Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 22

< April 21	Deletion review archives: 2008 April	April 23 >

22 April 2008[edit]

Princess Eléonore of Belgium – Keep closure endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I recently closed this AfD, which was immediately contested by the nominator (Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs)). Posting a DRV to cut through the drama and just get more eyes on it. Pastordavid (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There certainly was a consensus in keeping the article, but most of the keep voters were ILIKEROYALTY voters in the absense of an appropriate guideline. I thought that people were notable for what they did, not for whose parents they had. Editor of the wiki 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus was very clear, article does not fail any policy and when there is a clear consensus guidelines can, to quote, 'be treated with common sense and the occasional exception'. In the absence of a specific standard on such articles (such as the rejected Wikipedia:Notability (royalty)) the consensus at the AFD should stand. Davewild (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clear keep consensus with reliable secondary sources. No cogent reason for deletion given...the deleters threw blue links into the argument that didn't really make sense. WP:ILIKEIT doesn't work when it meets WP:N. --Smashville^BONK! 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While notability isn't inherited, I think the argument seemed to be that it was very likely that this person would be notable due to the similar circumstances that would inevitably befall the baby. In other words, they're not really notable yet, but it's so highly likely that they will be that there's not much point in deletion. At least, I think that's one way to look at it. I'm not even sure if I agree with that assessment, but that is the impression I've gotten. From an organizational standpoint a merge would make sense to me, and wouldn't be a predigest to re-splitting it as more information comes in. *shrug*. -- Ned Scott 20:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I understand where Editorofthewiki is coming from since few people achieve much that is notable in the first six days of their life. However, we are here to determine whether the AFD was properly closed and not to substitute our judgement for that of the AFD participants. The consensus was overwhelming that 5th in line to a throne is sufficient for notability and, on that basis, the closing admin acted correctly. The way forward, for those concerned, is to revive, and seek agreement on, the WP:Notability (royalty) guideline. BlueValour (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clear consensus that the subject was notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid AFD... no errors for DRV to overturn, someone just didn't like the close. --Rividian (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse hereditary monarchy is the definition of notable by relation, and the opinion of those responding on AfD is that that includes Wikipedia notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn To me, I truly believe that the AFD participants really did not elaborate whatsoever, for the most part, on why the article was kept when there was strong and sound reason presented why it should be deleted. People entirely confused a notable situation (non-unique, btw) with a non-notable individual, a week old baby. Charles 02:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was certainly a consensus at the AfD that the subject's position in the in the of succession conferred notability. Hut 8.5 06:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse seems like a bad loser to me. Frankly, the consensus was keep. You shouldn't ask for a review just because you disliked the outcome. Try and start a discussion on royalty notablity and possible guidelines if you wish.--UpDown (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Frankly, I disagree with this close. Royal babies are not inherently notable and can be easily included in articles about the parents. Furthermore this child isn't even something like the heir apparent. That said, the consensus was clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Consensus was that this person is notable. (I am not an ILIKEROYALTY person.) --Oakshade (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Children of royalty have always been considered notable. Further relatives are debatable, with no real consensus, but for children the consensus has consistently been for notability, as in the afd discussion here. DGG (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse and update the notability guideline to reflect this reality. Guidelines and policies are supposed to reflect accepted practices. If they clash, it's time to reopen the guidelines and policies. There have been several attempts at writing a guideline on notability for royalty and none have achieved consensus. As a result, the controlling guidelines are WP:N and Wikipedia:Notability (people), but it's up to us, as editors, to determine how these notability criteria apply when an article like this is nominated for AfD. The people have spoken quite loudly: In this particular instance, and by extension anyone higher-up on the list of the line of succession to the Belgium crown, are wiki-notable either by virtue of their birth or more likely the fact that their birth was noted in the press worldwide, the words or spirit of any policies or guidelines to the contrary notwithstanding. Expect other royal families to have similar debates over where in line the "line of notability at birth" is drawn as the need arises. The outcome of these debates will serve as an unofficial, non-binding precedent for future articles about that particular royal family. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. I will need to use the "paper encyclopedia analogy" here. Do paper encyclopedias cover people of similar notability? The answer is a resounding yes. The two children of Haakon and Mette-Marit in Norway both have articles in paper encyclopedias (in particular SNL), even though they are very young. Although the Belgian princess is not in that encyclopedia, she is clearly of level rank and notability with people who are included. If traditional paper encyclopedias traditionally cover such people, then Wikipedia should be at least as liberal in including such articles. And that is what the consensus was for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re: Although the Belgian princess is not in that encyclopedia,: She missed the press deadline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: as child of the crown prince - heir apparent - and a grand child of the reigning monarch, she meets the notability criteria. The article should be kept. Notability can come from different things. Descent can be notable as well in solme circumstances. Some people seem to have a vendetta against royal children and make it their task to try to rid Wikipedia from articles about them. Grandchildren of reigning monarchs are notable. -- fdewaele, 25 April 2008, 16:35 CET.
Endorse It is a pity we don't have a version of the failed Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) in force to make debates like this unnecessary. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, seems to be an error-free closure. MrPrada (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2008 (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 by operating system and subcats – I hope no one minds me closing this early, since no one else is supporting anything other then endorsing (other than myself). Per the advice of Jc37 and Black Falcon, DRV is a bad venue for this. -- Ned Scott 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Like oh-so-many categories, another group has fallen simply because very few Wikipedians follow CfD. These categories were nominated and deleted with the rationale that they were not useful for per-OS collaboration, an argument in itself that isn't very convincing. What was definitely ignored is that we commonly use these categories for technical reasons beyond direct article collaboration. It's the same reason we have Wikipedians by Web browser or Wikipedians by Text editor, or even by Wikipedia-specific software. Contrary to the CfD nom, it is very helpful to Wikipedia to categorize users by what operating system they happen to use.

Black Falcon did attempt to address some of this technical-aspect, but has missed the point. We don't use these categories simply to find someone else, at random, to see if they can help someone with a certain issue. Often times we are looking for the numbers themselves as an informal survey about what our editors are using. Other times we're not looking for other users for help, but to give notice. I've used similar categories in the past to notify users who might be able to give input on something, but were not directly associated to myself (in other words, find a bunch of users who happen to use X, to see if they can give a 3rd opinion about a discussion related to X).

Finally, we do have the means to take these categories and make their results more specific, using tools such as WP:CATSCAN. You can cross reference any two user categories and get specific results. Need to find a user using Mac OS that runs a bot? I know I did when I first set up my bot.

And while I don't mean to attack anyone or anything like that, but this seems to be the continuing results a very narrow view, minority view on how user categories are meant to be used. Being a CfD regular does not mean you speak for the community, and that is evident in this situation. A failing in CfD that needs to be addressed more globally, but no reason to let it happen in a specific situation like this, now they we're aware of it.

One part of the nom that I don't necessarily disagree with, and would not be opposed to further discussing is the "fringe categories". While it's useful to have a distinction between XP and Vista, not so much for XP and XP Pro.

I propose that we ether re-list the CfD, or more ideally, take the matter to a RfC, so that we can get a better consensus on this issue. -- Ned Scott 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: relevant CfD (I think) at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_by_operating_system --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked in the nom. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - First, the discussion was unanimous. This isn't CFD 2. But that aside, to address the issue: Wikipedia:Category intersection (and the semi-related "CATSCAN") has been discussed and the idea to using/creating/retaining categories just for this usage has no consensus (And indeed was shouted down when Betacommand attempted creation of such recently.) So other than that (AFAICT), the DRV nominator's concerns about the category (and not the process) were addressed in the discussion, as they would be in any XfD discussion. As usual, if you have concerns about any Wikipedia process, feel free to bring that up for discussion. WP:VP, for example. - jc37 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was hardly a sufficient discussion to delete so many categories that have such a huge population, and have existed for many years. These categories violated no policy (usually WP:NOT#MYSPACE is a concern on uCFD). I believe the community at large feels these categories should exist, and uses them for many reasons. uCfD is turning into the opinion of a minority on what they personally feel, rather than addressing things that actually need to be deleted. -- Ned Scott 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Finding some related past CfDs that set a bit of a precedent to not delete these kinds of categories. I will list them as I find them. -- Ned Scott 20:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike using a certain OS on your computer, using a certain programming language implies that you have some actual skill to use it. An editor can use a certain OS on his computer, yet have no idea about it or how it works (think of persons using the computer only to surf the internets). Similar argument for skill listing. This means that those debates are not relevant to this review. Btw, this same argument is also made on the CfD debate by Dark Vega and Black Falcon, and is supported by ScouterSig and Master Redyva and Horologium. Actually, every single participant agreed on it, and nobody opossed it or argumented that it wasn't a valid deletion argument! --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"every single participant agreed on it, and nobody opossed it or argumented that it wasn't a valid deletion argument!" That's irrelevant, since my point is that the discussion was by a minority that doesn't represent a true consensus by the greater community. -- Ned Scott 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - As has been noted multiple times before (though I don't recall if the DRV nominator was present for those discussions), user categories are virtually useless for statistical purposes, since practically no valid generalisations can be drawn from them (with the possible exception of conclusions that are painfully obvious and trivial). The fact that a single edit to a template can reduce the population of a user category from 2000 to 20, or vice versa, is just one reason for this.

The fact that these categories had a lot of members is also irrelevant, since it was the action of just a few editors that put so many user pages into the categories (it takes only one edit and one editor to add a category function to a userbox). As for the precedents listed above, I don't think they are related. I supported retaining the categories in both of the two discussions cited above, yet was for deletion in the discussion for the OS categories. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's possible that the numbers for a category don't mean anything, I think this is a situation where we should pause to consider it. These are extremely wide spread used categories, much more so than the normal user cat, and they've been around for a very long time. And I myself was included in the category manually, not by userbox, not that using a userbox should always be discounted.

In any case, I must ask you the same thing I asked Jc37, are you that opposed to giving this more exposure? That's all that is being asked. -- Ned Scott 20:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all ... I just don't think that a discussion about process should be made part of a discussion about actual categories. There is, of course, nothing wrong with criticising the process using actual examples (in fact, that's probably the best approach), but the nature of a DRV is such that the focus will automatically be on the single CFD discussion that covered these 30 or so categories, rather than on the process in general (closure, time limits, etc.)... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that - it seems that you do want to focus on these particular categories. If the goal is just to have more discussion and consideration of the issue, I think a talk page would be a better venue for discussion than DRV, which focuses on the procedural correctness of the close and has a 5-day time limit. For instance, when concerns were raised here regarding a procedurally-correct change made to Category:Wikipedians interested in history, a second discussion (in effect, a semi-formal DRV) was initiated at UCFD to try to determine whether the previous closure ought to be endorsed, modified, or reversed. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I responded at NS's talk page. And welcome such a discussion. I just feel that (as noted in the banner atop WP:UCFD), there's a difference between a discussion concerning the deletion of a category, and a discussion about the process which resulted in the deletion of the category. - jc37 20:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not starting a debate for the process (though I am noting that it might suggest that the process is partly to blame). I'm asking that we look at this specific situation. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The related discussion that Jc notes can be found at User talk:Ned Scott#Wikipedians by OS. I'm wondering if I should just move that here. -- Ned Scott 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as not being really useful (see my reply to ned scott above), or make a new one called "wikipedians knowledgeable on OS xxx" or "wikipedians willing to help on OS articles" or similar, which would be actually useful and gather only wikipedians really willing to help --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I like the idea of making a category specific to "knowledgeable" or "willing to help". -- Ned Scott 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carl McCunn Void/Closed without any action; request was made in error. - Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deletion review debate ended in a No Consensus vote. I would like to bring closure to the discussion by submitting for a tie-breaking vote here. From my perspective, I am requesting a Delete vote since the subject fails WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS and only received posthumous coverage for the discovery of his dead body. A similar article deletion discussion, regarding Richard Sumner, ended in the article’s removal from Wikipedia. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, inappropriate use of DRV. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Death is a part of life, there was certainly no consensus to delete, and DRV is not for asking further opinions. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I am relatively new to this. I was under the assumption that this forum was used to contest the rulings for keeping or deleting articles. The article had an even consensus split in its debate between Keep and Delete, and I thought the final No Consensus decision by User:Stifle didn't resolve the issue. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that it was a no consensus. You are incorrect in thinking that it is based on a vote count. --Smashville^BONK! 20:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the main Deletion Review page "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate". Deletion Review is not for rearguing an AFD. If you disagree with a non consensus outcome the appropriate course of action would be to wait a while to see if your concerns are addressed (at least a month generally) and then renominate at AFD if you still feel it should be deleted. Davewild (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well explained by Dave, and sorry if i wasn't clear enough or unfriendly, but it's getting late here.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please accept my apologies for wasting everyone's time. I am relatively new to this process and it appears I misunderstood how this corner of Wikipedia operates. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jean-Marc_Furlan – Was not deleted. Content discussions, and that's what this is, should take place at Talk:Jean-Marc Furlan. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

questionable_delete_by_unknown_administrator Contra-gian (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC) My contribution to this stub was deleted. I can't find a link to the administrator responsible so cannot leave notification. The contribution reported an episode of xenophobia on the part of Jean-Marc Furlan. Furlan will be prosecuted through the civil courts, in this regard, by the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism (LICRA). Although slightly biased, my contribution was not "vandalism" as it was not an attempt to compromise Wikipedia. The contribution was referenced by using reliable internet sources.The French version does include a report of this news item so, it is difficult to understand why the English version should have deleted my report of it. If this deletion happened automatically because the contribution contained the word "xenophobia" then the script has been incorrectly programmed: xenophobic utterances are what should be deleted, not accusations of xenophobia. If the administrator feels that the issue of Furlan's racism is off topic for an encyclopedia, then the complete entry for Jean-Mar Furlan should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Contra-gian (talk • contribs) 17:18, April 22, 2008[reply]

Speedy close as nothing to do here. Article was not deleted, Contra-gian's edits to the article were reverted. If you wish to dispute the reversion, it should be discussed on the article's Talk page. -- Kesh (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ansci gallery – While the deletion is not being endorsed, the article has already been recreated by the original author, so there is little point in restoring the history. Rewriting or listing at AfD at editors willingness and discretion. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON Jgladsto (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC) The Animal Science Image Gallery began as a partnership between the Animal Science Education Consortium (fifteen colleges and universities in the northeast and mid-Atlantic states) and the National Agriculture Library (NAL).Members of the American Society of Animal Science (ASAS), the American Dairy Science Association, the Poultry Science Association, the Equine Science Society, the American College of Theriogenologists and the Society for the Study of Reproduction have served as editors, reviewers, and submitters. The peer-reviewed images are for use in college level animal science curricula[reply]

Comment - I can't see the content of this article, but it was deleted under A7 (web): Web content; doesn't indicate importance/significance). So far, I'm not seeing anything that asserts notability under WP:N or WP:WEB for this gallery. Are there any sources you can cite to show how this site has been recognized by an independent organization or news publication? -- Kesh (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Saying that a project is sponsored by the NAL and its associated universities and scientific societies is a clear assertion of importance. Its for AfD to decide if it actually is notable. An extravagant interpretation of the speedy criteria. DGG (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note it will need some references, or it will not be very likely to pass Afd. Still it deserves the discussion, for it does not meet the speedy criterion.DGG (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The gallery may be viewed at http://anscigallery.nal.usda.gov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgladsto (talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Should be decided at AfD between WP:N and WP:NOT#repository, but the A7 was improper. MrPrada (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite I went to restore and AFD in line with consensus above, but realized I'd have to rewrite the article to produce even a decent stub; I don't see how to clean up the prior content without rewriting from scratch. GRBerry 17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chroma'Agana – "...Target of the redirect had useful history for the DRVer. I've userfied that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)" – OranL (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review on my Userspace, with history included. If approved, please place in my User subpage: User:OranL/Chroma'Agana -- OranL (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to restore. Was never more than a redirect. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. Target of the redirect had useful history for the DRVer. I've userfied that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tomahna – "...The page redirected to a number of places, but the primary content appears to have ended up at Age of D'ni, which is already userfied. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)" – OranL (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review on my Userspace, with history included. If approved, please place in my User subpage: User:OranL/Tomahna -- OranL (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to restore. Was never more than a redirect. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per request on my talk page: The page redirected to a number of places, but the primary content appears to have ended up at Age of D'ni, which is already userfied. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Age of D'ni – "Userfied as requested. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)" – OranL (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to begin working on cleaning up all of the pages related to the Myst franchise. I'm hoping to salvage what I can from these deleted articles and incorporate the information into the proper page. I am requesting an undeletion for temporary review on my Userspace, with history included. If approved, please place in my User subpage: User:OranL/Age of D'ni -- OranL (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied as requested. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeffrey A. Klein – Keep closure endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am genuinely surprised and disappointed that this debate ended in the keeping of the article of a physician whose sole claim to notability is improving the procedure in which anethesia is administered to liposuction patients. The debate on the article was highly peculiar: the article's author (who is the son of the article's subject) made unverified claims on the subject's importance in the medical world, and resorted to using a sockpuppet to bolster his argument. He was backed by in his claims by a Wikipedia admin who resorted to insults and name calling when I attempted to show that the claims of notability had no verifiable and independent backing. The admin who ruled in favor of the article told me that the subject was saved from deletion because "What he actually did (or did not do) to get that coverage is not relevant to whether he meets wikipedia's notability guidelines" -- but that is a complete contradiction, since what he did is entirely dependent on meeting notability guidelines. (See Admin's response here: [1].) I would appreciate a new review of the article debate, cutting out the obvious conflicts of interest, sockpuppetry, and puerile language that skewered attempts to determine the subject's true notability. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep I agree with User:Ecoleetage's close of this AfD. Guidelines are guide lines that are not absolute. With this in mind, there is an encyclopedic article here that has further potential. --Pmedema (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was my closure! Davewild (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opps... my bad :)--Pmedema (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep. My reasoning is that the book had received multiple reviews (including one quite hostile one), and that was enough to establish notability for the author. --Eastmain (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse KeepI never used any sock puppets. many people other than myself contributed to improving the clarifying the article, and if one were to call up five cosmetic surgeons, 4 will say they know who Dr. Klein is. Also, his notariety isn't about liposuction. Tumescent anesthesia saved lives and improves patient recovery time and safety for countless people around the world every year. As for Ecoleetage, no body called you names. If anything, I felt that you were being uncivilized to me. I never used any sock puppets to make my arguments, and PLEASE stop saying that this article is un-notable based on your hunches. If you REALLY have to, connect with a doctor or two. Find out for yourself. You seem to be the only one against it. Lukeklein (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly worth noting, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lukeklein. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Worth noting - Response Re: Luna Santin, I am not a sockpuppet of user lukeklein; I have provided irrefutable proof of my identity and my own maintenance of my Wikipedia account to the Wikipedia administrators, and have thus been reinstated, all blocks lifted from my account (please refer to my talk page [[2]]). I feel that I must make a note of this here to re-establish my credibility, as I am well versed in the advancements made to the technique of tumescent anesthesia, and thus find myself compelled to contribute to this discussion. --Procession (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Luke Klein (a.k.a. the son of the subject of the article) or anyone else can please provide details of where tumescent anesthesia is CURRENTLY and SUCCESSFULLY being used in five medical areas NOT relating to cosmetic surgery, I will withdraw my request. All of the research I've shown has detailed its use is limited solely to liposuction. And I would also like to know what Dr. Klein has accomplished beyond improving on existing medical techniques and writing an obscure book. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I do not see the logic behind exacting such a challenge. Tumescent anesthesia is notable because it has transformed the manner in which physicians perform a number of cutaneous procedures. Given all cutaneous procedures involve areas of the Dermis), the use of tumescent anesthesia is necessarily linked to "cosmetic" purposes. Ordering someone to name five different applications of the tumescent technique outside of a cosmetic context is akin to demanding examples of five additional applications of LASIK surgery that aren’t related to the eye. The procedures improved by the tumescent anesthesia technique are, by their very nature, cosmetic. The fact that they are cosmetic, however, does not discredit their importance in the medical field, nor can the entire branch of such procedures be dismissed as simply indulging in an individual’s vanities. However, to prove a point, here are several applications of the tumescent technique that prove it’s usage goes above and beyond its application in liposuction procedures:

I. Though this still fits within the definition of “cosmetic surgery” (as it addresses issues that are cosmetic in nature, you may want to check out the article entitled Tumescent local anesthesia for the surgical treatment of burns and postburn sequelae in pediatric patients. [3] Given that tumescent local anesthesia vastly reduces the incident of complications that are associated with general anesthesia, its application in a pediatric context is a great boon, as infants, by virtue of their size and developmental stage, are more susceptible to the complications of general anesthesia.

Tumescent anesthesia also has applications in the prevention of other forms of trauma—most notably in the form of reducing the trauma associated with various cancerous growths:

II. Tumescent anesthesia has been used within the context of breast reconstruction for patients who have undergone mastectomies as a result of breast cancer. [4]

III.In Roenigk & Roenigk’s Dermatologic Surgery: Principles and Practice, tumescent anesthesia is cited as an ideal form of anesthesia during the removal of “large soft tissue lesion[s],” such as melanomas and other cancerous growths. (p. 51, [5] )

IV. I will also encourage you to review Clinical parameters of tumescent anesthesia in skin cancer reconstructive surgery. A review of 86 patients, from the Archives of Dermatology.[6]

The application of the tumescent technique is also valuable not because of its ability to reduce complications, but because it lessens the pain and discomfort

V.In a study published in the book Innovative Techniques in Skin Surgery (Basic and Clinical Dermatology), Breuninger found that 96% of the “542 patients who had previously experienced other forms of anesthesia (general or regional anesthesia) for the same kind of operation preferred SITA [Subcutaneous Infusion Tumescent Anesthesia].” (p. 196, [7])

I believe that the above citations, coupled with previous examples of the advancements and applications of the tumescent anesthesia technique, make for a viable argument concerning its importance in the medical field, and the subsequent notability of its inventor, Dr. Jeffrey Klein. --Procession (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Here's some examples:

Total Mastectomy Under Local Anesthesia: The Tumescent Technique

Vascular Surgery

The Ambulatory Anesthesia and Perioperative Analgesia Manual

[http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/134/3/279.pdf Acute Herpetic Pain or Postherpetic Neuralgia]

Treating burn victims and managing blood-loss

Release of severe post burn neck contracture (often life threatening)

another example of neck contracture

Neonatal Skin Grafting

Scalp Surgery

Skin Cancer reconstructive surgery (enhanced surgeon visualization of the surgical planes) Lukeklein (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's still noteworthy.64.128.73.42 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse keep very reluctantly, --I gave a "reluctant keep" at the AfD; Keep, because of the book reviews which showed what is regarded here as sufficient notability for an author, regardless of subject and the number of citations to his work, which was extremely high (as is typical for people who publish methods--but it shows the method is widely referred to), Reluctant because cosmetic and plastic surgeons of all specialties rely very heavily on advertising and make sure that they get as large an amount as possible in the way of published material. The above comment by Ecoleetage is irrelevant--notability as a cosmetic/dermatological/plastic surgeon is sufficient, and the anaesthesia method, as I understand it, is specifically for one widespread type of cosmetic surgery, so asking for it to be shown notable in other subjects also seems absurd. I note the references show that most anesthesiologists seem to consider the method a very poor idea, but that isn't relevant--we don't have the responsibility of judging. DGG (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete I agree that this is a very disappointing close, made all the more so by the fact that editors who normally demand respect have chosen to allow such clear COI guff to weed up what is an encyclopedic project as a result of strenuous squinting to discern even the vaguest notability to justify their own inclusionist inclinations. I submit the close was in error and that we need to take a much harder line against this kind of COI stuff to prevent it from propagating. That said, clearly this DRV will not overturn the highly regrettable decision to Keep. So, to the nom: bring it back to AfD in six months, when exactly nothing will have been done to improve this dross, and we'll get it expunged then. Eusebeus (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep. I always bristle at these sorts of congratulatory, COI influenced articles and tend to want them gone, and I always have a hard time with articles whose subjects are famous for something we would all likely be better off without. However, this doctor and his methods do appear to have gained a sufficient degree of noteworthiness in the medical community (and, to an extent, beyond it) to justify inclusion here. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it belongs here, nonetheless. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response Regarding the comment: “The above comment by Ecoleetage is irrelevant--notability as a cosmetic/dermatological/plastic surgeon is sufficient, and the anaesthesia method, as I understand it, is specifically for one widespread type of cosmetic surgery, so asking for it to be shown notable in other subjects also seems absurd.” Actually, nothing has been presented to support the statement that Dr. Klein’s career as a whole is notable. Please review the article as it stands to confirm that. The comment is also relevant because User:LukeKlein, both in the original debate and in this discussion, kept insisting the procedure in question goes beyond liposuction. Well, I cannot locate any notable usage outside of liposuction. I’ve read about the possibilities of its use elsewhere, but no evidence of its actual practice outside of liposuction. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not AfD round 2. --Smashville^BONK! 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liposuction is a very widely used surgical procedure, so notability within that field is enough.DGG (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep; the closure was clearly correct. Perhaps another AfD, in the future, might come to a different conclusion; however, it would help if both sides were a bit calmer in that AfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep. First and foremost, user Ecoleetage is completely off-base. I am not a sock-puppet of user lukeklein (as I’ve clarified above). I’ve worked in the same field as Dr. Klein, and as such I feel that I have a unique insight into his prominence within the medical community. It is disingenuous to engage in an ad hominem circumstantial [8] attack on lukeklein; regardless of lukeklein’s connection to the subject of the entry, Dr. Klein does in fact merit a Wikipedia entry. Erroneous allegations of sock-puppetry notwithstanding, Ecoleetage’s claims that Dr. Jeffrey Klein and his innovations within the medical community don’t warrant a Wikipedia entry are just wrong. The most cursory search of “Jeffrey Klein” and “liposuction” under Google’s Book search yields several results that support his prominence in the medical community. For the sake of argument alone, I will reproduce some of these:

In the book Dermatology at the Millennium, A. Carruthers writes that “Finally, Jeffery Klein, with the introduction of tumescent local anesthesia, introduced a tool which is still only beginning to find its usefulness and which offers us much promise for the future.” (p. 115, [9] In the same publication, S.V. Pollack writes that “the most significant innovation in liposuction in recent years has beeen the use of tumescent anesthesia, introduced by dermatologist Jeffrey Klein in 1987....The use of smaller cannulae, another innovation popularized by Klein, has lead to more precise fat removal and the ability to remove more superficial fat deposits without the risk of surface irregularities.” (p. 414, [10]

In another book, entitled Tumescent Local Anesthesia by Hanke et al., the authors write that “tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) was developed by the dermatologist and pharmacologist Jeffrey A. Klein, associate professor of Dermatology of the University of California in Irvine, California. He first described this method of local anesthesia, originally intended to facilitate fat suction in cosmetic surgery, in the January edition of the ‘Journal of Cosmetic Surgery’ in 1987.” (p. 5, [11])

Regarding the dispute about Dr. Klein being the sole inventor if the tumescent technique, Dr. Patrick J. Lillis has published an article in “Roenigk & Roenigk’s Dermatologic Surgery: Pricincples and Practice, wherein he relays, and I quote, that “Dr. Jeffrey Klein is the originator of the tumescent technique. [emphasis mine] I was influenced by Dr. Klein in the “early days” of the development of the tumescent technique as have been in a position to contribute to the profound implications of Dr. Klein’s work.” (p. 42, [12]) In light of this evidence, the dispute over the origin of the tumescent technique is now settled.

Dr. Jeffrey Klein is clearly an influential physician in this branch of medical practice, and as such rightly merits an entry in Wikipedia. --Procession (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep. My original vote at the AfD was neither COI, sockpuppetry, nor used puerile language. It was the correct policy argument for keeping it, while the nominator's was simply wrong. Proper closure and no procedural errors to overturn just because one is unhappy with the outcome. MrPrada (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Coalition for diversity – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I apologize that I did not realize there was a debate as the deletion of theThis is notable entry because of the national significance of the topic matter of affirmative action and the instrumental role of this particular student group. I do not agree that student groups are generally uninteresting as a proposition. Take, for example, SNCC. It is interesting because it is part of a larger political movement that has generated much debate and controversy in regards to the Supreme Court's stance on diversity in the context of public education. 69.238.218.27 (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion endorsed - Nothing wrong with the AfD or its closure nor has so far any new evidence regarding "the instrumental role of this particular student group" been put forward. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. AfD consensus to delete was clear and their rationale sounds solid to me. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion a debate with relatively little participation, but a more extensive one would come to the same conclusion--a student organization of this sort within a single law school is not notable generally, and there was no evidence otherwise.DGG (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Perfectly valid AFD. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion AfD and it's closure were proper. No new evidence or compelling argument made in the request to consider overturning the AfD. WP:ORG applies to this subject, and the article was not passable when scrutinized against it. Even an AfD with low participation can achieve consensus, as many editors such as myself will pass on commenting on an obvious AfD rather than !voting solely for the sake of achieving some pseudo-quorum. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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