLP-compliant NPOV article. Rather than doing so, he wants some WP:POINTy wikidrama to threaten to "resign ..adminship and leave the project". Since s/he hasn't cared to write such an article, I can only conclude one cannot be written. As for the afd, it's not a vote and no quorum is required. This article reads like a pot-shot, and the critical passage unsourced. I don't have access to the book cited as a source, but its title gives no indication of significant coverage - a passing mention perhaps on page 277? The other two sources are weak: 1) in a small local paper, Starkey is mentioned off-and-on in an article focusing on how hard it is to find good governesses and butlers, and 2) looks to be an alternative muck-racking paper. No major mainstream media coverage. The coverage in 1 & 2 is about what one would expect for a typical nursery school with some upset parents, barely newsy, certainly not notable. Carlossuarez46 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drama? Not in my eyes. If the community thinks I don't understand the BLP policy, I think the best thing for me to do would be to leave. We can't have anyone, especially an admin, violating the BLP policy. "Since s/he hasn't cared to write such an article, I can only conclude one cannot be written." I don't care to write such an article? Actually, I already wrote one. An anon added one questionable sentence, someone nominated it for deletion, and instead of reverting, you deleted the whole article. As to sources - do you think the Campbell Reporter is an unreliable source? If non-major papers are automatically unreliable, there's a lot of content we need to start deleting. "This article reads like a pot-shot, and the critical passage unsourced." No, one sentence was critical, and it was sourced. There was no underlying problem with the article, nothing that couldn't be solved by removing the sentence and its source. I have no opinion on the source, but it's a falsehood to say it wasn't there. "As for the afd, it's not a vote and no quorum is required." No, a quorum is not required. But consensus is. That debate did not garner consensus to delete, and should have been relisted. Picaroon (t) 02:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think that all take out restaurants mentioned as significantly in that paper are notable for that reason? C'mon, it's a school with minimal notability, that falls below the WP:N - if this is notable, then any restaurant with two reviews in local papers makes the grade - and certainly any middle school, nursery school, elementary school. That's not our notability guidelines. When it's coupled with an unsourced critical sentence, it's better to have no article than a wrong one for such a barely notable institution and reflecting on its owner. If you want to restore the version, pre-anon, feel free; I will nominate it at afd again and we'll see where it goes. Carlossuarez46 04:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist DGG's unrefuted point was that the article was in fact sourced. Looking at the deleted version, he is correct. That takes it out of the BLP deletion area. Send back for a discussion on notability, which really didn't occur. GRBerry 20:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist; Speedy close - I went through the AfD history to make sure someone didn't delete part of the discussion. Neither the nominator nor the two AfD participants took a delete position (or a keep position for that matter). There was no consensus; there wasn't even a deletion discussion. From my own search, the topic easily has enough reliable source material for it, but that is for an AfD discussion. I don't think this DRV discussion is presenting its experienced participants in the best light, so a speedy close of this DRV by some kind admin would be most welcome. -- Jreferee t/c 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist one of those sources is actually an article from The Atlantic Monthly whose reputation is sterling. The other is a book published by Random House. Also, I think we can assume good faith that Picaroon of all people isn't making stuff up that's not in the book. --JayHenry 01:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Erdős numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CFD)

Please see for example Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Reasons_to_reverse_the_deletion, where a long discussion is at the top of the WikiProject Mathematics talk page. A user has organized some discussion, and salvaged some of the lost data, at User:Mikkalai/By_Erdos. Note that related categories were deleted also, e.g. Erdos Number 2, Erdos Number 3 etc. There is a huge discussion spread over talk pages at many articles. There seems to be divergence between editors, who voted to delete (in the third attempt), and mathematicians who consult Erdos Numbers. Thank you. Pete St.John 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was wrong not to have posted to Brownhairedgirl and SparsityProblem, two of the people who had voted to delete; I was mistaken thinking they already knew. However, Brownhairedgirl was mistaken that I did not notify any delete-voters, as noted below. I notified DGG, MeegsC, and Carlossuarez46. I skipped the anonymous IP. Pete St.John 20:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user who you refer to as not participating in the CfD debate is somebody who has certainly expressed an interest in and has been involved in this issue, as can be seen by looking at this page that he created in his own user space: User:Mikkalai/By Erdos --Ramsey2006 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so I !voted for Delete at the CfD & I was among those notified. DGG (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update re canvassing. I 'd like to repeat my apologies elsewhere to Pete for my mistake in thinking that none of the "delete" voters have been notified (Pete notified 3 of the 5, but chose not to notify the others).
However, after that initial canvassing, Pete engaged in a prolonged and highly partisan votestacking exercise: see WP:ANI#The_votestacking_exercise_continues and User talk:PeterStJohn#Please_tone_it_down. Closing admins may wish to consider the impact of the camapigning in weighing consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At the last discussion over deletion 11 contributors voted Keep (or strong keep) and 5 (plus one anonymous IP address) voted to delete. When Kbdank71 announced the result (delete) he said "...delete. I honestly don't have time to explain every reason why..." (In all fairness, he then explained that in his opinion the reasons to delete were better than the reasons to keep). At the time some of us (who only learned about the deletion when the bot was triggered) felt rail-roaded. Be that as it may, in response to subsequent criticism he gathered the reasons to delete at this log, which since then has acquired rebuttals; however, rebutting reasons to delete is not the same as reasons to have the category, which I tried to synopsize at the math project talk page. Each of the 11 "keep" votes gives reasons at that link, of course. Pete St.John 21:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer per my explanation Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28. --Kbdank71 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer's interpretation of the discussion was correct. No substantial argument has been provided that Erdős numbers are in any way a defining attribute and not just the mathematical research equivalent of the Bacon number (i.e. a statistical curiousity which may or may not imply certain things about specific people). The two options offered at the post-close discussion seem more viable: create and maintain a sourced list or add an optional parameter to {{Infobox Scientist}}. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless if the categories are kept or deleted, I'd like to see both those options implemeted. - jc37 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a deletion review Overturn. I'm not a practicing mathematician, but I find the number useful. Though mathematicians as a group do not have a particularly extravagant subculture, it is important to respect what subcultural quirks they have. I thought the deletion was rather odd when I heard about it. --Pleasantville 18:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be mistaken, but based on your comments, I think you wanted to "overturn"? (Endorse/overturn refers to the original discussion, not the DRV nom.) - jc37 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Revised. I was confused by the way things were phrased. Maybe the intro could be clarified?--Pleasantville 19:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "I find the number useful" seems to be an argument to give at the CFD, not the DRV. --Kbdank71 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the reasons to keep the category were ignored when the overwhelming consensus was ignored; that's why I've raised this deletion review. In your explanation of the deletion, you said that the reasons to delete were better than the reasons to keep, although the 11-5 (11-6 if you count the anonymous IP) would seem to have disagreed with you. So in this discussion we are obliged to remind reviewers of the reasons to keep; Pete St.John 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse of EN 1 and 2. Endorse of EN 3 and higher - As I noted elsewhere, it's been shown in previous CFD discussions that the lower numbers (1, 2 and at most 3), are the ones of value. The reason for Weak endorse of 1 and 2, is that making this a list would enable references to show how this person actually has such a number. So even if these categories are kept, I would strongly suggest that such a list be made to complement/support the categories. - jc37 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a note at Jc37's talk also, and will post a clarification of "endorse vs overturn" at the wikiproject:mathematics talk page. Pete St.John
Thank you for your concern, but I (hopefully) posted what I inteded to. Though you're right that I'm wobbling the fence when it comes to #s 1 and 2, though more due to previous CFD discussions than the one this DRV refers to. Hence why it's Weak endorse, instead of Weak overturn. I didn't see the closer mention that he was taking the previous nominations in consideration when closing. - jc37 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion for EN 1,2,3. This is a verifiable, well-known part of the mathematical culture and a measure of the cooperation. Mathematicians proudly report their EN. This number is not as arbitrary as laymen might think: Erdos has over 500 co-authors, beating any other by a wide-wide margin, so he is a natural "center of condensation", unlike the stupid copycat Bacon game. As it was already mentiojned, the category is easier to maintain that the list: this info may be more readily update in the bio article, which is watched by interested persons. `'Míkka 19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion per ongoing discussion. I respect Kdbank71 and do not question his intentions, only the fact that I believe his decision was (intentionally or not) more of an executive decision then an assessment of consensus. There is a lengthy discussion, which I will not attempt to recreate or reiterate to contextualize my opinion here, but I will again say that I express my opinion here with all due respect for Kdbank71 (and others). --Cheeser1 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Endorse A distinction needs to be made between the concept of Erdos numbering and the actual listing of each mathematicians number. The former is clearly notable the latter less so. I feel that some of the keep votes are using the notability of the former as a reason to keep the latter. My second concern is the source used to find many of these numbers, namely the AMS Collaboration Distance which is algorithmically generated. As such I don't think it provides notability for an individual authors number. For some authors there are third party sources, such as the authors web-site or The Erdos Number project, use of these sources would have greater notability claim. But I feel that calculating the number from AMS when the author does not even bother to list it is pushing encylopedic value. There is also a small technical problem as to the fact that the AMS site only provides a greatest upper bound on the number as its possible that there are paper not included in the database which provide a shorter path. Another problem is if we take these numbers to their logical conclusion using AMS data and the fact that 50% of mathematicians have an EN of 5 or less, that would make the categories very large with in the order of 850 articles in EN4[116]. I've not been convinced by arguments for notability, Rubin claim of a high correlation with field medalists in the CFD is interesting, from [117] they are all in the first 50% 11 with EN2,18 (EN3), 16 (EN4), 2 (EN5), maybe this is due to the fact that fields medalists probably publish more than average, but this is analysis better suited to the Erdos number page than the category. Personally I don't think is a particular useful measure, it favors mathematician in particular field and time span, and for a large part the numbers are fairly randomly distributed. So basically I think the debate is WP:ILIKEIT vrs WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the categories will always be incomplete and sometimes inaccurate and possibly become unworkable, and there are many other better measures of a mathematicians worth. --Salix alba (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion per ongoing discussion. This is a useful category, for many reasons, explained in detail in the Cfd debate. It is especially useful for editors who contribute to biographies of mathematicians and scientists, as a means to ascertain (very roughly) how close said mathematician or scientist is to combinatorics and graph theory (the subjects Paul Erdős mostly contributed to), and as a navigational tool. The fact that there are so many references out there to this subject, and even a niche in the literature devoted to studying the Erdős collaboration graph (the graph to which this category pertains, after all), should give some added weight to this argument. Turgidson 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion The record shows that the closing admin's action simply did not reflect a consensus. The weight of consensus had not shifted against the categories since the two previous attempts to get rid of them. Ntsimp 21:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for EN 1, 2, and 3. I did not see a consensus for deletion based on the strengths of arguments, but rather the strenuous repetition of the same arguments by a few discussants. However this may be, from the CfD discussion it is evident that even among the proponents of deletion, more than a few favoured keeping the categories for the lower numbers. The information is verifiable, and better maintainable by using categories than using lists. To non-mathematicians this may be considered trivia, but mathematicians who have a low Erdős number cherish it with pride.  --Lambiam 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close per Black Falcon; this is trivial like astrologic sign and other things that may mean more to more people - and people with Erdos # X -like Bacon # X - have nothing really in common with each other. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well no, it's not trivial, and yes, authors who coauthor with so-and-so do have something in common, which is relevant to mathematicians, but all that has been re-rehashed. I really just want to point out that actually, there is a category "astrological signs" as notice under Taurus. It certainly matters very little to me; astrology has been divorced from science for something like 300 years. But as you point out, it matters to lots of other people, who mostly keep to themselves, so I can abide it. Can't you? Pete St.John 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Mathematicians think Erdos numbers are interesting. There is even some bibliography and serious research on the topic: The Mathematical Intelligencer: vol. 21, no. 3 (Summer 1999), 51–63 and it has been also useful for studies on collaboration among mathematicians and research on small world social networks regarding their degrees of separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Requiemdirge (talk • contribs) 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. My support for the categories mirrors what Míkka wrote, but my real problem is the lack of process. 11 people (vs. 5) explained that they felt that the category should be kept, and that's significant. Many good reasons were given, despite the badgering of the original nominator. Even if those who wished to delete increased threefold the result should not have been delete -- just "no consensus". Beyond all that, though, the categories were useful and added to the encyclopedic value of the articles. (I won't even bring up notability -- the sheer volume of papers written on the subject easily suffices, and sufficient mention of this exists on the original AfD.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn I kind of agree with Kbdank71 that the arguments to delete were better, but even with discussions not being a vote, it's uncustomary to delete in the face of a 5-11 count in the absence of unusual circumstances such as single-purpose account !votes. "Delete arguments are better" is not easily distinguished from "I personally think the category should be deleted". I will probably vote to delete in the second round. Erdős numbers are fun to talk about but no one is suggesting that the information shouldn't be here, just that the category system is not the appropriate medium for it, which I think is probably true. --Trovatore 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I must admit to some confusion: at first I assumed this was Category:Wikipedians by Erdős number, which I'm further surprised to see hasn't been deleted yet. Anything less than the median is of some signifance, and is going to be more material to a person's notability than the endless "ethnic" categories that people seem to delight in adding -- which generally have precisely none. Alai (E#5, btw.) 02:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion at least for Erdős numbers 1, 2 and 3, as per Lambiam. Gandalf61 09:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I have closed several debates against the votecount myself, sometimes even blatantly so; when I do that though, I try to carefully craft the closing statement, and its foundation on relevant policies, practices and precedents. Sorry, but "because I think side X had better arguments" doesn't cut it for me. Having read the debate, especially the discussion, I see many valid and coherent arguments in favor of the keep, validly dismissing the claims that Erdos numbers are just trivia. Yes, there were many WP:NOTAGAIN !votes on the keep side, but also many WP:PERABOVE !votes on the delete side; but in total, I don't see how this could be closed as anything else but "no consensus". Preserving only 1-3 is a viable option in my opinion, but AFAICT this idea emerged only at this DRV, thus it's possibly out of DRV's scope (though we're not bureaucracy) Duja► 12:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion. There was lots of evidence that the subject of Erdős numbers was notable, and no argument on that point as plentiful references were produced to papers and other publications which discussed Erdős numbers and the graphs derived from them; but there as no evidence that the Erdős number of an individual was anything other than a point of trivia widely regarded with in the mathematical community as a joke, and in no way a "defining characteristic" of a mathematician per WP:CAT. (Repeated requests for evidence of Erdős numbers being used as a defining characteristic by official academic publications (rather than on individual's homepage etc) produced only one example, in which they were described as "silly"). The failure of many "keep" !voters to acknowledge the difference between on one hand the notability of the topic as a whole and on the other hand the question of whether an individual's Erdős number is a "defining characteristic" was one of the major reasons why the debate became so heated. Further discussion on the talk page after the CfD closed exposed further fundamental problems with categorisation by Erdos number, including that:
    1) there is no consensus on the definition of an Erdős number (whether it should be restricted to collaboration in mathematical papers or extend to all scientific papers or even to all academic papers)
    2) the mathscinet database regularly claimed as a reliable source can validate only the first definition of an Erdős number, which is not the definition used in the head article Erdős number
    3) Other assessments of an individual's Erdős number amount to original research.
    Some contributions to this DRV claim or imply that the views of mathematicians are more important in a deletion discussion related related to mathematics than those on non-mathematicians, a principle which would set a far-reaching precedent. Will admins closing future debates be expected to try to verify the professional credentials of individuals who are all entitled to anonymity? Or do we continue the existing practice of treating all wikipedians as rational editors who can weigh the evidence offered by those claiming expertise in a particular subject, by verifying the evidence against reliable sources?
    The closure of this debate as "delete" would be wrong if WP:CAT accepted that a widespread joke was grounds for categorisation, but unless and until WP:CAT is changed in such a fundamental way, there were only two ways to close this debate: by making a headcount and saying "keep", or by measuring the arguments against wikipolicy and saying "delete". Kbdank71 was quite correct to choose the latter, and the existence of a campaign amongst a few mathematician wikipedians to attack the decision does not alter existing policy. I suggest that before closing this deletion review, a check is made for the extent of canvassing; I have seen some, but have no idea how widespread it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close per Black Falcon - Galloglass 14:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion per all the reasonable arguments above. (Igny 15:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Endorse close per Black Falcon and BrownHairedGirl. Sam Blacketer 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. First, a reminder to all that this is not the place to rehash deletion arguments. This forum is only for discussing the closure itself. Many of the Overturn and even some of the Endorse !votes above fail to remember that fact. Since the topic at hand is the administrator's closing of the discussion, I would have to say that the reasons given for said closure are valid. The !votes in the discussion for "keep" based on "Nothing has changed since the last time" were properly ignored. Similarly weak were the "keep" arguments that seemed to be addressing the notability of Erdos numbers as a concept, rather than the appropriateness of categorization by said numbers. Such arguments would have been valid for an AfD on Erdos number but not on a CfD; they were likewise properly ignored. The remainder of the "keep" arguments, while making a decent case for keeping, were clearly not sufficient to overcome the significant "not a defining characteristic" concerns. Powers T 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion A substantial majority with coherent arguments argued "keep". The views of those expressing the same opinions as previously should not be discounted. The close was not in accordance with the debate. Thincat 16:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. There was no consensus to delete. The close was inappropriate. Paul August ☎ 16:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closer's rationale. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, because there was no consensus to delete. A closing administrator should ignore opinions which are blatantly false, illogical or against policy. The reasoning is that in a wider debate with more unbiased participants, such opinions would be ignored and a consensus would form ignoring these erroneous opinions. However, administrators should be careful with this. It's not proper for administrators to ignore comments which in their opinion should carry less weight if this is only their personal opinion, because that would give administrators powers above non-administrators. I believe that the arguments used by the closing administrator were too subjective and thus that it was closed improperly. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closer's rationale. The closing admin acted properly in concluding that the weight of policy was on the side of the "delete" voters. SparsityProblem 19:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CAT is not policy; it is an editing guideline that is "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Guidelines should follow consensus, not the other way around. Consensus (or the clear lack of it) at the CfD discussion should trump a literal-minded application of the guideline.  --Lambiam 22:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that a majority vote that was grounded in "having this trivial set of categories on Wikipedia amuses me, and if you don't think it's appropriate, you must not be a real mathematician and you probably dropped out of kindergarten too" trumps a minority vote that was grounded in guidelines and tradition. SparsityProblem 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well your glib and offensive gloss of the opposing view is, perhaps, no worse than my categorization of "deletionist editors" to which you objected, so we'll let that pass. However, the "guideline" arguements, that I saw, were also rebutted. Please point to specific ones that were unsatisfactorily addressed. I don't know about "traditions" but Erdos Numbers are older than most wikipedians, perhaps, certainly decades older than Wikipedia itself, so maybe our tradition trumps your tradition. Pete St.John 23:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What's this "our tradition" vs. "your tradition" business? So far as I can tell, we're both Wikipedians, and that's the only relevant identity here. I think the closing admin's summary given on the CFD talk page show how guidelines support the case for deletion, and I'm aware that rebuttals were posted, but I don't find them convincing. Lastly, I have no idea in what universe it could possibly be relevant that Erdos numbers are older than Wikipedia itself. Baldness is also older than Wikipedia, but we don't have a "bald people" category. SparsityProblem 23:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Age pertains to tradtion, you brought up tradtions. I'd be interested in someone enunciating the tradition which implies that the Erdos Categories should be deleted. Pete St.John 21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That kindergarten comment seems a bit hypocritical, considering part of your argument was "your opinion doesn't count since you don't have a PhD yet." --Cheeser1 01:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh plz; if I were saying that the opinion of anyone who doesn't have a PhD doesn't count, I wouldn't be participating in this discussion, since I don't have one. Nor do some of the people I respect most in the world. However, that's not particularly relevant. The point is, this is not a war between mathematicians and an evil cadre of Wikipedians bent on stopping them from having their harmless fun. It's rather a debate between those who think Wikipedia should be governed by general guidelines that have evolved over time to promote the building of a useful encyclopedia, and those who think exceptions should be made in order to promote subjects they like. (User:PeterStJohn said as much in one of his canvassing messages at the mathematics WikiProject page, where he said that these categories were a good way to memorialize Erdos. Well, Erdos was a great guy, but the category tree is not the place for memorials.) SparsityProblem 01:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The memorial is part of the reason mathematicians like the category, not a reason to have the category. Mathematicians liking and using the category is one of the reasons for keeping the category. Pete St.John 21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, strongly as per extensive arguement. My opposition to the deletion has been sufficiently prominent, I think; however, I had misconstrued this Deletion Review mechanism, thinking that overturning admins required admins. However, "anyone may comment" appears to mean "anyone may vote endorse/overturn, as those are really comments, not votes" and I wish my "vote" to be on the record. Pete St.John 19:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. There was no consensus to delete. In addition, several of the supposedly stronger arguements don't make any sense to me. For example, how is the fact that not all 8000 mathematicians with a particular Erdos number (or range of numbers) are not notable enough to have a wikipedia entry even relavant to the discussion, much less a reason to delete? We don't delete categories about people who were born in year 1957 just because not everybody born in 1957 is notable enough to have a wikipedia article. As for accuracy, this has not been demonstrated to be a problem. Wikipedia has policies reguarding truth vs verifiability using reliable sources. As for Erdos numbers not reflecting ones skill as a mathematician and similar comments, unless a person's Erdos number is 0, this is a strawman. Erdos numbers have never been presented as such, although no doubt many mathematicians with Erdos number 1 are extremely and uncommonly good mathematicians. But this is not what they measure.
As a mathematician, I like being able to see somebody's Erdos number at a glance when I come across a math biography. It makes wikipedia a more useful and valuable online encyclopedia for me. (Yes, I could go over to MR and type in the guys name, but I generally wouldn't bother to do so as a wikipedia reader, unless it was to add the information as an editor.) It is a significant part of mathematical culture and folklore, and a part of mathematical culture which has been popularized to a great extent in the general public, also. People are interested in the individual Erdos numbers of individual mathematicians, even if this is not the most important and significant peice of information contained in a biographical article. And the list of those interested does not only include other mathematicians. (As a side note, in my opinion, large Erdos numbers of individual mathematicians is just as interesting as small numbers. If the subject of a math bio has an Erdos number of 14, this is something that I would be fascinated to stumble across in an article, and after stumbling across this little peice of information, I would definitely be inclined to go over to MR and start tracing the collaboration paths, at least late on a friday afternoon. I would also click on the category to see who else has a bio here who has such a large finite Erdos number.) --Ramsey2006 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the forum to debate the arguments over whether the category should be deleted or not. The only thing we're debating here was whether the closing admin acted in accordance with rules. SparsityProblem 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken, SparsityProblem, but unfortunately it's not so simple. The closing admin's stated reason for overturning the 11-5 majority was that the reasons to delete were better than the reasons to keep. I don't see that, and the clear, two-to-one consensus didn't see that, but that's the excuse he gives. Pete St.John 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pete St.John as a regular participant in these discussions I know to my cost its the quality of the arguments on both sides not the weight of numbers that decides these things. - Galloglass 22:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Galloglass, in this case my citing the numbers (11-6 to Keep; not a lack of consensus to delete, but a clear consensus to keep) is my arguement that the superiority of the "delete" arguement is at least not obvious (a two to one majority didn't appreciate it). In fact, the arguements to delete have mostly been vapid and clearly rebutted with strong arguements by veterans. However, neither numbers, nor logic, necessarily win "these things" by themselves. The deletion is a good example of a decision that was made despite either logic or numbers (at least as far as I have been able to discern). Be all that as it may, a clear vote to overturn serves at least as a signal that a part of the user community is deeply dissatisfied with an administrative fiat. That's the start of reform, even if we don't get back the Category. I'm really much more concerned with the process: fiat ignoring consensus, opposition ignoring expertise, and members of one group (deletionist editors?) attacking processes internal to another group (apolitical mathematicians). Why do they care? Pete St.John 22:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your characterization of this debate as an issue between "deletionist editors" and "apolitical mathematicians" is both disingenuous and offensive. Knock it off, please -- on Wikipedia we try to discuss content, not people. You know as well as I do that the only self-identified professional mathematician who voiced an opinion on the debate called Erdos numbers a "mathematician's joke". And there is nothing "internal" to the group of mathematicians -- even if mathematicians actually favored keeping these cats, *WHICH THEY DIDN'T* -- about processes on Wikipedia, which are governed by all Wikipedia users. SparsityProblem 22:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive, perhaps, dunno about disengenuous, but as someone else commented, if we are goaded repeatedly we have a harder time keeping our temper. Call the two camps "delete" and "keep", then. However:
No, of course I don't know as well as <you> do that the only self-identified professional mathematician who voiced an opinion on the debate called Erdos numbers a "mathematician's joke". There have been three debates (that I know of) prior to my learning there was an issue. Pointing to one self-professed mathematician calling it a joke says nothing about the community; for that, feel free to vist the wikiproject. Opinion among mathematicians is largely in favor of keeping the category (not entirely, and many aren't aware of the issues). Several have posted on this very thread, unambiguously in favor of keeping, and plainly (and verifiably) identifying themselves as mathematicians. And furthermore, there is more to the "joke" even taken as such, as I described earlier. It may be that not enough of the majority voting to keep the category self-identified as mathematicians, but they did in fact express the consensus in the profession (that we like it and use it and you are free to ignore it). Please stop rehashing "reasons" that have been rebutted over, and over again, many times. Pete St.John 23:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of mathematicians who have been against keeping the category. --Salix alba (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what your justification might be for saying "Opinion among mathematicians is largely in favor of keeping the category," since most mathematicians don't pay attention to Wikipedia kerfuffles and thus aren't even aware of what's happening. Even if you mean "opinion among mathematicians who use Wikipedia", I still have no idea what the possible grounds might be for saying this. Many people may identify themselves as mathematicians, but those who actually have completed their academic training and are employed as mathematicians and interact with other mathematicians on a regular basis, in real life, are more likely to understand mathematical culture than those who haven't. And I say this not as a way of suggesting that anyone is better than anybody else (I'm only a grad student, and not in mathematics, although I did do an undergraduate minor in mathematics, for whatever that counts for), but only because some people have made so much of the claim that "mathematicians support this". Finally, "we like it and use it and you are free to ignore it" is never a good argument for keeping a category. There are guidelines to govern which categories should and shouldn't exist, and they exist for a reason. "[Some subset of] one special-interest group likes it" is never a valid argument. SparsityProblem 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said "mathematicians typically and characteristically have interest in Erdos Numbers" and "the consensus among wikipidean mathematicians favors keeping the category". I didn't mean to imply that all mathematcians care about the issue, or like Erdos Numbers. One advocate of the promulgation of Erdos Numbers is Ron Graham, formerly president of the American Mathematical Society. It's a well known thing to us. And yes, I agree with you that mathematicians are more likely to understand mathematical culture (I'm not sure I get your point there). Finally, please point to the specific guideline that leads to categories like "people born in Ohio" or "in 1957" but not "Mathematicians with Erdos Number 2". Thanks, Pete St.John 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still have no idea what your grounds are for "mathematicians typically and characteristically have interested in Erdos Numbers"; they're really something that's more of a curiosity enjoyed by dabblers in the subject. As for the specific guideline, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization: "In general, categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life, such as their career, origin and major accomplishments". Birthdate and place of origin are notable in a person's life; Erdos number is notable in no one's life, except for that of Erdos. SparsityProblem 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"dabblers", see Ron Graham, formerly President of the AMS, as counterexample, mentioned above; coauthoring with Erdos is notable to mathematicians, see for example the maintenance of the databse at MathSciNet; and your parallel is off, it would be like saying "being born in NY is only notable to NY". Coauthoring with Erdos is notable in the same way that graduating from MIT is notable. Erdos is certainly not the only important coauthor, but his record-shattering number of collaborations (500+ coauthors?) makes him a conspicuous place to start for this kind of analysis. I don't purport that anything is perfect, only notable.Pete St.John 22:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "coauthoring with Erdos is notable in the same way that graduating from MIT is notable" is unmitigated nonsense. Show me a CV belonging to a mathematics faculty member where they *specifically* mention having coauthored with Erdos (as opposed to listing such a paper on a list of all their publications). Even if that statement were accurate, it would mean that it would be fine to create categories for collaborators of all major mathematicians, in the same way that we have categories for alumni of major universities. Would you support that? Finally, your argument only suggests that the category "Erdos number 1" should exist, and says nothing about higher numbers. SparsityProblem 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you two please stop this? This is not really the place to argue the merits of the category, and you obviously have a fundamental disagreement about how policy applies in this case. Bickering with each other, accusing each other of things like speaking "unmitigated nonsense" is not helpful, and especially not when it's about something for the CfD, not a DRV. --Cheeser1 23:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand is whether there's a "consensus among mathematicians" for keeping this category, but I admit that things have strayed a bit far afield from that. SparsityProblem 23:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as keep/no consensus. I don't have much to say, as I think that others have already done a fine job of explaining why the categories are appropriate. Of course they are not very precise tests of prominence, and anyone who knows what an Erdős number is understands that they must be taken with a large grain of salt. Others have already explained, in the CfD and DRV, the advantages that categories have over lists in this case. I really see absolutely no reason to ignore the rough consensus in this case which favored keeping. 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanielx (talk • contribs)
  • Overturn, closer did not act appropriately when examining keep versus delete !votes. At best, it would have been a no consensus default to keep, not a straight-out delete. Arguments on the keep side were clearer than those on the delete side. Indeed, I agree with Daniel that there was no reason to ignore consensus, and the advantages of keeping this category outnumber the disadvantages, when particularly the disadvantages are not so clear. Ramsey's assertion above reinforces that fact. DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. If we have the space (and that's getting cheaper and cheaper) for all those ephemeral and non-notable soap and video game plot "articles" we certainly have space for well-written Mathematics articles. (And I have not been canvassed - I was a recent "victim" on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where I noticed the impassioned debate.) I have now done what I should have done before, and read the rationale of the deleters. I'm now a very weak overturner because the close seemed contrary to consensus but I would then vote to oppose some of the later number categories. Sorry for being a Bimbo!Alice.S 01:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is about a set of categories, not about an article. In addition, this comment isn't relevant as this discussion is solely about whether the closing admin acted correctly. Finally, even if this was the CFD rather than a DRV, "there's other stuff that sucks" is never a good argument for keeping a category or article. SparsityProblem 01:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closing admin gave no detailed reasoning at time of close, but later explained in detail at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28. This explanation consists mostly of reasons that are wrong or irrelevant, and exhibits a fundamental misreading of guidelines for categories that is not in accord with actual practice. The problems mostly involve an incorrect definition of "defining characteristic". Examples of reasons that are simply wrong include "not all of those 8,000 people are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles". That in itself is telling, as that means that Erdos numbers are not defining, or else all of those 8,000 people would have WP articles; and "That nicely illustrates one of the fundamental problems of these categories, that they are grouping together individuals who have so little in common that only this exercise groups them". The first of these reasons is just stupefyingly bad, but you can apply either reason to Category:1983 births or Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni to see the obvious flaws. Other reasons don't make sense either, such as the claim that an Erdos number says more about a persons' collaborators than it does that person itself. Well, clearly Erdos number 1 says that one of your collaborators was Paul Erdos. The claim that an Erdos number says nothing about your status or skill as a mathematician manages to be both wrong and irrelevant. Wrong, because low Erdos numbers (especially 1) confer some status in the mathematical community, and irrelevant because there is no requirement that a category reflect status. Category:People from Ohio is not a reflection of any status conferred on its members. Quale 05:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because I've been so bewildered at the implication that the closing admin was following consensus, I've been reading WP:CON in detail. I found this interesting statement: "A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one." So I decided to check. I did this manually, so it might be off, but of the 41 people involved in the previous CFD, only 5 showed up for the new one. Ntsimp 05:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On top of that, I don't think the recent CfD was any stronger on the deletion side than the previous ones. Consensus in the last CfD was leaning significantly toward keeping the category, as with the previous ones. — xDanielx T/C 06:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Quale and Paul August. The rationales for keep were perfectly reasonable, and no consensus existed for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no clear consensus for deletion. Closer seems to have said "well, the delete arguments convinced me", but that's not the definition of consensus. For deletion, the delete arguments needed to have convinced most experienced editors participating, not just the closing admin. It's pretty clear they didn't. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These deletion-related pages seem have regular participants with a sort of culture, conventions, and language of their own. Can someone please translate "salt" into English? Michael Hardy 00:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Salting is the process whereby the page is prevented from being recreated under its present name. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See also WP:SALT. --Cheeser1 02:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Medical schools in California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Category was deleted on grounds of overcategorization, but the category is useful as the overall status of medical education in California is contributing to a developing, well-documented health care crisis in the state, which all of these articles can be seen in light of or in reference to: [118], [119], [120], [121]. I have no problem with state-by-state categories of medical schools, nor with a US categorical list, as all these schools respond to both local and national health care problems. Ameriquedialectics 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse merge. Nothing wrong with the close. --Kbdank71 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge. I agree that there is a health care crisis, but it is not just in California, and this is not grounds to keep this category. The problem is throughout the entire country. There is an anticipated doctor shortage in the upcoming years, which is why there are new medical schools appearing, and the existing ones are expanding their class sizes throughout the country. I also dispute Amerique's claim that the category has utility with regard to the role of medical schools in the health care crisis (though this should not be a deciding factor in categorization). A medical school in California is no different than a medical school in any other state in the country. It might be true that most practicing physicians in California graduated from a California medical school, but doctors who graduated from schools in other states (or countries) also practice in California, too. Since there are no real differences between medical schools in all of the states, there is no need to categorize on the basis of state, as evident by no other categories of medical schools in a given state. The only potential reason to subcategorize by state is if the parent category (Category:Schools of medicine in the United States) becomes overpopulated - which won't happen anytime soon. Even if there were a category called "Health care crisis in California," I do not think medical schools should be in this category, or that "Medical schools in California" should be a subcategory. Since there is not and should not be a category for "Health care crisis in California," there is no reason to have "Medical schools in California" solely to represent its potential role in the health care crisis. --Scott Alter 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict, reply to Scott Alter) The important difference is not in the education received at these schools, but the situational context each are set in as institutions, which is largely determined by state demographics rather than by national priorities. The media reports on medical education on a state-by-state basis, why shouldn't WP have a category that makes articles on medical education easier to navigate on a state-by-state level? (If it's an issue, I'll volunteer to develop state-by-state categories of med schools., but this may take awhile.) Ameriquedialectics 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your statement that "media reports on medical education on a state-by-state basis." In the 4 articles you mentioned, the first three reported on allied healthcare workers in California, noting the shortage of "pharmacists, dental hygienists, respiratory therapists and other health-care workers." There was no mention of a physician shortage in these articles. On the contrary, the fourth article you referenced commented on medical schools nationwide. Can you give me an example of differences in education based on state-based situational context? As far as I am aware, all US medical schools follow the same criteria for curriculum development, as set forth by the LCME. I think medical education is uniquely national in nature, as there is one common national licensing exam (unlike other professional tracts, such as business and law). Also, all other healthcare providers take local exams, which does vary by state (and within a state). I still fail to see how dividing the category by states will improve navigation. I think having 45 categories, each with somewhere between 1 and 14 articles, would hinder navigation. (5 states have no medical schools.) The list of medical schools in the United States is much easier to navigate by state than 45 additional categories. --Scott Alter 19:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just looking at that list... I had to search around to find it. The "national-level" approach to addressing medical education is determined by the aggregation of local-level health concerns and priorities. The new medical school at UCR is being developed with local and state issues in mind. [122] I'm not saying there is a difference in accreditation requirements between states, or that the national-level list should be abolished, but that there was no need to get rid of a useful category for browsing medical institutions by state. Ameriquedialectics 20:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also a ton of other references here:[123] Ameriquedialectics 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to argue with you about whether local or national issues shape medical education. In reality, it is a combination of both, but I'm not going to try to figure if it is more national or state. My opinion is that there is not enough difference in medical education by state to warrant division into separate categories. If you believe medical education in California is so special and unique when compared to the rest of the country, I implore you to create Medical education in California or Medical school in California. Then, I'd consider separating the category by state on this basis. Currently, I have not read anything on Wikipedia to claim there is any difference in education by state. --Scott Alter 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer. The agreement at the discussion was that subcategorisation of Category:Schools of medicine in the United States by US state, while logical, is premature at this point. All of the articles still appear in at least one of the subcategories of Category:Education in California. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For each medical school article I come across, I try to make sure they all are in several hierarchies of categories besides being in Category:Schools of medicine in the United States. These include the parent university (if applicable), education in given state (which the parent university may be in), and a physical location (which the parent university may be in). This should ensure that the medical school articles are everywhere they belong and navigatable from several starting points. --Scott Alter 19:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • They mostly seem to connect to Category:Education in California via categories for the parent universities (see [124] for the list of articles). – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without speaking to this particular question, is there sentiment at CFD against subcategorization by US state unless we can do all fifty, or what? California is 12% of the US population and has more people than Canada. As a general rule I would expect that any category would start with a subcat for California followed by New York and Texas simply because there are more people, more schools, more anything in those states. According to the Google cache, there were 9 schools in this category -- not an overwhelming number, to be sure, but my mental peg for a category breakout is around the magic number 7 (as testing shows that's the typical number of items a person can keep in their head at any given time). --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I'm aware. It seems to be more a question of when subcategorisation becomes justified. It is clearly justified when the subcategory is based on a substantially distinct defining attribute (e.g. having Category:American political scientists as a subcat of Category:Political scientists) and/or when a category becomes overpopulated. Whether location in California, as opposed to location in the US more generally, is defining for medical schools is one of the issues being discussed above. As for the second instance, different editors subscribe to different cutoff points, although 200 (after which the contents are no longer displayed on one page only) seems to be taken as the clearest indication. My personal threshold is significantly lower (50-100, depending on the topic), but that of the discussants apparently was not. I personally wouldn't mind having a California-specific category in this case, but I didn't feel strongly enough about it to post an objection against what was (at the time) unanimous support for merging. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For any subcategorization by state, I think it should be all or none. I am a big proponent of consistency in categorical hierarchies. There are currently 114 articles in Category:Schools of medicine in the United States, with a potential of 155 articles (1 for each med school in the country + List of medical schools in the United States). If broken down by state, there would be between 0 and 14 articles per category with an average of 2.5 (114 med schools/45 states with med schools). 2.5 articles per category are too few. 114 (even 155) articles are not too many. This is second reason I am in support of keeping one category (the other reason above). --Scott Alter 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've said before I'm willing to help out with that. I may not be clear on the guiding logic on WP governing the use of categories. To me, a category would be useful even if it were only composed of one item, as a reader would then know "that's it" as far as, say, how many or what med schools are in a given state. I'm not seeing how "too many" or "too few" items per category on WP affects whatever the statistical reality happens to be in fact. We're only talking about how to represent and make accessible the information here, and a state-by-state categorical sorting would not be a bad thing, in addition to the national categorical sorting. Ameriquedialectics 21:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not the work to potentially be done (if I thought it was appropriate, I'd do it myself), but I do not think it is appropriate to do so. After going through WP:Overcategorization, here are the many points this category violates:
    1. Non-defining or trivial characteristic (To me, the differences by state are insignificant. You seem to object to this.)
I most definitely object to this, especially as concerning state-supported public medical schools. Ameriquedialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Intersection by location (Inappropriate to categorize based on location alone.)
In which case, why have a Med schools in the US category at all? Ameriquedialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Narrow intersection (Categories would have 2.5 articles on average.)
If this is some kind of universal content guideline on WP, I'm willing to go along with it and not object to an argument that "med schools in states with fewer than 2.5 med schools should not be categorized according to the states they are in," but that would still seem to leave room for categories of med schools in states with over 2.5 institutions, right? Ameriquedialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Small with no potential for growth (It is unlikely that there will many new medical schools opening in the future. I know of a couple that have opened or will open soon, but not enough to drastically change these numbers. The potential for growth is nearly 0.)
WP's content navigation system, which categories are a specific element of, should reflect reality and make content accessible according to how people may be searching for data. As health education disparities (in the articles I linked to above) tend to be discussed on a state-wide level, in addition to on a national level (these discourses are often cross-referenced), state-level categories are not inappropriate and are further useful for making comparisons between states. Ameriquedialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the second line of that page: However there are some articles which should be in both a subcategory and a parent category. Ameriquedialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we obviously disagree on that, but I'm willing to let the community decide on it. Ameriquedialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge. I see nothing wrong with the close of this debate which was in line with consensus. Nor are there any substantial policy reasons to overturn it and allow the category to continue. What is fundamentally different about medical school in California compared to, say, Texas? Sam Blacketer 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing about process, the process by which the deletion occurred is fine with me, the issue is whether state-by-state categories for med schools are somehow "overcategorical." I'm not and never have argued that there are differences in accreditation standards between states. I am arguing that simply having state-derived categories of med schools makes it easier to browse such easily relatable information from each article, rather than having to parse through the Category:Schools of medicine in the United States, which is alphabetically by school rather than by state, or find list of medical schools in the United States, which I have no problem with, but I also don't see how state-organized categories present any special problem either. To me, Category:Medical schools in California is the first step at making list of medical schools in the United States more navigable within states from an article by article level. Ameriquedialectics 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge. The consensus was to merge, and there appear to be no policy/guidelines arguments against merger. The category's creator offers no significant new evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you guys better apply this great deletionist logic universally. Here is a place you can start: Category:Law_schools_in_the_United_States. Ameriquedialectics 16:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a widespread problem. Every category is dealt with on an individual basis. I think that you would agree that most categories on Wikipedia contain more than 2 articles. If you look at all 53 types of universities and colleges in Category:Universities and colleges by type, you'll notice that only law schools are separated by state. The other 52 types are not separated by state. There is no "less than 2.5 articles per category is overcategorization rule." In fact, there is no rule about how many articles per category is too few. I'm not set on 2.5 as being the limit - that is just the average that would be in each medical school by state category. User:Dhartung mentioned previously that his "magic number" was 7/category. For some it is less, others more. My point is that if Category:Schools of medicine in the United States were broken down by state, almost all the subcategories would have far fewer than 7 categories, with the maximum of articles per category at 14 (for New York). I would call this overcategorization. In contrast, there are 259 potential law school articles (see law schools in the United States). There are 65 law schools listed in California (compared to 10 medical schools). I'm not saying whether or not I think breaking the law schools down by state is appropriate, but having 259 articles in one category is getting to be a lot. In Category:Law schools in the United States, there are far fewer 1 and 2 article categories than there would be in medical schools by state (in which case, most categories would only have a couple articles - a small minority having more than 7). Having separate subcategories for only a few states and not others is not appropriate. I'm not even sure I've seen this done on Wikipedia before. I'm not a deletionist - I'm in favor of all or none. In the case of Category:Schools of medicine in the United States (currently 113 school articles with a potential to max out at 154), I'm in favor of no subcategorization by state. --Scott Alter 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you base a good deal of your argument on the presumption that because we have a subcat for one state, we must proceed to subcat them all by state. I reject that underlying assumption. We have one category with 9 members, certainly enough to have a category, and one with 100-odd members, which is certainly in the realm of arguably in need of subcategorization. I don't hold that it's a necessity in this case, but I wholly reject the reasoning that it's a violation for this category to exist. Yes, you can find this in many places, though I'm sure that "uniformists" like yourself clean them up when they find them. Is it a horrible problem? I guess I don't see it. --Dhartung | Talk 09:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse inasmuch as the CfD was appropriately run and correctly closed according to consensus.JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 12:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats – Deletions overturned. The consensus here is clear, and this discussion is beginning to generate more heat than light. The community obviously accepts the view that these categories are useful for collaboration -- with the belief that widespread, no other "evidence" is necessary. In thinking otherwise, the closing admin erred. I'm sure the rejection of this decision is admonishment enough, and I'm sure he'll be more careful in the future. – Xoloz 14:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and subcats (restore|cache|CFD)

Seeing as how the consensus was overwhelmingly keep, and demon has admitted that he closed against consensus I seek to have this 'delete' close overturned. User:Veesicle 16:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us all sit down and have a nice cup of tea.
  • Overturn ^demon's closing of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats as "delete" is one of the worst oversteps I've seen in some time. This discussion involves nearly 700 categories and I find it very hard to believe that anyone could read this discussion (4 delete/2 rename/25 keep) as a consensus for deletion. I strongly supported keeping these categories during the discussion, and I believe ^demon's close to be inappropriate. The discussion in no way favored deletion, the very policy noted as the reason for deletion was refuted as false within the discussion, and ^demon is far from nuetral, having nominated all of these categories for deletion just 4 months ago (COI, anyone?) It is not the job of the closing admin to interject their own opinion, effectively overriding the community's. This close should be overturned. - auburnpilot talk 16:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: All users who participated in the original discussion have been notified of this review. - auburnpilot talk 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which, considering the 25 keep/4 delete result, might be considered as vote canvassing.--WaltCip 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just waiting for somebody to make such an accusation. Contacting every editor in a discussion does not constitute vote stacking, though it does fall under the specific "friendly notice" aspect of WP:CANVASS. It's not my fault the majority of participates supported keeping the categories. - auburnpilot talk 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - demon's interpretation of policy differs from that of most of those participating in this discussion; no consensus was even approached, and his decision was inappropriate. --Orange Mike 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and admonish responsible administrator. I've deleted things in the past that I thought should be kept, and vice versa, because community consensus dictates the result. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Nom, Auburn, and Mike. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nom: I'm surprised it's even come to this... ColdmachineTalk 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and admonish. Deleting a category against consensus when there's a clear conflict of interest would seem to be a move designed to create WikiDrama, make people angry, and generally just increase hostility on the project. The nominator's deletion rationale was "only used for identification" and thus the argument that "it's used for collaboration" is obviously a valid counter-argument. WP:USEFUL is for content discussions. The criteria for including user categories is whether or not they are useful, and there was an incredibly strong consensus that they are. The bigger issue, is that admins should not be using the tools in cases of clear conflict of interest. --JayHenry 17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nom and above. The "prove it" principle doesn't wash. Mikebar 20:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per policy and precedent. Closing admin can and should take those into account when closing. --Kbdank71 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Ameriquedialectics 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Obvious and reasoned consensus to keep. Closing admin's opinion doesn't overrule everybody else's. ~ trialsanderrors 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Closer's rationale was correct in my view. Policy reflects a wider consensus than the accumulation of individual expressions of support, many of which were blithe in their expressions of support. While this will almost certainly & tediously become AfD "The Sequel", specific reference to the closer's reasoning would be useful. Eusebeus 18:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and admonish. Admin had a clear conflict of interest due to having previously nominated this category for deletion. This conflict negates any reasoning he has come up with to explain his actions. He is no longer an objective party and therefore should not have been involved in this closure. KnightLago 18:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and admonish that discussion should have resulted in "keep". Very few people voted to delete the categories, and people who wanted to keep them had good arguments on their side. Closing admin even admits they closed the discussion against consensus, and they shouldn't have been closing the discussion anyway. Hut 8.5 18:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - There are cases where closing admins may disregard consensus. This is not one of them. FCYTravis 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong comment - Consensus is not a vote! - And reasons of (paraphrasing): Harmless; I want it; I "think" it could be useful; I want mine, if you get yours; This was nominated before; How dare you nominate "my" category; Misc. personal attacks; Misc. presumptions of reasons for the nomination; This is just an attack of deletionists; The "rules" don't apply to userspace; and on, and on. - Does anyone sincerely consider these valid reasons to "keep"? Also, personal identification with something is not a valid use of the category system. If you want to note something about yourself, a userpage notice (such as a userbox) is fine, there is no need for a category grouping. And noone has yet shown how membership in these specific categories (the "by alma mater" ones), are useful for collaboration. See also "the zodiac rationale", discussed previously at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 10, and noted by that closer. And that's also why we didn't just rename these categories to "intrested in", as noted by ^demon in closing, since that would be miscategorising Wikipedians. So in other words, there's been at least 2 years of precedent overall consensus for this, it's just when a larger category in nominated that the WP:ILIKEIT/"IWANTMINE" appears in numbers. And when a closer closes contrary to "numbers", it comes before DRV. I'm sure ^demon expected this, I know "I" did, when I saw the close. But "doing what's right" shouldn't be prevented by knowing that those with WP:OWN issues will oppose your "right" action. See: The very first principle at User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. (And I might offer #7 and #8, as well...) - jc37 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sign of a weak argument is a quote of Jimbo Wales. Alma mater cats are nothing like zodiac cats, and your characterization of the discussion as nothing more than personal attacks and "I like it" type votes is pure nonsense. The bottom line is the ^demon ignored consensus, by his own admission, and ignored those of us who clearly stated we've used these for collaboration. You seem to still be under the misconception that these are being used as some status symbol, and simply noting my affiliation with a University does not aid in collaboration. Somebody must have a way to find me, and my affiliation, which these categories accomplish. - auburnpilot talk 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Somebody must have a way to find me, and my affiliation..." - Why? - jc37 19:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either you misread what I wrote, or I wrote it poorly (the latter is more likely). What I meant is that for effective collaboration related to a user's affiliation, there must be a way for somebody to identify and find a user related to that university. In other words, a note on a user page doesn't aid collaboration (what are the chances I'll stumble across a userpage of a Wikipedian who went to UGA when I need one), whereas categories allow for Wikipedians to find and contact other editors who have relevant knowledge of a topic. Regardless, I believe this is a bit outside the purpose of a DRV. - auburnpilot talk 19:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You commented, I asked for clarification. Seem appropriate to me. So your answer is: "...for effective collaboration related to a user's affiliation..."? - jc37 19:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never said is wasn't appropriate. The reason I believe they should be kept remains the same as during the deletion discussion (where this discussion was appropriate, but isn't here). If I need a source of information related to a university, I can find a user related to that university by use of these cats. For example, a user requested that I take and provide images of Beard-Eaves-Memorial Coliseum, knowing that I am a student of Auburn University. I took the photos, uploaded them, and they are now used on several articles on this project and others. Collaboration. - auburnpilot talk 19:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide a link to that request/response? - jc37 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly have no idea when it was, where it was, who it was, or why the request was made. It could have been because I have auburn in my name, was editing an auburn related page, or telepathy. I apologize if I implied I had direct knowledge that it was associated with the category; that wasn't my intention. - auburnpilot talk 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, ok. So basically, you associate these categories to Category:Wikipedians by location. That is, as useful for gaining images, and "insider"/knowledgeable information? - jc37 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not be responding to you any further. With every response, you attempt to twist my words into something else. I am not going to waste my day responding to childish arguments. - auburnpilot talk 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I am trying to understand the meaning of what you're trying to convey. If it's merely IWANTIT, and the rest is a smokescreen, fine, so be it. But sometimes there's a kernel of truth that someone isn't conveying in the way that they'd like, or in a way that's being understood by others. So I'm doing my utmost to give you the benefit of the doubt, and figure out what you're trying to convey about the "how" of it being useful for collaboration. And incidentally, "childish arguments"? Right. I think you could do with a bit of WP:AGF yourself. (And please, feel free to quote WP:AAGF to me...) I'm trying to give you a chance to explain yourself fully, and you're being belligerant. Your preconceived notions about me are seriously not helping you here. - jc37 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AuburnPilot, you admitted at the UCFD that you have not been contacted for either your affiliation with Auburn or for your help because you're a pilot. How can you say these aid in collaboration when you have no proof that it does? Do you want to keep them around "just in case"? --Kbdank71 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I've said was that I cannot prove anybody has ever contacted me because of a category, but I have personally used these categories and others. As I stated elsewhere, I've never gone to another user's talk page and stated "Hey, I found you in Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: XYZ, let's collaborate" but I have contacted users who I've found through these cats (I suspect the case to be the same for other users). That's how I know. Do you have proof that these don't aid in collaboration? Further, I find your question "Do you want to keep them around "just in case"?" to be rather odd; if a category has any potential to aid in collaboration, why would you want to delete it? - auburnpilot talk 19:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jc37, do you think it is a conflict of interest for an admin to close a CFD debate when he has previously nominated the same category for deletion? KnightLago 19:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to AGF, but after looking at the facts, good faith is hard to find. The admin nominated this category for deletion, and it was kept. A few months later it was nominated again, and he closed it admittedly against consensus. That seems to be a pretty clear case of personal views conflicting with administrator responsibilities to me. KnightLago 20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Either we nuke all user categories (which I don't think is all that bad of an idea), or we leave the ones that are helpful for collaboration. The consensus was unbelievably overwhelming that this category is useful for collaboration, and that's hardly difficult to believe or understand. Last I checked, we're here to write an encyclopedia. If the community believes this category contributes to that end, then it stays. Period. Clear overstep and subversion of deletion process. Additionally, as others have noted, it is incredibly inappropriate for demon to have closed it given his/her past participation, and it makes me seriously question their judgment. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I have used this category to ask other more experienced Aggies around here for help and guidance as I may or may not know them. On a few Aggie related articles, I have seen a quite a few people with the category on their user pages collaborate, extend, revise, and improve articles. Quite a few are now FA/A class and have been on the front page. spryde | talk 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further comment, I know I saw the A&M userbox before I even knew there was a Wikiproject related to Texas A&M. spryde | talk 20:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I am concerned that the decision making process may have been tainted. clariosophic 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The discussion here is not about the category itself but about the closer's decision. I believe that the closing administrator seriously erred both in his application of policy and in closing a discussion in which he was a participant. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 21:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Arbitrarily picking the side of an XfD that you disagree with and deciding to hold their arguments to an unreasonable level of epistemological certainly is really not called for in XfD decisions. No one has proven beyond theoretical epistemological uncertainty that these categories will be useful. Yet an overwhelming consensus agreed that the categories were substantially useful, or at least that there was a reasonable likelihood of them being so. There's no need to make everyone dig out a thousand old diffs. Any UCfD precedent-based argument supporting the close is severely weakened, perhaps to the point of negligence, by the large size and balanced representation of this UCfD relative to most others in recent months which have been driven by a small handful of specific editors, together not representative of the community's views. — xDanielx T/C 21:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Wikipedia works by consensus. An administrator should not use his or her interpretation of policies and guideline to ignore such an obvious display of consensus as was displayed in this case at CSD, even if the consensus is based on bad arguments. Our policies and guidelines can not be interpreted by a machine. We rely on consensus to interpret them, not on the views of one administrator. --Bduke 21:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I won't comment on the appropriateness of the close, but probably all user cats other than those associated with something that indicates collaboration ought to go; you've managed to delete all the sexual minorities categories, now the "my diploma's better than yours" categories go, probably a loss we can live with. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can live without them... but why would be want to? — xDanielx T/C 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per everyone. The amount of effort that seems to go into preventing humans from behaving like social beings on Wikipedia is beyond my understanding. SparsityProblem 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per everyone above. Closing admins should seek to assess the serious consensus in regards the application of the policies to the matter at hand, not impose their own personal interpretation of the policies and ignore consensus. It is also extremely unwise to be the closing admin on an issue you have proposed in the past - yes there may have been good faith but closing admins must strive to avoid being seen to be biased, especially when they themselves acknowledge that the close decision is likely to surprise many. Timrollpickering 23:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse Consensus in a smaller context such as an XfD cannot override consensus in a larger context, in this case WP:NOT. WP:CONSENSUS makes this quite clear. Those eager to cite that policy should reread it before making frivolous demands of admonishment. The closer did the right thing and frankly I think that those who were quick to take this issue to ANI before giving the closer a chance to respond (some admins do have a life you know) are the ones who should be admonished for violating WP:AGF. If thinking so makes me an evil deletionist then so be it. EconomicsGuy 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but neither was that a vote. It was a discussion and the decision was taken against the preponderance of the considered views which were expressed. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Closed against consensus. Pretty straightforward. There is no overarching policy to justify this close. Tradition, precedent, and personal opinion should never be involved in the decision to choose to delete. (disclaimer: my opinion at the xfd was to keep the cats) --- RockMFR 00:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and admonish per KnightLago. Also, please remember that the purpose of reviewing the deletion is not to, once again, rate the category, but rather to assess the process of deletion that occurred. —Noetic Sage 00:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and rethink the entire basis for how UCFD is operating. There's essentially no governing policy or guideline for user categories at all, and apparently, some resistance to ever having one. (Some of them could in theory be nominated for being "nonsense", empty, or divisive, but that's not in practise what this process if busying itself with.) So basically what we have is a series of arguments from ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, and knotty series of alleged precedents, that no-one has even attempted to refactor into a coherent description of good practice in this area. (Many of these "precedents" being established in patchily-attended "votes", what's more.) As resolving these issues is hardly an urgent matter, this seems to be a recipe for creating a lot of heat out of nowhere, with little prospect of much in the way of light. Certainly, unless and until some reasonable provisions are put in place for what is and isn't appropriate in user categories, "whimsical closes" are the last thing we need. Alai 01:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, closed against consensus, and I'm not especially thrilled that almost 700 categories could get deleted "submarine style", as it were, without any attempt to gain wider consensus, shoy (words words) 02:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and seek a review of the entire process by which a very large number of user categories have been eliminated by a small group on this discussion page since approximately June of this year. I was one of the original votes to delete, and although I stated it poorly, my intention with that delete was to increase the quorum of interested editors in the process. To be clear, my argument is not just with this one case, but with the policies and process that has led up to it.Michael J Swassing 04:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: As a participant in the CFD discussion, I was shocked at the result. I'm not especially surprised, afterward, to read that the closing admin had previously nominated the same categories for deletion. So we have: (a) decision process corrupted by COI, (b) disregard for overwhelming consensus, and (c) militant deletionism pursued against common sense with pedantic single-mindedness. This kind of episode unnecessarily erodes the commitment and good will of valuable members of our community. Kestenbaum 06:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Even if you disagree with the closer please do try to respect WP:CIVIL. You are not doing your side of the dispute any favors by resorting to incivility and bad faith assumptions. That kind of attitude is going to backfire so don't do it to begin with. EconomicsGuy 12:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ok lynch mob, here I am. I'll make a statement and once again you can rip it apart, take it out of context and generally convolute everything I'm about to say. First and foremost, I ask everyone to please assume good faith. Just because you think there is a conflict of interest doesn't mean there actually is one. Did anyone ever ask me about my nomination of those awhile ago? Nope? Oh, so we just started accusing? Ok then, for the first and only time: I don't even remember nominating those. I've deleted over 20000 things, nominated dozens upon dozens of things for UCFD (several mutli-noms as well), MFD, TFD, you name it. I can't even remember half the pagenames of crap from Wikipedia: space I've MFD'd within the last month. I saw this debate and decided to close it. Simple as that. Now, complain about my rationale all you want, that I can take. But please before you assume and start accusing me, at least have the common decency to ask me. ^demon[omg plz] 12:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - The Keep comments were all WP:ILIKEIT and "It's harmless." I believe ^demon made a valid argument that the remaining Rename comments were inappropriate due to pushing users into categories they may not wish to be a part of. With that out of the way, the Delete comments had valid policy reasons and a stronger argument. I see no procedural error here to overturn the decision. -- Kesh 13:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect. The keep comments were not as you have described them. The only policy reason given in support of deletion was WP:NOT - specifically, the line "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration". It was argued that these categories were being used for collaboration. --- RockMFR 14:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Save us 222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Save us.222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Save Us.222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Save Us.X29 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
SAVE US.222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Save Us 222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There's some controversy on Chris Jericho's Wikipedia page about people constantly adding information about his rumored return. These "Save_Us.222" promos have been airing on WWE programming for 2 months. I created the Save Us 222 page with the hopes of providing information on the topic but it was quickly up for deletion. While I understand Wikipedia is not meant for speculation or rumors, the promos are a huge storyline...At the very least, I suggest at least redirecting the "Save_Us.222" page to either Chris Jericho or WWE so that people stop creating this page. I think WWE fans are coming to Wikipedia looking for answers about this storyline, and a redirect page would probably deter users from recreating a speculation page. 68.55.189.254 03:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE There also is User Save Us.222 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) -- Jreferee t/c 13:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have any news sources run stories on Save Us 222? -- Jreferee t/c 06:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • None that I have heard from, other than on the wrestling insider sites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rederick (talk • contribs)
  • There has been gobs of coverage on professional wrestling web sites, which should always be taken with a pound of salt. Most of these sites have no journalistic integrity, deal in rumors and speculation, and just as often make stuff up and rip off more credible sites than care about accuracy. There are two or three reliable pay sites out there with some general journalistic standards that have done reporting on the issue (pwinsiderelite.com, for instance), but none have been able to say that the videos definitely represent Jericho (and even if they could, it would be off un-named sources), nor have any definitively reported on a return date (and all the rumored return dates, at least four so far, have passed). I have never seen any legitimate, non-wrestling related coverage of the campaign, which is really quite minor in scope (one muddled less-than-30 second commercial per WWE program, and now t-shirts, apparently). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted and then redirect to the wrestler linked to it once it is revealed I've made my reasons very well known since I was one who proposed the deletion of this page. Saying that Chris Jericho, or anyone is speculation, and redirecting to Chris's or anyone elses page is also considered speculation. This will no longer be the case when the person behind the videos is known. --Raderick 06:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With every single instance of anyone creating a save_us.222 page, it has always been nothing but speculation and ham-fisted fan analysis, and there has never been one bit of verifiable third party sources. WWE has never said the save_us.222 promos are for Jericho, and despite doing a nationwide book tour and numerous media appearances, Jericho has never said that he is connected to the campaign, nor that he is even returning for sure (although most fans, including this one, believe otherwise). There has never been any notable independent third party media coverage of the commercials. And because of over zealous fans who have no concern for our policies on original research and verifiability, the article on Chris Jericho has had to be protected (with the exception of a day or two where I mistakenly thought I could give folks the benefit of the doubt) since September 22 because of this issue. The only thing that will be served by unprotecting these pages will be creating a mass forum of terrible analysis and rumors. The only thing that can even be verifiably stated on the campaign is "Save_us.222 is a series of viral commercials started by WWE in September." Thats it. Wikipedia is not a rumor board, we have policies for this kind of thing for damn good reason. No redirects, no recreations, leave salted for the good of the Encyclopedia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted until such time as something is actually confirmed about the whole thing. At the moment, there's zero documented information about this campaign; the wrestling gossip sheets have tied it to Jericho, but knowing the WWE, it could turn into just about anything before it wraps up. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and SALT all attempts at recreation - Serious OR issues over a viral marketing campaign that has no notability claim. -- Gogo Dodo 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and come back here with an article in userspace before another end run around the community's decision. Carlossuarez46 22:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salting; eventual creation of a redir page to whoever it turns out to be; all per Raderick and Gogo Dodo. --Orange Mike 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salt until it is revealed who SAVE_US.222 is meant to be then redirect to that article. –– Lid(Talk) 04:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with salting. The protection can be dropped later if needed although that is not likely. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 12:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The_Features (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

They meet several of the qualifications listed in Notability (music). Here is an article from the BBC about their first release. Here's an article from the Manchester Evening News detailing a concert from their UK tour in 2004-2005. Here's a detailed profile from the Nashville Scene that details how they were dropped from their label for refusing to cover All You Need Is Love. Granted, that's not a news magazine, but it is reputable enough to be reliable and outlines the band's history. Their music has also been used as the background for at least one commercial (for CBS) and they do the theme to the ABC TV show Carpoolers. They've also had major US radio airplay with their song "Blow It Out", and while I can't find definitive proof of that, here's their page on MTV. Vcalzone 15:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was the deleting admin. I have no objection to re-creation provided the article is clearly sourced to third-party publications. In any case, this was deleted through proposed deletion so technically, there's nothing really standing in the way of re-creation. Pascal.Tesson 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Daniel Geduld – Deletion overturned with the consent of the original deleter, sent to AfD, with both the article and AfD semi-protected. I've removed the BLP-problematic revisions, which are (unsurprisingly) mostly the work of anonymous IP editors. An AfD under semiprotection should resolve most issues. While merging is certainly an option, the AfD may reveal more sources, or may find a different approach is warranted. – Xoloz 14:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Daniel Geduld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I deleted this article under WP:CSD#G10. In double-checking my action, I saw that a prior admin had declined a G10 nomination and taken it to AFD. There are a few versions in the history that may not violate WP:BLP, and there are some keep opinions in the now closed AFD. But the article has generally been in a state that does not comply with WP:BLP for much of its existence. Was I correct to delete? Should it be overturned for an AFD? GRBerry 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and undelete at least the 06:40, 6 November 2007 revision, which does not seem to be speedy deletable under BLP. Claims of importance, sourcing... this might be a bit of vanity but this should go through AFD to decide whether he meets WP:BIO. The fact that there are some BLP violations in some revisions is a good reason to revert or delete those revisions, not the whole article. --W.marsh 15:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article was speedily deleted by two separate admins, who both then brought it to an AFD (or in this case, a review) because a small number of editors lobbied that the subject met WP:BIO. These are the same editors who want to maintain this article as an attack page for this man so they can continue to defame him. All the editors who want the article kept are members of the SomethingAwful Forums who have a longstanding grudge against Daniel "FlyingSquid" Geduld. This includes the article's creater rubber cat, one of the major editors Dans1120 and most, if not all, of the anonymous address. Dans1120's edits in particular were part of this thread he posted on those forums as an encouragement for others to deface the article further. Rubber cat also posts in that thread extolling Dans1120 for vandalizing the page. This article will not serve any other useful purpose than for those members to continue defaming FlyingSquid as long as they're able to. Cumulus Clouds 16:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that I haven't reversed myself, just brought it for review. It is a debatable action that needs review since I knew there was disagreement among admins as to whether this was the right thing to do. GRBerry 17:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the confusion. I'll retract that. Cumulus Clouds 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rubber cat (and others) created The Skeletor Show to cross reference the material in Geduld's article, and it has almost entirely the same information as Daniel Geduld's biography. Since Richard Kyanka (the owner of Something Awful) was merged into Something Awful it would make sense to me that the same should be done for Daniel Geduld's information into The Skeletor Show, his major work. While that work may carry some small degree of notability, the author himself is nonnotable and does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Cumulus Clouds 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is now mostly a discussion on notability and there is in fact a BLP compliant version, I would recommend we send this back to AfD for a full discussion. Protection might be advisable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - Cumulus Clouds posted on the talk page at 20:15, 5 November 2007: "Daniel Geduld is the user "FlyingSquid" on the Something Awful Forums, and this page has been created by his detractors to attack him on Wikipedia. Editors have attempted to insert controversial and demeaning opinions into the article with misleading references." Admin KieferSkunk reviewed the attack speedy delete request and posted at 23:07, 5 November 2007 "(rm {{db-attack}} - does not appear to be an attack page. Will nominate for AfD.)" Reliable source info Published information about Daniel Geduld doesn't appear until July 2007. (1) This July 20, 2007 article was picked up by many sources and (2) there is an August 11, 2007 detailed interview by National Public Radio. That seems to be about it, but likely is enough to meet WP:N. Conclusion - If there were BLP posting problems, the article could have been protected and blanked while the AfD discussion was going on. -- Jreferee t/c 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - I agree with the above discourse, mainly that I do not see clear evidence that the article itself is an attack page against the subject. Any attack elements in the page appear to be minor vandalism rather than the article itself being used as an attack page. Who knows, maybe I'm WP:AGF'ing a little more than I should be, but I see potential for a reasonable article. That said, I do not see that this particular person has enough independent info about him to warrant a Wikipedia article. I believe the article should be deleted because of notability issues (unless proven otherwise), but because it appears to skirt around the speedy-delete criteria, it deserves a formal (and full-term) AfD without a speedy-delete. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Information about Daniel Geduld might be merged to The Skeletor Show. Geduld is not sufficiently notable that it is worth devoting administrators to watch the article to protect it from BLP problems. What is interesting about Geduld is his voiceover work on cartoons, and The Skeletor Show seems to cover that. If there were a constituency of active editors that seemed likely to watch over the article and protect it against vandalism, my !vote could be different. Those participating here seem to be mostly admins concerned about proper procedure, rather than editors eager to maintain the article. EdJohnston 06:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Cold feet – Deletion overturned; relisting by normal editorial option. – Xoloz 14:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cold feet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD1|AfD2)

Was redirected to a symptom of a disease which is wrong, the article was considered a dic def till expanded with modern usage and history of use at the end of the vote. NOTE: the cached version doesn't have the additions made before deletion. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Comment History restored for this review, although I'm not sure why the deletion was necessary if the closure was for a redirect. Except in cases of edit wars or unacceptable content we don't usually delete the history behind a redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 07:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and mark as no consensus. I don't see the basis even for a "stronger argument" close here. Sure, it was a valid argument, but it certainly wasn't consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 10:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm not sure we need an article on this topic, but a redirect to Raynaud's phenomenon is odd to say the least. The only people who would be looking for Raynaud's disease or syndrome by typing "cold feet" into Wikipedia's search engine are people who would be better served by WebMD. Most people searching for "cold feet" are looking for information on the idiomatic use of the phrase, and should minimally be directed to Wiktionary. Powers T 14:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Raynaud's phenomenon is more than just a case of cold feet or cold hands. -- Jreferee t/c 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to the point, "cold feet" is more than just Raynaud's phenomenon. =) Powers T 03:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletion; no consensus in the AFD to delete the article. There is also no clear consensus as to where to redirect; multiple posisbilities were suggested and all have some good and bad points. And, at the end, the article was expanded and a source pointed out, so there isn't any clear consensus that redirection at all is appropriate. Whether to expand on the phrase or not, and if not where to redirect can be discussed in other venues that are more appropriate. GRBerry 14:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn ; no consensus in the AFD to delete.Seemsan adequate stub article. DGG (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my) deletion - at deletion, the article remained a dictionary definition, which was the reason for nomination, and was not addressed during the course of the AFD. There was only three arguements for keeping. There were 6 suggesting the article was unsuitable. The consensus that the article shouldn't be here was strong. The fact they could not decide whether it should redirect to Reynaud's phenomenon or Cold Feet shouldn't mean we should keep a validly-deleted dictionary definition in the meantime. Neil ☎ 16:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Arguments that the redirect is going to an inappropriate article are editorial discussion, and not a procedural issue with the deletion. There is nothing to prevent someone from turning the redirect into a disambiguation page and creating a new, sourced article on the idiomatic use of "cold feet." --Kesh 13:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You clearly didn't read the discussion. This is not about the target of the redirect, but that there is no mandate to delete/erase the edit history, especially if the closing admin admits there might be a feasible article on the topic. ~ trialsanderrors 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - if the article was simply a dictionary definition that is fine but going off the AfD there was no consensus on that matter either, let alone to redirect to Raynaud's. In my opinion the article should be a disambiguation page rather than a redirect with a specific listing of the common phrasing "to get cold feet" with the listing connecting the user to wiktionary. The phrase does not need an article but would probably be one of the main reasons someone would search for "Cold feet". –– Lid(Talk) 04:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wahroonga Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The majority of the delete arguments were made prior to a substantial change to the article with seven references being added from a major Sydney newspaper plus a local newspaper. The only response to these references was one user who claimed that the material in the references were trivial, rather than the topic being mentioned trivially (ie. casually). The content of the articles is not material to notability. While the article is not up to scratch, that is not a reason to delete the article. Assize 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn This is among the better primary school articles & there are sources to show its important in its area.DGG (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my) deletion. The change was not substantial, and as best I could tell consisted of adding every URL with a passing trivial reference to the school to the article. Also, DGG, this is not AFD II. You are duplicating your "keep" argument. Please explain why you believe the closure was invalid, rather than making the same argument - this will help me to learn if my perception of policy and consensus was amiss, or whether you just don't like anything being deleted. Neil ☎ 16:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - The arguments to keep were very weak. However, it is Articles for Deletion, not why should the article be kept. When it comes to public schools, there usually is enough reliable source material available for the topic. The delete reasoning should establish why there would not be enough reliable source material available for the topic. In the AfD discussion, the delete reasoning focused on the absence of reliable sources in the article but did not address the likelihood of reliable sources being out there. Since the delete reasoning was not sufficient and the keep reasoning very weak, no consensus seemed to be the consensus. Comment Hornsby Advocate and The North Shore Times have many articles on Wahroonga Public School going back to June 2001. -- Jreferee t/c 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per Jreferee. Whenever reliable sourcing is added, previous objections about reliable sourcing are defunct.Noroton 23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG and Jreferee. At the very least this article should have been merged to the suburb article given the information that was in it and several editors asked for that if the consensus was leaning towards delete. Deletion was not an acceptable outcome. JRG 23:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 November 2007[edit]

  • Katie Bramall – There is no real consensus here for anything. Upon inspection of the article, there doesn't appear to be any super-urgent issues or similar. Given this was a speedy delete and there's no clear consensus here for it to remain as such, I have overturned it and relisted. From there, whatever result which should of occured, will occur...hopefully. – Daniel 08:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Katie Bramall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

An ephemeral stub, requesting a review to give opportunity for someone to develop further. She progressed to the next round of UK's Mastermind tonight and has several other TV appearances [125] and is a GP-Registrar/Doctor. Used hangon, but erased before message on talk page. -Ricksy 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy deletion, appearing on quiz shows does not make someone notable. AecisBrievenbus 00:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy as the original speedie-er. College student who participated in some minor quiz shows, and who wants to be a doctor. I really can't see how any of this is notable. It was speedied twice, btw. Would much rather see bios on her profs! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion - Inadequate assertion of notability. Plus, isn't it wrong to say that a doctor intends to specialize in general medicine? Caknuck 01:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion (both times) she's nn, no assertion of notability - going on to a next round of a game show or reality show doesn't cut it. Carlossuarez46 02:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this person qualified as a Dr. four years ago (GMC ref#.6077635) and The Guardian paper article on her quiz involvement dates back to 2001 (reliable sources). Wondering if the flurry of endorsements above is at all biased by The Pond since I've noticed an article for a spelling-bee kid has survived challenges for almost eighteen months. This immediate deletion without consideration for non-admins to peruse at AfD precludes giving those other contributors chance to embellish the article; FWIW Mastermind is reputed to be the BBC's elite quiz contest. -Ricksy 04:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. The Guardian article mentions her once in passing, and being a doctor is not notability; Wikipedia is not a directory of medical professionals, no matter how impressive the sheepskin may be to friends and family. Note that spelling bees are formal academic competitions. If there are more sources about her quiz show notoriety at some point, feel free to return, but I don't see how there's any justification for notability as of today. --Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Trivial mention in The Guardian and appearing on a quiz show is not enough to be notable. It doesn't if they appeared on Mastermind or It's Academic, they've got to be notable for something else. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 12:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. It makes just sufficient claim of importance to pass speedy. I can't see how it will pass AfD, so I suggest the author withdraw the article until she reaches a higher level at least. But still speedy is only for nothing that might possibly be thought important in good faith.-The other article mentioned above is at AfD [126], headed for a deletion this time.DGG (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion Pretty clear speedy, and I'm no fan of running AfDs for things that could never possibly have a chance of being kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD - Winning appearance on Mastermind and other TV shows gets it past A7. The only info I could find was that she was on the British Medical Association Junior Doctors Committee in May 2007, where she express a no confidence opinion about the leadership of the BMA's Junior Doctors Committee (JDC). See Hospital Doctor (May 3, 2007) JDC leaders survive no confidence vote. The Katie Bramall article may not survive AfD, but it would be better to have such an AfD consensus on record than to continue to speedy delete under A7. -- Jreferee t/c 18:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There is clearly an assertion of notability, so fails the speedy criteria, which are intended only for non-controversial, clear-cut cases. As this one is clearly controversial (obvious, as there is actually a controversy right here!), it should be resolved through AfD instead. --Delirium 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at Afd. Per above, notability was asserted. Speedy deletion isn't really meant for articles with minor claims to notability. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Clear-cut A7. "Winning performance" on a quiz show is not a claim of notability, or we would have to accept articles on anyone who has ever won a round at Jeopardy. ~ trialsanderrors 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list Clear cut assertion of notability (winning the show) in the article. Many of the above arguments are appopriate to AFD not DRV. I make no prediction of the AFD outcome. GRBerry 14:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - there were assertions of notability, so speedy deletion wasn't valid. Neil ☎ 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Grant Street – Encourage recreation. Personally, I believe the street is likely to be notable; however, with the lack of sources in the deleted draft, closer's decision cannot be considered erroneous. The simplest way to fix this problem is for someone to perfect a draft, for which purpose I will be happy to userfy upon request. – Xoloz 14:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Grant Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notability concerns were met by sources such as [127] and [128]. The argument was that this wasn't enough for the "relevant guideline", WP:USRD/NT#City streets, but this guideline comes from the "road" side; there's also a "street" side of things, in which streets are parts of a city rather than facilities to carry traffic. As a traffic facility, Grant Street may not be notable, but as a part of Pittsburgh it certainly is. NE2 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn there seem to be sufficient reliable sources to cover this accurately. We don't need to delete articles to save disk space. --W.marsh 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - it's a street; there are some buildings on it, the source could be the yellow pages; but it's NN. What reliable sources give significant coverage that this street is notable? When I saw the title I assumed that it was the (likely more famous) street that is the heart of San Francisco's Chinatown. But, the one here is basically a list of buildings that can be found on the street - similar lists could be constructed for virtually every street in the downtown area of every world city. No coverage of the street per se=No notability. Proper close. Carlossuarez46 02:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you look at the sources I provided, especially [129]? --NE2 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - consensus supported deletion. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no consensus in the AFD. --NE2 07:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my) deletion. I saw a consensus, rooted in policy, to delete. Neil ☎ 10:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What policy is that? You cited a WikiProject subpage. --NE2 13:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOT a directory, as the article was primarily a list of addresses. WP:RS, the sources were not about the street, they were about things that happened to be on the street. The applicable wikiproject guidance suggested non-notability. If you don't like the guidance, work with the Wikiproject to change it. Neil ☎ 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Didn't look like there was a consensus in the AfD for a delete. Deletion rationale by closing admin was based on a guideline that isn't even a guideline. If anything, run through AfD again. --Holderca1 talk 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not a case of counting numbers. If arguments to "keep" or to "delete" are poor or based on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, they can rightly be assigned less weight. Neil ☎ 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of that, but in my opinion, the delete votes carry very little or no weight since they are based off a subpage of a Wikiproject, not guideline or policy. It passes WP:N bases on the sources above. --Holderca1 talk 17:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation of a guideline or an essay is not (IMO, at least) a suggestion that the AfD must follow that guideline/essay, in my experience it's used as a shortcut for "this essay/guideline follows my opinion on the subject, and it's easier to cite the shortcut than to rewrite the entire page here." Corvus cornix 18:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that subpages that are neither policy or guideline are sufficient rationale for deleting articles? That would be like me creating a subpage of articles that I don't like and setting a standard for what they would have to do to be kept, then nominating them for deletion based on that page. Policies and guidelines have to go through a review process and be accepted by the community, essays and wikiproject subpages do not. --Holderca1 talk 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not saying that at all. What I tried to say is, that when I or somebody else uses them as a discussion point, it's to say, "this is my reasoning, this page explains what I'm trying to say." And nobody is stopping you from creating a subpage in your User space which explains your thinking on a subject, and then pointing to it to explain your arguments. Corvus cornix 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It seems to be the principal business street, or one of them. Article needs some more sources to show this clearly, however. DGG (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation - Substantial new information would meet WP:N concerns raised in the AfD. Rename article to include Pittsburgh in it. -- Jreferee t/c 18:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per NE2's new sources, which prove notability and provide substantial new information. Noroton 23:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per deleting admin's judgment above. —Scott5114↗ 01:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC) (nominated article for deletion)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and use the source referenced here to expand History of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The one independent source mentioned is clearly discussing the street as an aspect of the history of Pittsburgh. The deleted article was a directory of addresses, contrary to WP:NOT#DIR. If there is any reason for having an article on this street, it will be as a sub-article on Pittsburgh's history. Such a sub-article, if sourced, will be substantially different from the deleted article for two reasons - first in topic, second in being sourced. GRBerry 14:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - WP:CONSENSUS was for keep and that was ignored. Major street in very large city. NE2's added sources demonstrates further notability. --Oakshade 16:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I created this article earlier today. A couple hours later it disappeared, which is a problem in itself because it does not meet any criteria for speedy removal. Nor did the person who made the change identify himself or herself.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_to_Patent was redirected to "Public participation in patent examination", which is not an adequate location for its discussion. I left several reasons for a stand-alone page about Peer to Patent on the discussion page, which of course was removed as well. Therefore, I'm including the rationale here. Please explain why these criteria do not justify the existence of the article.

I've felt for several months that it's time for a Wikipedia entry on Peer to Patent. It has set down roots with its pilot at the USPTO, which represents an historic evolution in policy-making that is certain to be cited by future attempts to engage the public in discourse with government bodies. The project has been featured in the Washington Post, Forbes, the Economist, Technology Review, Wired Magazine, Science Magazine, and Nature Magazine, and has been highlighted on National Public Radio's Science Friday. (Disclosure: I wrote the article in the Economist.) Thus, it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Further establishing the criterion of long-term notability, Peer to Patent is widely known among people interested in the patent system, as shown by repeated features on Dennis Crouch's Patently Obvious (Patently-O) blog, and has had an impact on policy discussions in the area of patenting.

Andrew Oram, Editor, O'Reilly Media, http://praxagora.com/andyo/ 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I took the action you suggested. This is a situation where it's easy to get confused, because case sensivity matters in some situations but not others. I did a search for "Peer to patent" and saw there was no page, so I created it. I didn't think of searching for "Peer to Patent" (which is actually a better spelling).Andrew Oram, Editor, O'Reilly Media, http://praxagora.com/andyo/ 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kersal Massive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted back in February for being unsourced. However, notable sources do now exist, including from major newspapers and magazines such as The Guardian and Vice ([130]). The former content of the article was also largely patent nonsense (claiming that the band had Thomas Hardy like social realism!), so I don't especially want that restored, but the title has been protected, so a decent article can't be created. I'll admit that it is still at the lower end of WP:WEB, but given that it has been covered by newspapers, I think that it definitely qualifies better than half of the rest of Category:YouTube videos. Laïka 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Parking Lot is Full (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted back in February by Majorly (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Parking Lot is Full. However, it was restored by Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 04:19, 2 November 2007 with the given reason "enough conversation on irc states this does meet notability criteria...". Now, I like IRC, but I think on-wiki and not there is the place to review decisions. So, I bring it here for review. Docg 16:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to !voters: - Alkivar has left Wikipedia. Rudget Contributions 16:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, but we still need a decision on the article.--Docg 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it's just drawing attention to the fact that the recreating user has left Wikipedia, and therefore may not participate in questions that may be asked. Rudget Contributions 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A relisting seems logical. Neil ☎ 16:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why?--Docg 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The AFD was borderline. A relisting can rubberstamp things one way or the other. Neil ☎ 10:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD/Overturn recreation. - The AfD close was a valid interpretation of the consensus. The reasoning on IRC is irrelevant. Recreation of an article need only overcome the reason for the deletion, which in this case was lack of enough reliable source material. As for the sources now listed in the article, comicscom.html provides a sentence of reliable source information. I did a search and could not find anything else. As for the remaining sources now listed in the article, Fadetoblack.com provides no information that would support Fadetoblack.com being a Wikipedia reliable source. groups.google.com uw.general is a blog. groups.google.com alt.zines is a blog. plif.andkon.com is not independent from the topic. DRV is the place to evaluate substantial new information. There is no substantial new information that overcomes the AfD deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW: groups.google.com is not a blog. It's usenet, not that it matters much for reliable sources rules. The content of the post is slightly more interesting. If true, it means the comic may have appeared in print? --Kim Bruning 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two print collections listed on the comic's webstore. Can't tell who printed them or what kind of run they had, though. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It also appears that it ran in print regularly in this magazine, which claims a per-issue print run of around 25,000. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD (re-delete) If some kind of wonderous new sources or additional notability came up in an IRC chat, Alkivar could and should have simply listed the matter here at DRV. Restoring it based on unspecified IRC chats is not only contradictory to policy but a direct slap in the face to the accessable discussion-based consensus upon Wikipedia was founded to operate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the event that people decide to re-delete this, a transwiki to Comixpedia would be nice, as our version is a lot more detailed than theirs is. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I note that the original AFD discussion was actually quite closely balanced, indeed some closing admins would have chosen to keep it as "no consensus" rather than delete based on that discussion. --Stormie 23:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD (redelete). Completely out of process. I have a feeling that Alkivar was making a statement of somesuch. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD and possibly relist--we cannot base decisions about article on irc. it was repeated poor judgement in admin actions which led to Alkivar's departure. DGG (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing the AFD, I think it was closed appropriately. IRC is not an appropriate venue for forming consensus on anything, so Alkivar's overturn is supported solely by his willingness to undelete. Looking at the article, one new reliable source has been added since the AFD, an article at/in The Comics Journal primarily focused elsewhere. It says little about this particular comic. It tells us that it is published at a "online collective of lesser-known artists", is by the authors, "features single panels (although black on white again) with genuinely intriguing texts (...), and yet the site is most recognizable for remaining up since 1995." I don't object to a relisting. I think the result will be a clear consensus that the reliable and independent sources to support an article don't exist. Based on the one unquestionably reliable and independent source that we have, this comic would be better merged either to the collective that publishes or even better to List of early webcomics if that is created. GRBerry 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD, recreated with some strange reasoning, no fundamental changes to article since AfD, no need to relist. Fram 15:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ME/CVS Vereniging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted while no concensus was reached on the AfD. One non-Dutch discussion participant appeared to think that the association is only mentioned in passing, while 2 Dutch participants were trying to explain otherwise. A Belgian user could still have gone either way. Three voters for deletion and one for keep did not participate in the discussion. Meanwhile, there were still improvements made to the article. Guido den Broeder 13:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. Due process was followed by the closing admin. Nominating editor (me) is Dutch too. JFW | T@lk 13:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my) closure - cross posting from my reply to Guido on my talk page: I thought there was a consensus to delete. Ignoring any accusations of bad faith (concidentally, bad faith in themselves), of the six arguments for deletion (one weak), most cited few reliable independent sources, failure to meet WP:CORP, and no indication of notability. The three arguments to keep (one weak) revolved around asserting the topic was notable, and had many reliable independent sources. In making a closing judgement, I thought the balance of the arguments was towards deletion. Review of the article failed to show many reliable independent sources. Neil ☎ 13:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Referenced independent sources include: media coverage, Dutch scientific journal, CG-Raad, ZonMw, CBO. Regards, Guido den Broeder 14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Please specifically list in this DRV the independent sources in a way that will allow a review of the amount of material they provide about the topic. This will help determine whether Neil's interpreation was correct. -- Jreferee t/c 16:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have had a look at the deleted article. Most of the references were reports and research from within the scientific community. I haven't been able to assess their relation to the subject of the article. I did come across the name G. den Broeder (nom?) a lot. At least one of the references was a reliable source independent of the subject: an article in Nederlands Dagblad, a Christian newspaper. AecisBrievenbus 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (1) "ME is géén aanstellerij" (2005), Nederlands Dagblad, May 10, (2) "ME-patiënten binden de strijd aan met vooroordelen" (2006), (3) Arnoldus RJW (2007), "Diagnose als daad" (discussion), with a reply by Huibers M and Wessely S, Maandblad Geestelijke volksgezondheid, 7/8 580-583, (4) 3B Platform CG-Raad, (5) Kamphuis HCM, Stukstette MJPM, Frijters JPM, Sonneveld RE, Kool RB (2007) "ME/CVS Vereniging. Uw organisatie gespiegeld", Verwey-Jonker Instituut, (6) ZonMw CFS programme, (7) Schipper DM, Burgers JS (2007), "Rapport knelpuntenanalyse richtlijn chronisch vermoeidheidssyndroom", CBO Guido den Broeder 17:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Most sources mention the ME/CVS Vereniging in passing. The ZonMW document doesn't mention it at all. When searching the Verwey-Jonker Instituut website there are no results for "ME/CVS vereniging". JFW | T@lk 15:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Verwey-Jonker Instituut lists the Vereniging as one of the reviewed patient organizations in their main monitor report. The review on the Vereniging itself is confidential. ZonMw mentions the ME/CFS patient organizations as a group, which includes the Vereniging. Guido den Broeder 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closer - I posted on talk page of several editors who may be able to read Dutch to get a better discussion on the content of the references. -- Jreferee t/c 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't read Dutch, but what I could tease out of the sources seemed to be problematic, mostly for failing to be independent or failing to be significant coverage. Point 2 mentions ME/CVS Vereniging once only. 4 does mention the organization several times, but it's difficult to determine what the link is for, it doesn't appear to be a national newspaper or something similar. 6 and 7 don't appear to mention the organization at all that I can see. If the organization is indeed notable, it is only hanging on to notability by it's fingernails. However, if it does indeed have enough grip, it deserves to stay. Unfortunately, I can't tell from what's linked. WLU 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorsing closure as executed and explained by Neil, taking into account the sources above and the article in the Dutch Wikipedia. This is a society with 200 members, and while an excellent cause, proabably not notable enough for the English-language Wikipedia. Yet also if it was just notable, Neil made correct decision in the AfD. BTW, I do speak Dutch. gidonb 18:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in favour on erring on the cautious side in AfD discussions. There seems to be discussion about grounds for deletion, hence I would say, keep the article. That only non-English (Dutch) sources are available should (as far as I know) not count for AfD discussions, non-English references are allowed (although not preferred), hence they should be taken on good faith by people without knowledge of Dutch. Arnoutf 18:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Dutch sources are clearly mostmany of them published by the organization itself, or reports of outside bodies which the organisation criticises. DGG (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Guido den Broeder 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • at least no.1, 2, 7, 9, 15, 16, are self-published. DGG (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, the article has been deleted, so these numbers tell us nothing. However, nobody claims that all the sources are there to prove the association's notability. References have several functions. Regards, Guido den Broeder 15:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Guido, when you say that "one non-Dutch discussion participant appeared to think that the association is only mentioned in passing", was that referring to me? I am non-Dutch but I am Dutch speaking (Flemish Belgian), so I am quite capable of noticing that in the available independent reliable sources, the association is only mentioned in passing, e.g. in the Nederlands Dagblad link mentioned above. OR am I the one you mean with "A Belgian user could still have gone either way."? Equally incorrect. Anyway, correct AFD and correct closure, no procedural mistakes, no new info, so no reason to overturn. Fram 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant WLU, but he seems to be changing his position now. Please note that the author of the book mentioned in that article is (on her website) of the opinion that it was her book that was mentioned in passing, and also that she is a member of the Vereniging.
    • As I understand it, the Afd procedure requires concensus, it's not a count of votes. Guido den Broeder 13:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lovely. My position has always been the organization deserves a wikipage if it is documented per WP:CORP - in reliable sources, independent of the entity, to a depth that is reasonable. My stance in the AFD and this page has been that the sources are tenuous, many are fraught with COI issues and lack independence, and do not clearly indicate notability. That they are in Dutch is crippling in both directions - it makes it hard to accept the references and hard to discount them. Hence deferring to contributors who read Dutch and are not themselves in horrible COI. I've also expressed a concern that the page appeared to be, and would probably in the future be at severe risk of coatracking the, IMO, eccentric position of Guido den Broeder. I have deliberately refused to give an opinion either way, instead listing the concerns I had a month ago, and still have. And the whole thing is leaving an increasingly bad taste in my mouth. WLU 15:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is interesting. Am I to understand that the real issue here is not really about the article, but about me? Could you specify what position you attribute to me, and why you judge it eccentric? Guido den Broeder 15:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't get your reference to "the author of the book". First, it is not impossible that different things are mentioned in passing in an article, so I fail to see why it is relevant that "the author of the book mentioned in that article is (on her website) of the opinion that it was her book that was mentioned in passing, and also that she is a member of the Vereniging.". It is irrelevant, and not entirely correct either. She says that "waarbij ook mijn boek wordt genoemd (laatste alinea's)"[131], which translates as "which also mentions my book (final paragraphs)". Mentioning in passing (as happened with the Vereniging) is not really the same as mentioning in the final paragraphs, as happened with the book. That the author is a member of the Vereniging is equally irrelevant, as it is not mentioned in the article, nor anywhere else on her website as far as I could see. Certainly her page "Wie ben ik"[132] ("Who am I") does not mention it, so it seems like the author doesn't think her supposed membership is important. Even more revealing is probably that the webpage of the Vereniging isn't even included on her page with links[133], even though other pages about ME are included. We've had this discussion before, on the talk page of the article. There you called Schonkert a prominent member. You also included her book in the article in the section "books written by members". This kind of repeated inclusion and mentioning of things which have next to nothing to do with the Vereniging but which seem important at first glance makes it hard for me to believe anything about other sources that are unavailable for us to check (like the Verwey-Jonker report), which means that there is finally very little left of independent reliable sources about the Vereniging. Fram 09:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it just means that you are not making the effort. [134][135] Guido den Broeder 10:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, the effort to do what? To make such a negative claim and then to give links to a portal page (as evidence of what? That Schonken is a member of the Vereniging? As for the second link... I was referring to your statement that "The review on the Vereniging itself is confidential." The page you listed mentions the vereniging in Appendix 4 as one of the participating organisations in the category small patient organisations (25-488 members). The ME/CSV Stichting, by the way, is mentioned as well, but in the category "large patient organisations (over 2,000 members)". SO we can't check the Verwey-Jonker report about the Vereniging, the main report only mentions the Vereniging in an Appendix, and your "prominent member" links on her website to a portal page that also has a link to the Vereniging, which would somehow mean that she is a member? Or did you have any other intention with this link? Anyway, you have been repeatedly asked to remain civil and to avoid personal attacks. Claiming that I am not making the effort after I have provided a lengthy post with lots of links (just like I did multiple times in the discussion on the talk page) is very unfriendly, and certainly when you follow it with one irrelevant link and one hardly enlightening one. Fram 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is you, rather, who is unfriendly. I am merely stating a fact, not a reproach. Nobody requires you to take the effort to check sources that are not readily available on the internet. But if you don't, you have no right to conclude that I am supplying you with false information, or that it is not possible to check it. Guido den Broeder 12:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • What fact? Which source have I not checked? The one you said was "confidential"? I can hardly check that one, and neither can anyone else. As for the other bit: do you have any evidence that Schonken is a member of the Vereniging, and secondly do you have any info that she considers that as important? Fram 12:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • You have not done any off-www checking. All you need to establish is that the review exists; I'm sure that if you just pick up the phone and call the Verwey-Jonker Institute (or Fonds PGO) that they will tell you. And yes, I have such evidence and info. Guido den Broeder 13:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For what it's worth, the Nederlandstalige Wikipedia article is at ME/CVS Vereniging. -- Jreferee t/c 22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is what the English article looked like, too, before notability was questioned. The deleted version is still available in google cache, as it appears: [136]. Guido den Broeder 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • New
    • Finally found proof of radio coverage: [137].
    • My interview on Regio TV Utrecht was recorded on September 14, 2005.
    • Additional coverage (from a short interview) is coming up in the magazine of Zorgverzekeraar Friesland, a health insurer. Guido den Broeder 10:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure with no prejudice to recreation when reliable sources are found. - After reviewing the AfD, I see no procedural issue with the close. Further, Guido den Broeder's new source above is of dubious use, as he already admits affiliation with ME/CVS. Being the subject of the interview, Guido den Broeder becomes the primary source of information from the interview. There appears to be a serious conflict of interest here which, combined with the numerous "citations" published from ME/CVS itself, make it difficult to establish a neutral article. I would suggest that Guido den Broeder rewrite an article in his User space, paying mind to use independant sources, and seek other editor's opinions before moving the article to mainspace. -- Kesh 13:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The radio interview was not with me. Anyhow, COI has no bearing on the relevancy or reliability of a reference, it is only a reason to take a better look. Guido den Broeder 14:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The article in Question was listed on AfD because it did not meet Notability. There was no consensus during the AfD discussion. I put some effort to extend the references (the article had a whole number of references) to enlarge the number of independent references. From my point of view the notability should be measured against Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

The primary criterion is defined as: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." In the discussions of the AfD there was from my point of view no discussion that this criterion was not met. The Organization had been subject to coverage and the sources where secondary and reliable/ independent. The AfD discussion was all about of the coverage was sufficient which from my view it is. Another chapter of the same policy deals exactly with "Non-commercial organizations": It reads: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization."

The organization is a national dutch organization that deals with the topic on several levels. The Information can be verified by references to http://www.steungroep.nl a very reliable and independent source to the organization. I want to emphasize that I have no links to the organization nor do I know anyone of the organization. I dived into the AfD, saw the emotional discussion ongoing and did improve the article and the referencing. Since I invested a lot of time in research and improvement of the article. I think the article on this non profit organization needs to stay in en.Wikipedia. Neozoon 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jewish subversion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closed as "useless trainwreck". Even by vote-counting there's a supermajority to delete, or at least merge to Antisemitic canard. "Relisting" an attempt to forum-shop. Its new "Allegations of..." title just proves it's NPOV, an oft-cited reason to delete in that debate. Will (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: AfD closed by non-admin. Will (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment making a comment on an AfD debate is not a vote as per WP:NOTAVOTE. There is no hope of a consenus coming from that particular debate. If there is need for a new debate then go ahead an open one. I don't see any good from coming from it though. All it's done is serve as a soapbox for various users.Bobby1011 11:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said "Even by". I know AFD != vote. Seeing as how you're citing policy, so will I: WP:DPR#NAC - "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." (emphasis mine) Will (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what now? I don't oppose you reopening the discussion. But I don't see it being anything other than flogging a dead horse. Bobby1011 12:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn and delete. I did not participate in the AfD. I agree with Sceptre that this is exactly the type of AfD which should not be closed by a non-administrator. Sam Blacketer 12:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Agree most votes were for deletion after relisting. Risks becoming a coatrack, nil that can't be covered in a more general article as suggested by most editors voting for deletion. JFW | T@lk 13:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment"Jewish subversion" is an antisemitic canard but each of the other canards at Antisemitic canard has its own article. Per Malik and others, "accusations of Jewish subversion date from Biblical times (Esther 3:8, perhaps even Exodus 1:10) and have been a near-constant theme in anti-Jewish politics since." We have people willing to edit but not willing to waste time until article is done from AfD process. Benjiboi 13:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have undone the specious and against guideline non-admin closure, and reclosed as "delete". Neil ☎ 13:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rational mysticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It is an important concept and title of a book by John Horgan. It is also an important concept to many Unitarian-Universalists and religious liberals. It is discussed and cited a number of times in various articles in the internet including one by the important author Sam Harris. Richard Dates 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As discussed here, I restored the article content on a subpage of RDate's userspace as an interim measure. — Athaenara ✉ 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored wholesale, per WP:PROD. Wikipedia is so incredibly non-user friendly that I have no idea how to close this thing, so someone... *grumble*Prodego talk 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

4 November 2007[edit]

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

UNDELETE_REASON Columnboy 17:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC) The page "Jack Smith (columnist)" seems to have been deleted by an administrator no longer with Wikipedia. (I'm a first-timer here; please excuse me if I misunderstood what I read or misunderstand the procedure.) I wrote a new suggested page for Jack Smith on Friday and it hasn't shown up. What can I do?[reply]
05:15, 16 December 2006 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) deleted "Jack Smith (columnist)" ‎ (expired WP:PROD as of 9 December 2006)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Claudia Ciesla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hi there! I think the decision to keep the Article was wrong! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Claudia_Ciesla

Person is non-notable! The articel doesn´t meets verifiability and reliability of sources! WP:V Sources not reliable. All sources that verify the Article-Informations are self-published sources by the Person who starts the Article about Claudia Ciesla and it is her own Press-Agent! Look at the Revision history of Claudia Ciesla:

23:42, 4. Nov. 2006 Kadenpress (Edited by Kadenpress, Greg Kaden, Photographer and Press-Agent, cooperating with Mrs. Claudia Ciesla since 3 years) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claudia_Ciesla&action=history

The Article says that she is an international celebrity and artist but we haven´t any english speaking sources! Two Sources are in German Language and non-notabel!

The References in the Article: 1. her personal web page 2. "Mayer, Petra. "Bodenhaftung trotz Höhenflugs", Frankischer Tag" (link or source isn´t available/ not Verifiability) 3. Claudias own Brianx-Profil (isn´t a third-party published sources because it is her own Portfolio - not a reliable source) 4. Hedemann, P (2006-04-16). "Tuning girl beweist: Bei mir ist alles echt". Bild. (link or source isn´t available/ not Verifiability ) 5. "Autobild Article, Supergirl 2006" (source is in German and non-notabel) 6. Model Mayhem profile (isn´t a third-party published sources - it is her own Profil or Blog - not a reliable source) 7. "Beach Baby Soap site" (source is in German and non-notabel) 8. "Miss T-Online Wahl 2006" Language: German (source is in German and non-notabel)

The sources are largely not acceptable as sources WP:SPS If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. WP:P

This doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. There are many models out there who are noted and have accomplished more than Ciesla but are not on Wikipedia. Ciesla is not a noted person and totally unknown even in Europe.

For Example look at the German and Poland Wikipedia: Not worthy for Wikipedia. So,if you keep Ciesla then you need to accept every article about unknown models. Nobody knows this woman in Germany or in her native Poland. The German Articel about Claudia Ciesla was been deleted too Wiki-nightmare 22:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. Haemo legitimately closed the discussion as no consensus, which does default to keep. It was hampered by a fairly poor rationale for deletion, I'm afraid, which you have improved on in your argument above. I suggest you cool things for a month and relist at AFD with the above rationale. DRV isn't meant for "second chances" at AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my closure — this was definitely a no consensus. There's some dodgy stuff going on surrounding this article, but I'm not sure how/what — the subject of the article commented in the last discussion claiming a bunch of possibly libelous things (hence the blanking).
  • Though this has nothing to do with the review, I would also remark that newspapers do not require a web-link in order to be verifiable sources. Verifiable does not mean "verifiable from my desk" — you could just go out and look up the articles. In addition, German sources are acceptable; this is the English Wikipedia, but in the absence of English sources, German are acceptable. Also, in the future, I would appreciate being notified when you call in my decisions for review. --Haemo 00:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm Sorry. I forgot to notified you that I think, that your decision was wrong. IMHO the AfD discussion isn´t a vote. Most of the User who have vote "Keep" say, that they think, that i starts a vendetta or vandalised the article before but that isn´t true! So that is the reason, why some people vote for a "keep"! Wiki-nightmare 01:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also been an edit war over including material about her (possible?} disqualification from a contest over (purported?) nude photos, with Wiki-nightmare being the major proponent of inclusion as "trivia". On the talk page, users have been discussing it, claiming that "nude" refers to "topless" but I don't speak German, so I can't weigh in. To me, it sounds totally irrelevant and slightly distasteful and makes this increasingly confusing. --Haemo 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - No consensus seems to be the consensus. The trouble with these article were the references are in a different language is that you need some experienced editors who can review the references. That they do not appear on the Internet is irrelevant and more of a basis for keeping than deleting (because others can't make it to the library). Dodgy stuff going on surrounding this article is another basis not to delete until we figure out what is going on. -- Jreferee t/c 17:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - What is going on with this article is that the publisher/photographer wants to keep the article. COI of course, but I can understand his reasoning anyway. And some (or just one) person(s) who for some reason really, really wants to delete this article, which I can't really understand. AFD was non-consensus, try it again in a couple of months, but this deletion review and the talk on the article's discussion page seems utterly pointless. Garion96 (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:i work normally only for the german wikipedia. this are my first steps in the english and maybe my last... Wiki-nightmare 07:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The english language wikipedia is the international wikipedia. The standards of the different Wikipedias can not be compared. In german Wiki it would not be possible to have articles on the cast of TV-series or video games which is normal on en.wiki. So stating that the article was deleted in de.wiki is not a valid argument for deletion. The article passes the three main criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) 1. why she is notable (because her fotos are printed and several articles about her published) (true) 2. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is followed (true) 3. the sources are independent of her and reliable (true) Article should be kept. Neozoon 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The english language wikipedia is the international wikipedia. Erm, says who? I'm sure there's a policy that says you're wrong, but I can't remember it offhand. JuJube 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Neozoon is right! I mean the Point about the German Wikipedia. We have severe rules of relevancy. Living people usually must have to reach a very high level of fame before writing an article is allowed. I´m sure one day Claudia Ciesla will be a very high level of fame and that is the Point in the German Wikipedia, that we allowed to creat an Article then, when a person is famous. (not maybe some time) But when a person will never become a very high level of fame-Status we have an Article of an non-famous Person in the German Wikipedia and we don’t like non-notable things on German Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia is approaching such quality problems from many sides: We simply use the deletion process discussed earlier to weed out poor articles. And we encourage high quality articles by providing extra recognition for an authors hard work as "Wikipedia:Exzellente Artikel" (means - excellent articles). Articles are more likely to be merged. For Exampel: a Person like Claudia Ciesla will never be allowed to have a own Article about herself but in a Article about "Bild Page 1 Girls" she will be find some Mentions. At last, the best argument for keeping the article is that we are not in the German Wikipedia. I can accept my failure! I see, the different between quality and quantity is the foreign language Wikipedia to the english Wikipedia. Wiki-nightmare 07:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
====
David Pearce (Australian soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Discussion was closed as keep by an account that has only been active for a week and has made significant contributions to the deletion discussion. I have no problem with the decision, just the method by which it was closed. Mattinbgn\talk 07:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call one comment which copied another users comment significant and if you have no problem with with decision then why complain? DPCU 07:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because closing a debate in which you clearly had a stake in is not independent. Also, I wonder how an account that has been active for less than a week has developed sufficient understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines to be able to close a discussion. I have been here for over a year and haven't closed a discussion yet. Either you haven't got the knowledge or experience to close a discussion or you are a sockpuppet. Take your pick. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will pick I had an account back in "20 September 2005" to be exact but left cause I did not have enough time and created this one cause I could not remember the password for the other one. Are you forgetting to WP:AGF? Didn't your mum tell you not to call people names? DPCU 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then in the interests of transparency you won't mind telling us your previous username. If you want to undertake admin-like tasks, transparency is required. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the closing editor writes "I'm interested in things to do with the Army" on his user page. Does the editor come with NPOV? WWGB 08:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes DPCU 08:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how was DPCU able to close the debate when he is not listed as an admin? WWGB 08:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non admins can close debates as keep, but I'm concerned about a two-day editor doing this. Something smells sockish about this. Orderinchaos 08:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment apart from the relevant guideline (WP:DPR) stating in the header: "People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest." the possibility of non-admin closes is described at WP:DPR#NAC which, per matt above, would also seem to rule out dpcu's closure.   ⇒ bsnowball  08:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - it can probably be immediately reclosed by an independent admin, but the close here is unsound. Orderinchaos 08:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - a number of issues were raised in the AfD and the discussion isnt necessarily a clear cut result, should be closed by an independent editor. Gnangarra 08:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist I voted for keep, but there seemed to be a strong consensus for deleting the article, so this result seems suprising. --Nick Dowling 08:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Ckfilm.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image deleted claiming invalid fair use rationale. I asked for an explanation as to why the fair use rationale was invalid and got no response. The use in the GA article The Cincinnati Kid seemed to be every bit as fair as every other of the eleventy-million film articles with posters. Kinda hard for me to fix a problem with a fair use rationale when no one bothers to say what the problem is. Also pretty amazing that an article with an invalid image could be rated as a Good Article. Undelete in the absence of a specific explanation as to the specific problem with the image. Otto4711 03:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711, I've restored the image, because my deletion was a mistake. I gave a more detailed explanation below. In the future, if I ever make a similar mistake again, I'd prefer you to ask me on my talkpage, instead of bringing it to deletion review. I consider DRV a venue to protest deletion after an AfD without discussion with the sysop, but not after a mistaken speedy deletion, where a simple note on the sysop's talkpage would suffice. Thank you, Maxim(talk) (contributions) 11:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on this particular fair use rationale without Special:Undelete, but considering that Maxim deleted 43 other images in the same minute he did this one (and his log makes it clear that he wasn't examining them beforehand), I'd certainly err on the side of trusting Otto4711's analysis over Maxims. Assuming no one objects, I'd go ahead and speedy undelete as a likely mistake. Anyone who decides to delete 10,000 images in a few days can expect plenty of those. — xDanielx T/C 09:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi XDanielx. You can be assured that I inspect every image I delete. I have tools that allow me to quickly inspect them, and once they're all inspected, I simply use the tool to quickly finish the job. However, I'm prone to mistakes, as all other admins, and this is one of those mistakes. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 11:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 November 2007[edit]

  • Zeitgeist (video) – Deletion endorsed. As several participants in this debate have said, because of the unfortunate history with this article, an unusually rigorous, fully sourced userspace version will be needed before this is ever undeleted. I find that an understandable position, and though WP:CSD#G4 does not expressly address articles that have been recreated many times, the community has made its views on the matter clear. – Chick Bowen 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zeitgeist (video) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache| (AfD | MfD | DRV#1 | DRV#2))

The article was nominated for G4 speedy deletion despite the fact that this was a new version of the article that had been written to be verifiable through reliable sources and to assert its notability. The article was deleted less than 2 minutes after being put up for speedy deletion. I didn't have a chance to add a hang on tag. If there were still improvements needed to the article I would have been happy to include them. This version of the article should not have been deleted or nominated as G4. Pdelongchamp 23:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - Here are some other similar articles that may have been deleted as well:
-- Jreferee t/c 10:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as CSD nominator. I didn't see any particularly reliable sources in the new version. - Crockspot 23:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please define "particularly reliable sources" and explain how they differ from "reliable sources". I want to assume good faith here but I can understand if you just saw another Zeitgeist article and wanted to delete it. I did go to the trouble of making it verifiable using reliable sources. I'm very pro WP policy and I'm concerned this new version may have been deleted somewhat carelessly. Pdelongchamp 00:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say that I studied each source, and the lack of a cached version makes it difficult for me to provide any examples, but I did not recognize any of the sources as being notable themselves. The topic was deleted previously for lack of reliable sourcing. Having some new weak sources does not seem to me to pass the bar of allowing recreation. - Crockspot 00:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're saying you didn't actually verify whether or not the source were reliable. This alone means the article should be restored and at the very least put through a proper RfD. Pdelongchamp 00:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't mean that. It is your opinion that it means that. Please don't put words in my mouth. - Crockspot 00:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken, however your claim that it contained "some new weak sources" is misleading. The article went from not containing any sources to being rewritten and completely sourced. The sources were reliable. If you can't argue otherwise than I don't see why we can't put this through RfD instead of speedy deletion. It's not that much to ask and there's a lot to gain from it. Pdelongchamp 01:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, The Stranger is a reliable source. There were a few others that I thought were fine too. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that was the source that I didn't think was particularly reliable, and it was one of the stronger sources. Again, recreation is not necessarily a reposting of the same content. The topic itself was deemed not notable, so any article on that topic, to me, would be a recreation, unless the new content established true notability. I didn't think it did. I still stand by my nomination. Now I would kindly ask that further participants not attempt to put words in my mouth, or make assumptions for me. - Crockspot 02:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Invalid G4. Article not remotely close to a recreation and was substantially different and more encyclopedic than the one to go through AfD. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wasn't the last discussion (or the discussion that wasn't speedy-closed because of frivolity) generally suggesting that an article on this be created in userspace and presented here for consideration before it's posted? I seem to recall that, anyhow, and might suggest that here. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remember that, also. I can't read the latest incarnation, but the biggest problem has always been that despite the fan gushing of the movie's adherents, nobody has yet provided reliable sources. Corvus cornix 05:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's nothing to remember because a renewal of that discussion sits above at Requests to restore content to userspace, where I wrote at 15:14, 3 November 2007, "Your post in this location will not result in recreating the article. If you want a review of the deletion to have the article recreated, please follow Steps to list a new deletion review." The admin who delete on of the article versions, Krimpet, posted at 22:01, 3 November 2007 in that same discussion, "I (the deleting admin) for one, will not be userfying this content. I see no indication that references now exist to build a proper, verifiable article; adding to that, the IP that posted this request did so after vandalizing my userpage, suggesting to me that this request may not be in good faith." Dispite Krimpet and my clear positions at the 3 November 2007 to restore content to userspace discussion, the article then was recreated instead of a having a draft article presented to DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 10:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - AfD result was that it was deleted for not asserting notability. The recreation still failed to do this and, given the time between the AfD and this new article, if it had become notable there would be more reliable sources to prove it. violet/riga (t) 10:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read my version of the article? Pdelongchamp 15:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly - I wouldn't state such a thing without having read that version. violet/riga (t) 09:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read my version of the article? I didn't consider "Consider Christianity", "Illuminati News", and "Outlaw News" to be reliable sources but I did use some of those sources. Every piece of content was verifiable through a reliable source. If you're saying that these references would be enough to create a draft article then change your vote to overturn the deletion, let's move the article to "Zeitgeist, the Movie" and then contribute to the article. Posting these links is great but I'm not about to rewrite the same article again if this deletion doesn't get overturned. The article was verifiable and asserted its notability. Pdelongchamp 15:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you posted the article to Zeitgeist (video), one of the few unsalted name variations left for the topic. Also, given the trouble surrounding the article and the significant salting of the title, DRV should be done before a recreation. However, I'll review my position. -- Jreferee t/c 17:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I reviewed my position (I waited to see if any SPAs posted below). I think that it would benefit Wikipedia to have another AfD on this that would discuss the substantial new information. The old AfD really has no application since it was when the movie first was released and was before all the new reviews came out. There might not be enough reliable source material, but I think there is enough for reasonable people to disagree on the merits. A new AfD would help move this matter forwards to where we can focus on discussing whether such an article meets article standards rather than behavior standards. -- Jreferee t/c 17:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This version of the article had been rewritten and addressed the concerns brought up in the previous XfD. It did not qualify meet CSD G4. Unless you are specifically discussing this version of the article, please refrain from contributing to this CSV. The conversation is getting side tracked. Pdelongchamp 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, this one actually looks like it's good. Count me surprised. --Haemo 00:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete This film has been endorsed by the Artivist Film Festival in Los Angelos. That the film will be screened at an Artivist festival further adds to the film's notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foisenolk (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion How many dozens of times are we going to delete this? Given the history, we need to see a fully-sourced userspace draft before this has any hope of returning to the mainspace. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does this vote have to do with whether or not this version of the article should have been deleted as per CSD G4? Please AGF and keep in mind the purpose of Deletion Review. Pdelongchamp 18:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion that this thing has been recreated so many times under so many names, through AFD, and back, the tollerance of the community is being tried unnecessarily - this wouldn't survive afd so whether or not a technically correct G4 is irrelevant, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Carlossuarez46 02:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow the spirit of the rule, not the letter. G4 is to prevent people from irresponsibly recreating an article without addressing the reasons it was deleted in the first place. In my opinion, the deletion of this article ignored WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. The article went from containing no reliable sources to being completely reliably sourced. I have every reason to believe this version of the article would have passed AfD. Pdelongchamp 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree; the continued pushing to get an article on this non-notable film - including the latest creation under this bizarre title - leads one to the inescapable conclusion that those pressing for its inclusion have some WP:COI to push WP:SPAM. Claim to fame a debut coming up (see WP:CRYSTAL) at a film festival. And none of the sources are the reliable sources we expect: where's the LA Times article on this puppy? where's the Time, Newsweek, CNN, People magazine or news coverage? Carlossuarez46 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is the Irish Times (August 25, 2007) Zeitgeist: the nonsense Section: Weekend; page 16 (my item (6) above. Also, it is a difficult topic to find information on because "Zeitgeist" is a very common term (means spirit of the times) and the name of this movie is not so clear. There may be LA Times article, The Time, Newsweek, CNN, People magazine news coverage, but I didn't look for it. If we list it at AfD for five days, I think more reference material might be located. -- Jreferee t/c 18:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here is one more main stream reference: U-WIRE Boise State U.: FILM REVIEW: 'Zeitgeist' raises real questions, which is my item (9) above. A remastered version is set for Global Premiere on November 10, 2007 at the 4th Annual Artivist Film Festival & Artivist Awards. If were were to send this to AfD, that Artivist Film Festival might generate more info during the five day pending AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently criteria for reliable sources involves some sort of nationalistic disfavor towards the Irish... Did I just imply that wikipedia's beauracracy is racist, or at best personally biased, when evaluating sources? No, I couldn't have.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foisenolk (talk • contribs) — Foisenolk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Endorse deletion, technically a valid G4 as the recreations do not address any of the initial problems. --Coredesat 13:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of all of this maddening beauracracy, the article should be undeleted because it is a noteworthy subject... Nazis! You'll probably even call Godwin's Law on me! (Just to clarify, because it's hard to tell in these types of discussions, I was joking with the last two sentences I made and do not mean to offend anyone.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foisenolk (talk • contribs) — Foisenolk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • List of anarchist musicians – Close as no consensus endorsed. A future AfD may not be unwarranted if the article's problems persist, but there is no consensus to delete at this time. – Chick Bowen 03:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of anarchist musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

While I accept that there is certainly no consensus for deletion here I do feel that the keep voters haven't provided a decent opposition to the arguments for deletion. The key points are:

  1. There is no reason why this can't be a category and it would be easier to maintain if it were
  2. The title implies musicians and not bands - it mostly consists of the latter
  3. There are very few sources for most and this could be a BLP concern
  4. Despite suggestions of sorting out inclusion criteria and looking into a categorisation system other than alphabetical nothing has progressed during the nomination.

The arguments for keep seem to comprise:

  1. "I'd rather fix the problems", "Afd is not cleanup"
  2. Claims of a "systematic attack on anarchist"
  3. "This list may be improved" (emphasis mine)

I believe that a category would be better than a list and that the main arguments for keeping the article ignore that suggestion. violet/riga (t) 18:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - No consensus seemed to be the consensus. If things haven't improved in two months as promised in the AfD, list it for deletion again with focus on purpose of lists, the lack of criteria for inclusion and the failure to adhere to that criteria, and Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. -- Jreferee t/c 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closer of the AFD, I don't see where the problem is - in my opinion, although a category would be a good option, there were few supporting it in the AFD explicitly (say two others). GDonato (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The arguments weren't the strongest, but neither was there consensus to delete, so that defaults to keep (this is a feature, not a bug, despite a number of recent DRVs that have been essentially second-chance AFDs). I will take you up on the category question. A category should represent an inherent quality of a topic. I'm not sure that the political stance of a musician/band at a given point fits that ideal. Also, a list can be fully documented and structured, whereas a category cannot. Categories are too easy to add to an article without adding real support and bands are a really good example of where this is frequently abused. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Wikipedian Brights – Deletion endorsed. As stated by several people in this debate, the principal "delete" proponents in the UCFD were actually fairly consistent and precise in their claim: that the category is used for identification rather than for collaboration. The principal counter-argument has been by analogy to the religious user categories, but we have a long history of not basing deletion decisions on such analogies. – Chick Bowen 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedian Brights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCFD)

Closed as delete even though there were twice as many "voting" for keep as delete and even though arguments for keep were unaddressed. No explanation was given in close for preferring the minority viewpoint. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xfD discussions are not votes. Corvus cornix 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why I put "voting" in scare quotes. My point is still valid. A minority viewpoint was decided on (definitely not consensus) without any explanation as to why. Also, many points went unaddressed. What do you think xfD discussions are that this does not matter? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found the !vote by Doczilla (talk · contribs) most convincing, but in general there wasn't a strong consensus on any reason to delete, and the closer did not cite any of the arguments. When the !voting goes so strongly one way and the closure another, I think the admin should be responsible enough to give a fuller explanation. I'm not personlly really in favor of a self-identification (for the sake of) Wikipedian category, but policy seems to be hazy in this area. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete, and there were adequate arguments that the category was no different from similar categories. -- Evertype·✆ 20:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was an advocacy category designed to be placed in userspace. Advocacy on Wikipedia is severely deprecated, not the least because it's against our Neutral point of view policy. Irrespective of so-called "votes", it should have been deleted. If it's ever undeleted or recreated, it should be deleted on sight. This also applies to trash such as "socialist Wikipedians", "conservative Wikipedians", "Christian Wikipedians", "Buddhist Wikipedians" and the like. Such categories, associated templates and the like should not appear on Wikipedia. They are an abuse of this encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an opinion, but those other categories have not been deleted. Are you going to propose them for deletion? -- Evertype·✆ 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, 2 of the 4 categories listed by Tony Sidaway have been deleted. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not so much an opinion as a summary of Wikipedia policy. Sadly where abuses of policy via userboxes, user categories and the like are concerned, policy often takes second place to placating the very people who abuse Wikipedia. This is not a satisfactory situation, but I'm unable to remedy it by myself. --Tony Sidaway 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is questionable whether that is a "summary of Wikipedia policy". The person proposing this category for deletion previously voted to keep "Christian Wikipedians", so it's not clear that even the nominator agrees with your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. I realize this might be interpreted as a "you can't have yours if I can't have mine", but that's not what it's about for me. (I'm not a Bright, for one thing.) If policy were clarified so that it was clear these user categories were against policy, I'd be voting to delete this category myself. However, as it the policy currently stands, it is much like the state of the death penalty in the US in the 1970s when the Supreme Court ruled it was capricious in its application. (And, no, I'm not equating deleting a user category with taking someone's life. It's only an analogy.) My point is that until the policy is cleared up, it does not seem right that a certain group of people are selectively applying that policy to user categories. (Note: Black Falcon has been consistent in his interpretation of this policy the same way you interpret it.) In summary, my complaints are three-fold: (1) this decision was made against the majority view-point without explanation. (2) arguments I (and presumably others) made for deletion were never addressed so closing it seemed premature at best. (3) the policy you speak of is unclear and being either capriciously applied or capriciously closed. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, reluctantly, and with a deep sense of ennui. I poured some coffee into myself to stay awake whole reading the debate, and could not see a consensus to delete; there seemed to be good strong arguments on both sides and it looks to me like a clear "no consensus". But to be honest, I cannot for the life of me understand the heat and fury generated at UCFD by this sort of user-category, either by their passionate defenders or their vehement opponents. I can well understand the importance of deleting disruptive or offensive categories such as Category:Wikipedians seeking partners in a conspiracy to commit mass murder or Category:Wikipedians who despise people without green hair or Category:Wikipedian edit-warriors. However, the existence of Category:Christian Wikipedians and Category:Muslim Wikipedians has not led to hordes of religious people block-voting their way around discussions and re-fighting the battles of the crusades, Category:German Wikipedians has not triggered panic amongst the Polish Wikipedians and nor has Category:Irish Wikipedians led to a stampede for half of the Irish biographies being recategorised under the United States, as happened in real life. So I don't see why the same tolerance which has been wisely extended to those who want to group themselves by Erdős number cannot be extended to those who have been touched by his noodly appendage or to the people who deny any spiritual dimension. Likewise, if the categories are deleted, the involved folks can still find each other through the whatlinkshere on a template, so either way I can't see the whole thing matters as much as an invisible hill of beans. Plenty of the people on both sides of these heated debates are editors whose other contributions I respect greatly; is there some woesome climatic anomaly over at WP:UCFD that makes all these good folks create so many storms-in-teacups when they pop in there? Is there no way that UCFD or the underlying guidelines can be reformed to avoid so much energy and talent being wasted over non-issues? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. Category:Christian Wikipedians and Category:Muslim Wikipedians have not been deleted. Propose them for deletion, and expect a shìtstorm. Wikipedian Brights opposed the deletion as you have observed, and the deletion does not appear to reflect consensus. Why do Brights oppose this deletion? Because the Bright viewpoint is analogous to the religionist viewpoint. In for a penny, in for a pound. Delete all the categories or none. But the religionists do not deserve protection in such a context. (And if so, why?) -- Evertype·✆ 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that your "expect a shìtstorm" comment troubles me just as much as the bizarre vehemence of the deletionists, and not just because of the un-necessary crudeness of the language. "Shitstorms" over invisible hills of beans are a waste of everyone's time, and destructive to the goodwill which wikipedia needs to function. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Vote counts mean little when canvassing is involved as evidenced by the talk pages of several of those saying that this should be kept. --After Midnight 0001 00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What canvassing? Is it your view that people self-identifying in a category shouldn't be informed about that category's being up for Deletion? Most people don't follow the Deletion logs. Mostly just the witch-hunters and the axe-grinders. This Deletion fetish is one of the things that makes the Wikipedia suck. -- Evertype·✆ 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make personal attacks against entire groups of editors. - Crockspot 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, are you referring to the "canvassing" accusation or the "witch-hunters" and "axe-grinders" accusation? (It's not clear from your indentation.) Neither are helpful, of course. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Benhocking, what could you possibly find inappropriate about my comment regarding canvassing? While this was closed on strength of arguments, it is worth noting for those who are arguing that this was incorrect based on the numbers of supporters to each side, that those numbers were skewed by canvassing. --After Midnight 0001 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this canvassing? If it really was canvassing, then your comment was not inappropriate, and I am guilty of failing to assume good faith. I know that I wasn't canvassed, and I have seen the canvas argument used incorrectly all too frequently. If you show me where this canvassing happened, I will apologize for jumping to conclusions. (Regardless of whether it a valid conclusion or not, I'll admit that I jumped to a conclusion. Of course, absence of proof is not proof of absence.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it is on the talk pages of several of those saying it should be kept. Users were directed to join the discussion and comment. When this is done to large groups of category members, it is considered canvassing. --After Midnight 0001 20:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose you have some way for me to verify that, do you? Perhaps if there was a category or something that would allow me to check out several of these user pages… ;) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason that you are not able to look at the talk pages? Are you actually suggesting that I need to create Category:Users who have been canvassed for you?--After Midnight 0001 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The joke was that the easy way for me to verify your statement would be to go to the talk pages of members of Category:Wikipedian Brights. Of course, since that category doesn't exist… (Belatedly, it now occurs to me that I can look at the talk pages of those who responded on the UCFD.) So, here's a play-by-play of those who voted keep:
User talk:Bigwyrm: Not told about it, as far as I can tell (1)
User talk:Evertype: Not told about this particular UCFD, as far as I can tell (2)
User talk:Brian1979: Not told about it, as far as I can tell (3)
User talk:Diego: Not told about it, as far as I can tell (4)
User talk:Jkspratt: Told about it, in a way indicative that all members of the cat are being told about it. (1)
User talk:Mikenassau: Ditto. (2)
User talk:Sketch051: Not told about it, as far as I can tell (5)
User talk:Dan Pelleg: Told about it. (3)
User talk:Fyslee: Not told about it, as far as I can tell (6)
User talk:Heliotic: Never told anything. (7)
User talk:S.dedalus: Told about it. (4)
User talk:Benhocking (me): Not told about it. (8)
So, I apologize, there was canvasing, which might have altered a very close (non-consensus, slight tendency towards keep) 8-6 vote into become a (still non-consensus, but verging even stronger towards keep) 12-6 vote. You'll also note that this canvassing was of (a) limited scale, (b) neutral message, and (c) open. However, it does fail, in my opinion, (d) the partisan test. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at things further, it appears that there is something odd about User:Heliotic and User:Sketch051. Look at their contribs.... --After Midnight 0001 19:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Ben Hocking. I haven't checked all of them, but at least one of the posts was most definitely not neutral: The category is up for deletion. You may wish to oppose. Also, the description of an 8-6 vote as "non-consensus, slight tendency toward keep" ignores the strength of arguments in favour of the raw distribution of 'keep's and 'delete's. An 8-6 'vote' can yield a strong consensus for a particular outcome if one side presents no real argument, and a 10-2 'vote' can fail to produce consensus if neither side presents a decisive argument. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:After Midnight, you're right that "you may wish to oppose" is definitely not neutral. I was in quick-edit mode and got sloppy. As for things looking weird, there were a lot of weird things -- especially how several people's sigs didn't match their user names, but I chalked that up to coincidence. I'd rather not hypothesize on a pattern of contribs, as I know it is possible to jump to bad conclusions unless you're willing to go through quite a bit of evidence. (I have not yet looked at the contribs, so I don't know how strong the evidence is or isn't.) Re:Black Falcon: I agree completely, but it seemed to me that just as many arguments for keep were arguments about "no good reason to delete", I didn't see any solid arguments for delete that didn't either (a) apply to 90% of user categories and/or (b) actually be arguments about "no good reason to keep". If you would care to post a diff to a single argument that isn't either of these, I'd appreciate it. Also, I'll note that not even you actually voted to delete the category in question at this particular DRV. Interesting, no? In looking at the delete "votes" it seems I miscounted there as well. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - AfD is argument driven, rather than a vote count. If ten people say keep, citing "per so and so", and "so and so" makes a poor argument, a few convincing "delete" arguments would (and should) override. - Crockspot 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - No consensus seem to be the consensus. The delete discussion was poorly presented. The standards for Wikipedia user categories were not laid out by the nominator or even in the discussion, so no one really knew what to discuss. Instead, the discussion was focused on personal beliefs and other matters not relevant to whether the category met user category standards. Because of this, the discussion failed to determine whether Category:Wikipedian Brights met the user category standards. Wikipedia:User categories for discussion indicates that the standards for user categories are similar to those for Userboxes. User categories cannot include incivility, personal attacks, must not be inflammatory or divisive, and must not be for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate as a user category. In addition to not focusing the discussion on divisiveness, advocacy or any of the other items listed, there was no discussion about whether use of Category:Wikipedian Brights complied with Wikipedia:User page. Weak discussions not focused on policy/guidelines should not result in delete. -- Jreferee t/c 12:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standards for user categories are most definitely not similar to those for userboxes or other userpage content. I am not aware of a single instance when a user category deletion was accompanied by deletion of the template. The standard for the appropriateness of user categories is not whether the content is appropriate on a userpage (editors can say almost anything about themselves on their userpage), but whether the category adds any value beyond what might be provided by a userpage notice or a userbox. That is, does creating a grouping of editors on a given characteristic foster collaboration. A userbox stating "This user supports Candidate X" would not be touched, but user categories expressing the same sentiment are regularly deleted. Although this may not change your "overturn" recommendation, I think it's important to specially note this. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak overturn, only with the proviso that the category be removed from parent Category:Wikipedians by philosophy, leaving it only in Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians, a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by religion. Since almost every keep !vote cited the existence of Category:Christian Wikipedians, it is apparent that the supporters of this category consider it a religious category. Since the oft-cited Category:Christian Wikipedians is not a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy, I can only support a restoration of this category if it is not included as a subcat of the philosophy category. If it is not removed from the philosophy category, I endose deletion, and suggest salting it to prevent recreation. In any case, Category:Atheist Wikipedians or Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians already exist to express the sentiment, and there are no fewer than two userboxes specifically related to this movement (plus another which deifies Richard Dawkins, its most vocal proponent), so expressing support is quite easily accomplished without the user category. Horologium t-c 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Too many weak reasons to keep, like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, "no reason to delete", and "I'm a bright, so keep". --Kbdank71 15:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's address these one by one. (1) First of all, it doesn't matter how many weak reasons there are to keep, as long as there are strong reasons to keep and/or they outweigh the reasons to delete. (2) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a weak reason, but it's relevant when people are arguing that policy clearly states this should be deleted. This is relevant because policy must not be clear if recent UCFDs for other categories that had the exact same reasons given were kept. (3) "no reason to delete" is valid if there are no reasons to delete and there are good reasons to keep (such as collaboration). (4) Who made the argument that "I'm a bright, so keep", or is this just a strawman? (5) As Horologium understands, this DRV isn't so much about whether or not the user category should be deleted as whether or not policy was appropriately followed. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I don't have a problem as far as procedure being followed; After Midnight's close was easily justified on the strength of the arguments provided. However, my argument hinges not so much on procedural grounds as on categorization policy; this category was inappropriately placed in multiple categories from the instant it was created. Unlike many of the quasi-religious categories which were moved into Category:Wikipedians by philosophy from their homes elsewhere (often from Category:Wikipedians by religion), this one has always been in both the religion and the philosophy cats. It shouldn't be in both, and my one attempt to resolve the issue by removing it from the philosophy category was reverted by one of the most vocal supporters of retention. Horologium t-c 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for misrepresenting your position. However, I disagree that the close was easily justified on the strength of the arguments provided. The only reasons I saw given for delete was that there was (a) (humorously) there was "no reason to keep", frequently à la WP:NOT#MYSPACE (see Kbdank71's inverse comment to see why I find this funny), and (b) it could be divisive (meanwhile arguing that the fact that it merely could be helpful for collaboration was insufficient without proof that it actually was helpful for collaboration—note that I gave 10 ways that it could be helpful, and zero of those were challenged.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    it doesn't matter how many weak reasons there are to keep, as long as there are strong reasons to keep and/or they outweigh the reasons to delete I don't believe they did outweigh the reasons to delete. --Kbdank71 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What were the strong reasons to delete? (Please be sure that these are actual reasons to delete and not merely invalid reasons to keep. To keep it succinct and not clutter up this page, feel free to link to the diffs or mention them by datestamp if diff linking is too inconvenient.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. As suggested by the title and confirmed by the category description (before it was deleted, that is), this was an ideological self-identification category only, for which there is a precedent for deletion. Any attempt to argue that it could be useful for collaboration must assume that mere self-identification with an object or idea translates to encyclopedically-relevant interest in or knowledge of the object or idea. However, no evidence has been offered to support that claim and I am not aware of any such evidence. I am, however, aware of studies that raise serious doubts about the extent to which adherents of an ideology are actually informed/knowledgeable about it. One that comes to mind is "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics" (1964) by Philip Converse (a brief synopsis of the work is available in the linked article). I don't think that anyone suggesting deletion of the self-identification category is opposed to creating a Category:Wikipedians interested in the Brights movement as long as categorisation takes place on the basis of interest, rather than mere self-identification (that is, don't use userboxes that express identification to populate an "interest" category). – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the two associated userboxes ({{User:UBX/Bright}}) is constructed as "this user is interested in the Brights movement". That userbox (and only that one) is appropriate to link to the "interested in" category you propose. The other one ({{User:UBX/BrightBlue}}) is a self-identification userbox that should not link to it. Horologium t-c 19:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - Agreeing with what's already been said above. Especially, interest vs. identification "badging"; strength of arguements vs. "I want mine if you get yours", WP:HARMLESS, etc. - jc37 11:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "strong" arguments you mention here are all actually "weak" arguments to keep (e.g., "interest vs. identification", "I want mine if you get yours", WP:HARMLESS). Pointing out "weak" arguments to keep does not equate to having "strong" arguments to delete, especially when other arguments to keep are neglected. The only reasons I've actually seen to delete (as opposed to arguments about how other reasons to keep are weak) are:
    (a) a particularly strict interpretation of policy that would delete more than 90% of all user categories. Considering that the policy in question is not new and neither are these categories, this suggests that what's new is the interpretation of the policy. Hence, this interpretation is just that—an interpretation.
    (b) precedence where previous deletes have occurred based off that new interpretation.
    Am I missing something? If so, what? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure this fosters no cooperation among Wikipedians - you've deleted the sexual minorites, now we're getting to less important categories. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Lorenzo Paoli – Restore, per request by original author and established notability per WP:BIO. Feel free to start an AFD discussion in case you do not agree with this article being notable. – Angelo 21:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lorenzo Paoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

He is now notable because he has played a professional game for San Marino Calcio against Gubbio, as seen here Sunderland06 14:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - The article was CSD G7 deleted after this post. -- Jreferee t/c 15:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You imply that he was not notable before. What biographical information did the reliable sources print about Lorenzo Paoli now that he has played a professional game for San Marino Calcio against Gubbio? If the answer is "none", then there is not enought new information that could be added to a Wikipedia article on Lorenzo Paoli to justify recreating the article. -- Jreferee t/c 15:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you reccomend i do about it. Thanks.--Sunderland06 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article was deleted per WP:CSD#G7 (author's request). I guess if the original author decides to recreate the article or any other editor desires to recreate the article, then that would overcome the CSD G7 deletion reason. I don't think you need DRV consensus to recreate an article deleted under CSD G7. -- Jreferee t/c 17:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its only WP:CSD#G7 because it was going to be deleted for being not notable, so i told him to delete it and said i would tell him to un-delete it when i found info that he had infact played a professional game. It was [[WP:CSD#G11] before that. Thanks.--Sunderland06 17:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunderland06: if you wanted it undeleted, all you had to do was to ask me to restore it. There was definitely no need to open a deletion review case! In case anyone feels the article still fails the general notability rules, he/she is free to open an AFD discussion. --Angelo 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
A Mi Manera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The AfD was closed as a delete, which was proper, but the original content, which I created as a redirect to My Way (song)#Alternate Versions, should be preserved. JuJube 08:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to bring this to DRV - just recreate the redirect. It's safe from a G4 speedy as long as it stays as a redirect. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 13:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on any toes. Doing so now (making the redirect, not stepping on toes ^_^;). JuJube 13:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 November 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MaNGOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

MaNGOS is very important open source project for MMORPG game server core , it can simulate World of warcraft very smoothly, altought to establish a public wow server is illegal. actually lots of illegal wow server s are based on this project, regardless it breaches policy and license of MaNGOS. So please keep this article. This project is very interesting. Lielei 23:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked at this while it was tagged for G4 deletion. The only significant difference that I saw was this new link/reference. http://www.gotwow.ic.cz/, (World of Warcraft Emulation History v2.99|date=2007-08-29|accessdate=2007-10-31|author=Jan Josef Oudrnický), a PDF file to be accessed from that link rather than directly at it. I wasn't able and willing to open the file on this computer in this location. Even if it is a reliable and independent source (I think the second is likely, the first dubious), this would be only one reliable and independent source. I didn't do the G4 deletion because I hadn't looked at the new source, but I didn't see how it could possibly be a sufficient enough change to address the concerns of the AFD. I am thus included to endorse deletion, but could easily be persuaded to relist if multiple reliable and independent sources can be found. GRBerry 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion and the half dozen others subsequent - the Afd discussion generated no new sources; the one new one since is discussed above by GRBerry and it doesn't change anything - it too is not an independent reliable source. Carlossuarez46 02:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This project is bit different, in terms of independent source, there are many: [138], [139], [140]. There is one news article in Chinese website title is “Open source implementation of world of warcraft server” which is analysis of the structure and software architecture of MaNGOS server and also the legitimate issues. The links are (but in Chinese): [141], [142], [143], they are also adopted by google news China. Myself has installed different versions of MaNGOS and tested them which can validate the creditability of this article. However, the license of MaNGOS itself forbids your publicly discuss install MaNGOS as World of Warcraft server. That is why there are rarely good independent source to have serious discussion of its software and development issues rather than lots of installation guide. Underneath Blizzard Entertainment pressure, a few similar projects had been taken down. However the open source game server emulator is very interesting phenomena for both open source community and gaming community, in terms of software, legitimation and community ecosystem. Among them, MaNGOS is most famous project. If you ask any people who contribute open source online game project, they would know MaNGOS project. And if you know any people who setup illegal wow server, they will definitely tried MaNGOS. Another reason for me to protest is the previous deletion based on “no notability” which seems to be ridiculous. Although the developers deliberately keep low profile, but you can check the statistic of SVN commit out in sourceforge: [144] Every single day it has over 2000-3000 read transactions, which is obviously greater than some other open source projects which have names in wikipedia. I just feel a little bit arbitrary to close this item and feel sorry for that wikipeida doesn't include such interesting article. and some one may suspect Blizzard is behind this. - Lielei 09:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Lielei's notes about server hits etc are irrelevant to notability. The three links provided are simple how-to guides, rather than discussions or commentary on the significance of the software. (As an example of the trivilaity of howto guides when assessing notability, one small piece of utility software which I wrote a decade ago has three independently-written usage guides, because each of the three known users wrote their own notes on their very different configurations of it). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and salt - The reasons you desire to recreate the article seem to be 1. The license of MaNGOS itself forbids publicly discussing installation of MaNGOS as World of Warcraft server, so Wikipedia should risk litigation and publish this information. 2. No reliable source has ever contacted people who contribute to open source online game projects and asked them about MaNGOS and this makes MaNGOS famous. 3. The MaNGOS topic is interesting and very important to you. The best way to get DRV to agree to recreate the article is to prepare a draft article in your user space using only information from reliable sources that are independent of MaNGOS. Then, return to DRV and request that the article be recreated using your draft as the next post. With six speedy deletes after a September 2007 AfD, the only way I see this article being recreated is with a footnoted draft. -- Jreferee t/c 15:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and salt per Jreferee's excellent breakdown. You can't go on "just ask anyone", because that fails WP:RS and WP:V. An argument that the RS don't exist is not only illogical (if it does have any use beyond this one "illegal" implementation, why doesn't anyone discuss that?), but doesn't really solve the problem of lack of sourcing. At the very least if it's this notorious you'd have articles ABOUT the secrecy. This is sort of akin to a certain businessman's DRV below in which he claims that the sources don't exist because he pays a PR agency to suppress publicity. Ohhhhkay. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - The reason for this decision is that MaNGOS is a free alternative to World of Warcraft service. The World of Warcraft article masquerades as an advertisement and as an soapbox for Blizzard entertainment products and services, see the pricing section in the WoW article which is blatant advertising (no pricing on MS Windows Vista). We will continue to see articles about the elite and commercial products covered more (see systematic bias) because the policies of Wikipedia support media bias towards affluent infomedia and entities of high authority who cater to other affluent individuals hence more bias coverage towards commercial products and services. MaNGOS is tied closely to the Warcraft universe, so any real official reporting would be self incriminating in the United States ...admittance to using unauthorized WoW universe content and breaking blizzard EULA admittance of using a WoW client to non blizzard server. Blizzard uses the EULA and scare tactics to force people to use their servers. Also when you read [145] (the http://www.gotwow.ic.cz/ article that covers some other emulators other than MaNGOS), it tells the story about the legality of emulators (DMCA) and how MaNGOS's leader trys to avoid legal conflicts with blizzard and the work that went into "the core" (software design) of MaNGOS. The deleters are only censoring the fact of the existence of this free server alternative (as opposed to blizzard's own servers) which users can use. Readers and researchers are left with questions: What exactly can a WoW emulator do? Is there any product that I can use to make my own MMORPG? How usable is this piece of free software to create my own MMORPG content? Why do I need to speed +$100 dollars towards Blizzard is there another alternative software/service I can use other than WoW. How better or worse is it compared to the "real" server? And the obvious, Is MaNGOS illegal and why? Deleters ignore the fact that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. To delete is article software, we do not provide a truly free alternative (to the fair use text on many blizzard WoW universe articles in Wikipedia) and only encouraging the monopoly blizzard has over WoW service. Also WP:CITE/WP:V only says for material that is likely challenged. As with notability, there is bias towards commercial legal alternatives and not free software...you can cite all the reliable self published sources in the world but not even close to the quality threshold. MaNGOS has been shown on YouTube but yet policy suppresses this. None of the material in this article is highly controversial and can be verified though the wowcz article. Also the motion to delete with 1 vote was not WP:CONCENSUS. The administrators are only based their deletion track record on the mistake of other admins who did not carefully check the reasons why for deletion (initially notability) are now formulating new grounds and reasons to delete now. Two of the admins play commercial popular games had a need to speedy delete MaNGOS article which left an impression of bias towards commercial games and misunderstanding of free software. - 6etonyourfeet (talk?) 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very sharp and critical comments indeed. I wish I could write clear English as you. The main purpose of restoring MaNGOS is not because this article is important for me but is because wikipedia should be a free encyclopedia which allows people to freely, neutrally record important term/item which happens in our society. The legality involved in item/term/article itself can be questionable. But that should NOT prevent people from talking about it. The extreme example might be like "Wikipedia delete s Hitler Adolf because he is criminal". In this situation, wikipedia cannot keep MaNGOS, because the legitimation of this project is problem. Apparently, no notability is the direct reason for deleting this article, however, most people know MaNGOS is famous underground. And due to the reason you mentioned above. The are few sources which official discuss it because of avoiding legal hassles. This actually damages the impartiality of measurement of "notability". Since big company and business control the rights of voice. It appears the Cultural hegemony has polluted the freedom of wikipedia.Lielei 17:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice try, guys, but Wikipedia does not exist to promote free software just because it itself is a free information product. You are both imputing, without evidence, bad-faith motives of other editors, when the simple matter is that your software project falls short of our requirements for reliable sourcing. You offer reasons why the reliable sourcing doesn't exist, but no justification for this unsourced information being in Wikipedia other than that you think it's important. The one thing that is going to get this back into the encyclopedia is coverage in independent, credible sources. The day that happens, you are welcome to recreate or come back to DRV with a sourced draft. --Dhartung | Talk 16:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and salt per Jref's well-reasoned comments. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MaNGOS has been mentioned in the book "Exploiting Online Games: Cheating Massively Distributed Systems" authors "Greg Hoglund; Gary McGraw" publisher "Addison Wesley Professional" ISBN 9780132271912. Mention in sections "Emulation Servers (Private Servers)" and "Conversions and Modding". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs) 00:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ola Kamel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was definitely a far cry from notability when first written; however, I substantially rewrote it and thought it conferred clear notability. I believe the closing admin either did not take this into account or chose to ignore it. may not have taken this into account. Apologies for assuming bad faith. GlassCobra 23:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for closing admin I took into account all arguments raised and the additions made to the article after it nomination. This AfD was dominated by a family member[146]diff Infoguardian (talk · contribs), while this wasnt consideration for the basis of deletion Infoguardian comments needed to be considered within the boundaries of WP:COI. There was a number of comments by Infoguardian each comment was individually assessed as to what was being put forth. What it came down to was as per WP:NOTABILITY;
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined. emphasis add by Gnangarra
So what did I find, the subject wasnt covered in any significance, held office bearer positions for political subbranches, officer bearer positions with local community associations, failed political candidate end result was deletion. That said restoring for limited time period to user space to further address the issues raised in the AfD is a consideration, it would require the addition of more substantial sources. expressing my opinion based on what I've read in the sources I dont think that there are sufficient sources to establish notability. Gnangarra 01:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gnan - I think GlassCobra's assumption of bad faith language in the above DRV nomination was inappropriate and I think you did a fine job on a difficult close. -- Jreferee t/c 16:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't read it as a bad faith comment more as reflection of my short closure explanation. Gnangarra 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I don't believe any procedural issues exist, and it's pretty clear that while the subject is politically active, she falls short of WP:BIO in both inherent terms and general notability terms. The four sources provided (as visible in cache) are little more than evidence of that activity, but are not significant discussions of her or her influence. I am sympathetic to the related editor; my own mother was a politician at one time, but while I'm quite proud of her accomplishments I recognize she doesn't belong here. --Dhartung | Talk 04:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure/allow recreation - The reliable source material tells a story of an important person from an important family and there is enough new material (see below) for the topic to meet WP:N. There likely is more reliable source material in Muslim newspapers in New Zealand, which typically are not online. Here is some information: (1) Hoby, Hatherine. (December 10, 1998) The Press NZ land of milk and honey. Section: News national; Page 2 (article entirely about the Abaza family, including Ola); (2)Airey, Mavis. (December 10, 1998) The Press Pulse of a nation. Section: Features Food; page 14. (article entirely on Tarek Abaza and Ola Kamel's eating habits). (3)Waikato Times (April 29, 2002) Here's how they stack up. Section: News national; Page 2. (4) The reliable sources also go into detail that, from 2002 on, the New Zealand press often went to Ola to get her Egyptian view on relevant international matters. This lead to her becoming spokeswoman for the Muslim Association of Canterbury in 2003. Her resignation as spokeswoman made the news - (5) The Press (February 10, 2004) Kamel resigns. Section: News National; Page 3. - but she indicated that she "would continue as chairwoman of the multi-ethnic branch of the Labour Party." The newspapers continued to seek her opinions on Muslim issues and Muslim woman issues and by October 2004, the press was referring to her as Muslim community leader Ola Kamel. She began writing letters to the editors as early as 1998, but her letters beginning in 2004 receiving significant responses in the newspapers, likely because her opinion was considered important by the New Zealand newspapers and newspaper readers. There is an unrelated person in England going by the name "Ola Kamel Mostafa", whose real name is Mostafa Kamel Mostafa. -- Jreferee t/c 16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm...do you have access to these somehow? Can we use these as references for the article? GlassCobra 17:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:African American baseball players – Deletion overturned. BrownHairedGirl primarily provides the rationale on which this nomination succeeds. It is, indeed, arguable whether so-called "positive" categorization of African-Americans is racist ("African-Americans make good athletes" is a sensitive contention -- see Jimmy the Greek.) Whether the categorization is racist or not, the CfD debate was of low quality, and it failed to consider relevant sources in scholarship and media. While WP doesn't have an article on African-American baseball, it could be argued that this category is supported as an auxiliary to History of baseball in the United States. – Xoloz 15:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:African American baseball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

This doesn't look anything like a consensus to me, especially given that the nominator struck out his/her own nomination. This was then cited as precedent for eliminating all African American sportspeople subcategories, and this latter discussion had far less consensus to delete/merge than the first. Note that I didn't participate in either, but this just doesn't look right to me. howcheng {chat} 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn both as keep/no consensus. Race has obvious connections to professional athletics (recruiting, international competitions, historical and arguably current discrimination, etc.). Not everyone who reads the Jackie Robinson article is going to want to trace every other black professional baseball player, but that's true of any category -- the links are fairly unobtrusive, so there's no need to hold them to very high standards. Rough consensus was that the categories should be kept. — xDanielx T/C 02:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there is significant consensus that ethnicity + occupation is a trivial intersection; we went through this with German-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and bunch of other ethnicities. All sorts of POV can be made about why some ethnicities' occupations are deserving of category status while others aren't, but alas it's just POV. For players prior to the integration of the majors, we have Category:Negro League baseball players. Afterward, African-American baseball players don't play baseball any differently than German-Americans, Latino-Americans, Jewish-Americans, etc. We have no article African-American baseball playing as should be expected for this to not be WP:OCAT. Fundamentally, these race/ethnic classifications do a grave disservice to the encyclopedia - why should we be in the business of classifying people by race/ethnicity. And as I said before, these will inevitably be used to push various POV - like the "Executed illegal aliens" category now under discussion. If you keep this, how could you delete Category:African-American murderers, Category:Latino-American criminals and all similar ones other than pursuant to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You can't. Carlossuarez46 02:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While German-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and other ethnicities may not make the grade, the U.S. Federal, State, and Local governments are obsessed with all matters African American. Because of this, African American stats permeate all aspects of life in the United States, both government and non-government. This include African American baseball players. A Google web search for African American baseball players reveals significant hits. Also, take a look at Google books, Google scholar, and Amazon books. I agree with you on the German-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and other ethnicities, but African American is in an entirely different ballpark. -- Jreferee t/c 16:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because a category with racist implications (like your African-American murderers example) has implicit connections to identity politics doesn't mean that any category connected to identity politics has racist implications. It would be ludicrous to say that there's no difference between publicly portraying a race positively and portraying the same race negatively. The Axis of Evil example is also a false analogy since considering historical phenomena in assessing significance is very different from arbitrarily assuming that some assertion related to the phenomenon is true (e.g. we have an article on the historically significant axis of evil quote, but the article doesn't say "Iraq, Iran, and North Korea comprise an axis of evil"). — xDanielx T/C 05:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Racist implications? You are the one wanting to classify people by race. That's the racist implication. Don't you understand that classifying by race means things that you (and I) don't like are (a) likely to be created, and (b) have little NPOV reason for deletion - there's always WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You think it won't happen, while I can WP:AGF that there was no ill motive we have the lovely creation of Category:Illegal immigrants executed in the United States and guess who that's supposed to get at? Hmmmm. If we classify African-Americans by endeavor, like we do Americans generally, we have Category:Americans convicted of murder we'll have the African-American one too, and someone will find some citations that the rate of violence in that community is noteworthy to justify that puppy. Carlossuarez46 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, but only narrowly and after much changing of my mind as I read through it all. The consistent practice for a long time at CfD has been to require quite a high degree of notability for ethnicity-occupation intersections, primarily for the practical reason that these categories tend to proliferate, leading to category clutter on individual articles and to huge added complexity in the category tree. This problem will be resolved if/when we have dynamic category intersection, but we don't have that yet, so for now we have to carefully limit the number of intersection categories. Such categories are of course also assessed for the relevance of ethnicity in each case.
    There were were indeed some strong arguments made for keeping the category as one of the rare ethnicity-occupation intersections, but none of them offered any evidence for the assertions on which those arguments were based. Without evidence, such assertions amount to little more than WP:ILIKEIT, and without evidence that African-American baseball players are a significant cultural topic in their own right, I would usually have no doubt that "delete" was the correct way to close this debate, which was why my initial inclination was to uphold the closure.
    However, in this case the debate itself seems woefully substandard: not one of the participants even mentioned the relevant guideline WP:CATGRS, relying inside on the highly condensed summary of it in WP:OCAT. This isn't good enough: WP:CATGRS is one of the more complex and subtle guidelines on wikipedia (probably matched only by WP:NOTE), and it is complex because it provides an WP:NPOV framework for assessing subjects where there are several conflicting principles and where passions can run very high on both sides. It seems to me that neither side satisfactorily engaged with the issues, but that even so the deletionists did narrowly have the balance of arguments in their favour.
    I come down in favour of relisting for one reason only: that this debate involved a heavily-populated category and its outcome is being used (not unreasonably) as a precedent for other deletions of many other heavily-populated categories, and it is far too weak a debate to serve that major purpose. It should be relisted, and both sides encouraged to consider the issues more carefully than saying "don't meet OCAT" or asserting its cultural importance without references. I suggest letting the debate run for longer than usual to see if consensus can be reached, and to reinstate only if there is a consensus to keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - African American has a special importance in the United States, and African American baseball players is no exception. Seemingly endless reliable sources categorize African American baseball players - See Google web search, Google books, Google scholar, and Amazon books. Wikipedia's Category:African American baseball players is a reflection of this. The delete reasoning did not overcome reliable source use of African American baseball players categories. Thus, the consensus could not have been delete. -- Jreferee t/c 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply' The evidence which you cited was not offered at CfD, so is not relevant to what the closing admin found; the admin noted the consensus as was, not as it might have been if the participants had dome some research. You have now brought forward new evidence, which may be grounds for overturning the closure, but that doesn't change what the consenus was in August. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The decline of the number of African-American players in baseball vs. other sports is an important discussion in American sport and race relations. Corvus cornix 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. It is, simply put, overcategorization by race. I'm not sure why this is ok some of the time, but not all of the time. Might be time to list WP:OCAT at WP:MFD. --Kbdank71 13:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist - As several editors have already pointed out, this CFD is being used as a "precedent" for demanding (and ratifying) the deletion of other related categories. It was closed shortly after the nomination was withdrawn, at a point when the discussion was really gathering steam. I did my best to make the case for retention, but I was far less familiar with the fine points of Wiki guidelines than I am now. Because of the very serious implications for all other ethnic-related categories, this really calls for a much more broadly-based and thoroughly debated discussion. Cgingold 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per BrownHairedGirl. Once upon a time, this was a defining characteristic, but not any more. -- Prove It (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (I already !voted above) - this shows why this category is important. Corvus cornix 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Arms_and_influence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Set for speedy delete, responded, deleted anyway without comment Kingdaddy8 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally posted this article, a link to my own blog, because a colleague's blog had appeared on Wikipedia. We both use our political science backgrounds to comment on current affairs. His blog, Fruits and votes, focuses on electoral systems; mine, Arms and Influence, focuses on terrorism and guerrilla warfare. We're both the same type of blog; in fact, Matt Shugart, the author of Fruits and Votes, credits my blog (which antedated his) as part of his inspiration for Fruits and Votes.

I started writing Arms and Influence several years ago because I wanted to make a significant contribution. Even today, public commentary on guerrilla warfare and terrorism is extremely poor, overlooking the past history of similar conflicts, and often not mentioning the principles of military strategy at all.

If the administrator who marked the article for speedy deletion thinks it's really not noteworthy enough (but not a near-identical blog?), I guess I understand. However, I tried making my case before it was auto-deleted, and it was nuked without any response. I still think it's a noteworthy blog; however, I'd at least like someone to tell me why they think it isn't. Kingdaddy8 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Endorse own deletion - To say I deleted it "without comment" is a tad incorrect - I noted in the deletion summary, "CSD A7: no assertion of notability...". Our articles on web content are required to state how exactly the content in question is notable, backed by references from independent, reliable sources. Just stating the blog's writer and its subject does nothing to establish its general notability. No sources were given either in the article or the talk page, hence deletion. Resurgent insurgent 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Articles must assert notability, backed up by reliable sources, to be kept; from the deletion log, it would appear that the administrator who deleted this felt there was no assertion of notability present. A quick Google would suggest that the phrase "arms and influence" gets a lot of hits, but the blog doesn't appear to receive much in the way of coverage or outside references. Endorse deletion - the speedy delete was appropriate, from the looks of things. For the record, I've just proposed Fruits and Votes for deletion, as it doesn't appear to assert notability either. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. I have looked at the deleted article, and it contained neither an assertion of notability nor evidence of it. I personally find the blog very interesting, but (per WP:ILIKEIT) that's irrelevant to its deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS If and when your blog starts getting serious mentions in WP:reliable sources, and it thereby meets the criteria of WP:NOTE, I'm sure that someone will write a wikipedia article on it (though per WP:COI, you shouldn't write the article). But we're not there yet :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't delete Fruits and Votes. I didn't start this discussion so that I could drag down that article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdaddy8 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment If the blog fails our criteria, it should be deleted regardless of your intent. It shouldn't have been here in the first place. --Dhartung | Talk 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whenever anyone makes a What about article x? argument, the x article usually does not meet Wikipedia's requirements and is deleted. -- Jreferee t/c 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No notability asserted or attributed to independent sources. Being a "noteworthy blog" seems to be a claim of interestingness, not notability. Notability is established by external sources with credibility. Even writing on a narrow subject is not by itself notability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I didn't find any independent write ups of the armsandinfluence blog. Has your blog ever been written up such as in an alternate newspaper or military publication? -- Jreferee t/c 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Naruto_geography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Previous AfD did not address issues with notability. All sources given in article are primary. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is presented. The AfD should probably be relisted for discussion about notability. Subdolous 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, Relist. There is nothing preventing relisting at AfD. This DRV should be closed. Smashville 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Legend of the Green Dragon – Deletion endorsed. Whether general notability requirements should or shouldn't apply to online games is a question for a different forum. – Chick Bowen 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Legend of the Green Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

Failed notability requirements which would exclude not just this game but also the entire genre MightyE 10:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC) The criteria used to execute the delete is that it lacks reputable non-primary sources. There are actually many non-primary articles:[reply]

I have avoided adding those articles to the Legend of the Green Dragon article because policy forbids me to edit an article on a subject in which I am personally invested. If these aren't considered notable, then the entire genre is considered notable since they are the only sources which would discuss games like this. In which case, the genre should be purged, including all of the related articles, which also fail the same notability requirements. (Battrick Cthulhu Nation Cyber Nations Earth: 2025 Hattrick Horse Isle Informatist kdice Kingdom of Loathing Jennifer Government: NationStates NukeZone Ogame Orion's Belt Game Planetarion Popomundo RuneScape DragonSpires Shadowmere Stellar Crisis Stick Arena Travian Urban Dead Utopia X-Wars) I'm not asking that all of these articles be purged. Instead I'm suggesting that in notable but not-well-established genres (especially up-and-coming genres like browser based gaming) will not have secondary sources which pass muster with the recently delete happy nature of Wikipedia since secondary sources are now considered the primary indicator of notability. In this environment, rather than being a compendium of human knowledge, Wikipedia will become only a compendium of pop culture, and a history book. The rules for what is considered notable should be more relaxed on works in progress and active cultures and genres which are still in the process of establishing themselves, than they are for now-dead cultures and genres. People are drawn to such scenes specifically because they are not pop culture. Once they become pop culture (which is what is necessary to get secondary sources that Wikipedia now obligates), they lose what made them appealing and what got them to that status, they become a different genre, and if all you document is after this conversion, then you lose what made it great, and you might as well be a wiki version of Entertainment Tonight. -- MightyE 10:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from Closing Admin. Oh look another case brought to DRV without doing the closing admin the courtesy of discussing it with them first. Having read the above I am not actually clear what the nominator actually wants from this drv since they say they don't want the information purged. The article was redirected per a clear consensus at the AFD and the material can be merged by anyone who cares enough to do this. So what exactly are we being asked to do? This certainly isn't the place to discuss notability policy. Concerning my position, as usual I couldn't care less. I'm always happy to have my admin actions reviewed. Feel free to do something else. Spartaz Humbug! 11:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) "I am not actually clear what the nominator actually wants from this drv since they say they don't want the information purged" - I'm requesting that the article be restored. Sorry if that wasn't clear. (2) "Oh look another case brought to DRV without doing the closing admin the courtesy of discussing it with them first." - Sorry if those of us who don't live and breathe Wikipedia aren't familiar with what is and is not considered courteous; I followed the guidelines as they were described on the Deletion Review page. Maybe I missed something, I haven't done this before. (3) FYIW, the criteria used to determine lack of notability were WP:Fiction. From that notability guideline, "Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) covers the notability of characters, items, places, and other elements within a work of fiction," which does not describe the article in question. The article was not about elements from the work, but about the work itself. The title of WP:Fiction is not indicative of what it is meant to address. Additionally, the target article, Legend of the Red Dragon also fails the same notability criteria. MightyE —Preceding comment was added at 12:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines do say "Consider talking to the admin who deleted the article (or otherwise made the decision) first. There could have been a mistake, or there could be some miscommunication or a misunderstanding, and a full review might not be needed." It's an academic point now, but for the sake of future reviews... --W.marsh 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Props for not bad mouthing the AfD closing admin in your DRV request (as most new requestors seem to do) and for responding with the assume good faith reply "Maybe I missed something, I haven't done this before." You seem to have a good temperament, so once you learn the Wikipedia ropes, you should be able to accomplish what you want within reason. -- Jreferee t/c 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Delete per lack of enough coverage from independent, reliable sources also would have been a reasonable close, but the closing admin did interprete the debate correctly. To my surprise, while there are no independent reliable source coverage of Legend of the Green Dragon, there is plenty of coverage for Legend of the Red Dragon going back to at least 1995 (See, Macon Telegraph archives, search "Legend of the Red Dragon" for the May 7, 1995 Macon Telegraph article "All Aboard!" by Robert Goon.) Go figure. -- Jreferee t/c 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not my intention to say that closing admin misinterpreted results. The notability requirements leveraged are for fictional entities, and the article is about a fictional work (it is not covered by WP:Fiction, in spite of the name of the notability guideline). It's also my intention to say that under the notability requirements being presented, the entire genre, with its hundreds of thousands of participants fails to be notable. Further, the Legend of the Red Dragon article fails to provide any secondary sources (the same criticism leveled against the original Green Dragon article, and maybe this is pedantic, but the Macon Telegraph article is not about LoRD, it's about a BBS operator; I don't intend to debate the notability of LoRD, but I do think it's an excellent example of the selected notability criteria being insufficient to determine notability, even though the two games are not even the same genre except in a very broad sense). If it is indeed the case that the entire genre is non-notable, then the entire genre should be purged, and not selected articles. Of the articles in this genre, the Green Dragon article was one of the better ones. MightyE 16:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For deletion purposes, there is no requirement that an article actually include references. So long as references are reasonable available, the lack of references is not a basis to delete an article. As for the other matters, there is Wikipedia importance/significance notability and Wikipedia reliable source notability. Even though the topic is fictional, the independent reliable source coverage needs to be real. Also, check out Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, including What about article x? and All or nothing. If you think Legend of the Red Dragon does not meet Wikipedia's article standards, please follow How to list pages for deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 16:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most persuasive argument you can make at DRV is to present a draft article posted in your user space and say "this is what I want to post in article space." I suggest writing a draft Legend of the Green Dragon article in your user space at User:MightyE/Legend of the Green Dragon (draft). Use only material from reliable sources that are independent of the Legend of the Green Dragon and anyone having a relationship with those connected to the Legend of the Green Dragon. Footnote each sentence to a reliable source, then return to WP:DRV with the draft and request that the article be recreated using your draft as the next post. Just about in every case, a well written, sourced, draft userspace article presented at DRV zooms to Wikipedia space. -- Jreferee t/c 16:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the biggest concern here is the lack of independent, reliable sources from not only this game, but everything else from this entire genre. If we were to get CNN attention, I do not believe we would be discussing notability requirements in this deletion review. The fact remains that most of this genre, if not all, does not get the kind of coverage that is required to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements, because Legend of the Green Dragon is the sort of game that gains notability through word of mouth, not through main-stream media sources. While I do not advocate the deletion of articles under this same genre, I do feel that it is important to readdress the notability requirements in light of the genre, and decide whether or not browser-based games in general should fit inside the scope of what should stay in Wikipedia. If it is, then it might be useful to reconsider what constitutes a reliable, independent source. Finally, I would like to point out that the issue of deletion on this article was brought forth before, also on grounds of notability, but the decision to delete it was overturned purely based on the number of active players who were present in this game's various servers. I do appreciate the question wwwwolf raised - "Plus, do we even have notability criteria for online games, anyway? Especially MUD-like systems?" -- X-Kal 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No reasoning given that would cause us to overturn a perfectly reasonable AfD closure. The "articles" you give are perfect examples of the kind of stuff we don't consider to be reliable sources: blogs, user-submitted blurbs, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Anthony Chidiac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD#1 | AfD#2 | MfD#A | MfD#B | COI)

completely revised article at User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac needing to be transferred into mainspace with blessings

Hello reviewers. Historically, first attempt at article was a train wreck, with no citable references, crashing and derailing everywhere in its flow, and then rightfully, AfD decision was delete amongst some controversial debate. Deleting admins suggested I should look at a complete rewrite or WP:STUBbing article and inviting others to expand it, which is what I did, and again, it got nominated for a second AfD. The result, again, delete was more for a reason that the stub really lacked any information that proved notability, as I concentrated on only 2 achievements that were more to do about an event or company and not about the person. Again, it was a right decision, and based on such I fear contributing here, especially when it comes to the work I have done on getting this notable Australian Businessman wiki'ed.

The reason why I have bought this article/subject to deletion review is not because I disagree with the deleting admins closing comments in both cases. Its because the article has been rewritten according to deleting admins thoughts and I fear the wrath of salting or anything else to happen to my efforts to add the complete article back into mainspace. The only area that I believe that the article falls over on is providing more citation for claims, which would be easily fixed in the short term by adding a "citation" banner at the beginning of the article.

I really want to move on and have this article out of my userspace as it should be an item or work for other people to contribute to, and if its in my userspace its not a place where it can be exposed to further collaboration easily by people that I do not know of yet that have further information pertaining to subject. The main source of the article I have rewritten is an interview I did with the subject of the article and one of his colleagues and is about to be released in credible media publications. I do understand that it still lacks sources for absolutely everything apart from the "horses mouth", but I believe the current list of sources in references is sufficient reason to have this complete article here at User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac out of my userspace and into mainspace. It will most likely get others to contribute by cross referencing with media articles that pre-date the late 1990's and others who will see and concur with the article and information from the subject himself, and may add or edit it themselves as well. Considering that once this article moves from my userspace I will promise to continue to track down and add more sources to the article to concur with its contents, I thank you all kindly for the time and effort in your review and help in moving article to mainspace. regards, T--T3Smile 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs · logs), T3Smile (talk · contribs · logs), 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs · logs), and Achidiac (talk · contribs · logs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might be helpful... first AfD and second AfD. -- Ben 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion AfD was a sockupuppet and personal-attack-filled mess, but consensus was perfectly clear: this was, and still is, a grotesquely puffery-filled vanity article about a thoroughly non-notable person. WP:COI by itself isn't reason to delete an article, but blatant spam / hopeless self-promotion is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - There is no reason to move WP:OR to article main space. Restructure the article using Template:Biography, use only material from reliable sources that are independent of Anthony Chidiac and anyone having a relationship with Anthony Chidiac, footnote each sentence to a reliable source, then return to WP:DRV with the draft and request that the article be recreated using your draft as the next post. -- Jreferee t/c 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was only able to find a few blurbs on Australian entrepreneur Anthony Chidiac. However, there is a lot of information on Florida, United States obstetrician/gynecologist Dr. Anthony Chidiac, so please feel free to rewrite the article to be about Dr. Anthony Chidiac. The information I found on Australian entrepreneur Anthony Chidiac is: (1) ITNews.com.au October 24, 2001, (2) Press release November 13, 2001 (3) Internet.AU July 2, 2002. The collective of this reliable source information would support a statement in the Opulent article that Chidiac was Opulent's CEO in 2001. That's about it as far as mentions of Chidiac within Wikipedia. -- Jreferee t/c 15:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Wikipedia is not Monster.com. Smashville 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Andrew, others, look you need to drop this claim of WP:COI, or monster.com, self-promotion, spam, or anything that is controversial - its just not true, and no proof means - well, you should drop it as proof without evidence. Traceys request, is a simple request from a wikipedia enthusiast as she is scared of being bold to publish something that is of encyclopaedic value, as the methods in the past that some admins are using on this article are more "last resort" than friendly, hence the flare up of personalities, all directed to the people involved (new contributors at the time) and no assistance was given to the article itself. Wikipedia is a "reference to references" (quote from admin FT2), and Tracey has done a good job in tracking down such references to cover a fair bit about the article on me. I did make it hard for her though. My career feats were mainly achieved in the 1990's - an age where internet was in its infancy and print copy ruled over internet. I don't pay her or others to do so and I could point to sources that would make the article stand up for itself, but it hasn't been my idea to put an article here and its a lot of fun to watch some people behave and only one or two clammering to find source material to back the interview I gave to Tracey and the group. On my request my PR followed through and gave tracey and RP a shoebox full of some material, but there is a lot more I have. You will have to look for it in a place called a LIBRARY :). Its a nice little exercise for the lazy to source material that is not of the internet as some events pre-date it, just like the height of my career in the Music and TV Industries. Some notable others in the hard copy articles are now deceased, and were controversial in the industry. I kept out the controversial pieces to ensure the article was written without such. A quick clue to the intelligent is in the interesting deletion of material in the TV show published on YouTube. I think thats enough clues sherlock. On a constructive/informational note - the Anthony Chidiac in Florida is not me, there are a few Anthony Chidiac's out there - Ones I know are 1) Me (Australia, Melbourne) 2) Sydney, Australia (a Maronite Priest) 3) Montreal, Canada (A Pilot) and 4) Florida (The gyno who got arrested for suspicion of being a terrorist as he was speeding to a hospital to deliver a baby - highly controversial). Tracey mentions above that the article in her userspace lacked sourcing from the internet but a lot of sources came up when the article was put into public space, when others helped out - and thats her point. I did mention that in the past that I had paid a PR Agency to curtail any media reporting about me in 2002 as I didn't like the media circus it was generating and invading my private life. I've only given the ok for Tracey and the uni folk to publish a wikipedia article for encyclopaedic reference, and would appreciate it being neutral in its tone. After all, what is there to promote about me now? - I'm happy with my golf and laid back life and occasional public speech. I have been asked to engage in some big projects post the "convergent cafe" project but its not because of wikipedia. I prefer to stay out of public life too. If this study/media/whatever group want a reference of me on here, then just provide her with the help needed to do such. I'd be amused to see the press articles and references come up again. Can't wait for someone to find that embarrassing pic of me with "MC Hammer" Pants and the one with the "Gods Property" fluoro Blue shirt! Thats when I'd be nominating for an AfD!! The lesson I learned is that you can't pay a PR company enough to kill all media articles. Somewhere, someone still has them. The group only want to share what I did in the past that shaped the industry. I could pay my PR to raise a lot of press again and I could do something that is industry breaking again, but, as I said before, my life priority has changed and sharing the knowledge for the kids sake is more rewarding. Sorry about the heated conversations in the past, but understandably, people got mad because they thought it was a vote and nobody engaged in constructive conversation that shaped an article into a quality one. I fear that this effort of Traceys is going down the same way again. Gosh. Its a reference of references people, not a vote for a president! I'll be back after going to cafe (Mzolis?) for a steak. Scuse the length. --Achidiac 03:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The subject has been pushing hard to get his article here and that makes protestations that the lack of sources results from a desire for privacy somewhat difficult to swallow. When I see claims like he Popularized American R&B throughout Asia by way of producing two series of TV shows, I see resume puffery. The encyclopedic statement is "He produced two tv shows, which according to credible source X, popularized American R&B throughout Asia". Pretty obviously that credible source making the link from accomplishment to notability does not exist, even if it is by design or desire of the subject. This makes the claim insufficient for our notability purposes. I've commented in the AFD on how the Gates video claim really isn't all that significant. I've been the tech rushing to produce stuff for a sales presentation and believe me it's hard work, but it is crucially unsung. It's great for a resume but it isn't the kind of thing that makes one significant. This isn't a matter of "shaping an article into a quality one", it's an article that does not have the substance to be a quality article to begin with, and the sketchy and limited sources that are brought forth to bolster the tiniest corners of it don't at all address the central question. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This article is written as a puff piece and the references seem rather weak - especially the total lack of inline citations to make it clear what evidence supports the claims made. --Nick Dowling 11:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all, I don't think I should be voting because I have looked at other articles here in this area and they all just mainly endorse deletions, interesting observation is that User:Jrefree notes in article above this one "an article does not need to have references" but then in this one to "quote citable references". I would assume in this case that each article has its own set of rules - where are these rules? User:Starblind, with a fake "interlocutor" picture in his profile, claims chidiac article as "puffery". If I had to vote I would say that the article be overturned, and only the six main points in first paragraph on userspace at T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac moved into mainspace, plus current references, and the article STUBBED, with a banner above to get more citable sources for four of the 6 points. FYI, there were not 2 TV Episodes, the first series was 6 episodes, the next series another 10, and the 3rd series had 4 episodes, the 4th episode of the 3rd series did not go to air in Australia. The sources I quote here - SKA TV (St. Kilda Access Television), OptusVision, and ABC Australia Television TV Logs. You would also find it on Wharf Cable (Hong Kong) logs, and if you check the list of Australia Television rebroadcasters througout Asia that took on the Palapa Satellite feed you would surely find broadcast logs of such back then too. I would say that once Tracey visits the libraries and searches through archived magazines and trade papers that she will find the supporting documents. I also believe the Australian Film Archives may have the masters of the series, or it still might be in South Australia at the TV network there (10 Network?) Easier still others who discover the article will be able to reference it with something they read as well, somewhere making it easier on the one person who "owns" the piece for now. Tracey has an eloquent way of writing - sometimes so good it sounds too good but its just good writing skills. She was even honest in her above appraisal of her work. The rest of the article south of the main points she is presenting is long-winded and "storytelling" rather than referencing and could definitely be shortened. But if the stub goes to mainspace (the first section only - leave the pic out too just the facts and the references) then we all can add the references and do in-line citation. Its just too hard to improve an article when it is in someones userspace as it is not easy for others apart from this little group of ours who know what we are looking for. I note that none of the above editors have even tried to edit the article to conform - understandably chidiac himself wont touch it purely because he intends to avoid adverse claims. My projects I set up for my students try to re-address the imbalance in wikipedia of reporting more than just Americans and American Technology as pioneers in the field. This is such an example of the imbalance, and us aussies loathed the World Book and Encyclopedia Brittannica for the same. Chidiac isnt desperate to have an article here (noted above), Tracey is: as she's stubborn to have her first one she started on published. I believe she has made other contributions and new articles on here too. Fact is, Mr. Rove McManus presented chidiacs show back in the channel 31 days, and I'm sure someone could dig that vision up for YouTube fans, it was in a primetime slot! --Rdpaperclip 14:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted above "For deletion purposes, there is no requirement that an article actually include references. So long as references are reasonable available, the lack of references is not a basis to delete an article."[147] which you quoted as "an article does not need to have references."[148] I find it ironic that you set you set up projects for your students try to re-address the imbalance in Wikipedia of reporting. In regards to the merits of your comment, the difference between Legend of the Red Dragon and Anthony Chidiac is that I personally have seen enough reliable source material outside of Wikipedia for Legend of the Red Dragon to meet WP:N and I was not able to find enough reliable sources for Anthony Chidiac for the topic to meet WP:N. I listed everything I found for Anthony Chidiac. To move me to agree to change my position on Anthony Chidiac, someone will need to create a draft article on Anthony Chidiac using reliable sources that are independent of Anthony Chidiac. Requesting a draft article to review is common at DRV and is the best way to overcome a deletion. I don't think it is possible to create a Anthony Chidiac that meets Wikipedia's article standards, which seems to be why no one has made any efforts to create such a draft article. -- Jreferee t/c 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having a show hosted by Rove McManus doesn't matter as Wikipedia notability isn't inherited. If the author of this article is longing to see their work on Wikipedia then they should write about a different topic. --Nick Dowling 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, you shouldn't be "voting" anyway as we don't voting here; we discuss. Additionally, it would be nice if you would stick to one account and one account only. These multiple accounts are tedious and blatantly obvious.Sarah 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and endorse the decision to delete. The userspace version needs to be deleted as well, now that this has been through deletion discussions so many times. This article is a vanity puff-piece and the ever-present blatantly transparent sock theater is making it extremely difficult to assume good faith. User:Achidiac wrote above, "I did mention that in the past that I had paid a PR Agency to curtail any media reporting about me in 2002 as I didn't like the media circus it was generating and invading my private life." This claim of a "media circus" in 2002 is unsupported by the actual media. On Factiva there are 16 articles that mention the name "Anthony Chidiac", however, only six refer to this "Anthony Chidiac". Of the six, two are PR releases; of the other four, two are identical (same two articles published in two different newspapers), and none of the six could be described as "significant independent coverage" of the subject of this biography. The Australian New Zealand Reference Centre brings up four articles for "Anthony Chidiac", but all four are the same articles listed on Factiva. These articles span 2001-2005, so if there was a "media circus" in 2002, there would be some sign of it on these newspaper databases. Instead we have 2 PR releases and two distinct, independent articles, one about Bill Gates and one about internet cafes. Achidiac complains above that we aren't trying to fix the article. Unfortunately, I don't think any of us are willing to waste out time working on an article that will never be able to meet our policies and guidelines. It's just an indulgent puff-piece and that's it. The closure of the AfD was correct and furthermore, the decision reached in the AFD was correct. I do not endorse spending any more time on this article, or a "complete rewrite" as requested by the DRV nominator because there is simply no way to resolve the notability and sourcing issues. Sarah 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion definate puff piece with tthe subject seeing a Wikipdeia article as a trophy. The article Internet Cafe was spammed with advertising for is cafe. The most disturbing is that appears to factual inaccuracies. At the risk craeting further article spamming, take the opening 2 sentences of the the article in user space
In 1989, he changed the way in which the music industry edited musical recordings - from analog to digital format. Partnering with Atari and Hybrid Arts, Inc. he first used the ADAP II to edit a song by Michael Jackson and released the song and a body of work through a DJ promotional CD/Vinyl company
this raises some question firstly why if Micheal Jackson was involved in such a significant event was no mention in that article of it. Additionally Compact Disc have been main stream since 1984 by 1989 very little music was released on analogue Vinyls. I havent got past looking at that first CV built point to find collerations between other articles. The user space article should also be deleted in light the apparent WP:HOAX. Gnangarra 02:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this Digital recording shows that it has been experimented with since the 1930's which only adds more doubt to validity of the claim in the proposed article. Gnangarra 10:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment dear Gnangarra, the ENIAC wasnt even invented in the 1930's (in fact, it was 1946 and it was only a glorified calculator). I think you meant the 1980's, and the first digital editor that synced to AES/EBU and had Balanced Input/Outputs to produce professional Audio of appreciable length and CD Quality (2 hrs) was the ADAP II. It was released circa 1986-1987 only to major studios, but it didn't work well until I fixed it. :) cheers, A--Achidiac 12:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - This process examines process itself, and is not intended to be a rerun of the AfD. As such, we are looking at the decision, whether it was in line with consensus and reflected policy. I believe that the consensus was interpreted correctly by the closing admin and that policy was properly applied and justified by the closing admin's statement. Orderinchaos 02:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment in this case the requester is asking to return to article space an article that has twice been deleted as such it's appropriate to also consider the article in question in relation to issues raised during the previous AfD's. Gnangarra 08:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur with Gnangarra's assessment above. Orderinchaos 10:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment hi guys, sorry, I've set up the article to fail. Not only that, but the worst part is people didn't stick to the point either, and I was not putting the article here on DRV because I disagreed with the original two decisions, but am too scared to put it up myself. I think I've gone down the wrong way by coming to DRV, but I have a save that would make everyone feel good about it without it being a waste. It would have been best if I just asked a few of the original admins permission to put up article after they have reviewed it, but as it sits now it would be subject to the same process again as I forgot to cite inline. From some of the info here - one admin thinks its still more puffier than Seinfelds shirt and that means its not neutrally written. I take note of rdpaperclip's comments that the five points could be stubbed, but I would want to clean them up with inline citation to meet general approval. So would you all be ok with me and one or two others working on it again? Assign someone like [User:Swerdnaneb] or [User:FT2] with your blessing to add if this requirement is met, and we leave it at that until more press comes along about a future dated project that will expand the article, hence make more sense to all. A good point raised is that I have only covered the surface of "covering the event, not the person", my stance (as would often be most people) was "cover the person first, than the event". Thats why all I would ask is in this review is that admins OK a quality written stub with inline citations, a small two line paragraph written by chidiac himself about early life to satisfy WP:BIO, and thats it. Can I get a consensus of opinion of this idea? Thanks very much to the people who didnt raise controversial issues that are irrelevant and untrue. T--T3Smile 11:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tracey, I think you were bold to take it here, would have been less bold if you just dumped the article on mainspace!! (joking). All you needed was to get Ft2, Swerdnaneb, and other admins opinion and ask them to move article into space AFTER you do inline citation. I gave you the clues. As you know, factiva only lists electronic publications on companies, not people. I am retired, and don't run a company- its all sold off to a multi-national. As it is, the article is nice, very glam, but I don't own an ark, and my middle name is not Noah and there is no inline citation as you were asked by these admins. Trust the admins, they have made more than 600 edits :)

So, please ask someone to close this discussion and blank it out, because all you are doing is affecting my reputation now, and such further discussion about the topic will not make me happy to point you in the right directions as to how to get the info for your project. Thankyou, and thanks to all of the realist admins that stick to just the facts. Tracey, why dont you just e-mail or call one or two admins so they can verify you are not me and RD is not me or you or - sheesh. Cheers, --Achidiac 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factiva covers a wide variety of articles from a wide variety of international publications, not just business material. This is why I see articles like, "Cop suspended for handcuffing doctor rushing to deliver baby" when searching for articles on "Anthony Chidiac". Sarah 08:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We routinely use Factiva for searching local and state newspapers - it has my state newspaper, for example, back to 1996, and the Sydney Morning Herald and Financial Review even further back. I'm also able to see Leader newspapers in Melbourne with the extended search. Orderinchaos 12:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd go for a speedy close and salt now, per Mr. Chidiac trying to have an article written about himself. Where, anywhere, has your reputation been affected? You are the one wanting an article on yourself. Smashville 00:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Mr User:Smashville you just lost credibility yourself by saying the last comment. Any negative information on a person is just that - in this section - on an AfD - and I failed to make an article good enough and take responsibility for the article without complete citation, I did bad to take it here, and you are not helping sir. T. --T3Smile 07:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are doing this for some school project, I recommend that you give up and pick a new topic. I'm afraid that this subject is simply not notable and the bio is not suitable for inclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we have standards for inclusion. Hammering this through multiple AFDs and DRVs is not going to change the core problems with this subject. Sarah 08:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This particular deletion review is one of the strangest things I've seen on Wikipedia and I'd suggest that it be closed before it gets much odder. There's some good advice on the dangers of starting vanity articles at User:Durova/The dark side and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world. --Nick Dowling 09:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I stand by my comment. Lack of notability is not affecting someone's reputation. If you didn't want to debate the merits of the subject, then perhaps you shouldn't have brought it to DRV. That is the entire purpose of this debate. And - unfortunately - you seem to be taking this way too personally. Smashville 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • T3Smile, Rdpaperclip and Achidiac have all been blocked. That should be the end to this discussion. Smashville 18:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close comment - While Anthony Chidiac might be real, this Anthony Chidiac effort is Wikipedia is nothing more than an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. See, for example, this post and this post. -- Jreferee t/c 14:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 November 2007[edit]

  • Kersal Massive – Deletion of prior versions endorsed, new version moved from userspace into articlespace; AfD at editorial discretion – trialsanderrors 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kersal Massive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Originally posted to my talk page. Hi, I noticed you deleted Kersal Massive. Whilst the original entry was very poor, I think Kersal Massive has a legitimate place in Wikipedia: http://www.google.com/search?q=Kersal+Massive It was a regional internet/youtube phenomenon akin to "Leave Britney Alone" and "Don't Tase Me Bro". It also featured in the Guardian's internet blog: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/tv/2006/12/minirappers_cause_internet_sti_1.html Which is a pretty safe barometer for UK internet phenomenon. There are also a considerable number of "remixes" on youtube: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Kersal+Massive&search=Search With all this in mind, I'm not sure of the procedure of allowing entries in previously deleted entries but I think the above references and some linking to; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Viral_videos Would be appropriate in these circumstances.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbalet (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. A well-participated-in AfD which was a unanimous delete vote, and six speedy deletions (five of them after the AfD). One odd mention in a blog, even of a newspaper, does not make notability. I had a look at the article and found it to be typical of the self-promoting non-notable YouTube 'celebrity' of which we have, in my opinion, too many already present. Sam Blacketer 23:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow recreation and relist. Smurrayinchester's version is significantly different but I am still not convinced it is a notable subject. So I suggest moving his revision to the article page and then putting it up for deletion, as suggested by Jreferee. Sam Blacketer 14:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, nothing here that could overturn a unanimous AFD. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. --Coredesat 00:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy permit recreation by moving User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal2 to Kersal Massive and undeleting the history. Endorse - Delete consensus valid. Comment Youtube is not a Wikipedia reliable source. The Dominion Post noted an August 24, 2007 gig by Kersal Massive. -- Jreferee t/c 01:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) The article previously had a bunch of goofs attempting to vandalize it. Laïka has proposed a draft at User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal2 that overcomes the reasons for deletion using reliable source material. The draft demonstrates that there is at least one editor interested in the article who knows what they are doing and likely will watch over the article to overcome the salt reasons. -- Jreferee t/c 13:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a single revision of this article had cited a reliable source when I salted it; the only revisions to cite anything besides youtube were the ones deleted in March 2006, which also pointed at a discussion board. Neither have any of this article's many reincarnations within the Kersal article (which usually overwhelmed it, as it was a seven-sentence stub up until a month ago). Blogs and youtube comments do not a Wikipedia article make. I don't see the band mentioned anywhere on the Dominion Post page Jreferee links to; however, a note of a single gig, as he describes it, falls rather short of our WP:BAND guideline. I see no potential for an acceptably-sourced article here. —Cryptic 02:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: the version of the article which was deleted had been vandalised beyond all recognition (I've reposted an example of the state of the article at deletion at User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal to demonstrate) as well as being unsourced. Allowing recreation would allow me to create a proper, sourced, version of the article, which could then be fairly debated at AfD. Sources exist from the Guardian (linked above), Vice Magazine [149] and TechDigest,[150] among others, which discuss the effect that the video has had, noting the extraordinary number of covers and remixes that exist, and the DIY aesthetic of the video. Laïka 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've created a new, sourced, unvandalised version at User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal2, which meets criterion 1 of WP:WEB and of WP:MUSIC, and fixes all the faults addressed with the article at AfD (namely lack of sources, patent nonsense, original research). Laïka 20:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to minimize your work - it's indeed a lot better than the previous versions - but an unacceptably large amount of the article (nine footnotes!) is sourced to a blog. —Cryptic 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion You'd need to bring some really mind-blowingly impressive new evidence into DRV in order to overturn a unanimous AfD decision, especially one that ran 16-to-zero! I'm not seeing anything like that here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Amjad Iqbal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

He has made his Pakistan debut vs Iraq in 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC First Round) and played both legs Suprah™ 21:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the first one is a different person (a hockey player) but that's just being picky since he has become notable anyway. :-) Bridgeplayer 02:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Darius McCollum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article about someone with Asperger's Syndrome involved in crime was deleted by User:Jbeach56 as "no claim of notability, WP:BLP concerns. There is an assertion of notability, notably a mention in the New York Times - as seen here. If there really is doubts about the notability of the subject, this should have been listed at AfD rather than deleted outright. Judging by the cached version, I didn't see anything that was a potential WP:BLP violation. --Solumeiras talk 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and rewrite to conform to BLP and WP:V policy. I was asked to comment on this DRV because I edit Asperger/autism-related articles. A subject mentioned at least 10 times in The New York Times and in Harper's is notable. However, there are some issues in the cached version of the article. Notability had not been established and there were BLP issues in the cached version. "McCollum has been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome" is not supported by the sources; the sources say he may have had Asperger syndrome, so the article needs to stick to the sources to avoid BLP issues. Second, there is an external link to a non-reliable source, neurodiversity. Third, the New York Times sources need to be included to establish notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion nn criminal, so what? Does everyone with a rap sheet get an article? Only if there's a reason to feel sorry for the guy? So he gets written up in his local paper - which because he's in NY ends up being the NY Times - little different than thousands of other people in jail & prison all over. Many serial criminals - whatever their medical conditions - get mentioned each time they are arrested, put on trial, up for parole, involved in the next crime, etc. Doesn't make them notable. WP is not Wiki Policeblotter. As to the BLP concerns: if the convictions are sourced, end of concern. Carlossuarez46 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Minor, minor, minor, minor, minor (etc.) criminal. Sounds like a strange local character, which New York is frankly full of, but this is Wikipedia, not wackynewyorkfolks.com. While I'm sure this is interesting and/or amusing to some, it's really no more notable than a tagger, sidewalk drunk, highway speeder, or other uber-petty criminal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The above arguments for endorsement can be made at AfD. Even if the multiple articles by the New York Times are written off as local coverage, Google Archive[151] hits show that his story has been picked up by Harper's, Salon, Dallas Morning News, BBC News, San Diego Union Tribune, The Independent, Philadelphia Daily News, CBS News, and others. Adjectives include "infamous" and "semilegendary." Whether he deserves it or not, he has gotten enough coverage to clear the CSD hurdle. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If notability outside NYC is needed, the article in Harpers provides it. And furthermore that articles says he "was contacted by members of several Asperger's support groups. Darius, whose arrests had been covered in newspapers for twenty years, had become well known among Asperger's experts and activists, and his case had been cited in at least one scholarly work." The potential BLP problem is not over any conviction, but the Asperger's syndrome]., It will be difficult to avoid it, since the Harpers article, free at http://web.archive.org/web/20030927155810/www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/1824_304/85882845/print.jhtml] discusses it in detail. We can quote what they say there, so it solves this one too. Go read the article in Harpers. He's clearly notable. DGG (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate is rather irrelevant. BLP deletions don't need to come to DRV. If something is deleted under BLP, it is generally because every version contains unreferenced negative accusations. Anyone can recreate this, as long as they make it BLP compliant. Notability gets discussed at AfD. So, whoever wants this, write it making sure all the negative stuff is cited.--Docg 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, where it is submitted that at least some versions do not contain unreferenced negative accusations (or, rather, that there are at least some versions that are not categorically BLP violations), DRV is entirely appropriate (and, indeed, there may well develop here a consensus that there were no significant BLP issues here and that a notability debate is properly situated at AfD); we don't, after all, necessarily take as dispositive any particular assertion made by a single editor or admin. Joe 23:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If a sentence lacks a footnote, it is fair to assume that the information is unsourced. The unfootnoted sentences in the deleted article certainly needed them to overcome WP:BLP concerns. No prejudice in recreating article from reliable source material that addresses the WP:BLP concerns. -- Jreferee t/c 01:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion under WP:BLP. Doc is wrong, however, the debate isn't totally irrelevant. The nominator thought there wasn't a BLP problem with the old draft. They are wrong in fact, but that is a legitimate DRV issue. No deletion rationale is self-proving, whether it be WP:CSD#A7 or WP:BLP. However, this article started in 2005 with no sources and essentially the final text. The Harper's article got linked, by the looks of it for the benefit of someone who might want to read it rather than to source anything. That someone later converted the link to a citation template doesn't mean that the article was a source. The article never received a rewrite with sourcing, and thus remained fundamentally unsourced for its entire existence. Since the deletion is correct under WP:BLP, the additional WP:CSD#A7 rationale is irrelevant. Doc is right that the debate is irrelevant for recreation; if an unsourced article is deleted for BLP reasons, there is no prejudice against creating a sourced replacement. GRBerry 03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion of current form but allow recreation with sourcing' per GRBerry. If there is concern that such an article still triggers BLP issues it should then be taken to AfD since it is would be well-sourced. JoshuaZ 13:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Synthesizing GRBerry and Groggy's comment below I'm changing my opinion to overturn, add footnote. If after that there are still concerns it can then be AfDed. JoshuaZ 17:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The endorsements appear to be moving away from the notability issue to BLP. I consider it excessively drastic to keep an article deleted over a BLP "problem" that can be solved by simply moving a footnote (from the end of the article to the end of the sentence with the "citation needed" tag). Is there any doubt that he has been arrested and sentenced several times? No, and that doesn't even seem to be the BLP issue. That leaves the Asperger's diagnosis, and is that even negative? For someone leading a quiet life, I can see how it could be; in this case, however, it provides a mitigating explanation for his acts. It is his friends and supporters who back this hypothesis, and McCollum himself seems open to it. (The main person with doubts about it seems to be the judge who threw the book at him.) And if the Harper's article is deemed insufficient, is there any question that there are lots of other reliable sources discussing his possible Asperger's? No. To my mind, BLP deletion should only be a recourse when information is suspected to be unsourceable, not when it is known that many other sources exist that could be added. It seems like an overbroad application of BLP to keep the article deleted when no one is disputing any of the underlying facts and no one doubts that there are many sources attesting to them, just because of dissatisfaction over the placement of a footnote. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S.. I'd also like to speak out against a couple of ideas that have been advanced above, starting with the idea that BLP deletions are beyond appeal or review. I don't believe any admin action should be beyond community challenge. Also, if the community believes that an admin is resorting to BLP deletion overzealously, he needs to know that. Also, admins often invoke "BLP" vaguely, making it difficult to know what problem he had specifically with the article. Was it the criminal record? The Asperger's? What if his BLP concern wasn't potential inaccuracy or insufficient sourcing, but a belief that McCollum was another Brian Peppers or Tourette's Guy, whose condition was being exploited by a media freakshow? In that case, he would be opposed to recreation no matter how many sources it had, and the critiques that the nom should have simply recreated instead of bringing this to DRV would be missing the point. Speaking of which, I also think people shouldn't be too quick to resort to the position that an article can just be recreated later with better sourcing. That's easy for admins to say, when they can call up the old version, add a few footnotes, and restore. But for regular editors, who must either wikify the Google cache version or rewrite from scratch, it's a pain. That seems like excessive trouble, when a source is already in the article, some people just think it needs to be pointed out better. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
some admins, including myself, will almost always email such an article to anyone who wants to restore it in good faith (or userify it if BLP or copyvio is not an issue)
And of course DelRev is exactly the spot provided for reviewing BLP deletions. Only way to avoid wheel war between one admin saying it is and one saying it isnt.DGG (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, I agree with Groggy Dice that BLP was no reason for delete. If Harpers reports that someone has Asperger's, and that this was used in mitigation at a trial, and it is sourced to Harpers, recording it is not BLP. It's sourced positive information. BLP does not mean "no biographies of living people"DGG (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comment: As the individual who opened this DRV, I wasn't doing this to invoke a WP:POINT or to violate WP:BLP. It is true that sources do say he has Asperger's Syndrome, and there's no doubting that. I was trying to ensure that an neutral, sourced version could be written. As it is, I work in the field of medical/psychological and (sometimes) with individuals who have Asperger's Syndrome and autism. I also research a lot of material about the field of autism and Asperger's syndrome for my employment anyway, so I hope I am not violating WP:COI here. I do intend to edit articles relating to Asperger's syndrome/autism, even notable individuals who have it whilst keeping within WP:BLP, WP:NOTE and other policies. Everyone has made good arguments for both keeping and deleting it, and I think you've done well with this debate. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 22:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the version I deleted didn't have those sources Jbeach sup 23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, if necessary list at AFD. The existence of an extensive article almost solely about the subject in a major national magazine suggests that at the least a community discussion is needed. As noted above, there was a footnoted reference that covered the BLP issues, it was merely awkwardly introduced. Footnote placement should not lead to a BLP speedy deletion. Sources for a balanced article may not be copious but they exist, both in NY papers and in books. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Marion Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Person is notable: was Lord Mayor of a sizeable population and, while she didn't sell 20,000 singles, has impressive CV. Setanta 05:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion 1. Horrible puff-piece that nevertheless managed to not assert encyclopedic notability, 2. Nothing was sourced, 3. Unanimous AfD that was correctly assessed, 4. Local politicians aren't notable ex-officio any more than local butchers, police officers or attorneys are. ~ trialsanderrors 06:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The Mayor (NB not 'Lord Mayor') of a Northern Irish district council is a ceremonial position; the Northern Irish districts are not actually sizeable places. The article was as Trialsanderrors describes, a pure unsourced hagiography which did not provide a reason for notability. Sam Blacketer 11:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 22 news results here do seem to be about this Marion Smith. But I don't have Lexus Nexus access at the moment, and from looking at the snippets Google News shows I can't really tell if these are non-trivial mentions. I get the hunch some aren't, though... this could probably be fleshed out in accordance with WP:V if someone really wanted to. --W.marsh 13:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Only in some bizarro alternate universe is something like "first woman to serve as Vice Chairman of the Local Government Staff Commission" a claim of notability. The general gist of things is that local politicians would have to be pretty darn special to get an article of their own, and nothing indicates that's the case here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clearly correct close. Carlossuarez46 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The problem with the article is that it seemed to be based on what her supporters would write about her rather than based on independent news coverage of her. Sunday Life (January 21, 2007) Smith fighting a lone battle for women in March elections. Section: News; page 7, had a decent article about Smith, but that was not cited in the Wikipedia article. My suggestion would be to compile all the news/book and other reliable source information on Smith and use only that information to write a footnoted Wikipedia draft article in your user space. Then return to WP:DRV so that people can evaluate the draft article in view of Wikipedia's article standards. -- Jreferee t/c 01:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own close A couple of the AFD participants went so far as to claim the article had no assertion of notability. I disagreed with that assessment; it did manage to assert that she was a local politician. However, the article was unsourced, didn't show any clear notability, much less the standard in WP:BIO for local politicians "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." The article didn't attempt to be neutral about her, violating WP:NPOV but that wasn't mentioned in the AFD. The article didn't cite any sources at all or claim that anybody noticed that she was elected. A newly written article might be viable; to address the concerns of the AFD it will need to be sourced to sources independent of her, her position(s), and her party. To comply with policy, it will also need to adhere to WP:NPOV instead of being a puff piece. GRBerry 04:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November&oldid=849103402"