Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 29

29 November 2008

David Krikorian – Deletion endorsed – kurykh 01:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
David Krikorian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Verifiable Sources, Notable, New Information Notability is able to be established as per this converstation User_talk:Sandstein#page_deleted:_David_Krikorian ryan8403 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC) References Politico[1] Lou Dobbs[2] Politicker Ohio[3] WLWT Channel 5[4] [5] [6] WCPO Channel 9 [7] Dayton Daily [8] [9] [10] Cincinnati Enquirer [11] Portsmouth Daily Times [12] Georgetown News Democrat[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Ripley Bee[22] The People's Defender [23] [24] [25] [26] Waverly News Watchman[27] [28] Clermont Sun [29] [30] [31] ryan8403 (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Comment - despite the many sources, they all relate to the election which he did not win. Thus it makes it a case of WP:BLP1E, the person is only known in the context of one event. In this case, the guideline essentially state that any info on him should be in the article about the election for which he ran, instead of him having his own article. Thus my suggestion is to sumarize what was in the David Krikorian article and include it in, I guess, United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio, 2008#District 2 (or Ohio's 2nd congressional district if that article was updated to include the 2008 election), then redirect David Krikorian there for the time being. If he runs again next time and gets more coverage, then WP:BLP1E would no longer apply and he could have its own article.--Boffob (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC) What Boffob said. Stifle (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Endorse delete. I don't share the opinion stated in the conversation mentioned above. The links above that are not password protected are more coverage of Krikorian's candidacy. Press attention from just running for office does not establish establish notability. This is a biography of one event. Other coverage comes up short. That was my rationale at AfD: not quite there on WP:N and falls way short on WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Endorse deletion As it stands all the sources fall under the "one event" category. If he runs again, and if he wins I would not be against creation. At the current time this politician does not meets Wikipedi's inclusion standards. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Overturn, the extensive coverage shows he is notable and all these references should not be ignored because of BLP1E as that is not the original intention of BLP1E. Mathmo Talk 07:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Endorse, but first of all, running in an election is not the sort of thing intended by BLP1E as an reason for not covering it here & it is misuse of the criterion--its intended for trivial events of human interest coverage only. Had he been a major party candidate, I would say that running in a national election isnotable, and the local coverage sufficient. But he was an independent, and placed third. I think that's below the bar. DGG (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Endorse Deletion. On the basis that no argument has been raised at this DRV that shows procedural error in the AfD. In fact, broadly every argument in this DRV was raised at the AfD. The consensus to delete was established there and so the deletion should stand. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Endorse deletion. The above sources should be used to fill out the article about the election, but the closure of the AfD was correct; none of the sources seem to be about David Krikorian in any context outside the election. If some sources are found that satisfy that criteria, then I would change my vote to Allow re-creation.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rolando_Gomez – Relisted. – Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rolando_Gomez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|AFD2) Verifiable Sources, Notable, New Information Overturn Ending the AfD was both premature and faulty and the delete decision was faulty as there was no overwhelmingly consensus to delete. In fact, there was plenty of positive support to keep the article, but was treated by the admin who deleted as a canvassing of positive remarks. The Wiki entry on Rolando Gomez was deleted on a 2nd Afd, [32], supposedly, on lack of verifiable sources and because of alleged "canvassing" of positive votes--since when does Wiki penalize the public, including a U.S. Government official from the Dept. of Defense, a high official, the Deputy Chief Public Affairs of Operations, United States Air Force who verified information about an ex-employee, Gomez? This was canvassing? This official had first-hand knowledge with no gain to be made from a former employee. Gomez is a three-time author with chapters on him in two other books, all verifiable by Google Books, and listed here on Wikipedia by the University of Texas, San Antonio as notable [33] alumni. Gomez was deleted after passing the first deletion review several years ago due to what appears to be one already controversial admin's (Ryulong) personal vendetta More than enough reliable sources, including pdf's, scanned photos, press releases and more can "now be found' here on one source page, [34] and the new page includes verifiable, external source links from credible sources. I might add Gomez added the Wikipedia link in all his three books under the resources pages for all photographers. I'm still not sure, as enough sources were listed during the second AfD, why no one bothered to update the article, though it was suggested in the Afd process by several, because that was all it needed to remain listed--before the link to the sources (more sources) listed in this discussion. Wiki's own policy states that if an existing article can be improved to prevent deletion, it should be done, not deleted. That was recommend be several on the 2nd Afd. Even Wiki listed, and notable photographer Jerry Avenaim, [35] expressed his thoughts on the Gomez 2nd AfD, and even stated that he was a co-speaker with Gomez in San Diego at the Photo Imaging and Design Expo. I might add, on Avenaim's page, one of the reliable Wiki sources listed is a link to that photo expo where Gomez and Avenaim did two seminars/lectures together. Was the actual deletion because Ryulong doesn't like glamour photographers but loves celebrity photographers as he strives for more Barnstar awards on Wikipedia? I request this page be reinstated and revised with the credible sources noted before and the new source page [36] listed with new verifiable sources. Gomez is notable as noted on the University of Texas, San Antonio Wikipage entry, by the University School System, a State of Texas Public School system. Gomez's books are all listed on Amazon.com and Google Books and are carried in many book stores world-wide, including Barnes and Nobels, Borders, Books A Million, etc. Three books, authored, not ghost written or co-authored, are sufficient proof of his notability along with feature stories about him by other news writers in Leica World News, Rangefinder Magazine, Studio Photography, D-Pixx and other magazines about Gomez and his photography. I might add, Gomez was the cover story for Rangefinder (his photos, but authored by a reporter for Rangefinder), Sept. 2006 and D-Pixx (European magazine) and co-illustrated a cover story with Pulitzer prize winning photographer Eddie Adams for Parade magazine, circulation 30-million printed copies, the Dec. 19, 1999 issue--link is also found to that cover story with credits on the new source page provided. 32.176.53.168 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC) On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC) While I'm not real savvy on Wikipedia's policy, when the admin (Ryulong) deleted it without a second nomination. The second nomination came to existence only after Ryulong was asked why a speedy deletion to an article that had been in Wiki over two years and had already survived one Afd? He then posted a second nomination discussion, then only allowed about five days of discussion before it was deleted again. There was enough discussion in those five days where anyone could have taken existing links and updated the article. During that discussion several links were posted to show new sources, Ryulong then deleted them immediatley and blocked those links from showing, including links in the new sources page listed above. The whole deletion review was treated with ignoring newly posted links to credible sources without cause. Several people acknowledged that the article should not be deleted, per Wikipedia's own guidelines, since the article had been up for over two years as an approved article and that the article merely needed updates to the new sources. Some of those sources, like the fact that Gomez is one of the original 30 Lexar Elite Photographers chosen six years ago, world-wide, were deleted, including the link to Lexar's Elite Photographer pages, yet, on Jerry Avenaim and Greg Gorman, those links are used as sources to validate their notable status for his Wikipedia page. Gomez, Gorman and Avenaim were all selected by Lexar as Elite Photographers, in fact, Gomez before Avenaim. How can one link to Lexar be justified as credible in one Wiki entry and not, or be deleted for the Gomez entry? That is one example. Proof that Ryulong deleted the entries is hard to show as I saw it happen during the heated debate between him and another party. Ryulong quickly deleted the article but only placed it back into discussion when asked to do so--he was asked because he deleted an established article without any public discussion. Why would we ask him again when he's proven that he doesn't want the article by deleting entries as they were posted, discounting a credible source like Jerry Avenaim himself listed as notable on Wikipedi? Avenaim provided positive input in the discussion as did the Deputy Chief of Public Affairs of the United States Air Force, Jeff Whitted who included his government email address for verification. The Air Force official like Avenaim was accused of having something to gain, yet Gomez no longer works for Whitted and no one ever claimed what the official or the Air Force for that matter might gain or what Avenaim would gain. It's like a proven guilty till you can prove your innocence. It wasn't a case to prove the article didn't meet the guidelines, it was more a case that Ryulong was right and you'd have to prove him wrong but he held admin powers that would delete, block and stop anyone from coming forward including Avenaim and Whitted. In a nutshell, why would Ryulong even consider this now, when he a) deleted the article on his own without discussion or consensus, b) brought the article back for deletion discussion (2nd Afd) only after asked and never made positive recommendations nor did he act on new information that would save the article, c) he discredited everyone that made a positive stance for the article and d) even deleted some new entries of possible sources and took all positive arguments from other posters as canvassing and gave no merit on the accusation of canvassing. Gomez is a well-known and respected lecturer, author and instructor on photography with over 30 years experience with an email list of over 26,000 photographers on one of his website alone. His books have even made the Amazon.com top 1,000 best selling books, yet Ryulong treats the fact that Gomez' popularity with fans is canvassing. How can you have an AfD discussion if the minute people arrive to defend an entry they are accused of a canvassing act, including people listed notably here on Wikipedia with two of the same credible sources in their Wikipedia page? I see no point in asking Ryulong, which would be a second time on the same article. 72.191.15.133 (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC) First, the 2nd Afd states, "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review')." There no longer is a talk page for this article, so the second choice in the 2nd Afd clearly states, "...or in a deletion review)." And as stated above, in review of Ryulong's prior history with this topic, it doesn't seem sensible to ask him a second or third time to reinstate this article as he was originally asked from the point he deleted the article without notice the first time. While he opened it up for a 2nd Afd, only after he expeditiously deleted the article without a discussion process, his comments are obvious he's totally against this article. It's obvious this article only required minor addition of sources, which were provided, but since no one added the sources provided in the discussion, it was deleted. This was an article defended by other admins against spam and other known graffiti attacks that Wikipedia monitors, for over two years while it was listed here. Makes you wonder why other admins protected the article to have one admin, on his own, quickly delete it on the auspices that no one was watching. Then when Ryulong's deletion was questioned, he lower the value of those that wanted to keep the article because according to him, they were canvassed. I stand by request for review and hope this article is reinstated and the work of previous admins that defended this articles existence over the years doesn't go to waste. 32.176.50.96 (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Endorse deletion. It is commonplace for admins to give little or no weight to very new and unregistered users in AFDs, and having done so, deletion was a valid outcome. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Comment I see you were one of the persons that requested deletion in the 2nd AFD,on the count of "lack of reliable sources." The credible sources were always deleted when entered during the 2nd AFD conversation, perhaps that led you to make your original statement back in Sept. 08' because you never saw them. Hopefully you'll be more proactive and reverse your thoughts since credible references are listed here now (if they don't get deleted as in the 2nd AFD) [37] that were deleted in that 2nd AFD during the actual AfD discussion. As mentioned below by Protonk in your defense, "If he closes an AfD as delete and someone wants the article kept, asking him to reverse the decision presents no room for compromise--or at the very least is likely to end in the article being sent to AfD. Any conversation about the article that isn't asking him to reverse his decision seems pointless." I can only hope you look at the facts, it wasn't about the weight of the supporters in question so much as the fact that actual links to the reason you originally supported deletion, links to bonafide, reliable sources, were deleted, including a link here on Wikipedia by the University of Texas, San Antonio. Not to mention links that were deleted, included the link to Lexar Media's site for "Elite Photographers" they chose around the world six years ago and still maintain and revise that list, yet that same verifiable links are on Jerry Avevaim's and Greg Gorman's Wikipedia pages for one of their credible sources. This seems like hypocrisy. 72.191.15.133 (talk) Relist in hope of a better discussion. Some of the sources removed during the AfD, presumably as being spam, were probably relevant RSs for notability. I don;'t question the good faith in doing it, but I think it extremely unfortunate & does give the impression of editwarring to delete. This prevents the proper evaluation of the article. On the merits, it seems borderline, and some new opinions might clarify it. Sometimes the anons are right. DGG (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC) "Sometimes the anons are right" great statement, especially since Wiki is a "public" site and supported by "public donations" and many donators prefer to remain anonymous, for various reasons. As an example, sometimes if a person posts the name, "Mary Jane" they feel they could be discriminated against for being a woman. If they post, Miguel Hernandez, they feel they could be discriminated for being Hispanic. If they post in their profile they are a member of the NAACP, they could be discriminated against for having a dark skin color. If they post with a known name, say Larry Flint, for being in a business many regard as against religion, they could be discriminated against merely for who they are and what they believe. Anonymity carries it's own perception that often influences many, including admins on Wiki who treat it in a negative form, thanks to anonymous posters of spam and those that deface Wiki as anonymous users. Sociology influences people in many ways, sometimes unfortunately those with honest intent suffer from society's perceptions--perhaps that is why a site like Wiki, filled with daily traffic, only has a few people participating in this discussion--many people, as in most Internet forums, are just "scared" to post for the fear that those in power will chastise them publicly. Perceptions are everything it seems here on Wiki too. I laud Mr. Whitted and Mr. Avenaim for standing up in the prior Afd, though I'm sure they are not happy with the way they were treated in the 2nd AfD. In fact, Mr. Avenaim, I'm sure is on a "hit list" by at least one admin from the 2nd AfD and I'm sure his Wiki entry will have to soon withstand scrutiny of an AfD for standing up for a colleague. Perceptions are everything. Perhaps "adminship" should include proper sensitivity training like judges undergo for understanding when to recuse themselves or to ensure complete freedom from all prejudice and favoritism. Unfortunately pride and egos usually prevail. Did I say, perceptions are everything?72.191.15.133 (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Overturn & Update While it may be common place for admins to give little or no weight to unregistered users in AfD's, no admin should delete valid resource links during an ongoing AfD that could save an "existing" article that has passed a previous AfD years before. Mr. Whitted chose not to join Wiki as a user, but gave his name and government email address, as many people do not want to join anymore sites than they have to, perhaps for privacy reasons or even spam, which Wiki fights everyday. One supporter even registered and gave his name, but because he was "new" less weight was given. Last I knew, Wiki was not "you have to register to view," as it's for public use and the public should be able to keep anonymity if they so choose--especially those that give donations. The weight should be in the validity of the argument or statements. Spam is obvious as is common sense. The said article did not change in those two-plus years. The said article went before a second deletion only after an admin decided to quietly remove an article by personal choice and when challenged, the article went before a second AfD. During the second AfD, the supporters all expressed that the sources were there, and when provided, the admin recommending the deletion, deleted the sources immediately and then blocked the edits. Even a link, here on Wiki, from a bona fide and respected university, the University of Texas, San Antonio lists Gomez as notable, [38] alumni--omitting this link as a valid resource is the same as saying articles on Wiki or not valid? This was one link deleted that did not meet the admin's requirement of a valid resource--it's a Wikipedia reference link! Even Wiki listed, and notable photographer Jerry Avenaim, [39] posted as a registered user and his input was given little weight and discredited. These are credible sources already in use for other approved Wiki notable photographers. If the admins had just updated the article with the new sources, it not only met Wiki requirements, but reinforced what was already there. Because of whatever reason, the admin spent more time debating the article instead of updating as Wiki recommends for existing articles to remain. Basically, the admin was counter-productive, not pro-active, which seems simliar to Stifle's attitude toward many of his decisions. Wiki unfortunately becomes a place of "admin" anarchy with this attitude, which unfortunately deteriorates the intent of the Wiki concept. Hopefully Wiki will return to the state of un-biased admins and not admins with egos and pride influencing their decisions. 72.191.15.133 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Endorse Deletion. Even if the supposed "canvased" !votes are taken into consideration, the policy based consensus is clearly to delete and there was no procedural error in the AfD that I can see. The closing admin was entitled to close with a delete. DRV is not a rerun of the AfD and the arguments being presented here now were all run through in the AfD anyway. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Comment As mentioned before, it's not so much the canvassing accusation as it was that credible sources, including those listed on Wikipedia and used on other photographer's on Wikipedia, were deleted during the AfD process. A fair AfD process doesn't include deleting a topic on lack of credible sources while at the same time those sources are being deleted during the AfD process. How can an admin delete on the fact "X" was missing and when "X" was presented, that same admin deletes "X" because of personal reasons? Basically, the deletion comments were based on lack of sources, though those sources, when entered into the AfD were deleted and their edits blocked. Here is the list of sources now on one page, [40] Are they spam? No. Are they credible? Yes. They include actual copies of third-party, with nothing to gain, magazine articles and other credible sources--including a Wikipedia page from a credible, State funded university, the University of Texas. Is it proper to delete a credible source during an AfD process when that source (link) is an actual, undisputed Wikipedia entry of a University? I hope not. Editing during an AfD process to protect an admin's "opinion" that causes false opinions from other editors/admin is like tainting a jury on your side, or in better terms, tampering with evidence, aka, misconduct. 72.191.15.133 (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC) These points have been made already, and I don't believe they represent a procedural error in the AfD Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC) So deleting a link, a link right here to a long standing Wiki page itself, during an AfD discussion that could impact the outcome of an AfD is then what kind of error? Is this the way to conduct an AfD properly? Should editors be allowed to remove links during and AfD discussion so it would influence their AfD nomination in their favor? Let's hope not. Let's say we agree with your reasoning, then how do we correct the latter since the deletion was closed and locked as soon as five days happened which prevented further discussion? If the admin would have allowed time to better source the topic, which he agreed was all it needed, then by simply using the {{Closing}} tag, the article could have been saved from deletion as it had already existed on Wiki for over two years. Wikipedia's guidelines also state for repeated nominations, "If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article." Time would have a made a great difference here. 72.191.15.133 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Comment While it is hard to judge this without seeing the page itself, and while I don't want to endorse the view that deletion is fine because admins give low credence to IP editors (that should never be the case, articles should be judged on merit alone), on reading the above material, and in particular, this page, I'm not convinced notability is adequately asserted. Personally, I think it better for the article relisted and reviewed, but only weakly so. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Overturn. I applaud the efforts of ridding wikipedia of truly unnotable subjects but this doesn't seem to be one of them and the alarming discrediting of all anons seems a bit bitey at best. Closer stated that concerns had not been addressed yet they had been with many sources and notability issues directly addressed. It may not have been a clear keep but neither was it a delete. We need to be more welcoming to newbies, they are here to build good articles as well. -- Banjeboi 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Overturn. The primary reason given for deletion was a lack of sufficient, credible sources. But the sources which had been originally posted were deleted prior to the 2nd AfD. So yes, the resultant listing lacked sufficient sources. But that is solely because they had been deleted prior to the discussion. The original article contained many credible source listings. To purposely delete sources and then argue for the deletion of the article because it lacks those same sources defies logic and is inexcusable. This action is undeniable, and by itself should be reason enough to overturn the deletion and reinstate the article. But in addition, the admin and opponents demonstrated a personal bias, resorting to false accusations (I know I was not canvassed for support) rather than argue substantive points. The process was faulty and valid attempts to defend and improve the article were circumvented. Given the way this entire process was handled, reinstating the article is the only reasonable action to take. -Agletp (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse Deletion. I see no procedural problem with the AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Comment Here is a link that perhaps would explain what you missed, [41] The procedural problem was that invaluable links were provided during the 2nd AfD discussion that the original admin, Ryulong, would delete during the discussion so no one would see them, including a link here on Wikipedia that lists Gomez as notable from the University of Texas, San Antonio [42] (apparently Wikipedia is not considered a credible source) and a link to the Lexar Elite Photographers [43] yet the similar Lexar link that acts as a credible source for Jerry Avenaim's Wiki page is acceptable? (double standards) I will add, in that link and the various other links, including a copy of the article [44] written by Alice Miller, the editor of Studio Photography magazine at the time, Gomez is mentioned as being selected by the Dept. of Defense as one of the Top Five military photographers in the world in 1994. Now that is only three of many links that were deleted during the 2nd AfD discussion immediately as they were added and even several links were deleted from the article itself before the AfD by the admin in question. Of course the two-plus-year-old article was "speedy deleted" by Ryulong after he deleted links in it and when confronted, it went before a 2nd AfD and Ryulong would delete and block the credible links presented, some were in the original article, like those three above, and would only allow the remaining links he chose to stay during the review. His reasons, ironically, for the deletion was no credible resource links. Not only is this blatantly wrong, but an abuse of admin power. The original article in it's state before the nomination for 2nd AfD should have been considered, along with all the links provided during the 2nd AfD. Unfortunately all links, were not allowed during the 2nd AfD discussion to appear anywhere and were blocked. Thus the article appeared, during the 2nd AfD to not have proper sources. Is this the proper procedure you claim was correct? --72.191.15.133 (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Overturn. This article should have been updated with proper sources, not deleted. Deleting it was simply throwing out the baby with the bath water. Brianreading (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Comment While doing further research, the Wiki article on Gomez had a link proving that he was in fact one of the original 30 world-wide Lexar Media's Elite Photographers chosen six years ago and still at present as Lexar updates the list by removal and addition yearly. This link was removed from the article before the 2nd AfD by the admin who called for the 2nd Afd and also removed and blocked from the article during the 2nd AfD discussion--during the discussion--so those few that voted against it never saw it. Of note, the same Lexar [45] link is used in at least two notable photographers listed here on Wikipedia, Jerry Avenaim [46] and Greg Gorman [47]. Avenaim's page also lists as a reliable source two articles on him by journalist Jason Schneider who also authored the article on Gomez for Leica World News [48] and Avenaim's page also lists an article authored by Studio Photography editor Alice Miller who authored an article [49] on Gomez too. Again, when the 2nd AfD was being debated on the Gomez article, the admin who brought the 2nd AfD would delete and block these "credible & independent" links during the AfD debate--if they were judged on Avenaim's and Gorman's Wikipedia pages as credible sources, why not Gomez's page? Why were they not allowed to be included in the article before and during the 2nd AfD? These are at least three independent articles (credible sources) deleted and not allowed to be considered during the 2nd AfD. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Relist The removal of people's opinions in a discussion is not a good path to deciding a consensus. I have been editing for over three years, and I have never seen a move like the one pulled by Ryulong (which I'm sure was well-intentioned) be supported by a Wikipedia consensus. A relisting seems necessary. (Full disclosure--I was asked to participate in this discussion , but I assure you if I had stumbled across this I would have had the same opinion.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Comment: Can I get a copy of the article in User:Miranda/Gomez, since I am a non-admin and can't see the article? If overturned, I probably can improve the article's notability. Thanks. miranda 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC) As there are no BLP issues claimed, I've restored a copy to your suggested subpage in your userspace. Kuru talk 02:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Miranda, here is a link [50] to one of many outdated copies found on Google of the originally approved Wikipedia pages still carried by many sites (notice the deletion notice) and a link [51] to his most current bio. The links would have to be updated and the article revised with a more modern Wiki template, but most are found here on this page [52] of links to links, I would not just put a link to the links page on Gomez's article as that page specifically lists links to other sites that are credible and were used to justify Avenaim and Gorman here on Wiki too. You are amazing to step up to the plate, in the 2nd AfD many, including the original admin basically stated that's all the article needed, though they didn't do a thing and deleted the links as they were added during the discussion. Regardless, I hope the article is overturned and relisted so you can do your magic. If that happens, then I might regain my faith in Wikipedia again and start being a regular editor and contributor and shoot for admin status someday. Thanks! --72.191.15.133 (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Overturn. While there is a clear potential conflict of interest going on here, he does however appear to have been covered by various people and is a significant player in his area expertise. It appears that this conflict of interest issue (and his newbie attitude towards wikipedia) has clouded people's opinion of this article in ignoring what sourcing there has been. Mathmo Talk 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC) No opinion - but for the record, am noting that I was asked here to comment on this. I'd suggest someone tries to salvage both an article and a potential editor from this - maybe a userspace version could be provided if an account was created? Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I've dropped a copy in Miranda's userspace per her request above. Kuru talk 03:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC) No opinion - like the above, I was asked on my user talk page to comment on this, but because of the circumstances, I'm not going to !vote, but I do want to say that it is more important to concentrate on the content itself than conflicts of interests and other fluff surrounding it that can be fixed by regular processes. Celarnor Talk to me 02:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Relist - as with others, my input was solicited here. I certainly place no fault with the deleting admin, as articles with marginal notability and a demonstrated conflict of interest that then have a flood of new users comment in an AFD muddy the waters enough to hide productive debate. After really digging through the history here, I certain think there's enough material to make a case for inclusion, and another run through the process will not hurt. Hopefully we can facilitate a discussion on the facts and avoid the appearance of impropriety. Kuru talk 02:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Overturn. This article should have been updated with proper sources, not deleted. There is more than enough sources to establish notability and should have never been challenged for a 2nd AfD to begin with. Wikipedia lately has been too trigger happy with cliques of deletionists. Let's get Wikipedia back to what it once was and doing this article justice would be a step in the right direction. I've witnessed Wikipedia in the past five year deteriorate with deletion tactics like this before and sadly it's making Wiki look like a political gamescape. --205.245.23.164 (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Comment - My hat is off to the admin who chooses to close this discussion. As for the topic, this seems to be a detailed bio on Rolando Gomez. Also see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. N probably isn't the main issue on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 02:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Overturn. This is what I see with Wikipedia today. Join, edit articles, get recognized, edit more articles, get nominated for admin, edit articles, make admin, delete articles, get recognition for being an admin with barnstars, the apply for the arbitration committee. Let's get back to Wikipedia not Wikidelete. This article should have never been deleted, it has more credible sources than most photographers listed on Wikipedia with it's first entry before it's 2nd nomination. Wikipedia is out of hand with deletionist, those that make admin with power. Inclusionist are those wanting to become admins. Back to Wikipedia the way it was in the early days. Simply put, overturn. --71.41.235.48 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Overturn. I don't know anything about this article, except what is written above, But I can't understand all this deletionism. Is Wikipedia running low on disk space? Buy a new hard drive! The only reason to delete something like this is if it's an obvious promo for a non-notable individual.Likebox (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

De Sitter invariant theories – Consensus was to keep undeleted in its new, improved form. This essentially renders the original Afd moot, so no action is needed. – Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
De Sitter invariant theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|Actual AFD) Overturn The closing admin would not discuss the close when contacted by Geometry guy but instead responded with curt comment. Ending the AfD was both premature and faulty. People were still discussing it, and the delete decision was faulty. There was no consensus to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delaszk (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Endorse own deletion. From WP:OLD: "You can still add your comments to these listings if you feel strongly, but please be aware that once an article listing is on this page it can be deleted or removed from the list at any time." As such, there is no prohibition in policy against closing an AFD when there are recent contributions to the AFD. The deletion was, in any case, not premature. The consensus, based on the comments there at the time I closed the AFD (and there was one added afterwards) was that the article should be deleted, and I closed accordingly. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Overturn. While I respect the work that Stifle does in closing deletion discussions, it is reasonable to expect that someone who closes over 20 discussions in less than 10 minutes may make some mistakes. In this case, Stifle deleted a redirect, because the article had been moved during the discussion. When I pointed this out, no effort was made to reconsider an obviously hasty decision. Instead the editor has now pointed me to a statement that did not exist until 45 minutes ago. This is extremely disingenuous behaviour for an admin. Although Stifle could not have taken into account the edit I was making while closing the discussion, the closure was clearly premature. Many of BenRG's objections do not align with policy (even though I agree with many of his points) and User:Count Iblis had made a reasoned objection that had not been dismissed. Furthermore, many of the comments were out of date as the page had been moved (and the closing admin had not appreciated this page move), and discussion was ongoing. Geometry guy 21:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC) I accept that I modified my talk page instructions during the discussion, but what was there beforehand also said that I preferred people to just bring their issue straight here if they disagree with my AFD closures, rather than taking up matters on my talk. In any case, that is tangential to this discussion, which is a discussion about whether or not the deletion process was followed; as I asserted above, I feel it was. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Re Count Iblis, he made two comments in the original AfD. I think the first one was adequately answered by Headbomb and Jitse Niesen. The second was "Yes, but the theory that this wiki article is about seems to be founded on some Lie-algebra described in the link I gave above. I think one can have a wiki article that explains this formalism in detail and then mentions that a few physicists claim that the theory can account for dark energy." As Jitse Niesen mentioned, we already have an article de Sitter space in which to describe the mathematical properties of the space; Wikipedia articles aren't meant to stand on their own. We can't mention that a few physicists claim that this theory can account for dark energy because the claim has no credibility. It's not much different from claiming that differential calculus can explain dark energy. I do think that de Sitter space could stand some expansion. -- BenRG (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Comment. My attempt to post my edit has been reverted, twice. It would have been much simpler to add a comment like "This edit was posted after the discussion was closed", as is standard in most fora, such as WP:RfA. My assessment can be found here. I have (perhaps only temporarily) undeleted de Sitter invariant theories so that other editors can assess the deletion in the light of the AfD, the article, and my comment. However, I fully understand that deletion review is about the decision to delete based on the consensus at AfD. Geometry guy 21:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC) For the sake of completeness, it was SoWhy who reverted it, rather than me or anyone else involved. Not suggesting in the slightest that Geometry guy was inviting people to infer that, merely that it should be noted. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Apologies for not making that clear. See User talk:SoWhy#Reversion of post close AfD comments. Geometry guy 22:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC) To respond to your reverted edit: "Mathematically, the basic idea seems to be to study spacetime as a manifold by replacing tangent spaces and affine connections (modelled on Minkowski space) by Cartan connections modelled on de Sitter space." Yes, and surely you agree that that makes no sense on the face of it (it's mathematically fine but has no physical content). "[Wikipedia's] job is not to describe The TruthTM but to document human knowledge according to reliable sources." Look at intelligent design versus biological evolution. For every pro-evolution book that gets published there's going to be a pro-ID rebuttal. Do we teach the controversy? No, we give the scientists the last word, because they're right. In this case there are no responses from the equivalent of the pro-evolution side because nobody cares enough about this work to rebut it. The lack of interest in the papers is why we shouldn't and can't have an article about de Sitter relativity—shouldn't because it's not notable, and can't because there are no sources for the correct side of the debate. "I counted at least 12 references in peer reviewed mainstream journals." Are these papers that specifically discuss "de Sitter relativity", or just papers about de Sitter space? "There is no doubt in my mind that de Sitter invariant theories have been studied and are well documented by reliable sources." This comes back to my complaint below about renaming an article to a random page from WP:WANTED. I still think we should delete this particular article under whatever name it gets moved to. -- BenRG (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Comment (technically, I endorse deletion). This article is poor shape, mostly consisting of lots of reference, with a sketchy summary presentation. From the AfD, it's clear that even the experts, who definitely understand more about this than I do, agree that the topic is unclear and that the presentation is poor. This seems to be a collection of related fringe theories (fringe from the physical, rather than the mathematical perspective) with strongly contested applicability to reality, but Wikipedia does cover such theories when sufficient sources exists. Some editors declared the current text unsalvageable, so the decision to delete was within the closing admin's discretion. Instead of generating more heat over procedural matters here, some light over this topic can be created by improving the article in user space. Collaboration is not limited to article space, and the editors that contributed to the AfD are more numerous than those that edited the article... Pcap ping 22:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Overturn, I agree with Geometry guy. Count Iblis (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Relist (preferably, re-close) (changed to "close DRV as moot", see below). Administrators should always be willing to explain the decisions they make. I do not consider Stifle's statement that "The consensus, based on the comments there at the time I closed the AFD (and there was one added afterwards) was that the article should be deleted, and I closed accordingly" an explanation; that's just saying what it means to close an AfD as "delete". I'm looking for an explanation how Stifle determined that the consensus was to delete, what the arguments were and how much weight they were given. An administrator who is not willing to explain the decisions made when closing AfDs should not close AfDs. As for the closure itself, it can probably be argued both ways. I find the "delete" arguments fairly weak, but they got quite some support. I'm only saying "relist" because I think that Stifle's decision should not be allowed to stand without any further explanation, but in fact I'd prefer it if another admin had a look at the discussion and closed it according to his/her opinion. I agree with Pcap that it's more important to work on the topic than to re-run the AfD. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Relist to gain better consensus. Not that many people participated the first time round. --Salix (talk): 01:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Relist/or just recreate I think we have enough editors interested in the fate of this article to make a new draft that isn't a complete trainwreck. That's probably the easiest solution around this problem. I want to make a comment in Stifle's defense in regard to the discussion of the deletion, though. He deletes a lot of articles (I don't mean volume per day, just total deleted) and he may face a number of discussions which are simply unresolvable. If he closes an AfD as delete and someone wants the article kept, asking him to reverse the decision presents no room for compromise--or at the very least is likely to end in the article being sent to AfD. Any conversation about the article that isn't asking him to reverse his decision seems pointless. I don't think it is a sign of intransigence or belligerence to simply direct people to DRV at the start. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Overturn The !votes for Delete appear to be little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article is clearly not hopeless and could easily be rewritten to meet Wikipedia standards. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Comment: I'm afraid I created the wrong impression with all my complaints about the wrongness of de Sitter relativity. I don't think that articles should be deleted for being wrong. I think this article should be deleted because (a) it needs a complete rewrite to accurately characterize de Sitter relativity, and (b) the rewrite can't be carried out because there aren't enough sources. The only nontrivial sources of information on this subject are from its proponents, so any article written from the sources is going to come out in favor of the subject, which is inappropriate in this case. I have no opinion about reopening the deletion discussion. If it is reopened I'll copy this comment there. -- BenRG (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I should add that I think the move to "de Sitter invariant theories" was inappropriate. As far as I know people do study field theories in de Sitter space and we could have an article on that, but that has nothing to do with "de Sitter relativity" as described in these papers (despite what the authors and Delaszk believe). De Sitter relativity should not even be mentioned in an article about physics in de Sitter space, much less be the focus of it. I'd rather discuss this article as though it still had its original name—otherwise people could always avoid deletion by renaming their article to something from WP:WANTED. -- BenRG (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse, no arguments for keeping the material were presented, and reasonable arguments against keeping it were presented. (My !vote in the AfD would probably have been to restore the original copy of de Sitter invariant theories, leaving the copy/paste and history merge of de Sitter relativity deleted, and renominate that article for deletion. There's no content in any version of de Sitter relativity which needed to be kept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Overturn + Comment: Freeman Dyson discussed this very well, and I think his article might be the original source. He made the comment sometime in the 1960's or so that the Galilean group is physically fishy, because it decomposes as a semidirect product of rotations and boosts, and therefore should be replaced by the simple Lorentz group, which is much more natural. He then said, "all of them missed it", meaning 19th century people. He then asked, perhaps we should replace the Poincare group, which is a semidirect product of Lorentz transformations and translations, with a simple group, and noted that DeSitter space is the natural outcome of this type of reasoning. He mused that if people had done this, perhaps they would have discovered General Relativity earlier. I am racking my brain to remember the source, but Dyson's work is not obscure. Somebody will know. I think the original Dyson article should be the source, and the bad writing could be replaced.Likebox (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Note that your suggestion would turn the article into something quite different. This is kind of what I was complaining about above: it seems silly to move the article to a subject on which a good article could potentially be written and then argue that it shouldn't be deleted because a good article could be written on that subject. The article was originally called "de Sitter relativity" and was about a specific narrow subject that is called de Sitter relativity by its proponents and which I don't think is notable, or even physically coherent. I still think we should delete that article, under whatever name, and then worry about writing another one. -- BenRG (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC) De Sitter invariant theories is too broad and would take forever to survey so for right now, I'm going to follow BenRG's suggestion and stick to the original premise. The article has been moved to de Sitter invariant special relativity. Not quite the same title as original but more appropriate to the content of the page. I still maintain that it is notable in its own right given the number of journal aricles. It doesn't have to come down in favour of the theory. All it has to do is describe what the authors say about it. Delaszk (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC) I see what you folks are saying, but you must remember that Wikipedia's quality standards have improved a lot, which means that a lot of articles that used to be crappy have gotten much better as more people came across them and edited them. A major spur to editing is that there is a page on a subject already, but it isn't very good. If you apply the current high Wikipedia standards to new articles, you will end up deleting a lot of articles that have potential to be very informative. I believe that if this page is left alone for a while, it will get better, because Dyson's article is very good, and it will get inserted at some point. The modern attempts to keep the idea alive are probably less notable, but they are interesting too in some sociological way.Likebox (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Delaszk found the Dyson article (thanks!) and linked it in. I tried to rewrite the lead. Please be considerate of the fact that different editors have different writing styles, some more clear and some less. The article is on a notable subject, and I really believe that it will improve with time if it is just left alone with a tag that says "Confusingly written".Likebox (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I would have no objection to a copy in someone's user space until cleanup. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I expanded it and made it clearer.Likebox (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse as in acoord with the AfD. If someone else writes a different article on this subject, that would be fine; but the present one is incoherent illiterate apologetic. (According to de Sitter relativity may explain dark energy...) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC) You have misquoted that sentence. It doesn't say "According to de Sitter...", it says "According to [1] de Sitter ...". Your tag of "incoherent illiterate" is due to not reading the number [1] as part of the sentence. I will change it to make the meaning clearer. As for calling this apologetic - this is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. In the AfD there were complaints that this shouldn't be treated as fact but as the the theories of the authors. Anyway it is quite right to use the phrase "According to". This is not established facts but theories that are being discussed here, and tentative theories at that. The authors make it clear that this is not necessarily the whole explanation of dark energy but that the kinematics of de Sitter space contribute at least some of the expansion. The papers are full of tentative statements and it is only right that the article reflects this. From "Is Physics Asking for a New Kinematics?": "In contrast to ordinary special relativity, which seems to fail at the Planck scale,"; "The question is not new — there are theoretical arguments suggesting that the Poincare symmetry might break down at ultra–high energies." Then there's the title of the article "Possible Kinematics". The wording of the article isn't apologetic, it is describing what the authors of these papers have said. Delaszk (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Ah. Is that what that was supposed to be? Anybody who uses that method of citing sources - especially without the mandatory comma before de Sitter - is not writing English. Come back when you have an English text, without special pleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Overturn as to "de Sitter invariant theories" and, not that it was DRV requested but, relist "de Sitter relativity" as AfD2 at AfD1 - While the de Sitter invariant theories article was timely tagged for deletion,[53] the article was not listed at AfD until the AfD discussion was three days old.[54] Thus, overturn as to de Sitter invariant theories. Regarding de Sitter relativity, that seems to be what the participants in this DRV discussion are addressing. The AfD discussion for de Sitter relativity was proceeding as a clear delete. However, Delaszk's redirecting the de Sitter relativity article 3+ day in to the discussion was without consensus and disrupted the discussion. The discussion participants prior to the redirect never really discussed de Sitter invariant theories and the ones after the redirect did not address the article listed for deletion but rather addressed a mixture of the listed article in combination of other text. Since the discussion was redirected to discussing a topic not originally listed at AfD before the 5 days ran, de Sitter relativity should be restored to its pre redirected state and relist de Sitter relativity at AfD2. Following process requirements is important because it is how people who wind up on what momentarily feels like the losing side come to accept the outcome of the process. The AfD for both articles were out of process and I think the better approach is to take the steps I outlined above. -- Suntag ☼ 14:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Keep undeleted There is no point reverting the article to a previous state. There is nothing in the guidelines that says that an article should be frozen if it is nominated for AfD. I have continued to work on the article since the AfD started and Likebox has now substantially rewritten the article. If someone thinks the current article should be deleted then let them start a new AfD, but don't start an AfD just for the sake of it, that would just be a waste of time. Delaszk (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Guide to deletion suggests not turning the article into a redirect during the discussion. The results of turning the de Sitter relativity article into a redirect during the AfD discussion appear to have disrupted that discussion. The Guide to deletion also suggests not moving an article during the discussion. Your move of the DRV nominated "de Sitter invariant theories" to "de Sitter invariant special relativity" during this DRV discussion may have injected confusion this DRV discussion. Through the redirect and move, the "de Sitter invariant special relativity" article may have received enough material from the AfD articles that if this DRV is closed as deletion endorse, then it is possible that the closer may choose to delete de Sitter invariant special relativity and its redirects, making each subject to G4 speedy deletion. Alternatively, if the AfD close is endorsed by this DRV, the material from "de Sitter invariant theories" and "de Sitter relativity" would be removed from article namespace. The de Sitter relativity redirect appears to have been against the consensus at the time it was made. On thinking about it, it may be a waste of time to start an AfD2. Perhaps AfD1 should be relisted for another two days to allow discussion to continue to completion to decide what to do with the de Sitter relativity content. I revised my position above. -- Suntag ☼ 15:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Self-referential Comment on this discussion: The reason people wanted to delete this article is because they didn't understand the theory, and didn't bother to learn it before nominating it for deletion. The closing of the deletion was based on the less than satisfactory writing style, and I think it's because the original author speaks English as a second language. While I don't think that this theory is correct, it is like the LeSage ether, an interesting idea which has its place in history and in the literature. It is, in my opinion, more plausible as physics than doubly special relativity or Large extra dimensions. There is absolutely no objective way in which this article is less notable than any of the dozen or so other notable proposals for new physical laws in the last few decades.Likebox (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC) I seved this article in my user space under DeSitter invariant theory. It is possible to close this discussion as delete, then recreate the article immediately, and see if the new text survives.Likebox (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC) If this DRV discussion is close as deletion endorse, then the recreation might be subject to speedy deletion under G4. -- Suntag ☼ 16:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC) This article is on a notable topic, and it has been substantially rewritten. It should be evaluated anew.Likebox (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Yes, I just saw that the article has been rewriten. There are no valid grounds for deletion anymore, so this DRV and any possible relisting for AFD is moot. Count Iblis (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Now imagine I hadn't happened to stumble across this discussion. This article would have been deleted, and this stuff would never appear in Wikipedia, because the same band of people would gang up to delete it again and again every time anyone tried to write about it. This kind of bullshit is probably happening to hundreds of articles. Articles with sources getting deleted? What's the point? Why not make a policy: to delete, a discussion should be unanimous minus 3--- (the writer, his buddy, and his sockpuppet), or by something like a 60% vote if there are lots and lots of contributors. As far as I can see, it's at the whim of any deletion crazed administrator right now.Likebox (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC) That's right, but I think this case is quite rare. The closing Admin does not just count votes, but has to read the arguments. A mere content dispute is no reason to delete an article. In this case, the article was close to be wrongly deleted because it was written in a way that emphasized the fringe points while the not so fringe points like the de Sitter algebra was only mentioned in a single sentence. Then the fact that an article on "de Sitter Cosmology" already exists further confuses the matter. And then the physics expert BenRG comes along arguing in favor of deletion. So, that's a lot of simultaneous unusual circumstances. Compare this with e.g. a topic like Global Warming. The article Global warming gives the scientific perspective, but the global warming sceptics have complained that criticism is deliberately left out. But then the criticism is not peer reviewed and the article must focus on the science. Then someone created the article Global warming controversy. That article survived two AFDs, most people who are strongly in favor of only allowing peer reviewed articles as sources for the main global warming article voted against deleting the article on the controversy. There are many more similar examples. This is how wikipedia is supposed to work and usually it does work this way. Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC) (deindent) I don't buy it. This is not a rare case. Look at the discussion right above this one on Rolando Gomez. It's been closed now (as a keep), but read it--- it's instructive. Also read the article. His article went throught the exact same process: deletion, agony, submitting for deliberation, etc. Is anybody better off if there is no article on this person? Is Wikipedia running out of disk space? Do they want people to chip in for a new hard drive? I don't think closing admins are conscientious. I think "deletionism" is something that stupid and jealous people do because they are upset that "so and so has a wikipedia page and I don't" or "such and such has a wiki page and I don't like it". It's pure evil. It harms everybody. In this case, read the original DeSitter relativity article: aside from a few well intentioned mistakes, nothing in there was fringe. It only operated under the assumption that the reader already knows what the De Sitter algebra is. It reads as fringe only to people who don't like the theory. But then, what are these people doing overriding a bunch of references and the patient effort of the original author? "Global warming skeptical opinions" should definitely have a page. It shouldn't even be an issue. Don't these people remember that global warming itself was viewed just as skeptically only a few decades ago? Same with intelligent design, which by the way is often very different from creationism. I think it should take a unanimous opinion of, say, five uninvolved admins, to delete an article. Think about it. Deletion is no work. Creation is hard work. Why would you allow easy frivolous deletion?Likebox (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Next, I would like to call attention to the case of David Krikorian, two debates up. He is a pretty notable politician--- he made the ballot in Cincinnatti. He lost the election, but so what. So did Alf Landon. are we going delete Landon's page next? His Wikipedia page was deleted in a split decision probably for political reasons. This is censorship. I tried to recreate Krikorian's article, but was blocked from doing so. This is not the policy of Wikipedia--- this is the policy of the Soviet Union. I deplore this effort to rid wikipedia of "non notable" topics. It should be stopped immediately. It's an excuse to stop Wikipedia from serving it's mission.Likebox (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC) I retract my statement above--- in the end Krikorian's article ended up recreated. Next I will call attention to "awesome color", a band which has an album and a review of this album in a pretty notable magazine. "Arnolds" was presumably either a list of people named Arnold, or an article on the fictional restaurant from the TV show "Happy days". I cannot recreate it because I have no expertise, but that's another bogus delete, in my opinion. That's it for this one day in Wikipedia deletion review history. Three bogus deletes, which would have been four if I didn't fix this article. That's not reassuring.Likebox (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Ok, so I find out (by reading the deletion review) that "Arnolds" is a Duane Reade in Finland. Why should interested people who do not happen to be perusing deletion logs be prevented from knowing this?Likebox (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Yucky. What a messy path to get to where we are today. Which is a possibly viable article that is very different from the one that was AFD'ed. I'm not certain whether or not the article of today should be around. I notice a lot of author repetition among the sources. (Han-Ying Guo and coauthors, U. Moschella and coauthors, and R. Aldrovandi and coauthors appear to be the three main groups in the 2000s, though I'm not certain I've identified the true lead author in all three groups.) So the number of citations, while large, isn't as indicative of notability as it might be, and I'm not an expert on Physics journals to know how significant the ones the papers are appearing in are, but several of them appear to clearly not be first tier (non-English language, various "letters" journals and others appear realistic possibilities for the first tier. I think in the end I believe the original AFD is no longer relevant. I can't tell whether or not relisting is appropriate; I think that should be left to editorial discretion. GRBerry 00:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC) GRB asked for my comment about the journals. Articles don't have to be in first tier journals to be valid or important. It is however rue that some journals make a practice of publishing relatively speculative or non-mainstream papers. People in the respective fields know which, but it's hard to document, and does not really prove that everything in them is equally dubious. Most very good stuff is in the very best journals, but some of it can appear anywhere--there's a long tail. The cited papers even in the first version are in respectable journals. The test for a specific paper is the citations to it. In a sense, physics a little special--there is traditionally one single journal at the top (Physical Review Letters), though this may no longer be the case. DGG (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Endorse deletion. The article, though its title appeared to change constantly, did not have a core of well-referenced material on which it could be based. There was an odor of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. It is conceivable that mainstream physics might have taken a wrong turn, and it might have been possible (per Freeman Dyson) to construct general relativity differently. A set of what-ifs do not seem to be enough to build a real article on. The following sentence from the article seems to be typical of the type of presentation used: De Sitter himself suggested that space-time curvature might not be due solely to gravity[3] but he did not give any mathematical details of how this could be accomplished. As the nominator BenRG said, "De Sitter relativity isn't just new or untested, it doesn't even make sense as a theory." I don't object if someone wants to try to create a new article in their user space, and come back to DRV for a second try if they think they have overcome the problems pointed out in the AfD discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Permit an article I am really puzzled by the above discussion in general, which seems to be focused on he question of whether his theories are correct. I don't think that is the concern of wikipedia. Though this isn't my subject, it's clear from the article and the discussion that his theories are considered unlikely, but have attracted a considerable amount of discussion. That seems to me enough justification for an article. I don't, for example, see the relevance of EdJ's remark just above: the novelty, correctness, or origin of the theories are totally irrelevant to whether there should be an article. Our true concern is that the article represent fairly the current view on his theories, following a reasonable amount of space to explain what they are. That's not a question for AfD. I've seen too many articles brought to AfD when the true matter at issue is NPOV and balance. Of course, it is very much harder to write fair articles on controverted subjects than to simply delete them. DGG (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC) What is the topic about which an article should be written? Is it the thing that Freeman Dyson thought was an alternative pathway for relativity? Per WP:NEO we are not supposed to create new terms that aren't in general use. 'De Sitter invariant special relativity' is not a theory ever held by De Sitter, it's something else. This article has now had three titles in a short space of time, which may reflect the slipperiness of the subject matter. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC) What?: What is going on here? Haven't we come to consensus? Or should I say, hasn't everyone come to their senses? There is absolutely nothing non-notable about this article. The subject matter is well defined--- it is the idea that the symmetry group of space is the DeSitter group, not the Poincare group. It has been discussed many times, starting in 1954, going through Dyson in 1972 (in Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society--- a top tier journal), continuing today. There is no NPOV issue, it is a speculative idea, and it is identified as such (and always was). There were a few balance issues regarding the individual articles discussed, those were all fixed. But mostly, the people who were arguing for deletion just never heard of this idea, and couldn't understand it. That's not a criterion for deletion. Have you people gone mad? If you want to delete it, start a discussion. The tag doesn't even belong on the page anymore.Likebox (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Close DRV as moot. The article has changed so much after almost two weeks that the AfD is no longer relevant. It does not matter whether we endorse or overturn the closing of the AfD. Even if the closing is endorsed, the current article is sufficiently different from the original one that the result of the AfD is irrelevant and that the current article should go through AfD again if people think it should be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Arnolds – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Arnolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) I listed reasons at Talk:Arnolds as I was instructed by the "this is the delete debate, don't edit" template, but hey, that was deleted too. Short version: the Arnolds is a big enough franchise (30 stores across Finland) to have an article, per "Note that very notable chains do not necessarily exist in multiple countries." in WP:REST. Arnolds is notable. 88.115.125.10 (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Endorse - 30 stores across Finland makes Arnolds important, not Wikipedia notable. If what is listed on the company's news page were set out in idependent sources, then Arnolds might have meet the notability requirements. However, those references and the ones listed in the article were reviewed at the AfD and dismissed as not sufficient to meet notability. Two editors switched from keep to delete on closer review of the sources. The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Comment - The way to get the article restored is to use reliable source material not addressed in the AfD in a new draft article. Being a company in Finland, that's probably where the source material is. Maybe post a request at Finnish Wikipedia to have fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolds sourced, then translated and copied to English Wikipedia. -- Suntag ☼ 15:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC) On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC) WP;REST is depreciated and not accepted as a guideline on notability. N & CORP are both clear. Notability is conferred by the presence of multiple in-depth non-trivial reliable sources. Having 30 outlets in a country of 5 million people in 415 municipalities that drinks more coffee then pretty much anywhere else in the world is not a sufficient claim to notabiliy to outweigh this requirement. Otherwise Suntag's contribution is your best bet. Endorse own deletion Spartaz Humbug! 18:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Endorse Close within discretion, proper process followed. MBisanz talk 19:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Comment - Spartaz, while Arnolds is described as a "coffee shop" on their website, it certainly sells far more donuts than cups of coffee. And since Finnish people tend to buy their coffee from the supermarket instead of giving up for the Starbucks culture, I can name only one other coffee shop franchise in Finland. Fancy it having an article. Of course that one has to be deleted too; no sources listed, so it musn't be all that notable, right? Oh wait, one outlet in Istanbul. I can already see it raise into other spheres of notability. I think this is ridiculous and WP:IAR is applicable. --88.112.191.83 (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC) You do? I'm afraid I don't. Spartaz Humbug! 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Awesome Color – The reason of the deletion has been explained, no error with it has been asserted or found and there is no prejudice against writing an article. (The deleted stub had just two sentences.) – Tikiwont (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Awesome Color (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) This band is in criterias. See fr:Awesome Color and Allmusic (album). Sorry I'm not en WP user, so I could not understand the reason for deletion. Xic667 (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Comment - Awesome Color was deleted on 28 September 2006 under A7, which means that the text of the deleted article did not indicate why Awesome Color was important/significant. The band may be important/significant, but if the text of the article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, then the article may be speedy deleted under A7.-- Suntag ☼ 15:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Endorse and allow creation - A review of the band's website[55] left me wondering about its important/significant, so it seems likely that the delete Wikipedia article was the same. However, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL does show some source material and the New York Times did write about the band. The article was deleted two years ago and an AfD discussion might give a clearer picture on where this topic resides in relation to sufficient reliable source material. My suggestion, Xic667, is to write an article on Awesome Color that indicates why they are important/significant (to overcome the A7 problem) and uses and footnotes material from Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. -- Suntag ☼ 16:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC) You didn't understand the reason for deletion, but you had no trouble finding this page? Curious. In any case, this page was speedied over two years ago; just create the page and make sure you show how the band meets WP:NMG, citing reliable sources when you do. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC) It's not that curious. The notice above the edit box for creating the article links to Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?, and the very first item at Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?#What you can do about it links here. And the lack of understanding may be because the reason for deletion given was "CSD A7", which might very well be opaque to an editor of the French Wikipedia who is only Category:User en-2. I can understand why readers and people unfamiliar with the English Wikipedia might be wondering why administrators here are using car licence plate numbers as reasons for deletion. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Exactly (giving "CSD A7" as a reason for deletion is opaque for me, and I think it is so for many people). I am sysop on fr, so familiar with deletion processes on fr, I have only searched the interwiki from fr:Wikipédia:Demande de restauration de page to find this page. I'm not a good redactor in english, my contributions here are mainly minor corrections. I may add sources if the article is reestablished but writing it from nothing is difficult. Xic667 (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Recreate article I see no harm that would be created by doing so and the arguments are convincing to me. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.