Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January

< December 2008	Deletion review archives	February 2009 >

Administrator instructions

31 January 2009[edit]

Template:Welcome-anon-Jimbo – Deletion endorsed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurykh (talk • contribs)

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

Deleted by Picaroon (who's no longer about) as a T1, but I don't see how the template is divisive or inflammatory. It should be at least sent to TFD. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted as a valid T1/T2. The quote from Jimbo is out of context (the context being that it was this reply to a trolling IP). Good faith IP users are welcome to remain IP users if they so desire and any template telling them otherwise is a blatant misstatement of policy. --B (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's the very validity of that speedy criterion being called into question that, I suspect, has motivated this review. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Removal of T1 redux, where this and several other templates deleted under criterion #T1 are listed. If you think that the criterion is itself valid, which you presumbly do if you think that speedy deletions under it are valid, then I suggest that you contribute to the talk page discussion, because your view isn't well represented there. Uncle G (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as T2, not as T1. It presents something Jimbo once just kinda said in a particular situation as if he said it in his policy-making capacity, and thus amounts to a misrepresentation of policy. Chick Bowen 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Misrepresents policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as valid T2, whether or not it meets T1. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per B. Jimbo should have worded himself differently to prevent people from taking it out of context, but that doesn't mean we should take it out of context. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per T2, since this defninitely isn't common practice or policy. Hut 8.5 09:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ism (punk band) – The article will remain deleted until a proper copyright release is sent to OTRS. – Stifle (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ism (punk band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) I recently put in a request to PMDrive1061 for reverse the deletion of the Ism (punk band) page. He cited blatant copyright infringement while citing a website from CDbaby.com. I responded to him that this was not correct and pointed out how he was confusing the copyright of the CD for sale on CDbaby with the bio of the band which is on the official Ism website granting license to anyone who is wishing to use the bio in any way. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you can easily see this:

http://www.ism-punk.com/historyoftheband.html

After several attempts to correct the administrator, he failed to respond after his first statement. Then he deleted all requests. I know there have been multiple complaints about him deleting articles and have no idea whether he was justified or not but in this case he was mistaken and refuses to confront the issue in an intelligent manner. It almost seems as if there is an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.181.219 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unclear which site copied the other. The cdbaby.com site says it's copyright Joseph Ismach. Can the nominator clarify who he is? Stifle (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the CD baby site is stating a copyright to the CD for sale on CD baby in the section preceding the bio. It does not state copyright protection to this bio. The bio is not copyright protected. This is very clear. I know this because I am the author of the bio which appears on the the official Ism page and myspace page and Josef Ismach (copyright owner of the CD for sale on CD baby) along with his manager that runs the site have authorized use of the bio. The bio was approved by both of them for it's accuracy. The bio is not copyright protected in any way, shape or form and available for distribution. It is very clear on the website and that is why it was included on Wikipedia and myspace along with numerous others sites. The reason they authorized unlimited use of the bio is to clear up confusion of false rumors that were spread on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.181.219 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse/send to OTRS. First, a WHOIS search on ism-punk.com does not resolve to Josef Ismach, so there's no clear trail of whether ism-punk.com has a valid claim to the history. Second, CDbaby does not have a copyright policy defined on its site, so the assumed license is copyright, all rights reserved. The chicken-and-egg question is still, did ism-punk.com copy CDbaby, or did CDbaby use text submitted by the author of ism-punk.com? My hunch is to overturn and allow the copyrighted text as the basis of the article, but I'm thinking we should be conservative and let the people at OTRS process an email from the author and do their usual copyright vetting procedure.

That said, the author of the bio should keep in mind that he will not own the Wikipedia article if it is recreated, so other editors may change it—and the authorized bio does not necessarily carry more weight than independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fred but it is now Feb. 5th and the link has still not been restored. I can email anyone at any address and the copyright owner of the CD listed for sale (once again...not the bio), Josef Ismach, can also do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.181.219 (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cherryade – Deletion overturned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurykh (talk • contribs)

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

This article was significantly revamped by myself during the debate. However, the closing admin seemed to ignore this and redirected a perfectly good article. It should have been closed as no consensus, if anything, or left open a little longer to establish new consensus - all the "votes" above my comments were about the article before I revamped it. There was no consensus whatsoever for deletion. Majorly talk 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not been deleted; the nominator is welcome to restore the article as an improved version or to redirect it to a more appropriate target. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been deleted - there's no history. Plus, I can't restore it either. Majorly talk 16:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The closure may have said redirect, but the closing administrator actually deleted the article. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin The consensus was Redirect/Delete so I dleted the article and placed a redirect per community consensus. Majorly's re-write had been noted on the AFD for 4 days without comment. If there were comments after his re-write indicating a change of opinion, that would have influenced my close, but there were not. AFD closers do not judge content, we judge consensus, so we cannot go back and say "Yes, article looks good enough to me now". MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus of the old article, yes. Not of the new one though. Majorly talk 21:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I hope I read that wrong. "[We] do not judge content..." is false. You should never close an AFD without actually looking at the article, and what was said about it. It should have been left open for further comments on the rewrite. You closed based on consensus to redirect (though not delete) the article before I revamped it. That was incorrect of you to do so. By your suggestions, you'd close an AFD on Barack Obama if consensus said to delete, despite it obviously not being deletable. Majorly talk 21:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and delete are two entirely different actions. They are not the same thing. The former is a simple variant of keeping an article, and does not involve us hitting our delete buttons. Indeed, it is an action that any editor, even one without an account, can perform. Unless someone actually opines "delete then create a redirect" explicitly, a redirect opinion should not be considered endorsement of deletion. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I !voted for a merge/redirect to ade but had I seen that User:Majorly had significantly improved it, I would have withdrawn my !vote. I think it's only fair to overturn the redirect and allow Majorly to improve the article. Pyrrhus16 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually the deletion that is at issue for overturning. The closing administrator deleted the article. (Don't be misled by what is written in the closure. See the deletion log. The article was deleted, making its edit history and content inaccessible.) Redirects are ordinary editorial actions. Anyone, even someone without an account, can perform a redirect of an existing article. (And anyone with an account can create a redirect.) Anyone can also undo a redirect. It's the deletion that involved the administrator tool. And it's that deletion that is non-reversible by ordinary editors making ordinary editorial actions with ordinary editing tools. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Like User:Pyrrhus16 I based my !vote on the article's original, non-encyclopedic content; I believe it's possible to write a viable article on this subject. It looks like new, improved content would address the nominator's rationale. The only other !vote against the article, a claim that the word "cherryade" is a neologism, was addressed during the deletion discussion. AFAIK User:Majorly is free to start a new article on the subject even before the endorsement of a DRV, but if s/he has lost access to valuable content, the article should be undeleted at least long enough to userfy it. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should xe be forced to work on this article outside of article space? Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see no reason why User:Majorly, or anybody else, should be forced to work on this article outside of article space. However, if a consensus should develop to keep the previous version of the article deleted, then the article should nevertheless be undeleted long enough to save its contents. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the AfD might have benefited from a relist after Majorly rewrote it. Just my $0.02. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I endorse the deletion as good faith and within guidelines. (Disclaimer: I made the AfD nomination, and I think the article, as it stood at the time of deletion, was still not up to par.) On the other hand, because sources were added and there is confusion, overturn and relist so we can determine whether there is consensus on the new version. —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify, please. I still don't understand why this was deleted instead of just redirected with content retained, which would have allowed for a merge at a later date. Barring clarification, undelete history as deletion was inconsistent with close of AfD. Chick Bowen 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User talk:MBisanz/Archive 6#Question on AfD outcome might help. However, the rationale given there doesn't seem to have any applicability to this article. It seems exceedingly unlikely that Majorly was part of any sort of cherryade "fan group" wanting to preserve inappropriate content relating to cherryade in the encyclopaedia, thereby warranting a deletion in order to prevent the undoing of the redirect. ☺
  More seriously: The rationale of lacking sources for the content doesn't apply, either, since Majorly's rewrite not only had two, but cited them as well. Also note that deletions have been performed in closures marked "redirect" for James Harvey Callahan (AfD discussion) and Kent Street (Simcoe, Ontario) (AfD discussion) in the past two days. Uncle G (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would be interested in hearing from other admins about this, but to me, that practice is outside of our norms, and rather questionable. History content of a redirect is often useful when circumstances change and it makes sense to convert a redirect back to an article, and a non-admin may not realize the history was ever there (particularly when the AfD doesn't indicate that a deletion has occured), or whether it contained anything useful. I'm sure MBisanz is doing this in good faith, but I'd suggest he give this a bit more thought and update his scripts accordingly. At the very least, he should make sure that the AfD close accurately reflects his actions. Chick Bowen 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My approach varies. What I noticed in this AFD were Redirect to soft drink as this is a useful search term, but there's nothing to merge and Delete I'd say that "Cherryade" is nothing more then a neologism. To me that signifies a step beyond redirection to deletion. Over my time I have had complaints of people wanting the information under redirects deleted or the redirects protected because of edit warring over the AFD close. I suppose we could add a standard AFD comment like "redirect and delete". Also, as I noted, closing admins cannot judge the article. If people are saying to delete because of a neologism, and then someone comes along and says there are older sources that they have added, unless the earlier people come back and edit their comment, closing admins cannot be saying "Well I think the article now meets criteria, so I'll retain it". Look what happened when another admin decided his interpretation of an article should override what was on the AFD page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (7th nomination). I should add that if there is new information in the article that does permit it to pass criteria, then it should be restored as a community consensus that it now meets criteria. MBisanz ^talk 05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist The article was significantly different to the one that most contributors to the AFD commented on, therefore the best course of action was to relist the article at AFD to see what the consensus is over the new version of the article. This should be standard practice when an article is significantly changed during an AFD after all/almost all contributors have commented based on the old version of the article. I am also think protecting a redirect is a much better course of action than deleting the history (where the closing admin thinks this is absolutely necessary) as it preserves the history for merging any content, it increases transparency in letting people see why it was redirected and also prevents the recreation of an article unless/until a consensus is reached to recreate. Davewild (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The closing admin admits that there were no comments on the rewritten version, hence no consensus to delete it. The article should've been relisted for more input rather than closed. Unless the article history is particularly damaging (libel, BLP) there's no good reason to delete it prior to redirecting since, as stated, it deprives people from reinstating a reworked version with the proper history attached. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I'm now in my fourth decade and we had cherryade when I was a boy so this clearly isn't a neologism and deleting for that reason simply doesn't fly. (Disclosure: I hate cherryade, it tastes disgusting). Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. The article as rewritten was not addressed in the AfD, and it seems to be an acceptable article. A new AfD could be started if desired, but I see no reason to do so. I agree with most of the other process comments above, including that the former text of redirected articles need not generally be deleted absent a specific reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dell_Schanze – DRV is not for nominating articles for deletion, it is for contesting the results of deletion discussions. This discussion took place in 2007; if it is desired to delete the article, just renominate it. – Stifle (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-Notable Vanity 67.177.27.74 (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse AfD - clear consensus to keep. This is not AfD round 2. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Early close (I can't remember the template anyone else may fel free to use this rational and close it - then remind me what the template is) the last AfD was 1.5 years ago - just re-nominate it. Viridae ^Talk 11:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

30 January 2009[edit]

Gpirate – Deletion endorsed

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

It is noteworthy and the Google of bit-torrents User: Wikisudia (talk) had this in the wrong place so I fixed it for him -- kelapstick (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin Overwhelming consensus to delete due to lack of reliable sources. Only two trivial sources were brought forward. MBisanz ^talk 20:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Consensus to delete, DRV is not AFD round 2. GlassCobra 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User HD-DVD – no consensus to overturn. Re-creation in userspace permitted. – Aervanath (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I feel that this template is neither divisive nor inflammatory. It merely states one of the AACS encryption keys. I asked the deleting admin to consider reversing the decision, but he declined to do so [1]. On top of that, CSD:T1 is being repealed. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my own deletion Please explain why the template should be restored, almost two years after its deletion. As I mentioned on my talk page, its whole point is to give a big "up yours" about the HD-DVD encryption code. At the time, the code was appearing everywhere, and a CSD being repealed now doesn't have much bearing on the fact that it's a worthless userbox. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see how it is giving an "up yours" in any way. My reason why the template should be restored is because it is neither divisive nor inflammatory; it's for TFD to decide whether it should be retained or not beyond that. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Context. Now, more than a year and a half after it was deleted, no, it doesn't seem like anything. At the time I deleted it? It was being placed everywhere, hence my attitude of the template's creation as a pointy way of getting around efforts to not promote the code.
    Also please note that the template was created by Yagikaru (talk · contribs) in May 2007, during a period where the account may or may not have been compromised.[2] EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Didn't meet T1. Whether the userbox is worthless is a matter for TfD (and, lest this should seem an insistence on process for process's sake, I would observe that it is not at all clear that a TfD will result in deletion [at the very least, it will, it should be noted, counsel migration to userspace; we might do well to restore thither upon the close of this discussion]); we are, rightly or wrongly, about to keep a userbox that proclaims a belief that "a marriage should consist of only of a man and a woman", which is surely more divisive, inflammatory, off-topic, and acollaborative than this one, and the discussion at that MfD seems to suggest that the community aren't fully read to revisit GUS and to take a harder line on advocacy userboxes that are not wholly related to our enterprise [although a community-wide discussion toward that end seems probable to follow]). Joe 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares - userboxes go in user space, not template space. Create it in user space and move on with life. --B (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant to say. Freakin' congenital inability to be concise. Joe 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, move to userspace, and list at MFD. T1 was probably a little hasty; let's have a full discussion to have the final say. GlassCobra 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or just do it. Stifle is an admin. Deleting a userbox from template space is not a prohibition against creating it in user space. If Stifle wants to host it in his user space, he can just do it apart from this process. If a non-admin wants it in their userspace, they can ask an admin to do it here for them. There's nothing meaningful to overturn here. --B (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indian state assembly election results in 2008 – overturned. Template restored. – Aervanath (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 14#Indian state assembly election results in 2008

This TFD was closed as delete today and I believe this closure was incorrect as I cannot see that a consensus for deletion was present in the discussion and that the closing admin misread the consensus. A longer view of why I believe this was incorrect can be seen in my discussion with the closing admin - here. I would ask that the closure be overturned as at least a no consensus and if necessary hold a discussion on the wider issue elsewhere. Davewild (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before we go into that, can you please clarify why this data should be in a template and not just hardcoded into the single article that each template was used in? Stifle (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly as was discussed in the TFD and in my discussion with the closer, the templates are appropriate for use in more than one article each, the first one for instance is used in both Politics of Jammu and Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir state assembly elections, 2008 so they are not single use templates. This is quite normal practice as can be seen in the subcategories of Category:Election and referendum result templates and this is the first time any of them have been put up for deletion. Secondly as I argued elsewhere, having them in a template makes both the article and the results easier to edit without in any way altering the situation for the reader. For someone who is less experienced or new to editing having all this in the middle of the article makes editing the text of the article more daunting, while having this situation, makes it virtually identical to a template except more confusing about where and how to edit it. Davewild (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Overturn as the closure didn't reflect consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - not only by consensus in the discussion but making editors lives easier is a good thing - Peripitus (Talk) 06:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

29 January 2009[edit]

List of birthday songs – Overturn and relist. I'll also restore selectively, although I am not sure whether the lyrics problem cannot be simply addressed via removal. If the article is eventually kept one may want to double check the edit history.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This list of traditional birthday songs around the world was headed for deletion based on being a possible copyright violation (though the validity of the copyright of Happy Birthday to You may be suspect) and being a lyrics database. I addressed both of these issues by editing it down to a simple list of countries and song titles, and started adding source citations. After a delete citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE (but not explaining how they applied other than to give a personal opinion about encyclopedic coverage, which would probably exclude the vast majority of lists on Wikipedia) and a delete based on a rather weak (IMO) argument that people could just find the information in the articles themselves (without indicating how to find those articles or why an index to those articles would be inappropriate), one commenter reversed their delete and argued to keep the rewritten article, and countered the immediately preceding delete argument. The closing admin said that he deleted because "the majority of the delete 'votes' were based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY," but careful reading of the discussion shows this not to be the case, and it is unclear that those arguing that before the rewrite would have applied that rationale after the rewrite. In fact, the "not a directory" issue was hardly discussed at all because the copyvio and lyrics issues overwhelmed that, and the article was deleted less than 21 hours after the rewrite. Due to lack of substantial discussion after the rewrite, I feel at the very least, a relist is warranted. DHowell (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist as nom. DHowell (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the nominator and would overturn and relist. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist While the final comment that argued deletion, may have had a good point, the majority of comments were based on a different article. With the weak argument of Benefix ignored, the post-rewrite comments amount to no consensus. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Who are you to talk about weak arguments? Themfromspace's vote and the deletion as a directory/guide are firmly grounded in policy, and if it applies to "the vast majority of lists on Wikipedia" then tough luck, go read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "Index" is nothing more than a weasel word for directory IMO, that's why it's inappropriate. Endorse closure Benefix (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Xe's a Wikipedia editor who has read your argument. Your argument mentioned none of the things that you have referred to here. Your argument, rather than the arguments made by other people that you are now attempting to appropriate as yours, was, in toto, "people who want to know about other birthday songs can look in the respective articles". And it was weak, having no foundation in deletion policy at all. Uncle G (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry I didn't realize that we were being judged on individual contributions instead of the case for deletion as a whole. My argument was a supplement to the previous one, so I didn't think it was necessary to repeat it. My intention was simply to point out that nothing is lost by the deletion of this directory as the information will still be available from the individual articles (once written). Benefix (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and relist The article changed over time and early commentators may not have been aware of the changes that occurred. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn carefully and relist. Please don't restore the copyvio revisions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Portal:SWIFT – Deletion endorsed. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

OVERTURN - KEEP. Overturn - KEEP. SWIFT portal is not intended as a advertisement portal. Understand that SWIT is a non-profit cooperative organization created by national banks and banks in the 1970s in an effort to replace the un-secure and unreliable telex. Today all national banks and major financial institutions around the world are connected to SWIFT and use it for transfers of funds, actions, and numerous other financial instruments between themselves (e,g SWIFT code or aka BIC code for money transfers). As the UN is involved in International Politics, SWIFT is involved with the International Financial Community. The spirit behind the portal is to provide a coherent and accurate representation of SWIFT and all sub-entities that compose SWIFT. The SWIFT article makes an encyclopedic reference to SWIFT (date of creation, how the network works, etc.. - and not to mention not exactly accurate!!!) while as the portal provides a coherent view of other organizations linked (including the UN CEFACT, ISO, and other international Standards organizations) and which collaborate together with SWIFT (e.g. non-swift protocols such as FIX & FpmL used in trade initiation) in an effort to develop and improve the financial industry for the community and not out of self interest. It also provides a view of industry initiatives which are sponsored or initiated by SWIFT - such as SEPA or Giovanni 1 - in which SWIFT has collaborated with the European Union and the European Central Bank.

Few people are aware of SWIFT importance and role as the primary secure network that link the financial world together. As important for people to know (through the UN portal) about the UN's active role international politics, trying to ensure peaceful coexistence between different nation states, and various other agendas it maintains (e.g. genocide, health) it is important for people to understand SWIFT position in the financial industry (for port authorities, custodians, trade markets, stock markets, national banks, cooperates, SME, developing countries through its service bureau infrastructure, and more....) and how this one is supported by a non-profit entity who's mission to keep running a global financial network securely and resiliently - independent of any crisis. Yet this, I am sure pretty much no one is aware of! Explaining someone about SWIFT and they think your talking about a meat packaging company!

The contribution to Wikipedia is an effort to provide this information objectively and unbiased. Wording has been reviewed multiple times by friends and fellow writers to make sure that the writing did NOT promote SWIFT but was a source of unbiased information - not advertisement. Although it might seem a bit narrowly focused on SWIFT (albeit not much is available on this subject) I would encourage the admins to help me to further develop this portal in an effort to render the financial world and its workings more transparent. In this fashion I feel that the article can not offer the visibility or broadness that this portal is intended to offer. I urge to reconsider your choice in this matter and hope we can find a suitable solution for bother parties. Thank you

Consensus of the discussion is clear. Endorse deletion I do already know of Swift, most particularly SWIFTNet E&I, and agree with the nominator that this topic isn't of sufficient general interest and importance to merit a portal. The MFD did not change the article contents related to SWIFT, just eliminated a gateway for getting to those articles. GRBerry 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, DRV is not round 2 of MFD. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own close: the MFD was unanimous in favor of deletion; any information about SWIFT should be added to the article; DRV is not XFD round 2.--Aervanath (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "SWIFT portal is not intended as a advertisement portal. Understand that SWIT is a non-profit cooperative organization created by national banks and banks in the 1970s in an effort to replace the un-secure and unreliable telex." The fact the company is a non-profit is irrelevant. Non-profits can advertise too. In fact, the whole idea of making people aware of something is the exact point of advertising. The consensus was clear and no new facts were brought to the table. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

28 January 2009[edit]

QCubed – Deletion endorsed – kur ykh 06:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A discussion was in place about producing language useful to the general audience. The original article was a bit tech savy. Since than we have changed the page to be more productive and informative to a general audience. We also added relevant and informative links for the general public. The user who deleted our article says it was based on notability but made absolutely no effort in producing notable references nor did anyone else in the discussion. Yet it had plenty of notable references. The irony of this comes when viewing other PHP Open-Source Frameworks (free, community driven projects), most of them do not produce any notable evidence or references (sometimes they don't even produce a link to the project), yet the QCubed article was deleted. QCubed is a port of QCodo which has a wikipedia article but includes more useful informative information. Please review. JonKirkpatrick (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin Once you factor in new accounts at the AFD, the consensus is rather clear that this is a non-notable software application. Closing admins are not supposed to find references, nor does the possible existence of references result in a keep, finally WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is another discouraged AFD position. MBisanz ^talk 22:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AfD discussion was closed within guidelines. That said, there is a secondary issue of whether the article was sufficiently improved, between the original nomination and closure of discussion, to "challenge the validity" of the early !votes. IMO, it was not, and I would endorse deletion under criterion G4 if the article were recreated as it was at the time of deletion. If JonKirkpatrick would like to work on an imrpoved candidate article in userspace, I think that's a reasonable solution. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by article editor Determining notability based on new account creation is not in your Notability guidelines so such comments are ludicrous and should be excluded from factual evidence. The reason stated for deletion was based on "notability", and per your guidlines, "...deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." The sources we listed provided enough notability, and if it was not sufficient enough a simple question from the admins could have been asked to provide more notability based on the changes after, "may lack notability.". JonKirkpatrick (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, under the guidelines for deletion discussions, comments from new accounts may be discounted, when they are suspected of being single-purpose accounts or otherwise recruited to skew the discussion. One participant on the keep side admitted to a conflict of interest. Comments by IP addresses are also typically discounted - again, since COI is so rampant here, the closing admin was within guidelines to do so. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand C.Fred, but the closing admins statements and comparisons between new accounts and notability are extremely false and are not documented anywhere on your notability guidelines, that's how he said he based his decision, read his comment. New accounts were created by myself and a few core-contributors of the open source project to provide answers to guestions posed by admins. You can see on the 23rd a "notability / spam / wording" problem had come up. One of our members re-did the article and provided a more fruitful article, even some members of Wikipedia changed their minds based on this change. The speedy delete was based on spam of the original content. The content was significantly changed. The Weak Delete has not even come into play yet, I do feel this was against wikipedia guidelines for deletion. I also feel that the deletion was not based on the new changes that were in-place after the initial rounds of the discussion and before it was deleted. I also believe a great assumption was put in place by the closing admin by assuming since the discussion had a "speedy delete" reference on an earlier date, he went ahead and deleted it without viewing the changes made to the article after the speedy delete comment, and also based on his first comment in this article by also assuming we have no notability based on new user creation. Please review this in depth as a lot of assumptions were used by the closing admin. JonKirkpatrick (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The consensus of established editors at the AFD was in favour of deleting the article. Not every common procedure here is documented (although we're getting there). Finally, deletion review is a forum to indicate how the deletion process was not properly followed. It is not a forum to attempt to raise new arguments (or repeat old ones) which would properly have been raised in the AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary Just so the facts are clear. There was a leaning towards delete due to "spam" prior to the rewrites. After the first re-write (23:20, 23 January 2009), Fiddle Faddle was the only old-account user to respond with "spam" (15:06, 25 January 2009), Peridon responded with "neutral", the article was once again rewritten (21:45, 25 January 2009), and Peridon was the only old-account user to respond (with "keep" 19:56, 26 January 2009). No other old-account comments were made post-rewrite. Opinion Even if all new-account and anonymous comments are believed to have no weight, I still believe it to be improper that a "consensus" of delete has been drawn based on one outdated "spam" and one current "keep". 68.145.111.83 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by article editor Thank you for summarizing what I was trying to say, much clearer.JonKirkpatrick (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Yeah, clearly spam and written from a COI. If reliable sourcing can be found I don't see that a new article couldn't be written but it should be written by someone unconnected to the product. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote your products OK? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Clarification
- COI While I (and most of the new accounts) are members of the QCubed community, and as such do desire that the article stay, the Wikipedia guidelines state it's only COI if "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". Our goal here is to have an accurate wikipedia article, and not anything contrary to wikipedia's aims.
- Notability Your policy states "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." No one has yet stated that they have looked for such sources.
- Spam If the issue is not notability, but rather spam, as often stated, I believe wikipedia policy only demands NPOV, which I believe this article has. All statements made are factual, and descriptive in nature, without bias.

It may be that our framework is simply not well known enough to merit an article here, and would fail due to Notability standards, but no one has yet found us to fail them. Those who have supported the deletion as a COI or Spam, please clarify. We are more than willing to rework the article to meet these criteria, but are unsure in what manner it currently fails. 68.145.111.83 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Stifle and Spartaz. GlassCobra 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Costly state verification – Restored - the deletion was under WP:PROD, so undeletion as a contested prod is trivial – —C.Fred (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

absolutely no reason to delete. Editors are exercising unwarranted power using unsubstantiated claims with no reasonable explanation why this article with crystal clear content and references listed with over hundred thousands results on Google search on term explained is worse than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_contract with no references and no informative content to speak of. V sq (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by deleting admin - The article was deleted as an uncontested prod that had been listed for five days. At the time I deleted it, the article consisted of three sentences of text with no citations, and did not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. When V sq contacted me regarding the deletion, I -as a member of Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles- offered to userfy the article, however s/he replied [3] "I don't want to waste my time "improving" my already well-written article until I get some explanation due for the act of vandalism committed" and instead opened this DRV. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by article author —Preceding unsigned comment added by V sq (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That comment by deleting admin is factually untrue. Below is the text of original article taken from google cache. Someone should put the end to arbitrary vandalism in relation to highly valuable content that few people are capable to create.

Costly State Verification (CSV) approach in contract theory considers contract design problem in which verification (or disclosure) of enterprise performance is costly and a lender has to pay a monitoring cost.

A central result of CSV approach is that it is generally optimal to commit to a partial, state-contingent disclosure rule. Townsend (1979) has shown that under few strong assumptions the optimal financing mechanism is a standard debt contract for which there is no disclosure of the debtor's performance as long as debt as honored, but there is full disclosure (verification) in case of default.

27 January 2009[edit]

George Corral – Restore article on the basis of new info. No discredit to closing admin. – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This player's article was deleted with a clear consensus on the basis that he failed WP:ATHLETE (I !voted delete on this one - my bad!). However, after a spot of hunting around it has come to light that the division he played in (Mexico's Primera División A) is in fact fully professional (agreed here using this newspaper report), and so he actually passes this notability requirement. Bettia (rawr!) 12:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and no discredit to the closing admin. I also opted for Delete, but it's now clear he is notable. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I withheld my vote pending the outcome of the research on the status of Primera A, and forgot to add a keep vote after the conclusion was reached. The admin properly closed the AfD, but some new information was not reflected in the !votes in the AfD debate. Jogurney (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - while he may pass the very weak WP:ATHELTE, still appears to fail WP:N. - fchd (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn based on information pertaining [[WP:ATHLETE] Agathoclea (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Overturn- If new info has come to light that he meets notability, then there's no reason to keep the article deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as correct given the information at the time, but of course undelete now. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - following new research, it appears he passes WP:ATHLETE and is therefore notable. Giant Snowman 15:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - he appears to be notable, and if we had known this before it would not have been deleted. DeMoN2009 17:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn based on new evidence brought forward here, but emphasizing that the closing admin was correct on the basis of the AFD at the time. Davewild (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - As per new info King of the North East 21:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

26 January 2009[edit]

Indiagames Ghajini Mobile – deletion endorsed; recreation allowed, if the new article is not promotional in nature and meets notability guidelines. – Aervanath (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe this article was improperly deleted. The notability of the subject was demonstrated in the AfD with links to India's national newspaper and several other Indian news outlets. As for the article being a copyvio, this was merely suspected and not proven, and can be easily rectified. SharkD (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin The consensus was very strong at the AFD for deletion. The only person to support retention of the article was the person bringing this DRV. I cannot see any other possible close of the AFD. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but AfD is not a vote. I raised compelling reasons not to proceed with the deletion; it's your job to weigh these issues and determine the appropriate outcome. SharkD (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, I would not consider consensus to have been "very strong" with only four people having voted in favor of deletion. SharkD (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, consensus cearly established, process clearly followed. While an AfD is not a vote, it is based on consensus, which is generally (but not always) established by a tally of opinions (!votes). Usrnme h8er (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. DRV is not AFD round 2, and the process has been followed properly. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation of any neutrally written, reliably sourced piece - although the topic of the article seems to be covered to some degree at Ghajini (2008 film)#Mobile Content. To my mind some of the sources found by SharkD - which were presented late in the discussion - significantly impact on the earlier arguments that claim a lack of notability; this profile in The Hindu alone would require some explanation of why the games are not notable. Guest9999 (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. That's why I think those votes should have been weighted less, and have contributed less to the "strong" sense of deletion. I.e. if later evidence suggest that previous statements were not true, then the previous statements should not be considered as much. SharkD (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow recreation provided the content is not a copy of anything resembling a copy-and-paste from another website (in response to the reviewer, have clearly noted that I could not show a copyvio but instead strongly suspected it) and not blatant advertising. When I read the article in the AFD, it was clear that the purpose of the article was for promotion, as I have indicated in that AFD. Notable or not, spamming is not allowed in the English Wikipedia and is subject to deletion per the deletion policy. MuZemike 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse/ keep deleted nn YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Country Tracks chart – Deletion review withdrawn – Davewild (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I took this redirect to RFD because I found it misleading. The Hot Country Songs chart was never called "Country Tracks", while RPM DID have a chart that was called Country Tracks. I suggested it be deleted since it was misleading. The discussion failed to achieve consensus, and I boldly retargeted it to RPM (magazine) only to have the redirect undone. I still think that anyone looking for "Country Tracks" is more likely to be looking for the chart that actually did bear that name, and am seeking further input here per the suggestion of one of the "keep" voters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is an appeal against the RFD closure at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 10. TerriersFan (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - the RFD was properly closed. The nominator's arguments were considered but did not find sufficient acceptance. As a BTW, it should be noted that this chart is not mentioned in the RPM article and, in my view, the present target, is useful. TerriersFan (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, there was indeed no consensus. Nothing's stopping anyone from retargeting the redirect, though. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this sounds like a place for a disam page, not a redirect. DGG (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be, but what would it say for the current redirect? The Hot Country Songs chart was never called "Country Tracks"? Usrnme h8er (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, endorse? overturn? what? the result was no consensus - and that's clearly what it was. This is not a place for a 2nd nomination of RfD. What we should be doing is closing this RfD and moving this to a discussion to the talk page. If Hammer and Terrier can't agree, move the discussion to RfC, mediation or arbitration accordingly. Usrnme h8er (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue The nominator of this DRV doesn't seem to be requesting that my closure of the original Rfd be overturned, so it seems that there's nothing to review here. This is something to be worked out between the editors having the dispute. If it can't be worked out on the talk page of the redirect, then the easiest way to handle it is to re-nominate it for Rfd, with the intended outcome as retarget instead of delete. This might result in a clear consensus one way or the other as to where the redirect should point. Either way, DRV is not the place for the discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, this was stupid. I probably wouldn't have taken this to DRV had TerriersFan had not suggested. Can someone close this? We seem to have agreed now that retargeting is fine. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Black President (United States) – moot. Article was substantially re-worked and put into mainspace under a different title, rendering the previous Afd moot. No prejudice against another Afd. – Aervanath (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was no consensus for deletion, it met all requirements for notability and verifiability. The article tracked the historical speculations of an African American president pre Obama. It now appears here at: User:ChildofMidnight/Black president minus the talk page, with many additions to the lede by ChildofMidnight. I can't find the deletion talk. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deleted article by that name. I think you are looking for Black president (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (small "p"). The AFD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black president. IMO, the deletion is procedurally correct based on that AFD. Endorse deletion. --B (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse — sticking my head out on this one, but (having not commented in the AFD), I agree with the closing admin's synthesis observation, which is certainly within policy to delete. MuZemike 04:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: All WP articles are synthesis; what would be an issue is "Synthesis of published material which advances a position". What position is this trying to advance? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a judgment call (and probably a difficult judgment call made by the closing admin), but I think the article was basically created as a result of Barack Obama's election as U.S. president (I won't go into recentism as this is irrelevant to this argument). That is clear, at least to me, in the lead section of the article, where it explains why this article is here. Yes, there have been fascinations in the past about a black U.S. President, but to use the sources cited and tie it all in and funnel and culminate it into the election and presidency of Barack Obama without any verifiability of that tie-in/culmination in terms of the subject of the article is what I think is synthesis of sources and hence original research. That's why, even though I think the closing admin made the right call, it was nowhere near an easy call to make. With that said, if users are challenging the closing admin's (and mine by syllogism) call, then I would not oppose a relist at AFD. Otherwise, I still stand by my endorsement. MuZemike 18:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. When the number of editors supporting and opposing deletion is close or equal, the closing admin may (and indeed should) consider whether arguments reflect Wikipedia policies or personal preferences of the contributors, and whether arguments which have been raised have been refuted by the other side or not. In this case, the admin did just that and came to the correct result. The article also seems to fail WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I consider the administrators explanation of the close to be valid, well motivated and well anchored in policy. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion I disagree with the deletion but it seems like a reasonable close given the circumstances. Possibly if the article can be modified so that it uses secondary sources that talk about the idea of a black president or the history of the idea to deal with the original research objection it could then go back into mainspace. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Relist~~ ~~Overturn as no consensus~~ (see further discussion and new !vote below) The Afd is a mess. With the article undergoing substantial changes in midstream, and the substantial alterations of opinion among many editors, this is a clear no consensus to me. The closing editor even implicitly states this, saying that "There is little redeeming about the current state of the article. That, combined with the debate leaning somewhat toward a 'delete' decision moves me to close as delete." (emphasis mine) This was preceded by reasoning (quite good reasoning, and I absolutely agree with it) that set out the reasons why the closing editor felt the article should be deleted. Unfortunately, that reasoning was not appropriate for a closing rationale, but it was appropriate for a !vote. So, in essence, the admin substituted his own opinion for the (lack of) consensus present in the discussion. While I also would have voted delete, we should not be closing discussions in this manner without a crystal clear grounding in policy. While I agree with the interpretation, the interpretation of WP:SYN in this case was somewhat debatable, and therefore doesn't reach the standard of clarity I need to see before I invoke policy to find consensus where it is not otherwise present. The article should be restored to mainspace and relisted at Afd, where hopefully a less confusing discussion can take place.--Aervanath (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: ~~Now that~~ User:ChildofMidnight has recreated the article as Black president in popular culture of the United States, and it is substantially different than the previous one.~~it is THAT article that should be relisted.~~ Black president is now a disambig page, and should stay that way.--Aervanath (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse insufficient secondary sources and unencyclopedic subject. Racepacket (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus in line with the closers comment "Looking at this debate, it's clear the decision of whether or not to include this topic is a controversial one." He's not there to decide such things--if WPedians disagree, he is to say so. I do not at all consider the article OR, but rather the collection of obvious published material and putting it in order into an article. That's the way Wikipedia articles should be written. DGG (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus or relist with latest version restored I tried to read the closer's justification, which comes off as a personal vote and not as an interpretation of the consensus of participants. Looking at the state of the article before and after the AfD started, the article was improved, expanded and thoroughly sourced to address the issues that had been raised in the nomination. The AfD was headed to certain deletion at the start, and the fact that several individuals who had voted to delete changed to keep over the course of the discussion is a rather strong indication that this article should have been kept, with a close as a keep or no consensus. As the closing administrator appears to have imposed his own personal view of the article rather than a reflection of the consensus of the community, the close is out of process and should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The AFD showed no consensus and while Obama may well have been the cause for the article's existence, that does not come close to making WP:SYNTH applicable. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus due to substantial enough secondary sources to write an encyclopedic article and certainly relevant given recent history. Alansohn makes a compelling case above as well and Childofmidnight seems to be doing good work and he will receive greater help from other editors in mainspace than in userspace. Enough disagreement that I would not call it a keep, but certainly not enough for a delete. Doing a quick source search suggests that it is a topic discussed in academic arenas in any event. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. First of all, this was very clearly a very tough call (or it would have been for me, had I been holding the mop). The concerns expressed above about the lack of consensus are not without foundation; there was no obvious consensus. But admins are not just supposed to count votes; we place our trust in them because they need to make these calls from time to time. And this "article" was rife with problems. In my own opinion, it failed because it was a collection of trivia that was only tagentially connected by an association with the concept of a black American president. But that's all it was. Did the article's contributor's establish notability? In my opinion, in this case, that is not enough: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This article failed even the low threshold of WP:LEAD, as the opening sentence failed (in all its incarnations) to summarize accurately the topic/s covered in the article. I know that this article's editors put in a tremendous amount of work trying to make it palatable, but in the end, at it's ostensible best, this article in no way represented an encyclopedia article. It did not describe something that is obviously extant (such as starfish or algebra or Barack Obama and it had no main idea ("black president" is not an idea, it is merely a phrase), such as Biological classification, Academic discipline, or presidential succession. It was a collection of trivia from music and movies and history, that simply happened to be "connected" by the words "black president". Un school 07:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus or relist The discussion did not have a delete consensus. With several changing their deletes to keeps (and none the other way) individual editors didn't come to an internal consenus even. The idea of "black president" seems clear and discriminate enough for an article. The final, improved article had no obvious policy violations, the only kind where using administrative discretion is proper. As the article develops, it might be thought best to split it (or not), but this is normal editting, not deletion.John Z (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That an idea is "clear" is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for meriting an article. The idea of blue curtains is clear enough, but does not merit an article in Wikipedia. Another question is, is this more noteworthy than Blue curtains? At first glance it might seem so, but first we must determine what exactly was this article's subject? That to me is the single biggest objection. If you can't express in your opening sentence what the article is actualy about in a way that lets the reader know what's coming, you've likely erred in choosing your subject.

I have no objection to any of this material being included in the encyclopedia. It's not the material to which I object, it's the manner in which it was combined. I see two ways that this would better be included. On the one hand, it could, of course (as it probably already was), be included in other articles, such as Barack Obama, Shirley Chisholm, The Man (novel) _{(which was—quick plug—by the way, a million times better than the movie staring James Earl Jones)}, or Black President (Black President album). But I can also understand the desire to consolidate some of this. As such, I could support an article on Black presidents in fiction or even Black presidents in entertainment, as well as a separate article on The history of black presidential candidates. But this? This article is akin to combining Sweeny Todd and barber into Barber (Sweeny Todd). In this combo article, I would propose that we discuss the ways that barbers have been portrayed in fiction, and also how the actual trade of barbers spread, and how Sweeny Todd has been in books and plays and movies, and how barbers were once the providers of medical assistance, etc. Of course this is ridiculous, for the two combined do not make an appropriate article. But that is what we had in this now-deleted article. There is simply not enough cause to warrant the combination of these items into a single article; we end up with an unreadable collection of trivia.

Having said all this, I will also acknowledge my novice status on these pages; maybe I don't understand deletion policy. But unfamiliarity with policy does not preclude the ability to recognize good writing. If a student of mine turned this in, I'd ask him to please narrow it down to a more definable topic. Indeed, when I read the praise for the (admitedly large amount of) work done on this article, I'm still left to wonder if people are really evaluating this article in toto, as opposed to evaluating the accuracy of its parts. Because it is certainly possible for the parts to be healthy but the whole to be untenable, is it not? Un school 09:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The closing admin made the correct decision in favoring the policy-based arguments (most notably that the article couldn't be created without original research and synthesis). AfD isn't a vote, which is why the closing administrator gets to make the final decision. In choosing the decision based on policy over ILIKEIT the admin made the correct move. Themfromspace (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the questions of sourcing and synthesis were not adequately addressed by those wishing for the article to be kept, adding sources to an original work does not mean it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Guest9999 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I ask again, how did the article synthesise material to advance a position?

I think the way disconnected information is presented together amounts to original research in the form of synthesis - in this instance relating mentions of Black presidents in popular culture with the real life Black president and presidential candidates in a way that is not discussed in the sources provided. The position advanced is effectively the topic itself but there are also specific statements made in the lead such as "The idea of a black president was an influential idea explored by various writers." and "Some of the most popular depictions were comedic parodies of the culture gap and what life would be like under a black president and for a black president." not supported by any one source. Effectively this is two articles, one which should be titled some thing like Depictions of a Black US President in popular culture (which in my opinion would be of dubious merit) and one which contains information about Barack Obama and others which is already present elsewhere in more obvious locations (such as Barack Obama). Guest9999 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion the closing admin got it correct; I agree with Guest9999's well-worded comment above. The problem here is that anyone can constuct a synthesis of fictional Xoos played by Foos and create an essay to push whatever agenda you want. It's not what an encyclopedia should contain. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - The closing administrator made an appropriate close based on relevant policies and the strength of the arguments presented. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn or perhaps allow recreation since Child of Midnight's version is a little different from what was in the AFD. Has anyone looked at the reference list? A number of secondary sources are making the connection between black presidents in popular culture and Barack Obama. It's not a violation of WP:SYN if the synthesis isn't original to us. If it looks like synthesis that's a problem that can be fixed with editing, since we have the sources. Wkdewey (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This may now all be moot. Child of Midnight is apparently taking the suggestion that some of us made to separate this into other articles. See Black presidential candidates in the United States and Black president in popular culture of the United States. I think that this seals the deal, there's no point in re-establishing this article. Un school 04:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The article Black president in popular culture of the United States that User:ChildofMidnight created is essentially the same as the one whose deletion we are reviewing here, so this is definitely not moot. If this deletion review does not overturn the previous close, the new article could be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4.--Aervanath (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Aervanath. While CoM has clearly used the deleted article as the foundation, it is most definitely not the same article, as all references to Obama and other real-life candidates have been removed. The article is now just about what the title says it's about, Black Presidents in pop culture, and it has categories in fiction, music, and comedy. I can't speak for anyone else, but I find this to be a much stronger foundation for an article than when the same was included with Shirley Chisholm and Barack Obama. It might well fail an AfD, but a speedy? I would think that quite improper. Un school 06:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops You are absolutely right; I did not examine the new article carefully enough. CSD criterion G4 only applies "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version". The new article, no matter how I feel about it, is certainly not "substantially identical". I have changed my !vote above to reflect that.--Aervanath (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't aware of this discussion until Unschool let me know about it a little while ago in a response to my letting him know that I recreated the article as two new ones. I followed the sensible suggestion of several delete voters who said the subject should be split up. If my recreation of the seperated and somewhat modified articles in any way circumvented proper procedure I have no objection to the articles being moved back to my userspace until this discussion is resolved. I've formulated a long response with my thoughts, but I think I'll leave it up to those already discussing the issues involved to decide on the appropriate course of action. Thanks to all those who worked on the article and have taken an interest in the issues involved. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restatement of situation as I see it: The article formerly at the title Black president was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black president. It was then userfied to User:ChildofMidnight's userspace, where it was substantially reworked and restored to Black president in popular culture of the United States. That article can't be G4'ed, because it's not identical to the original copy, although it may or may not pass another Afd. Blech. Here's my new vote:
Close this drv as moot. For the record, I still think the AFD should have been a no consensus close, but since it's all moot now, could someone just close this? If not, I'll go ahead and do it myself. --Aervanath (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone interested, the original article ended up being spun off into the following articles: Black presidential candidates in the United States, Black president in popular culture of the United States, and (by another editor) African-American heritage of United States presidents. I'm also curious about using black or African American in the titles if anyone wants to weigh in on the talk pages... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

25 January 2009[edit]

Deadstar Assembly – undeleted with consent of deleting admin; author to be given an opportunity to improve the article. Article to be relisted at Afd if not improved sufficiently. – Aervanath (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Band_VERY_valid DeadstarAssembly (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band was deleted as not being notable, per our guidelines for musical groups. Do you have something which shows how they fit those guidelines? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 08:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried reviewing it with the administrator who deleted it and found that even providing hundreds of links that proove the bands standing wouldn't be enough for him, so he had suggested to do it via this method. So here's a shortened version of the information I have provided to him:

The group have been around for 8 years and have appeared numerous times in publications both digital and print globally including such magazines as Zillo (germany), and Metal edge (United states). Also having toured the United States over a dozen times in that span, been sampled on numerous TV shows for stations such as VH1, MTV, and even ABC family, and have a pending release of its 3rd globally available album (retail, not only online), airplay on a global level on both satellite and air-broadcast radio, I would assume these would qualify them for a few of the criteria listed on the wikipedia's page of terms.

Below you will find a listing of just a fraction of the bands mention -

The bands listing on MTV http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/deadstar_assembly/artist.jhtml

Proof of the bands contribution to a major video game http://projectgothamracing3.com/gothammusic/Soundtrack+Samples.htm

Major music label #1 http://www.purerecords.com/

Major music label #2 (international) http://www.dockyard1.com/deadstar/

Proof of the bands endorsement with BC Rich Guitars http://www.bcrich.com/artists.asp

Proof of the bands endorsement with Kustom Amplifiers http://www.kustom.com/artist_main.aspx

Proof of the bands endorsement with SnapJack Cables http://www.zzyzxsnapjack.com/artists.html

Proof of the bands endorsement with DDRums (Under artists section) http://www.ddrum.com/main2.php

Proof of the bands endorsement with HotPicks USA http://www.hotpicksusa.com/artists.cfm

Proof of the bands inclusion (the cover no less) if a German Magazine called "zillo" https://www.zillo.de/cgi-bin/zillo2/shop/cgi/show_artikel.cgi?nextpage_params=&artikel=mag052006&prevpage=&pattern=&start=1&lang=deutsch&artikelid=&session=&warengruppe=64&pattern_ir=&nextpage=

(go to www.zillo.de to confirm the magazine as being not run via the band or an individual blog owner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadstarAssembly (talk • contribs) 09:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partial list of the bands touring history (Sadly unable to parse 8 years of touring data) http://www.deadstar.com/tour/past_dates.php

Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=deadstar+assembly&x=0&y=0

Simple google search for a review of the bands last album http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=deadstar+assembly+unsaved+reviews&btnG=Google+Search

Bands large list of videos on youtube (some with almost 200k views per) http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=deadstar+assembly&aq=-1&oq=

Bands listing on Rolling stone http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/10748864/unsaved

List of articles on blabbermouth (a major label run music blog) http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=deadstar+assembly&x=0&y=0

I can provide more if it would help show the standing of the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadstarAssembly (talk • contribs) 09:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any discussions with the administrator in your contributions. Can you point out where they took place? Stifle (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Via email correspondence.

This is the deleting admin. I can confirm that I was contacted by e-mail regarding this deletion, but I have not had time to review the last three e-mails I received, and will not be able to until this afternoon or this evening. I will outline my justification for deletion (and my decision to decline restoration) at that time, but for now, admins can view the article through the deleted history. What I deleted was an unreferenced wreck, which had already been previously deleted twice before, including an AFD which closed as a speedy delete. Horologium (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any mainstream media coverage? Stifle (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note — above account has been indefed for being a promotion-only account here. MuZemike 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin's response: To answer Stifle's question, there doesn't appear to be much mainstream coverage, but there is a lot of non-notable webzine reviews and the like. The number of GHits for the band is substantial, but it's mostly fancruft. (Almost all of the reviews are to 'zines which lack Wikipedia articles). There is a cursory review of their second album at About.com ([4]) and a review at Blogcritics ([5]), but I didn't find anything else that was worthwhile. (There are a lot of lists which prove that the band exists, but nothing other than track listings and lists of the members of the band (all monosyllabic stage names, no real names anywhere). The MTV link cited above is nothing more than a scrape of the Allmusic mini-bio of the group. The only really notable factoid is the inclusion of one of their songs on the soundtrack to Project Gotham Racing 3; everything else only confirms that they exist, not that they are notable. FWIW, there is an article on de.wiki for Zillo, so that may be something worth pursuing. My two dozen word German vocabulary is not going to be worth much; perhaps a German speaker can take a look.
I should also point out that in his initial request for restoration, the user's rationale was: Sadly we are unable to find the exact reason for these actions [the deletions], and request that all deleted material be re-posted as soon as possible as it is a vital source of information used by the fanbase to keep up to date on the band activities. I directed him to points four and five of WP:SOAP, which address self-promotion and advertising. The band's MySpace and Facebook pages are appropriate as a way for fans to keep track of the band; Wikipedia is not.
I will be dropping a note on the blocked user's talkpage encouraging him to create an account with a non-promotional username; I don't feel right about blocking him during a discussion, even though I stand by my original deletion of the articles on the band and its three albums.It just seems a bit petty to indef block him straightaway, although the username needed to be changed. Horologium (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zillo is a German based print magazine, thus why it was listed as a viable source of mainstream recognition (maybe not an American mainstream, but in Germany it has been running for over 2 decades). There are several other publications of which the group have been featured in both nationally and internationally, but since they are all print, there are no digital reproductions of them on the magazines websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify the titles and the issues? If they are notable, they will be archived in libraries, and the articles can be verified. It appears that you are not differentiating between mentions of the band and coverage of the band, which are two different things. Mentions of the band are fine if one is trying to establish that the band exists; we're past that—everyone agrees that the band exists. However, there is no discussion of the band in reliable sources; the Rolling Stone link you provided above has no discussion of the band, only a listing of the songs on the album (which was not reviewed by the magazine). The touring list is from the band's website, not a valid source; nor is the YouTube channel. The handful of mentions at the blabbermouth site are undermined by the disclaimer at the bottom stating that it is not affiliated with Roadrunner Records, and they are not responsible for any of its content. All of the links you provide for "endorsements" simply show that the band exists; they don't discuss the band at all.

A recent deletion discussion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Rocket to the Moon, another band. Like Deadstar Assembly, they don't have much in the way of mainstream coverage, although a GHit check returned >400K hits. None of them were notable, and like DA, the band's article had already been deleted more than once. The deletion was effectively endorsed at the deletion review earlier this month was "no consensus to overturn". Again, like Deadstar Assembly, there was little in the way of reliable sources in the article (it at least had some citations, albeit not to appropriate sources), and the deleting admin was willing to userfy the article. I will extend to you the same offer. Horologium (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine posted above has the band on the cover, and thus indicates that there is more than just a mention of them. The specific article is archived (partially due to them being a print magazine and thus wont post the entire article online) on their page at the following URL (in german however)

http://www.zillo.de/magazin/mags/052006/magazin_leseproben_052006_deadstar_assembly.html Issue # 05/2006 Pages 12-18. Article title: Deadstar Assembly - Bizarr und intemsiv"

In the meantime I will provide you with a link to another Euro based print magazine of which the band was featured http://devolutionmagazine.co.uk/issues.htm (issue #10). Pages 40-41..a 2 page interview with the band.

And another euro based print magazine called "rimfrost" of which the band was featured: http://www.gothic.no/rimfrost.htm Issue 12. pages 7-12. Another interview with the band titled - Deadstar Assembly En Giftig blanding av death-pop og goth-rock"

http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/ featured the band in their June 2006 issue (waiting on exact page #) http://www.caustictruths.com/ an american print magazine which featured the band on page 54 of issue # 107.

http://www.sonic-seducer.de/index.php another german magazine that had a 2 page feature on the group. Waiting on exact issue #.

Orkus magazine featured the band on pages 48-49 in the following issue:

http://www.orkus.de/index_d.php?siteId=backissues&vonEg=15&wievielEintraege=15#

Issue - 2006-05 Article title - Deadstar Assembly (Newcomer des Monats) http://www.orkus.de/ (original site for reference)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the deleting admin mentioned Project Gotham Racing. I believe this meets WP:MUSIC#10: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)" We could redirect, but deletion is not suitable. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That needs to be verified, though. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That has been verified, by the link that was provided above, from the game's official website; it wasn't cited in the article at the time I deleted it, although there was a passing mention. The website doesn't discuss the band, but includes a 30 second sample of one of their songs and a link to the band's website. I'm not sure that the inclusion in a video game alone is enough to confer notability; it's not a theme or a performance in a notable movie/TV show, and it's not from a compilation album; it's one of 90 tracks from a video game, albeit a notable one. I'm not opposed to restoring the article, but the sources that are available are of extremely low quality. Horologium (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added a few magazine references above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the new crop of references added today, I believe that this group *is* notable enough for inclusion; it seems to have a lot of coverage in European music magazines, especially that feature article in Zillo. There is an article on the band on de.wiki at w:de:Deadstar Assembly, but it's as crappy as the one here (it claims the band is from South Beach, not Fort Lauderdale); w:pt:Deadstar Assembly (Portuguese) is a sub-stub. It's frustrating that the article had to be nuked before any semblance of sourcing could be produced, and that it had to come from someone with a financial interest in the band. This article,if retained, needs to be totally rewritten and referenced (preferably by someone with an understanding of German and no CoI issues.) WikiProject:Industrial (Music) might be able to help, since this is their genre. Horologium (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also proof of the bands inclusion in the ABC Movie "Picture This" -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTB39MwFTe4

at 5:32 in the above video.

The song referenced is "Just Like You" which can be confrimed via streaming on our last fm page:

http://www.last.fm/music/Deadstar+Assembly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 23:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More references:

X Tra X Guitar Deadstar Assembly Guitar Giveaway in Germany

http://www.x-tra-x.de/gallery/index.php?pageType=folder&currDir=./Deadstar-Assembly-Gitarren-Verlosung

Zillo Magazine Info: (newer article from very recently) Dezember/Januar 2009 - 12/08-01/09, 20. Jahrgang

Page 8 News Page 10 Die Szene kocht: DeadStar Assembly Page 48 DVDs: DeadStar Assembly "Dark Hole Sessions Vol. 2" DVD Review —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and relist at AFD, the references here give some plausible suggestion of possible notability. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the next course of action? If reinstated I will re-write the article to make it properly referenced as to meet the requirements of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of algal culture collections – "No Consensus" closure endorsed. No predjudice against relisting at AfD. – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

As noted by me and two others who commented, the article violates WP:NOT#LINK. Some argued that the links could just be made into references, but it would then become a directory of these farms, and so would violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Since these reasons are policy, those supporting keep did not refute this, and consensus is based on policy, the consensus here was that the article should have been deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sustain no-consensus If not improved, just wait a month or two and renominate, hoping for a clearer consensus. The basic feeling at the AfD was that this mainly needed major reformatting. give the interested people a chance to do it. I continue to not see the point of appealing a no-consensus close, unless it is really bizarre. DGG (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain no-consensus. I can find me in DGG's opinion. If someone thinks an article can be improved, they should get the chance to do so. Concerns about the links can be met by adding {{NOINDEX}} while work is ongoing. -Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The arguments in support of maintaining this linkfarm were in the WP:USEFUL family and should have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn to delete Statistically the AfD is even, but none of the keep arguments even bothered citing any sort of policy. As Stifle said, they were just of the WP:USEFUL variety. The only arguments citing policy (correctly, in my opinion) were the arguments to delete. Themfromspace (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close Per DGG. Give them time to fix it up. there is no deadline. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close per DGG. A good and well written article could exist here. Hobit (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettable endorse close here's one that I think strongly ought to be deleted, but the community was mixed, hence "no consensus". Much of the keep spirit was animated by the much heralded and promised expansion. Give it a month or two, as DGG says, and if it's not improved it should go and those promising improvement slapped with a WP:TROUT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "no conensus" as reading the discussion indicates that the will of the community is neither to keep nor delete and as default we keep in such instances. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete The "keep" !votes claim that "reformatting" will solve the problems, but they give no method of doing so. Reading the debate, those in favor of deletion are well-supported in policy by WP:NOT; the arguments for keep are rather unconvincing. If you just read the vote count, it's 4-3 in favor of deletion, which would result in a "no consensus" close if all things were equal, but they're not. This is one of those cases where, even if everyone but the nominator were arguing for keep, I would still have closed as delete. The keep arguments in this case are indeed that weak.--Aervanath (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eric Violette – keep deleted. Early close per WP:SNOW. – Aervanath (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Creation of this article has been permanently blocked since July 2008 because of repeated recreations without establishing notability. I have an article sitting in my User:Americasroof/Sandbox which I believes establishes notability including a IMDB profile and a New York Times story. A google search on the guy's name produces more than 500,000 hits. He has done a movie in addition to his commercials. I was not part of the previous articles. If people still have a problem with him it should go to afd rather than being permanently blocked by one administrator. Americasroof (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked the NY Times article, but Eric Violette does not appear in it. May I suggest you tighten your citations before asking that the article be unsalted? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The NYT article doesn't mention the subject, the imdb link offered says he played a nameless character in one film, as does this imdb link and there's nothing in the Google News archive about this Eric Violette, which I'm sure there would be for any notable 21st century American actor. I just wish people would realise that the cool thing these days is to get your Wikipedia article deleted, rather than to have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Fiddle Faddle. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and do not reintroduce the article at this time in the current state as indicated in the sandbox. Also (immaterial), I only get 13,000 gHits doing a search under "Eric Violette" in quotes. MuZemike 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted IMDB apparently doesn't know which character he plays in the French-language Canadian film mentioned and several sites have him near the bottom of the list of cast members which doesn't really help in establishing whether is part was relevant. His personal site isn't reliable for anything but personal details (age, birth name, etc), Maholo contains user-submitted data and isn't reliable and the NYT article doesn't mention Violette. In short: there's no reliable sources to build an article with.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The NYT article is a red herring; there's no mention of him there. None of the other refs are reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been salted longer than WP:SALT permits This article has been salted for nearly six months. The WP:SALT policy says "Non-existent pages may be protected, for limited periods of time" By any stretch of the imagination six months is a long time in Wikipedia terms. Comments here are judging my sandbox item. If that is the case, then the article should be judged via the AFD process and not prempted here. Whether you find 500,000 or 30,000 hits on the google search, there is clearly interest in him. There are several radio interviews with him. My initial interest was doing an article about the ad agency and its copywriter who wrote several famous campaigns (and contrasting the ad with questionable practices (e.g., the credit reports are not "free"). The salting process is very osbscure on wikipedia. This is the first time I have encountered it and it is very difficult to figure out what to do once you encounter a salt item. The help screens are not clear at all on this. Therefore I ask that you unsalt the name and then if you wish put the article up for afd. The fact that so many apparently different editors have tried to write to the article is an indication in interest. Eventually one of them will probably get it right. If you want you can throw prods on them but the article definitely should not be salted. Americasroof (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion for now Once something has been salted it is a good idea to have a functioning article. I'm a bit annoyed that the user came to us with a nominating statement that mentioned a New York Times article without mentioning that the individual in question was not mentioned at all. The editor says they are uncertain about what to do after salting. The answer is simple: create an article in a sandbox that at least seems to be meet notability (in this case WP:BIO). If there are additional sources such as radio interviews with the individual then cite them in that draft. That should be enough to allow for recreation. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 – early close per WP:SNOW. No arguments presented that process was not followed. – Aervanath (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admin failed to recognize systemic bias Trachys (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I was the nominator, so declare my interest, such as it is. I saw the article become greatly improved during the AfD, but it was, for me, still way on the wrong side of the "keep" fence. I see a good closing rationale, support the fact that there is a deletion review because this is inherently a good process, and find the review reason to be somewhat harsh. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have no personal bias in this conflict. I see all such conflicts as damaging and wrong. I do not have the knowledge to be biased in favour of or against either party. My only interest here is in Wikipedia articles. I did not see any systemic bias in the various arguments raised. Any pro and anti participant comments seemed to me to even each other out, broadly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the only argument to be advanced here, I endorse my own closure. If anything, far from suffering from neglect because of systemic bias, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is probably the most extensively covered current conflict on Wikipedia. I've, incidentally, userfied the article following the discussion at User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 200. Sandstein 14:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You appear to have misinterpreted my reference to WP:BIAS. I am suggesting that there is an imbalance in coverage of the subject, not that the subject is neglected. Please see Cvrx's comments in the log. Trachys (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a "keep" argument that belongs in the AfD itself. It is not an argument relevant at DRV, where what matters only is whether I erred in establishing consensus in the AfD. Sandstein 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

endorse, good close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, consensus was read properly. Systemic bias doesn't come into it. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see a valid reason to overturn raised. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question It sounds like the article improved considerably during the AfD. Could we get a history undelete or userification of the article so it can be seen in its final state as what I'm seeing in the cache looks older. At the moment it looks like the discussion was leaning hard toward no consensous (about split on !votes), but it is hard to judge the strength of the arguments without seeing the article. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I'm a bit worried about deletion for content reasons. If the article was too detailed, it seems likely clipping things would have done a better job rather than deleting the whole thing. But again, I'd want to see the article. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been userfied at User:Timeshifter/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008. Sandstein 16:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reluctant endorse of deletion (Sorry I missed the userfication above) I think something like this could and should exist and I've have !voted to keep the article (but trim to that which is sourced as this is certainly a controversial topic, though I'd consider the PNN an acceptable if not idea source). But arguments for deletion in the AfD were reasonable (if wrong IMO) and thus the close was reasonable... Strongly recommend someone sit down and try to write a better version of this. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion the closer got it right; there seems to be no real answer to the fundamental objections to the article: the one most encountered was that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - well, nominate that other crap for deletion - I'm with you there, but that doesn't mean that this gets to stay. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carolyn Joyce Carty – withdrawn due to OTRS concerns. OTRS ticket number noted in deletion log. – Aervanath (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Couldn't find the AFD; but, in any case, the article is salted; but, should probably redirect to Footprints (poem), as a likely search term. Neier (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the admin's page, but, noticed this comment, so, it seemed like DRV was the next logical step. I've no idea what OTRS is; but, none of that was mentioned in either the conversation above, or the deletion log anyway. Neier (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note- this article, and it's subject, as well as the Footprints poem article, are all the subject of an OTRS legal ticket. The article was becoming a trouble spot; it had previously been a redirect to the Footprints poem article, but a banned user (banned in relation to the aforementioned ticket) insisted on recreating it. The subject of the article itself does not merit their own article; this is about whether there should be a redirect or not, which is not the point of Deletion Review. For the purpose of not exacerbating the ticket and correspondence surrounding it, I would ask that this be closed and the matter be dropped. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have the ticket number so that other OTRS users can have a look? Stifle (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If its in the legal queue other OTRS users cannot see the ticket. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem the obvious solution is to create the redirect and protect it. Ditto for the other proposed authors. DGG (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the obvious solution here. Doing so would greatly exacerbate the current situation that OTRS is dealing with. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference, the OTRS ticket number is #2009011210025003 but you will need legal queue access to view it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh well. Bearing in mind that Swatjester has a @wikimedia.org email address, I suspect that overturning this would just result in a WP:OFFICE deletion. Keep deleted as such, but to provide for a proper audit trail, I suggest undeleting and redeleting quoting the ticket number. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - I'm sorry to have raised such a ruckus. Had there been a mention of WP:OTRS in the deletion summary, I probably would have not bothered to come here. Obviously, I can't judge the merits of the legal issues; but if having the redirect in place and protected would still cause trouble, then, I agree with the current decision. Neier (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comsec Consulting Ltd. – deletion endorsed, recreation allowed. The original deletion was endorsed, but the new version (substantially improved) is in mainspace at Comsec Consulting. – Aervanath (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this page was unjustifiably deleted a number of times. It was written from a neutral POV, citing a number of third party substantiated references. There are MANY companies on here of the same size, and the same caliber that have pages that are much more advertising-oriented. I made a point of using phrases such as "commonly known for" and "active in", not provides services or our product line - as many other companies have done. I have proven our certification, and linked to our publicly traded page. As this is a public company, there are people with vested interests in the company who will find it important to be able to readily gather background information about our company. Wikipedia does not have a legal leg to stand on when deleting our page, when other company pages are present. This is clear bias. Furthermore, there has been a blatant disregard to Wikipedia policy. My tags for Deletion Review, and Speedy Deletion Review were just deleted and ignored. If I am to respect the Wikipedia guidelines, then certainly Wikipedia admins are expected to hold to them as well. I would be more than happy to respect any proposition for edits or changes to the piece to make it seem less like "blatant advertising" according to certain admins. No attempt to edit or modify the piece was made it was simply deleted, even after having been edited for the purpose of neutrality - which I believe was not even noticed or appreciated by the admins, it was simply redeleted without having even been read. Shar1R

Endorse deletion. The content is clearly intended to advertise, and that justified deletion. To address the nominator's points:

"I have proven our certification, and linked to our publicly traded page." - WP:COI

- - Where is the conflict of interest? There is no conflict of interest here. I am a writer by profession, and if I didn't know how to remain neutral I would have long ago been searching for a job.

"Wikipedia does not have a legal leg to stand on when deleting our page" - (a) it's not your page, (b) law has nothing to do with whom Wikipedia does and does not permit to use this private website.

- - If a company is clearly being discriminated against, for no apparent reason, then yes that's not legal, especially if this is a website that claims to be welcoming to all.

"Furthermore, there has been a blatant disregard to Wikipedia policy." Yes there has. By you. WP:SPAM for one, and also you removed deletion tags from the page despite that they clearly say that the creator may not remove the tag.

- - I hadn't seen that when I removed the tag. There's a social bullying policy here on Wikipedia where admins instead of helping newbies choose to purposely hinder progress, instead of contribute to the success of an article.

"My tags for Deletion Review, and Speedy Deletion Review were just deleted and ignored" Incorrect. This deletion review has not been ignored, and the hangon tag you added states "Note that this request is not binding". The admin who deleted the page noted your request, but did not abide by it.

- - Yet another demonstration of the social bullying. I have a funny feeling that admins rarely abide by them, and thus there is that blatant disclaimer which they probably constantly use as a defense. Give a real reason why they didn't bother to consider it, and I'll respect it. The "just because I don't have to" is pathetic.

"If I am to respect the Wikipedia guidelines, then certainly Wikipedia admins are expected to hold to them as well" - I don't see any breach of guidelines by any admin.
"As this is a public company, there are people with vested interests in the company who will find it important to be able to readily gather background information about our company" - Sure. That's what your company's website is for.

- - Uh ok. Those other companies have websites too. This isn't a free web hosting site. It's an encyclopedia. If one company is encyclopedia worthy, than another is, as well. There is no justifiable claim otherwise besides bias.

"There are MANY companies on here of the same size" WP:WAX

- - These are such ridiculous unsubstantiated arguments. Companies of the same exact size, in the same exact area of interest, written much less neutrally are on here. I can give PLENTY of examples. You can not use the WP:WAX claim as a justified response. Where's the policy on fairness and equal opportunity? That doesn't exist. It's whoever is friends with the admins? Why is one company clearly given a free pass, and another is disparaged and attacked in an unjustified manner? Talk about systemic bias. British companies can be on here, but Israeli ones are prohibited? Please.

Speedy deletions do not normally prohibit recreating the page, but because you repeatedly recreated the page it has been locked. If you wish to recreate this page, you should create a neutral draft with citations to reliable sources (which have to be independent of your company), and then come back here to request permission to move it back to main namespace. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't understand what this last comment means, however I DID cite NUMEROUS unbiased, objective sources that make reference to our company - believe me we don't own Computer Weekly and SC Magazine - you can even check on Wikipedia. I can name PLENTY of companies on here that have much fewer citations, and are still here. And if that is the case I will start proposing all of them for deletion, as this is a clear bias.Shar1R
Restore. See this Google News archive search and this Google News search. I think the references from reliable sources (ignore the press releases that show up in the search and concentrate on the newspapers and magazines) are enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article can start out with problems such as bias or (in other cases) bad writing and still be about a notable topic. The fact that the original contributor removed a speedy tag should not be allowed to hide the possibility that the topic is notable. If the article can be easily salvaged and turned into an adequate one, then it should be. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse These deleted content was clearly an advert and wikipedia is not the place to promote your business. Eastmain, there is no reason why an independent article can't be written if it meets WP:CORP but you need to specify exactly what sources you think there are as editors are not going to parse google searches for you. I had a quick look and note of the references were non-trivial. Of course, I can revisit if you actually cite the sources since I didn't actually look very closely. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse advertisements should be deleted, other crap exists is not an overturning reason. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I placed the original CSD tag because the page was nothing but blatant advertising of a non-notible company. Eeekster (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note — this has been reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard. MuZemike 06:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please may we see the deleted text? A simple search of Google shows that this organisation is potentially notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been restored under a tempundelete tag for now. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. I have userfied the article here (hope that is Ok) because I'm going to try to guide the creator into a rewrite. Since I can see that it was written as an advert (intentional or accidental) I endorse the initial deletion, but ask for unsalting to make way for a much enhanced future article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Forgive my lack of procedural knowledge here. In the creator's userspace it's taken me about 30 minutes to perform radical surgery on the article. There is more required, but I am standing too close to be able to do more to it myself with any validity. The corporation has notability and verifiability, and it might make sense to look at the current state of the userfied article, edit it more to make it fully acceptable, and consider restoring that version. I'm simply not sure if that is part of this process. It does need more surgery prior to restoration. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore (userfy if it helps). Despite claims above that the company is blatantly non-notable, WP:CORP says that publically traded companies are notable if multiple sources exist to build an article with. The deleted version of the article already contained such sources like this (discussing new director), but there are others including: [6] [7] [8]. Issues of advertising can be addressed by trimming and rewording. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles which have been speedied can be recreated by any editor as long as they overcome the reason why the article was deleted to start with. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Wikipedia shouldn't be used by advertisers in such a way. Themfromspace (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Fiddle Faddle that the userified one is much better, and that the company is likely notable. If Shar1R is open to working on that version to make sure it fits within policy, then either Endorse Deletion of the original until the userified one is ready, or just outright Replace the existing page with the userified version, with the understanding that it needs some additional work. The latter would be the less bitey way, imho. Arakunem^Talk 16:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request I am not sure of process. I'm not sure if I was right to draw that line either :) If I am out of order please slap me gently. I have done substantial work on the userfied version. The originator seems to be saying that they are not going to work on it, something I feel to be wholly sensible. That article is at User:Shar1R/Comsec temporary page. I believe that the page is ready for other editors to work on in the main namespace and would like to move it back over the original speedily deleted and salted version. I can't do that because (a) this process here is not finished, and (b) I am not an admin. So my request is that we close this discussion early on the basis that the original deletion was correct, and then someone with the administrative power to move the userfied page moves it to the main namespace (if they consider it to be ready and appropriate there) and we allow it to take its chances there. The only references I am doubtful about I have noted on the userfied talk page. I think that needs to be moved with the article, please. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur as above. Arakunem^Talk 18:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore although it has borderline sources. If anyone is really unhappy, they can do another afd on it. I think there are more pressing matters than to bother removing borderline articles like this. after reasonable amount of improvement. DGG (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working with the originator to find additional citations, though I think SC Magazine itself is pretty authoritative. I do agree that a wider spread would be substantially better. I think the article would probably survive AfD now, though nothing is certain. It is certainly no longer a Speedy candidate, and it does need more work. I hope the restoration of this much stripped down version will encourage other editors to look at it and improve it. The thing is, someone needs, please, to bite this bullet, determine whether this discussion is at an end, and, if so, come to a conclusion about closure, and, I hope, unsalting and moving the new version over the temporarily restored version. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Wikipedia is no place for advertisements from editors with conflicts of interest. Themfromspace (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you missed something here. Yes, the original deletion is to be endorsed, even commended. It was correct. The article was written like a PR bulletin. It went. Good. But the new article, with a few factual elements left from the original and all the PR stuff removed is the one I am hoping to restore, simply because the corporation itself is notable and verifiable. I agree with your comment, but that is, surely, about the original and inappropriate article. The originator is not going to touch the new article because they now understand COI. And they are not sure how to rectify the mess they caused with the flurry of bold above. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - DRV is to review the previous deletion and see if it was correct or not and I think we both agree that it was the correct decision. I'm not prejudiced against recreating the article, but if the new one doesn't meet Wikipedia's guildelines I'm also not prejudiced against sending it to AfD pretty quickly. Themfromspace (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - We agree. Is it not also the place to request unsalting, or am I confused? The replacement article must take its chance and stand or fall on its own merits. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's kind of a grey area. Traditionally, an unsalting request is made here along with the presentation of a userspace draft. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you will find that I have presented a userspace draft :) Here is it agains: User:Shar1R/Comsec temporary page. Scroll up a little to the request under the horizontal line, please. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse WP:CSD#G11 applies here. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

24 January 2009[edit]

Roblox – no consensus to allow recreation. – Aervanath (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The previous article was deleted due to Verifilibilty, and I have found some sources. The draft can be found at [9]. I know it is just a stub, but I think adding it to the regular namespace will open it to more editors and really expand the article. Briguy9876 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation - per to source material now existing. --B (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is an admin going to add the draft after they remove the lock, or will I have to? --Briguy9876 (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably, if recreation is allowed, the closing admin would move your article there, then restore the old article so that any usable history there is available to incorporate. That's just a guess though - they may just unlock it and leave the move up to you, so you probably want to keep an eye on it. --B (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can-do. --Briguy9876 (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation- Article's a bit stubby, but certainly seems adequately sourced and shows notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted After looking over the sources, it still seems that they don't meet WP:RS. They are all blog-style posts which are not reliable sources. The people who wrote them were any old Joe/Jane Doe and if an AfD were held now I'd say the game isn't notable enough to meet WP:N as the coverage hasn't been in reliable sources. Themfromspace (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's iffy, but [10] gives a short bio on the author, which says "Angele Sionna has been a professional journalist for over a decade." If it were a user-submitted review or something like that, we would dismiss it, but this looks like a bit more than a blog. --B (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That particular reference is pretty useless though, the information it's being used to back up would be fine referenced to a primary source (since it requires no interpretation which may fall foul of being original research). The issue from the AFD concerned notability also, that link doesn't cut the mustard there, it's largely direct quotes from the subject itself. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation notable according to WP:WEB, also mentioned in nytimes.--Otterathome (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*COUGH* needs to be non-trivial not a mention *COUGH* Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Except for the Examiner, all the sources are either unreliable or not independent; the NY times mention is literally trivial as it says a single kid played the game without actually saying anything about the game. There's no indication the game meets the WP:WEB guidelines in other ways. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted The sources presented do not go anywhere near providing enough coverage to write an article with, which is the crux of WP:N, without even taking WP:RS into consideration. The Examiner piece is 50% direct quote from the developers, a very basic description and a signpost to some resources, it is of very limited use. The New York Times piece is nothing to do with the game, it just happens to be the one the lad is playing at the time. Killerstartups is again a brief description of Roblox, a basic definition of what the topic is does not make an article. Refs #4 and #6 are just nuggets of info if that. That leaves Midweek, which is at least stabbing in the right direction. However it is a short article again focused on providing a basic outline of what Roblox is, not getting to the guts of it and giving it serious review. You can sometimes get away with sources like that if they're plentiful and approach the topic from different angles, but you can't hang an article on what's there. When the game has a few serious pieces (resembling this) there will be something to write about, but journalists will have to take the time to look at it properly. Someone another 21:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something I found: Someone made another article(With no sources) here: [11]. I just thought I will show you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Non-trivial coverage is basically non-existent. I've also speedied the new recreated version that Briguy9876 was so kind as to point out. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Districtfile – deletion endorsed. Courtesy copy userfied to User:Theibanker/Districtfile. – Aervanath (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

My input meets the criteria insofar as possible. Youmeo, Xt3, and many more are social networking websites with equal or less input. For this reason, I do not find it fair to exclude an entry for a social networking website that is real, that exists and that has been written about. I monitor social networking websites and am happy to defend my position. As an alumnus of the London School Of Economics (LSE) I and thousands of other alumni monitor the activities of other alumni (see: http://www.aflse.org/article.html?aid=904) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theibanker (talk • contribs)

Thank you.

Here is another decent piece of evidence and that shows the notability. http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_50/hoh/29511-1.html?type=printer_friendly

Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theibanker (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Valid A7 deletion; article did not assert notability; "claims to have international membership scope" is probably not enough. Sandstein 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could choose to userfy so this user can improve on the article to save it from A7. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you indicate why the site is important, famous or why it meets WP:WEB? -= Mgm|^(talk) 22:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. There is the general notability guideline, but the article doesn't meet it convincingly. One of the three sources is the website itself (not accessible to the regular public) and one looks like a press release and isn't too independent. We need more references or "further reading entries" to meet GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore The criterion for speedy is not notability, or sourcing. it's anything that might possibly indicate notability, and the deleted article indicates it, and in my opinion the reference to LSE gives it a decent chance of passing afd as well. And if it doesn't pass there, it won't, but there's enough here for it to get a hearing. 05:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Can't see any assertion of notability. Some citations to reliable sources might change my mind. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Andries/Sathya Sai Baba – Not for DRV to discuss. Please get clarification from the arb com whether your amended topic ban allows you to keep a version of article to work on. Without their express permission we won't undelete this and if they do approve this, you don't need DRV to approve its restoration. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Andries/Sathya_Sai_Baba

topic ban by the arbcom was partially revoked: I now have the right to engage in talk page discussion again. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Alternative_motion I think this user space helps me to present source etc. Btw, I do not think that I was ever informed of this MFD and I only found out recently. Andries (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not restore, for now. The remedy, as amended, now only bans Andries from editing articles about this subject; this should probably be construed as including article-type content in user space. But I'll ask Newyorkbrad, the arbitrator who proposed the motion amending the ban at issue, to comment. Sandstein 18:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But now I can write Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/draft. Andries (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's the clarification being sought, the remedy as I read it still bans you from editing the article, the intent being to let you discuss. So creating/editing a copy of the article under a talk namespace would on it's face still appear to be subject to the ban. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dave Simons – already restored. Article in current form has references which were not present when article was speedy deleted. – Aervanath (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The entry for Dave Simons was deleted without consultation and also before the page could be fully finished. The reason given was that Dave is "is not inherently notable", an insult to a comic book artist, writer and creator who has been working in both that field and the animation world since the 1970s. The person deleting the page has also stated that only one source was used, this is wrong as sources were being added as the page was being expanded. I believe the page was deleted in haste and wish for it's re-instatement asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel best (talk • contribs)

While the state of the page when User:Gwen Gale speedy deleted it as WP:CSD#A7 needs to be checked by an administrator, can you provide the further sources here to aid this discussion? Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Dave_Simons. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as valid application of CSD:A7. I also would like to put on record that Daniel best's conduct at Gwen Gale's talk page was extremely poor. Despite that, some citations of reliable sources might change my mind. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose speedy deletion. Based on the Google cache of the article I found this article should not have been speedy deleted.

"Dave Simons is an American comic book writer and artist. Dave has worked in comics for over three decades now and is well known for his work on Conan, Ghost Rider, Howard the Duck, Dracula, Forgotten Realms and more recently Courage the Cowardly Dog. He has worked with some of the giants in the field such as John Buscema, Bob Budiansky and Gene Colan."

It may not be a great article, but the author was working on it shortly before deletion. Lack of sources is not grounds for speedy deletion of an article like this. No one could have understood this deletion from the speedy policy page. Inexperienced editors should be treated much better than this. Especially when they're recognized outside Wikipedia as knowledgeable. Beating people up with templates and uninformative policy citations does not improve Wikipedia. Besides, aren't speedies supposed to undeleted on reasonable request unless they include offensive content??????? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conduct of the person calling themselves 'Gwen Gale' needs to also be addressed. The entry was deleted without consultation nor without 'Gwen' actually reading the entry. I find that insulting, nor has 'Gwen' actually done anything concrete to address this other than offering up a series of random links with no aid on how to navigate them nor to correctly make the required entries (sorry, this stuff isn't the most user friendly). If 'Gwen' is upset then perhaps she might want to reconsider her 'speedy deletions' for no reason. As I have pointed out to her, if she believes that a man who has worked in several fields for over 30 years isn't notable, then you need to delete 90% of the other entries for comic book artists you have, and if my work isn't considered good enough to use then please do a search and remove it, ASAP, from any and all entries that source it, either ones I've placed up or others have.

As for sources - I have conducted extensive interviews with Dave and am his biographer. That means that I might actually know a bit more about the guy than someone coming in at random. In the publishing world original research is the cornerstone of all work - my work is based upon original research. As I understand it someone can now come in and paste the entry again, under their name, and it'd be accepted, but I cannot refer to my own research or work? That isn't right - it might be one of your rules, but that does not make it correct and proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel best (talk • contribs) 21:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and userfy. The creator should at least get a chance to fully finish and reference the article before a decision is made, "is not inherently notable" is something different than "is inherently not notable". Recommendation to the author: a lot of leeway is given to material in userspace. Write your articles there until they're ready to protect them from deletion while you're doing the work. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might someone at least userfy this in my stead? Had User:Daniel best been more civil from the outset, along with a bit more willing to understand what was going on, at the very least I'd have userfied the content, might have even restored it. However, the long string of personal attacks, mixed with an utter disdain for Wikipedia, makes me wonder what the user is doing here. Since I can't do much of anything under these attacks and threats, I recuse from anything having to do with this user or the topic. Anyone else can handle this, however they see fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though unfortunate that article was uploaded before it was prepared and User:Daniel best's lack of familiarity with Wikipedia standards (and somewhat aggressive reaction to good advice) caused its deletion, Dave Simons is indeed a notable comic book artist and should be represented in Wikipedia. I have reinstated the page as a referenced stub until a proper biography adhering to Wikipedia standards is prepared. User: Gwen Gale's patience and goodwill in this case is commendable. MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

23 January 2009[edit]

Assburger syndrome – restore along with Assburger's syndrome. – Aervanath (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Although I release this is from quite a long time ago, I would also like to add that I believe this is a valid misspelling and not some form of insult. I myself have AS, but as a child, I believed it to be spelt this way. I don't see how the original page was harming anybody. ~CortalUX^Talk? 03:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I linked prior discussions for convenience. I recommend focusing on the DRV and possibly the related RFD. I think they may have come to different consensus readings. GRBerry 04:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support allowing recreation of this redirect. Very reasonable misspelling. In fact, I recently noticed this wasn't an existing redirect and was shocked that it wasn't. VegaDark (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG keep deleted This goes beyond a "valid misspelling" to being blatantly offensive. The redirect itself is childish and unencyclopedic. Note that this misspelling is used in very unflattering ways towards those with the syndrome elsewhere and this redirect will only support this sort of ignorance. Themfromspace (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indeed, I feel the opposite is true; allowing this redirect brings the reader straight to a properly spelled page. Un school 08:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by doing so, it endorses the comparison. Themfromspace (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So by that logic, Themfromspace, would you have us eliminate all redirects based upon common or likely mispellings? Because we don't want to "endorse the comparison"? I thought that the purpose of a redirect was to increase the likelihood that a reader will find the information for which she is searching. Un school 07:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very reasonable to allow as a redirect. Even if someone originally created it with ill-intent, it still likely serves a good purpose. Un school 08:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the sequence, there has been a consensus to delete Assburger syndrome and to keep Assburger's syndrome. The latter was speedied as an attack page, which deletion was incorrect as pages that have previously gone through a deletion process aren't eligible for speedying. I can't speak as to whether this may be offensive or not, but both are plausible redirects, so restore both. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow restoration. That's what a child looking for information on the syndrome might enter into the search box. Sandstein 09:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow restoration. This should be allowed asa redirect. RP459 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow restoration as a redirect. Just because you would never spell it this way doesn't mean anyone else wouldn't. Having it as a redirect only endorses the fact that we understand people may misspell it, nothing more. --Kbdank71 18:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted offensive, divisive; if this usage were so common and notable, perhaps an article could be written on the topic as we have for other offensive words, but no one including the "allow restoration" folks has posited that possibility and I am doubtful that there's any basis in fact for it. In lieu, offensive redirect should be kept deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a "usage", it's a simple naive decomposition (to smaller words containing the same sounds) of how the proper term is pronounced. --Random832 (contribs) 05:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you type in the deleted phrase, WP's search engine asks: "Did you mean: Asperger syndrome". So no one has lost their way, but we've retained a little decency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List at RfD (on whether undeletion is appropriate prior to listing I've no opinion) As Stifle and GRBerry intimate, the procedural posture here is a bit muddied and probably suboptimal, and I don't know that one can reasonably draw any firm conclusion about whether a consensus existed for the preservation or exists for the creation of Assburger syndrome, Assburger's, Assburger's syndrome, or Assburger, or even whether the community are inclined to treat each of those a single fashion; because it is (at least almost always, and apparently here) appropriate that we consider substantive issues at XfD, listing at RfD would seem in order (if we are determined to resolve the issue here, this may be construed as an "allow restoration" of any plausible permutation, consistent with my !vote at the ongoing looney bin --> psychiatric hospital RfD). Joe 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, but only as a redirect, as it's a somewhat plausible search term. It might even help to protect the redirect to keep any childish vandalism to a minimum. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Is there any example of that vandalism actually occuring?--chaser (away) - talk 03:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, horribly unencyclopedic title and nothing has changed since the previous discussions. --B (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "horribly unencyclopedic title"? I don't understand this comments, as this is a discussion about establishing a redirect from a misspelling. There is no discussion here about any article titles. Un school 08:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Getting to the right article is still trivial without the redirect. Doing a search or simply clicking "Go" for "Assburger syndrome" both reveal

Did you mean: Asperger syndrome

and the link in turn takes you to appropriate search results. The only difference between search and "go" is that search gives information closer to the top of the page. The variations above (Assburger's, etc.) all give essentially the same results. The discussion we're having is about restoring a divisive redirect that was properly deleted at RFD. Does it really help people find information that they wouldn't get to otherwise? Not much. Enough to justify the fight over it? I don't know.--chaser (away) - talk 03:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore as a redirect in the same manner that Old timers disease serves a useful purpose as a redirect. I can't see the original discussion anywhere to endorse or overturn it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as redirect How exactly is Assburger offensive? Is it because it implies that people with this syndrome have ground beef posteriors? I find that a bit ridiculous. If the concern is with the inclusion of the vulgar word "ass"? If so, then I suppose Assberger should be deleted as it is just as offensive. What about Burkina Fasso, is that offensive towards the Burkinabé? There is a reason Wikipedia is not censored, so that we don't have to make these decisions that compound and spin out of control, ultimately restricting us from making this an easy-to-use encyclopedia.-Running On Brains 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

22 January 2009[edit]

Hedgewars – Allow recreation with additional sources. Article may then be relisted at Afd. – Aervanath (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did not notice proposal for deletion in time. Took a few minutes to dig up some sources that it looks like the "delete" votes probably missed. The most notable one I can think of is this interview/review in "Linux Pratique" Issue nÂ°51 on pages 19-21. Review is in "versus" style and continues with Wormux (which I see had *its* deletion tag removed posthaste) on the next 3 pages. Archived in low resolution here. If you're familiar with french and squint, you can just about make out the text. http://www.ed-diamond.com/feuille_lpra51/index.html There are plenty of online reviews, mostly on free software or game sites of course. For example (and there are many others), http://www.freewaregenius.com/2008/10/06/hedgewars-a-fun-competent-worms-clone. Prodego ^talk 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC), on behalf of 76.21.160.106[reply]

Comment: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedgewars. Prodego ^talk 22:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

76.21.160.106/m8y.org here (nemo on freenode).

I mentioned to the developers who came up with other articles as well. I think this whole deletion thing was not noticed by them. Here are some of their responses:

koda> you could point out that's a rather known game internationally
koda> and has many reviews
koda> http://www.pcprofessionale.it/2008/11/17/download-del-giorno-hedgewars/

Tiy> nemo, its been in 2 magazines
Tiy> as far as i know
Tiy> its also been reviewed in a lot of gaming sites
Tiy> there are video reviews on youtube
Tiy> http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=22
Tiy> http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=NewArchives&issue=105
Tiy> it was in linux format
Tiy> on the cover disc

So, in summary. As well as the print magazine I linked above, it has been in an italian magazine, an english print magazine (where it was also included in the disc that came with the magazine).

Some of this was uncovered through my own modicum of searching, the rest was by briefly mentioning the deletion due to notability on irc://irc.freenode.net/hedgewars

I hope you will reconsider due to this extra information.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.160.106 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin It was unanimous consensus of logged in users that the article be deleted. Procedural process followed. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I read it right, that isn't quite true as one logged in user !voted keep (the first one). Sorry to pick nits. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you are correct, my error. I think am not convinced though that it was other than delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion process followed; and for things that may have been missed: none of the additional links provided is a reliable source so no reason to disturb the deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linux magazines would probably pass WP:RS when it comes to issues dealing with open source products.Geni 03:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bet too heavily on that: passing mentions in fan or specialty press may be useful to shore up details, but not to establish notability. My local paper would pass as sufficiently reliable source as to when the particular part of the interstate through town was built, but mentioning the repaving of Oak Street or when the four-way stop signs at Sycamore and 8th were installed doesn't make those notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Nothing pointed out here has indicated how the deletion process was not followed; the process doesn't require notification of everyone who might have an interest in the discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion but allow recreation based on the significant coverage available on these two sources brought forward above here on pages 19 to 21 and here. The original decision to delete was fine but with the new evidence brought forward here I am confident that it would not have been deleted at that AFD as they seem to address the concerns of the delete opinions which talked about the lack of reviews and that it was only covered by blogs and download sites. As such recreation based on this sourcing should be fine. Davewild (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse of close but allow recreation I'm not real happy with ignoring IP !votes (AGF and all that), but the close is otherwise reasonable. New RS have been brought to the fore and thus recreation appears warranted. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at AfD, the new sources need to be examined, which they were not in the AfD.--Otterathome (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

21 January 2009[edit]

Same sex marriage userboxes – Overturn and relist – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Discriminatory userboxes (also included a mis-named userbox in template space, which should not be restored - userboxes belong in user space)

There are any number of process problems here. For one, these userboxes were nominated along with two grossly inflammatory ones that were in no way appropriate. They should have been considered separately from the beginning. Secondly, at the point that the discussion was closed, it had run for just over a day and purely from a head-counting standpoint, keeps were outnumbering deletes. The closer substituted his own opinion for the opinions of those commenting - there is no policy reason that demands the deletion of these userboxes. It is a fact of life that for the majority of the world, marriage is between one man and one woman. Whether you agree with that or not, it is the law of the land. In the US, it's a hot button political issue, but every President, including President Obama, has opposed same sex marriage. Stating such could not reasonably be called so inflammatory as to demand speedy deletion. On the other hand, User:Tal642/my userboxes/SanerWorldNoReligion, that neither this closer nor anyone advocating the deletion seems to have a problem with, advocates either the extermination or forcible conversion of people of faith. I wouldn't be at all opposed to abolishing all user boxes that advocate a political position beyond simply stating a party or religious identity (eg, I am a Libertarian, I am a Catholic, I am Islamic), but until such time as that happens, selective enforcement of unapproved points of view is not a positive for the project and only contributes to hurt feelings. Personally, I am offended by a great deal of userpage content, but I recognize that I have no right on Wikipedia not to be offended. I also disagree with those who would call for a national so-called "sanctity of marriage amendment" or other such things. But this isn't about what I agree with - it's about whether or not it is appropriate to censor unpopular points of view in user space or for administrators to substitute their own preferences in place of community decision. Thank you. --B (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As some might know, I was amongst those that helped bring along "the new deal" - nowadays called WP:UBM in midst of the drama that was called "the userbox wars". I do not agree with the views of the people using the "one man and one woman" userbox. But I respect, and protect, their right to state their views, be it per userbox or text on their userpage (which a userbox, in essence is). Would one ask a user to delete the text "I believe marriage to be between one man and one woman" from his userpage? Would you go to MfD to enforce your request? But I digress... My three main issues with the "fast deletion" were that it looks like the closer did rather count the !votes instead of the arguments, and that he did not allow the MfD run its course. The third issue is that the neutrally worded userbox was listed with two (I persume) truly obnoxious ones, and that the result was tainted by the obnoxious userboxes. Therefore I suggest Undelete and Relist at MfD Charon X/talk 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Requester may wish to reconsider that DRV statement. The law of which land? The tenet of which faith? Durova^Charge! 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, as I said in my statement, is not the law of the land in both the vast majority of the world as a whole and, specifically, in the vast majority of the English speaking world. If I am misinterpreting this map, please feel free to correct me. As for "tenet of which faith", I'm not sure what you are talking about. --B (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Without qualifications, that nomination suggests an opinion that the practice is legal nowhere and endorsed by no religion. That's not quite true, is it? People who belong in such places and/or to such faiths might prefer to be acknowledged. No opinion on the DRV in question, just saying. Durova^Charge! 23:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Huh? I didn't say anything about religious opinions on same-sex marriage. I don't think it's necessary in a DRV to acknowledge the litany of people who do or do not support same-sex marriage. The religion userbox is unrelated to this one - the only contrast is that there is support for the "approved POV" of anti-religion while there is opposition to the "unapproved POV" of opposition to same-sex marriage. This is, as with many other things, an institutional bias in Wikipedia - it tends to be more liberal than society as a whole. --B (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Rapid suppression of dissenting opinion doesn't seem terribly liberal to me. Opera hat (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As someone who has followed US politics since I was old enough to understand such things, I'm pretty sure that suppressing dissenting opinion is common to both sides. --B (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: To justify early closure, the content would have to be so grossly offensive that the evil of leaving it exposed to public viewing for four further days outweighed the evil of not subjecting it to a full discussion. Given that the point of view these two userboxes espouse, while not one I agree with, is a mainstream opinion in many societies, that cannot be said to be the case here. David^(Talk) 23:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: It seemed to me that when deciding to delete, Xavexgoem ignored what had already been said and instead introduced new arguments as justification for deletion. These arguments would have contributed greatly to the discussion (it made me think again about what I'd written, for one), but did not represent consensus of the discussion as it stood. I therefore would say the topic should be relisted and the discussion resumed, taking Xavexgoem's points on board. Opera hat (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - Double standards are unacceptable, even if you disagree with the viewpoint. VX!^~~~ 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep No strong objection to a relist. Yes it was closed early. But no, there isn't any conceivable reason these should be deleted if userboxes of the opposite view are kept. And yes, like apparently everyone else here, I'm strongly in favor of gay marriage. But we aren't censored, and unless we get rid of all political userboxes, this one needs to stay. The statement clearly has the backing of the majority of the US and AFAIK the majority of the world. It that offends you, come join me in the People's Republic where such views are quite rare indeed. (Now if Michigan would just let us pass our own gay marriage law!) Hobit (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question did the nominator attempt to discuss this with the person who performed the deletion? Maybe I'm a stickler for process, but isn't this DRV premature?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion further discussion would likely have yielded no new ideas; the arguments are pretty straight-forward and like the underlying real-world conflict no one is likely to have their mind changed in 5 days rather than a few. These are clearly divisive - and yes, WP does have contrary views, but similarly I'm a Republican/Democrat/Labourite/Torry are all fine, I'm a Nazi isn't. I'm for racial equality, fine; I'm a Foo supremecist, not. I'm anti-nuclear, ok; I'm in favor of nuking the world, not OK. I'd prefer that they all go as they add little to collaborative efforts, but alas that position is the minority view. However, offensive things ought to go: Yes, it's not mirror image, but that's just tough luck - if you want to push your divisive POV's there's always WP:MYSPACE.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cough. I'm certain a few people would mind you comparing a box that advocates Nazism to a box that advocates "no same-sex marriage". I wouldn't mind a userbox that says "nuke everything" - at least I'd know what kind of user the user is. But this is not MfD, part 2. This is looking at the technical aspects of the closure - and those are kinda problematic. MfD discussions run for 5 days to allow everyone to participate and weigh in. If you can recognize the that a complex discussion about a difficult topic is "done" and determine the outcome of this discussion without fail, after it ran only a day and a half, you are a better person than it. CharonX/talk 06:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah the strawman you erect. The only keep arguments have been it's unfair and not parallel - in the next few days which we're going through now, nothing new has come up other than "if we had a few more days..." You're having them, sir, but nothing is coming up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The impression I was getting was that there was a subtext of those who felt oppressed by that userbox, and those who did not but failed to realize that the former indeed feel that way when they come across these userboxes. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you make that point in the discussion, then, instead of unilaterally charging ahead to delete? Opera hat (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Deletion discussions shoud not be closed early when they are being actively discussed and the discussion is as close as seen here, unless there is some danger to Wikipedia in continuing them (not the case for this). Deletion discussions should not be closed with a rationale that properly belongs as a part of the debate, to be responded to by others, particularly when an administrator uses their privelege of effecting deletions to overrrule debate without participating in it. Deletion discussions should never be closed with a suggestion that one position in that debate arises from ignorance or deficieny ("The argument by other editors that it is neutral has not taken into account this impression [that some people really don't like these]"; I, for one, did take it into account in speaking as I did, and was not asked by the closer whether I had done so), period. In response to Carlossuarez above: Yes, expressing anti-nuclear sentiments is fine, and yes, saying "nuke everything" is not, but saying that you don't agree with anti-nuclear sentiments is fine, too, and not at all equivalent to desiring a nuclear exchange - a failure to make such distinctions is at the heart of what's wrong with the closure. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist I was under the impression that userboxes were allowed some latitude in their expression of POV. Certainly this speedy deletion did not reach consensus: 11 votes to Delete, 12 votes to Keep does not merit speedy deletion; the deletion request was carried out much too rashly. This same (or a very similar) userbox was previously up for deletion two years ago and was kept. If these userboxes representing a point of view supporting heterosexual marriage are not appropriate for WP, then perhaps others should also be removed, for example, Template:User Same Sex Married, and certainly this one which attempts to shame others of different points of view User:Jw21/deUBdomain/notnarrow alt. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist due to early closure which was unjustified. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
relist Early closing controversial matters are not good. I will now repeat my usual refrain about userbox fights: Why bother? They don't matter either way. Go edit the encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty."[12]

When editing possibly contentious articles such as California Proposition 8 (2008), I was under the impression that my POV should be declared openly (and encourage others to remind me when my edits are POV-driven). While I try to maintain an NPOV standpoint, I understand that my POV will eventually leak out in some action because I'm human. Thoughts? MrBell ^(talk) 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal test is, is the userbox informative or polemical? Compare and contrast: "This user opposes same-sex marriage" vs. "This user believes that marriage consists of a man and a woman". The former is informative and neutral, the latter is distinctly soapboxy. So, why not simply state the former, and then we can all get on wth whatever it was we came here for? Guy (Help!) 20:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ye-es... but if someone believed that marriage was only between a man and a woman, they mightn't want to use the term "same-sex marriage" at all - from their point of view, it would be an oxymoron. Or they could hold the belief that a marriage in church should be between a man and a woman, without opposing state recognition of civil marriages between members of the same sex. Or whatever. The two statements aren't saying the same thing. Opera hat (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't strike me as that different in tone. Furthermore, "same-sex marriage" is a term that is favored one side of this issue. Polemic would be "This user believes God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." JoshuaZ (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's all just semantics, but "This user believes marriage should consist of..." seems a little less pointy than a version without "should", if we are talking about rewordings...-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← This is essentially the reason I closed it; there is a middle ground here, like the one Guy suggests and the one I did in my closing statement. Consensus is leaning towards relist; if anyone believes that should be within my remit and prerogative, please say so and I will relist per this discussion. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist unreasonably early close of something which should have been left for the full time. Trying to close off discussions on topics like these with strong differences in view tends to not be very productive. There is no need to reargue the actual issue here, at least not now. DGG (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted and add in every single userbox that starts "This user believes that...". Pointless, often divisive, and you know what? I really couldn't give a **** about your beliefs as long as they don't colour your editing. Black Kite 09:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A voice of clarity above the din! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah. sadly, since it was closed far too early, it does really have to be relisted, and no doubt it'll be kept, despite being the complete antithesis of something that assists a collegial editing environment. Mind you, it could almost be helpful, because it's almost as if editors displaying it on their userpages are saying "Hey look, I really feel the need to display my bigotries, so it's probably worth checking my contribs as well". Black Kite 15:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist for full discussion per DGG and Vxx. I do not understand these attempts to interfere with userpage content. This was not soapboxy. Just stating a view. For comparison, I express admiration in a userbox for a slain civil rights leader. Should it be removed because it might offend those who disagree with him or my views on civil rights? I think not. Is the objection to the userbox in question more weighty than would be an objection to the MLK userbox because the MLK one is more in conformance with PC? No. If anyone has a problem with an opinion in a user box, they need to not look at it. Or spend more time writing/citing/improving articles. There are real problems on Wikipedia, and this userbox is not one of them. Dloh cierekim 15:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Cannot see the reasoning or grounds for closing the discussion early, let a discussion take the full period to allow full community participation. Davewild (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, while I disagree strongly with the sentiment espoused by the userboxes in question, the procedure clearly was not followed correctly. Open it up to a full discussion, and hopefully we can dispose of these repulsive templates the proper way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Relist – My userbox was neutrally written. See the opening statement by User:B above: these userboxes were nominated along with two grossly inflammatory ones that were in no way appropriate. They should have been considered separately from the beginning. I agree with this sentiment. I say Relist, but keep the inflammatory ones separate from my box. I’m willing to bet that the community consensus in a properly done MfD will also say Keep. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Jesus Christ, another Threshold-style close. Closing administrators are not allowed to reject the Community's reality and substitute their own; they're supposed to interpret the consensus and arguments for/against and determine whether the attempt passes or fails on those merits. Trout the closing admin as well. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the stated purpose of userboxes is to allow for collaboration between users to create, maintain or improve Wikipedia articles. Since articles must comply with WP:NPOV, there is absolutely no collaborative value in userboxes that express one's opinion on same-sex marriage, either for or against. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so if a user feels compelled to announce his opposition or support of same-sex marriage, they are free to find one of any number of websites upon which to do it or start their own website or blog. Otto4711 (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Relist - There was no consensus to close 16x9 (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chris Willis – DRV is not for seeking deletion. Please renominate for AfD. – lifebaka++ 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Willis should be deleted... This individual is a barely known back up singer and secondary supporting artist... There is no evidence that he is famous or his solo career releases or main performances are noteworthy... In fact, all articles I have found support my premise for deletion: http://www.queerty.com/gay-singer-chris-willis-has-soul-20080729/

http://www.woozyfly.com/theskinnydip

Never interviewed by billboard magazine, etc...

Its an open/shut case...

comment- i added the references section and reflist template for the article. No opinion either way at this time.Umbralcorax (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close This is not the place for a second AFD. Renominate it at AFD, it is over 6 months since the last (poorly attended) AFD and no evidence of process irregularity at that AFD has been brought forward. There is nothing to stop anybody from renominating the article for deletion. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Samuel Purdey – no consensus to undelete. Not enough reliable sources have been found to convince editors of notability. – Aervanath (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created the page for British rock group Samuel Purdey last week (which was then deleted). On the advice of a Wikipedia admin here, I recreated the article (in order to prevent further deletion while I worked on it) here at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rolluprob/Samuel_Purdey

I have recently consulted admin RHaworth - who deleted the original article - and he suggested that I should post this at deletion review. I hope this is ok. The article has changed considerably since its deletion. And so, I would like for it to be reviewed where it now resides (no risk of deletion) before I attempt to recreate the page proper.

Further support for the bands notability - currently at #13 in Japan's Kiss Fm Hit Chart. http://www.kiss-fm.co.jp/pc/hit/hit_index.php
Thank you (Rolluprob (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC))...and today they are now number 1 http://www.kiss-fm.co.jp/pc/hit/hit_index.php (Rolluprob (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I don't see any new sourcing in the userspace article, indeed most of the article does not seem to be sourced to reliable sources. If you have reliable secondary sources for statements such as "These met with some favourable criticism by the British music press at the time" and "It became the 5th most played track on Tokyo radio stations during May 1999" then combined with that charting mentioned above I would probably be inclined to support recreation. Otherwise I have to say that it should be kept deleted for now as the sourcing issues from the AFD do not seem to have been resolved yet. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my comment as I am just not sure here anymore, perhaps someone could drop a neutral note on WT:MUSIC to get some more views on this from regulars there. Davewild (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I've discovered this link regarding a Top 5 entry for the groups's single 'Lucky Radio' in June 1999 in Japan: http://sound.jp/tnsn/tokio100/1999/99_06.tokio.html
And this is the Tokio Hot 100 (J-Wave) on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokio_Hot_100
(Rolluprob (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

keep deleted for now Article looks quite well written, but sources don't meet WP:N and I can't find any that help. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to meet WP:BAND#5 on the grounds of releasing two albums. If we can get backup sources for that, I'd be happy to restore. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The band are also features on 4 compilation albums - does this help WP:BAND#5 ? Thanks. (Rolluprob (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  - No. And sources for all of these claims (which should be reliable would be better than adding more claims. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, thanks. By the way, do I need 'sources' for above mentioned compilation albums? These are available via Amazon.com (and/or Amazon.co.uk) but I don't suppose I should create a link to these pages from the article page. Thanks. (Rolluprob (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The band are now featured on the homepage of Grey Dog's Records in Japan following the recent release of their album Musically Adrift (remastered): http://www.greydogsrecords.com/ (Rolluprob (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The band is currently at #1 in Japan's Kiss Fm Hit Chart. http://www.kiss-fm.co.jp/pc/hit/hit_index.php
(Rolluprob (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out here that WP:BAND "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" #6 should apply as the band's lead singer and guitarist - Gavin Dodds - was previously a member of Jamiroquai, and subsequently a member of Spacemonkeyz. His name is on these two pages (previous member and member), and as they are on Wikipedia, they must therefore be 'notable'. (Rolluprob (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

Boxxy – allow re-creation. Article may be sent to Afd, but may not be speedily deleted in the future. – Aervanath (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boxxy is the name given to a girl whose YouTube videos have become a viral phenomenon and internet meme, also causing great conflict on 4chan. The Boxxy phenomenon has been mentioned in The Guardian, an Australian journal, and two articles on a Dutch news site.

This looks decent and here she is described as the new lonelygirl15. All three previous versions of Boxxy were speedily deleted and the page was protected against creation so I am opening a discussion here at WP:DRV. With these reliable sources the Boxxy phenomenon clearly meets WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:BLP and so an article should be created as a notable meme and internet personality. Hospitality Flawless (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a userspace version of an article be created first (e.g at User:Hospitality Flawless/Boxxy) and brought here to deletion review. The previous deleted versions were all very bad (with no useful content) and I endorse all 3 deletions made (though not the rationale for the first one). As a result I think it is best that we first see a userspace version before we consider allowing recreation. Davewild (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation based on the userspace version created which no longer meets any speedy criteria. If anyone disagrees that it meets the notability criteria then it can be nominated for AFD after it is recreated. Davewild (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Davewild above. I'd like to see an actual userspace article written before i'd vote on whether or not an article is appropriate. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a draft article about Boxxy - please feel free to update this or amend it as you wish.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the userspace article, i'm going to vote to unsalt and allow creation.Umbralcorax (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better to not cite blogs (like dtgeeks and bannerblogs) or include information sourced only by blogs, but fundamentally we should allow recreation. — PyTom (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We must remember not to be luddites here. Wikipedia should not discriminate against things that are new, such as Boxxy.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and unsalt Clearly the topic meets all policies. And while a well-written article would be nice, we certainly should have an article on her per sources provided. Ghe Guardian Blog is their main technology one from what I can tell. Not just a group of people randomly writing. Hobit (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted BLP1E and notability is not transient. This flash in the pan will be long forgotten next year - just like the house fire down the street which made the local news and papers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't temporary either. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this phenomenon was certainly temporary, hence not notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation Article subject is topic of multiple reliable publications, which means she meets WP:GNG and the first criterion in several topic-specific notability criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I hate all this 4chan rubbish, this seems to meet inclusion criteria, so regrettably permit recreation. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given all the above, and that the page clearly will not be speedily deleted, I went ahead and moved the userspace version to mainspace. It may be PRODed and/or AfDed as necessary. Hopsitality Flawless, this leaves a redirect at User:Hospitality Flawless/Boxxy. Leave me a message at my talk page or tag the page with {{db-u1}} if you don't want it anymore. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article, since Lifebaka moved it, has been twice deleted under G10 (once by Dlohcierekim, once by NCurse), and twice restored (once by Dlohcierekim and once by me, as it was not negative and so did not meet G10). I am minded to take Lifebaka's moving the subpage to article space as DRV-endorsed overturning of the speedy deletion (or particularly the [create = sysop] disallowing further creation). Given there are, as Lifebaka notes, enough assertions of notability in the sourced and non-negative article to negate previous deletion rationales, I suggest we close this DRV now as "allow recreation" with no prejudice toward any further deletion considerations. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted all the sources are from blogs so it can't be restored until a reliable source is used because of WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and AFDThe Guardian source is not a blog, though blog is in the URL. It is a newspaper article that others may comment on, but the source for the content is an article. It is not an attack, so BLP is not appropriate grounds for speedy deletion or for blanking the article. It asserts significance so speedy deletion is not appropriate. This needs to be sent back to AFD for a full discussion of its merits or demerits. Blogs cannot be dismissed out-of-hand, depending on the person writing the content-- they might be an expert or have credentials making them a RS. Again, this needs to be determined at AFD. Ottersathome is grossly misinterpreting BLP to delete as an attack page an article that needs its notability and verifiability determined at AFD. Dloh cierekim 01:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS seresin put it so much better than I. I speedy deleted the thing from the hip, because otters had blanked it when tagging it for G10. Had I seen it before deleting it, I would have declined and recommended AFD. It does not meet CSD criteria. Dloh cierekim 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the article creator, I have updated the main Boxxy article with a new source and some improvement. For the moment, please do not blank it again as I do not wish to lose my work. For those who say WP:BLP1E applies, I personally do not consider this article to be a BLP as set out at that policy page as I have just read it. The article is more about the Boxxy meme than about the girl herself. The article I have written does nothing to violate BLP, it's all sourced, as everything on Wikipedia should be.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Good point about the meme. {You might want to want to copy this in case this is deleted. You may need to find some place other than Wikipedia to put it.) Dloh cierekim 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, saved in notepad my version. By the way, there are new sources about Boxxy appearing every day it seems. The notability of Boxxy will just continue to grow.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can give you a copy to work on if it is deleted. Also the guardian is a blog http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jan/20/internet, it is listed under " News > Technology > Technology blog ". A meme is about a subject, this being a person so BLP still completely applies. As no non-blogs/reliable are used, it is blanked. Notability will continue to grow? Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL.--Otterathome (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable enough already as other people have pointed out. Her further notability to back that up is likely only to continue to grow.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't comply with WP:BLP yet (which prohibits unreliable sources from these kinds of articles), let alone notability.--Otterathome (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation The current article is adequately sourced and establishes notability. Note that the Guardian newspaper blog is a perfectly acceptable source as defined by wikipedia's verifiability policy (see footnote 5), and confirmed multiple times on WP:RSN: see this and this. Other blog sources may need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Abecedare (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the same rules don't apply on biographical articles.--Otterathome (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn The nomination lists more than enough sources. If there's any further issue it should go through AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 50 years old. When I source an article, I go to books and newspapers. They may be digitized, but they are still from print media. Those resources are unavailable for this. There are 400 Unique Google hits. No way I'm gonna sift them all. But whether or not there are RS among all these is a decision best made at AFD. Otter wants the article deleted because of a handful of adjectives that would not be missed were they removed. And the article is about the meme, not the person behind the meme. And even an unsourced articles about people do not need to be deleted per WP:BLP, and certainly not speedily. The key words here are preservation of information, due diligence in finding sources, deletion as the last resort, once an article has been determined to be beyond rescue. At worst, removal of all but minimal content about the person would still leave an article in which notability and verifiability could be debated. And, as I said, blogs cannot be discounted out of hand. Yes, some sources should be removed. Others can be found. Better sources with significant coverage, should anyone care to make the effort. Dloh cierekim 02:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation The page might be about an internet meme, but might I remind to the fact that other memes such as Rickrolling are plenty documented on wikipedia. Boxxy might still be a meme in evolution, but that does not make it less noteworthy. She might be "old" in a few weeks, or she could be here for quite a long time, the point is that in the short time she's been around she had a very major impact, even if she did not intended it that way. The article is indeed not about the person behind the movie simply because there IS nothing known about the person behind the movie. And quite honestly, she has nothing to do with it either, she never intended her movies to be used this way, but they are. The article is just about the fact that they are, how they are, and the impact and rammifications they are creating. The lack of "reliable" resources as stated above is hard to resolve, as most people only consider things like written press reliable resources and, be honest, how many real newspapers would create articles about Boxxy, or how many researches would go into the phenomenon?Jack Masamune (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Evidently notable - saw a large article about the topic myself in a newspaper recently. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide a link, it would go a long way toward establishing notability. Dloh cierekim 15:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I've noticed that the page seems to be deleted by someone. While I'm sure that they are acting in good faith, perhaps its best we let this DRV run its course before its deleted? Umbralcorax (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there was an article in UK metro about her. link to the article, image to prove it was in printed form too. --90.178.180.22 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the author has replaced all the instances of 4chan with EBAUMSWORLD, if only these 'reliable sources' would make up their minds about the facts..--Otterathome (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why he replaced the name of the 4chan board with Ebaumsworld is because of Anonymous Rule#1 and Rule#2 that state that one must not talk about the actual source board where that came from in question. You can see that he replaced it by the asterisk next to the word, and the comment for the asterisk at the bottom. That being said, the correct board is mentioned in the newspaper article in the photo.Jack Masamune (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. Evidence of reliable sources and news coverage is now clear. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aside from the guardian source, I'm not seeing enough to build a biographical article about. Also, am I missing a deletion debate, or was this A7'd? We can probably wait a bit to see if some news organization will cover this in a deeper fashion (because the fun story was 4chan getting trolled, not the fact that someone has an obnoxious video)--other internet memes that we cover in independent articles are sourced pretty well and this shouldn't be an exception. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was never AFD'd but was speedy deleted three times as G1, A7 and G10 and then salted. In my opinion they were clearly correct speedies but bear no relation to the version being discussed here (though I disagree with using G1 (patent nonsense) on the first one). Davewild (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Then the way this discussion has progressed makes sense. Protonk (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation, as much as I think 4chan memes are pretty stupid, there seems to be enough material here in reliable sources to justify an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment people keep saying there's enough reliable sources, yet I don't see any. The only usable one is the guardian, yet we can't use that as it's against WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the only potentially contentious material is the description of her dancing (about four adjectives)-- which you are misinterpreting, and which can be rephrased. Also, we need to look beyond the sourcing currently in the article and see if more RS be found among the 100's of G hits. A matter for discussion at AFD. BLP via WP:CSD#G10 is not meant to be a short cut to deletion in articles that do not qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. Where contentious/controversial material-- negative and potentially defaming, not merely poorly sourced or unsourced-- can be removed and the article not be deleted, then the material needs to be removed and the rest of the article kept. Such is the case here. The rest of the deletion discussion needs to hinge around notability and reliable sourcing-- a matter for AFD. Dloh cierekim 15:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting we have a biographical article sourced completely by blogs? So much for WP:BLP let alone notability then.--Otterathome (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to this discussion but having just had a look at the sources, the Guardian "blog" isn't really a blog nor is the Metro one in my opinion. I'd draw your attention to WP:BLP where it states that "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources". It seems to me that in both circumstances, the term blog is probably being used because it is fashionable. Just because these sources describe themselves as blogs, it doesn't mean we have to treat them as such. Adambro (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The metro isn't usable, not only does it appear they've used a blogspot as a reference, but the fact they've replaced 4chan with ebaumsworld due to comments left just shows how bad a source it is to use. So using the guardian blog as the only source is doesn't make this notable and a perfect violation of WP:1E. Due to the only one usable source, the only feasible option is to redirect to 4chan with a tiny mention by using the guardian as a source. If any more usable sources are uncovered, we can have another deletion review.--Otterathome (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly agree with Otterathome, however instead of a redirect, I'd prefer a disambiguation page, because Boxxy is also the nickname of Shannon Boxx. Anyway, endorse the speedy deletes, allow recreation, and then I guess there will probably be a discussion at AfD. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small point - I'd have Boxxy point straight to the internet meme girl with a link at the top to Shannon Boxx, since it's the main term describing the girl but only a nickname of the midfielder. FlyingToaster 05:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation Subject is absolutely notable - the Guardian article alone I think makes that clear. FlyingToaster 05:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation It's in THE GUARDIAN? It's on metro.co.uk?! Wow! How many non-notable persons/things are written about in such major publications? --TIB (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation I can't agree with FlyingToaster more. burnte (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator instructions

20 January 2009[edit]

My Life Would Suck Without You – Closure endorsed, but Restore per WP:SNOW. Song has charted. – Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold in creating previously deleted articles. Today this article has been deleted by User:JzG giving the reason as WP:CSD#G4. The reason given surely can no longer be used as (at the time of deletion) there were several Wikipedians editing the article to improve it and bring it up to standard. I did try to take this up with the admin involved, but he would not enter into a discussion on the problem and just told me to come here. So I have. jenuk1985 (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore:This is RIDICULOUS. It has charted on this weeks Hot 100 (#97) based on Airplay alone, and is currently number 1 on iTunes. Give it a page already. 18:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Restore: Until about an hour ago I had nothing to do with this article or its old AFD. But this should not have been speedied this time around. It was properly deleted a month ago as CRYSTAL, but that is no longer the case and it had (until speedied) moved close to passing WP:N, and with a little more work, likely passed by the end of the day. To spell that out, that means it failed G4. By forcing this here, it just wastes more time. I personally hate American Idol and its products such as the singer of this song, but it passes our inclusion criteria. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore As above, I had no part in this article, but it appears to have become victim of an over-zealous admin. jenuk1985 (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The song was released online this weekend and on the radio yesterday. Considering the buzz that the song has generated and the prominence of the artist, I think that it's a foregone conclusion that the song will chart within a matter of days. I think invoking UCS is appropriate enough to overturn deletion. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is only likely to be created again in a few days when it meets the technicalities jenuk1985 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Previous deletion concerns of WP:CRYSTAL and lack of coverage to establish notability are no longer relevant with the recreated article showing significant coverage to establish notability. There is also more coverage easily available on a quick search. The article was thus not stubstantially the same as the deleted article and much of the concenrs raised in the AFD have now been addressed, so it therefore did not meet the G4 speedy criteria. Davewild (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait If it will surely chart in a few days, then wait a few days. Go to WP:RFPP, link to the AFD that decided to wait until it charts, a link to the chart, and as for the creation to be unprotected. All will go smoothly. There's no rush to create this article before it satisfies the normal guideline of charting, receiving an award, or being covered by multiple artists. Doing things in order makes life smoother for everyone and everything, and part of doing things in order is to discuss a song in the article of its parent album or artist, and then split if off when there is sufficient reason to do so. Nothing's preventing anyone from doing anything ... write text about it, find sources, make an infobox. It's just normal to do that in the parent article for an uncharted single.—Kww(talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That assumes there is a requirement for "charting" and the like. There is not. That's one way to get included, but it is not exclusive. Thus, even in the absence of charting, it is notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As well as noting the common sense aspect, there is no reason why Ignore all rules can't apply to this situation of pedantry. Notability has been established outside the normal means, it doesn't make it non-notable. jenuk1985 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How come the admins aren't so quick to delete the current incarnation of the page? jenuk1985 (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was once again recreated. Let the process work at Deletion Review instead of continuously recreating the article. It's now been salted; don't attempt to recreate it until this DRV has come to a final conclusion. seicer | talk | contribs 23:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a note, it seems that this article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Life Would Suck Without You, then recreated five times. It was G4'ed by Guy as it was continuously recreated and at DRV. seicer | talk | contribs 23:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment Actually, it's been recreated over a dozen times under six different titles.
      - My Life Would Suck Without You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      - My Life Would Suck Without You (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      - My Life Would Suck Without You (Kelly Clarkson Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      - My Life Would Suck Without You (Kelly Clarkson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      - My Life Would Suck Without You (Kelly Clarkson single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      - My Life Would Suck Without You (Kelly Clarkson Single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    - —Kww(talk) 00:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're forgetting "My Life Would Suck Without You". --Amalthea 00:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been recreated by users not involved with the original dispute, I have tried to make these "new" uses aware of what is going on to no avail. As much as I disagree with the situation, I reverted the article to the redirect twice, but I can do so no more without being in breach of 3RR jenuk1985 (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore I took part in trying to make this article happen because it is a single that was released in Radio Airplay as well as on the iTunes Market. The ludicrous idea that a Single cannot have a page made for it because "it hasn't charted yet." There are many singles out there that don't chart but still deserve to have a page made for them because they are released by the artist. It should have nothing to with if its charted yet or not but provide the history of the song as well as facts revolving around the song. This is after all wikipedia and encyclopedia entitling all that relates with any bit of information out there in the world with relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.84.39 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. The article is being re-created already by users not involved in the above debate. It seems this will continue to happen. This song is not only notable, but the amount of traffic the article is receiving further illustrates the desire to create and expand the article. Please restore the version delete earlier this morning so users can improve the article. Thanks! -Whataworld06 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per, well, everyone. It's a leadoff single from an album by a well known artist. I have to note, though, that this is the worst song title for a single ever. JuJube (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. As I noted on the talk page previously, the reasons for deletion at the AfD still apply, technically. The song hasn't charted...yet. However, it's the lead single for a well-known artist who has had most of her singles becomes hits; almost all of them have charted. This one is getting pretty good airplay right off the bat, according to Mediabase, and the single just got digitally released. I'd be really surprised if it doesn't chart within the next week or two. As such, doesn't WP:COMMONSENSE apply? SKS2K6 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure of the AfD, but allow recreation. This extended discussion is misplaced here. Quote WP:DRV: "This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process." I don't see anyone disputing the closure of the AfD at the time. The circumstances have changed with the release of the single, however, and it might very well have the required notability now to pass WP:N, so the reasoning from the AfD does no longer apply. Consequently, I don't think that it was still a clear candidate for WP:CSD#G4.
Being placed on a major chart is usually considered enough to pass the inclusion guideline, but it is not a requirement to pass WP:Music#Songs. The sources currently in the the userfied article are in my opinion not enough to pass it, but that's no discussion to be held here. If still in doubt once it's moved back, it should be discussed at a second AfD. --Amalthea 02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV was about the G4 speedy, not the AFD. To see if the G4 is valid, you have to check if the AFD still applies (not if correct procedure was followed, the procedure question lies with G4) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I apologize if this is not the right place to mention this, but I feel it is worth noting that the song has already reached #3 on the US iTunes Music Store chart, making it one of the most downloaded songs currently. No doubt this will also be reflect in other music charts. Please continue updating this page and redirect it to the proper "My Life Would Suck Without You" article page once possible. Thanks! Whataworld06 (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. The original AFD was about WP:CRYSTAL which no longer applies, so a G4 speedy is not valid. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion and restore: I had nothing to do with this but in looking over the article I see no reason why it should not be now restored. While I can understand the frustration at the article being recreated and G4'd, the root issue is that this is a single from a known artist that (now) meets the criteria. But I would also say that even when it was a Crystal issue there were far more reliable sources than, for example, The End Of An Error had when it was created (first version) but yet that article sat for a month before it was tagged with a PROD (dif) and than sent to deletion discussion after it was removed. At that discussion, aside from the nom, the topic was if the album was real or not. A few user submitted "news" posts that confirmed a forthcoming release were submitted (and still exist in the article) as well as one user saying what has to be one of my "favorite" arguments ever - "It's a real album from a real band. And it's really coming out. It has 3 different sources to cite that this is the truth." When I brought that AFD to DRV based on the fact the article was kept with zero discussions of "keep" or "delete" on the notability factor it was downplayed because, by the time of the DRV, the album had been released so it was no longer an issue. So when I see how there was support for that but an article with a subject that had more coverage gets a "delete" consensus despite Reuters picking up the Billboard story in December 2008 saying that "Kelly Clarkson's new single, "My Life Would Suck Without You," will hit U.S. radio outlets January 19" yet that is not good enough but a two line user submitted news story ("Houston Calls will release The End of an Error on October 14th. Album art is in the replies.") on absolutepunk.net is. No matter how clear it might be that Crystal discussions "should be discussed only in the artist's article" and not a case for deletion discussion it happens. Likewise the fact that "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release" seems clear as well. But I think it is time to make the singles, songs and albums guidelines far more clear in this regards. Actually the version of this Kelly Clarkson single article from December 27, 2008 , the day before the AFD closed as "delete", is at least equal to how the above mentioned article looked on the day it's AFD was closed as a "keep" - The End of an Error September 11, 2008. As for the G4 - From what I can see, how the article looked like on December 19, 2008 is not the exact same as the January 1, 2009 version and that is nothing like the January 14, 2009 version. The current version at User:Cameron Scott/My Life Would Suck Without You is fine and meets the criteria. Yes there was edit waring, yes other versions were done but I don't see this as a G4 issue at all at this point. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" clearly doesn't apply. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore The song has been announced as being released on February 14, 2009 in Australia, according to the Sony BMG website, therefore the page should be restored as it has now be announce in a country. Billy4kate (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore topic is no longer crystal-balling, and is receiving national airplay. No reason to keep this deleted or salted. Acalamari 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My Life Would Suck Without You (song) just sprang into existance, a version of the article that is less sourced than the userfied one, but has far more content. I will not redirect it again since consensus to allow recreation seems clear enough, and since the content (or sources at least) from the userfied version should now be merged into that one.
I suggest this be closed, and the article moved to My Life Would Suck Without You. --Amalthea 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse everything done so far as correct, but now permit recreation based on the new information provided. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pirate Party of the United States – History restored behind redirect. – Aervanath (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

History undelition, the page is currently a redirect. I don't think the article should be created anytime soon but the mention of the US party on Pirate Party is extremely limited. I don't remember how comprehensive this article was and a look at the history would be beneficial to future contributors to decide if the article is ready to be re-written or not. ~ Paul^T+/_C 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

YouAreTV – relist at Afd. – Aervanath (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original AfD's established notability was ignored completely by the 2nd AfD and only one person commented on the 2nd AfD. ~ Paul^T+/_C 20:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion. The first AFD, from 2006, consisted of a bunch of people claiming that it was notable, but not actually providing any evidence of this (at least by current standards). Mr.Z-man 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably, the evidence was in the article. I don't have access to the history since it is deleted, but I am pretty sure there were links to the relevant congressional testimony and 3rd party sources. Either way, the closure was premature since there was no mention of the previous discussion's content and only one comment asserting that the article was WP:SPAM - contradicting the original AfD and basically ignoring it completely. ~ Paul^T+/_C 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original AFD did not really establish notability as is often judged nowadays and I have checked the history and fail to see where notability was established at any time. Generally I would be reluctant to endorse an AFD where only one person actually argued for deletion after a previous AFD with more participation ended as keep (would generally prefer a relist). However in this case it is months afterwards and I have searched and don't think there is enough significant coverage to establish notability. I found some good coverage here[13] but only on a student newspaper, and an interview here when the site was put for sale. Without more significant coverage I cannot support overturning the deletion which was the correct decision based on the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more links including Lessig's testimony to congress: Hearing on Net Neutrality Before the S. Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 109th Cong. (2006) (statement of Lawrence Lessig) there are numerous citations of this testimony which include YouAreTV. 2006 Linux World mention... There are a load more links from when the website was put up for sale on eBay (it went for $25000) that are similar to the interview link above, but none terribly more significant. ~ Paul^T+/_C 22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The congressional testimony mentions YouAreTV a total of twice in 11 pages as an example of an online video site like YouTube and Google Video. It doesn't go into detail about the site at all. It takes more than a mention to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 23:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD close is immaterial; it contained baseless assertions of notability and was closed improperly. I prefer, in general, that AfDs have more comments than one before they are closed. However, the article as it stood qualified for speedy deletion under A7 anyway. So I have no problem with the closure. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD has no quorum. I'd love it if 100 seasoned editors showed up in each debate. Better still, I'd love it if no one created vanity articles. A company with 5 employees that compares itself to YouTube; an article with sources independent of the company; so far failing WP:CORP that I'd have endorsed an A7 (or likely a G11). They've had their free advertising on Wikipedia, now gents generate the buzz and $$$ that YouTube has and you can have an article just like them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? I would also appreciate clarification as to why the review listing was not made until now, nearly five months after the AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I notified Mr.Z-man of this discussion as soon as it was posted here. Is that not the proper process to follow? I suppose I could have brought it up directly with him before listing it her, but given how old the discussion was I though DRV would be the best venue. I listed this article five months after the 2nd AfD because as I was cleaning out my watchlist and I noticed YouAreTV was a redlink for the first time. After reading the 2nd AfD discussion (or lack thereof) I thought it should be revisited. I was away from the internet for a time during the 2nd AfD but I would have participated if I had known about it. ~ Paul^T+/_C 16:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. The instructions here don't suggest that there is an exemption from discussing with the admin before listing here (notifying them of a listing here is not what is contemplated). While there is no quorum at AFD, it is usual to relist AFDs with just two participants, and I believe that relisting would be correct here. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist simply because the 2nd AfD only had one !vote. While the closing admin is free to exercise his/her discretion in obvious cases of non-notability, it seems to me that for any other AfD it would have been relisted to establish more consensus especially as the first AfD closed in keep. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist While there is no minimum participation requirement at AFD, deleting based on the comment of a single editor doesn't seem like a good idea (2 if you include the nominator). Let's make sure there is a consensus rather than an agreement. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist MuZemike's vote doesn't establish a consensus. Themfromspace (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, shazbot!!! MuZemike 15:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist — seems like a reasonable request (contrary to popular belief that I am a one-person army :P). At least try to establish a rough consensus. MuZemike 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close clearly fails notability, corp, etc. Guidelines followed, sound judgement shown.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
relist Can't see article (including cache) so don't know if it was a speedy candidate. But AfD seems like it should have been relisted. Hobit (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that nom was procedural. So really only 1 delete !vote. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just speculation since I can't see the edit history, but I wouldn't be surprised if the only vote was from the person whose PROD prompted the procedural AfD in the first place. If this had just been an uncontested prod, this article would have already been restored. ~ Paul^T+/_C 04:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prod was added by a different user than the 2 involved in the AFD. Mr.Z-man 04:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My gut instinct is to reopen the newer AfD, since it got so little attention. But I have little beyond that. What I do notice is that the version AfDed the first time around (available here, admin-only link) had more external links than the most recent deleted version. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, perfectly proper. Feel free to have it userfied for a sourced rewrite (this version had no non-trivial independent sources, as far as a quick glance tells). It was deleted and salted in 2006, if we want to play the "but last time..." game, however, this was an article that fairly screamed "Please, Wikipedia, make us famous!". Guy (Help!) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and salted? Can you please provide a link to the first AfD? I was not aware of it. ~ Paul^T+/_C 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 January 2009[edit]

Google Background Changer – Deletion endorsed – kur ykh 08:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have created a page for a Firefox extension called Google Background Changer. The page was deleted twice for "advertising'. Raised the issue to the editor RHaworth(Talk | contribs) but received a reply:

"Google Background Changer - More than one of us felt that the Google Background Changer article was an advert for a non-notable (and pretty useless) piece of software. You can of course raise the matter at deletion review but do not expect much joy."

Who decides that something is "pretty useless"? - 392 people have installed it in 2 weeks, so someone else thinks it's useful. Why does it have to be useful to be listed in wikipedia. Isn't it meant to be an unbiased body of knowledge? We have a firefox extension which people search for and use.

[14] - who determined that this was useful? an edit button that does the same thing as the edit button on the browser screen. It seems like a complete waste of time. Less than 6 people per week download it (according to the Firefox AMO), but it still has a place on wikipedia (Universal edit button)

Also, this definitely sounds like advertising: " As this kind of public editing becomes more commonplace, the button may become regarded as a badge of honor." - it's completele speculation.

It would be like us saying "Our extension is going to take the world by storm, everyone is going to be using it" - although, in our submission, we tried to keep everything black and white and refrained from any use of hyperbole.

Who decided that these where more useful then being able to change your background for your Google search page? I don't think it should be up to you to decide if something is useful or not. Even if it wasn't useful, it still exists, and as such, deserves a place in a body of knowledge which is meant to catalogue the worlds information.

It's no more or less an advertisement than any of the other listings here: List of Firefox Extensions

Looking forward to your reply.

Endorse deletion per WP:CSD#A7, web content making no assertion of notability. Sandstein 06:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not a G11, but certainly deletable as web content not asserting notability. Endorse per Sandstein. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion. Blatant advertising for a pretty useless product. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, and served no purpose other than advertisement. I'm not saying that there aren't other articles listed on List of Firefox extensions that are equally bad, but this article simply does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. --Stormie (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so now it has to not only be notable, it has to be "assertingly notable". what a joke? will you remove all the other pages which are "equally bad". If not, why not?

how is it that 2 people can decide whether an extension is notable, assertingly notable or otherwise notable.

What would it take to make our extension notable? 5,000 downloads a week? Is there a bench mark?

I feel that we have been unfairly considered and that other less notable extensions have an unfair advantage.

There should be a level playing field. [15]

Endorse deletion - notability is established by independent reliable third party sources, not by numbers of downloads. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia reporting what reliable, verifiable sources say about a subject, not a compendium of all the knowledge in the universe. If someone thinks there are equally bad articles, then by all means treat them the same way and take them to AfD. dougweller (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 3rd party sources? Who can this people be? Not from someone I/we know? And how can one become an independent reliable 3rd party sources?

Years of reliable reporting. Check out WP:RS for a better explanation, but we're talking reliable newspapers, magazines & television reviews of the product. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sexting – Everything's fixed. – Stifle (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

redirect to Sexting (slang), I am not sure why it is deleted when a full article exists Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexting (slang) is a sourced (and admissible) rewrite of Sexting, which was correctly deleted as unsourced schoolboy babble in its previous versions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexting. This neologism seems to be notable now. Unprotect and move Sexting (slang) to this title. Sandstein 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved Sexting (slang) to Sexting, then deleted the former title as an implausible redirect, as it seems to be the obvious course of action. That should take care of all the issues. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Phone Call to Putin – Article has been relisted at AFD by the closer of the AFD – Davewild (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AfD was not allowed to run its course, and was speedily kept, and I believe this may have been due to Inclusionist comment..(as far as I know, User:DonaldDuck is Russian, and his reason for taking it to AfD is absolutely valid. I took it to AfD again, but this was speedily kept, due to it should have come here. Phone Call to Putin is a non-notable neologism used to describe electric shocks. It appears some editors in the 2nd nomination have misunderstood what the topic is about. WP:N states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The sources used in this article do not give significant coverage of Phone Call to Putin, but rather to Alexey Mikheyev, and mention Phone Call to Putin in passing. The term does not meet the basic notability guidelines, and would be best placed in an article on Alexey Mikheyev, and done so in passing as per the sources which discuss this notable individual. Russavia ^Dialogue 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse retention Meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - as much as I am dismayed by the haste to close AFDs these days, we also can't be bureaucratic and rehash debates that came to the right conclusion. Wily D 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest reopening the AfD. The first (well 2nd) one was a non-admin closure after 25 hours and 4 keep votes. Procedurally, a 3rd AfD should not have been opened on the basis of an alleged inappropriate closure. They should have come here first, and hopefully we would have decided "yeah, 4 votes and a closure in just over one day isn't really enough time when multiple editors have shown concern over the early, non-admin closure". -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen AfD per Andrew c. This should have gone to DRV first, but since we're here now... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse retention. This is what, fourth attempt to get the hapless article deleted? You can't keep on starting new AFDs and DRVs until you get your wish against consensus. Seeing the comments in the AFD discussion and the previous discussions, WP:SNOW closure is perfectly appropriate. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relistthis should not have been closed when it was. There is no way of knowing from the first day what sort of objections will be raised after that. We must stop this nonsense--these are discussions, and we need time to discuss. There is no reason to think the people who appear immediately will be representative--especially when there are only four of them. The fact that there was a previous no-consensus close from an earlier afd should have warned the closer that this was not as obvious as it may have looked. DGG (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- The first one wasn't quite clear in its consensus. The second one seemed a pretty valid application of The snowball clause to me. Given how recent the second one was, I see no reason to relist. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The close of AfD3 made sense since the discussion should have been moved here, but the close of AfD2 was simply too soon. This is a disturbing trend--a brand-new, never-discussed quasi-policy that problems with an article must emerge in the first 24 hours of an AfD in order to be considered. Folks, we really don't want to go there. Chick Bowen 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Fie on process, a quick look at the content persuades me that another AfD is futile. Time to put down the stick. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist AfD 2 to get this over with and get a result that sticks. Non-admins should almost never snow-close AfDs about contentious subjects. Sandstein 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist AfD 2 - this was definitely not a snow close situation and should very much not have been closed by a non-admin, especially only after 24 hours. Run it until it's finished, and we'll have a firm consensus. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did Gwen Gale suggest coming to DRV? If everything the nominator says is valid, the article should be refactored and moved to Alexey Mikheyev. No deletion, AFD, or DRV is needed here. As Sandstein suggested in the first AFD, just go to Talk:Phone Call to Putin and propose a page move there. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - yes this arrticle should be relisted and if possibly sepddily deleted. its only notability is as a neologism and thare are a lot of debates that were ignored on the other AFD pages. This article is a noelogism concoted by the New York Times tabloid and not referenced direclty in other peer-reviewed scientific jouranls and as such it should stand AFD to give its supporters enough time to either get better sources and when they cant this article can be deleted as per the proper chanels instead of the weird non-admin snow close that was quite frnakly disrup;tive and against the principles of WP:CONCENSUS * wp:wp:rs Smith Jones (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The phrase does not appear in the New York Times, and the New York Times isn't published in the tabloid format, but in a broadsheet format. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: Closed much too soon. --Carnildo (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: relisting will not achieve anything, other than waste time, as it is apparent that no consensus for deletion can be achieved at this point. Martintg (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: 25h is to short for a contentious article Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist AFD 2 had an improper non-admin closure after 1 day of discussion. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the result yes it was quick, but is anyone asserting that the community will delete it or are we just going through procedural motions here? It also seems that the nomination is more focused on the name as a neologism than on the technique which seems documented. Going to AfD to try to change the name in not where one goes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Good-faith objections were made against the article, and a good-faith objection has been raised against the early closure. Discussions need to be open long enough for everyone to get a chance to participate. It is unlikely that the discussion would end with a deletion, but a well-placed argument can sometimes turn the tide and letting people voice the opinion lends an air of fairness. WP:STEAM is not policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There is quite a lot of debate on this, so let's do it the proper way. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The article has survived three AfD. Time to concentrate on the article not the process. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the AFDs were early-closed, though. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 2nd AfD, the one which was closed early, has been relisted by the editor who closed it: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phone_Call_to_Putin_(2nd_nomination). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since it has been relisted, can some passing admin who has not participated now close this as moot? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Einar Riis – This is an IAR close as I have actively participated in the discussion but we have reached a gentleman's agreement to userfy this to give the nom a chance to source this. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

AFD deleted the article as a probable hoax with no Google hits, but I can assure you that it is not a hoax, and that a look with the Norwegian language Google (google.no) will reveal plenty of relevant hits. The sources here are Norwegian, but there is definitely enough to establish both verifiability and notability. If you look at this commentary by Kåre Valebrokk, former leader of the Norwegian TV 2 and an acquaintance of the person, you will see that Max Manus himself covered him, in fact the front cover of his memoars had a picture of him with Riis during a sabotage operation. For a general source about Riis, here is an obituary about him. The article which was deleted needs some work done on it, but the AFDs conclusion, deleting the article as a hoax, needs to be overturned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The no article has no sources, I'm not sure whether no is the bokmal or the nymal wikipedia and the article is under Einar Riis Johansen rather then Einar Riis. Aftenposten is clearly a reliable source but the article cited appears to have been a reminiceance rather then a news story. Do we count such as notable. The Rettsnorge source is less clear given that I couldn't work out what the status of this site is. Is it the internet offshoot of a Norwegian print publication or a solely web-based presence. If the latter there needs to be cæear editorial oversight and peer reviewing before we would necessarily accept this as meeting RS. Googling Einar Riis Johansen didn't produce anything substantively more than what Sjakkalle has cited and I also note the no article is less then a month old. I would understand there being a smaller web-presence for Norwegian sources on the internet then english ones but I would have expected something more if this individual were truelly notable. What we are left with is a an article on no, a personal rememberance from Aftenposten and an obituary from a web-source of unclear provenance. I can't in fairness say that i would accept this as being enough to establish notability and justify overturning the AFD but I'm willing to be persuaded with more details of the sources and/or more sources being proffered. Also, after writing this, I did a google on the author of the obituary and there is no google history of them as a journalist. This clearly is a personal obituary from an author with an axe to grind if this is anything to go by and I can't see that the source can possibly meet our standards to establish notability and verifiability for this individual. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, no is Bokmål and nn is nynorsk. Nn has no article on either Einar Riis or Einar Riis Johansen. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am making a run-through of the various sources I am able to find with Google. Some of the are clearly partisan, others are more neutral. Most of them relate to what is probably one of the most bizarre civil cases to run through the Norwegian judiciary system. For a quick recap: That case involves both the late Einar Riis and his wife, Amelia Riis surrounding inheritance, part of which is a large bulk-ship called the Sognefjord. After reviewing rettsnorge as a source, I am starting to sour a bit regarding its neutrality (though not its intentions), an English translation surrounding the bulk carrier is here, and written in a fairly partisan manner. The Riis case received more coverage than what I placed in the original DRV, this is a portrait interview of the couple for Dagbladet. The Valebrokk remembrance was in fact cited in the Norwegian parliament, in a proposal from Carl I. Hagen to withdraw an appeal from the government after it had lost the case against Riis.[16] That verdict in that case awarded the Riis couple 55 million Norwegian kroners (about 8 million USD), the largest compensation ever awarded by a court in Norway. A second case surrounding Einar Riis' estate after his death, and a conflict between Amelia Riis and their former attorney has also garnered media interest.[17][18]. There is a lot of material to sort through here, and much of the coverage is biased, and there is an unfortunate relative paucity of internet coverage which does not concern the Riis-case even though it appears to be every bit as significant. I am at some level confused with what I am finding, but I am sure there is enough material to support an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dagenbladet is of course a RS and this is a proper in-depth article that discusses the couple (although I find Norwegian much harder to skim for the sense then Danish for some reason). I'm edging towards the view that Riss is notable for his involvement in the case as much as anything and the subsequent fall out from it and that what we need is a neutral well sourced article about the legal case that we can merge and redirect the Riis content into. How would you feel about that as a solution? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the main reason is that I have no real objection to how the closing admin handled this case. If I had come across this debate as an AFD closer, I would have deleted the article. The AFD shows unanimity, and it is hard to fault the closer for doing what he did. That does not mean we got the correct outcome, and the suggestion that the article was a hoax is so wrong that that in itself needs fixing. The DRV here is placed because there is information about the subject which did not come to light during the AFD, and would probably have affected the outcome. At the very least, the suggestions that the article is a "hoax" (which implies bad faith and vandalism on the part of the article creator) need to be taken care of. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. Well, from what Spartaz suggests above, he doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion, so keep deleted but annotate the AFD to show that it isn't a hoax. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkale is a user in very good standing, any reason we should not userfy this pending more sources? Guy (Help!) 22:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections from me, I think we are only a hairs-breath from undeleting this and merge/redirecting to an article about the legal case. I have already left Sjakkale a note on their talk asking them to revisit this discussion as I think we can just go ahead and do that if they agree to the compromise. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Userfying this to my userspace would be fine, and I'll do my best at sourcing it. Parts of the article will probably need to be cut. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 January 2009[edit]

Greg Prato – Overturn A7 deletion with consent of deleting admin. Taken to AfD. – seresin ( ¡? ) 22:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The entry for writer Greg Prato was deleted because a Wiki person said Greg only wrote 2 self-published book and does not require a page. I feel this is entirely false, as Greg is a long-time writer for Allmusic, Rolling Stone.com, Billboard.com, Classic Rock Magazine, Record Collector Magazine, etc. As I explained earlier, if you do an internet search for 'Greg Prato,' many of his articles, reviews, and interviews come up, which means he is an established/recognizeable writer (he is also listed as one of the main writers for the Allmusic Wiki entry). Additionally, Greg has a book coming out on April 1st via ECW Press (which is not self-published). Also, Greg has penned liner notes for several DVD releases by rock groups.

Restore Wow. Not close to A7. Chubbles (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the deleting admin, I didn't think this was close to something that would pass a full AfD — two self-published books, a forthcoming small-press book, and some unspecified web and magazine articles didn't seem like a clear claim of notability to me. But I wavered on this one and I won't be offended if it's restored. Of course, in that case, I think it should be taken to an AfD. In the meantime, I've restored the article so that participants here can see it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chubbles that it has enough claims of notability to pass A7. I agree with David, however, that it would not pass an AfD. David: do you have any objections to this DRV being closed now as overturning the A7, followed by an AfD? seresin ( ¡? ) 22:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that would be fine with me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A Rocket to the Moon – No consensus to overturn. I leave a standing offer to userfy on request. – lifebaka++ 18:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I deleted this page myself as a nn band. I tagged it with A7 but what I should have done was tag is as a recreation as the article had gone through an AFD. It was pointed out on my talk page that "Hi, I saw A Rocket to the Moon was A7'ed. This shouldn't have happened, as the group is signed to Fueled by Ramen [19] and has hit the Billboard charts. [20]" I don't know if this is enough to undelete the article, so I bring it here for your wise considerations Theresa Knott | token threats 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore as initial instigator...The group's not at this point a legitimate A7 target and the charting meets WP:MUSIC, which should invalidate a G4. Chubbles (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the version of the article you speedied, there was a lot of "will be performing" and "will be releasing an album", but no current claims to fame, apart from charting on Top heatseakers, which wikipedia tells me is a sort of leg-up chart for artists who've never reached the real national sales chart yet. Keep deleted. --fvw* 21:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It serves as a sort of "new artist" chart, for groups which have never made the top 100 of the Billboard 200. It's not therefore illegitimate, any more than, say, something like the Top Blues Albums chart (some artists who debut at or near the top of the Blues Albums charts don't even make the Billboard 200). It's certainly an indicator of widespread popularity that's not anywhere near A7 territory. I'm not opposed to the prior article having a rewrite; the Allmusic entry I listed above is a good source; here's an in depth interview which notes their nationwide tour with Cute Is What We Aim For, Automatic Loveletter, and Secondhand Serenade; they've also been announced for the AP tour with Hit the Lights, Family Force 5, and The Maine, another nationwide tour. [21] The main problem with this article isn't the notability of the band, but rather seems to be that the article itself was crappy. Chubbles (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The version Theresa deleted was less-sourced and had fewer indications of notability than the version that was deleted by the December AfD. Therefore, the article did not negate the reasons for previous deletion, so could have been deleted under G4. Dig magazine is a student magazine, I'm not entirely sure they qualify as an RS. The Alternative Press article isn't significant coverage; it's just a listing of concert dates. The Allmusic biography could grant notability; I'm not entirely sure what their criteria are for just writing a biography, however. Allmusic also has not reviewed their album (Your Best Idea, which should be deleted or redirected to the artist article depending on how this DRV is closed), which could be telling. I am minded to agree with fvw about the notability-granting status of that chart. However, given the sources provided here that Chubbles believes grant notability, and that AfD-goers might agree with him, I suggest that the article be recreated with those sources. A CSD/PROD/AfD after that would not be precluded, and this DRV would have no bearing on any eventual deletion consideration. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of that article, as it met G4 if not A7. As ever, no bar on creating a new article that overcomes the problems with the old one. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tamding Tsering – Endorsed. Closed early per WP:SNOW – Aervanath (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn per the following reasons:

Serious concerns about WP:ATHLETE

a) Guideline doesn’t specify that the teams have to be affiliated with FIFA.

1. The Tibet National Team is the highest soccer organization for Tibet.

2. The players have competed in international matches, including two with FIFA affiliated teams, 1.

Concerns about WP:BIAS and lack of sources to establish notability.

a) Data provided by the own Chinese government shows that in 2002 the number of registered dial-up Internet users in Tibet was only 4,000, 1

b) Restrictions on journalists, 1, and Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China.

c) Lack of participation: Wikipedia is blocked in some countries due to government censorship, and editing through open proxies, the most common method of circumventing such censorship, is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

Concerns about multiple articles in one AfD without discussing individual merits of each subject.--J.Mundo (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles also nominated for deletion:

Endorse closure - there is a consensus to keep clear in the AfD, the arguments to keep had mroe to do with politics and less to do with policies. The key here is verifiability; that any of these players have even played in a game for the Tibet national team can not be proven. The sources presented cover the Tibet national football team, not the individual players. Stack nomination was the only viable option in this case, there were 19 article which were substantially the same, with none even playing for a professional club side, which would have allowed them to meet the very inclusive WP:ATHLETE. Your own figures indicate that it would be almost impossible to verify any of the (little) information presented within the articles, we can't keep 20 players who may or may not have played for Tibet as well as an amateur club side. The sources provided above do not even cover the players.– Toon ^(talk) 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Closing Admin endorsing closure: I will respond to the points raised below:
- Serious concerns about WP:ATHLETE

None of the players deleted in this AFD reached the standards required at WP:ATHLETE.

- Concerns about WP:BIAS and lack of sources to establish notability.

A lack of sources to establish notability means that we don't have articles about said subject. You can't throw WP:N in the bin just because you can't find sources. By that reasoning, I could invoke teapot reasoning - I can write an article about any subject, and simply claim that 'systemic bias' means that no reliable sources exist.

In addition, the team you talk about is not based in Tibet, but is instead based in India. There is nothing stopping any other newspapers from writing about the team, and therefore the team itself is indeed notable. But no-one is writing about the players themselves, and in any case, the team have never played at a fully professional level, so the point is moot. They still don't meet WP:ATHLETE.

- Concerns about multiple articles in one AfD without discussing individual merits of each subject.

An important concern! But there was only one subject being discussed here: whether or not players of the Tibetan football team are notable according to WP:ATHLETE or WP:BIO, or indeed WP:N. The answer is no, they are not. Some players were kept, because they were indeed notable. Most, however, were not. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion It doesn't matter what WP:ATHLETE does or does not refer to. None of the players have any evidence to prove they have played at any level. We can't have articles on players who "might have played but I'm not sure because I can't find any proof." Secondly none of the articles had any independent, non-trivial sources so they fail WP:N. Peanut4 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Peanut4. – Pee Jay 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Arguments for keeping all seemed to be based on the notability of the team for which these people may have played, rather than for the players as individuals. Deletion arguments were based on the players not passing WP:N or WP:BIO with significant coverage in reliable sources, or WP:ATHLETE by playing in a fully professional league or at the highest level (i.e. the Olympics or recognised international matches) of the amateur level of their sport, and even failing WP:V with no confirmation that any individual had actually played rather than just being in the squad. Policy- and guideline-based consensus was clearly for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No procedural error has been made, and the closing statement makes sense in light of our policies and guidelines. Sandstein 06:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This campaign to keep these players smacks of soapboxing Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the claimed notability of these players rests solely on their having represented Tibet. Ignoring all the other questions about whether or not playing for Tibet counts as "proper" international football, the fact remains that nobody has been able to provide evidence that any of these players have actually ever taken to the field in a match representing Tibet. It appears they were called up to a squad/training camp, sure, but that is in no way the same thing, they may have been cut/dropped out of the squad for any number of reasons. Surely even the most inclusionist editor wouldn't claim that "having been named to the squad at some point" is sufficient for an article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we go through this last week? Sceptre ^(talk) 08:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Yawn, here we go again. The decision to close this debate was the correct one as it was demonstrated that all of these players failed WP:ATHLETE (they haven't played at a fully professional level), WP:BIO (very little in the way of published sources about any of them, and believe me I did look), WP:N (none of these players has achieved anything of note) and WP:V (the sources supplied do not confirm that they have ever played at international level, just that they were selected for the squad - this is not good enough to confer notability). Further, the claim that there is very little internet access in Tibet is meaningless as all of these players are based in either Nepal or India, both of which have full internet access. If the sources don't exist to establish the notability of the players, the Chinese government's strict censorship laws can't be used as an excuse to skip around established Wikipedia guidelines - we can't have one rule for Tibetans and another rule for everyone else. Also, I notice the source provided at the top of this DRV claiming that all of these players have played against 2 FIFA nations is false - the story is about France wouldn't allow Tibet to play on their soil, and how they are playing a friendly tournament against other non-affiliated teams in Hamburg. Bettia (rawr!) 09:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and consider speedy closure. DRV is not AFD round 2 and the consensus is clear. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, Consensus based on policy appears to have been established in AfD. Further, no procedural error on part of closing Admin. Usrnme h8er (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion no procedural error was made in closing the AfD. Consensus to delete was well established. Jogurney (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, close this dam thing. So many policies and guideline that common sense has been lost. I truly believe in "process bias", Wikipedia is not the free encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia of the ones that have access to it. I hope someday a kid in Tibet, Napal or India will have access to a computer and be able to write an article about his favorite football player from his national team just like our WP:FOOTY members. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be so dramatic. This article already exists (even though it's a very rough stub). Maybe the emphasis should be on finding the sources first, then writing the article. Jogurney (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Everyone has a right to their opinion. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, that was a comment about the content of your post - sorry if it wasn't clear. Jogurney (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still find it credible that the players are notable, as players of any national team normally are. I wont repeat my other keep arguments already stated at the first AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamding Tsering. However, I took the effort to call the manager of the Tibetan National Football Association Mr. Kalsang Dhondup in India this morning (European time). He had not received my e-mail of last week, also posted at the first AfD. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he was unaware of the existence of Wikipedia. He was very kind however, and listened patiently to my hopelesly complex requests of notability, verifiability, etc wikispeak. In his opinion the team is known by about 90% of the exile Tibetan community and he would say by about 50% of Tibetans in Tibet (criteria appears to access to radio). I have now retransmitted my e-mail to him. Perhaps he could lead me to verifiable sources. For his convenience, I offered that he just e-mail it to me, and I then relay it to Wikipedia. It's probably a long shot however, and I doubt if it would ever satisfy the desire of the crowd above. I'm tempted to share J.Mundos desillusion on this matter. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure We have been through this all before and there is only one clear outcome. Power.corrupts: I see you have the heart to try and established notability. But alas it's about multiple articles, each player has an article with limited to no information. Which clearly fails multiple WP's This can easily be fitted into the main Tibet team article. That is the article which should be developed before all others. You should concentrate your time on that rather than trying to keep failed articles. Govvy (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of principles sometimes guide my waste of time, more than the significance of the articles themselves. And a sprinkle of equal opportunity, to taste. ;.) --Power.corrupts (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

-esti – Nomination withdrawn. – Stifle (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

no reason given for deletion, and never given a proper review. Articles should not be deleted indiscrimately SPNic (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This isn't the actual title of the original article, but I couldn't type the right character.75.105.224.214 (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question seems to be -eşti which was deleted as an expired prod with the reason Copied to Wiktionary on 12-06-2008 though that reason was not copied to the deletion log as is reccomended. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to discuss this any further? Material has been transwikied and is in the correct place. Deletion of the material here is generally automatic. The actual information hasn't been deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least I know the reason now. I guess we can close this discussion. Thanks.SPNic (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boy In Static – Page has not been deleted, only tagged for speedy deletion. Tag removed by other editor. No comment on validity of speedy tag. – seresin ( ¡? ) 01:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contest_Proposed_Deletion Mmxbell (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion tag was posted when I had only posted one paragraph, it was not finished. Since then, I have added plenty of information to fit Wikipedia's guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability_(music). Namely: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries..." You will see I included articles from national press, including The New York Times, URB magazine, Remix magazine, The Boston Globe, and more. It should definitely be safe from speedy deletion at this point. Can an administrator please remove the notice?

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

List of terms of endearment – no consensus to overturn; close of Afd2 as no consensus endorsed by default. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination for a third Afd. – Aervanath (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

There were two comments that supported keeping outright; the first did not refute the argument that it's an unmaintainable list, and has remained (for a year, since the last AfD) an unverified dumping-ground for any term a person wants to add. The second ("useful, encyclopaedic list") had no basis in policy at all. While merging may have been an option, the article did not need to be retained to do so, as those who supported merging only recommended merging "common" ones, for which the article history is not needed. Merging uncited material is also not a good thing. So I request that the AfD be overturned as an outright delete, or redirected back to the parent article, so that cited terms may be merged when editors can find the time to do so. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete (without prejudice). Hard votes are as follows: 7 delete, 2 keep, 1 merge heavily reduced, 1 improve or delete. That tally alone would show consensus to delete. As seresin noted, the two "keep" votes were very weak, while the "delete" votes shared common policy-related characteristics; that the article was indiscriminate, unmaintainable, nonnotable, and just doesn't fit a niche in the encyclopedia. Both "keep" votes amounted to WP:ITSUSEFUL. Both of the fence-sitters (DGG and ChildofMidnight) acknowledged that no list would be better than the current list. Several mentions were also made about moving the information back into the parent article and rewriting the list from scratch, but those can be done after deletion. Themfromspace (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the deletes you count are not deletes. One is a delete or improve, which is not a delete, the other is a rework in user space to improve and reintroduce, which is not a delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Delete. I'm simply not seeing any other consensus there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was a reasonable close, because almost no one at the AFD provided a reason to delete that was based on actual policy. (Contrary to what Themfromspace suggests, being "unmaintainable", whatever that means, is not a violation of policy. The list is moreover not "indiscriminate"--the criterion of inclusion in the list is, of course, being a verifiable term of endearment. And being "nonnotable" does not apply to lists at all.) Michig was the only AFDer who alluded to actual relevant policy--Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary--and even pointed out that Wiktionary already has a category of terms of endearment. But you can't delete with a consensus of one. Juliancolton's close should be sustained, and I suggest that future discussions to redirect or delete this list focus on whether it violates WP:WINAD. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, which was a pretty clear consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. No clear consensus to delete. Nothing to suggest that the deletion process has not been followed by closing administrator. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- I don't see much of a consensus to delete there personally. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A reasonable closure, though I might have personally gone towards delete. Juliancolton's argument that that there was no consensus to delete is certainly a valid one though. Many of the editors that participated in this AfD suggested that the list should be reworked, and closing it just allows for that in the future. The above IP (is he really an IP) also notes quite well that the only real argument for deletion came from Michig. If anyone wants to start a new AfD based on Michig's rationale, I would not mind. The closing admin made a judgment call that the arguments for deletion were not enough to delete, and that seems valid when one looks at the large number of calls for improving rather than deleting. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. There was a consensus to delete and I disagree with the notion that the deletes should be discounted as not being per policy. WP:IINFO, WP:V, and WP:N are perfectly reasonable rationales to delete. Oren0 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but those policies didn't apply here. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Consensus or not, policy here is pretty clear - we avoid indiscriminate lists where we can. One keep vote was useful, encyclopaedic list, which is perhaps the worst argument for keeping something I've ever seen. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the policy that says to avoid indiscriminate lists? And why is this list indiscriminate? 160.39.213.152 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:IINFO seresin ( ¡? ) 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where does WP:IINFO say that indiscriminate lists should be avoided? (And you didn't answer the second question.) 160.39.213.152 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - DRV is not a second attempt where one can hope for a less well advertised AFD. The discussion is enormously confused and no one can reasonably say there's any consensus in it. Wily D 03:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete: no consensus? Are you kidding me? Sceptre ^(talk) 03:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete: The list fails basic criteria for verifiability. Also, the inclusion criteria are not well defined and I see no way for that to change. Unmaintainability has been a common valid reason for deletion. (Entries that are either common knowledge or verifiable were originally broken off from the main article, so merging them back would not require the edit history of the list). _ Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is not a deletion take 2. Its a determination if the previous deletion process worked or not. Your argument that the original page is unverifiable does not match what DRV is for. Furthermore, lack of verifiability does not justify deleting a page to begin with. Otherwise, we wouldn't have stub articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of verifiability absolutely is a reason for deletion. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember someone trying to suggest that very thing before in regards to removing all stubs. That argument did not last too long. Lack of current verifiability does not mean that it can never be verifiable. Since there are "terms of endearment", as it is a real concept, then a page on it is blatant. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mgm, can you help me understand what it means for a Wikipedia article to be "unmaintainable" (there is after all an "edit" button at the top of every page)? 160.39.213.152 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - there may be some confusion in the AfD, but I see a consensus on the policy arguments, and as for keep because it's a useful list... we can't say 'no consensus' because of Keep votes based mainly on 'isn't that pretty' types of argument. dougweller (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Consensus to Delete - There were five supports for deletion, 3 comments (one saying it was awesome, one listing redundancy and possibly transwiki, the last saying that the "deletes" aren't based on actual deletion principles), DGG asking for improvement or deletion, one merge, one move to user space and improve, and one flat out keep. There doesn't seem to be a clear opinion anywhich way, and the point about the content of the deletions is a strong argument to ignore many of the deletion concerns. A page that isn't currently being worked on or needs future improvement is not a justification to delete. Otherwise, there would be many, many pages being deleted right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - per Ottava. Widespread confusion limited it to no consensus. VX!^~~~ 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, there was a fair consensus here. When even DGG is saying it's a delete candidate if it's not improved, one tends to listen. If it's kept, an absolute minimum would be to remove all the OR (i.e. most of the article) and possibly merge back into parent article. Black Kite 19:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, "When even DGG is saying it's a delete candidate if it's not improved, one tends to listen" is not a valid reason to overturn an AfD closure. From what I can tell, the general consensus so far is that the editors in favor of keeping or merging failed to provide sufficient arguments, but as far as I can tell, the editors supporting deletion were not any better. The arguments for deletion were basically "not needed", "made up", and "it should be deleted", with no evidence to support those claims. Regards, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but AfD isn't a vote, and it's useful to evaluate what respected editors are saying here. Also, I don't see a single policy-based Keep vote (bar possibly Exit2DOS' and even they suggested deleting 90% of the article), whereas a few good policy reasons were provided for deletion, mainly based on WP:V (or via WP:LC) - which is completely fair, because the majority of the article clearly is completely unsourced, unverifiable and/or original research. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this was a particularly bad closure - all I'm saying is that I believe that there was more consensus than you did, and I would've closed it as delete. Black Kite 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a portion of an article (even most of it) is unverifiable then that is a reason to remove the unverifiable content. It is not by itself a valid argument for deletion. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes, but AfD isn't a vote" Which is why there was no consensus. The only deletes were treating it like a vote, did not have legitimate reasons, and the opinions that were legitimate said that the page should be improved without having a valid reason for deletion. Poor quality is not a deletion criteria. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. Only the deletes had any comments that were backed by policy. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not based on deletes vs keeps, but based on surveying each suggestion. Suggestions to move, improve, merge, and the rest, are reasons to keep and alter an article, and do not result in a delete. There was no consensus, and since the first resulted in an overwhelming keep, there is no justification to then delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Note that I "voted" earlier as well - This DRV doesn't look like it will come to a consensus anytime soon. Why not just start fresh? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think given the opinions here, a relisting at AFD (by which I mean the closer of this DRV should create a new AFD not just relist the old one) seems to be the most sensible option. Given the different opinions here, along with some strong opinions that the closure was incorrect, relist to let the community discuss the article again. Davewild (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 January 2009[edit]

Interdimensional hypothesis – Overturned and relisted. – lifebaka++ 16:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Interdimensional hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Read the article as it stood at the time of the discussion closure, paying particular attention to its references section, then read the discussion contributions, paying particular attention to the rationales of Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Itsmejudith, Hrafn, and Dbachmann, and how they actually applied or not. You may want to join me in reminding MBisanz at User talk:MBisanz#Slipping through the cracks that we administrators are not robots, and that the inevitable consequences of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (7th nomination) in the way that it was are not in any way reasons that administrators should ignore rationales and simply count votes. As the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion says, the rationales are there for us to apply in cases that an article changes in the middle of a discussion. Uncle G (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist The discussion had a consensus for deletion but many of those commenting for deletion said that the state of the article was in at the time was a major part of the problem and that if someone did some work to the article there might be a valid article here. The article was then completely rewritten with sources, after all other participants had commented. Given that the rewritten article bears no relation to the one originally being discussed and the comments of those arguing for deletion, the AFD should have been relisted (imo) to allow discussion based on the new version of the article to see if that addressed the deletion concerns. Davewild (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist The nomination itself was contrary to policy, saying that "the topic is moderately notable" and this was apparently proven by the rewriting. Deletion is for unsourceable. It was proven to be sourceable, by being rewritten and sourced, which is more than what policy requires.John Z (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Donkpedia – deletion endorsed – lifebaka++ 16:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Last year, the page Donkpedia was deleted, because their was no source for it to be the biggest poker lexicon in the world. A while ago the german poker portal Pokerolymp published an article, quoting the creator of Donkpedia, who said "Nun gibt es Donkpedia seit einem Jahr und mittlerweile sind wir zum größten Pokerlexikon der Welt aufgestiegen" ("Now that Donkpedia is one year old, we rised to become the world's biggest poker lexicon").

Since Pokerolymp is probably the most important and reputated German-language poker portal, I think that's is a reliable source.
Nintendere 12:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment To address your specific point quoting the creator doesn't become a reliable source independent of the site, since it's a direct quote it still could amount to little more than bragging with no basis in reality... However I douibt it was deleted because there "was no source for it to be the biggest poker lexicon", but because there were no reliable sources on it at all, to be notable doesn't require it to be the biggest. So regardless of if that is a reasonable source to the claim it is the biggest shouldn't be a bar to getting this restored, what you need is non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, it's a direct quotation and carries no more weight than me saying I'm Ireland's foremost expert on company law. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Please read WP:RS. you are looking for multiple, non-trivial secondary sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mixing up verifiability and the general notability guideline. If there is one reliable reference that confirms it's indeed the biggest poker lexicon there is no longer a notability issue that would require multiple sources to establish it. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." - My experience suggests "sources" is truly read as plural and usually/often >2 - Signficant would imply more than just saying "it's the biggest" - "independent of the subject" regardless of the the underlying sources, direct quotes aren't independant... --81.104.39.44 (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. There is no point having an article where the content is unverified and unverifiable and that would be a valid deletion reason. Also, the notability has to be recorded by secondary sources somewhere otherwise its just OR that its the biggest whatever. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted And a source from Donald Trump saying he had a "fashionable hairstyle" would be enough to put that in his article... The newfound press on this source isn't enough since it isn't a reliable source. Themfromspace (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 January 2009[edit]

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis – Page restored. The general sentiment below is that WP:DENY is being misapplied in deleting this page (and not explicitly mentioned in the MfD that actually caused its deletion). I feel it must be noted, however, that if this page is merely meant to be used as possible leverage against Jarlaxle, it is not acceptable and should be deleted once again. Another MfD would be best to determine the exact status of the page. – lifebaka++ 16:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other Relevant MfDs: User:Grawp

LTA subpages are often deleted if the user is not active. Grawp, however, is still active and there's no reason to think he'll stop (in fact, there have been discussions on the mailing list about how to get rid of him). This page should thus be undeleted until such time as the Grawp attacks actually stop. Not only that, but since this vandal doesn't like having his personally-identifiable information posted, resurrecting this page will give us some much-needed leverage over him. *** Crotalus *** 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, no valid reason given for deletion. Note: WP:DENY is explicitly not a deletion criterion. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. I said it before and I'll say it again: WP:DENY is useless against Jarlaxle and will remain so so long as his flock keeps following his orders. As far as I'm concerned, if he outs others (as he did to me last night thru his wethers) he deserves to have his own PID available. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone on Wikipedia knows Grawp's modus operandi - if the sole purpose of keeping this page is to document it, it's no more useful than the page on Willy on Wheels. (That's keep deleted on wheels!) --B (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose of this page is to discuss Grawp's real name and background, and give us leverage over him so that, if he demands it be removed (we know he doesn't like having it posted) we can first demand he stop vandalizing and harassing people. *** Crotalus *** 15:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~overturn & list at MFD~~ Consensus can change but since rthis has been through MFD before and was kept, thisw should not be deleted without a discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted after a discussion, that's the thing. WP:DENY was the reason the closing administrator cited. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was? The MFD linked to above was keep and I can't see the reference to the discussion in the log. Would you mind pointing me in the correct direction? Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the discussion was at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grawp. The page was deleted based on the result of that discussion (Delete per damnatio memoriae). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, damnatio memoriae was a call to to effectively remove any reference to having ever existed. WP:DENY makes no such request (even if it did you wouldn't get the developers to delete all the move logs anyway), indeed the nomination suggested "Gosh, we can live with just one concise long-term abuse report" and many supported that view, hardly an erasing of all memories (That actually reference Wikipedia:LTA#Grawp an LTA report on Grawp which still exists again not an erasing of all memory). I note your comment in the MFD, "We need to strike a balance between WP:DENY and keeping people informed;", which is oddly similar to what WP:DENY says itself and has done for a long time "Information on vandalism should be critically appraised for its genuine value, and if that value outweighs any detriment from the publicity of that vandal/vandalism." --81.104.39.44 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had been there at the time, you would have realized that WP:DENY was being horribly misapplied, effectively warping it into damnatio memoriae. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 18:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know what? Its really hard to review a deletion if half the information is kept away from the deletion review. The actual discussion did not reference this page but the consensus was clear and its obvious that this does fall under that decision so changing to endorse but I really wish Krimpet had referenced the MFD in her deletion summary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what's wrong with Wikipedia:LTA#Grawp can't that information be enhance if it's deficient, is there a specific need for this older subpage? --81.104.39.44 (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The older subpage describes his history and says who he really is. *** Crotalus *** 15:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore DENY is being misapplied. The only real threat that this page poses is that it will leave editors and administrators with the misaprehension that Grawp is one human and not a meme. Protonk (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added the Grawp MfD up top. Note that this is not an attempt to add "Grawp"'s userpage or its sockpuppet categories to the deletion review; it is merely there because the page was deleted due to that discussion, not the LTA:JA MfD. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per nom.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Worcestershire arms.jpg – Undeleted, usage removed and tagged for deletion. – BJ^Talk 03:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

It was the perfect image for representing the county of Worcestershire, UK. There wasn't an alternative; I checked all the rights and entered all the right information. It had two pages using the image, which now obviously look terrible due to the deletion. I was intending to use the image in more templates, stubs etc, for the benefit of anyone else who wanted to expand upon the presence of information on wikipedia about Worcestershire. The reason for deletion was G6 (non-controversial), well I think that's an inapropriate reason. I was about to start improving the presentation of all English counties in wikipedia but with this trend, I'll have no chance. RatnimSnave (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ overturn as clearly not non-controversial. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not speedy, actually. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's explanation is somewhat misleading. This non-free image wasn't being used on any articles, and xe hadn't added it to any articles. Nor did its fair-use rationale list any articles. This non-free image was being used on userboxes. The "two pages using the image" are Template:User Worcestershire and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/European Union, neither of which are articles. There is zero evidence, from either the nominator's edits to relevant articles (of which there are none) or the fair-use justificiation that was provided in the image, that the nominator was actually going to do anything at all with "the presentation of all English counties in wikipedia", and that this non-free image was going to be used anywhere in the only namespace where non-free images are permitted, and a fair body of evidence that the nominator was simply adding non-free images to userboxes in contravention of our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions]. The deleting administrator's deletion is squarely in line with our policy, given that, although the proper 7-day waiting procedure for non-free content not used in any articles was not followed. Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, but couldn't a very good case be made to use the image in Worcestershire, regardless of previous uses before deletion? Because, if so, it seems to me we should restore it, but a fair-use claim on it for that article, and leave other things to editorial processes. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 18:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to restoration in that case. I deleted it while removing non-free images from templates, and the image was only used in two userboxes. BJ^Talk 21:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional overturn for use in article space only. If this is a non-free logo as indicated it cannot be used in Userspace at all and certainly not in templates or userboxes designed for userspace. The deletion was a correct application of WP:USER which explicitly allows for deletion in this situation. But if there are articles that could benefit from the image, then it should be undeleted for use in them. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 January 2009[edit]

Christ Carrying the Cross (Leonardo da Vinci) – pointless. Deletion review is for when you want something done, not just something said. – Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 19:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Endorse

Explanation I did not know this discussion was taking place until today, which happens to be the 16th of January, in the Land of Oz. Since I was the person who discussed the pic in detail, and added it to the list of Leonardo's works, I am ignoring the fact that the discussion is closed, because my statement on this is of considerable relevance.

(Clarification: the work that was under discussion is not the drawing of a head of Christ. It is a painting, with Jesus in a similar position to that which he has in two of Maineri's paintings, and which also includes tormentors that are not present in the Maineri works.)

I included the work in the list of Leonardo's works, at a time when the list was still part of the Leonardo da Vinci article. I included it reluctantly and under pressure from the editor who created the now-deleted article. My reluctance was due to the fact that I didn't think that any serious art historian could possibly believe it was Leonardo. However, I was under the impression that Pedretti, who is a renowned expert, had in fact said that it was probably by Leonardo. My personal opinion was that poor Pedretti was going ga-ga. This is not the impression that I now have, from reading that Forbes article, which previously, I haven't been able to fully access.

I succeeded in persuading the writer of the wikipedia article to upload a better picture of the painting than those available on the net. Some well-meaning editor blanky-well blanked the picture before I managed to get a really good look at it, because the data about the source was incomplete (or some such). Since then, no decent pic has been available.

Unless there is a positive indication that Pedretti really did say that it was by Leonardo, then it should be deleted, from the list as well. If Pedretti really says it's a Leonardo, then it ought to be included, but if possible, with any conflicting opinion that might be available from any other historian. The personal opinions of wiki-editors don't carry weight here, unless they have been indepently published.

My unpublished opinion is that this is definitely not a Leonardo. Moreover, I don't think it is up to the standard of Maineri either, unless it is a very immature work. Amandajm (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify which page or image this discussion is about? The page referred to above doesn't seem to exist. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Response I was unable to ascertained who it was that actually did the deletion. It was possibly Ham. I am the major writer of the Leonardo da Vinci page. I agree entirely with the deletion. Amandajm (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  The article was in fact deleted by Juliancolton, which can be ascertained from the deletion log. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not sure what the common practice is for attribution of paintings when there are different recommendations by different scholars. In the Forbes article (12.22.03, most likely 22 December 2003) Pedretti says the painting is either by Leonardo or one of his assistents, not really a positive attribution, but it cannot be discounted entirely. In 1978 the same painting was attributed to someone else, but that has it's downside too since it was very long ago and then there's this listing. The people in AFD seemed to think that an attribution by one notable scholar wasn't enough and some erronously thought that the uncertainty inherent in attribution makes it non-notable by default. We need to seek out the mainstream opinion of the scholars. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Misunderstanding. Mgm, you haven't really read or understood what is being said on the page Christ carrying the Cross that you have directed readers to look at. "Christ carrying the Cross" or "Christ on the road to Calvary" (which is also known by several other possible names) was not an uncommon subject for religious artworks. The work that you have directed us to has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It is a relief sculpture, not a painting!

Overturn Unreasonable decision. should have been either non-consensus or relisted for more opinions. The sources are stufficient for the article; the possible attribution is reason enough for this particular artist. DGG (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further coment I entirely support the deletion.

As I read the Forbes article, which I was previously unable to access, it seemed that Pedretti was paid or offered payment to give "an opinion" and seems to have been very hesitant about doing so. Older references to a possibly Leonardo "Christ carrying the cross" do not have anything to do with this painting. They refer to a drawing about which scholars are undecided. I do not know of any scholar who is prepared to say that this pic is by Leonardo. The only suggestion was Pedretti's tentative one. If Pedretti really thought that he had found a bona fide Leonardo of that size, he would be jumping for joy, and letting the whole world know about it. Believe me! Amandajm (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention of the opinion of "mainstream scholars". No mainstream scholar has taken this seriously. You won't find any conflicting opinion, simply because the attribution is not being taken seriously by anyone except the owner. For him, it's the difference between owning a pic worth thousands and a pic worth 500 million. The owner has promoted the painting as a Leonardo. Pedretti has not promoted the painting as a Leonardo, and it would certainly be in his best interest to do so, if he really thought it was genuine. If he thought it was really Leonardo, he would have published a learned paper on this amazing find.

Here's the Forbes article, showing the painting in question, with its owner. [22]
Here's one by de Mainieri.[23]
The Getty has a version by Leonardo's pupil Marco d'Oggiono. [24]
Here's a work by another of Leonardo's associates, Giampetrino, in the National Gallery, London. [25]
Here's an associated picture ascribed to Giorgione or Bellini.[26]
Here's the drawing which some scholars accept as Leonardo. [27]
Here's the Battle of Anghiari [28]

Why this is not a work by Leonardo

This painting is not as well painted as the versions known to be by de Maineri and d'Oggiono. It is most unlikely that the work of the renowned master could be less competent than that of two of his least-famous associates.
Leonardo's works are renowned for the subtlety of the grading of tone. This is apparent even in his earliest works. Sfumato is his famous technique. The tone here is crude. Compare with this early work [29]
Leonardo was a master of composition. The composition of this picture is as ordinary as it can possibly be. Compare St Jerome[30] and the painting [31] The composition has no depth. Everything looks as if it's crowded at the front, with no sense that one man actually stands behind the other. There is no foreshortening in the arms of the figures.
Leonardo was a master of light. In this picture, Jesus and the cross are lit from the left, while the faces of the tormentors are lit from the right. Compare with the Last Supper where all the light comes from the real window in the building where it was painted and the painting here [32]
Nearly all of the paintings attributed to Leonardo have landscape backgrounds like this [33] Three portraits and the St John have dark backgrounds so that the figures emerge from the darkness like this [34] No painting by Leonardo or attributed to Leonardo has a plain pale background like this [35]
Leonardo was an expert at anatomy. He dissected thirty corpses and did a great many drawing of the structure of arms and shoulders. See here [36] He could never never NEVER have drawn an arm and shoulder as badly as that on the upper tormentor. This has been very badly copied from Ruben's drawing,[37] and has been crammed in to avoid the top of the painting. The proportions have been changed so that the proximity of the elbow to the shoulder is ridiculous. See here [38]
Leonardo was an extraordinarily prolific and highly inventive designer of paintings, even though he didn't execute very many. The only time that he repeated a composition was the Virgin of the Rocks. He probably did this because he was under pressure from his clients. It is most unlikely that he would repeat part of the design of a large fresco in a small panel painting.
Leonardo was a student of human emotion. Why on earth would a person as skilled at drawing scary faces as Leonardo was, bother to repeat two ugly faces? Leonardo understood the facial expression of emotions. The emotion of tormenting a prisoner and the emotion of confronting possible death in a battle are not the same thing. Leonardo was not so stupid as to make that error.
Is the painting a forgery? Making a pastiche by copying the figure of Christ from a picture painted by several of Leonardo's followers and combining it with two figures based on a pic by Leonardo is exactly the sort of thing that a forger is likely to do. Someone sooner or later, will notice the similarity to the figures in the Battle of Anghiari, and be taken in.

NOTE Each of these statements concerning the painting "Christ carrying the Cross" constitutes either OR or POV (you can choose). These statements have not been published elswhere by me, and cannot be quoted or cited in the wikipedia articles. They have been put here so that other wikipedia editors might understand why it is that Leonardo experts are not bothering to comment on this work. All the experts on Leonardo already know the stuff that I have written here, and have simply dismissed the painting. That is why you won't find reputable art historians refuting the attribution. No one is taking it seriously.

In other words, I wouldn't bother getting too worried at the thought that something of real significance has been deleted. Amandajm (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question maybe I'm being dense, but what is actually being requested here? The lister has indicated several times that he thinks the deletion was fine, so what's the anticipated outcome? --81.104.39.44 (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being dense. But a couple of other posters here haven't been so sure about it. DGG suggests that the deletion should be overturned. Amandajm (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. DGG says (at the AfD) that we should report on a disputed image if there is "significant dispute about the attrribution." That standard is right, but it does not appear to be met here--there is one popular-press article about this painting, but does not seem to be any interest among art historians. The conclusions of the AfD are correct--this is a minor work surrounded by a minor dispute--and thus the AfD is quite valid. Chick Bowen 16:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

CoolHandNuke – Deletion Endorsed – Peripitus (Talk) 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe that the wrong Standard for Deletion was applied i.e. Notability was consistently given as the reason in conversation with editors/administrators; However in the delete log CSD#A7 is given as the reason. It is precisely this standard which I believe constitutes the reason why it should be restored. That said I am more than willing to revise the content to ensure that it reflects these requirements and successfully meets these standards. Great pain was taken to ensure that there was no bias, conflict of interest or "marketing" given; however, I do recognize that the work may need revision in order to allay these concerns as well as a comment made about link spamming or something of that nature by one of the moderators. I make no claims for complete understanding of grammar, etiquette or the intricacies of wikipedia posts, so any errors in these areas I apologize for and will take whatever corrective action/revisions necessary. The primary history is found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheMadFam It is my belief that if given the opportunity we can revise our article to meet the standard of 'important' or 'significant.' In fact, while not clearly stated as such I believe the basics for this are already in the article in reference to being the first web 2.0 site of this kind, versus the historical sites which have been more along the lines of web 1.0. I can only go so far in that we have patent pending technology & trade secrets that we must protect; but I will certainly go right up to the line on it. As an aside I am formally requesting that information pertaining to the minimum threshold or standard for 'notability' specified and given i.e. the number of links required, sources, and any other qualifying quantifiable measure. Thank you for your time and consideration.

–RE:Smashville pt 1. Respectfully, the site does exist as stated in article Alpha_release going to Beta Release on Monday January 19, 2009. It should be noted that gmail is currently a 'Beta' release. With respect to pt 2 please same reasons apply. It exists and will be seen in move to beta.

–RE:Cameron Scott. I give Mea Culpa for not indicating "why its subject is important or significant." The article as posted clearly has room for improvement in addressing these points as alluded to in my prior post. I would like it noted that the premise for deletion was given by Smashville as lacking in notability and the person before him/her for the same reason chiefly defined as a lack of links when googled. This I do not dispute. There is a lack of information out there, precisely why I felt a entry into wikipedia was warranted.

Now as far as external sources, chiefly defined as some kind of Award, AP story, etc.; not having been presented as reference s/he is correct. However, I cite the following: Internet guides. "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples."

It is my belief that is a current event, the movement of a field (job boards) from what is essentially a web 1.0 brochure site with a post and pray mantra to a true 2.0 experience where community is incorporated is an event and I suggest the following excerpt & quote from Wikipedia#History stated here "Jimmy Wales has described Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language" and furthermore in footnote 107 [39] that "If anything, we are *extremely* elitist but anti-credentialist."

We may not have clearly met the credentials that you are suggesting we need, but I submit that we do in totality. With regards to Smashville consistent reference to non-existence, I am willing to supply screen shots of the site if requested.

TheMadFam (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as deleting admin. For one thing, a page would have to actually exist for any sort of claim to notability to be made towards it. Even according to your article, the page doesn't even exist yet. --Smashville^talk 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Em.. CSD#A7 is about notability - An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the only source in the article was a facebook page? That cannot be used to establish notability and a CSD#A7 would be a perfectly valid reason to delete the article (with no prejudice again recreation if better sources could be presented). --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also considering it is nonexistent web content...--Smashville^talk 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can maybe answer that on behalf of the user, extensive discussions have taken place on my user talk page and on the article creator's talk page. -- role^player 10:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but it was Smashville who deleted the page, not you. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roleplayer is correct. If you check those pages you will see that there was prior discussion where I was directed here. Specifically you will see "If you have a problem with it, take it to Deletion Review. I have deleted it and will not undelete it. And call me by my correct username, please." This per Smashville. In their defense I misread their username and had posted to Smallville rather than Smashville. That said I do not believe this to be a courteous, "do not bite" response; but do not know that this is the proper forum to handle that portion of the conversation.TheMadFam (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. Endorse deletion as a valid invocation of CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best wishes.TheMadFam (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I nominated the page for speedy deletion in the first place, and I still stand by my decision. The page was about a website that hasn't gone live yet, and the only reference the user could offer to verify notability was facebook. -- role^player 10:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: I don't think you will find a clearer A7 and G11 example than this. – ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; with no references that meet our definition of reliable sources, and a site that isn't live yet, the article emphatically meets A7 and G11 as noted above. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse CSD:A7 even if Smashville could do with a remembering that while we don't bite the newcomers or developers - we do chew on (out?) admins. :-) Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jaafar Aksikas – Overturn and delete. As found here, the main main claim for meeting our notability guideline on academics as editor of a new open-access, online academic journal has been sufficiently discussed in the AfD and found to not (yet) meet the criterion #8. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfD closed as no consensus (default keep), but opinion counts may have been compromised by socks and SPAs, and I believe that the unaddressed challenges to arguments in "keep" !votes were not properly taken into account by the closing admin. Said admin concurs in listing the case at DRV. Proposing overturn. Hqb (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overturn to delete This is a good example where SPAs should be ignored/reduced in worth. Arguments for keeping were weak (at best). Ignoring the SPAs, delete is the clear outcome. Hobit (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse no consensus There were reasonable grounds for keeping the article. I myself had very substantial doubts about the notability of the work, but I do not think COI was the only basis for keeping the article. Thee is rarely reason to overturn a "no-consuensus" close. Rather, in a month or so, this should be relisted. DGG (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Two of the people who voted to keep linked to a page of Google results that only listed trivial mentions (which do not establish WP:GNG. Without those, the overwhelming majority is in favor of deletion. Also, the claim he is the editor of a journal was discounted because a journal with just two issues and no impact factor is not major and well-established as the guideline requires. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. All but one of the keep "votes" were from SPAs, which are usually discounted, and I do not see any reason why this should be any different. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete Bleugh, I can smell the socks from here! The closing admin made the wrong decision as the discussion from established editors was clearly balanced to delete the article, and the arguments from the single-purpose accounts were weak to non-existant. Only one voter argued to keep the article by successfully citing policy, while there were four arguments to delete per policy and one argument to delete (DGG's) that, while not citing policy, showed a clear understanding of it as well as a good attempt to refute the argument to keep. Themfromspace (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make a decision at all, actually. There were indeed socks and SPAs, but as some of them did provide somewhat reasonable grounds for keeping the article, it was impossible to determine consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is a discussion, and even SPAs are permitted to participate, because they may happen to present a good argument. The criterion for a good argument is based on policy, not actually citing policy. DGG (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. With that being said, AfD isn't a place to build an artificial consensus, which is why it's often best to treat the SPAs as a single user and take more consideration to the established users' ideas. Themfromspace (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete no showing that he meets WP:PROF, which policy is the consensus of WP editors rather than the SPAs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The SPAs presented no valid argument for keeping. If they had done that, I would have certainly reconsidered my comments and recommendation, and so would others.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Discussion review is not a repeat of the AfD. If the concern is that consensus was not reached by established users, why not start another AfD? I would like to see more discussion on why the subject doesn't meet WP:Prof when he is the founding editor of an academic journal from the Columbia College of Chigaco 1.
Endorse - factoring in quality of argument factors and discounting the "AFD regulars should get the say" attitude it's a pretty clear no consensus. Revisiting the discussion in a while may be sensible. Wily D 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Window Sticker Jetta.JPG – I will restore this and immediately list it at WP:IFD (which is the most appropriate place in my view given that there are multiple issues involved, not just free vs. unfree). I'll give further explanation there. – Chick Bowen 05:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was some misinterpretation of copyright laws regarding this image. This image was originally contained in the article Monroney sticker. First of all, it was deleted under Wikipedia:CSD#I9 which should not have been used given that it was a self made photo. But that's not the real issue here. This document is not subject to copyright as it is simply a collection of information. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service for a legal opinion. There is minimal prose contained within and what is in there is required per the Monroney law. Thus it is essentially in the public domain. If people do think that there is something problematic, please be specific in pointing it out. Analogue Kid (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore While giving the image a free license was obviously a misinterpretation, I still think this should have been fixed instead of deleted. (@ nom: making a photograph of copyrighted material doesn't transfer any permissions or right to give it your own copyright tag. It should have either been a fair use claim or if these are official government documents tagged as PD-gov or whatever that template is called. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was actually deleted after a PUI discussion here; it would seem that Garion96 chose the wrong reason from the deletion dropdown. I endorse the deletion, as the text and drawings go beyond the "collection of information" standard, but remain to be persuaded about the merits of a fair use claim on the image. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could try to claim fair use for this. The image contributes substantially to the article (much more so than a picture of the politician who wrote the law) and doubt we could come up with any "free" alternatives. Perhaps I will go that route.--Analogue Kid (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be the easiest solution. If you have a claim ready to go, I can restore it for you, or you can drop the claim here and I'll put it on after restoration, your choice. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. There is a Monroney sticker article, so if it is impossible to get a free photo (like movie posters, etc) then a fair use claim should be easy. But I dont see thats necessary. Who owns the copyright which has allegedly been violated? No demonstration that copyright even exists. On WP:Copyright it says that "Works produced by civilian and military employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment are public domain by statute in the United States" and much of the info on the sticker is from government (EPA) tests, so I reckon this is public domain and a copyright infringement has not been demonstrated. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Don't forget that this discussion is to ascertain whether the deletion process was correctly followed. It is not a rerun of the PUI. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well clearly the deletion process was not properly followed here. So it looks like it needs to be restored and then we can discuss whether it needs a fair use claim.--Analogue Kid (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jock Sanders – Deletion endorsed. While starting with a fresh draft based on reliable sources might help to focus on the problem, there is also no problem seen with userfying the version with all the statistical details. – Tikiwont (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No real discusson took place from college football project members. If so, we would have quickly pointed out that the subject in question has over 17,600 google hits which is at least an indicator of notability, and has some impressive statistics for only being a sophomore. There's a lot of press on this guy. Further, the deleting admin shows an unawareness of the topic that calls for a specialist to review. I'd like the AfD re-opened and asked for that here but the admin refused. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Clear consensus to delete in the AFD, google hits are not an indicator of notability, statistics are not an indicator of notability, presence or absence of the project members is not significant, and nothing in the nomination makes me believe that the answer should be anything other than delete. Nominator is advised to take the deleting admin's advice and try writing in their userspace an article written solely from the reliable sources that they believe exist. GRBerry 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Nothing has been adduced to suggest that the deletion process has not been followed. Please note that the deletion process does not include a requirement to notify WP:CFB of any deletion discussion that might concern it. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree !vote conscious would be to delete, but I think the closer ignored the wrong arguments. Being "all conference" is a reason to claim notability, whereas the claim that "not a pro" clearly isn't a reason to delete per WP:ATHLETE. Further, folks claimed that WP:N wasn't met, but [40] would seem to indicate there are plenty of news sources about him. Most may be "in passing" but that's a LOT of news sources and some spend a paragraph or so on him/his contributions to various games. While this isn't AFD2, the fact that WP:N can be met means that the arguments that "doesn't meet WP:N" should be somewhat discounted. All that said, delete wasn't an outrageous result by any means given that !votes that existed. Ah well, rant over. Hobit (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see anything wrong with the way the debate closed, but I'm not opposed to userfication of the article if you think he passes the general notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he passes GNG then we undelete this and restore but that requires multiple, independant non-trivial secondary sources. The nominator may wish to read WP:RS and see what he can come up with. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really fault the closer on xer interpretation of consensus on this issue, but it's been my experience that Paul is usually pretty good about bringing these articles up to standard. Would userfication be acceptable? lifebaka++ 19:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be okay with userfication to my workspace.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

უმაღლესი ლიგა – No action necessary. The article's creator, Delibashvili (talk · contribs) was editing the Georgian Wikipedia article, ka:უმაღლესი ლიგა, at the very time that xe created this article, and probably submitted this one edit here by mistake. There is no need for undeletion, transwikification, or anything else. The original editor has already contributed xyr content to the correct language Wikipedia, and had done so, expanding upon it greatly in comparison to what is here, before this review was even opened. – Uncle G (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article with text was deleted under CSD-A2; a similar article already exists at Georgian Wikipedia, except it only contains an infobox and no text. Temporary undelete so text can be transwikied to ka:wikiSynchronism (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it; you could just have asked, no need for a deletion review. Lectonar (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article about Georgian Premier League (football). This article is its English version: Umaglesi Liga. This can be deleted. (BTW, this exists as an article on the Georgian Wikipedia [41], not a template). --Folantin (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid invocation of CSD:A2 and the article exists at kawiki. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 January 2009[edit]

Template:Support – Endorsed. Unless a very strong reason surfaces to bring this templates back, it is highly unlikely they will be. – lifebaka++ 19:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wish to undelete {{support}}, {{oppose}}, and {{neutralvote}} as they are quite useful in places other than major voting places (which include WP:RFA). I know that I might start another controversy, but I feel that they are important vote templates that could be used elsewhere. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 03:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions of this issue include this TFD, this TFD, this abbreviated TFD, this other abbreviated TFD, this DRV, and most recently this DRV. If you're going to bring this issue up yet again, I really think you need to explain why consensus at those myriad discussions is wrong, or why it has changed, or why it should change. If you can provide such a reason (that wasn't addressed previously), then I think this DRV can continue; otherwise I'd suggest a speedy close would be appropriate. (Disclaimer: I closed the last DRV in September, linked above.) Chick Bowen 04:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A tick easily shows one's support or oppose. It doesn't show a vote; it's just a "placeholder" showing that the reason is "support", "oppose", or "neutral". Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you read the other discussions? In what way does your statement add anything newto the discussions there, has that belief not been put forward by participant's in the previous debates? If so (and it has) how does it address Chick's request "to explain why consensus at those myriad discussions is wrong", it is actually nothing more than disagreeing with the outcome, something DRV is specifically not for. Aside from that your comment seems to actually concede that is a vote, I'm not sure how "easily shows one's support or oppose." rather than the rationale behind that support or oppose is anything but a vote. I can see the only time that "easy" seeing support or oppose is useful is if you are merely tallying the numbers without considering the reasons (i.e. a vote) --81.104.39.44 (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If everyone adapted the practice of adding {{Support}} or {{Oppose}} before their comments, people won't mention it as a vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathCool10 (talk • contribs)
      - I'm struggling here how does that address the question "explain why consensus at those myriad discussions is wrong", a bald assertion that it's different to whast the consensus view said is no sort of explanation, it's merely an attempt to dictate that you are right and they are wrong. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and list on WP:DEEPER. There's a very strong previous consensus that these templates are not considered appropriate here, and nothing seems to have changed. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted under any name. There's a very strong previous consensus not to use such templates, and the nominator offers no evidence that this consensus has changed. I would note that the nominator's assertion that "a tick easily shows one's support or oppose" should be placed in the context that many people oppose these specifically because they hate the visual effect of inline images. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close/keep deleted Most other Wikimedia projects have no objection at all to these templates. There's a strong taboo against them here that I don't fully understand. But it seems extremely unlikely it will change in the foreseeable future. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion We use words to communicate not icons. Good grief, what's next SMS-text speech? Hey, I think I just had an idea for a new project! Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The templates are unnecessary. Instead, go to your monobook.js and add importScript('User:Ais523/votesymbols.js'); to it. That will automatically parse the !votes on pages like this to show the proper symbols. Saves everyone a lot of trouble. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The support/oppose/neutral figure doubles itself when someone does use the Support/Oppose/Neutral vote images. This is the annoying part of the script. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 00:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Why does the bot keep on saying I don't sign my posts? I sign my posts every time I reply.

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

Soggy biscuit – Closure endorsed. – lifebaka++ 19:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Most recent afd is here

I would like to request a full review of the most recent closure of the Soggy biscuit deletion discussion as I feel there was a strong consensus to delete the article. (This is not a vote, people.) JBsupreme (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you discuss this with the closing administrator? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say that it was a no consensus rather than a keep result, but that doesn't change things. I'd like to hear from Juliancolton on the closure and from the nominator as to why he didn't discuss first. As a side point, this is likely to be an NSFW subject. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. There was no consensus to delete. No consensus defaults to keep, so there is no operative distinction between the words used to close the deletion discussion. There were also some disturbing irregularities of editing during the discussion, where valid references to the term appear to have been removed on spurious grounds. --TS 10:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - numbers divided, policy firmly on the keep side, a sensible close. One might argue "no consensus", but that should be deprecated anyhow. Wily D 14:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing administrator, I disagree that there was a "strong consensus to delete", but rather a consensus to keep. If AfD was a vote, the discussion would have been closed as no consensus. However, as AfD is not a vote, I based my closure on the strength of the arguments. In particular, many of the delete "votes" did not provide a sufficient rationale to determine their reasoning. The keep "votes", on the other hand, set fourth evidence as to why the article should be kept, including reliable references and citations to relevant policies. In addition, a no consensus close defaults to a keep, so I'm not even sure why this is at DRV. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Per closing administrator's rationale. No consensus is a default keep, nothing to argue here.--J.Mundo (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per Juliancolton and others. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as either a keep or no consensus; there's definitely not an overbalance of delete comments - by numbers, there's 10 keeps, 11 deletes, and one transwiki; by argument, the keeps point out quite a lot of good evidence, as noted by Juliancolton, that there are enough reliable sources to affirm notability. I think the close was rational and proper. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as Keep. I argued to Keep in the AfD and I agree with the closing admin's rationale to keep and the endorse comments here. Even counting heads would result in a no consensus close which defaults to keep anyway. Note that one editor changed from Neutral to Keep [42] during the progress of the AfD based on added information. Further, note the comment made in the AfD by the nominator of this DRV: If this doesn't get deleted this time around I will GLADLY re-list it in a few weeks in order to gain consensus. [43] and [44]. — Becksguy (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Google OS – Restored history under redirect. – lifebaka++ 19:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

History undeletion. It is currently a redirect and will not likely be restored anytime soon, but it would be nice to see the old version of this article. If there was a Google platform article during the AfD it could very well have been redirected instead of deleted. ~ Paul^T+/_C 20:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few notes: the content at the time of the AfD was minimal--one sentence, basically. A longer (but highly speculative) article was later created in April 2006 and was deleted as, apparently, a G4 recreation, which it wasn't. Theoretically, it could be argued that that later article deserves its own AfD, but since it's three years old and everything it discusses has changed anyway (and was only rumor to begin with), I don't see the point. So history-only undeletion and leaving the redirect is probably reasonable, but I doubt this content is going to be welcome anywhere. Chick Bowen 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Livecare Support – Keep deleted as the lack of reliable sources hasn't been addressed. This does not depend on which other topics we have articles upon or not. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

rewritten Alfax (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I write to ask to consider the re-written article User:Alfax/Livecare Support. Talking with DS and MZMcBride I tried to explain my point of view. RHaworth told me to write this request.

The article was removed because it was badly written.

In Wikipedia the article Comparison of remote desktop software compares different products and technologies related on Remote Desktop services. Livecare Support is a product for Remote Desktop Software and I would like to put it in that list. I started modifying the article of a competitor; so it's basically the same structure, and the main reason of the article is to describe the differences from Livecare Support and the other softwares.

Please consider my point of view regarding the article:

Since Wikipedia is NOT a business directory we've to consider the article Comparison of remote desktop software.

If this article is published, I think that Livecare Support has to be published, to complete the list of the softwares.

If Livecare Support can't be published, I think it's better to remove Comparison of remote desktop software and all the products detail are reported.

If Livecare Support is NOT published, it will be punished, and I don't understand the reason. If the article is published it's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT because the Comparison of remote desktop software consider ALL the softwares and not one in particular.

My article is not written in "advertisement-like" style. I hope you consider it, as neutral as I tried to write it. If there is anything you want to modify, please let me know. Thanks. Alfax (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced from the proposed draft that the subject is at all notable. I'd prefer to see a few third-party sources written about Livecare Support before moving this back into the mainspace, at the very least. Also, I have added links for Livecare Support above. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The article still lacks any third-party reliable sources. On top of that, the nominator's statement "If Livecare Support can't be published, I think it's better to remove Comparison of remote desktop software and all the products detail are reported" raises a huge big red flag for me. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Alfax seems to be overlooking minor criteria such as third party reviews and market share. And I agree with Stifle about their attitude. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - The article was deleted because there is not enought reliable source material independent of Livecare Support to maintain an article on the topic. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL doesn't bring up enough info and the topic website[45] doesn't have an in-the-news section or some other section to indicate coverage by independent media sources. -- Suntag ☼ 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so many points and so much wrong with the listing, but a couple of points (1) there is no right for anyone or anything to have an article on wikipedia, we use various guides to determine if they are suitable for articles. Not having an article is not "being punished", no more than a newspaper publishing an article on something is punishing similar things which it doesn't publish articles on, again there is no divine right to have an article here or anywhere else. (2) If the notabiity/reliable sources issues were met the article as it stands still needs work, the style of writing isn't particularly encyclopedic, a lot of it is general comment and opinion which could relate to any remote desktop software, various opinions are vaguely stated as fact and unreferenced. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maatkit – Automatically restored as contested PROD; AFD listing is at individual editors' discretion. – Stifle (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Valuable software, has many users Windpaw (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Restore as contested PROD but list for AfD. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy restore per standard procedure for an article deleted via WP:PROD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 January 2009[edit]

Alfred C. Finn – article restored with thanks to tghe nom for finding them. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability and reliable sources are not a problem. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References The Handbook of Texas Online has an article on Alfred C. Finn, at FINN, ALFRED CHARLES. The Houston Public Library has a collection on Alfred C. Finn: An Inventory of his Records. These two references show how Alfred C. Finn has meet wikipedia's notability rules. This deleded article should be reinstated. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comment Also, the articles Simon Theatre, L. A. and Adelheid Machemehl House, and the Gulf Building (Houston) are notable. Finn was the central architect for each as these structures. His notability is clear. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Linked article and bibliography seem to establish notability and existence of third party sources. This was an A7 speedy. The article could easily be written so as to establish the context and importance of this person, if it didn't before. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - though the article did not really assert notability, he has an online bio and two books about him - clearly notable --Peripitus (Talk) 09:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first deletion review I have attempted. The admin has been notified. See, Deletion review for Alfred C. Finn. Bhaktivinode (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that you notified the admin of this deletion review. That was not the question. The question was why did you not ask him to reconsider the decision first, as that is suggested in two different places on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I messed up, my apologies. Also, if you would like to discuss the subject of this review, I will be open to any dialogue. Bhaktivinode (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Overturn deletion as speedy deletion was declined by an admin before the article was retagged by an IP and deleted by a different admin. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alfred C. Finn is also the architect of the Post Rice Lofts and the The San Jacinto Monument. Bhaktivinode (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would have been glad to personally review this instead of having it go to DRV if I had been contacted before. This is a deletion from August 08 so it has been a while since it was deleted. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for any trouble. After reviewing the Deletion Review policy, I see that I overlooked an important step by not contacting you first. This was my mistake, please accept my appologies. My intent is only to have the article on Alfred C. Finn reinstated. I appreciate your comments. Bhaktivinode (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, if you'd rather just bypass this and restore the article, feel free to do so and close (or let someone else close) this. If you disagree, however, I'm afraid that the review will stay open. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn--Sources seem to establish notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still open? Nothing else to say. Maybe needs another Overturn.John Z (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn reliable and verifiable sources are available, and claims of notability are there. Alansohn (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The New York Times article, CORRESPONDENT'S CHOICE; THINKING SMALL IN HOUSTON from May 22, 1983 states;

"The appeal of La Colombe d'Or is that guests are made to feel they are guests not at a hotel but at the home of an oil-rich uncle. The hotel is in fact the former mansion of Walter J. Fondren, a founder Humble Oil Company, forebearer of Exxon. Built in 1923, the 21-room house was designed by a Houston architect, Alfred C. Finn, who also designed the huge and historic old Rice Hotel downtown - now, alas, closed, rundown and awaiting redevelopment as condominiums. Both the old Rice and the Colombe d'Or are listed on the National Register of Historic Buildings." Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 January 2009[edit]

The Phantom Duker – Deletion endorsed, trolling of DRV condemned. – Stormie (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Informative Article Mountain Dew Man (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The article looks like a hoax and unless someone can prove this is actually true, it fails the verifiability policy.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of some citations from reliable sources that discuss this? Stifle (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse unless some WP:V and WP:RS sources showing notability appear. Verbal chat 12:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

South Jersey Paranormal Research – Deletion Endorsed. Consensus below is clear that the closing admin correctly interpreted the debate by giving less weight to canvassed single purpose accounts. – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON I would like to strenuously object to the criteria used to delete my group's page, South Jersey Paranormal Research. Those who voted for deletion sited that my group has no notoriety. We have repeatedly received national media attention, so I don't know how much more attention they would like to see. They don't make this clear in their "argument." Also, the voting was CLEARLY for a keep of the article, yet they deleted anyway, saying their vote meant more than those people who wanted to see the article remain. I don't understand how Wikipedia can have any credibility when the whim of one can do what he/she pleases. I am requesting the page be reinstated, as I don't feel a compelling argument was made for its deletion and the voting was for keeping the article. I felt like through the entire "discussion," that those voting for deletion just kept saying, "Not-uh." Very childish and the article was not hurting anyone, but more helping those who need our services, find us more easily. -- SusanSJPR (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you want us to undelete your article because it is used to promote your group? Man, how many policies, guidelines and essays can I come up with here? WP:COI, WP:SPAM being the obvious. WP:HARMLESS since "it isn't hurting anyone" is not a valid argument for retention. I would also add that AfD is not a vote, and the raw numbers don't matter, especially when numerous WP:SPA's with obvious conflicts of interest show up to "vote" for keep. Looking over the article as it stood when it was deleted, it consisted of two halves: the first half was basically an advertisement based on the groups own website, and the second was basically "look at us! We got reported in the media!" Even if this article were restored, I think it would need a considerable rewrite. Reso lute 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak overturn Wow, nasty AfD. I'd have !voted keep based on [46] being enough sources for me, but that's not the point here. Given all the multiple votes and other problems, it's a really hard call, but I'd have expected no consensus. I can see keep and delete as both vaguely plausible. As noted by Resolute the article needs a lot of love if this is overturned. Hobit (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn Of course one must agree with Resolute on the point that the article needs work. I would like to point out the dynamics of the vote as I see them:
1. First, the article was written in good faith. What is right behavior in Wikipedia is not intuitive. Rather than simply slapping around the editors who are clearly new to Wikipedia and deleting the article, it would have been more citizen-like to offer a little guidance.
2. The hearthstone of Wikipedia is the concept of articles created by citizen participation. It is not appropriate to assume that the new editors have a conflict of interest.
3. One of the editors who was most vocal about the new editor votes, ChildofMidnight, went right to a known anti-paranormal warrior who calls himself Science Appologist User talk:ScienceApologist#Is nothing sacred? to ask for his help in the deletion debate. We do not know how many others he solicited, but it his is a known tactic for defeating minority groups in Wikipedia. Any argument about special interest must address the determined actions of the skeptical editors.
4. The group which is the subject of the article is representative of a type of group which is fast becoming a dominant feature in our pop culture. According to Yahoo Site Explorer [47] the site has 406 external links.
I think the more correct action for veteran Wikipedia editors such as you is to reinstate the site with the provision that it is brought into line with Wikipedia standards, say in the next 90 day. Tom Butler (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)— Tom Butler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- While this might meet the definition of a SPA (editing in mainly one area), this is 500+ edits over 3+ years. We all have our own interests and his edits seem to be broad enough to not be an SPA. Hobit (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn--Consensus for deletion was not reach between established users (not all keep !votes were from new and unregistered users). --J.Mundo (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I've tried, but I can't come to a deletion outcome without discounting votes by established editors. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion. As I explained to two users at my talk page, there were ten people suggesting deleting the article, and of the eleven people suggesting keeping it, four were new or single-purpose accounts (SusanSJPR, Tom Butler, JennaBugg, and Twostars n saturn), and four were weak keeps. As such, my feeling is that the consensus of established users was that the article should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you weigh the claims that in-depth reliable sources didn't exist against the assertions by WilyD that they did, together with the source citations that were given in the article? Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion This was fairly straightforward - notability requirements have not been met. The new accounts were correctly discounted, and although their arguments for keep were quite lengthy they were not rooted in WP policy or practice. Members of the SJPR that have recently joined can work together on fixing the problems in their userspace and then ask for it to be reviewed, but none of the references presented so far have been compelling. Verbal chat 10:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Wow, what a nasty AFD! We cannot go around deciding who is and is not allowed to vote. If there is a suspicion of voting more then once, then start a SSP and CU. Editors do not need to point out how many articles a user has edited or what topic they generally work on. Looking at the AFD, there was never a consensus to delete the article and it seems other editors used strong arm tactics to ram the deletion through. Plus, the AFD should have been kept open for a week for others to come and vote. Brothejr (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was kept open for 2 5-day periods as is standard. I certainly don't see a problem there. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pointing out single-purpose-accounts is a practice of long-standing at AFD, because the abuse of single-purpose accounts is a practice of long-standing at AFD, too. The closing administrator has discretion as to what weight to apply to such discussion contributions.
  And AFD is not a vote. It is not about the votes. Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: there seems to have been a number of WP:SPA closely tied to the topic !voting for a keep (including the review nominator). I do not think it is in wikipedia's interest to pander to such campaigning. It will only encourage other interest-groups to vote-stack for their particular cause. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: COI anyone? Editors admits it was an advertisment "helping those who need our services, find us more easily". Can I write about my business too? Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not clear what this argument has to do with the DRV. It seems like an AfD argument (and one I would disagree with as I don't think someone wanting an article on their group means that article should be removed). Hobit (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn to no-consensus- Yikes, that AFD got really nasty, I don't envy the closing admin. That said, I think that the fact that there were (as far as I could tell anyway) reliable sources pushes it from an obvious delete to a no-consensus. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There is no reasons for us to maintain this soapbox on the part of a person who is in the organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I concur with Stifle's analysis of the debate, with the debatable exception of Tom Butler; a difference of a single editor one way or the other I do not think would change the outcome. The new accounts had their say and participated in the debate, but were ultimately unconvincing. There is nothing wrong with recreating this article if they do receive significant in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Disclosure: I expressed my opinion at this debate. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion, good close. A bunch of SPA's screaming notability doesn't establish notability, and just drags out the drama.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I see several editors noting it was a particularly nasty AfD, I just wanted to note that Drmies and I are friends, so he was just giving me a hard time when he referred to my psychological condition and calling me out for joking a bit in calling the group's work vital. As far as noting SPAs and such, I've seen a notation added regarding this in other debates so I thought it was appropriate to point out when a !vote is an editor's only contribution. I take it using the template designed for that purpose is okay, but commenting isn't? In regards to the deletion, I thought a no consensus would have been more appropriate as the arguments seemed to be reasonable and substantial in favor of keeping. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Afd is a discussion, not a vote. Where one "side" of the argument is demonstratably false, it should not be given additional weight. Bizarre. WilyD 18:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. The policy arguments were all for delete, so why is this bizarre and worth an overturn? Verbal chat 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Keep per WP:N" is a much stronger argument than "Delete per WP:IDONTLIKEIT". The latter is even countered "with equal weight" by "WP:ILIKEIT". WilyD 22:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apparently "Delete per WP:N since the sources all either suck or are non-existent" is now considered "Delete per WP:IDONTLIKEIT". ScienceApologist (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Arguments based on demonstratably wrong arguments shouldn't be given very much weight, no. Wily D 04:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Would you like to present the multiple WP:RS that demonstrate notability? Verbal chat 08:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        [48] list a number of them. A few are trivial mentions. Perhaps others should be discounted as local per WP:ORG, but RS aren't hard to find and were in the article at the time of deletion. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion AfD is a discussion, and the rational part of the discussion--the part not based on personal familiarity and support of the organization--was to delete. There was no evidence of importance presented, and the established editors here by and large agreed with that. Ir it should be relisted, or re-AfD'd after change to no consensus, it will be all the more soundly deleted now that attention has been called to it. for example, I often !vote to keep many organizations of note associated with parapsychology and the like; I didn't comment at this one, for I thought the claim to notability for a local society investigating the neighborhood haunted houses to be so patently ridiculous as to make my support for deletion unnecessary. DGG (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The nominator's statement, and indeed her username, says it all. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Skinwalker (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: Once again, we are presented with a deletion that was true to our core policies and guidelines. We don't allow Wikipedia to be driven by single purpose accounts, whose sole purpose is to spam Wikipedia with varying groups -- in this case, relating to paranormal. The Articles for Deletion discussion was just that, a discussion, and canvassing or vote stacking is strongly discouraged; it only discounts the votes and discussions that ensued from those individuals. So are single purpose accounts, as it gives the inclination that they are here only to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their otherwise non-notable group. Votes does not necessarily garner consensus, as a mention. seicer | talk | contribs 02:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...adding that the nominator of this Deletion Review is an obvious conflict of interest. seicer | talk | contribs 02:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Four editors who argued for keeping the article were new accounts. AfD is not a vote; editors have to present persuasive reasons in line with WP policy or consensus as to why the article should be kept or deleted. South Jersey Paranormal Research doesn't meet the WP standard, and the editors who argued for deletion presented a strong case for the deletion of the article. AdjustShift (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And we don't allow fringe advocates to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their groups. AdjustShift (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There is no policy that says "outside canvassing and a proliferation of SPA's shall be dealt with harshly -- we'll stick it to them by closing the discussion in the way they don't want." Yet, that outcome seems to occur all too often. I appreciate Stifle's providing an explanation of the assessment of the numbers. I disagree as to User:Tom Butler -- he has been here more than two years and is obviously strongly committed to paranormal views that I personally consider whacked-out, but that doesn't make him an SPA. If established users divide 10-8, there's no consensus either way. JamesMLane t c 11:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:SPA specifically states that accounts tagged as SPAs "may be heeded or not based upon your judgement and discretion", giving the closing admin full licence to ignore SPAs in closing an AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD is NOT a vote, as some here seem to think, and the numbers on each side are irrelevant, the closing editor is to decide based on the strength of the arguments, not which side has more quantity of support. An AFD could be 100 to 1 but still close in agreement with the one person if their argument has basis in wikipedia policy and the 100 giving empty arguments along the lines of ILIKEIT. Note that I'm not taking a side on this review, just pointing out that "but we had more votes" isn't a valid argument for overturning. One other comment - in the case of a review like this, particularly one based on notability, an admin might want to consider temporarily restoring the article. --Minderbinder (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've undeleted the page so that nonadmins can see the content before deletion. Note that while the template says that users may be bold if there is strong consensus for undeletion, there is not strong consensus in that direction here, and I urge users not to take this restoration as a blank check on editing the page. I have not protected the page and would like to not need to. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Most of the delete arguments are based on having zero sources which could possibly satisfy WP:N, which is disproved by the sources present on the page in its last version. Granted that quite a few of those sources are somewhat trivial mentions, but the first two are dedicated almost entirely to the organization itself and its actions, and are themselves of decent length. Therefore, delete arguments are weaker, though they still make the valid point that the sources appear to only be of local interest. Given this, a conclusion of delete seems slightly incorrect. I would like to see more discussion on whether or not the organization is merely of local interest and whether or not the inclusion is therefore giving it undue weight, but as there was no discussion about this on the AfD, we can't make conclusions here based on it. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn While there aren't a ton of sources, there are at least two that are non-trivial mentions, and one is from outside the local area (arizona). Definitely much room for improvement in the article, but it does meet WP:ORG. I do agree with the closing admin ignoring SPA's, but based on the merits of the situation I disagree with the closing. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - Between sjprmedia.html and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, there seems to be a likelihood of sufficient reliable source material for the topic to meet WP:N. In the AfD discussion, the participants discussed some of these references and did not seem to come to a consensus as to whether the reliable sources were sufficient to meet WP:N. A no consensus close seems a more reasonable close. I think what is getting everyone is the behavior. As for behavior, SPA editor JennaBugg posted in the AfD as her very first Wikipedia post, "They helped my family and my children and never asked for a single penny for their services."[49] Given that it was her first post to Wikipedia and she found her way to AfD, it seems highly likely that JennaBugg was notified of the AfD off Wikipedia and her emotions were tugged to support a friend in need, despite Wikipedia's deletion discussion standards. The other posts in the AfD seem to indicate that part of the AfD was tainted in violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing and attempts to !vote multiple times. However, I wouldn't call the AfD a nasty AfD. Behavior can be a basis for discounting !votes in the AfD. Even then, I still think that there was not a consensus about the reliable source material. For deletion review, behavior may come into play to determine a likelihood of whether the article will meet the content standards, e.g., Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, and Biographies of living persons. The cached article shows that the editors failed to use the available reliable sources. However, the deleted article wasn't so far off the content standards mark as to say poor behavior by the interested editors will keep it from meeting Wikipedia content standards. As for the AfD behavior, Jimbo anticipated inappropriate reactions by new editors where he wrote on 9 September 2008,
Some of them react in ways that we, as Wikipedians who favor reasoned discourse ... find inappropriate. Sure, and why not? [Their interests] are being unfairly attacked and they are hurt and angry and they have no idea what our rules are. That's not their fault.[50]
While the SPA acted in a way the affected the AfD, I don't think they acted in a way that would prevent the article from meeting Wikipedia content standards, particularly once they have more understanding of how Wikipedia works. Given the lack of consensus on whether there is sufficient reliable source material and that the article content itself is not the subject of inappropriate reactions, overturning to no consensus would seem a reasonable approach. -- Suntag ☼ 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it's about five years after the fact, Jimbo is hardly anticipating anything there. This sort of thing has been happening for a long time, and we have experience of dealing with it. Non-policy-based arguments are discounted, however many people try to stuff a non-existent ballot. And, conversely, a rationale that has a strong grounding in policy is given full consideration, whoever it was that made it, be it an editor without an account who has apparently never edited before or an editor with an account of many years' standing. (An editor who has never edited before but who grasps our policies and guidelines and the project's goals is an editor to be encouraged, indeed.) Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One measure of significance for us is how mature the organization's website is and how many links it has from other sites. Different services use different algorithms, but the data is meaningful when like organizations are compared. Using | Yahoo Site Explorer I see that SJPR is shown with 845 pages and 404 links. None of their members are a member of the AA-EVP, so we do not have a link to their group. Amongst 15 | AA-EVP member websites that are for a similar purpose, the highest is 101 pages and 731 links. The average is 60.1 pages and 139.7 links. By comparison, the AA-EVP website lists as 9,294 pages and 1,179 links.
In a time that real-time information, as compared to magazines, journals and books, is concentrated on the Internet, website size and popularity is a clear measure of the place the group has in the culture and SJPR clearly has a relatively important standing. Tom Butler (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be a measure of significance for you, but Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are not based upon fame, importance, significance, ephemeral traffic rankings, googlebombings, size, subjective judgements of "I think that it's notable.", or any other such criteria, all of which have been rejected as criteria, for good (and fairly obvious) reasons, again and again here for many years. Wikipedia's criteria for whether a subject warrants an article are Wikipedia:Notability, which I suggest that you familiarize yourself with. You were pointed to those criteria in the discussion, and you didn't address the issue of notability then, just as you continue not to address it now. Read what notability actually is, and address it. Your other arguments are irrelevant, and have been rightly discounted by the closing administrator in the AFD discussion, as they will once again be discounted here.
  Learn from the good example of WilyD who properly addressed the issue of notability with sources and made an argument that had a basis in our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion There are literally hundreds of such "ghost hunting" groups across the US who receive fleeting media mentions during slow news cycles, usually around Halloween when news outlets seek light program filler or "spooky" seasonal stories. What makes this group different? That the "Paranormal Examiner" (???) named them one of the Top Ten Best Paranormal Groups? That they don't make "inappropriate EVP" accessible to children? (Kids, we forbid you to listen to a ghost who uses profanity, so stick with the G-Rated spirits) In all seriousness, this fails WP:N utterly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As others said, this DRV is clearly motivated by a conflict of interest. The admin made the correct move at the AfD in discounting the single-purpose voters. Wikipedia shouldn't be manipulated in this fashion by spammers. Themfromspace (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Consensus at AfD was to keep based on the presence of reliable and verifiable source. Closing admin has offered no valid justification to ignore this consensus. Alansohn (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse reasonable for the closer to discount the SPAs and COIs - what's left is a clear consensus to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse even when the sources are reliable I don't really feel that they are sufificently detailed to allow a verifiable article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thomas D. Brock – Nothing worth undeleting. feel free to go ahead and create a new article – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable biologist [51] Apoc2400 (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the person is notable, but the article that got deleted didn't make it clear the guy was notable and it didn't include any sources either. Unless you intend to expand on it, it's not worth undeleting, and if you do want to expand it, starting from scratch is probably easier. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally deleted over a year and a half ago. The entire content of the deleted article is "Thomas D. Brock (sometimes known as Tom Brock) is the E.B. Fred Professor of Natural Sciences Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Who's Who in America).". As such, you're free to recreate an article that properly explains why Mr. Brock is notable. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there is not much worth salvaging in the deleted version then. I see now that User:Viriditas is planning to re-create the article, so I will hold off a bit. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not much worth salvaging, but the deleted article did clearly show notability. Neither a valid A7 (it explicitly makes a strong claim that invariably results in keep via WP:PROF - named chair (at a 1st rate university)), nor a valid A3 (not much content is not the same as no content.) John Z (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be closed then. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Charles Kennel – Clear consensus that this can be restored and the deleted version bore no relation to the original text that was challenged – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deleted on the basis of a G12. My opinion is that page was no longer copyvio at time of speedy deletion.

Here is the sequence of events : I tried to create this article. I used the text of a biographical notice of a NASA 1990s brochure "Mission to planet Earth" found at the library of my school. I acted in good faith, on the assumption that since it was a NASA document the text in it was PD. Unfortunately Caltech web site had used the very same text on its own biography of Professor Kennel (See http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/space50/program/speakers/KennelC.html). Therefore the bot detected a copyvio. Immediately a user Non-dropframe (talk) nominated the article for speedy deletion. When I detected the copyvio I modified the article and sourced it to with five references to remove the copyvio. The nominating user explained to me that removing the speedy tag was vandalism. So I finally found myself with an article which was no longer copyvio, but still with the speedy tag. Administrator OhNoitsJamie ^Talk speedy deleted the article on the basis of the tag, obviously without checking whether the tag was still justified or not. Despite three messages over three days the deleting Administrator has not answered to my messages or taken any action. Hektor (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy overturn. As the original text was from a US government source, it is public domain, and there is no problem with its use here. I'm also disappointed to see that Ohnoitsjamie has been active over the past few days and hasn't responded to Hektor's concerns. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to judge whether this should be overturned since I don't have access to the state of the article when it was deleted. However, please note that the admin may have chosen to delete the article to remove the copyvio from the edit history. In any case this should probably be allow recreation with non copyvio data. As a comment to User:Hektor, the recommended way to make an administrator think twice about CSD is attaching Template:Hangon under the main CSD notice. This is done using {{hangon}} and explaining you rational for keeping the article on the talk page. Generally, if the rational makes any sense but isn't instantly, completely convincing, the page will then move to Articles for Deletion where a more thorough discussion will take place. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can have a good idea of what it looked like by reading the cache. I had also of course put a {{hangon}} under the speedy delete notice (following the advice of the nominator, indeed) and a comment on the talk page (which has just been deleted today). This was not taken into account by the deleting Admin. Thanks for your advice. To be clear I don't ask for the (unwittingly) copyvio text to be restored, but that my final edit of the text to be restored. Hektor (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn it appears from the cache that the copyvio had been removed at the time of deletion, as such there appears to be no reason for deleting, however I would like to hear the deleting admins side to this. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn per Stifle. So an article about a notable person, actively edited in keeping with our policies, which was probably never a copyvio in the first place, as Caltech probably got the text from NASA, not vice versa, was deleted after any trace of "copyvio" was removed. This is a good argument that admins should be able to quietly reverse obvious (bot-caused) mistakes like this without a trace of wheelwarring suspicion. Things like this clutter up deletion review, our nice little nethermost dungeon of deletion.John Z (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 January 2009[edit]

Tenzin Tsering – Defer pending a decision on the whole set of related articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamding Tsering. – Eluchil404 (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reasons for deletion review:
1) admin decision: (delete) is used as precedent (see Talk:Tamding Tsering) to delete entire Tibetan national football team, a gross scope expansion of the original deletion review, and
2) I would like a second opinion on the closing admins decision, I interpret the discussion as a no-consensus and not delete Power.corrupts (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by review nominee. The Tamding Tsering page, and an entire class of other similar pages, are being prodded, as per a recent AfD: "Non-notable football player. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenzin Tsering".
I am at great unease with wiping out the entire Tibetan team from Wikipedia. I understand the debate mentioned above at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenzin Tsering, but

I challenge if this decision really should be given precedence. The decision above concerned a single player, would it really apply to every player on the Tibetan team. Aka, Give the devil your little finger, and he will take the hand. this is a gross scope expansion of the original deletion review.
Some of the earlier arguments concern difficulties of verification, because Tibetan football has a poor Google footprint. Verification is indeed a cornerstone, but Internet penetration in Tibet cannot be taken for granted.
I challenge if the result of the above debate really was delete, I sincerely believe it was no-consensus - I would like to take this further for an opinion of other admins.

* I would also appreciate a check of how many Chinese votes went into the deletion decision above. The Tibetan situation is politically very sensitive; formally Tibet would never be able to have a national team, as it may not qualify as a nation.. :Jmorrison230582 assures that the delete votes on the afd mostly came from British or Irish users - fair enough, I don't want to promote ghosts. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also belive in a level playing ground. I see tonnes and tonnes of pages on American football and baseball playes, European football players, and I see a page on Algeria national ice hockey team (initially thought to be a hoax) etc., etc... I'm not applying OTHERCRAP EXISTS, I'm merely calling for decent behaviour here.

This comment applies to the following pages (list may be incomplete):

Tenzin Tsering (original AfD)
Tamding Tsering
Tenzin Namgyal
Lobsang Wangyal
Tsering Wangchuk
Gonpo Dorjee
Kunchok Dorjee
Dawa Tsering (footballer)
Ngawang Tenzin
Passang Phuntsok
Dorjee Tsering
Nyima Gyalpo
Tenzin Dhargyal
Tsering Chonjor
Dorjee Wangchuk
Karma Yeshi
Tseten Namgyal
Lobsang Norbu
Sonam Rinchen (footballer)
Tenzin Tshepel

Power.corrupts (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of the AFD suggests to me that the closer got this right. There was no consensus that the player met "Athlete" and no reliable sources were presented to support inclusion under N. Therefore delete is the correct result - especially as there was canvassing on the keep side. Whether this displays systemic bias I don't know but I suspect that one solution would be to create a properly sourced NPOV central article and redirect all these players there. Therefore endorse the close of the individual player. The deletion of the rest of the team is more problematic as they might be independently notable but in the absence of reliable sources being presented I see this as an acceptable outcome if not the one I would personally have chosen. A group AFD might have been a better choice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC). Struckthrough that last bit, My error for accepting the statement that the rest of the team had also been deleted without checking. You had not posted the list of names when I read the DRV nomination. The remaining players have been prodded. That is an acceptable compromise between outright deletion and an AFD. Any user can remove the tags and then the article has to go to AFD if it is to be deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (disclosure:I voted delete in the AfD) - the admin had got the consensus spot-on in my view; the arguments for keeping the article did not address policy, and AfD is not a vote. With regard to the rest of the articles, I think that a new AfD for all would simply be gaming the system in an attempt to keep articles which are basically the same as Tenzin Tsering. There are some exceptions, however, which look to have been de-PRODded, and should probably have a debate of their own. – Toon ^(talk) 22:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse After reviewing I would rate the consensus as delete boardering on no-consensus. While personally I prefer caution in the circumstances and would have probably closed it as non-consensus, the closing admin was within his discretion to close it as delete and as such I see no reason to overturn. As for the rest of the team being deleted/PRODed, I feel that with the controversy this particular AfD has aroused it would be best if they all go through AfD since it is unlikely that they will be controversial (that however has no relevance here and I threw it in as a side note.) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure of Tenzin Tsering AFD, seems a perfectly reasonable handling of the issue, since it definitely seems he does not pass Wikipedia's notability standards. I would recommend that all players who have no claim of notability other than playing for the Tibetan team (I understand from JMorrison's comment at Talk:Tamding Tsering that some do) be redirected to Tibet national football team - it would probably be nice to add their club affiliations to the team list on that page. --Stormie (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--I have de-proded the rest of the articles. I need time to look for sources to establish notability or merge the information about the player into Tibet national football team. Searching for sources for Tsering Dhundup, I found out that he is a notable activist that has been arrested and deported to China. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure of the AFD, and note that discussion of the prodding of the other articles is not in scope here at DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. It was proven that this player failed every single guideline which could be applied, such as WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE and WP:V, and the decision to delete was definitely the correct one. The only arguments given to keep this article was that as a Tibetan footballer playing abroad, it somehow made him an automatically notable political activist - if he were a notable political activist, there would be some sort of non-trival hits about his work in this field but none could be found. Bettia (rawr!) 09:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The idea that Tibet is not a recognized state is a Chinese POV and not supported by the different maps I checked. Also, according to our own article, China says it's an autonomous region (that is a contradiction, if a region is autonomous it governs itself). The fact remains there is a significant amount of people who do believe it's a state and thus a national team exists. The FIFA just doesn't recognize it because of the politics involved to avoid a row with China. Furthermore, the article listed several sources that were never debunked as invalid and the lack of internet penetration in Tibet means that there should be a focus on finding paper sources before dismissing the content as unverifiable. (If anyone is wondering, I'm not Tibetan, I'm from the Netherlands) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, MGM, which governments ctually recognises the government of Tibet? Would it be original research for us to accept this as a valid nation team if FIFA doesn't? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: Significant new information has come to light. One of the arguments for deletion was that the Tibet National Team was not sanctioned by FIFA. But this organization's decisions are heavily influenced by politics, 1, 2,3, 4: "The national teams of Tibet, Northern Cyprus and Gibraltar have seen their progress hampered by larger countries with a political interest in the territories." --J.Mundo (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that not then make us the publisher of original thought in this regard rather then the reporter of accepted wisdom. That approach has uncomfortable aspects of soapboxing, promoting fringe views and OR in it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; it doesn't matter why FIFA doesn't recognise Tibet, we don't opine on such matters, or cast judgement. Were this player in a fully professional league, whether FIFA-affiliated or not, he'd be notable enough. – Toon ^(talk) 17:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion but the deletion of Tenzin Tsering should not be used as a reason for the deletion of other Tibetan players' articles. If those are to be deleted, they should be judged on their own merits (or lack of, as the case may be). – Pee Jay 15:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - article failed all relevant WP policies. The PRODs are outside of the scope of this DRV, but I did remove one after adding sourcing which showed one of the players passes WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the article simply fails any policy. There is not a single source on the page or elsewhere which gives Tsering "significant coverage", in fact barely any coverage at all. Many are not independent and his mention is merely trivial at best in any of the sources, so he easily fails WP:N or WP:BIO. Secondly, not one of the sources actually states that he has played for the Tibetan team, so he fails WP:ATHLETE. Peanut4 (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion As the editor who started the AfD debate I fully support the closure in no way did the article meet any criteria for addition to wiki. I don't think any editor is using this deletion as a precedent as each article must be judged on its own merits. BigDunc^Talk 10:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per above and discussions on other pages. Govvy (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. To delete all Tibetan football players simply on the basis that some countries don't recognise Tibet as a nation, seems to be getting into political issues that Wikipedia shouldn't be meddling in. To maintain NPOV article must be retained. Nfitz (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. Move to delete on the part of the nom does seem to reflect the consensus in the discussion, particularly when policy weighting is considered; whatever the status of this Tibetan team, the player in question lacks sufficient verifiable sources for an article. The issue of precedent isn't relevant to Deletion Review; if some (or all) of the other articles mentioned can pass verifiability and notability on their own, then the PROD's can be contested as appropriate. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FTenzin_Tsering_and_WP:ATHLETE. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Does it have anything to do with this DRV? Jogurney (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you tell me. The fact that a user was asking to "head over to the AfD for this Tibetan footballer to try and find consensus" because is "mainly politically motivated at the minute" doesn't sound fair to me. I'm not questioning the good faith of the members from WT:FOOTY, I'm concern that a general consensus was not reach. --J.Mundo (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did observe keep-vote-stacking efforts from certain users (and I don't believe the particular post you linked to was a vote-stacking effort). However, that has nothing to do with whether the closing admin properly recorded the consensus. There is really no question that the closing admin did act properly, and I haven't seen any argument here which would make me believe otherwise. Most of the overturn votes are shades of WP:ILIKEIT, and the few that are not suggest that we ignore WP:BIO and WP:V because of political considerations. Jogurney (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps withdraw. A similar discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamding Tsering, the topic is identical, but the scope is broader, and that discussion is more developed. Not to waste people's time here, I could be inclined to withdraw and let the other discussion run to its conclusion. This is my first request for DRV and I'm unsure what action would be appropriate here. I would be happy to leave it to the discretion of an admin. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Theatres in the United States – Endorsed. Can be relisted at any time by any editor. – Chick Bowen 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is about the result of a redirect discussion, not a deletion. However the closing admin, User:Kbdank71 referred me here. This is about 2008 December 27#Category:Theatres in the United States - the closing admin, Kbdank71, said that there was no consensus and did not provide a closing statement. This discussion was about a move of "Category:Theatres in the United States to Category:Theaters in the United States" to comply with WP:ENGVAR and related guidelines. This is so the category would reflect the most common spelling in the United States, as that is what the guidelines call for. User:Kbdank71 said there was no consensus. The discussion had 6 people (including myself) in favor of the move. 4 said oppose - But for one of them:

"Oppose – it's not tagged; and the cfd in Sept 2008 by the same nom is fairly recent and looks more like an oppose than a support. Occuli (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)", only specified how it was nominated and that it "looks more like an oppose". The nomination issues were fixed, and the editor never cited any particular reasons for actually opposing it, so it does not count. That's right, it should not be taken into consideration at all.

His response was

"Well, if you wish to nominate the whole US tree, it all needs to be tagged and listed. (It is perfectly in order to cite previous cfds, particularly if recent, without needing to repeat the oppose arguments."

And mine was

"In this case you have to clarify them because the reasons varied in the nomination depending on who opposed. Some were conditional on the way the categories were tagged. Other reasons were proven to be invalid (see the outcome of the Johnbod oppose statement below) via discussion, so new reasons have to be created. Please specify any additional specific reasons..."

- he never cited anything specific. There were many reasons cited in a previous renaming proposal, and some had to do with how the discussion was filed, so in order for Occuli's "Oppose" to be justified he needed to cite a specific grievance, or else the "because of the previous one" makes no sense whatsoever. So this would make it 6 favor and 3 oppose. On Kbdank's talk page at Category:Theatres in the United States I discussed the matter - the closing admin referred me to DRV and said that the discussion barely resulted in no consensus and that in school 66% was failing in school. However I say there was consensus. The reasons include: Wikipedia:Consensus is mainly about how to interpret existing guidelines and policies. The relevant policies (WP:ENGVAR and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)) clearly support the move with documentation and sources; ENGVAR says to use the most common English spelling variant of a particular country, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) states that "theater" is the most common. As indicated in the previous discussion through various U.S. universities and the Oxford English Dictionary website, theater is the preferred/primary spelling in the United States. The opposing side did not provide links to reliable, academic sources - no URLS, no page numbers of certain editions - that opposed the sources the pro side and the policies provided. Consensus also has to do with who is "right" in the discussion or which side has support from reliable sources and policies. If I need to paste the links to the academic sources I gathered which support the move, please ask and I will lay them out. -- WhisperToMe (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus as closer. There was enough opposition to the rename for there to be consensus. No problem with relisting if that is desired. --Kbdank71 21:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. I was in favour of renaming in the discussion, but I see no error here by the closing admin. In cases like this where there is extensive discussion and good points made by all sides, identifying a consensus (or lack of one) will always be somewhat of a judgment call. Simply disagreeing with the closer's decision when the decision is a reasonable one is not a good reason to overturn. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:DRV#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.94_challenging_deletion_debates says "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly" - This is my point, Factory. So it is perfectly justifiable to disagree with the closer's decision and use DRV. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You missed the "when the decision is a reasonable one" part of my statement. I don't believe he could have "interpreted it incorrectly" if one accepts that it was a reasonable decision. I do; ergo, I endorse the decision. You disagree with that, but I'm not arguing the DRV has been improperly brought. (P.S. Don't call me "Factory". :) ) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I interpreted "when the decision is a reasonable one" as being when a decision would be indisputably the correct one - or something that that. Anyway, the reason why I disagree with that view is partly because there was no clarification in terms of policies and sources that I cited. As I stated before, it would be helpful to state why the decision was the best. The discussion was centered around sourcing and usage of guidelines so it would help to explain why the decision is best when considering the sourcing and usage of guidelines. BTW, do you mind if I call you "Good Ol’factory"? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my view the discussion was mainly focused on a statement (The preferred U.S. spelling is "theater," so the categories should reflect this as per Wikipedia guidelines) and proving it true or false; there isn't that much room subjectivity. I extensively researched the issue and found sources that overwhelmingly prefer the -ter spelling (except in cases of some names) - So the points depend on the sources used by each side. I had the expectation that the sources on one side and the lack of sources on the other would be taken into account in the decision, not simply the fact that there was a number of people who said oppose. How about this idea? I will ask one of the people who indicated an oppose if he could scan the relevant page from the British OED; IMO this is possibly the one good point that the opposing side has. On the same token I'll look in the American OED. This way when it is time to relist there will be a definitive outcome. I asked him here so I could get a look at it. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse non-consensus closure, as there was indeed no consensus. It can, of course, be relisted. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - there was no consensus that I can perceive. (And I was and remain 'opposed' and irritated again by WhisperToMe's remorseless repetitive badgering.) Occuli (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Occuli, this "badgering" is something that is justifiable and good. Why did I act aggressively on the talk page? It is because "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. " - Wikipedia:Consensus. I asked you to provide a rationale, and you didn't choose one aside from the 'nominate the whole tree' (easily fixed) and 'I reference the previous discussion' (when the whole previous debate was all over the map). I feel that this change is clearly supported by guidelines and academic sources. I vehemently opposed the "Oppose" side because I felt that "Support" is clearly established. Therefore opposing side needs to debate and debate and to answer requests and questions. Wikipedia:What is consensus?, an essay, says "Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way." - This is why I asked for rationale. Occuli, if asking you to support your claims, explain your claims, and answer my claims is "badgering" then please expect that throughout Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, let me rewind - let me sort this out. By "badgering" are you referring to the concept of "beating a dead horse"? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Ceaseless questioning' would do quite well. Occuli (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'll reply about this particular point on your talk page, Occuli, this discussion is about the category rename, so let's please focus on that. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Must you?' and 'good idea', respectively. Occuli (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - There was no consensus. In the U.S., theater is a more common spelling and theatre (pronounced "thee tree" by those of us who don't know any better) is used when they want to charge more for the same service. There you can pay more for their Beefeatre Gin drinks in glasses cleaned with dishwatre and be warmed by their heatre. -- Suntag ☼ 18:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to those voting "Endorse": Do you mind explaining exactly how there was no consensus? Please keep in mind the entire nominating post and supporting materials, then please write a reply explaining why there was consensus, and cite my own writings and related policies and posts about how consensus is determined. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn one side of the discussion cites sources and policy. The other side did not. I don't see how one can do anything but weigh the supported arguments more heavily. As this is a move, not a delete, I don't think the status quo needs the same degree of bias as in a deletion discussion. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

House clean – Overturned. Admins are reminded to check for history when deleting redirects. Both the redirect and the underlying content can be considered elsewhere. – Chick Bowen 19:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

House clean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) The page was not a redirect page. It was an article which I started. And the spelling was not a typo. It was to help it be found. Chuck (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC) The spelling was also because that is how I would spell it if I were looking for the article. I worked over a year on that article, so I think it should be kept. --Chuck (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. House cleaning is already a redirect to housecleaning and this particular title (house clean) fails naming conventions. I'd be happy to restore the history if a merge is warranted, but I didn't see much content for that; I'd be happy to dig up the reference info, though. How is housecleaning different from both house work and housekeeping? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a desperately unsatisfactory state of affairs, to be honest. Chuck Marean created an article at House clean. Seven minutes later, User:Non-dropframe (presumably on new page patrol) redirected it to house work, as it was more or less redundant to that article. Six hours or so after that, ZimZalaBim came across the page and tagged it for speedy deletion as an implausible typo, and an hour or two later Alexf deleted it.
The deletion under R3 was not correct, as (from WP:CSD), "Redirect pages that have useful page history should never be speedy deleted". However, having looked at the deleted article, it is clear that it is a how-to guide, which Wikipedia does not support. I don't think that the article could be improved to the extent that it would be retained; nor do I think that it contains information not included in existing articles.
As such, I think the article should remain deleted — although it should be noted that the process it went through was suboptimal. While everyone acted in good faith and, in isolation, correctly, ZimZalaBim and Alexf should both have looked at the history before tagging and deleting the article respectively. And finally, if Chuck Marean wants the content to use somewhere else, it should be sent to him. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, that doesn't tie up with the I've been working on this for over a year comment of the nom, I also notice the article mentioned above Housecleaning was a creation today by the nominator, presumably of similar content to the deleted article? This seems quite messy to me. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the "for over a year" refers to various subpages Chuck has been working on, which he recently requested be deleted themselves. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. It was a redirect from "House clean" to "House work" which looks to me like an implausible misnomer in a redirect. I doubt somebody would type house clean (which is bad English as it should be more appropriately named house cleaning) to mean house work. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle and 81. seem to have it quite right—in practical terms, we would say that Chuck's article, which whatever its deficiencies was eminently not speediable, was speedied—and I don't know that there is really any solution here that will satisfy all (of course, there rarely is). So, what to do? Pace Alex and Mgm, House clean is a wholly plausible search for Housecleaning and an appropriate redirect (it is true, of course, that the English is non-standard, but redirects exist to serve the reader and need not conform to naming conventions; they need only be theoretically useful). It is also clear to me that there exists a consensus amongst those who have reviewed the material that Chuck's article was redundant and (to use a term that sounds harsher than I should like it to) inferior to Housecleaning and its children articles, such that Chuck need make out a case for his article's being maintained as a standalone at Talk:House clean or for his merging any significant chunk of information from his article to Housecleaning at Talk:Housecleaning. My thought, then, is that we ought to undelete in order that Chuck might make reference to his material should he like to suggest that some of it belongs in Housecleaning but, until there is a contrary consensus (as likely there never will be), redirect to Housecleaning. Joe 20:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (Struck; my reading of the situation was careless. Joe 22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Not sure it's harsh since the sole author of housecleaning is chuck and it was only created after the deletion begin reviewed here... --81.104.39.44 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I was just coming here to note that and strike most of what I wrote, which followed from my having failed to look closely at Housekeeping (or, I guess, at your earlier comment, which offered a clarification on that very issue. Joe 22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and redirect to Housecleaning. The correct procedure was clearly not followed, the page apparently did have some useful history, and while it may have been bellow the standard of ~~housecleaning~~ housekeeping, it should not have been speedied. And since an argument could be made that the redirect is implausible, I would suggest listing it at RfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and redirect (or, if the content of housecleaning is the same as that that house clean comprised, just redirect) per Tony, without prejudice to its being listed at RfD. Should housecleaning, which has some issues, be deleted or restored to a redirect to housekeeping, so too, of course, would this go or be redirected. And that's probably more than ever I should like to think or say about house cleaning/keeping/management/anything. Joe 22:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, of course. --NE2 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notification, for anyone interested in following up on this set of events, that I have proposed merging the multiple stub articles on housecleaning, house work and household management into a single article, housekeeping. (This merger will also require moving the current housekeeping disambiguation list to a new housekeeping (disambiguation) article.) Any feedback is appreciated here. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Overturn Per Stifle, the deletion under R3 was not correct. Redirect pages that have useful page history should never be speedy deleted. See CSD. It's not clear how the article became a redirect and making it a redirect doesn't seem to have been through consensus. Also, there doesn't seem to be a speedy deletion basis to delete the article. -- Suntag ☼ 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 January 2009[edit]

Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy) – Closure endorsed. – lifebaka++ 15:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn and delete - Arguments in favor of deletion (that it fails the black letter of WP:N as not being mentioned in any capacity other than trivial as one sentence mentions in reviews of the series or film) were much stronger than the arguments in favor of keeping, which were that it's notable because it's the setting for the series and film (which is not the standard for notability nor even resembles that standard for notability), that there were pages full of trivia deleted in the past and the commenter didn't like that that happened (irrelevant), and various other variations on WP:ILIKEIT. Closing admin erred in giving any weight to these arguments and appears based on his comments on my talk page and lack of any substantive information in his closing statement to have totted up the votes and called it a night. Those wanting the article kept offered no basis in any policy or guideline, other than an interpretation of the GFDL which I believe is in error, thus, the side that is supported by policy and guideline arguments should have prevailed and the page should have been deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to endorse the closure, as there was no consensus to delete the article. However, nothing about the AFD would prevent redirecting or merging the article, or opening a proposal to do so on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep. I might have closed with a recommendation for merge, or I might have deleted. The truth of the matter is that there is very little verifiable information about the school, and what little there is should be covered in the article about the series. These problems all lie well within the scope of merging, not deletion. --TS 11:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus Although I agree that the state of the article was not very good, there was a potential merge there. Some deletion commenters mainly referred to the trivia in the article while ignoring multiple references or without really commenting on their reliability, making their reasoning just as bad as some of the keepers'. Also, the article was severely shortened since it's creation. In its current form a merge is sensible and the possibility should be discussed. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but a merge might well be in order. The gutting of the article (rather than hunting for sources) was questionable. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Hlawvid.jpg – Deletion endorsed, though there are clearly some problems with process to be considered here. As far as this particular image is concerned, even most of those concerned about the process here admit that the justification for the image is not particularly strong. The general consensus that has emerged in the last year or so is that a screenshot cannot merely represent a film or video as a whole; there has to be something about the screenshot itself that is worthy of comment. That said, clearly the way IfD (or whatever we now call it) is being conducted right now is not ideal. Administrators are acting in accord with a long-standing, gradually emerging precedent, and are not necessarily treating every image as a distinct debate. I am not commenting on whether that approach is right or wrong, merely describing what has become standard practice. (I do, however, think there are good reasons for this approach, since deletion debates are inherently inconsistent in participation but copyright policy needs to be applied consistently. The questions IfD must consider are very different from the fundamental question at AfD, notability, where a distinct consensus is needed for each article.) But of course it frustrates participants in individual debates. Perhaps it is time to restructure IfD, making clearer how it works--it is even less of a vote than AfD; rather, for a clearly non-free image, participants must provide sufficient evidence that the image meets policy or it will be deleted; "keep" and "delete" are essentially meaningless. I know there will be some discomfort with what I'm saying, but I want to stress that I am not proposing anything; I believe that this situation is essentially what is currently going on, and we are not being honest about it with contributors. – Chick Bowen 17:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Deleting Admin (User:Peripitus) has deliberately gone against a clear consensus in the image IFD discussion; imposing his/her own personal opinion regardless of other editors submissions. This makes a mockery of the whole IFD process and is an abuse of admin privileges! The closing admin should be neutral and close the IFD in line with the consensus generated in the discussion. The consensus for this image was to Keep. At the very least taking into account the nominating editors comments there was No Consensus. This admin has overridden consensus in a number of other instances on the IFD same date which should be looked at by independent administrators, as the original uploaders may be unaware of Deletion Review Process. 2. Image should not have been deleted for reasons already listed in discussion which are still extant. andi064 ^{T . C} 07:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The arguments made by andi064 and Archivey were indeed on-topic with respect to the NFCC criteria. The closing admin was not free to substitute his own assessment of the NFCC-compatibility of the image for that established in the discussion. Sandstein 07:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that Archivey's comment of The image's purpose is not to merely depict the band, but to depict the music video for the song which is visual and needs an image to complete understanding is really just saying - this is a shot of the music video and so we need the image. It doesn't say why and this type of keep comment, if heeded, would result in all such articles having a shot of the music video. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure as deleting admin. in IfD determining consensus requires weighing the policy based weight of the arguments and in this case I found the keep arguments lacking. The image is a user-created pastiche of two images from the clip. In the article there is no sourced commentary on the image and in the image description page the justification was For use in Heart Like a Wheel (song) article to illustrate direct prose on noteble(sic) Music video.. Though andi064, in the Ifd, stated that the image supported the text there was nothing I took as convincing about how this significantly increased reader's understanding. I disregarded the last participant as they, largely, simply stated that the image was decorative and that we need the decoration...not a convincing argument. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse That last comment looks like an argument to delete to me. Having looked at the image and the article I can't see how this pastiche can possibly add to the understanding of the article or discussion of the video in ways that words cannot. I also note that the discussion of the video is wholly unsourced and that the whole section looks dangerously like original research and that sourced critical commentary of the issues that the image is trying to depict is necessary for this to be anyway justified for use as a non-free image. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No number of !votes can override the NFCC, which is driven by the foundation licensing policy. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.That comment displays an appalling ignorance of what WP:IFD is about. Editors are not voting, they are either agreeing, disagreeing or commenting on the nominator’s rationale for deletion. In this case the deletion reason 'not add to the understanding of the article' is purely a subjective one. The nominator User:Stifle asserted that it didn’t; two editors I (the uploader) and one other disagreed. No other editors commented during the listing period, unlike some images that were uncontested or had diametrically opposed views, no one felt strongly one way or the other. This means that on the question of whether the nominator was correct in his assessment was No Consensus pure and simple! The result of which, according to IFD rules means a Default Keep'. The principle of 'assume good faith' means that debates are weighted towards ‘keep’ in the first place unless an strong argument for ‘delete’ is established. If a closing admin felt that two comments were not a sufficient then the image should have been re-listed for wider consensus. What is unacceptable is the conduct of User:Peripitus. The closing admin is the ‘sentencing judge’ to the debate contributors ‘jury’ and closes the debate on the findings alone regardless of their own personal feelings. What they do not get to do is override the debate consensus because they disagree with it for what ever reason. If this was an objective breech of NFCC then the image should have been speedy deleted, but it was not! it was a subjective interpretation of a guideline that is open to different interpretations. To which the closing admin has no input as they are 'Neutrally' closing the debate and actioning the consensus. If User:Peripitus felt strongly then he should have added a Delete statement to the debate and deferred the closure to an uninvolved admin. By his conduct in this (and I note on other images) he has compromised the IFD procedure and brought his competence as an admin into question. This is a deletionist attitude which is as damaging to this encyclopaedia as any other form of vandalism. One cannot make an issue of rigidly enforcing the small print in various rules, if you then breech major overarching principles. The original image isn’t worth dying in a ditch over. It was a good faith upload correctly licensed and provided with a FUR which has sat on Wikipedia for over a year with the aim of improving the encyclopedia. It is the principle of fairness, and that admins are breeching rules they are supposed to be enforcing that is the problem. andi064 ^{T . C} 16:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - One cannot make an issue of rigidly enforcing the small print in various rules, if you then breech major overarching principles. — Actually, that's your behaviour, not that of the closing administrator. Our overarching principle here is free content, as explained in our Wikipedia:Copyright policy. You are the one arguing the minutiae of whether a procedure was followed whilst abrogating the overarching principle of the project which is to produce a free content encyclopaedia, which only includes non-free content as a exception under very limited circumstances.
    It is not abuse of administrator tools to remove non-free content from the project. That's one of the primary uses for such tools, in fact. The onus lies very much on you to provide a concrete and strong reason for the inclusion of non-free content, not on others to provide reasons for its deletion. It's-a-still-from-the-music-video-and-the-text-also-mentions-the-music-video isn't a reason that stands up to scrutiny. Uncle G (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not abrogating anything, as an established Wikipedian of 2 years standing I know and accept NFC rules, which is why the image was licensed correctly and provided with a FU rationale, and remember it was uploaded in good faith to improve the Encyclopedia, not for any other reason. I also accept IFD, and I have won, lost and nominated myself. You are missing the point entirely. If the image had obviously been breaching NFCC then like other debates on that day's IFD the consensus would have been a series of Delete comments. If that was the case I would have accepted the decision unreservedly! That is what the rules say. Even 50/50 I would have accepted begrudgingly. There were no Delete comments at all, just the opinion of the closing admin which ignored the consensus of two Keeps. I am not bothered about a small image on a minor article, this is about the important point that admins are in a privileged position and cannot just delete outside of accepted procedures. Otherwise an admin is able to delete in order to make a WP:POINT or push a personal agenda, and by implication there is no point in having IFD debates at all if the results can just be ignored. This is the sort of thing that makes new editors lose faith in sticking by the rules of Non Free Licensing and upload under false free licenses, which causes much greater copyright problems for Wikipedia. Discussions that result in a Keep consensus should be respected, if an objective rule is broken then that image should be speedy deleted; if it is a rule that is open to subjective interpretation then the IFD debate has the final say. andi064 ^{T . C} 20:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - The Promotional video section of Heart Like a Wheel (song) lacks inline references and the video is a secondary matter to the main topic of the article (the song). The article is referenced to a source that is not independent of the topic. The IFD continues this approach in that the keep arguments lacked links to independent reliable sources discussing the deleted image. Without independent reliable sources discussing the deleted image, claims in the IFD about critical commentary, styling, special effects are subjective opinions of Wikipedia editors. The IFD closer stated "those arguing to keep need to show how the image meets the NFCC requirements." The showing should be through independent, reliable sources. Without independent reliable sources supporting their statements, the keep arguments lacked strength. The delete reasoning was supported by NFCC and were the stronger arguments. The delete close interpreted the discussion correctly. If you locate independent, reliable sources discussing the deleted image, please post them in this discussion or return to DRV to request review in view of substantial new information. -- Suntag ☼ 17:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered changing my position in view of the comments below. I'm bothered that there were only two !votes, both were keep, and one was from long term editor Andi064, who has been editing Wikipedia since 3 December 2006, and the other was from an editor in good standing. A given IFD discussion usually receives relatively little participation and the NFCC requirements seem to carry much weight that overcomes discussion comments from people. Endorse seem the proper outcome, but what does that make of Wikipedia's discussion approach to resolving matters? There is an interest in editors on the opposite side of the close to reasonably feel that the discussion was fair, particularly when the participating editors are in good standing and make reasonable arguments in the discussion. Relisting may address that legitimate interest, even if a delete outcome seems likely at IFD2. That's what I was going to post as a basis for changing my position. However, I continued to look into the matter. Referring to the admins as a "pair of idiots who work as a double act"[52] isn't a way to seek equity. Perhaps the fairness interest can be sufficiently addressed in the close of this DRV. -- Suntag ☼ 17:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse -- the closing admin showed good judgement, and Suntag above makes the case very well. I'll note that I was put off by the tone of the notification used for this discussion. Jkelly (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -- Closing admin is correct that the comments in the IFD fail to address the use rationale issue. Furthermore, if the purpose of the image was to support the section discussing the video, then it should be pointed out that the discussion of the video appears to be entirely unreferenced and contains significant editorializing. If you take out the bits that aren't referenced, or that simply don't belong (such as comments that the young ladies in the video are "in their prime"(!)), you're left with very little. I watched the video on YouTube and don't feel that my understanding of the topic was significantly increased by seeing it- doubt that a still shot would do any more. --Clay Collier (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Relist: In retrospect (and looking at the IFD discussion again), I think that the real problem here is that the discussion was closed after only two persons other than the nom weighed in. That isn't enough to establish consensus either way. There seems to be a legitimate disagreement over whether the image contributed to the understanding of the video between the nominator and the respondents; the proper thing to do is re-list and let more people weigh in, rather than try and settle the policy disagreement in Deletion Review. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Clearly beyond administrative discretion in interpreting consensus. A nomination followed by two keeps with some respect for policy, with not a single delete other than the nom is a discussion with consensus for deletion? Really? Relisting or voting delete, to make it a 50-50 split, would have almost certainly led to an uncontroversial deletion. Maybe it was a discussion where the delete arguments were stronger, but deletion policy, and an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, requires more. John Z (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & Relist There are important principles at stake here: WP:IFD is not WP:CSD. The article or image is listed for debate as it is in a "grey area", which the community need to arrive at a consensus as to whether or not it should be deleted from the Encyclopaedia. On this image (which was uploaded in line with encyclopaedia policy) the discussion generated two Keep submissions and no Delete submissions. I challenge anyone to claim that the consensus was not Keep in that debate? Right or wrongly, depending on your point of view that was the result. Closing admin has taken it on himself to deliberately ignore this consensus because he did not agree with it and impose his own prejudiced individual view on the image's status. This is nothing short of an arrogant abuse of process. Integrity of the closing administrator in balencing both sides of a debate is sacrosanct in maintaining community belief in the probity of the iFD process, and prevents a single individual operating to his/her own prejudices. This is a collaborative project, Administrators are not higher beings whose opinions count more than ordinary editors they are just ‘users with additional tools’. Consensus is required for a reason. user:andi064 is correct in maintaining that the principle of assume good faith means that there must always be a positive consensus to delete when there is any margin of error. Wikipeda guidelines state that "Deletion" should always be a last resort. Of all the people who have commented on this debate, why has no one thought to improve the article to improve "significant understanding" for the greater good of the project. As far as the image itself is concerned, in legal terms this is a 'mis-trial', and the image should be listed again so the uploader user:andi064 receives fair treatment. If the image is deleted as the result of a consensus generated in the relist, then so be it. If User:Peripitus continues to ignore Wikipedia’s requirement for consensus then he should be relived of his admin status. Archivey (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion on Wikipedia are not a majority vote and consensus is not measured that way. The instructions to administrators are Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). In this case the arguments to keep did not have a strong basis of underlying policy and were rightly given less weight - Peripitus (Talk) 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the running issue with NFCC. The question of importance to an article is subjective and the closer replaced his subjective opinion in place of the subjective consensus. He should have either added a delete !vote if he wanted his subjective opinion to have weight or he should have closed with the subjective opinion. If an image is needed for an article is subjective and was the crux of the debate. There is no bright-line policy here that is being violated by the image. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep to quote from above Editors are not voting, they are either agreeing, disagreeing or commenting on the nominator’s rationale for deletion. In this case the deletion reason 'not add to the understanding of the article' is purely a subjective one. And that subjective opinion was what was ignored. The issue, by definition is subjective. Two sides provided little reason other than opinion about how important the image is to the article (and frankly it would be hard to do so). So we are stuck with !votes. It should have been closed as keep. Hobit (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You know what, I don't care anymore. That there are people here who taken pleasure in deleting other peoples work means that I have completely lost faith in Wiki. There is no point in reinstating this image as the usual suspects will be gunning for it and will ensure that it is deleted again immediatly. Therefore no point in anyone wasting their time fighting over it anymore. I doubt I will be editing anymore cheers. andi064 ^{T . C} 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list I can't see the image any more, so I can't tell exactly what it shows. However, the article talks about the article being
"... cheaply shot in a blue-lit studio with graphic spinning wheel and spark effects... [in a] studio set [which] bore no relation to the lyrical content and only succeeded in reinforcing the song as 'bubblegum' pop in the minds of the public. Philip Oakey had by now rebelled against the 'male model look he was 'forced' to adopt during Crash and had taken to wearing biker’s leathers. He had also returned to his lopsided hair style of 1981. But now in his mid 30s the look was derided by the media at the time."
In the IfD, andi06 wrote that the image specifically illustrated the styling and special effects discussed critically. Since nobody in the discussion dissented from this, it would seem the image did indeed allow the reader to assess for themselves the remarks made in the text, and therefore did indeed "significantly improve reader understanding". If that is the case, the image should definitely have been kept. If it is not the case, Peripitus should have explained why it was not the case, and then left it to somebody else to judge. But on the face of it, since nobody disagreed with andi06's assessment, on the basis of the discussion it would seem that the image should have been kept. Jheald (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant endorse despite andi064 robust defense the close as delete was still within admin discretion. Given the low participation in IfD, admins need to exercise wide latitude in enforcing our NFC criteria. Because of the legal and foundation issues at stake we should delete non-compliant images even if no local consensus for their deletion is apparent. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you persuaded this image was non-compliant? It seems on the face of it entirely compliant. Jheald (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support overturning the deletion and relisting at IfD (FfD now). While I agree with the rationale in the nomination of the FfD, and the interpretation of the NFCC in the closing, I am uncomfortable with an administrator being able to exercise his interpretation of the NFCC policy directly over all comments in a discussion (excluding the nominator). Particularly when interpretation of the NFCC, especially that point, is so disputed. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 January 2009[edit]

The Ongoing Adventures of Rocket Llama – Closure endorsed. – lifebaka++ 15:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep against consensus. Keep arguments unusually weak, as acknowleged on Closing admin's talk page. Given reason for Keep is "the weight of people screaming 'ITS NOTABLE'", which is a new principle to me, and seems to contradict WP:NOTAVOTE (and User:MBisanz/AfD for that matter). / edg ☺ ☭ 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom I am the one who has nominated the article as AfD and I want to be a co-nominator for this deletion review since I believe that the reasoning of those who want to keep the article is erroneous. See my last entry in the previous AfD for my argumentation. Thanks for your support, Edgarde. --Shishigami (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself divided between what I feel was probably a correct closure of the AfD and what I would !vote if this came up again. The only thing I can find which is close to meeting WP:Notability (web) is a mention in the Henderson State University "Oracle". Thats a pretty marginal attempt in terms of verifiable notability (WP:WEB Criterion 1, "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"). I think this is a suitable candidate for a Relist in a 2nd AfD since while there was nothing wrong with the closure, I don't see that the article meets notability inclusion requirements. Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This DRV should look only at the AFD and whether deletion process was correctly followed; making reference to the article isn't really in order. In this case, there were roughly as many users recommending deletion and recommending keeping. In my view, none of the arguments on either side were so weak as to be discounted, and none were so strong as to be given extra weight. I would have been more inclined to close as no consensus than keep in the circumstances, but no consensus defaults to keep anyway. As such, I endorse the closure, but I would expect the article to be listed again at AFD before long unless substantially improved. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Whatever may be my sociopathy, I cannot subject my fellow Wikipedians to an excessively long, basically pointless !vote, as otherwise I might do, when Stifle has put the argument so cogently. I would add only that, per Usrnme, I do not know that I should object to one's renominating at his/her leisure in order that we might flesh out more usefully the positions, even as I am likely to fall on the merits on the side opposite that of Usr. Joe 21:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure-- The keep !votes were not only screaming notability, the main argument was that the reason for deletion was not a valid one because the stats from the website were misleading. The keepers also noted that this user 1 created a second account just to nominate an article not following the standard practice in an AfD.--Jmundo (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure DRV is not a repeat of AFD, and while if it were relisted I would most likely fall on the deletion side, the correct procedure was followed, there was clearly no consensus for deletion, whether it would have been better to close it as no consensus is anyone's guess, but regardless of the wording the result would have been the same: keeping the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure/keep. DRV is not a repeat of AfD. An eventual relisting would make sense, but given that AfD closure was proper, it should not be immediate. Give people time to fix the article. While I expected this prompt DRV based on the AfD nominator's actions (creating a single purpose account just to pursue deletion of an article on an utterly non-controversial topic -- possible COI?), this is disappointing to see. Teethmonkey (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Observation: 4 keeps outnumbered 3 deletes so the "Keep against consensus" claim which opened this DRV is inaccurate. It's not a consensus anyway, but don't say there was a consensus, much less a consensus contrary to the facts. Teethmonkey (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse the keep the refs look reasonably good to me,for the topic at any rate,so i predict a 2nd afd will lead to the same result. But after a keep, it's usually considered good to wait 4 to 6 months before trying again. Consensus can change, but it is more likely to do so if given time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. "No consensus" I could see (though I wouldn't agree with it); "keep," however, is an unsupportable closure, given the nature of the arguments presented in the AfD. Deor (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from what you have said, there is no degree of consensus on a keep that you think would justify a keep closure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Endorse There was no consensus for deletion in this discussion with no overriding policy arguments made to justify ignoring opinions. Personally would have inclined towards no consensus but keep is not completely outside admin discretion. Davewild (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a good close. Anyway, calling the keeps "unusually" weak is a bit of hyperbole. We sees lots of weak votes/arguments in AfDs (pretty much any one with "cruft" in it, but we even see some that are just votes, i.e. just a keep or delete and a signature with no argument at all), so I would think for something to be "unusually" weak would require a bit more than what we see in this particular discussion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse retention of article -- the principle that "AFD is not a vote" is designed to prevent the process from being disrupted by large numbers of newly registered users, canvassing, or frivolous participation -- e.g., "Keep per WP:ILIKEIT". It is not intended to give administrators a free hand to delete articles against the reasonable, considered opinions of a substantial portion of the editors participating in an AFD discussion (except in the case of articles comprised entirely of unreferenced controversial information concerning living persons, blatant copyright violations, etc), since deletion without or against consensus is effectively to elevate the value of the closing administrator's judgment above the collective judgment of every other editor, including other administrators, participating in the AFD discussion. The only thing worse than "vote counting" is a vote of one. John254 00:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - reasonable interpretation of the discussion, in my opinion the rationales for keeping the article were poor but that was probably at least partially due to the fact that they were responses to a poor nominating statement. Guest9999 (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. When the AfD's nominating statement complained that the article sources "unnotable events," then the nomination invites discussion of the notability of said events. While the creators' status as Comic-Con panelists matters, not everyone addressing Comic-Con's notability said it had anything to do with the webcomic's own notability. Shoester (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure This particular AFD was a mess. Most keep voters claimed that Comic-Con was notable, but that wasn't the article up for deletion. However, if they'd gone a step further and said that just about anyone can attend the event, but only notable comic creators are on panels, keeping it would be a lot less controversial. The nominator's counting of visitors was faulty and although the references definitely includes some dubious entries, there's at least 3-4 solid ones to establish the notability required. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Having participated in the AfD, I feel like I should not enter this DRV because, as people have said, DRV is not meant to be a rehash of AfD. However, when two of the three people who !voted to delete the article get together to raise the DRV, the "single purpose account" user who opened the AfD now indicating that he/she recruited the other into doing this, then I suppose some of the voices which weighed in on the other side should join in again for balance. Anyhow, no real procedural complaint has been raised. This DRV should not have occurred. Shoester (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your vote. For the record, there was no collusion between Shishigami and me about starting this DRV, and I neither expected nor asked for a "co-nom". I also don't see anything in Shishigami's statement that implies I was "recruited". If this Deletion review should not have occurred—which, to avoid confusion, I'll say is certainly not my opinion—then I wish the debit be mine. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and keep. This whole situation has been truly odd. The closing admin closed properly. The DRV lacks sound procedural grounds to do more than rewage the same debate. I am pleased to notice that the article has gained some additional source now. If the original AfD nominator feels compelled to keep gunning for this article, I hope that mysterious individual will at least wait six months before the next assassination attempt. Perhaps we'll get to see this end with this DRV. Dr.Who (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fate: Undiscovered Realms – Automatically restored by User:Tikiwont as a contested PROD – Stifle (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Creator not notified; notability easily verified[53][54][55]. The link is blue because it was later recreated as a redirect. SharkD (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying the creator is indeed useful as is contacting the deleting admin before requesting a review since restoration of a deletion per WP:PROD is usually uncontroversial. Thus restored. Notability can be assessed at AfD if deemed necessary. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture – Restored and redirected both to Ethnic stereotype. Retarget redirects, history merge, etc. as necessary. – lifebaka++ 15:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

These pages were deleted a year and a half ago, but in a recent AfD it was pointed out that the edit history of these articles contained material which is being used in existing articles (e.g. Stereotypes of African Americans, Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims). Therefore, I believe these articles should be restored and made into redirects or disambiguation pages (as I indicated in my comment in the African American stereotypes AfD) in order to comply with the GFDL. DHowell (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How are you suggesting we redirect these? The source material pages don't exist under other names. For example, "in American media" can't very well redirect to "of African Americans" as that would be confusing... Should this be a recreation followed by a move to a more useful redirect? Or would that undermine the context of the original edits too much? Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving it to a more suitable title before making it into a dab to the different existing pages sounds reasonable, but ethnic stereotype already exists and a history merge would undoubtedly cause problematic overlap of edits in there. Any other suggestions for possible targets? Retaining the GFDL for attribution purposes should happen, but the location of the page should make sense too. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Mgm said, and endorse on principle the result of not having articles on popular culture artifacts in popular culture. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Given the clear acceptance of the other articles, I think this article might be well stand--I think consensus in this matter has changed. But I would make an effort to not duplicate, and expand the material of the propensity of Americans (and others) to use such stereotypes in general,. Unlike some of the eds. above, I encourage articles on all notable aspects of popular culture,& such I think the current consensus in general. DGG (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and redirect both to Ethnic stereotype and give a link to the page's history on the relevant talk pages to satisfy GFDL concerns. Guest9999 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Didiot – Deletion endorsed. From the below, it is clear that the procedural errors in this deletion are not themselves enough to overcome the BLP issues which caused the initial G10. – lifebaka++ 15:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

NOTE I have re-deleted this and salted as there is clearly enough concern about this as a BLP violation to justify this action when salted with some IAR. Clearly we need a consensus on what to do with this but I strongly suggest we get that consensus before restoring this. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect deleted by User:Krimpet after two successive, longer-than-one-week deletion discussions ending as "keep" both times. First discussion [56] lasted eight days and ended 24 December; second discussion [57] started 26 December (two days after close) and ended 8 January (13 days later) at 16:48 UTC; the redirect was deleted five and a half hours later, at 22:20 the same day. For disclosure purposes, I was the sole participant in the first discussion, but have nothing to do with either the deleted redirect or the second RfD, which should have been speedily kept as starting two days after a "keep" closure. It simply seems disturbing that in this case, the process was disrupted, first by the second RfD, and then by the admin basically ignoring the result afterward. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I cannot leave the notification on Krimpet's talk page as it's semiprotected and my work computer rejects cookies. I had to ask the admin who closed the second RfD for some clarification, and he/she forwarded my question to Krimpet. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse Speedy Deletion per closing admins rational in log [58] and on his own talk page. CSD:G10 is a general CSD criterion and as such applies to redirects - and this looked like nothing but an attack. A new redirect to Idiot may be suitable, but not with a restored edit history. Remember that !votes are not votes and Admins are not required to follow results of XfD - they are supposed to ensure policy is followed. Usrnme h8er (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per User:Stifles quote from WP:CSD. I stand corrected. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Undelete redirect as this has the effect of overruling the results of two redirect deletion discussions. What's the purpose of the discussion if an admin can arbitrarily overrule a close mere hours later? I participated in the second RfD strictly on procedural bases as the first RfD was closed as keep after an 8 day discussion in which only one person (the IP) actually commented (saying "keep") and then a new RfD was started two days after the close of the first (despite my urging of the speedy keep - as a bad faith nomination - the second discussion lasted almost two weeks, from December 26 to January 8). Edit note by deleting admin overlooked the sourced information in the target article which mentions the contentions between Ms. DiDio and some advocates of Linux... and their use of the epithet in question (a look at the target will reveal that the controversy was explained in a NPOV manner, definitely not a violation of WP:BLP). B.Wind (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per WP:CSD: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements". Stifle (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I think this deletion (G10, attack page) was based on a misunderstanding about spelling and pronunciation. While someone may mistake it for rhyming with idiot, a long 'oo'-sound (as in Edgar Allen Poe) without speaking the t is also possible. Together with the fact that a speedy is inappropriate when 2 discussions have just occured, I think it should be restored and I have done so. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article and [59], "Didiot" is indeed intended as an attack and as rhyming with "idiot". Sandstein 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - attack redirect, pure and simple. No consensus in either to delete, and no consensus should default to delete when regarding BLP violations. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G10 deletion. The deletion discussions were ludicrously cursory, with one editor each commenting. Disparaging and unhelpful redirect to a WP:BLP. Sandstein 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I need not, I'm sure, to recite the significant reasons for which the community have determined that pages that have survived a deletion discussion may not be speedied; the blanket proscription exists, in any case (rightly, IMHO), such that G10 could not properly have been applied here. Sandstein's analysis of the underlying deletion discussions is probably quite right, but one's recourse to claim that the RfDs were wrongly closed is to raise the issue at DRV; were one to bring the closes here, I'd !vote to relist, as I suppose we ought to now (or, more precisely, upon restoration), even as on the substantive issues I will be a "keep" (I would observe once more, though, that we need not to reach those issues here; the procedural posture is clearly flawed, and we at DRV are obliged to address that first). Joe 20:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD aside, WP:BLP is sufficient grounds for the deletion of an attack redirect. If its deletion is not endorsed here on the basis of it having survived a XfD, I intend to delete it under the authority of WP:BLPSE. Sandstein 22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And actions taken pursuant to WP:BLPSE (which has, I think it fair to say, been roundly rejected by the community, to the extent that I am convinced that there no longer exists majority support on the ArbCom for the decision that led to its creation; I am very confident that the Committee will elect explicitly to reconsider the holding after the new members settle in) may be overruled by "clear community consensus" (more simply, consistent with the outcome a consensus-based community discussion), which, at least theoretically, exists here. The RfDs, whatever may have been their insufficiency, represent, at least theoretically, a consideration—and rejection—by the community of the BLP issues, such that the onus was on those raising BLP-based objections to obtain a contrary consensus before acting. You are welcome, of course, to do as you please should DRV counsel recreation, but I imagine that both the community and the ArbCom would look with disfavor on your wheel warring against consensus, although I don't know that anyone (including me) would get particularly exercised over a matter of such little significance. Joe 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The outcome of a sparsely attended RfD cannot sensibly be interpreted as a "clear community consensus" - especially when it directly and obviously contradicts the BLP policy. What people are asking for here, in overturning the deletion, is to put process above content and above the BLP policy. The very object of having an IAR policy, and of constantly reminding people that the encyclopedia is what matters (and not our byzantine processes), is to prevent absolutely wrong decisions from being made and upheld based on a narrow and small interpretation of criteria used in an edit summary. Avruch^T 01:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get it gone. I can hardly believe we are even having this conversation. WP:CSD#G10 and WP:BLP clearly apply, nuke from orbit, sprinkle the remains with anthrax toxin and post a big sign saying "beware of the leopard". Good grief. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Endorse Deletion and strongly considering deleting under BLP. BLP is a non-negotiable policy, no matter how much as a techie, I don't like her and what she's done. The very idea of the redirect violates BLP. SirFozzie (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per WP:CSD#G10 and WP:BLP. The general principle articulated in the criteria for speedy deletion that "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." is inapplicable to XFD discussions in which participation is extremely limited, and are therefore reasonably believed not to reflect a consensus of the overall community. Unilateral deletions should not be performed after controversial AFD discussions merely due to bare disagreement with "keep" or "no consensus" outcomes. John254 01:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No question. Avruch^T 01:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion under BLP this is one of the problems of RfD and the XfD processes generally except AfD--they do not get a sufficient cross section of the community & in practice we do need to review them here. I cannot however see using the heavy bat of BLPSE for something as trivial like this--accepted or not, it is not necesssary. DGG (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree too much with this; my solution to the problem of an RfD's having been poorly visited, though, is for us to return the matter to RfD, again and again if necessary (and not just for the sake of process; it may be argued convincingly that a legitimate [i.e., broadly joined] RfD discussion is more likely to reflect the consensus of the community than a similarly constituted DRV discussion, especially in a case like this, where in the attendant DRV the procedural and substantive issues are unhelpfully enmeshed). Joe 08:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that is a reasonable alternative, if sufficiently wide notice is given. DGG (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was there for GFDL compliance, as is noted in the edit history. Prose originally written by Dysprosia and 68.100.57.223 was copied into another article by a third party. Uncle G (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- GFDL compliance can be preserved by merging the page history into Laura DiDio (delete Laura DiDio, move the redirect to Laura DiDio, restore all revisions at that page title), then deleting the redirect at the offending title. John254 01:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I already know how it can be preserved, thank you. And no, that's not the procedure in this case. I did outline in it what I wrote, but that was lost when I hit an edit conflict. The procedure in this case is more complex, in order to avoid (a) having anything other than those two edits in the merged article's edit history and (b) having undesirable links to didiot in the merged article's edit history at the end of the process. Uncle G (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, one would have to delete the redirect, then restore only the revisions of the redirect merged into Laura DiDio, before moving the redirect to Laura Didio. John254 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:Merge and delete has a list of techniques that may be used. Flatscan (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redelete Once the GFDL issues mentioned above have been sorted, redelete this redirect as a BLP violation. Strictly speaking by process should not have been speedy deleted but in this case (IAR) this Deletion Review has become a defacto RFD and is getting a much wider community participation than the original RFDs. Sending it back to RFD would just be a waste of time when the discussion can and is being held here. The basic problem here as DGG said is the lack of participation in RFDs. Davewild (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of extra comments. The present redirect is in many ways worse than the previous one as it now redirects one persons nickname to idiot, which imo is a clear BLP violation. Secondly using BLPSE to delete this redirect, if there is a consensus to overturn the speedy deletion of the redirect on this DRV, will not resolve this case but instead just move the discussion over to WP:AN/AE where we would then hold the same discussion again. Better to just have the discussion here and hopefully reach consensus that this redirect should be deleted. Davewild (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see your point, wrt to the Idiot redirect target, but given that "Didiot" doesn't appear to be a regular nickname for this particular person I'd rather have "Didiot" redirect to "Idiot" than to that persons name. Which one, in your mind, has the more obvious implication? Since I couldn't just delete it myself, redirecting it to the only other possibly sensible target made sense to me at the time. Avruch^T 21:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can understand your reasoning and it's not as bad as redirecting to the peron themselves for the overwhelming majority of people who would not be aware of the nickname (me included before today). I was thinking more of what the person themselves would think and for them I think it would be worse. (either is bad of course) But anyway it has now been redeleted which I fully endorse so the point is hopefully moot now. Davewild (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse G10 deletion - this is an obvious BLP issue and we simply do not need this redirect. Peripitus (Talk) 10:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, not kosher per WP:BLP. Redirecting a term of disparagement to a BLP isn't very nice :( And a "consensus of one" at RFD isn't :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion BLP attack page. The speedy was valid, and the admin who undid a BLP based speedy should know they are living dangerously. A BLP speedy holds until there's a consensus that it is invalid. Undeletion=desysopping.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if there continues to exist broad support for the proposition that BLP-based speedies hold until they are overturned in a consensus-based community discussion (and I don't believe that there does—either in the ArbCom or in the community generally—which fact will, I hope and trust, be borne out soon; just as Travis may have been correct in his widely-quoted assessment of 2006 that "Either [one] get[s] on th[e BLP] train of thought or [he is] going to be left behind, because this is the direction the encyclopedia will go. End of story", so might we now say that there is going to be significant, and ultimately successful, pushback on BLP overreach in the coming months), that proposition cannot be understood to apply to pages (and particularly less visible ones, as, e.g., redirects) about which a deletion discussion has already taken place. You don't mean to suggest that any admin, acting sua sponte, may delete a page he/she believes to contravene BLP where a discussion that is open to the community has already considered and rejected deletion (even BLP hardliners do not submit that it would have been appropriate for an admin to delete summarily Daniel Brandt after many "keep" AfDs), do you? The problem here, of course, is that the discussions that considered deletion weren't particularly compelling, but the general principle by which we look at XfD outcomes must be that we assume that a discussion that has taken a full term reflects the considered judgment of the community and that a "keep" reflects a rejection of all theorized (even unstated) deletion justifications; where it is plain that that assumption is wrong, to DRV we must go, such that if anyone is to be sanctioned for misuse of the tools, it will be he who substitutes his judgment for the presumed judgment of the community, not he who restores the status quo pending DRV. Joe 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This situation is in no way comparable to the inappropriate deletion of Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): the latter article had undergone many controversial AFD discussions with extensive community participation before being speedily deleted out-of-process. Thus, the latter deletion reflected clear defiance of the will of the community. In the case of this redirect, however, we had an RFD discussion with extremely sparse participation, in which a single unregistered user opined in favor of retention, which was inappropriately closed as "keep", and a second RFD again closed as "keep" on account of its chronological proximity to the previous nomination. Such a bogus application of the XFD process is entitled to neither respect nor deference. John254 23:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, there was not enough discussion at the previous RfDs to say a clear consensus was reached, but that doesn't mean the issue should be decided by fiat. Further discussion would make it much clearer whether or not there is consensus to delete. There is sufficient sourcing to indicate that the term is in use and a sufficiently likely search term to avoid claims of BLP, but we still might decide it's undue weight. That's not for fiat decision, it's for discussion. With the additional profile on it, we'll get enough discussion to decide whether or not there is consensus to delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As editors familiar with my participation in deletion review know, there would ordinarily be no one more committed to strict adherence to the deletion process than myself. Why, then, have I endorsed the out-of-process deletion of this redirect? Quite simply, the process is broken. Given the extremely limited participation seen in the first RFD discussion (one unregistered user supporting retention), and the subsequent incorrect closure as "keep", there's no reason to believe that further discussion at RFD is likely to resolve this issue. In this context, we should observe that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and consider the thorough discussion of the redirect here as indicative of a consensus for deletion. John254 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there were an extremely clear consensus here, I would tend to agree (if you're familiar with me, you'll know I'm the last person to insist on process for process' sake when the outcome is clear). That's not the case here, though. I'm not seeing any consensus here, and certainly not the type of consensus necessary for a controversial deletion. That's the type of situation our deletion processes are designed to handle, and we should restore it and let that occur. The problem you run into with this "venue reversal" type of thing is, most consider that it takes consensus to overturn a deletion at DRV, but it takes consensus to request one at XfD. This type of unilateral action to change the standard should not be rewarded. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a consensus for deletion is needed to remove the redirect, or a consensus for restoration is needed to undelete it, is likely to be irrelevant to the present discussion, as a clear consensus that the redirect violates the biographies of living persons policy seems to be emerging. John254 01:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, just in case there's any doubt as to the correctness of the removal of this redirect, I note that it was re-deleted as a result of a new RFD discussion here. The most recent discussion may have been abbreviated, to be sure, but the level of consensus displayed far exceeds the initial RFD. John254 02:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there is no reason to undelete a potentially insulting redirect on purely procedural grounds. Guest9999 (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two notes. 1) Since this DRV was filed, the redirect was renominated at RfD and re-deleted with lightning speed. 2) Frankly, I didn't originally care one way or another at the beginning if it were to be deleted or not, but having admins ignore the closings of two RfDs within three weeks sounds like the makings of a wheel war. The third RfD should not have been filed at at in light of the two closed RfDs and the DRV listing. I am much more concerned about process and procedure here, and as to whether or not an admin should overrule two previous ones who closed to the contrary within 14 days of the speedy deletion. As far as this DRV is concerned, the most recent RfD is irrelevant. B.Wind (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 January 2009[edit]

Phnom Penh Commercial Bank – Speedied article replaced by a non-speediable article. Nothing else to discuss here. – Stifle (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bank is notable, user who speedily deleted it should have simply tagged it; very easy to establish notability viz WP:ORG. The bank was founded in September 2008; it is a new bank; its website is Phnom Penh Commercial Bank. It is a joint venture of Hyundai Swiss Savings Bank of Korea and SBI Group, of Japan. I was under the impression that a bank in a developing country, backed by important extant banks, wouldn't have much of a notability issue. Here is the News page at the bank's site, describing the opening ceremony and reception party, which was attended by the governor of the National Bank of Cambodia, which is a central bank, equivalent to the Federal Reserve in the US, the European Central Bank or the Bank of England. Sounds like a notable event. The bank is new, but there are only 23 banks in Cambodia to begin with....article was created yesterday and deleted today, if article is restored I vow to continue developing the article under a notability tag, there are ample references available to add to the External links section.

Comment Well, I deleted this article based on A7: An article about ... an organization ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. The article contained no such indication. Ruslik (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure. But there is also WP:ORG: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This bank has yet to be listed on Alacrastore or Hoover's, but all signs point to notability. --Mr Accountable (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better for you to create new article and add required claim of notability, than to continue this argument. Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not better to have to create a new article, but I think that is what I will do. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment 1. I was surprised that a bank article less than 24 hours old would be speedily deleted; and 2. There was no article there to discuss, it had been deleted. Sorry. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I asked. I asked why you did not contact the administrator who deleted the page to discuss the matter prior to opening a deletion review. That step is indicated twice on WP:DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a waste of time. I'm surprised to see a bank deleted as an A7 but the CSD was clear. You are not barred from recreating the article and adding the sources that will establish notability and therefore exempt your article from speedy deletion. It would almost certainly have taken less time for you to do that then you must have spent reading the instructions on how to list this discussion. Go ahead and recreate, don't waste your time or energy - just add some seondary reliable sources to the new article so we don't have to come back here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore a bank is sufficiently likely to notable enough to prevent speedy no matter how little is actually said in the article. Saying its a bank is enough. I wouldn't worry about the above comments; 1. the statement there bout asking the admin was advice, not policy. Attempts to make it policy will not be successful, for all nonobstructive ways of appealing admin decisions are beneficial. 2. And I think it is a good idea for people to bring all clearly wrong CSDs here, so the admins who make them will realize their mistakes. DGG (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, why are you telling the author to ignore my comment when I was encouraging them to just recreate the article?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should gather a consensus to amend the current DRV policy then. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that banks are inherently notable (there is nothing about banks in WP:ORG). Ruslik (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment I will rewrite the article tomorrow. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Restore. If this was 2005, and this was an American bank, the author would be congratulated for improving Wikiepdia's coverage of financial institutions. Unfortunately, it's 2009 and notable Cambodian subjects are regularly speedy deleted with no oversight or second opinion by another editor. It's a misuse of the CSD policy to apply it to delete articles like this. CSD should prevent unencyclopedic rubbish and vandalism - not core articles for country coverage. The major financial institutions in any country are suitable material for Wikipedia, this is no exception. This article is simply helping to build the core article set about Cambodian institutions - which are woefully incomplete. If the article is restored, I will add information, sources and photograph the bank - once I get done adding references to the 185 Districts of Cambodia, many with notability tags <sigh> and in similar danger of deletion. Paxse (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment Well, this short article has been redone, and after 30 minutes of sorting through English language search results, there are links to its page at Hyundai Swiss Savings Bank, which is one of its two parent companies, there is the listing at the National Bank of Cambodia, and there is the bank itself. And here are two detailed job offers listed at the Phnom Penh Post (marketing specialist and at CamboCareers (bank director). I'm not sure if these two links are important to the article, but as the bank is only a few months old, it is somewhat difficult to find documentation at an online search engine. If there are notability issues for the article as it is, please leave a notability tag and I will look into it. Thanks. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is moot now, because the article was recreated. Still I want to note that two sources that you found are not independent secondary sources. They are just self advertisements. Ruslik (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 January 2009[edit]

Image:Luckystarmusicvideo.jpg – Deletion Endorsed – Peripitus (Talk) 12:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image was put up for deletion on obscure grounds. The matter was discussed in IFD and the proposal to delete was almost unanimously rejected. The only people asking for it to be deleted were the usual group of people whose main interest in Wikipedia is the removal of images. The closing administrator neverthless decided to remove the image and in his concluding comments he directed abuse at me. Please review the decision. BScar23625 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed header. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The closer correctly pointed out that the image did not meet the non-free content policy, which was established by the delete !voters at the IFD. The policy is a foundation one; no amount of !votes can overturn that, notwithstanding that almost all of the keep !votes were in the style of WP:JUSTAVOTE or WP:PERNOM, which arguments are considered poor. I would also like to point out that Hersfold's closing comment was not "abuse", and that BScar23625's comment of "Sorry, User:QuiteUnusual, bit (sic) the image clearly passes NFCC#1 (whatever that is)" clearly indicated his lack of interest in the actual policy, merely an interest in keeping the image at all costs. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Stifle. As you are the original proposer for deletion, you should not make any comment on this. best wishes. BScar23625 (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Bscar23625, Stifle is entitled to his opinion as are the rest of us. I would suggest you review DRV's procedures and not strike votes where it is not appropriate. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting administrator comment: I was not contacted before this review was opened, however I'm not particularly surprised due to the nature of the discussion. The nomination for both clearly gave WP:Non-free content criteria#1 as the grounds for deletion - failure to meet any one of those criteria is grounds for deletion. Yes, there was a strong majority in favor of keeping both this image and the one nominated at the same time for the same reason. However, almost none of the arguments in favor of keeping either had any foundation in policy. Most were along the lines of "per user X", providing no additional comment nor addressing the policy violation brought up by the nominator. In fact, there was evidence to indicate that many of the editors in favor of keeping the image had little to no knowledge of the relevant policies. Yes, BScar, while that comment was not directed at your specifically, you were one of the ones I was talking to. I did not intend to be abusive, however was simply stating fact: any editor should be aware of the relevant policies before they attempt to argue with them in a deletion discussion. As this was clearly not the case for several editors, I used my discretion as the closing administrator to disregard many of those comments and delete the images. I do not feel as though this request for review is made on valid grounds. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold & Stifle. Do you guys feel that you have insights into "Wikipedia policy" that others lack?. best wishes . BScar23625 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak for myself; I wouldn't call it an "insight", but certainly a great familiarity with Wikipedia policies coming from being an administrator for 34 months (as of today), and from having written some sections of those policies.

Just noting that you write Wikipedia policy in quotation marks as though you doubt its existence, let me assure you that it does exist. Stifle (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle. You are not answering my question. I asked "do you feel that you have an insight into Wikipedia policies that others lack?". I did not ask "do you feel you have an insight into Wikipedia policies"?. BScar23625 (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that's an issue. The problem is that your comment lead me to believe that you lacked such an "insight," as you call it. Stifle and I do have a high understanding of policy, mainly because we're administrators and that's our job here. I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I don't think it has anything to do with this deletion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BScar23625, I agree that the posts about IfD participation preconditions in the IfD close was not appropriate and is not appropriate, particularly in trying to apply them to an editor who has been with Wikipedia since November 2005. Perhaps we can all focus on the DRV task at hand. -- Suntag ☼ 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The keep reasonings "the only instance where the artist fully showed her boy-toy image only" and "conveys a visual impact that aids the reader's understanding of her makeover's significance" lacked reliable sources to support such statements. What might have helped was a link to reliable sources that used this image and wrote about this image. That information then could have been evaluate by others in the IfD in view of NFCC. The delete reasoning seemed the stronger argument. It's still not too late to present substantial new information in this DRV (e.g., reliable sources commenting on the image) and if you do, please contact me on my talk page. Regarding the close, the statement "you have no business commenting in these discussions" could have been left out. -- Suntag ☼ 19:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. WP:NFCC vs. WP:ILIKEIT; policy quite rightly carried the day, per the deleting admin's comprehensive rationale. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and stop wasting people's time. In the original IfD, the editor that brought this to DRV produced the comment "the image clearly passes NFCC#1 (whatever that is)". Probably tells you all you need to know. Black Kite 19:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The case that this was a valid fair use was not sufficiently proven. One fair-use to illustrate the subject (a cover) can be justified, a second non-free image of the artist, an image which was theoretically replacable is probably not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Endorse Deletion. Yes I commented at the IfD and I'll say the same again. This doesn't meet the NFCC. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Destructors_666 – No deletion to review. The redirect may be discussed on the article's talk page. – Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Invalid Deletion of Genuine Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisss (talk • contribs) 09:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not deleted, but merged into The Destructors (band). If anything, the consensus at the AFD was to delete it, so you should consider yourself lucky that it was not deleted. Endorse merge closure. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse current status and close this as no valid rationale is given for changing things. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the outcome was a merge, then it should have been merged or tagged as such. The target article received no incoming information after the AFD closure, so obviously something failed there. Still, since there was no deletion, I would call for the closure of this nomination as the wrong venue to discuss finishing the move. The target article talk page or the talk page of the closing admin are the proper places to do this. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

SeisQuaRe – Bold close. User indicates he understands deletion now. Userfied on request with instructions for further processing – Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deletion of SeisQuaRe Why did I write it to the Community?

First, I wrote it to inform a community of the existence of this firm. I agree that it could be seen as advertising but in this case why my article was deleted and not those about the Seisquare competitors like CGV Veritas, Halliburton or Schlumberger in the field of the seismic and its analysis. When you talk about a firm, a land or anything, you make it living and you advertise about it. Large companies give often their turnover, their profit, their financial statement. As investor, I can look at them on Wikipedia and make a choice. As client, I know what they do, I know their power, and I have directly access to their website. Looking at the firm like Schlumberger, I also can know the name of people working at the head of the departments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlumberger). At least, I am nearly sure that these companies use advertising agencies to write their article on Wikipedia. I invite you to look at the following list and to explain the difference between information and advertising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_petroleum_companies.

Secondly, I wrote it to inform the community of the new tool this firm has brought to the seismic analysis. Before, the job was just to look at wave going down and up the soil. With its technology, the analysis is thinner. That why some majors like Total, Petrobras, Statoil trust this little firm (turnover 2M€) as well large big companies like CGV Veritas, Halliburton or Schlumberger.

Third, I wrote it because the method using by this firm, quite new, can give a second life to the oil fields. With it you can see where you have to put the pumps and where you have to put the injectors. You can ameliorate the percent of the oil pumped from the field. While drilling, you can reduce the percent of the dry wells.

I did not finish this article. By deleting this article we do not give to the community access to the information, you let the large firm (like Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Total, LVMH,...) alone and do not give a chance to the small. Rules are not made for one; rules are made for all of us. Thank you for reading my English (which is not good) and understanding my position. Cordialy yours, Jsrlak (talk) 07:58 January 7th, 2008 (GMT +1:00)

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. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, this was advertorial not an encyclopaedia article. No objection to userfying for reword, but this account has vanishingly few edits so I don't hold out much hope of a properly compliant article. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The WP:CSD#G11 deletion was correct. Sandstein 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - as it stood, the article was promotional. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator I contacted first was Jeepday on January 6th at 06:30
I agree with the fact that wikipedia has not to be an advertising board and I do not want to see ads on the site...
However could you explain me why I can find articles about companies such Coca-Cola, British Petroleum (BP), American Express,...? All of them are on Wikipedia with their address, their logo, their website, their products, their history... They are promotional and as examples I invite you to look at the The Coca-Cola "contour bottle" design, its Brand portfolio or the discussion made on its advertising My Coke Rewards or its slogans or to look at the page about the McDonald's products or to look at the promotion made by a company such Alfred Dunhill on Wikipedia with the Alfred Dunhill Cup or the Alfred Dunhill Links Championship
You cannot talk about a firm without giving its name, without saying what it makes, without talking about its philosophy...
I think that each of them does advertise and it is not damaging to the site because that "Advertising justifies its existence when used in the public interest" (Attributed to Howard Gossage by David Ogilvy).
I am ready to re-write my article in another way but I would like to have the help of someone from Wikipedia to be sure that:
1-I respect the rules of the site,
2-We find and perhaps create together the way to talk about companies on Wikipedia
I just want to see the same rules for everyone and I think that this point is the essence of credibility.
Jsrlak (talk) 08:12PM January 7th, 2008 (GMT +1:00)

Chrislk02 deleted the article, not Jeepday. In any case, endorse deletion per above, but as with every other article that has been speedily deleted, it can be recreated as long as the issue that led it to be deleted is addressed. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, clearly promotional, also no indication of notability. Speedy deletion was correct. Jsrlak, I would suggest reading though our conflict of interest guideline and business's FAQ for more information on why this was deleted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but no one does answer the question to know what is promotional and what is not. Why the article I wrote is considered as promotional and why these about the products sale by McDonald's or Brand portfolio are not.
It is easy to say "this is promotional" or "this is not promotional".
It looks like a sentence given by a judge.
But Justice is not for just one; Justice is not variable figure.
No one of you wants to hear what I say; no one wants to explain the difference between my article and those cited above or the difference of Seisquare and the other firms.
Giving a sentence is easy; giving a reason and developping it is hardier.
I was asking for help but not one said "OK, I will help you to make your article not promotional and create a point to inform or to discuss an issue about this firm".
If I type Coca-Cola under wikipedia, I know that I will have a promotional part in the article but I also know that I will have someone showing something other and at least I will have to find by myself what thinking. Wikipedia is not the God's site of Truth as well as no newspaper does Truth.
So, I will ask again to someone showing me the best way to write this article about this firm and to present its method developped by the French mathematician Georges Matheron and his student Luc Sandjivy.The information is that this firm applies a mathematical formula to reality geophysics and this is something new.
Same rules for everyone, this point is the essence of credibility.
Jsrlak (talk) 04:01PM January 8th, 2008 (GMT +1:00)—Preceding undated comment was added at 15:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Well, in answer to your question, your article included text like "Seisquare’s main competitive advantage is its strong know-how in geostatistics linked to a strong comprehensive knowledge of geophysical issues." Who says this is their main competitive advantage? Who says they have strong know-how and strong comprehensive knowledge? This text is not neutral. We need reliable sources that are independent of the company itself to verify such evaluations of a company. (These are also helpful in verifying notability, without which verification the article may be deleted for other concerns.) Too, one of the reasons we discourage contributors from adding articles on their own business interests is because our neutrality policy requires balanced reflection of both positive and negative press. Take McDonald's, since you reference it, and look at the controversies section. As a final, small point, the tone was also inappropriate. "We" do not trust "In seismic...for managing Oil&Gas reservoires", and this is not "our" vision. We are neutral reporters writing from that perspective. As you are evidently involved with the company, your best bet may be to request assistance as recommended at our conflict of interest guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Moonriddengirl !!!!
I strongly agree with your approach and I recognize the promotional side of this article.
That was not finished and I worked on the presentation more than on the text.
Could you send it back to my mailbox? I will re-write it without this too much affirmative speech.
I did not able to read it and to save it; I was on rush and I expect to finish it within the night or the day after. At least it was too quickly deleted.
So I apologized for the text.
Thank you again Moonriddengirl because you exactly point the problem and you did not just give a sentence.
Jsrlak (talk) 05:23PM January 8th, 2008 (GMT +1:00) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

Jean sutton – Automatically restored as a contested PROD. – Stifle (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The author wrote books that were purchased by public libraries. That makes the author notable. The rest of the problems are not reasons to delete. Ezra Wax (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: Biographical information needs to contain something more than: "Jeff and Jean Sutton were married and wrote from 1950-1975.; Jefferson Howard SUTTON (1913-1979)". In addition, there were no reliable sources or even citations, for that matter. Having books published -- which has not been verified, does not make an individual notable. seicer | talk | contribs 05:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but this was a PROD, so it's an auto-restore. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Threshold (online game) – Invalid. A new article has subsequently been created with a stronger case for notability, and as such, the fate of the previous article (that was being debated here) is now immaterial. – MZMcBride (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deleting editor failed to understand the debate and did not follow deletion policy. Theblog (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion by the deleting Admin was given as:

"The result was delete. Regarding Threshold (online game), there is a of reliable and verifiable sources. In addition, there seems to be little notability to this particular game, and no major notability was established. The article also suffers from overuse of peacock terms which has the effect of promoting the game without parting with any useful information. As such, the article is not written from a neutral standpoint. Regarding Frogdice, it is entirely unsourced sans one magazine mention -- which has not been verified. There is not much else content on this article to really make it notable. In addition, excessive canvassing from various Internet forums has muddled the AFD process. After careful consideration of the comments, few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article or located additional reliable and verifiable sources."

For these reasons I believe the deletion of the threshold article should be overturned (<- my vote):

In the deletion notice, the deleting editor mentions that the concept of "major notability" while novel, there is only notable or not notable, no categories of notability.

The deleting Admin also comments that the current quality (peacock terms, neutral tone) of the article (as determined by him) is poor. The article quality does not have a bearing on the deletion and was not mentioned as a reason the article should be deleted in the nomination, this reasons for deletion are described in WP:DEL#REASON and this reason is clearly not in there.

The deleting Admin also makes the statement: "After careful consideration of the comments, few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article" this is a new standard and it is not known if those not in support of the article were treated similarly.

There was definately no clear consensus as required to delete: "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." While the deleting Admin claims that some arguments were discounted due to canvassing, there were still many arguments from established editors to keep the article that had not been addressed.

The AFD was also closed one day (correct if wrong) before the required (by WP:DELETE) 5 days had passed.

I have attempted to engage the deleting editor in conversation about these points, but he has not offered explanation, only repetition of his argument. Thank you for your consideration. --Theblog (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am only posting this for the Threshold entry. I believe Frogdice should be separately considered. --Theblog

UPDATE: I have tallied the comments (feel free to correct me if I counted wrong) and they come out to 18 Editors for delete, 17 editors for keeps, and only 4 editors with the tag indicating they have posted on few or no other articles than this one (these editors were not counted by me nor were 2 people banned for being sockpuppets). While I understand it is not a vote, I think this clearly shows that no consensus was reached and thus deletion was inappropriate. (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Close massive attempts at AfD disruption through off-site canvassing. As far as major notability, the admin was I believe referring to the fact that Threshold may be notable within a group, but it has no real notability to the outside world which is what this encyclopedia is intended for. This is an often cited argument. In the case of meat/sockpupets which were clearly a problem in this case, closing admins are free to completely disregard their statements and give them zero weight. Consensus is not a vote which is why disrupting the afd through off-site canvassing was a waste of everyone's time. There is zero reason to reward disruption of wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close as the closing administrator for the AFD. As noted on the AFD and on my talk page, the articles featured little to no verifiable or reliable sources, and contains borderline original research along with the usage of peacock terms that slants the article. In addition, there was widespread canvassing, and such comments were widely discounted or ignored, per deletion policy and alternate account policies. Such extensive canvassing led to the original indefinite block of Cambios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and the indefinite block of several others during the run of the AFD and prior. seicer | talk | contribs 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Perhaps as a busy administrator (1,370 pages deleted! Impressive!), Seicer did not have time to read the actual information about my blocks, the timeline of the supposed "canvassing", or the AfD itself. I was blocked for reverting edits without discussing them on the talk page. This was my mistake as I did not understand this convention of Wikipedia. I was making WP:GOODFAITH edits at the time and did not notice edits I was overwriting while working assiduously on the entry. The person who banned me did not, as required, assume WP:GOODFAITH, nor did he warn or try to help me understand what I was doing incorrectly. Furthermore, the timing of that block was highly suspect. Once I and all other active contributors were blocked, that is the precise moment that was chosen to move forward with the AfD.

- The indefinite block was placed due to an ERRONEOUS accusation of sock/meatpuppetry. Those accusations were not only a violation of WP:BITE, but they turned out to be FALSE. This was verified by User:J.delanoy, another admin of Wikipedia. After this verification, User:Black Kite reversed the block. You cannot use a wrongful block as evidence against someone or against an article.

- The "canvassing" that is claimed to have occurred happened when the people involved were inappropriately banned from Wikipedia by User:Black Kite for sock/meatpuppetry. Again, these accusations were total violations of WP:BITE (don't accuse new people of being sock/meatpuppets), and also turned out to be FALSE. Once these people verified their unique identities, they were unbanned. The people who discussed the issue on Top Mud Sites did so only after they were INCORRECTLY BANNED and had absolutely no recourse. If you ban people from your site, you really don't have any business getting mad at them for discussing things on a different site. That's all they have left.

I struck through this section. I am not trying to be contentious here. If it was inappropriate to say this, I apologize. Cambios (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The large number of people that participated in the AfD did not do so because of Top Mud Sites. Unless some of the DELETE-voters want to admit TMS is such a notable site that 1 thread there can result in one of the biggest AfDs in the history of Wikipedia. The people that participated did so because of the merits of the case, and the news it attracted from experts in the field. The fact that this issue attracted so much attention is evidence of Threshold's NOTABILITY, and yet somehow the closing admin misinterpreted this in the reverse.

- Finally, there was an enormous amount of #irc and email canvassing done by the editors and admins voting DELETE. This was discovered in multiple places. Cambios (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence that was a little too personal in nature. Cambios (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - You might want to check your own comments before you start accusing others of assuming bad faith. You've made repeated bad faith statements on this very page. You have no evidence of any canvassing, just people having a private discussion. You have no idea what they're talking about. your Canvassing however was extremely blatant.--Crossmr (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Sadly, that's pretty much crap all the way through. The original block was valid, for repeated edit-warring and COI issues. I extended the block to indef after a Checkuser found two socks editing from the same IP. However, after an off-wiki discussion with User:j.delanoy, one of those accounts was proved to be a different person. Assuming good faith, and with conditions, I unblocked those two accounts. There was however a CU-proven third account, User:Greg Douglas (still blocked, will remain so), which was a clear sock and if I hadn't been so forgiving, would've led to a long block for the other accounts. As for WP:BITE, neither of those accounts were new accounts. Assume good faith? (refactored) I won't bother next time. Black Kite 19:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reponse I'm sorry you feel that way. You originally banned me for being a sockpuppet of Cambios even though I had created my account a long time ago. (This assumes that I knew I was going to be involved in the Threshold AfD 4 years before I was and had planned to sock for Cambios.) Then I think was called a meat puppet and told I was posting in collusion, which would be difficult since Cambios had already been banned when I came to try to better the article. You unbanned us and requested that I not post until the AfD was over. I respected your wishes regardless of whether or not I thought that was fair. I still do not feel that I've done anything to warrant a blocking in the first place, but User:j.delanoy explained the workings and has been helping me understand better why the ban occurred. While it may have not been your intent, it seemed like we were all being banned for trying to save the article. I would prefer not to be blocked again, so what do I need to do to prevent that from happening? (Please let me know if this should be discussed elsewhere.)Kallimina (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't worry, I'm not going to block you again, I'm just seriously irritated that my efforts to be fair to you and User:Cambios have been thrown back in my face. In reality, the existence of the sock account User:Greg Douglas should've been enough to leave User:Cambios blocked, but I felt that giving a frustarted user a chance would show good faith on behalf of Wikipedia. Good faith should go both ways, and it clearly hasn't here. Black Kite 21:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for your patience. Please understand that while you think you were being fair and giving us a second chance by unblocking, I felt you were correcting a mistake aided by User:j.delanoy. (By the way, I am pretty sure that Greg is not a sock, but like Nizevyn who is also not a sock, simply gave up after the ban. Something I strongly considered doing myself. As my entire IP is banned, I don't think Greg can post without being specifically unbanned. I'm not in the position to say whether or not they were meatpuppets or if that is a banning offense. I know that Nizevyn was not warned that what he was doing could be a bannable offense.) In the end, I share your frustration just on the other side. Perhaps we could come to a solution. I will ask that Cambios take a break from a clearly very stressful and incendiary issue and to strike the comments he made about you personally. Kallimina (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response I just checked your edit history, and you were in fact involved with the Threshold (Online Game) article before you started banning users for edit warring. Given you were personally involved with the edit war you weren't allowed to involve yourself as an admin, but hey, what do the noobs know, right? You should have contacted a different admin to intervene. I guess it just goes to show that this policy is in place for a good reason since your blocks were reverted. Given your very active involvement with the AfD process it shows a lot of nerve to make further ban threats. I think it might be a better idea to instead consider if you really have what it takes to be an admin. --Scandum (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've replied to this collection of inaccuracies on the user's talkpage to save clogging this DRV up any further. Black Kite 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You've voted in support of the closing of this AfD, joined in the revert warring of the article in question (hence picking sides), warned Cambios to behave - next blocked him 5 minutes later without further explanation, accused Cambios of having sock puppets while there is only weak evidence against one sock puppet, then you threaten to ignore all rules and go on a banning spree because someone was ungrateful about the way you involved yourself. I'll admit that you weren't (technically) an involved party during the initial block, but you are now with your recent vote, and that calls into question the motivation of your involvement from the get go. --Scandum (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Excellent - I refute your first collection of inaccuracies and you come up with some more. I suggest you read the relevant checkuser report, by the way, because I'm not justifying your trolling by replying further. Black Kite 23:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you reverted Cambrios, in turn your revert got reverted by Cambrios, next you blocked him. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_policy#Disputes you were in the wrong to block him. --Scandum (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response What evidence do you have of this 'massive' and 'extensive' canvassing? All I see is a forum thread. Other people interested in MUDs picked up the story as a result of that post and shared their opinions. It was made clear their opinions count for nothing here unless they are regular and long standing Wikipedia editors so they shared their opinions on their blogs. Are you stating that a subject of interest to a niche community should not be mentioned on a forum dedicated to that community? If I AfD the 'Corvette' page and that gets posted about on a Corvette forum does that then lend weight to the deletion itself when members of that forum, who are naturally passionate about the subject, want to add their opinion to the subject? A subject on which, by the way, they know infinitely more than the person posting the AFD (which would, in that case, be me). Aardlasher (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the edits on the [Mud] and [Mud::Talk] page by some Wikipedian attempting to stalk, track down and delete any reference to your site attracted my attention and I strongly suspect the respected MUD bloggers who watch the Wikipedia Mud pages. Jlambert (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is one point that I requested clarified on the deleting Admin's talk page, but he (or she) didn't respond. It would be nice to know the breakdown of whose arguments were actually considered and whose were dismissed. As I noted above, only 4 editors were tagged as being new with few other edits with 2 editors banned for sockpuppetry (their comments were struckout anyway), the rest voting Keep I can only assume were long standing editors, as from personal experience I can say everyone was being heavily scrutinized. --Theblog (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion While I am not enthused about the closer's rationale, since it mentions as reasons for deletion some problems that could be fixed by rewriting, the offsite promotional campaign certainly interfered with any chance of holding on to a marginal article like this one. Occasionally a deletion debate will scour up lots of previously unknown sources and lead to an improvement of the article. It did not happen in this case. When the supporters of this article decided to fight rather than cooperate, it hurt their chances. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Excuse me, but the only "canvassing" that happened was the result of abusive administrators banning everyone who was either an original article contributor or voting KEEP on the AfD. Once they were all banned, what were they supposed to do? Just shut up and quietly go away and never speak of the matter anywhere? That's absurd. Furthermore, the admins and pro-DELETE people were canvassing like mad via email and #irc channel discussions. Some of them were even caught setting up such discussions on their Talk pages. Most people in the world do not consider Wikipedia their primary social community, and frankly, discussing things by editing the same web page over and over again has to be the most cumbersome way to communicate ever invented. Cambios (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed one sentence that was a little too snarky. Cambios (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence of that? I see one user asking another to speak with them on IRC about a private matter. I see no evidence of canvassing. and with your obvious bias you don't want to get in to a conversation of people telling other people what they should do.--Crossmr (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OVERTURN and KEEP: The AfD was closed 2 days early, and it it ignored the clearly spelled out requirements of WP:DP: "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." Cambios (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a sentenace that while true might be considered inflammatory. Cambios (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment some of the outside attention was legitimate. Raph Koster and Richard Bartle both clued in on this during or nearly during the debate. As such their readers wandered over. This is distinct from forum threads where offsite individuals plot to overturn consensus (the scenario we envision usually). I really wish this could have waited a bit before being listed here, but I suppose there was little choice. Protonk (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Bartle might have talked about Threshold in his blog but only after the AfD was being massively disrupted by sock/meat puppets due to off-site canvassing. He even states blatantly in the blog entry that it was generated in an attempt to establish notability of the subject. It was only mentioned in the same breath as an attack on wikipedia and its processes. In his attempt to try and generate a source to save something from deletion, he also tries to make the claim about some other sites and their notability/reliability. There is nothing about that that screams legitimate. The only legitimate source was a trivial mention in a print magazine.--Crossmr (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, of course, that a chicken-and-egg problem exists. Experts in fields will take information sources for granted, and often assume that their audience knows certain things. The smaller and more niche the field of study, the newer or the harder to locate sources for due to age, the less will be directly written. The issue of academic usefulness was actually raised in the AfD, and subsequently ignored, it seems (except by myself). We see similar issues with matters of pseudoscience - mainstream science takes so for granted the quackery of it that rarely are any formal disproofs ever made. LinaMishima (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeatedly asked for some genuine evidence that either of those sites were considered reliable (the only evidence given that Richard Bartle used the site academically was a game site interview where he namedrops one of the sites twice). No one was able to provide any genuine evidence of reliable sources citing them, any academic papers citing them, etc. What we did have was at least one of the pages about page basically describing the site as a hobbyist site. Those have traditionally never been considered reliable on wikipedia. In addition to that I asked for evidence that even if some of the sources were considered reliable (Bartle's blog is reliable to his opinion) was there any evidence that they were in fact notable and would confer notability to the subject. Wikipedia asks for well known awards. No one demonstrated the awards were well known. No one would provide any evidence to the viewership of these sites or expert blogs (even discounting the fact that they were generated in an attempt to subvert AfD) so that the community could try to establish whether or not those sites would actually confer notability. Even if expert in field Y writes about subject Z, but does it on a napkin in a restaurant, does it confer notability? I don't think so. It might be reliable as to his opinion if you can verify its origin, but that is it. We don't know if Bartle gets 10 viewers or 100,000 viewers on his blog and given the already obvious attempt at source generation any numbers generated now would be viewed with suspicion.--Crossmr (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Raph's blog can be traced as the source for several widely reported stories on MMOs, and has also had his direct opinions expressed there expressed widely, I don't think you can make claim as to his blog not being significant. You might also want to take a look at WP:FICT, which makes allowances for the use of less mainstream sources. A similar problem as to that which WP:FICT is trying to address exists for any niche field - publications regarding it are typically made within a small circle only, and are often supported more by community projects than by the major press. If attempting to document a field properly, this poses a problem. What's worse, any measure of notability for a source would be subjective not just over people, but also over time. Many 'zines grow large, become highly respected, but then their readership and original editing team moves on. Your use of 'subvert AfD' was also unnecessarily loaded, I feel, and ties in with the fact that you mainly made a call to notability (which never really impresses me) rather than actually debate the questions I raised directly. LinaMishima (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring that fact that Threshold isn't a book or movie, WP:FICT clearly states In all cases, if a subject relating to a work or element of fiction meets the requirement of the general notability guideline,it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. and also states All articles must meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, where every statement is backed by research from reliable sources. However, a verifiable article is not necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards and merely being verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion; the general notability guideline requires the use of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For fictional subjects, terms such as reliability and independence have specialized meanings. I don't see anything there that would allow for less than usual sources.--Crossmr (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters for this discussion but WP:FICT is proposed, not enacted. Protonk (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FICT is the most appropriate SNG. It states "News organizations and scholarly journals usually ensure reliability through peer review. However, a source may still be considered reliable without these strict content controls". WP:V was never in question, but rather the absurd reliance upon the highly subjective concept of notability. I have already spoken of these issues, and you have cunningly ignored them again. What is worse is how people prefer to call to the WP:N guideline, even when there are extremely good reasons to instead call to the far stronger policy of WP:V. LinaMishima (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB: As an aside, you have to wonder what it means when many of the major figures in a field all blog against an article being up for deletion. There seems to a belief amongst some wikipedia editors that "content is free", that there is no harm in deletion, since someone else can rewrite it all. I really hope I don't need to point out the patent absurdity in that. LinaMishima (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not all. Damion is clearly ambivalent on the subject, and Raph, Scott and Richard hardly count as a significant fraction of MMO/MuD experts. Protonk (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by this. Richard Bartle is a nice guy and an expert on gaming, muds and MMO's. Obviously we shouldn't take his blog post as sufficient evidence that Threshold is notable (I didn't say that), but it would be bizarre to dismiss his interest in the subject as illegitimate. I'm only saying that people who read his blog or correspond with him otherwise have a right to come to wikipedia and join the discussion. This is manifestly different from a WP user going to an outside forum known to be biased and pointing people toward a discussion with instructions. Protonk (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except there was a post at an outside forum, and it was linked from the AfD. The sock/meat puppeting started before Bartle and the other bloggers came in.--Crossmr (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? All I'm saying is that some of the new users at the discussion may have come in good faith. We will probably never know how many or which ones, but it behooves us to behave as though some were, given the evidence. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some may have, some might not have. The forum thread [60] was generated 2 days before the blog post, so that would probably give you some idea. I've never said his opinion isn't reliable, but there has been no evidence provided that it would confer any notability, and with threshold only being mentioned in the context of an attack on wikipedia, there is no reason for the community to reward that. Bartle was showing an obvious bias in his blog post, so any comments he makes about how reliable, notable, etc a site is really have to be taken with a grain of salt.--Crossmr (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I submit that some of the users coming to the AfD came from a forum post saying 'effectively' "save Article X". As for treating Bartle as a 'biased' source on the subject, I'm not so sure. And I'm not sure why you are returning to the question of using Bartle's post to establish notability for threshold. I haven't suggested we do that. Protonk (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but plenty have, because its really all they have. Bartle's post was being clung to to try and establish a lot of things: 1) that Threshold was notable, 2) that TMC was reliable and notable, 3) that topmudsite was reliable and notable, etc. You made the comment that there was some legitimate outside attention. My point is that the vast majority of it was generated as a result of the deletion discussion and even then it doesn't really amount to anything that would indicate a keep of this article. Bartle clearly states in his blog post that it was generated to give notability to threshold and in that same breath he suddenly proclaims notability and reliability for debated sources. In that context there is no way the community could accept it at face value.--Crossmr (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not to invoke WP:WAX, but you could argue that lots of media attention fell on deletionpedia only because its article was up for deletion (makes for a pithy article subject for newspapers). Obviously the level of attention isn't anywhere near the same but it wouldn't be reasonable to discount those stories due to their apparent motivation. Protonk (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. The link from the AfD to the TMS forum post was made by User:Black Kite. People went there to discuss the issue because they were UTTERLY UNABLE to discuss it on the Wiki. The circular logic that has been used all along here is absolutely bizzarro world type stuff. A delete voting admin links to an external forum post, and the people voting KEEP are blamed for canvassing? Cambios (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and keep the level of vitriol down. It doesn't help the debate to say "ban happy" or "delete happy". I know you are upset about this but please just help us see things clearly. Protonk (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I removed the sentence in particular that was accusative. Cambios (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Available for review by non-admins at User:Cambios/Threshold. Protonk (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would endorse the userification of the article (as done above) if it can be substantially improved. seicer | talk | contribs 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userification is not something you need to endorse or not - it is common practice for articles in progress to live in userspace, and separate deletion policies exist for these. LinaMishima (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn reason for deletion, however I am undecided on if the verdict itself should be overturned. To put it frankly, Seicer screwed up bigtime. On a heavily debated AfD, which has became popularised off wikipedia, any verdict must seem calm, free of bias, and understanding of all positions (despite having to side with one). Yet Seicer chose instead to:
1. Criticised the content of the article as a reason for deletion. These appear to be entirely new arguments in the discussion. In formal debate, one does not ever raise new points in their closing arguments, especially when one is doing it as judge & jury, and in a manner which displays clear bias.
2. Fall down to notability, a matter highly disputed in the discussion, when WP:V was, in their opinion, also an issue.
3. Make a critical typing mistake "there is a of reliable and verifiable sources". Under normal circumstances this would be ignored by all, but in this case the opening reason manages to have a typing mistake which makes its meaning completely ambiguous.
4. Fell foul of recentism and internetism by declaring a better reference for the article 'unverified'. In this case, the reference was certainly verifiable, and indeed most of the discussion regarding this reference seemed to focus on if that made the MUD notable, rather than on if the magazine even existed.
5. Seemingly cited canvassing and a muddled AfD as a reason for deletion. I can't see how, when presented in that matter after already reaching a conclusion, that statement could be intended as anything but "canvassing & muddled AfD = autodelete". This statement of issue should have really came first in his summing up prior to conclusion.
6. "few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article or located additional reliable and verifiable sources" Here Seicer sets a dangerous precident - that keep-voters are required to work heavily to improve an article and to locate sources to the peculiar tastes of those arguing for deletion. To make matters even worse, there have been allegations that attempts to do just this were actually blocked and reverted.
In conclusion, I feel Seicer maked a grave error in the reasons they gave as to why they closed this AfD. LinaMishima (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Close Oh come on! We've had such a long discussion, and the vote tally isn't reliable as many of them are suspected SPA/of the canvassing. The AfD itself had >3 links where canvassing occurred! In addition, AfD's are not votes. There's been enough forum shopping, canvassing, and overall attempts to game the sysetem where many established users have stated that the current version should be deleted and/or refuted the ad infinitum messages of the various SPA's due to canvassing (read:we've wasted enough time on this, and I feel the AfD was proper). Also, Cambios should stop his accusations against other admins and editors. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to speedily close a deletion review there. I think there is substance enough to discuss the merits of the close in this request. At the very least we can determine why it was closed >24 hours early. Protonk (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to what I meant to say due to edit conflict. So you want to reopen it for another 24 hours?

No, I think that would make a bigger mess of things. I really wish this DRV could be pushed back a week or so to wait until people aren't so hot under the collar about the issue (on both sides). Barring that, we can reasonably look at the propriety of the close here, with the shortened length a part of that. I still haven't decided whether or not it should be overturned. Hopefully people will improve the sandboxed version of this to the point where we can render the close moot and restore it. That would be the best outcome. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think pushing it back a week would change anything AfD/DRV/whatever, but I do agree that if the article is improved and restored, that would be best (although that is assuming it can be improved to the point where there would be no AfD, which I don't know if it can be, just a disclaimer from any promises, not saying it can't). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably true, anyways I don't think there is any history or provision to close a DRV and have it reopened later. It was mostly an empty lament. Protonk (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of what is going on here no version should be restored to main space until its been vetted at DRV, simply to prevent another episode like this. While people often restore non-contentious rewritten articles, there aren't sufficient sources on this subject currently presented to be restoring a completely different article on the subject to mainspace.--Crossmr (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to open it for another 24 hours, go ahead, it won't change anything, as essentially, we are continuing the AfD here alread. I disagree with the notion that closing this sets any precedent as it doesn't, but its already been stated above more concisely (you just have to read closely for implied meanings). Improvements aren't "forced" on a article. If none occur, it doesn't mean auto-deletion. However, if a article is not notable, or fails other inclusion guidelines, it will be deleted, therefore, if it does fail, then improvement is by fault compelled if one wishes to keep the article, be there a policy, precedent or not. Its common sense. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse — This is not AFD round 2. Why the fuck am I not surprised???? MuZemike (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Have you stopped and wondered why this abusive, policy defying deletion is getting so much press? Every step of the way, policies have been violated by the "powers that be." Incorrect bans (that had to be overturned). Bans timed RIGHT before an AfD proposal. Bans of almost everyone voting KEEP to try and guarantee less KEEP votes. Accusations of canvassing by people who were already BANNED from Wikipedia and had no other place to discuss anything. As if Wikipedia has the right to silence people beyond its own borders. Canvassing by pro-DELETE admins/editors via email and irc (documented and linked to already), but that's just considered no problem and accepted. AfD closed 1-2 days early. Rampant accusations of sockpuppetry of anyone who votes KEEP, despite WP:BITE forbidding that. Closing admin totally ignores the arguments in the AfD, and substitues his own personal opinions - including opinions on issues totally not germane to an AfD. Despite 17 votes delete, 22 KEEP, somehow it is declared to be a "consensus to delete." Sure, its not a vote, but when more people vote KEEP, you sure as heck don't have a consensus to delete. Take all of that together, and of course it is no surprise that people take it to the next step. But honestly, does anyone believe it will matter? Since when has anything related to this situation been handled fairly or according to Wikipedia policy? Cambios (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:MuZemike (wikipedia administrator): "Why the fuck am I not surprised". Wow. Grossly inappropriate and incredibly immature. Cambios (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've been pointed to WP:AGF several times at this point and referenced it yourself. I'll also point you to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. These are policies, WP:BITE is a guideline and you can't attempt to disrupt wikipedia and hide behind BITE when someone calls you on it.--Crossmr (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one big problem with that statement above. I am not an admin. MuZemike (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per the clean hands doctrine. In short, the behaviour of Cambios and other editors here and at the AFD has disinclined me to consider whether their request should be granted. I will, however, point out that the AFD was quite a train-wreck and that Seicer's closure summary was completely necessary due to the length of the debate. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The ones who failed to understand deletion policy appear to be the fans, not the closing admin. Seicer's close (give or take a minor typo) is clear and unambiguous: lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. Set against this fundamental issue, things like WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:ITROCKS cut no ice. Sorry, that's how it is. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the result. Canvassing tends to backfire on Wikipedia, and when a bunch of new users suddenly show up on an AfD (which is a consensus discussion, not a vote) people are gonna want to investigate to see if there's any skulduggery going on. Even assuming good faith, there's more issues here than a Reader's Digest back-catalog - Vani spam cruf tisement, off-wiki canvassing, Shadows calling Sora a Heartless, and character-assassination. Whatever possessed you to think that these would help save your article, please tell me where you got them so I can avoid that particular place, because they're slipping you some heavy-duty drugs. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 09:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Referring to anyone who joined in this debate as though they were here to subvert the Afd is ridiculous. I dont think canvassing is a problem here at all, and should be dropped on BOTH SIDES. Anyone who is interested in Threshold, or mud's in general was entitled to a voice. Please dont throw how this was about a single entry back as an argument. All the Wiki rules / policies use Afd's as examples.. therefore in principal every Afd is important. The majority of new people voting to keep who were new users took time to read all the rules / policies thrown in their face on every single post, learning how Wiki works should be applauded, not slammed. I have an incredibly bad taste in my mouth at the dismissal of new users by some long standing admins, who just "appear" to be elitist biggots. Thresholds entry does not interest me personally, though the dismissal of every existing MUD site / expert does. Threshold will not be harmed by this nonsense, so I dismiss conspiracy theories as noone would be so stupid as to think removing Threshold from Wiki was a win. However there is a loser, Wikipedia has yet more bad press on some incredibly high profile blogs about the terrible way information is decided on by personally biased, nd potentially unifomrmed individuals. The handling of this Afd has been appauling.. and as already stated one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia on entry deletion has been broken. To me though there are several issues that needs to result in admins being suspended pending investigation as to their ability to edit such a high profile repository of knowledge. The questions are - Why, when the entry was editted as requested, where some edits reverted by admins voting to DELETE, and why were long standing editors who disagreed with Deleting admin blocked from entering this debate. Conflict of Interest is apparent. --MudMannUK (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (Minor edits as made unfounded statements) --MudMannUK (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my words came off as inflammatory (I can speak or nobody else), but posting to an off-wiki forum, board, or elsewhere and telling people to vote one way or another *is* canvassing, and generally nets the canvasser's side a loss. The only COI I can see here is on the side of the user who brought this for review (I'm not a MUD player, and looking at the article as it sits in OP's userspace it read like vanispamcruftisement). I have not seen any long-standing editors barred from this DRV (on either side) by any means, technical or otherwise, so please redact that sentence unless you provide diffs or links to logs as evidence of such. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 11:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually check out the post on the Top Mud Sites forum where the supposed "canvassing" took place? There is no call for people to vote - at all. The post says "I'm not sure if there is anything we can do about it". saying you don't know if there is anything one can do is about as far from canvassing as you can get. It is the OPPOSITE of suggesting action. The post is about the MUD community banding together to figure out a way to shore up its history. Before just blindly accepting accusations of canvassing, it might be a good idea to GO TO THE SITE and READ THE POST that supposedly represents canvassing. If any canvassing happened, it was the DELETE voters via #irc and email. That post on TMS is definitely not canvassing by any stretch of the imagination. Cambios (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that canvassing on #wikipedia-en and thru email is impossible to prove on Wikipedia, correct? The statement you note above can indeed be construed as canvassing, especially given where it was posted. Please simmer down. Nobody is attempting to attack you or MUDs in general, sir. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hard to prove. But when there are section of people's talk page that say things like "Please come to #some_irc_channel so we can discuss the Threshold AfD" that makes it somewhat clear? Right? Cambios (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who posted the messages, which channel, and to whom? And, do you have any proof actual canvassing went on in those IRC channels? For all we know, the discussion could have been about something else related to the AfD, such as Seicer's ill-worded close. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Deletion No consensus was reached. AfD may not be a vote, but the fact that the majority voted to keep clearly indicates lack of consensus. Attempts at improving the article were stifled by repeated reversions of edits being made to do just that along with banning users without justification. Accusations of sockputtetry and meatpuppetry were thrown around without proper supporting evidence. Accusations of canvassing were thrown around despite admins who were clearly engaging in the same behavior. AfD was also closed improperly before the process was supposed to conclude. Samson (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote, period. There is no but there. you can't pile on and claim consensus in the presence of obvious indication of offsite canvassing.--Crossmr (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So then how exactly is consensus reached? Surely it isn't the will of two people? Or three? Or even five? There has to be some way to measure consensus and in the real world most of us accomplish that by looking at who voted one way or the other. It seems entirely counter-intuitive that it should work opposite to reality here on Wikipedia. Even disregarding the obvious non-consensus here, you don't get to fling accusations of off-site cavassing when those who had legitimate reason to comment were prevented from doing so because of preemptive bans. You also can't use canvassing as any kind of excuse when your own administration was engaged in the same thing over IRC and their own talk pages. In the end though, it would be extremely helpful if someone could explain just how consensus works here so that it can be better understood by everyone. Samson (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, which notes (in part): "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:DP#Deletion discussion also makes quite clear that asking others outside of Wikipedia to come to the discussion is quite inappropriate, and that such comments may be ignored. seicer | talk | contribs 13:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you not ignore the users (one of which was the nominating one) who apparently went over to some IRC channel? Was there canvassing going on there? Jlambert (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't prove IRC because IRC comments are copyrighted by their authors (and thus cannot be posted on Wikipedia), and in any case canvassing on any Wikipedia IRC channel is just as bad as canvassing on Wikipedia itself and would have resulted in blocks. The admins are not corrupt, or at least not to the level you would assume them to be. There is no cabal, get used to it. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I guess the TopMudSites.com forum posting can't be proven either since they are also copyrighted by their authors and thus can't be posted on Wikipedia. I'm at a loss to understand this kind of logic. Samson (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The forum-posting is publicly viewable though, lest I'm mistaken. IRC logs are not; that's what I'm getting at. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So an open, honest, fully viewable forum post that anyone can see, and decide about for themself is canvassing. But evidence of secret meetings to discuss a topic are not? That seems backwards to me. Furthermore, read the TMS post. There is no call for a KEEP vote or anything of the sort. At the time of the post, the OP was banned (and stop nitpicking, in the real world, ban/block are substantially the same. The real world isn't the Wikiworld) and had concluded all his Wikipedia options were done. That's the opposite of canvassing. But what I find most disingenuous is the willingness to obsess over such dubious accusations in lieu of evaluating actual arguments, points, and policy. Is this about making good decisions, or winning an AfD? If the former, then arguments matter. If the latter, scoring points of procedure matters. Cambios (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Reindent) That's just it. The forum is publicly viewable and thus it's impossible to twist one's words. Since the IRC logs are not public-viewable, it is impossible to tell whom said what and thus we cannot use them since we would be twisting words, whether we were aware of it or not. And, as has been explained, the post made there can (and was in this case) read as canvassing. Just because a post doesn't include the word "keep" or "vote" doesn't mean it isn't canvassing - it's just not as obvious and in some cases is a gray area. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well what happened to WP:GOODFAITH then? You're saying we have to assume nothing untoward when editors request a private #irc powwow in the middle of a hot debate, but then extend no similar good faith regarding a post made by people COMPLETELY SHUT OUT of Wikipedia with nowhere else to discuss things at all? This is why we keep screaming corruption and other such things. You are holding "newbies" to a HIGHER standard than long time editors, editors with 17,000+ edits, and admins. That doesn't make sense. The canvassing accusation needs to either stop completely, or be equally applied to both sides. Either way, it cancels out. Cambios (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all what I'm trying to imply. Impropriety on a publicly-viewable forum is very much easy to prove; IRC is a different breed ot Chu. I'm not saying you should assume nothing untoward; I'm saying that proving canvassing via IRC is impossible because the logs are private and even if you participated in the conversation, you would need to use not just your posts, but the posts of other people. Per RfArb/Durova, you would need permission from all parties who participated, and to use them you'd've had to c&p them locally. You are allowed to be reasonably suspicious of irc invites, but unless you have the chat logs and permission from all involved, you cannot say that canvassing was taking place via IRC. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 09:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for telling the world how to "canvas" properly. Next time something like this happens I'm sure observers to this whole corrupt mess will know to use IRC/IM/Email/Non-public forums/their MUDs/whatever in order to hide behind the same ludicrous copyright shield. Samson (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back off that point, Arth. I am by no means telling the world how to canvass; I am merely stating that you cannot definitively prove canvassing in private chat logs or correspondence. That does not mean canvassed parties will not get blocked if someone gets suspicious of all the new accounts coming in at once to an AfD discussion. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if pointing that out opens the door to a serious loophole in your canvassing policies, but there it is. Arguments about being unable to use such places as evidence create the problem. Not people like me pointing them out. Samson (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an argument; ArbComm (the equivalent of a high court on Wikipedia) has stated that private correspondence (including IRC logs) requires the permission of the parties who are to have their words quoted or else they cannot be used, and most Wikipedians construe this to be due to copyright reasons/misattribution. Link to relevant case and finding-of-fact: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close I see no problems with the closure --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would also stand not to resort to making personal attacks with those you disagree with. seicer | talk | contribs 13:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn delete - No clear consensus for delete was reached among "long standing editors" even throwing out the 4 to 6 so-called meat-puppets. Deleting admin apparently ignored the blatant CoI of the nominating user (being banned from the game), the unusual repetition of arguments by same user (what 60+ argumentative posts!?!) that led to the ridiculous length of the AfD (another indication of an axe to grind), the Wikipedia User::talk shopping by same user in the edit wars of the page (what 6 requests for help?). I'd also note the blog authors who picked up on this are all major MMORPG developers and creators ("experts"), none of which even participated in the AfD to my knowledge (so much for the canvassing), and no doubt their largely negative views of Wikipedia contributed. Frankly, had the request for help editing the article been placed on the Mud:Talk page long ago, you might have seen a better article on Threshold by "experts" instead of the usual summoning of ignorant Wikipedia policy morons apparently far more interested in the destruction of information than adding it. My two cents. Jlambert (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. There was not overwhelming consensus here, but I believe there was sufficient. Policy-based arguments seemed predominately for deletion, though it's always tricky when it comes down to the questions of how many and what type of sources meet WP:N. There are good faith, well-informed contributors on both sides, canvassing notwithstanding, and this closure would have been unpopular no matter which way it went. I think the deletion rationale was well advised. Typo is unfortunate, but oops. We're human. :) (Perhaps the admin should add the word "lack"?) If the userfied article can be expanded with sufficient reliable sources to address those concerns, ~~than~~ then restoration to article space would not be inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at afd. I completely understand the contentious nature of this AfD, and I am inclined to defer to the closer due to the massive external pressures on the case. Some of the newly-registered users may not appreciate just how disruputive canvassing is to a process that relies on consensus of a subset of users to acheive results that follow policy. The closer had the uneviable task of deciding how much weight to give all of the various arguments in light of the canvassing. However, these difficulties were exacerbated by closing the discussion a day early and deleting. In order to declare a rough consensus to delete based on that discussion, the closer necessarily had to afford little or no weight to the arguments of the 15+ contributors. Fine, sometimes it's appropriate to do that, but I think that absent a WP:SNOW-type case, the full allotted time should be allowed in order to give the contributors every opportunity to provide reliable sources (what a radical idea that would be) or to hone their arguements into something more policy based. I could understand, and would have supported, a speedy close/relist due to canvassing. In controversial cases most of all, process is important. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I highly suggest that people not just blindly accept what the "powers that be" say is canvassing. Did anyone actually check out the post on the Top Mud Sites forum where the supposed "canvassing" took place? There is no call for people to vote - at all. The post says "I'm not sure if there is anything we can do about it". saying you don't know if there is anything one can do is about as far from canvassing as you can get. It is the OPPOSITE of suggesting action. The post is about the MUD community banding together to figure out a way to shore up its history. Before just blindly accepting accusations of canvassing, it might be a good idea to GO TO THE SITE and READ THE POST that supposedly represents canvassing. If any canvassing happened, it was the DELETE voters via #irc and email. That post on TMS is definitely not canvassing by any stretch of the imagination. Cambios (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a sentence that might be interpreted as too aggressive. Cambios (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it is in all of our best interests to fight against the erosion of our historical significance" reads very much as a call to arms to me, particularly in proximity to a link to the AfD. Per Wikipedia:Canvassing: mass posting, biased, partisan audience. Check. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So much for WP:AGF huh? Instead of interpreting, how about go with some direct, actual statements: "I'm not sure if there is anything we can do about it" If the guy wanted people to go VOTE, he wouldn't say he didn't even know if there was ANYTHING they could do. Sheesh. You have rogue admins BANNING people without warnings in violation of the rules, and have the gall to expect them to just logoff the internet completely and go read a newspaper?

At this point, I'm waiting for one of these admins to yell in a Jack Nicholson voice: "YOU WANT ME ON THIS WALL! YOU NEED ME ON THIS WALL! YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" Look, why don't you save us all a lot of time and frustration and just tell us how this is your little fiefdom and policies and rules are happily ignored if they get in the way of your personal wishes. The rules are for the peasants, right? It really insults our intelligence the way "the powers" make up totally bogus excuses for their actions and (*choke*) decisions. Actual Policy has been completely ignored repeatedly by the people with the power. Somehow, it is only the newbies, readers, and "minor editors" that bear all the burden of showing good faith and proving every single statement with enough proof to satisfy a RICO jury. But the more power someone has, the less actual justification they need for their actions, the less suspicion their "questionable" actions receive, and the less they have to follow rules. Isn't that backwards? The best part of this is major media outlets are watching this whole situation, which is why every 4 hours or so the story hits another news organization or blog. You people are embarassing Wikipedia with each one of thise blatantly crooked "decisions." Cambios (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence above is a "direct, actual statement." You asked if anyone checked out the site. I followed your link and did so. I find an exhortation to "fight". The fact that he worries that nothing can be done doesn't change the fact that he urged people to try. Canvassing may be innocently done and not necessarily in bad faith, but the problem with it is that it can skew the results of debates. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, absolutely NO EVIDENCE of canvassing. There is no "go vote KEEP" statement of anything of the sort. You are simply interpreting language however you see fit. You say it was canvassing because it suits your purposes to do so. Your accusation blatantly fails WP:V and WP:NPOV. Cambios (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this different from interpreting a simple request for an IRC conversation between two users who already knew about the AFD as a canvassing attempt? Why or why not? - MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. So how about both sides stop accusing the other of canvassing? From the beginning, I have wanted to argue the merits. But that has been almost impossible to do as I have been faced with repeated bans, proven incorrect accusations of sockpuppetry, and completely unprovable accusations of cavassing. I would not even discuss these topics if people would stick to the facts and cut it out with the procedural motions and personal accusations (of which I have then been guilty of responding in kind). Cambios (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment: To those who say the AFD was closed early, can you please point out where it says that AFDs have to be open for five days? The top of WP:AFD says "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days" (my emphasis). Stifle (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is one of those things that isn't uniformly agreed upon. WP:Deletion process#AFD states "Every day, the day page (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Year Month Day) that is more than five days old should be moved here. The decision to keep or delete a page is to be implemented only after this move has been performed." I personally close non-SNOWs/non-relisted discussions 120 hours after they are nominated. I know many admins close after 96 hours. Reasonable minds and all, but I think when there's likely to be a dispute, allow the full time for discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion is clear: "The discussion lasts at least five days." Sandstein 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we've got a conflict of policies then. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - but the definite language of WP:DELETE (which is a policy) compared to the 'maybe' language of the deletion process page (which is a guideline) implies that the five days - while perhaps not a hard and fast rule - is something that should be carefully considered before deviating. I'm not certain this was a good time to deviate from that policy, especially considering waiting the extra day would have eliminated a major point of this review. Ale_Jrb ^talk 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the meatpuppets and keep the self-promotional article deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion While not an overwhelming consensus, many arguments for keep are erroneous either in their interpretations of policies and guidelines or in their identification of sources. Even if my nomination were in bad faith, and my own !vote stricken/discounted, my rationale still stands and is still valid, as evidenced by the number of long-term editors endorsing the same view. In fact, even AfDs brought by editors banned from Wikipedia can and do remain open if there are good-faith delete !votes. Furthermore, Cambios' (and others) accusations of "administrative canvassing" (note I am not an admin, despite what User:Arthmoor AKA Samson claims on his blog) have already been answered, and the explanation accepted by Cambios. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the new article, all of the sources being used at present were evaluated in the AfD. If this DRV closes as endorse, it strikes me that WP:CSD#G4 applies. There should be no prejudice against recreation should new sources be revealed or if consensus changes as to the reliability of current sources. As to the question of a violation of process, and whether WP:IAR is appropriate for this situation, I have no strong opinion. I believe that it had become abundantly clear that no new sources could be readily produced, and that all remaining discussion consisted of arguments based on process and guidelines. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I retracted a statement regarding ONE OF MANY potential acts of canvassing, that's all. Don't even begin to say I "accepted" your denial in general. Since you've chosen to claim to be able to speak for me about my own opinions, I think I have the right to correct you: in my personal OPINION, I think you were emailing and ircing people like mad, and that every single action you have taken from the beginning was personally motivated in your vainglorious drive to gain adminhood. There was definitely some kind of #irc canvassing going on, because it was right there on your User:Talk page. Furthermore, as already noted, you were selectively canvassing through User talk pages by cherry picking previous editors of the article. That is an action expressly forbidden in the Wikipedia article on canvassing. Further, as you almost admit, your nomination was indeed in bad faith. You accused others of COI, while hypocritically never revealing your own. You are GAGGING for an adminhood, and know deleting articles is an easier way to "score points" than creating them. Your 63+ comments on the AfD were outrageous spam, and speak to your desperation to win the AfD at all costs for your dreamed of RfA (you even have RfA tips on your user page. LOL). Cambios (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not go back into WP:ATTACK mode, please. WP:TEA ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, from the way things played out it appeared as though you were an admin. So you're an aspiring admin instead. Some may not really see the difference. That aside, your conflict of interest in this matter is much clearer and was completely ignored by those who ARE admins. Samson (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist because the five-day period mandated by Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion had not elapsed at the time of the closure. No opinion about the merits of the closure. Sandstein 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist is the one thing we don't want to do here. Just look at that AfD. Whatever happens, we'll end up back here again. Endless circle? Black Kite 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The closer really should have thought of that before breaking the policy. I'd prefer an overturn, and I really don't want a relist. But given all the problems caused by admins of this site in the AfD and its close, I don't see any good solutions. Hobit (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - Seicer's closing statement looks to be about right, from a perusal of the material. If it can be rewritten to meet the needs of WP:N and WP:RS, then recreation is fine, but the version I see doesn't really fly. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and rewrite: I am one of the supposed canvassed "barbarians at the gates" who commented on this AfD on my personal blog, as it was both relevant to the MUD/MMO community and a topic of conversation on peer blogs. Rest assured although I am a somewhat interested party from a professional standpoint, I have no vested interest in the actual topic. I have never played the MUD or are involved in its maintenance, unlike apparently most of the people in this discussion - it's painfully obvious that there is tremendous bias on both sides of this discussion, both pro- and con-. The article also appeared at first glance to fail WP:NPOV and could have used a rewrite and trimming. However there are many MUD entries on Wikipedia that have survived deletion challenges on notability grounds; MUDs are fictional works by their very definition and internet-based, and there is little to no sourcing that can be applied to these. The self-promotional aspects of the article can and should be removed. SJennings (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - The arguments on the AFD had become (very) repetitive, as one can see from the great length of the discussion and the comments about the repetition on the AFD itself. Further discussion time would've only generated more heat, not more light. Please, please don't relist this right away, whichever way this DRV is decided. - MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - oh my. Closing this type of heavily contested debate early - even if arguments from people were without merit - was probably not the best idea. It's likely that the result would have been the same, so why that last day wasn't waited out is beyond me - WP:DELETE does ask for 5 days, and the snowball clause definitely doesn't apply here. *sigh* I have no comment on the article itself, or merits of the deletion. Ale_Jrb ^talk 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close The only valid point I can see to relist is that the AfD was closed a day early. Considering this AfD to be a special circumstance where WP:IAR applies, it should stay closed. This was an exceptionally long AfD full of all kinds of nonsense that is not becoming to the encyclopedia. The vote was large enough already and the extra day would have meant even more drama. This AfD is a textbook case in how NOT to save your article for deletion. Under IAR the early closure was appropriate. Themfromspace (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see nothing wrong with keeping the recreated article in its current state, but as that was not the article discussed in the AfD I still stand by my endorse vote of the old article. If the Drv closes as an endorse I feel that the newly-created article shouldn't be deleted as a result. Themfromspace (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn to no consensus Ok. I've given this a lot of thought. First, I'm good and tired of listening to the wailing and gnashing of teeth on offsite blogs vis wikipedia's horrible deletionism and cronyism. That doesn't need to be repeated here. Nothing that happened in that AfD is outside the realm of what can happen on any given day. Just because some editors feel that their opinions on subject XYZ are important doesn't mean that something orwellian and cruel is occurring should they be stopped from rushing into an AfD en masse. We have deletion debates that attract outside attention often. This one wasn't special. In order to ensure that the debate isn't railroaded, we limit comments or discount the opinions of seemingly new users. Normally we don't block users (and I'm not 100% sure what happened in that respect). But that is also not unheard of. For those of you coming from the outside world, please understand that the wikipedia of 2001 is NOT the wikipedia of 2009. As the encyclopedia grows, process has become more important (treat this as a flaw or a neutral feature as you will). Add to the the very real use of wikipedia for promotion of subjects and you come out with the need for administrators and editors to act forcefully on the margins of notable content. This doesn't always end well (as seen here) and it hurts (when the content is your own). But it doesn't make sense for us to have rules about third party coverage, self promotion and process control then throw those out upon request. It likewise doesn't cut the mustard (in response to Scott above) to say that the nature of the beast limits good sources. My response to that is just to apologize. We build articles from sources. If those sources are thin on the ground or non-existent, we can't just declare a free pass. That being said, the AfD may have been closed as no consensus and the new users dealt with more gingerly. Combine that with the early close and the combative nature of some participants and it becomes hard to judge consensus. Where it is hard to judge, we should be careful in doing so and give some benefit of the doubt to retaining content. However, I can understand the comments here endorsing deletion. Many keep votes were based largely or solely on premises flatly rejected at WP:AADD. Some were unfounded. But most were made in good faith and expressed some reasoning why the article should be kept. Likewise some delete votes were trivial and/or unfounded. However, I reiterate that the single best way to resolve this is to find sources, rewrite the article (currently at User:Cambios/Threshold), and bring a fresh version into mainspace that resolves the issues pointed out in the deletion discussion. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. I suspect the article might be borderline notable personally, but there was nothing wrong with the close, this isn't AFD2, and see my comment about the sockfest above. Black Kite 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - if the AfD was closed early while debate was ongoing it should not have been closed. No opinion as to the notability of the article itself. Raitchison (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to those arguing to relist. I believe that the result of a relisting will be more of the same (lots of needless drama, canvassing, puppetry). What would a relisting accomplish on top of the 180KB long debate that took place over four days? Even when closed early, this is easily longer than 95% of other AfD debates and in my opinion a relist will only be full of similiar headaches. Themfromspace (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of an exaggeration? 100MB? If it's really that big might I suggest there's a problem with your storage methods? Relisting would accomplish allowing those who were banned from fixing it in the first place the opportunity to come back and give it a shot now. Though I suspect at this stage they're going to be unwilling to do so after having been intimidated and driven off by overzealous banhammer wielding admins. Samson (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I can't do math. Themfromspace (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment Please be aware that most of us were banned or requested to be banned before or right after the AfD was proposed while attempting to better the article. We were actually unable to participate in most of the AfD. Though I got my posting rights restored, I did not participate in any more of the AfD discussions. It is not uncommon that people with the same hobby/interest work on the same article. Calling us all meat/sock puppets across the board seems to hardly be in good faith. All you're teaching the casual user is that to get anywhere they have to point out that the other "side" was doing it also. There are no clean hands in this entire debate. Placing the burden of misbehavior all on one side is what got so many people interested in AfD in the first place and likely what made many notable people interested in this issue outside the scope of Wikipedia. Continuing to do so will only fuel the debate further. You may declare that we were canvassing, but Mendaliv also went to the talk pages of former editors of the Threshold entry who all edited it negatively in the past to come participate in the discussion. This is actually strongly discouraged by [WP:CANVAS]. In addition, the admin who eventually banned most of us was also editing the Threshold entry with Mendaliv. He retracted the bans when another admin who found us on the forum (the one that is spawning the canvassing accusation) actually reviewed the issue. And this is exactly why the drama continues. Blanket accusations against the people who fought to keep the entry encourage explanations. Pointing out how long the debate was only shows that there was no concensus when the article was deleted and the AfD ended early. Probably not the best thing to argue. Kallimina (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is if you all come at the same time and do something wrong, such as edit-war (i.e. constantly revert other editors). I assure you if someone had decided to seek dispute resolution rather than be a complete twat, this wouldn't have become a problem. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse Understandable. Please note that Nizevyn and I (two people who got banned) were not involved in the edit war. I made one edit with a request that a link be added since I could not do so myself. The edit war seems to have been between Cambios and Mendaliv with Black Kite possibly being involved to oversee the issue. In order to seek dispute resolution, one would have to know about it. By the time I found out that this was an option, I'd already been banned, so it was not an option. While there are things that seem second nature to heavy editors of Wikipedia, these things are not so obvious to casual editors. (For example, I didn't know that you had to talk about your reversions and changes on the talk page. I thought that simply doing it and making the comment in the Edit Summary was fine. I actually didn't know what a talk page was for until the AfD started. That was only because I had help in understanding it.) Wikipedia protocol is not something that is easy to learn. Should dispute resolution have been attempted before the CU requests and subsequent bans occurred? Kallimina (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed should have, unless there was ironclad evidence of sockpuppetry. And you generally have to discuss on the talk page because many people gloss over edit-summaries, making them not too effective as a form of communication. It's a cycle called "(Be) bold, revert, and discuss". After this DRV, I'd be more than willing to help you out with Wikipedia policy questions you may have; just contact me via my talk page. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse close with comments I am one of the people who was banned for sockpuppeting/editing in collusion/meatpupetting (I'm not sure which one finally stuck) while I was attempting to add citations I was digging up and listing in good faith. This was investigated and reverted. I am also one of those people who went offsite to discuss this issue having no recourse to deal with it on Wikipedia until admins from Wikipedia came to that site and aided. Requests for aid via the unblock process was met with no help, ridicule, and accusations of being a liar as evidenced on my talk page. One other person was banned for trying to edit, and 3 requests for meat/sockpuppeting was put in for people also working on the entry to try to better it who actually have had other contributions on Wikipedia. (It seems that only one person was allowed to work on the entry. Everyone else is a meat/sockpuppet or editing in collusion regardless of the nature of their contributions.) New citations were repeatedly removed, ridiculed, belittled during the AfD as attempts were being made to better the article. It became obvious that bettering the article was not allowed at this time with far too many people reverting the entry and removing any new citations based on their personal opinions backed by a lot of [WP:JUSTA]. This included citations from noted experts in the field of online gaming plainly stating that Threshold was considered notable to them regardless of their opinoins of Wikipedia. (Though, those experts were belittled and mocked on many User:Talk pages and and hit with accusations of canvassing. These are men with their own reputations at stake who are hardly likely to say something is notable when it is not, so accusing them of canvassing is incredibly disrespectful not to mention just ignorant.) At this time, if the article were restored, it would continued to be bludgeoned with [WP:JUSTA] which would just result in edit warring and someone(s) getting banned. Threshold's entry is obviously being held to a much higher standard than many of the entries that currently exist on Wikipedia, and as thus, it has no chance of surviving with too many people now having vested interest in seeing it stay or go regardless of the actual content entry. It is also highly doubtful that editors interested in bettering the article will be allowed to do so without being scrutinized heavily. Obviously, the people who were working to keep the article made terrible mistakes that flew in the face of many of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as has been detailed in other comments. While I cannot speak for them, I can definitely state for myself that I now know the protocol FAR better than when this started though I am still learning. (For example, I am still unsure if I am allowed to make this comment. I assume it will be struck if I am not.) I do not believe that Mendaliv or Cambios started out with anything but good faith in trying to better the article, but this conflict of personality has grown to epic proportions. While I strongly disagree with some of the heavy-handed tactics in all this rather than the mediations and negotiations recommended by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the situation has snowballed out of hand. A reset and rewrite seems to be the best option for everyone. (Apologies for the long comment. I couldn't find anything to suggest if this might be inappropriate.) Kallimina (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was heavy-handed by the administrator handling it, who might have been interpreting ArbComm cases a bit too liberally. I will note that the article is indeed in Cambios' userspace at the present moment. And don't worry about your long comment. It's fine, although some people might go "tl;dr".-Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I think notability has been established - the MUD ranks #3 on the all time ranking of TMS (one of the two largest mud portals), which is sufficient. Verifiability of the article content is an issue, and it's further complicated by the obstructive behavior of editors who wish for the article to be deleted, one of them going as far as going to the MUD article to edit war over the inclusion of a link to http://topmudsites.com. All in all these editors have given the impression that they have an axe to grind and have used their experience to obstruct, rather than further the improvement of the article by adding sourced content. On the other hand, I don't think the newbie editors wanting to improve the article understand how to go about creating a decent article, and instead have gotten the impression that not the quality of the article matters, but how good you are at wiki lawyering and gathering support. Clearly that's an issue, but it doesn't warrent deleting the article either. The AfD should be overturned, given there are clear indications that the only reason that the article went up for deletion is because Mendaliv got tired of edit warring with Cambios. --Scandum (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn - no consensus for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There was no consensus to delete, and examination of the article and the sources indicate a sufficient foothold on notability to give the article more than the benefit of the doubt - this source is reliable and features the game in a "highlights" list. SilkTork *^YES! 20:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn For improper handling of the deletation policy. The AfD requesters are free to make a new one at any time, which then (hopefully) will be less of a mess. --MartinSojka (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Improve Overturn for clear violation of policy by the deleting admin, and for the apparent canvassing having come from both sides of the argument. As probably the most verbose editor proposing a KEEP who was not involved in the off-site canvassing, I have to say that I felt treated otherwise by the way the extensive efforts I made to provide evidence of notability in this case were shrugged off with bias. I do not believe that the Threshold article can be allowed to stand without being improved, but it is certainly notable. It disheartens me to watch self-destructive zealousness from one side hurt their chances at keeping their article, but it doesn't take away from the obvious conflict of interest and the field-experts' immediate response on their blogs. Do you think just any MUD's closing would cause such a widespread response from a hobby community? There is plenty of evidence that Threshold is quite notable, that has been dismissed suspiciously.

COMMENT To me, the AfD should be given its last day, and perhaps some of the unbias admins reviewing this article should help guide the argument to a consensus decision. And for that day, it would be best for the overzealous on both sides of the argument to make their points clear, and let the thing come to a close. I am in the rather neutral point-of-view of being a non-fan of Threshold and the attitude from its administrator, but am a long-time enthusiast and contributor to the MUD community. After actually doing research, I do not think there is a case for deletion based on an argument of notability - though, I certainly think that the Threshold article should be improved and wikified. Donathin (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it telling that no one endorsing the decision has really addressed the main issue, which is why it is acceptable for the closing admin to not follow WP:DP when deleting an article. It is an absolute provable fact that multiple points of WP:DP were not followed. If we're just going to let people pick and choose which policies they adhere to, why bother having them at all? Anyone can see that the deletion must be open for five days and reach a consensus for deletion, yet these policies are apparently not important enough to follow to those arguing endorse as calling out unproven meatpuppets (which is apparently a critical policy). If you have an issue with a meatpuppet, take it up in the appropriate place, if nothing comes of it, you must WP:AGF. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that, Theblog, is that the "usual place" tends to draw more smoke than fire. There is also a policy we have called IAR which states If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. (emphasis in original) It is possible that the closing admin closed it early (thus invoking IAR) because he felt the discussion would not benefit from the full five days. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since he didn't use that argument I believe you are probably wrong. Additionally, I would like to hear the argument that overturning the required consensus for article deletion rule improves Wikipedia. Thank you for your input.--Theblog (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases "consensus" isn't; i.e. there are meat- or sockpuppets, a group with a severe conflict of interest amassing !votes, or (as was assumed in this case) canvassing. In those cases, arguments from the suspect usernames are often not taken into account and not used to form the consensus. In this case, the closing administrator saw canvassing (whether or not it was actually there) and closed the debate against the side he saw was canvassing. IAR. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the sockpuppet/meatpuppet list please? Also, please indicate where in WP:DP you can close a debate early due to what you are claiming. Additionally, according to the policy you stated above, couldn't I just restore threshold on my own then claim I was improving Wikipedia? --Theblog (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting an already-deleted article is disruptive unless it's significantly changed (as you're posting stuff the community has already indicated it does not want; consensus can't be IAR'd). The suspect usernames are marked with SPA tags in the AfD. Finally, Seicer was under the impression that keeping the AfD open would ultimately be a net disruptive to Wikipedia, Theblog, since the discussion was getting far too heated to be useful to anyone. Stop trying to process-wonk; editors do not like lawyers. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of process wonking, I believe this has negative conotations and I am just trying to understand why it is permissable to not follow some policies. I hadn't seen the IAR policy before so wanted clarification. Your claim that all discounted users were tagged with SPA doesn't hold water, as there were still 17 editors without the tag making arguments for Keep. Their arguments have obviously not been heard. --Theblog (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongo. They were heard, but their arguments did not best the arguments put forth by those arguing for deletion. AfD isn't entirely a vote, it's also a debate. The ones who provide the best arguments for their side (and the most people who agree with those arguments) often win. Consensus is not just numbers as regards AfD, but also the most reasonable arguments. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all this as I posted above, please read my original argument as it clearly indicates I do, also please review LinaMishima's comments, as they make several similar points better. I don't believe many issues have been resolved, and your argument here that some "ignore policies" policy was the reason for not following WP:DP is especially weak. You also have ignored the original comment and state "They were heard, but their arguments did not best the arguments put forth by those arguing for deletion." however, this is not the case, the deleting admin stated that "few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article or located additional reliable and verifiable sources" which is not an applicable standard, the deleting admin has seemingly made it up, instead you have chosen to rewrite it to a more policy acceptable view. We can only go by what the deleting Admin wrote, so it is fair to argue that the deleting editor applied a precident which is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. --Theblog (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have two intepertation of the same policy and guideline, regarding deletions, that in the future will need clarifications to ensure that such a debate can be minimalized in the future. I ignored all rules and closed the spiraling-downhill discussion; it was becoming rather unproductive (much like this DRV), and it was clear that with the canvassing and all of the heated discussions going on, that inching it out for just one more day wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference. Except maybe the addition of another arbitrary section break or two. Stop wikilayering and hounding; it's gotten quite tiresome. seicer | talk | contribs 06:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally addressing ONE of the original points, I await to hear your responses to the others. As an aside, please don't accuse me of "wikilayering" and hounding, they have negative conotations that don't belong in a civil debate such as I am interersted in engaging in. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Seicer and Jeske Couriano I have familiarized myself with WP:WL and in addition to the negative connotations I noted, it also states: "In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations." Neither Seicer or Jeske Couriano explained their argument, so I am only left with the assumption they meant it in a negative way. Let us please keep the debate civil as I requested above and stick to just the known facts. Thank you for your contributions everyone. --Theblog (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because my comment about it was not at all part of my endorsement argument, Theblog. To say it was is utter and complete bollocks. Please do not twist my words; I was merely explaining (as best I could, not being him) Seicer's actions. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure, but userfy (already done) and fix if possible. Restore after another DRV confirms improvements. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the entire AfD, looked at a few of the external links, and skimmed the AfD Talk page.
- While seicer's early close is not something I would have done personally (not an admin), in general or in these circumstances, there is precedent for closing an AfD early if productive discussion has ceased, especially due to disruption. My impression is that canvassing and alleged puppetry had been reined in, but policy-based arguments were mired in the rapidly-accumulating heat: the early close was within seicer's discretion. I think that the early close should not be used as the sole or primary basis of a procedural overturn.
- One of the keep !votes that I recognized as that of an experienced editor was Casliber's. The rationale's reference to a "Computer Gamer" source was unclear: a typo referencing Computer Games Magazine, which was quoted in its entirety as four sentences from "The List"; a discrete source mentioned a few times, but never described in detail or linked; or something else. At the time of Calisber's !vote (diff), the CGM article had been described as a list/round-up; more information was added later. The rationale was challenged (convincingly, I think) by Themfromspace, Crossmr, and Mendaliv, but unfortunately never clarified. clarify, expand 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC) There was good-faith disagreement among experienced editors on whether the sources were sufficient. All of the keep !votes from experienced editors were (aggressively) responded to by editors supporting delete.
Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response So you've pointed to one of the wiki editors who voted KEEP and assessed their comment (which was brief). What about the others'? What about all of the different points that I made, and were systematically ignored or vaguely brushed aside? The entire thing reeked of bias, from both sides. There was lawyering, from both sides. But the majority of the points made by wiki editors who were not canvassed and still voted KEEP - they were responded to rudely (even I was sockpuppeted at one point, I believe, and that is crazy -- I don't even like Threshold), or their points were danced around with vague arguments. I guess my point here is this AfD was handled very poorly by everyone involved, but that most of the least bias-inclined voters seemed to think there was enough to suggest notability and encourage a more encyclopediac article. Donathin (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All or nearly all of the many points advanced by you and Cambios were answered in some form. Some were based on rather novel interpretations of Wikipedia policy and could be reasonably dismissed. Some were answered succinctly and in Wikipedia jargon. I can see how either of these would look inappropriately dismissive. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Deletion. There is no process error in the AfD that justifies overturning AND the closing admin was entitled to determine that delete was the consensus. That is, a delete was well within the bounds of rationality. I oppose relisting. The same long winded back and forth arguments will be presented, and the conclusion will be the same. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (without prejudice against relisting) for pretty much every valid reason that can be brought up at a DRV:

Closure of a controversial AfD by a biased admin

Misreading of consensus by closing admin (should have been no consensus).

Serious procedural violation in a controversial AfD

To me this deletion review seems very clear-cut. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, tell me how I am biased? I don't play video games (as already noted), or specifically, MUDs. I had zero involvement with these editors prior to this, and only noted it because it was a lengthy, outstanding case that had devolved into a tit-for-tat. Like this. Comment on the article, not on the administrator. seicer | talk | contribs 22:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Seicer. Show me where he's stated he hates/is for MUDs or where he wrote his !vote on the Threshold AfD, and show me the actual no-consensus amongst the arguments posited in that AfD. Also, as I've pointed out above, Seicer had a good good-faith reason to close the AfD early: It had turned into a mud-slinging match. In fact, since there's so much mud being flung in this DRV, I wouldn't be surprised if *another* admin closes it early because it's devolved into a shouting match. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That, and there is no consensus to overturn. This is one of the longest DRV's that I have seen... and I haunt this place a lot :) seicer | talk | contribs 23:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty long, but I think there are a few in the last 6-8 months that have whupped it. I remember an image debate that went on FOREVER. Protonk (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that "forever" is a subjective term. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist even though it will mean another involved AfD. An admitted IAR delete early close in a matter being actively discussed with responsible editors on each side and a balanced number of !votes is simply wrong. this is yet another example of why the full time should be allowed on hotly disputed afds or ones involving major issues or acrimony--it can prevent or simplify the deletion review. The only proper course for AfD discussion when they get contaminated too badly, & I think this one was, is to start them over. In this case, the closing arguments "As such, the article is not written from a neutral standpoint. " and "few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article" are not acceptable reasons. I know they are only part of the reasons. But they indicate that the closer was judging the quality of the article primarily, and the general tone indicates to be a decided feeling of annoyance which to my mind inhibits a dispassionate close. This has become personal between the two parties. (I didn't comment at this afd; I'm not sure how I would judge on the re-run--the fundamental issue is the need for customary RSs for early internet phenomena) I do know that IAR is only supportable in cases where every reasonable person would agree on what improved the encyclopedia, and that is manifestly not the case here. I certainly know that if anything I did as IAR was challenged to this extent, I would not insist on my decision. DGG (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: These two issues are being continually ignored. The closing admin gave as a reason for the deletion that nobody worked to improve the article during the AfD. That is not a valid reason for a close and delete. Furthermore, there is no possible way to contort the word "consensus" to reflect what existed on that AfD. There were many good, valid, policy-based arguments on the KEEP side. To say otherwise is a massive insult to a lot of long term, knowledgeable editors (and even a few administrators). You cannot re-invent what the word consensus means. To pretend there was a consensus to delete there is just false on its face. These two major issues have not been addressed:

1) The closing admin INVENTED new reasons to close and delete after an AfD. The most disturbing is the "nobody worked to improve the article during the AfD." That is simply NOT a requirement or a standard.

2) It is impossible to argue there was consensus to delete. No objective reader of that AfD would make such a conclusion. There were too many good, valid arguments on the KEEP side to say there was a consensus to delete. Cambios (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overturn closure Frankly one of the worst closes I've ever seen of an AfD. It was closed early, in violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion. So there is a policy problem from the get-go and plenty of reason to overturn. Also, closing arguments were in part novel, had a huge typo, and invoke reasons for deletion that have nothing to do with any policy based reasons for deletion (nobody worked to improve the article as a deletion reason. Really?). On top of that the use of banning, at the least, could have been handled better and might have created a perception of admin bias on the part of those participating in the AfD. What a mess. Hobit (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not really see how the blocks of the users who commented on the AfD could have been improved, given that they were CU confirmed. The fact that a good-faith unblock of two of the accounts later occurred does not mean that the original blocks were invalid, as I pointed out to the users at the time. Black Kite 13:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so afraid of good, well reasoned, accurate, on point arguments for KEEP? The whole "they were made by <insert excuse here>" falls flat. A good argument is a good argument. Furthermore, virtually every accusation of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/marionette puppetry was *PROVEN* to be false. Squelching a well reasoned argument for such a flawed reason as "We thought it was a sockpuppet" doesn't pass the sniff test. This is one of the major reasons objective observers of the situation are so suspicious. If you believe so strongly that DELETE was justified, then you wouldn't need to squelch opinions. Ignoring good, logical, on point arguments for some arcane, procedural reason is silly. That is a large reason the media coverage (its up to about 20 major gaming blogs, 2 or 3 gaming news sites, and I am being interviewed by a radio station next week) of this incident is so overwhelmingly negative. Nobody who truly believes they are right fears the opinions of the other side. That leaves people to conclude there is some other motivation. Can you see how that looks? Cambios (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend to Combios that the above be removed. If you have an issue with the blocks, take it to WP:ANI, this is the wrong place (and I think that's the right place) and in any case, your arguments have a very strong bad-faith component. Assume Black Kite did things for good reasons even if you think the results were wrong/bad (see WP:AGF). In answer to Black Kite, I do believe that the CU results might have been handled differently by another admin and in any case led to what could reasonably be perceived as an intimidating situation in the AfD. That's all I'll say here on that topic. Hobit (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to know which "other admin" would not have blocked CU confirmed socks - one of which was blocked by the CU himself! This is ridiculous. Black Kite 18:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The closer gave too much weight to his own opinion rather than finding consensus or lack of same. The erroneous timing of the close is also unacceptable for such a high-profile case. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Overturn-ish (Disclaimer: First account, was created to correspond with an admin to assess usability of a source on wikipedia) I have a suggestion on handling that I believe parties on both sides of the discussion may find amicable. The primary focus for deletion has been that of notability. With this, there then came to contention as to what sites and publications (and what constituted significant enough coverage) could establish notability. Since much of this becomes subjective (does a text-based online roleplaying game being mentioned in a list of independant online games, when Everquest, Star Wars Galaxies and other 3D rendered MMORPGs were prominent games, constitute notability?) I suggest that the resolution be to allow random editors to determine notability. The method I suggest is to recreate the page as a stub and add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games. Along with this, request that those with a vested interest in the game (players, ex-players, admin, etc.) maintain a "hands-off" approach to the article, but being able to provide prominent references within the talk page. Then, wait. If no independent party takes it upon themselves to expand the stub into an article within 6 months, then the entry should be recommended for speedy deletion under G7 by Cambios. Ismarc (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC) (woops, forgot to sign it)[reply]
At present the article's being worked on in userspace as a contingency should this DRV end "Endorse". Creating a stub in mainspace would negate any progress being done (as it would mean the draft would have to go), so it might be best to focus one's attention to the draft article instead. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How long do DRV's last? This has already turned into AfD v2. (and are DRV votes? if not, should a not vote template be placed at top?)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A minimum of 5 days. See WP:Deletion review#Closing reviews. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder if the operators of Threshold are pleased that this AfD/DRV has dragged on so long, it seems like the influx of source generations might be a form of Streisand effect (although this isn't censorship, but you get the idea). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better to redact your statements. Pressure to close the AfD early seems to have resulted in objections that played a big part of this DRV and caused scrutinity to fall on Seicer which only confused the issue more. Just let this play out by the rules, so it can be over. Kallimina (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never meant to accuse anyone, nor was the above statement aimed at closing the DRV early. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure, a difficult case to be sure, but I believe that the correct result was arrived at. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
OverturnThe resolution stated there there were "no references" while ignoring both a cited magazine article and the information on mudconnector.com The bottom line is that an article on one of the more notable MUDs, certainly one of the top 20, was deleted without sufficient consideration. Fred Talk 17:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Huh. Didn't notice the DRV when I created a brand new article on this notable game with three reliable secondary sources. Oops. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, as phil has stated, he recreated the article. I would invite the closing admin of this DRV to see if the end result of the content on that page meets our guidelines (or is a G4) before deleting it, should the result be an endorsement of the deletion. Protonk (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A draft article was being worked on in userspace as a contingency should this DRV end Endorse or No-Consensus. Were it me, I would have checked to see if a draft article that tried to address some of the issues of the original was being actively worked on, and worked with the editor drafting it if that were the case. Note that I mean no disrespect to Phil; I'm merely stating that Kalli is making a similar thing in her userspace, and has for at least the past 48 hours. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we believe Phil, he never saw the DRV so he wouldn't see either Cambios's article or Kalli's article before making his. Protonk (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that the article had been userfied, but I consciously did not look at anything derived from previous versions of the article so that there could be no suggestion that I was recreating the deleted version. Safest way to make sure the article I created was taken on its own merits. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

endorse closure. There weren't reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. Have some pity for the admins who have to put up with so much nonesense. Not really relevant here, but the recreated version still doesn't establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which two the three cited sources do you consider insufficient to establish notability? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either overturn deletion outright or Relist - and require that the closing admin be both impartial and somewhat acquainted with the topic area. (Per Fred, this is a notable MUD, there are published sources, and the closing admin apparently is not aware enough of the topic area to evaluate this area within context) ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. As a long-time editor and creator of one of the most popular templates on Wikipedia, I've seen a lot of stupid debates. This is, by far, one of the dumbest. I'm amazed by the complete lack of due diligence and good faith, the extraordinary amount of disrespect directed at new editors (shuffled under the rug called "canvassing"), and self-centered proselytizing. Guess what, people: there's an entire world out there with billions of people who have an infinite number of interests. One man's trivia is another man's passion. As I wrote in 2005, "Esoteric subjects are inherently noteworthy for encyclopedic inclusion. The appearance of a deficiency of information about a subject should prompt further inquiry about the subject instead of blunt opposition to the subject's inclusion." Furthermore, "Human consensus does not generate reality. Were it able to do so, the Sun would have taken to orbiting the Earth some time ago." Overturn this repugnant decision. Smash the deletionist administrator's ego. And get back to doing what you, as an editor, are supposed to be doing: improving Wikipedia by improving articles, not burning them in a bonfire. Adraeus (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, notwithstanding the hysterical comparisons above. We need significant amounts of reliable source material to write an article. In the article we've got now, we've got one blog entry, one effectively self-published source, and one trivial name-drop. This is not substantial sourcing, and as far as I can find, it's all there is available. We can't write a decent article from blurbs and unreliable sources. They need to be substantial. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually more than that, please read the entire AFD discussion, along with the current talk page and the history of the talk page or talk to Kallimina or Cambios, as they probably have an more up to date list. Additionally, some of the sources have been wrongly described as "effectively self-published" by Mendaliv in the initial argument of the AFD, later on in the AFD he admits that that statement is a misrepresentation, again, please read the whole thing. While it is tempting to do so, the content of the current article is not a valid reason for deletion per WP:DP. --Theblog (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn . Whether Seicer closed it within X time frame isn't an argument I want to get into. But as is well known, AfD is not a vote. Based on WP:Notability though, and a bit of common sense, I believe it was right to delete it at that time (Others may disagree). However, several websites (not counting the blogs) with reasonable Alexa ratings for Game websites have since posted on this incident, and have attributed some reasonable notablity to Threshold to an extent it is more than reasonable for it to remain as an article. I want to also flag up and remind people of the Wikipedia Policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (This is opposed to the guideline that Wikipedia:Notability is of course).

“

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

”

Wikipedia of course has the goal of creating a free encylopedia:

“

An encyclopedia (or encyclopædia) is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

”

Notability is a guideline based on the common sense question: will enough people be interested in this information and knowledge to warrant its appearance in the encylopedia? The fact so many people have now written about this AfD and how they think it shouldn't be deleted, it has clearly been shown that there is sufficient demand and need for this information and knowledge. Not only that, the whole process at the moment is preventing you all doing more productive things around the project! I know some of you are afraid of "losing face" or whatever, but just use some common sense and put emotional battles you've all had in relation to this article aside and remember the real goals for why we are all contributing to this project. Give this argument a rest and I don't know, help out with the time saved at Wikipedia:Requested articles perhaps? Agent Blightsoot 01:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In all due respect to many of the people commenting here, excessive canvassing for an AfD is not a reason to delete an article. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, considering that the existing article is completely different than the one that was deleted, I would recommend a procedural close of this DRV in favor of starting a new AfD, if that is what is desired. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Keep, with a two week grace period for article improvements to whichever version, and then relist a new AfD There have been errors and misbehaviors all around, as noted above, but per the arguments advanced Phil Sandiver, J.Delanoy, and Protonk, I think the article needs a second chance: 1) MUDs are notoriously hard to RS, and Threshold does as good a job as any of them. 2) Now that some more experienced editors are involved, I expect the process to be improved: yes, some immature things were said and a number of fans rushed to Wikipedia, but Bartle and Koster are MUD luminaries ("established experts in a relevant field" in WP:V terms) and punishing a bunch of newbies because they didn't behave per established guidelines is a WP:POINTy way to be WP:BITEy. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway) – page restored. If yoy need a history merge somewhere let me know the location and I'll take care of it – Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was an ongoing merge discussion here; therefore it was "useful to the project" and did not meet criterion "G8". NE2 00:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was deleted as a result of showing up in Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages. Talk page of an article that has never existed. JPG-GR (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, yet it was a rare exception to those pages being useless. --NE2 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the content and move it to an extant talk page. The {{mergeto}} family of tags can accept an additional parameter with details of the talk page where the merge is being discussed. Let's not be wonkish. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also be noted that the merge will happen; it's just a question of when the station will open. --NE2 10:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and move somewhere. Ongoing merge discussions clearly make an talk page useful even if it is orphaned from its article. Moving it to another talk page solves the issue. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and move. Not sure why the discussion was there in the first place, but there's no reason to stop it prematurely. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge edit history No reason to undelete, I asked for a copy of the page to insert on the project page. I received the copy yesterday and have already inserted it into the discussion. Please merge the edit history into the project talk page, so that the user edits are properly attributed.

(As an aside, when I created Talk:Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway), the page merge documentation recommended that the merge discussion be placed on the Talk page of the destination of the merge. Thus, the talk page was created without a corresponding article.) Acps110 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 January 2009[edit]

User:Coaster7/Nick_Savoy – Move rewritten draft to mainspace. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page, Nick Savoy, needs to go back through DRV before it can go back live. I have rewritten the page with new and improved sources. Coaster7 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From an editorial standpoint, I have some complaints, but the subject is basically notable (if marginally so). Protonk (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undelete~~ Allow recreation This version of the article is greatly improved and contains sufficient sources to assert basic notability and verifiability. --SecondSight (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The new article contains multiple references that show the subject meets the general notability criterion and bears no resemblance to the original article that got deleted. I'm not sure we should undelete the previous versions. If User:Coaster7 used any material from the originally deleted entry, we should, otherwise we can just recreate without it. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. And props to Coaster for doing a much better job on creating the page than previous versions.Camera123456 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The draft seems to overcome the reasons for deletion at Savoy, Nick AfD. -- Suntag ☼ 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Natural_hygiene – Redirect endorsed. – kur ykh 04:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The redirect is a misconception/misnomer. This was almost discussed before: I explained further in ' redirects for discussion (2008-09-04 sec. 5)' and was suggested to post here. Also, I know of no Natural Hygienist who called Natural Hygiene (NH) naturopathic: NH is called orthopathy. Some so-called 'naturopathic medicine' (really denoting naturopathy, like 'allopathic medicine' denotes allopathy, etc.) may not be taught somewhere accredited or anywhere, but NH is: at [CULA]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by dchmelik (talk • contribs) 14:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and keep as redirect. Nothing has been presented to suggest why the consensus at the AFD should not be maintained. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Keep as a Redirect per Stifle. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Sebastian Bonnet – Deletion Endorsed. If anyone would like a copy of the content for possible improvement just ask. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

multiple issues of not following procedure, decision incorrect Ryoung122 13:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Sebastian Bonnet has been deleted four times, but also has existed in some for or another for almost four years. I am contesting the latest decision to delete ("G4") based on a few issues:

A. About the fourth deletion:

1. The article I created was not "recreation of deleted material" but a new attempt that attempted to address the issues. For that alone, it should be undeleted. I was not the original article creator and the new article had other sources.

2. The admin that deleted the article has a personal history of conflict with me (though not in this subject area) and his GD-Speedy deletion can be viewed as a personal vendetta. When CP applied to become editor, he admitted he had a problem with me and had apologized for some of his remarks in the past. Yet this personal campaign of harassment continues.

3. Two of the persons who voted for deletion te third time basically "canvassed" CP for a 4th deletion:

Sebastian Bonnet Sounds good; thanks for the help. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You have my thanks, as well. David in DC (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sebastian Bonnet Yeah, I saw that, but thanks for letting me know. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

B. About the third deletion:

4. The third deletion did not adequately discuss why this article might not pass muster. Given that it gets more than 79,000 hits on Google, and this character has won awards, it seems to me that this article has a raison d'etre and there are good reasons for its existence. In short, I wonder how Wikipedia can possibly assume this character is not notable, and I would like a fuller explanation of how Wiki policies apply to articles on pornstars. Let's be honest: we are unlikely to see pornstars in an encyclopedia or scientific journal. The standards for acceptance should be based on other rationales. Some of them that have been suggested include whether a person or character is widely known (the "Google hits" test) or has won awards from those in the industry. In this case, Sebastian Bonnet meets both criteria.

5. This may be a character, not a real person, so WP:BIO may not apply.

6. The editor who nominated this article for a deletion did not inform other parties, so there was no way of knowing. In fact, there wasn't even a change that appeared on the watchlist. Few voted or commented at all, and one that ivoted "delete" noted the article "could" pass muster if properly cleaned up. Rather than be pro-active and do the cleaning, some choose to try to force others to do all the work. An article should be deleted if the subject is not notable, not for a lack of volunteer efforts.

For these and other reasons, I have brought this deletion to "deletion review."

Ryoung122 13:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, there was a clear consensus at the AfD. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add my piece, the article was recreated by Ryoung122 and I speedily deleted it under criteria G4: recreation of material that was deleted at an XfD discussion. I do admit to having a somewhat long history with this editor, but I felt that he might benefit from dealing with me, with whom he is accustomed to, than having it deleted by someone he did not know at all. I had no prior interest in the article itself. I was in no way "canvassed"; I simply keep an eye on Ryoung's past contributions and felt that the situation could be diffused, or at least deflected towards me, by my participation. No matter how it was felt about the notability of the article, it should not have been recreated once deleted, even if the closing admin's decision was unfair. We have a process and this is it. To add two more cents, I saw no evidence that Juliancolton's decision was outside of policy: every vote was delete vote and he had not voted in the debate himself, which meant that there was no conflict of interest in him closing it. Therefore, I endorse the original deletion procedurally. If Ryoung122 believes that the article should be recreated, I suggest that he do so in his user space and show it to the editors who voted delete and see if that would have changed their mind, as well as taking their suggestions, before recreating it in the main space, which is likely to see it just deleted once more at present time. Cheers, CP 17:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the remarks directed personally at me (The admin that deleted the article has a personal history of conflict with me (though not in this subject area) and his GD-Speedy deletion can be viewed as a personal vendetta. When CP applied to become editor, he admitted he had a problem with me and had apologized for some of his remarks in the past. Yet this personal campaign of harassment continues), the party up to the first "and" is true, the rest is not and is a serious accusation and should be brought to a proper venue (as it is irrelevant here, since I had nothing to do with the original AfD and the speedy met the G4 criteria whether I'm malicious or not) where I can properly defend myself, instead of just being bandied about here if they were standard remarks for a deletion discussion. Cheers, CP 17:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per CP. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original deletion was because of a lack of sources in a BLP. The new article contained weblinks in a reference section:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0968712/ S.Bonnet --> generally considered unreliable.
http://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/actor.cfm?actorid=27122 --> nice for fact checking but doesn't establish notability
http://czechmen.com/issues/F0310/F0310_sebastian.asp --> no comment
http://www.belamimodels.com/ --> link to a domain, no specific page about the person.

In short the references still appear lacking so I endorse the G4 and the original AFD deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we review the Wikipedia notability guidelines for porn stars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors

Pornographic actors Shortcut: WP:PORNBIO

Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres.
Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature.
Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

It says that one standard for notability is having won an award from a major magazine. Bonnet was the 2004 "Freshman of the Year"...a top honor that is awarded to only porn star per year from the leading gay porn magazine on those aged 18-30. Thus the Sebastian Bonnet article meets that standard. This doen't get 79,000 hits on Google search by accident. Focusing on "reliability" for porn actors is, quite frankly, silly, and if this standard were applied probably 75% of all porn star articles would be deleted.

If anything, this article should be undeleted and if someone wants to take it to AFD again, that would be fair. Ryoung122 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn G4 deletion. Insufficient participation in the AfD to establish consensus as to lack of notability, IMO, especially since there is a claim of canvasing. There is also a claim that this is new content which, if true as I believe it is, would render it immune to CSD G4 deletion, even if the AfD had no issues, but as a non-admin, I can't check deleted content. In terms of notability, there is a photography art book by George Duroy, available from Amazon, in which Sebastian Bonnet is the principal model. I thought I remember him getting or being nominated for awards as actor or director, as reported by Ryoung122, but so far nothing found other than the Freshman of the Year award. Although he is not as famous as Johan Paulik, for example, he is a fairly big gay porn star for the Bel Ami studio, who are very well known for their Czech, Slovak, and Eastern Europe actors and models, and he is now a director for them. Doing research as we speak, although I generally find it rather difficult to find this kind of RS information, buried as it is amongst the humongous number of porn sites, blogs, and ads, for some reason. One might think the internet is for porn :-) — I would not be adverse to userfying the article to Ryoung122. — Becksguy (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Four posts, including three after a relist, are sufficient to determine consensus in a fairly uncontroversial AfD, especially considering that all four editors provided an original rationale; had they all given "per nom"s, I would have potentially relisted the discussion once more. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion This discussion is baffling. WP:PORNBIO is being treated as an alterative to the basic notability requirements. Please read the full page. That's the opposite of what it says. The article had no reliable sources and none are yet proffered. And this sentence is truly scary if one thinks it through:
Focusing on "reliability" for porn actors is, quite frankly, silly, and if this standard were applied probably 75% of all porn star articles would be deleted.

All wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. For biographies of living people, this is especially critical. (The notion that Sebastian Bonnet might be a fictional character and thus not subject to BLP rules is imaginative, but that's its only positive characteristic.) IMDB, IAFD, and the home pages of movie production companies and fan sites are not, by any stretch of the imagination, reliable sources. The initial deletion was correct. The second deletion was correct. The third deletion was correct. No reliable sources, no reliable sources and, um, no reliable sources. The fourth deletion, in addition to being correct, also served to stymie an effort to completely ignore the deletion review rules. David in DC (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Endorse Deletion there's no mention of this alleged award in the article, nor has the op provided any proof for the claim. I'm doubtful it would be held as notable even if provided, but nothing else claimed appears to be a valid reason for overturning. It doesn't look like there was any significant policy violation in the afd.Horrorshowj (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These seems to be some confusion about the subject of this DRV. It could be:

A DRV to overturn the AfD
A DRV to overturn the CSD G4 deletion
A DRV to overturn both.

As to the AfD, there are several problems:

The community participation was extremely limited. Only one before the relisting, and three after the relisting.
There are unresolved allegations by Ryoung122 about canvasing, which if true, would have great import considering the extremely limited community participation.
Three of the delete votes mentioned that there were no references, only the fourth mentioned recently added sources that were said to be unreliable. Lacking any ability to review the deleted content, I can only go by Ryoung122's claim and the comments in the AfD. The first three votes did not address the added sources, therefore the AfD did not substantially address improvements to the article during the AfD which brings consensus into question.
The AfD votes apparently did not take WP:BEFORE into account. Missing RS is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve, unless there are no RS available at all. Yet I found the following two that supports the claim by Ryoung122, with a published art book [61] and a 2004 Freshman of the Year award [62]. However, work is needed to provide more RS.
Only one vote appeared to be more than perfunctory, IMO. The rest are barely more than delete per nom votes. No indication that any research was done.

As to recreation of G4 content:

CSD G4 deletion is only appropriate if the same content is recreated, without addressing any of the deletion reasons, per WP:CSD #G4: A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. A claim by Ryoung122 has been made that the content is different and addresses the deletion reasons. On the face of it, that claim seems credible and reasonable, especially due to the two sources provided above.
Note that one vote in the AfD said, in part: No prejudice for recreation provided the article can be reliably sourced. MuZemike 19:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The cleanest solution would to userfy the article to Ryoung122 and let Ryoung122 and other editors appropriately develop it before returning it to mainspace. Otherwise, this may drag on and result in more drama. Note that I haven't yet argued to overturn the AfD, only the G4 speedy on the basis that it isn't recreated content within the meaning of G4. — Becksguy (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please compare and contrast:

"Missing RS is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve, unless there are no RS available at all."

with

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

I find the latter a better restatement of Wikipedia policy than the former. David in DC (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sahar Daftary – Endorse AfD result, but note that "No Consensus" would have been a more accurate stament of the outcome. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Most of the keep rationale in the AfD stemmed the news coverage related to a single event: death of the person. More particularly, the manner of her death. The article itself doesn't contain information other than that of the death. Another rationale for keep was that the person was winner of Face of Asia competition. While the notability of the event is unclear, the person has no coverage regarding this event published prior to her death. In any case, as pointed out by another editor at the AfD, winning this competition is insufficient to fulfill the necessary WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. The keepers' points in arguing this were insufficient to provide notability of the person in question. My attempts to discuss the outcome with the closing admin returned no response. ^LeaveSleaves 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does winning Face of Asia not contribute to her notability when it is not covered prior to her death? There's no rules about when or how it is supposed to be covered, only that it is verifiable. Maybe the competition is not notable, but you're not giving compelling reasons for it. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Face of Asia is a competition held in UK by Asian community living there, for Asian contestants. A simple news archive search indicates that the coverage for this event is less than limited. Moreover if you read the news articles regarding this person you'd find that the reason she is receiving so much coverage now is not because she was winner of that competition. That's just the minor detail added to the actual news story. And if you search the current news, you'd see that the entire coverage is based on that single news event, something that completely violates WP:NOT#NEWS. ^LeaveSleaves 11:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of coverage about the competition is a much better argument than how it's mentioned in the news article on the subject. People usually get covered in the news because there is some interesting angle while your view on notability would require a totally different sort of news article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep/no consensus. There was a slight majority in favour of deletion, but when the number of editors on each side of the debate is roughly equal, the closing administrator should consider whether the arguments on each side contain a preponderance of strong and/or policy-related points. In this case, neither side's arguments were clearly better than or refuted by the other's, so the correct outcome is no consensus, which defaults to a keep. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I might have understood a no consensus closure. I mean I still would have questioned the admin on such closure, but might not have rushed to DRV so fast. But to close the argument as keep shows that the admin endorses retention of article and that the person meets notability guidelines (WP:ENTERTAINER in this case). Based on posts above and at the AfD, I fail to see how she does. ^LeaveSleaves 11:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no point in changing a keep outcome to no consensus, though... Stifle (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not asking for that. All I'm saying is that I don't think keep was a valid result and personally neither is no consensus. However, if there is wider acceptance that the result is no consensus, I'd accept that. ^LeaveSleaves 13:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Slightly off-topic: doesn't a keep outcome establish precedent, including increasing the generally accepted interval before a subsequent AfD? The immediate action is the same (do nothing), but there are longer-term effects. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It shouldn't, although it probably does in practice. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the end result, though it really should have been closed as a no consensus. There was (to my mind) a reasonable disagreement over notability and BLP:1E and no consensus for deletion was established during the AFD. Davewild (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T^C 20:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- This article wasn't deleted... Stifle (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not getting in touch with LeaveSleaves on closing the debate as a keep. That said, I agree with Stifle and would be fine changing this to a 'no consensus' after the fact, if that's kosher. One (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "no consensus" as the proper closure. —harej // change the rules 03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Baritenor – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON Jspyder (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC) I recreated this entry with information received from a professional opera singer and resident music director of the professional theatre company Seattle Musical Theatre. It clarifies that the term is not an official term, but is accepted slang.[reply]

Endorse deletion' The reason it was deleted was because it was not verifiable and this hasn't changed. We can't rely on your word you spoke to these people and we can't rely on their word either unless it's published somewhere, because otherwise people can't check the accuracy of the article by looking it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion No verifiable evidence that this term is notable. Further, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Deletion was proper. Reso lute 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 January 2009[edit]

Userbox – Continued deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: - XfD history: RfD1 (2 March 2006 delete), DRV1 (23 April 2006 restore), RfD2 (9 May 2006 delete), DRV2 (6 August 2006 Make a redlink), DRV3 (25 March 2008 overturn G4), AfD1 (4 May 2008 delete) -- Suntag ☼ 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If left alone as a redirect to WP:Userboxes it will be much easier for those unfamiliar with the project linking schema to find the page. As it currently serves no other apparent purpose, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason for it to not at least serve this function. Users in the past have also recommended this course of action. Other pages such as [63] perform functions similar to how this page would, yet they have not been similarly deleted. Could not resolve with the deleting Administrator. Resplendent (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion While the AFD discussion mainly focused on self-reference, it's also a fact that cross namespace redirects are a criterion for speedy deletion (contrary to hatnotes in existing articles). How do you suggest keeping this would follow the relevant rules and guidelines? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only Redirects to Talk:, File:, File talk:, MediaWiki:, MediaWiki talk:, Help talk:, Category talk:, Template talk:, Portal talk:, User:, or User talk spaces are candidates for speedy deletion. Redirects to templates, categories, or project space are discouraged but not deleted without comment. Protonk (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To go through the sequence of consensus decisions (ignoring speedies and recreations for the moment), userbox was originally a redirect to Wikipedia:Userboxes. It was deleted by RFD in May 2006. At DRV on March 25, 2008, it was undeleted for an article to be created on the subject. Note that that deletion review did not overturn the decision to delete the redirect, but permitted the page to be unsalted for an article on userboxes. However, this article was deleted on May 9 after an AFD. As such, there is consensus that neither an article nor a redirect should exist at the title, and (at this time) no indication of why that consensus should be changed. I therefore endorse the deletion and recommend reprotection for now. I have also nominated community portal for RFD. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse DRV2, which Xoloz closed on 6 August 2006 as "closing (make redlink)." The DRV2 discussion was open from 1 August to 6 August 2006 and the DRV2 discussion could not have been closed any other way. Nothing has been presented to overcome the reasons given in DRV2 for upholding the RfD2. In particular, Rjd0060's 9 May 2008 close of AfD1 drew no conclusions regarding DRV2. -- Suntag ☼ 17:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Between Google books, Google news, and Google scholar, there seems to be plenty of reliable source material for an editor willing to write generally about user box rather than trying to focus the topic on a particular Wiki's usage of userboxes. P.S., es.wikipedia.org has a userbox article. -- Suntag ☼ 17:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per stifle. I see no reason to allow recreation of this XNR when people can just type WP:userbox instead. XNRs should be avoided if at all possible. VegaDark (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion CNRs are bad and the prior RFD is correct. MBisanz ^talk 15:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of course. Userboxes are still very much deprecated, as are cross-namespace redirects. We hashed this out long ago and shouldn't have to suffer the same old tired arguments in favor of either. --TS 16:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 January 2009[edit]

Thieves Like Us (Band) – deletion endorsed – Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNNECESSARY DELETION OF NOTABLE BAND)

Page was deleted by administrator as a non-notable band. Band's first single was released on French label Kitsune. Band have released LPs and EPs on Kitsune, Fantasy Memory, and Seayou Records. This group is notable enough to have music on iTunes and tours Europe and have done shows in the US. Administrators should do research before deleting a band he or she deem insignificant. I didn't create this page, but would like to see it restored. I am unable to talk to administrator or leave any correspondence to voice my frustration with said deletion.

Pitchfork Media Review of Single

Thieve Like Us Website

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbecerra (talk • contribs)

Endorse A7 deletion. The article did not assert notability. You are free to write one that does. Sandstein 13:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand in this case why you couldn't contact NawlinWiki about this deletion, as his talk page is semiprotected. However, nothing in the deleted page indicates how the band is notable (see WP:NMG for what might make a band notable), and there were no citations to reliable sources which are required for the article to be verifiable. As such, I endorse deletion. However, as I always say, a speedy deletion is not a ban on an article ever existing at that title, and if you wish to create one, you are welcome to. Make sure that you overcome the issues that led to the previous deletion, though; otherwise it may just go the same way. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*:FWIW, I consider that no admin has the right to have their talk page unavailable, or to refuse to respond to inquiries. A person nowadays who said they intended to do that would never get approved for the position. DGG (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC) My apologies, there were reasons I had not realized. DGG (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

MyCoke – Contested PROD restored. – Sandstein 11:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Successfully PRODded as an 'unnotable gimmick by company website'. Gimmick or not, this article from the site's heyday should handle notability concerns: http://www.clickz.com/clickz_print&id=3314111 One (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Faceless – restore and add new information on notability to the article. – Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was deleted as a non-notable band. Has since charted # 119on Billboard top 200, and #2 on top Heatseekers charts, satisfying criterion 2 of notability guidelines for bands. blabbermouth article H2ostra (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any other sources? Also, I'm not sure Heatseekers is a national music chart as envisaged by the guideline. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but the Billboard top 200 is. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn--Significant new information has come to light. Meets criteria #4 of WP:MUSIC, because the band's national tour has received non-trivial coverage: 1, 2, 3, 4. --Jmundo (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AFD closure as it was correct at the time, but now undelete in the light of the new information. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the article per Stifle. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Product Operations – Contested PROD restored and immediately re-deleted as WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertising. Nominator indef-blocked by another administrator as advertising-only account. – Sandstein 06:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete the page I created since it references a valid operational group and I would like to build upon it and link to it with regards to Business Analysts and the Analysis process. I am a Business Analyst and would like to keep this up in the future. I wrote it so there should be no copyright issues. Thank you for your consideration. ProdOps (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted the article as a contested PROD ... and re-deleted it as WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertising. Sandstein 06:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan – Deletion endorsed. Early close per WP:SNOW: the only editor who seems to think there was a problem is the article's author. – Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article, at the time of the deletion nomination, had surmountable problems. The problems were in the process of being fixed, while the deletion debate raged. This is basically a new article. The subject of the article is notable, if one checks the verifiable, widely-published, third-party references included in the article. In particular, the subject of the article is a family part of the immemorial Polish nobility. In the 18th century, nobility tracing its origins before the 15th century represented only 5% of the noble population as a whole. I believe that makes this family, the subject of the article, notable, particularly since the family has notable members, too.

In support of that 5% figure, see: http://books.google.com/books?id=MnwmMOWK-PsC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136

The deletion nomination, and the subsequent delete votes, seemed to be more about this article being an attempt by some champion of an upstart noble family to seek praise and glory on Wikipedia. That was not the intent. The article on nobility clearly states the term nobility originally meant those who were known or notable. The entire deletion debate is self-contradictory in the extreme, if notability is the issue. This family, who appears in several widely-published academic sources, is inherently notable. This is documented and the evidence supplied in the new article. Also, there are notable members of the family, with articles of their own -- two articles on Wikipedia, and another on an outside source, for a total of three articles. It seems ridiculous not to have a separate article on their background, given the family they've come from is notable. Without the article on their family, the same information about their background needs to be repeated in several articles. This is not good. There's no genealogical intent. I do not think the article deserved deletion nomination in the first place, as notability is separate from fame, importance, or popularity (Wikipedia:Notability). And in the deletion debate, the original nominator is referring to Google hits (deletion argument to avoid), which is absurd considering this is an ancient family, not the stars of a TV soap opera. The information is of historical note and importance. Call it a CliffsNotes or a footnote, but it's a note and notable, nonetheless. -- Exxess (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from deleting administrator: As I said already at my talk page, the result of the relevant deletion debate is blatantly obvious: There is a clear and evident consensus that the subject of the article is not notable enough for inclusion. — Aitias // discussion 02:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's author: The information in the deleted article is not very much different than information which appears in existing articles about these other Polish noble families. Please be kind enough to elaborate in the face of the following:

It seems the Wikipedia policies and consensus are being applied a bit selectively, considering the above.

Have you read the new article? Your comment is in reference to the old article, which is when all the votes were cast. Matters are more complex than what appears on the surface. I don't think the consensus is so clear. A new article should have been created. The problem is I moved the old article to the current title, but I want to create a NEW article with this title, Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan, which is linked to the old article with this title, Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family. If a create the new article, then an administrator is going to come along thinking I'm being defiant. -- Exxess (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (3rd nomination) resulted in a clear consensus to delete. If you want to restore the article, create a userspace version first that addresses the problems raised in the AfD and come back to DRV with it. Sandstein 06:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's author: -- In terms of English Wikipedia and Poland, I think the deletion is rather shortsighted as regards the details in the article, which are well researched and verifiable and more than trivial. Just because a rather small group of people, almost a clique, with a limited grasp of the subject matter don't think the article is notable, I don't think speaks for the world at large, to be honest, given the published sources in the article. That being said, I'll try what you say. -- Exxess (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as there was a clear consensus to delete it. Exxess is bringing it here probably because he didn't like the outcome. Tavix (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's author: -- Has nothing to do with liking the outcome... I have no particular attachment to the article in question. This is more about this entire process of someone not liking a topic, and using notability as a facade. In the face of these four following articles, with pretty much the same content and level of notability, I think the entire deletion is silly, inconsistent, and arbitrary. I just wanted to get that on the record. And the original deletion nominator made it a point to accuse me behind my back of every possible underhanded tactic, which is funny given his two recent arbitration cases. The article survived his first deletion nomination fair-and-square, but he made it a point to suggest otherwise in this debate. I want this all on record. The article had surmountable problems; yet, the deletion nominator went straight to delete without even making any attempt to improve the article or verify the sources, sources I found widely-published in libraries. That to me established notability. And the deletion nominator expected me to improve or discuss the article under the duress of a deletion nomination, pretty much a bum deal, while I'm supposed to maintain this was done in good faith -- that is, my motives are tainted, yet the nominator's are pure. Then the deletion argument turned into: "I can delete you."; "No you can't."; "Yes I can." "No you can't." "Yes I can." "No you can't." "Yes I can." -- amusing. The article, in essence, is not much different in content and notability than the following articles. Let the record reflect nobody is going to touch that argument. Just watch. (Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade)

Ciao. Arrivederci. -- Exxess (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse. There could not possibly have been two reasonable differing opinions on how to close this AFD. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse The family had a total of one very highly notable member, Jarosław Dąbrowski, and two fairly notable ones Teofil Żądło-Dąbrowski and Stefan Zygmunt Dąbrowski, who ought to have articles here. That doesnt doesn't show notability for an article on the family--as eight people said at considerable detail at the afd, including some of our leading specialists of Polish subjects. the only defense other that by Exxess was a single sentence without detailed explanation by another editor. DGG (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and, FWIW, of the four family articles mentioned above and least the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, do seem also deletable. DGG (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's author: -- Forget about all the notable members of the family. They're incidental. The family per se is noted in widely-published sources I found in several libraries (UCLA being one of them and the New York Public Library, also) mentioning the subject, the family is noted in two contemporary articles I can cite, and said sources took the time to release their efforts on the market after peer and publisher review. By what criteria is the subject not notable, given third-party sources noted the subject and put their name and professional reputation behind it? These are academic works. Are we sure we're not getting fame, importance, and popularity confused with notability? -- Exxess (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From article's author: -- New version of this article available here: User:Exxess/Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan

I think the information is worthy of notice, as the nobility/szlachta were the early Polish nation. The article gives good insight into the formation of the early Polish state, as it was built and defended by families like this particular one. The usage of coats of arms in Poland was brought in by knights arriving from Silesia, Lusatia, Meissen, and Bohemia. Migrations from here were the most frequent, and the time period is the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Again, what's German and what's Polish is not so clear the further one retreats into history. Many Polish noble/knightly families are ultimately of Germanic origin, despite the deceit and propaganda of Nazi idealogues. There was also a time when it was not clear if Bohemia and Poland were separate countries. The other editor in defense of the article was referring to immemorial nobility. -- Exxess (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's author: -- Observing this Wikipedia process... Something I just sent to an administrator... Not being argumentative here, but majorities can be wrong. I find it difficult to believe a subject with established verifiable sources can be subjected to a majority vote stating -- "not notable," despite that verdict flying in the face of the evidence and notability guidelines. It basically amounts to mob rule. One year later from now and 10 different people, depending on their level of apathy, then this same exact subject will be notable. These people are not arguing about notability, but prestige. When non-notable is stated, substitute prestige and my point becomes obvious. That's what's occurring here -- an argument about prestige and information gate-keeping via so-called Polish experts. I found documentation on the subject in libraries. I summarized my findings. That's encyclopedic. Argue away, but I remain unconvinced. And that's calling a spade a spade, and a duck a duck. -- Exxess (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the szlachta were notable as a class., That does not mean every individual family among them was. This is not specific to Poland--we've had similar issues with the UK Baronetage, and decided similarly. Being an family entitled to a coat of arms is not notable for the purposes of a general encyclopedia. For a genealogical handbook, yes, but Wikipedia has made the specific decision that it is not going to be that. Either you think we should be one, or you think we should make an exception for this family. Neither is going to happen. Many of the people in this discussion are among the people at Wikipedia more sympathetic to wide-ranging notability or to European historical personalities . "Notable" is a term of art, and means sufficient importance for the purposes of Wikipedia according to our policies, and is qualified by WP:NOT and other policies. we appreciate your work, but this is not the place for it.DGG (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's author: -- Thanks for the analysis. The new article I created should make matters more than evidently clear this is about more than being entitled to a coat of arms. The key syllable in genealogy is gens, meaning people. Reaching this far back into history, circa the year 1000, I don't buy the argument there is a clear-cut distinction between genealogy and history. This article is about the primordial formation of the Polish state. And the same family was involved when the Polish state struggled to re-emerge from its extinction. The middling and lesser nobility were responsible for leading the effort.

Regarding Wikipedia, I don't think anyone in this debate speaks for Wikipedia as a whole. The first deletion nomination failed. Make note of it.

Also, since a general encyclopedia was mentioned -- three notable people share the same family and social background. I see no problems at all, given this is a general encyclopedia, with having a cross-reference to an article regarding their social and family background. Fits the definition of general very well in my book. Seems to be one of the purposes of that modern invention termed the "hyperlink", which a computerized encyclopedia can use to its advantage. It's almost like the hyperlink and Wikipedia, "the sum of all human knowledge," were made for each other. -- Exxess (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion No one who writes an article likes to see it deleted. However, deleted articles are often returned to Wikipedia via a solid rewrite. Rather than try to resurrect this deleted article, perhaps a better use of time would be found in starting from scratch on a new version that will meet Wikipedia's editorial standards. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's author: -- Does anyone read on Wikipedia? I agree the first version of the article had surmountable problems a.k.a. in the vernacular "sucked". This is the second time I'm stating this:

From article's author: -- New version of this article available here: User:Exxess/Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan

*Note: The link to Niesiecki's digitized Herbarz is not working at the moment. The link was working recently. One can digitally read his herbarz online. I'm sure it will be available soon. May God Bless You All. -- Exxess (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as the relevant deletion discussion had a clear consensus. The action was correct. (No prejudice against re-creation of a suitable article is implied, although notability still must be established.) Frank | talk 13:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's author: -- The problem is two entirely separate articles were deleted: 1) a new article linked to the old article; 2) and the original article, which was the subject of the deletion nomination.

Not much more needs to be said, other than the fact the information in the new article will appear on Wikipedia, either in a de facto article, so to speak, when Jarosław Dąbrowski's family origins are explicated, along with Teofil Dąbrowski's family origins, plus Stephen Tytus Dabrowski's origins. They all come from the same family. I think having a standalone de jure article on the family itself avoids the absurd redundancy and is logical; but, the thrust of this debate was more about obstinacy than anything else. Yay Poland. And for what it's worth, the opinions expressed above regarding verifiable content and particular editors' policies are stifling. It's a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion, from Wikipedia's mission to be the sum of all human knowledge. When in doubt, the policy should be more of an open-door policy, meaning, and I state this emphatically, Do NOT prejudice any source of information, particularly when the information is verifiable. I remain unconvinced. I'm sure there are 20 to 30 other editors who feel the same. cura ut valeas. -- Exxess (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the new article is better, but if you would like this material to appear I advise you that 1. the Conrad section is much too peripheral. 2. Ref #10 is the example of a mere mention 3. people are considered notable in Wikipedia for what they did, not what family they belong to. I doubt the full family background will be considered relevant in articles about the individuals. Pietrus, I ask your advice: on the material presented in the rewrite, is there reason to think this family line was exceptionally notable? DGG (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's author: -- And therein lies the fundamental problem, quote: exceptionally notable? Irrelevant. One man's trivia is another man's magnanimity. Who is to be the judge? The article survived the first deletion nomination. It didn't survive the second. Again, I make the case, do not prejudice any source of information. All we should be judging is whether the material is worthy of notice. I don't equate notice with prestige a.k.a. exceptionally notable. That's getting into WP:Notability -- 'Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," ...' I think my finding material on the family in libraries ranging from UCLA to the New York Public Library makes a strong case the authors of this library material took the time to notice this family. Not sing their praises or their worth, but to simply notice them.

Conrad Section -- The family is related by marriage to Joseph Conrad. Two members of the family were leaders of the January 1863 Uprising with Apollo Korzeniowski, Joseph Conrad's father. That seems self-evidently notable, from an historical point-of-view. Am I missing something here? Jerzy Zdrada, a professor, made this observation, not me.

Does anyone realize this family is baronial, as they are the equivalent of the German Uradel, or original nobility? And they very well might have been composed of itinerant knights that made their way from Germany to Poland? There is a Maltese Cross in the Radwan coat of arms. Does anyone understand the family were Radwan's LONG before becoming Dabrowskis? No one can see we're talking about the primordial foundation of the Polish state? The article is clearly suggesting all this. -- Exxess (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since DGG asked me for input, I'll be brief: I would like to see citations for each reference mentioning the family. I'd also recommend to the creator that he concentrates on creating articles about notable family members. If several prove to be notable, his claim that the entire family is notable will be stronger. Lastly, this is nothing personal, as I've started a discussion about other likely not notable families at Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Notable_.3F_Polish_families. In time, they may face AfD as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's author: -- Let's hold the brakes here. You and I have a fundamental difference of opinion. I'll be the judge, thank you, of which articles I think are appropriate to write. I think articles regarding noble families, if they are a summary of existing information, are encyclopedic, providing their content is verifiable. I have an open-door policy on information. Those old Polish noble names are listed in the existing Polish coat-of-arms articles. A series of articles on those families is no different than the series of existing articles on the Polish coat-of-arms. Given those Polish noble family names appear there, meaning they've been noted once for the record, they are a legitimate line of further inquiry. It is those families that were the early Polish state. Without them, Poland didn't exist. And this has something to do with the formation of all European countries, as some of those Polish knightly clans probably have Celtic and Germanic origins, so shut down this article, and you're shutting down all that -- very short-sighted and prejudicial, in my arrogant opinion. -- Exxess (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally... My Vote. These article should remain:

-- Exxess (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's author: -- On to Piotrus' requests for citations for each reference mentioning the family. And, this is extremely annoying as this is an exact repeat of information in the deletion debate. Oy vey is mir.:

M.J. Minakowski, "Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan", Potomkowie Sejmu Wielkiego. Retrieved on December 29, 2008

Scroll down the page for the information, in short, read:

Niesiecki S.J., Kasper, Korona Polska przy Złotey Wolnosci Starożytnemi Rycerstwa Polskiego y Wielkiego Xięstwa Litewskiego kleynotami ... ozdobiona ... podana tom drugi Przez X. Kaspra Niesieckego Societatis Jesu (Lwów, POLAND: Society of Jesus, 1738), Volume II, page 8.

Adam Józef Feliks Boniecki-Fredro, herbu Bończa; "Herbarz Polski - Część I.; Wiadomości Historyczno-Genealogiczne O Rodach Szlacheckich." (Warszawa, POLSKA: Skład główny Gebethner i Wolff w Warszawie, 1901), Volume IV, pages 147-148.

The family were first and foremost members of the ancient Radwan knights' clan (ród)/gens before they established a fixed surname/cognomen derived from their patrimony/inheritance (Dąbrówki/Dąbrówka):

"In Poland, the Radwanice were noted relatively early (1274) as the descendants of Radwan, a knight [more properly a "rycerz" {German "ritter"}] active a few decades earlier. ..."

Janusz Bieniak, "Knight Clans in Medieval Poland," in Antoni Gąsiorowski (ed.), The Polish Nobility in the Middle Ages: Anthologies, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich - Wydawnictwo; Wrocław, POLSKA; 1984, page 154.

Read the article at Radwan coat of arms for more in-depth information regarding the origins of the Radwan knights' clan, which the Żądło-Dąbrowskis were a sept within.

Jerzy Zdrada, "JAROSŁAW DĄBROWSKI: 1836 -- 1871" (Kraków, POLSKA: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1973), pages 9-10 (This book is not available online. Go to a library to read it for verification purposes. I obtained my copy at UCLA in Los Angeles.):

Quoting page 9:

"Rodzina Dąbrowskich wywodziła się z Mazowsza, najprawdopodobniej ze wsi Dąbrówka pod Piasecznem w ziemi warszawskiej. Notują ją herbarze szlacheckie od XV wieku, ale była to zawsze szlachta dość uboga, w niektórych tylko okresach dochodząca do pewnej zamożności. Nigdy też nie dostąpili Dąbrowscy ważniejszych urzędów i godności, zadowalając się w latach istnienia Rzeczypospolitej komornictwami, skarbnikostwem, wojskostwem, miecznikostwem czy stolnikostwem. Nie brak też było w rodzinie duchownych. Rozrastającemu się rodowi Żądło-Dąbrowskich szybko zrobiło się ciasno na ubogim Mazowszu. W ciągu XVI i XVII wieku zaczęto się przenosić, głównie dzięki małżeństwom, w inne zakątki Rzeczypospolitej. Tym też sposobem jedna z gałęzi rodu Dąbrowskich w końcu XVIII wieku zakorzeniła się na Wołyniu."

Rough translation in English directly from the article.

"The family Dąbrowski originated from Mazowsza, most likely from the village/patrimony Dąbrówki/Dąbrówka below Piaseczno in the lands of Warszawa. They were always nobility, belonging to the szlachta odwieczna or immemorial nobility, and in the armorials of Poland, documentation from the 15th century is used to note them. Members of meager means (dość uboga) always existed in this noble family, and wealth came to other members (Szlachta zamożna/bene natus possessionatus et dominus) in certain periods. The Żądło-Dąbrowski's never obtained very important offices or dignities, but in the years of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's existence (First Rzeczpospolita, or Rzeczpospolita szlachecka – Nobles' Commonwealth/Republic), they served in office as chamberlains (komornictwami/princeps nobilitatis - formerly the Judge in boundary disputes), treasurers (skarbnikostwem), seneschal (wojskostwem/tribunus), sword-bearers (miecznikostwem), and pantlers (stolnikostwem). Nor were they absent from the clergy. Mainly due to marriages, the family began expanding to other regions of the Commonwealth. One particular branch of this family at the end of the XVIII-century domiciled/settled in Volhynia/Wołyniu (currently part of Ukraine)."

On concerns regarding academia, Jerzy Zdrada is a professor at the University of Jagielloński. He authored the above passage.[64] [65]

George J. Lerski, "Historical Dictionary of Poland, 966-1945" (Westport, Connecticut, U.S.A. * London, ENGLAND: Greenwood Press, 1996), page 103, "... an old Polish gentry family, ...".

A contemporary Italian article written by Adriano Sofri and published by Arnoldo Mondadori Editore on their web site Panorama Online, mentions the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski's living in Warszawa as "una nobile famiglia di Varsavia" (one noble family of Warsaw) and "di famiglia nobile e ricca (suo nonno, il generale Jaroslaw Dombrowsky, aveva partecipato alla rivolta polacca del 1863, poi era stato tra i capi della Comune di Parigi)". This article is in reference to the scoundrel Victor Dombrowsky, another member of the family.

Adriano Sofri, "La leggenda del santo truffatore", Il caso Sofri, Bompressi e Pietrostefani. Retrieved on June 06, 2007.

To quote from one of your sources above: "the Żądło-Dąbrowski's never obtained very important offices or dignities, " Pietrus seems to have the wrong word when he said "mentioned" . The rule is presented substantial information on something, or discussed in a substantial way--and in a source which does not include everything in a directory type listing, notable or not. DGG (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 January 2009[edit]

DTFD and DTFDB – Deletion endorsed – kur ykh 07:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No clear consensus at time of Afd

Endorse. Delete consensus correctly established. Sandstein 00:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Not a very good consensus, but I'm not a fan of process creep. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Looks like a good close. Admittedly, I voted delete in the original discussion since these templates are process creep. Garion96 (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Coaster7/Love_Systems – Recreation endorsed and page moved into mainspace. Outstanding job. Discussion closed early per WP:SNOW and WP:BURO. – Protonk (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Putting back up the new Love Systems page after previous DRVs deleted the page. This page is completely rewritten and updated. Coaster7 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse recreation as the arguments for deletion presented at the AfD no longer apply. Brad 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate Most of the arguements at the AFD smacked of IDONTLIKEIT, nor was their any real consensus on the issue. Now there is also some good third-party refrences. The page just needs some neutrafying and general cleanup and it will be good to go.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation due to improvements. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and thanks to Coaster for all the hard work. The page looks great now.Camera123456 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - Coaster7's draft is a much improved version that overcomes the deletion reasons listed at the AfD. The series of events seemed to have worked out well as Coaster7 could be on the path to becoming another noted article rescuer, like Chubbles. -- Suntag ☼ 18:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tribal Wars – recreation permitted providing that reliable sources are included in the new article from the beginning. – Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was surprised to find no article for this, but saw that it had been rebuilt and deleted 3 times. Discussed with closing editor who referred me to deletion review.

Tribal Wars has over 3.4 million users. Not trivial or WP:CSD
Tribal Wars is verifiable and has been mentioned in Wired as well as online sources:galaxy news 30,xweb,browser game digest,mmohub,sling,gamer chicks
Is this a WP:BIAS issue?! Tribal Wars has WP articles in 17 other languages; German, Español, Eesti, Suomi, Français, Magyar, Italiano, Latviešu, Nederlands, Norsk (bokmål)‬, Polski, Português, Русский, Srpskohrvatski, Slovenčina, Svenska, Türkçe.
In the month the Tribal Wars article was online for 5 days, it averaged 160 hits a day!. In a completely random sample, only the M 15 rifle averaged higher, by about 100 hits. Psion (comics), Bernard Jenkin, Fredericksburg, M15 rifle, Meg Campbell. Why deny an article users obviously are looking for?

Basically, the guidelines used to keep this page deleted are barely applicable, designed more for 2,000 hit web-comics and such. Keeping the article on the popular game is harmless, deleting it is harmful. I had no hand in the previous version of the page, but came to it last week. Please consider an overturn. You can see my rough version at: User:Knulclunk/Tribal Thanks! -- Knulclunk (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:CSD applicable through G4, previously deleted content. WP:Articles for deletion/Tribal Wars, WP:Articles for deletion/Tribal Wars (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Tribal Wars MMOG. I see no obvious weakness in the previous discussion of this deletion. Also, inclusion in other wikis is not a criterion for notability and the number of visits during September are likely to have been inflated by the 2nd Nomination for Deletion (not that "people want to read it" is an inclusion criterion). Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD-G4 is specifically inapplicable as part of deletion review. A7 was a reason given in the first AFD, user numbers alone "indicate why its subject is important or significant".--Knulclunk (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you commented above "Not trivial or WP:CSD". I took that as a resoponse to the multiple CSD deletions of the page. AFAIK, CSD isn't an applicable arguement in deletion review in general and certainly G4 and A7 are both inherently unapplicable. However, since I cannot see the content deleted in the first AfD, I can't comment on whether the original A7 CSD suggestion was apt. In any case, given the discussion and sources, I have no problem with a recreation of this page - I'm just a sceptical person at heart. Usrnme h8er (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any substantive WP:RS coverage? Brief mentions don't count. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS if for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source" -- So what exactly is being challenged about the article? The fact that the game exists? Because WP:RS and WP:NN and WP:V are three separate things and it seems to me that we have enough to pass all three. What some editors seem to be looking for is multiple reliable sources to prove notability, which really isn't a rule or even a guideline. --Knulclunk (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Notability is a guideline and general notability requires multiple independent non-trivial RSs.Do these exist. Can you cite them? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one print source, and 3 moderated gaming forums, are they too trivial?--Knulclunk (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Print is probably ok if non-trivial. the on-linbe sourses need to be looked at individually. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn & expand: The German article, much more detailed than any version of our article, is [66]; it contains what appears to be a good 3rd party reference to the g ame having won a prize [67] . The French version [68] is different, and also more detailed, though without any third party sources. it does appear the different WPs have different standards for this material. This is an example of Everyone's Out of Step but Johnny, a phrase which needs an article in main space, and a policy that needs a page in WP space. DGG (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article I roughed out is a translation of the German article. (User:Knulclunk/Tribal) Yes, I feel most better-than-stub articles should eventually be translated into English to avoid WP:BIAS.--Knulclunk (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permit recreation per the million test, if the 3.8 million user claim can be backed up by reliable sources. When more than 1 million people have participated in something, it's notable... and if the notability guideline doesn't back that up, then it's the guideline that's wrong, or more likely we simply haven't found sources proving notability yet. — PyTom (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not familiar with the "million test" and certainly against a potential policy which creates such an arbitrary inclusion criterion. Something is not encyclopeadic just because a million people have done/heard/thought it - nor is it unencyclopeadic just because only 40 have.

Second, the above linked sources, when discussing the number of players, range from 10,000+ [69] through "hundreds of thousands" [70] to 678,952 [71] all failing the "million test". Usrnme h8er (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually think something is encylopedic if a million people have taken action related to it, like creating a user account or buying a movie ticket. The inverse does not necessarily hold (there are plenty of things that are notable without passing this test), but it strikes me as a reasonable bright line beyond which it's okay to ignore the notability guideline. That being said, the tribal war website claims only a half-million users... but I would lean towards inclusion on the basis of this and the non-english references. — PyTom (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Number is Huge! Usrnme h8er (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3.4 million is based on global numbers, the 550,000 is just English.--Knulclunk (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that number (or the otherwise quoted 3.8 million) sourced? I couldn't find it in the above links. Usrnme h8er (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't sure whether the following is relevant to the deleted article: TribalWar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) and Tribalwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) If they are different topics, the article names should have something to clarify this. -- Suntag ☼ 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated website - this discussion is reagrding Tribal Wars, not TribalWar. Usrnme h8er (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. No reliable sources have been presented to show how Tribal Wars has changed to an extent that the solid AFD consensus should not be respected. Stifle (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak undelete. I think I heard about it earlier, and it has half a million google hits... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion by default because no argument is made why the last AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribal Wars (2nd nomination), was incorrectly closed. If you desire restoration, please write a draft article in userspace first that establishes notability. User:Knulclunk/Tribal does not do so. Sandstein 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete / recreate per reliable sources given by nominator. It was deleted at the first AfD because these sources weren't yet available, and it looks like the second AfD was tainted by the out-of-process recreation, rather than the notability of the subject at that time. Brad 00:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe the previous creations and deletions caused people to be overly critical of the topic. While articles in other languages aren't inclusion criteria, it does show others appear to believe it is notable. If some Germans can determine the notability of the site that gave out the award, that should be ample notability right there. But naturally, the article should have solid references to avoid another deletion debate, the current version the nominator offers does not include such references (at least not inline; the sites he mentioned include a trivial mention and a some unreliable blogs along with some potential reliable ones). I believe this could be recreated, but not using the version the drv nominator is offering. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3.8 million sure is a big number. Are there reliable, independent sources that have discussed the subject? Protonk (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Soggy biscuit – restore and relist – Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Listed here as this is a slightly complex case. Soggy biscuit was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (3rd nomination), with the closing admin interpreting the decision as merge to Biscuits and human sexuality. However, that article has now also been deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biscuits and human sexuality - because that article violated WP:SYNTH - clearly as a result of the merger! In any case, I dispute that merge was the correct outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (3rd nomination) - there is either more consensus towards keeping or there is no consensus defaulting to keep. Therefore, overturn. DWaterson (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is assessed by reference to policy not headcount. There was not enough sourcing for a full article so deletion or merge/redirect were the only options available. Personally I would have deleted or soft redirected to wictionary if that had been suggested in the discussion so I'm not able to do anything here other then endorse the close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell the primary concern of the AfD was whether sufficient verifiability of notability existed for the term to motivate its own article - are you able to address those concerns? Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- clearly, there was no consensus to delete, yet that is effectively what has now happened. Those !voting for keep or merge were making arguments backed by policy. Merging to Biscuits and human sexuality was probably not an ideal way to close, given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biscuits and human sexuality stood a good chance of closing as delete at the time. (By the way, the WP:SYNTH violation was not a result of the merger -- the analyses by Nsk92 and Guest999 noted in the closing statement were made before the merger happened.) Jfire (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, restore to pre-redirect state, and immediately relist on procedural-fairness grounds. Closing as a redirect to an article that is up for deletion is on its face unfair. It's unfair to the redirected article, because the contributors who recommended redirect may not have realized the target was up for deletion, and it's unfair to those discussing the target article, as they may not realize that a deletion of this article will also delete another article. The fairest thing to do is overturn one, relist it, then when that discussion is over, overturn the other and relist it. This DRV is just for Soggy Biscuits, so I'll confine my recommendation to that: Overturn and relist. If the other article is also overturned, do not allow it to be relisted until after the new Soggy Biscuit AFD is complete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or in fact overturn, as this was an unintended consequence--I think there was general agreement that this part of the article was valid. DGG (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, basically on procedural and fairness grounds. I did not know about this AfD and did not see the pre-merge version of this article, so I can't really comment on the substance of what was in it. However, since the merge target was being AfD-ed at the same time and has now been deleted, it seems necessary to have a proper discussion if this article itself can stand on its own. Nsk92 (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - The Biscuits and human sexuality article was listed for deletion on 29 December 2008. Soggy biscuit was merged into Biscuits and human sexuality on 2 January 2009, while the Biscuits and human sexuality AfD was pending. Fortunately, the merge into the pending AfD article didn't have much impact on the Biscuits and human sexuality AfD discussion, so the Biscuits and human sexuality AfD close should be able to stand on its own. There does not seem to have been a consensus to remove the Soggy biscuit material from Wikipedia, so the remaining questions seems to be where to place the material within Wikipedia. At the time the AfD3 was closed as merge, the consensus to delete the target article seem to have already been formed. The merge target is gone and there isn't much of a discussion on where else to merge the info. It seems like the best solution is to restore soggy biscuit and allow it to be relisted at AfD should someone so desire. -- Suntag ☼ 18:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of interactive?, communal?, shared?, contest? masterbation where the primary purpose is other than sexual stimulation seems to be a parent topic to soggy biscuit and Masturbate-a-thon. An approach might be to create a parent article to cover soggy biscuit, Masturbate-a-thon, and whatever else seems to fit the topic and then determine whether one or another subtopic warrants its own article. -- Suntag ☼ 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, propose that merger as soon as the article comes back, if it comes back. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article probably would need to be created first. Someone at msgboard.snopes.com indicated that it's called runka bulle in Swedish. sv.wikipedia.org has an article on Runka bulle. -- Suntag ☼ 23:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you confuse the Soggy biscuit and Biscuits and human sexuality AfDs? MBisanz closed the former, Sandstein the latter. DWaterson gave his rationale for going straight to DRV here. Jfire (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I didn't see any benefit in trying to open negotiations due to the complexity of two AfDs closed by different admins. Straight to DRV seemed more sensible. DWaterson (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and open new AfD. Given the deletion of the target article, Biscuits and human sexuality, soon after the merger, this seems like the sensible thing to do. Sandstein 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and relist. I think MBisanz probably could have performed that without a DRV, but I take the above conversation beneath Stifle's comment to mean that the nominator found this to be a less interesting prospect than a new discussion. Avruch^T 01:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per Avruch. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and relist. With the target article deleted, people who !voted to merge will want to adjust their opinion which is likely to result in a different outcome (at the very least not an unintended deletion of merged material) - Mgm|^(talk) 16:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and relist- The fact that the article to be merged to was also up for deletion should have at LEAST warranted a relisting until that AFD was finished. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and relist - there has been a mix-up and for equity a new discussion is needed. Smile a While (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and possibly relist if someone is so inclined, but not automatically. This was a unintended consequence, not a procedural error by the closer. Out of fairness it should have another chance, if relisted, since the outcome may well be different without an article to merge into. — Becksguy (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 January 2009[edit]

Maximum Bob (singer) – Uncontroversial request for userfication completed. Please note that this was previously rejected at DRV so can only be restored after further discussion here – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete and move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists/Buckethead task force/Maximum Bob (singer) please for improvement --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 January 2009[edit]

Cryptol – No consensus to overturn. No prejudice against re-creation once sufficient sources are available and added to the article.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC) – Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reasons for deleting were refuted in discussion below, but were ignored. I brought this to the attention of closer, but this was denied. It remains true. KP Botany (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin As I explained, in this case the arguments made that the current level of coverage in reliable sources fails to meet the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia were more substantial than the argument that being an NSA sourced concept makes it inherently notable and inherently lacking sources. This is despite the various rebuttal positions offered. At the end of the day, the arguments about lack of sourcing were simply the strongest. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is FALSE. I added a source that is currently in use at my college, the textbook I had sitting beside my computer. THere was no consensus for agreeing to delete based on an inaccurate assessment taken from someone who relied upon a single source to crash the article. My textbooks is NOT an "inherently lacking source," and this information about texts was in the article and on the deletion page, showing the closer did not even read, which is required for closing deletion debates. --KP Botany (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the only reason the closing admin disagrees with you is that he must not have read what you wrote is a bit over the top. DreamGuy (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an assumption based upon what he/she says that seems to indicate he/she has not read the debate, because it includes no references to anything other then the proposal for deletion. That's fairly routine assumption that if one person makes an action and declares it based upon 1/20th of the information, they didn't read the rest of the information. The other assumptions are simply rude. --KP Botany (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - I think this article could be recreated in the future when it is more well-known/-documented/-written about. Leave it deleted for now though, as it doesn't appear to meet some of our guidelines, as stated by a few people in the AfD. As an aside, KP, perhaps you can be a bit more civil. I'm sure it would be widely appreciated. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you could be more civil to me by reading the discussion and seeing that is known and documentd. Thisis not the place for personal comments about editors--there's a special page for that. --KP Botany (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't anything uncivil there, unless you are "this article". --Smashville^talk 00:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? --KP Botany (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Wasn't referring to the comments on this page. Should have mentioned it elsewhere. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

endorse as nom There just aren't enough sources yet, today. If there are, they need to be listed out in context for review. If there are enough, I'll happily restart the article myself since I think it's potentially pretty interesting as a topic. rootology (C)(T) 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsing deletion, as we just closed this with consensus. To KP Botany: It wasn't that you were ignored, it's that your claims of having refuted the reasons for deletion didn't ring true according to our policies. A mention in a textbook alone does not make something notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. As mentioned before, we need multiple reliable and notable sources given non-trivial coverage (more than passing mention). And I have to add that it's a bit rich for you to be complaining about being civil when your idea of "refuting" me on the AfD was to say: "Possibly you should bone up on Wikipedia policies, like how useful the citations are in the articles, versus sitting back here discussing deleting an article. I'd discuss it more, but I write articles. You might want to bone up on something else: things are often on the web before they're in books. If I'm finding it in books already, the google news hits don't matter." Those comments are not civil, and they aren't in line with Wikipedia policies either, so the attitude that the article should stay regardless of what anyone else says is a bit perplexing. DreamGuy (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a mention in a textbook. So, why is it no one can accurately reflect the discussion? The language is mentioned in a number of textbooks, a google book search turned up some, and this was mentioned in the debate--why turn it into "a" mention in a textbook when this was not the issue in the debate? Why do you have to say that when it isn't accurate? That's pretty darn uncivil as far as I can tell, to not bother to read the actual arguments, to selectively quote them to your advantage. Which is exactly, as far as I can tell, what happened in the deletion process: it was closed based on a single argument, other discussion points were ignored. Now you've picked a single discussion point and ignored the rest. And you're the one who started telling folks to bone up on Wikipedia policies! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FCryptol&diff=261097116&oldid=261091737] You don't like it either? Back to the topic. It's simple, really, what you say doesn't apply because the debate wasn't about "a mention" in a textbook. --KP Botany (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This debate was closed solely on the basis of the opening nomination. Now DreamGuy says it was closed based on there being only "a mention" in a textbook. None of this reflects the discussion. What it seems to reflect is a strong desire to delete an article. --KP Botany (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure as a valid interpretation of the debate. The nominator has also done him/herself no favours by his/her lack of civility here and on MBisanz's talk. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure The closing admin interpreted the discussion entirely correctly. This subject will almost surely warrant an article someday. Just not yet -- it's too new and too little information is available about it. And this is a good a time to stress that users can benefit from reviewing WP:Civil. This community only works when people are nice with each other and WP:Assume_Good_Faith.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to non-consensus ~~Endorse close~~ - This was a close call. Squidfryerchef provided a well thought-out review of whether there was sufficient reliable source material, but seemed to move from a weak keep to suggesting merge. 88.235.63.32 noted that some of the reliable source material may not be from a source independent of the topic. KP Botany made a good argument that the topic may never be widespread. There were other good arguments as well and the discussion in general seemed to have good keep and delete arguments. On balance, the delete arguments seem stronger than the keep arguments, at least to the extend that such a determination is within the discretion of the closing admin. In regards to being civil, some of the above posts seem to escalate the tension, so perhaps we all should take a step back and refocus on the topic at hand. -- Suntag ☼ 18:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I revisited my view in light of DGG and Squidfryerchef's comments below. The initial belief of no source material was overcome by Squidfryerchef. The trend of the discussion moved from delete to weak delete. It then ended with a discussion between Squidfryerchef (weak keep) and KP Botany (keep). Between the spread of views in that discussion, there doesn't seem to have been a common ground to move forward in a particular direction to settle the issue by the time the discussion was closed. In the end, it doesn't appear that consensus was reached. -- Suntag ☼ 00:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to non-consensus I am relying on suntag's arguments just above, though he came to a different conclusion. As i see it, on the basis of the lack of agreement he demonstrated at the AfD, the only reasonable close was to admit the fact that there was no consensus. DGG (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious For anyone thinking of overturn to any form of keep, or to reopen the AFD... even if that happens, we still haven't seen the sources detailed out, so without the sources being detailed, it will still just be a delete, in the end. No sources = no notability = delete, unless I'm missing something. rootology (C)(T) 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't see the sources detailed out because the article has been deleted. There was no consensus to delete. It was closed based on a nomination that was faulty. --KP Botany (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's completely circular reasoning and process wonkery--we don't default to anything but delete without sources. List them here. If Cryptol has no sources upon recreation, or added afterwards, it's still not meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Can you list the sources here now? I'll happily recreate it myself, like I said I would, IF it's notable, and I said as much in the AFD. I nearly made the article before I realized I couldn't find any non-trivial independent sources on it. rootology (C)(T) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It had sources. I added my textbook, which is still sitting right here. There's nothing circular about that fact: the article had references including the one I added myself. You nominated, but appear to have not followed either the article or the AfD discussion. This is, to me, a big problem with AfD, nothing said is much paid attention to in the rush to delete an article. --KP Botany (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was paying attention, and I'm asking you now for the non-admins that weren't to list all the sources. We had the blogs which just pointed back to the corporate blog by the company that put out the code, and then we had your textbook. That's not notable. What else? I'm asking you to list them here. :) rootology (C)(T) 02:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. The AFD did not reach consensus, and should have been closed as such. It was originally nominated because it was thought that this was simply a blip of news coverage from a blog. Sources were brought out during the code review. I quoted several titles in the AFD so I don't know why we're saying that sources weren't brought out ( unless they literally expect the article to be rewritten on New Year's Eve ). Besides multiple books and academic papers, a Google web search over the .edu domain shows tons of class notes about it as well. We've confirmed that the article's information is valid and that the only debate was on independent notability; a redirect to the parent topic is the proper resolution failing that, not deletion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What published multiple books talk about the Galois Cryptol that was just revealed from their secret NSA projects? rootology (C)(T) 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it wasn't completely secret. What happened at the time of the blog post is that they released an interpreter free of charge for noncommercial use. ( This is why the intelligence-watchers aren't all over the blog report; that side of the story is more important to the Slashdot crowd who'd simply like to try out the language. ) Some books and papers were written about Cryptol at least as early as 2003. There was the MILCOM conference proceedings I brought up in the AFD, and the LPAR conference that KP Botany brought up. Also in the AFD I mentioned finding these titles in Google Books: "Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on the ACL2 Theorem Prover", which mentions translating Cryptol to LISP, there is "ACM SIGPLAN Notices", where they talk about notation used in Cryptol, there is "Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning", which says "Cryptol provides a uniform stream-based view of all the data involv[ed] in encryption, and supports that view with an interesting type system reflecting how functions manipulate streams. C code can be generated from Cryptol programs, and there is also a path to FPGAs.", there is "Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages", which talks about Cryptol, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it wasn't a secret, if I've been talking about it for at least a year, maybe a bit longer, and it's in my textbook. It seems this is boiling down to someone thought the blog was accurate that the language was unknown and the books that list it are.... Heck if I even know what to respond to this, that a blog said it doesn't exist so the article has to be deleted even if it's mentioned in other sources that predate the blog. It's really difficult to discuss these issues when someone is protesting loudly that the blog must be more accurate than the book that can't exist because the blog says it's a secret.

It's a programming language. It exists. It's been around for a while. Lots of people know about it. More people are interested in knowing more about it. It's notable. --KP Botany (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin request Can an admin please list all the sources here from the final version? rootology (C)(T) 02:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.galois.com/blog/2008/12/24/cryptol-the-language-of-cryptography-now-available/
Sutcliffe, Geoff; Voronkov, Andrei, eds. (2006), Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning: 12th International Conference, LPAR 2005, Montego Bay, Jamaica, December 2-6, 2005, Proceedings ... / Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence), Springer, p. 744, ISBN 978-3540305538
That is all I saw, but I only looked at the last rev before deletion. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about just pop the article in my user space, then everyone can just look at it, if they didn't follow its changes during the discussion. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, at User:KP Botany/C for DRV purposes. MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Two out of the three sentences in the version posted at User:KP Botany/C are a verbatim copy from the Galois page cited in the article (and above, by MBisanz). This is too much a copyvio to be kept as it stands, and I, like others above, consider the sourcing insufficient to support an article, at least without seeing how extensive the material in the uncited print sources that were brought up in the AfD are. (The fact that only one page is cited in the conference-proceedings ref in the article doesn't look encouraging.) The close seems well within admin discretion, so long as the way is open for a fuller and better-sourced article to be created in the future. Deor (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you endorse the previous reason for closing, or you're offering a new reason for closing, because deletion is important? The endorsement is for or against the close. You have another reason for deleting it, act upon that reason. If you see copy vios, by the way, change them. --KP Botany (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I edited the copyrigth violation. Now, since you've endorse basically based on the copyvio, and it's been removed, do you now go for "overturn?" --KP Botany (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...but there is still no sourcing for WP:NOTABILITY. rootology (C)(T) 07:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See SquidFryerChef's post above. Yes, there is. --KP Botany (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This is not some backyard software product like the ones we often see in a misguided attempt of promotion. It was originally produced for the NSA (referenced and all) which makes it a notable computer language. The amount of references fits the size of the article. The primary notability criterion asking for multiple references is only relevant when the existing references don't uncover notability on their own. (Extreme example: If there was to be an Oscar award winning actor with only one source saying they won the award, and nothing else, they'd still be notable, despite the lack of sources) -- Mgm|^(talk) 16:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your example doesn't fit well at all, the notability guidelines tend to cover winning major awards (which an Oscar is), as best I can see they don't cover being produced for the NSA as one of the critera and in my view shouldn't, what the NSA may choose to request creation of (or is created for without request) is unlimited in scope, not all of it will be notable (in fact I'm sure a huge mjaority of services the NSA buy from third parties is non-notable). --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - This appears to me to fall between a Keep and a No Consensus. Though I can see that the nature of the discussion makes analysis difficult, the linking to this in the AfD, shows there was a development toward verification, and the article was starting to firm up with the addition of this book, which, in partnership with the web mentions, indicates enough sources to have sufficient doubt for a deletion. Ignoring the IP !Vote as too suspicious, there is a clear trend in the discussion toward finding the article worthwhile, and people are pulling out interesting sources. Uncivil comments by those involved in the AfD or this Review, though unhelpful, have no bearing on the validity of the article either way. SilkTork *^YES! 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Some things don't make it to Newsweek. While the topic may be a blip on the radar, I don't see a strong argument being made for deletion in the debate, certainly not enough to close the debate as a definite delete. I don't think the term "notability" makes much sense in the context of programming languages. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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