Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 10

10 May 2009

Encyclopaedia Metallum – AfD closure as Delete overturned. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Encyclopaedia Metallum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The article was deleted due to lack of notability, but the editors who voted to delete it either ignored the notable sources that I posted, or tried really hard to invalidate them by giving frail excuses. When I presented the following article as a notable references, two editors said that it didn't count, because the guy who wrote it is a member of the site. Encyclopaedia Metallum has almost 140,000 members. It's completely stupid to say that everyone who has an account there cannot write anything that can be considered as independent source. The member who wrote it cannot be considered an active member by any stretch of imagination. He barely used the forum and his only contribution to the database was to submit two reviews during almost two years, out of more than 43,000 reviews that were submitted by other users. Why such a member cannot be considered as an independent source? My other source is an interview that appeared in the Finnish magazine Miasma, one of the top heavy metal magazines in Finland, which is distributed alongside all the other big music magazines in the country. The translation of that interview can be found here. The other editors said that the interview didn't count because it was "Self-promotion and product placement", which is completely absurd, since the magazine is 100% independent from Encyclopaedia Metallum, and the interviewer "only asked questions. That's trivial.", which looks like some rule invented by him. Since when interviews should be considered trivial if the interviewer only asks questions?. Evenfiel (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion. That was the consensus. I think the consensus was wrong, as it usually is about WP:NOTAGAIN—it's a completely nonsensical feature of Wikipedian process. A deleted article needs to be brought back to AfD to be re-created with the same content, but a kept article can be re-nominated with the same arguments and deleted without coming anywhere near DRV, and I think that's systemic bias in favour of deletion. Still, wrong though it was, that was the consensus and Stifle interpreted it correctly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I fell that drv rule number 3 applies to this situation, Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion. I've only established Miasma's notability right in the end of the discussion, after everyone had already voted and maybe didn't even see the discussion again. I fell that this is an essential piece of information. Sure, that information didn't appear after the deletion took place, but right before it, so it's pretty much the same thing. Evenfiel (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC) overturn Earlier commentators didn't have the time to take into account later sourcing so at best this should have been closed as no consensus. The sources as given seem to meet WP:WEB given that late in the discussion Miasma was established as a WP:RS. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse No new evidence has been provided that wasn't actually provided in the AFD so rule 3 doesn't exactly apply. Without that consensus was correct per S Marshall so there seems no reason to go back. Spiesr (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC) AFD is not a court of law or debating society, where users "win" or "lose" because their arguments are "right", "wrong", "better", or "worse". It is a forum where users establish whether or not a consensus, that is to say the general feeling of the community, supports deleting an article or not. Endorse own deletion as reflecting the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Not exactly. It's also a forum "to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion", and as JoshuaZ said, "Earlier commentators didn't have the time to take into account later sourcing so at best this should have been closed as no consensus."Evenfiel (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Overturn The strength of arguments seemed to be on the keep side frankly. It meets WP:N and the arguments that it doesn't are weak at best. Hobit (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Weak overturn - had I been tasked to close that AfD, I would have had to go with a no-consensus. The delete arguments do seem to be somewhat trumped by the keeps, and even numerically it's marginal. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC) comment "Not again" does not apply here. It was a non consensus close the first time, nominated again a month afterwards. I do not think that hopelessly unreasonable. if it had been a keep, I think it would have been unreasonable, and I think the consensus would have said so pretty clearly. DGG (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Overturn. The references presented in the AFD and in the discussion here establish the site's notability, IMHO. Where there is a significant dispute between established users regarding whether the article's sources are sufficient, as there was in this AFD, the proper closure is no consensus, because there isn't any. Erik9 (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Overturn The AfD should have been closed as No Consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of American public officials convicted of crimes – Decision (i.e. keep) endorsed. – — Aitias // discussion 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of American public officials convicted of crimes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I don't think the participants in the debate fully considered the issues at stake; some of that was my fault, since my nomination could have been clearer. The question here is whether this article can be written in a way that doesn't violate NPOV (I think it's clear that it's a gross violation as it stands now). I say no. Currently we have an odd mix of cabinet-level and sub-cabinet-level appointments, congressmen, and one judge. This leaves out probably hundreds of people who would fit the implied criteria; just to name a few: Haldeman, Erlichman, Scooter Libby, etc., but I'm sure there are many many more on this level who are not nearly so prominent (people convicted of crimes that don't involve their jobs may not show up in the news). So the article could be renamed "American cabinet-level officials, congresspeople, and judges convicted of crimes," and Poindexter and Abrams removed from it, but that seems a bit silly to me. More discussion, at any rate, is sorely needed. Previously discussed with the deleting admin here and here. As I told him, I blame the debate participants for not thinking it through, not him. Chick Bowen 16:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse; although I !voted for deletion in the AFD, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC) That's correct. That's why I specifically said that I thought my nomination did not make the issues clear. I'm asking that the AfD be judged invalid as not taking into account the important policy issues that need discussion. Chick Bowen 17:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Fair point. However, I'm not all that convinced that DRV is the right platform for this discussion (nor, for that matter, that such a platform exists). I'm bound by the restrictions on DRV which are that it should inquire into whether the deletion process was properly followed, and in this case, it was. However, I think we can come up with one good idea out of this, and it is to permit immediate relisting at AFD to deal with the issues raised. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC) I dunno, Stifle. Like you, I'm not at all convinced this article should be a bluelink on Wikipedia. Observe the following redlinks: List of British public officials convicted of crimes; List of Canadian public officials convicted of crimes; List of Australian public officials convicted of crimes; List of New Zealand public officials convicted of crimes; List of South African public officials convicted of crimes... in fact, nowhere in the English-speaking world has an article like this, or ever had, except the US. I think it's reasonable to say the coverage of US politics on Wikipedia is disproportionate (important though it undoubtedly is), and the sheer number of different articles allows or even encourages POV forking. I also think the whole thing is a confusing mess for the end-user and virtually impossible to police, and I think it's urgently in need of cleanup. None of that is a matter for a DRV of this particular article, but I feel it's important background to a discussion, and I do think DRV has a role with respect to this particular article. While Juliancolton's closure was fully in accordance with the discussion, I think there's room for debate on whether participants in the discussion might have failed to take full account of the WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT issues quite clearly described in the nomination. I also wonder whether the article might fail WP:SYN, because I don't know of a reliable source that gives a list of convicted criminal politicians. (Such a list might well exist in some US publication of which I'm unaware, though.) Another important aspect is WP:NPOV, as the nominator here states. I mean, George W. Bush was very famously convicted of driving under the influence on 4th September 1976, and I find it very suspicious that he's not mentioned here. I think this is a duck for a coatrack and a WP:BLP minefield, and we should be looking for a relist outcome as a defective debate. No reflection on Juliancolton's closure, which was fully in accordance with the views expressed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC) There is List of Australian politicians convicted of crimes and Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. (I don't think a list needs a single source to avoid WP:SYN, any more than an article does.) Occuli (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC) That list consists of elected officials. Though I don't think that would eliminate all problems, I would far rather a list of elected officials than a list like this that includes appointed officials willy-nilly. Chick Bowen 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC) WP:SYN refers to combining sources to advance a new or novel point of view not reflected in any of the sources. The interpretation that you appear to me to be giving it, S Marshall, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it refers to any use of multiple sources in an article, in which case half the encyclopedia fails it. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Not at all — it seems I've inadvertently been unclear, and I'm sorry for that. I think that articles and lists should be about subjects that other people have already treated in reliable sources. That sounds obvious, but the key word in it is "subjects". As an extreme example, I could write, and source, an article about "Differences between chimpanzees and digger wasps". Such an article might have a good source for every sentence, but it's still a WP:SYN because nobody else has written about "Differences between chimpanzees and digger wasps". So I think it's a valid question: has anybody else written an article about "US public officials convicted of crimes"? If not, it's a SYN. And please note "politicians" != "public officials".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC) You're interpreting WP:SYN far too broadly; it warns against the "synthesis of published material that advances a position," which this list does not inherently do, provided its descriptions are NPOV and its entries do not favor or single out any political parties. The inclusion criteria for this list is simple and obvious, and it can hardly be said that the convictions of public officials have never been written about. It's possible that no one has ever attempted to list them all together, but that hardly constitutes OR in this instance. Postdlf (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. The matter was hardly germane to my post in any case, so while I think there's more to it than that, I'll just strike the sentence for the moment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse nothing wrong with the AfD, this isn't round two. I didn't comment in the afd, but had I, I would have said keep: The fact that links for similar articles about other countries are red is not a reason to delete a blue link - WP has a systemic WP:BIAS toward topics pertaining to English-speaking industrial countries (note US & Australia have blue links), which is mitigated by turning red links blue not in making blue links red. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC) The Australian blue link is about politicans, not public officials—a distinction that some other contributors here have seen as important.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC) endorse keep The keep reflects the consensus after improvements made during the AfD. Like SMarshall, i did not comment at the AfD, but i would have said keep, because the material is notable, and passes BLP. If there are not other articles for other countries, they should be written. We need to start somewhere. DGG (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Request for clarification: Given that this article has been compared with the Australia article, does that imply that endorsers would like it to be renamed to "politicians," and for unelected officials to be removed? Or do they wish it to remain as it is, with undefined criteria? Thank you. Chick Bowen 15:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't "politicians" include unsuccessful candidates who never held public office, or even prominent political activists? Public officials at least is limited to those who have actually held elected office or were appointed to positions in government. Postdlf (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Which is an enormous and rather undefinable group of people (postal inspectors? town clerks? members of state educational boards?). Chick Bowen 23:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC) I see your point, but even the hypothetical inclusion of such low level officials may not be a problem, given the requirement that each entry must be notable and reliably sourced to the satisfaction of WP:BLP. Postdlf (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Hedgehog0 – moot. Page already restored by deleting admin. – Aervanath (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Hedgehog0 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) A mystery to Me 217.171.129.74 (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Firstly, I would like to refer the reader to the following lengthy series of discussions that I [a new user] had with a more senior/estbalished user: User talk:212.20.240.70#Hedgehog I first created a wikipedia page about a new Java API called Hedgehog that I had spent over 2 years creating and thought the rest of the Java programming world might be interested in the page was created I was threatened with police and legal action against me. The moderator who threatened with me with such action was subsequently banned from Wikipedia. I then engaged in a lengthy discussion about the best way forward to proceed. As the referred to discussion clearly indicates it was suggested to me that I create my own "personal" page and once the Hedgehog API had attained sufficient "notabilty" that I would then promote this page to a main article page. This I did - refer to the discussion. Today I discovered that the Hedgehog0 page has been "speedily" deleted. The deletion of this page is a complete mystery to me as it started out life as a copy of the Mathematic template. For some unknown reason to new users, pages such as Mathematic are allowed to blatantly self-promote their products and yet other users are unable to do so, threatened with legal action and have their pages speedily deleted. There really does appear to be double standards at work within Wikipedia. I have also reached the point of totally losing my patience with wikipedia and really starting to question its viability as a "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Yes, anyone can create a new account and add pages but a select few will have final control. This isn't a free to anyone source of information. It's more a akin with how the scriptures were rewritten by a select group of monks in the dark ages. It's not truly "free" information but highly censored information by a select group of moderators and administrators. The rules of wikipedia are an absolute mystery to new users such as myself, and their complexity draws new users into all sorts of conflicts, notability issues, threats of legal and police action, what's acceptable an what's not, and so on an so forth. Yes, my past few months experience with wikipedia has left me really questioning its original objective. It may have started out notable but in my opinion is a mile away from a free knowledge experience. Yours sincerely Dr Graham Seed Can you please clarify exactly what you want done? Stifle (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I believe he wants the page User:Hedgehog0/Hedgehog Java API placed in mainspace. DGG (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC) There was some previous discussion summarized at [1] after the user, then an anon, was attacked outrageously at the help desk by a sockpuppet of a now banned troll, Hamish Ross, pretending to be an administrator. This page was nominated for G11 , and placed in userspace by Wknight94 (who I just notified). However, i see no evidence at all that the program is notable; there seems to be zero references to it in google except for your own publicity. The program was apparently just released this March, so when there are reviews from established 3rd party reliable sources, then would be the time to add them and write the article. See our FAQ about businesses, other organisations, and articles like this. DGG (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC) List at AfD as a WP:BITE issue. This new user has had an article deleted under circumstances he sees as unreasonable. I think that he should not see an unchallengeable summary deletion; rather, he should see the Wikipedia community debate his article and reach a policy-based consensus. I think it likely that the article would be deleted following such a debate, but I think it's important that this user should see the said debate take place.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion – biting aside, I do not see how this article would possibly pass for inclusion. I am especially wary of the ownership and clear conflict of interest issues present. I am also of the opinion that the user account (not the user) should have been blocked for violating the username policy as a promotional username (that is, if I saw the created on Special:NewPages and saw who created it whilst seeing an exact match in the username, I would have reported to WP:UAA). MuZemike 20:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Send to AFD per S Marshall. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC) I'm perfectly happy for my user page, article and account to be deleted and I'll never use Wikipedia again if an administrator can provide suitable explanations to the following: If product endorsement pages are not allowed then why is the Mathematica page permitted? The Erik Satie page is not a product endorsement and I see no conflict of interest. However, if you believe that the Mathematica page is not all about product endorsement then you are wrong. It appears to me that a product endorsement page is acceptable provided that the product is notable. The fact remains that the page is still a product endorsement however notable it may be. Explain the difference from my user page which was deleted and the following accepted page Jscience. Explain the difference from my user page which was deleted and the following accepted page Javolution. You'll probably reply something along the lines "Previous accepted pages should not influence future policy...". This is unacceptable as the current wikipedia pages should lead by example. Also, if the above pages 2) and 3) would not be accepted today but are not deleted then you are simply drawing users such as myself into conflict of interest traps. I don't have anything against the above pages. They are simply randomly selected examples from thousands of such pages, which if a new user copied the format of and published themselves would be rejected. Yours sincerely Dr Graham Seed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.240.70 (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, Wikipedia is inconsistent. It's gloriously, radiantly, sumptuously and unselfconsciously inconsistent, and this is often surprising to new users. Users accustomed to authoritarian, political, legal or business management-style decision-making processes tend to expect pretensions of consistency, so they expect precedent to have value. But Wikipedia is an ochlocracy that, very early in its history, specifically disavowed precedent as an influence on decision-making; see WP:WAX. Yes, it's amazing that such an "organisation" works. (Wikipedia's only successful in practice. In theory it's a total disaster.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC) PS: Though I've tried to answer your question, I do so without pretending to be an administrator, which I'm not.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Could the OP please provide links to legal and police threats? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Some discussion on this was here. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you. As is clear from the cited discussion, the person who made the threats was not an administrator, but a vandal. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) As noted wikipedia is in some ways inconsistent. Wikipedia is also a volunteer effort and there is no onus on anyone (regular editor or administrator) to rush off and try and make the millions of articles perfect and consistent. People work within the areas that interest them and the things which come to their attention. Notability is the implementation in guideline form of wikipedia is not an indescriminate set of information, it forms a basic inclusion criteria at the topic level, fail to meet that and the article will usually go, meet that bar and there is still no guarantee that the underlying article will be perfect. You perceive some articles as product endorsements, others will not perceive them as that. Wikipedia follows various core policies, netural point of view - essentially articles are in balance with the general view point sources provide not weighted to much to minority views etc. If something is generally written about positively by that virtue the article will be generally positive. Verifiability - verifiability not truth, we write what can be verified from other sources which doesn't always meet with absolute truth. Some of the articles you point to may require further attention, removing the advertising, rewording to a more encyclopedic tone or deletion (at the whim of whoever wants to do it), if you find an article which isn't up to scratch then feel free to try and fix it, if it's beyond repair and fails to meet our basic policies then you can nominate it for deletion. There is actually a level of consistency in all this, none of the articles are beyond scrutiny, editing or deletion. Articles which have gone unnoticed for months or years get deleted, others just through the deletion process gain interest from some editors and get made far better than their origins. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC) when a product is notable, then we describe it. There are major differences between an encyclopedic description and one in an advertisement : we explain the features, we do not praise them. If articles for notable products are written in a fashion like an advertisement, they are deleted or rewritten. Sometimes promotional matter escapes detection, but when we do detect it, we remove it, for it's a major threat to our objectivity. But in order to justify a description, the product must first be notable. for computer programs, this normally means they must be reviewed or otherwise written about in a substantial matter by reliable independent sources. Until they are, they do not justify an article in the first place. New products can attract such interest as to get such reviews, but by no means all products do. Until they do, there cannot be an article. We write about things that are already notable. I have no objection to this going to AfD, but I like everyone else here thinks the result will be obvious. The comments that you received when you first wrote the article were unfortunate. They were not by an administrator here, but by someone pretending to be one. They would not have been accepted from anyone--any administrator who would make such threats would undoubtedly be quickly removed from the position. When the matter was presented, it was determined that this was a user who had already been banned from Wikipedia, under another name, and the new name was blocked as well, permanently. I do not know nor need we figure out whether the motivation was a professional or personal rivalry or pure malice--there is no conceivable basis where it would have been acceptable here, or any respectable web site. the best advice I can give you is to wait until you have such reviews, and then rewrite the article accordingly, under a user name that does not itself include or suggest the name of the product. At such a point any of the people commenting here would be glad to check it for you DGG (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC) I agree with all the above. In addition, you are editing from an IP address, and you cannot revoke your contributions under the GFDL. MuZemike 06:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC) What absolute rubbish. Certain pages are speedily deleted by making reference to "product endorsement" and when a page such as Mathematica is put forward as in breech of the product endorsement criteria no administrator or senior user can provide an explanation. An answer of "yes it's inconsistent" is simply unacceptable. Why isn't the Mathematica page deleted based on the product endorsement criteria? The page was originally deleted entirely based on "product endorsement" and yet as soon as I raise the related Mathematica page administrators quickly move to "notability". If the Mathematica page failed on both product endorsement and notability then something else would be raised. A new user can't win and an answer to a simple question will always be dodged by throwing up some other criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.240.70 (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC) As I've thought all along - wikipedia has double standards. Dr Graham Seed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.240.70 (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC) There are lots of criteria and policies on Wikipedia. Are you saying that your product is as notable, important, and widely-used as Mathematica? Stifle (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC) No. I'm asking the simple question that if a page such as Hedgehog0 was deleted with respect to "product endorsement" and no reference to "notability" then why doesn't the same rule apply to the Mathematica page? As I mentioned above. Your own response has quickly moved to "notability" and bypassed the "product endorsement" criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.240.70 (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Dr Graham Seed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.240.70 (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC) As you know, pretty much anyone with an internet connection can edit Wikipedia. In order to ensure that we can produce a high quality encyclopaedia aiming towards high levels of accuracy and reliability we cannot just rely on the information given to use by editors. The threshold for information to be included in Wikipedia is "verifiability not truth" (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), information must be attributed to external reliable sources. Another of Wikipedia's core principles is to put forward a neutral point of view, this is also a founding principle of the Wikimedia Foundation - the charity which supports Wikipedia. In order to ensure a neutral point of view, third party sources usually have to be provided to support the information in an article, information put out by the subjects of an article themselves or companies associated with them is likely to be favourably biassed and so cannot form the sole basis of a neutral article. A simple Google News search of Mathematica ([2]) gives 100's of results from third party reliable sources including PC World and the Wall Street Journal, these can form the basis of a verifiable, neutral encyclopaedia article free of unsupported original research. In short, until third party sources have covered a topic, whether it be a company, programme, person or other it is not usually possible to write an article that meets Wikipedia's primary inclusion criteria of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. If and when your product has been covered by independent, reliable sources it should be possible to have an article about it included. Guest9999 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Again - I repeat the question but what about the Mathematica page ultimately being a product endorsement? I reiterate my main point that if certain users/administrators/moderators choose to keep a page then product endorsement goes out the window. Your reply effectively states this conclusion by seeking other criteria in which to accept a page. In each of the above replies I still haven't seen a satisfactory reply/answer to whether or not the Mathematica page breaks the product endorsement rules. I suspect that no one wants to answer this question as it would mean deleting tens of thousands of other pages. Fine, but don't delete other pages based entirely and purely on "product endorsement". Dr Graham Seed Looking at the current state of the Mathematica article I would say it is not among Wikipedia's best. Most of the content is purely descriptive of the product with no information on its critical reception. Having said that the information that is there appears to be presented in a neutral fashion and because of the sources available the article could be improved to give a greater critical context. No Wikipedia article is perfect and even the very best are continually edited and improved. The key thing is that improvement to a point of acceptability is possible. Product endorsement does not meet that a product cannot be described or that praise it has received cannot be mentioned, rather that "Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style" - an article about something that has received many positive reviews would reflect that. When there are no reliable sources available for a topic there is no potential to improve it. Additionally when no mainstream or industry specific sources have mentioned a product then writing about it on Wikipedia is often seen as a form of promotion in itself - an article intended to promote or raise publicity for something is almost inevitably not neutral and so not acceptable. This applies to articles about people, companies, bands (for example those who's only coverage is their MySpace page) and any other entity. In order to determine which topics can meet the primary inclusion criteria - which I mentioned above - Wikipedia has developed a set of guidelines. the basic principle behind them is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.". If a topic meets this criterion an article about it will likely be kept (with exceptions such as copyright violations and pages intended only to disparage or unambiguously promote their subjects) this applies even if the article is not in a great state as anyone can edit and improve it. Essentially the difference between your article and the Mathematica article is the difference in the topics of the articles. One has received sufficient coverage from relaible sources that a high quality, verifiable, neutral encyclopaedia article could possibly be written, one has not. Guest9999 (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC) I've been talking to Graham (Hedgehog0/212.20.240.70) since this issue first surfaced on the WP:Help desk. A vandal had threatened Graham with legal/police action, and was then blocked (IIRC). Graham had been - and indeed still is - working on an article, which was then subsequently moved to userspace. Most recently, it has been deleted, and then restored (by the deleting admin). In terms of WP:DRV I'm not convinced that there is anything to be done - the article was deleted from userspace and then restored to userspace. In terms of WP:BITE my goal throughout this has been to rectify the appalling treatment Graham received from a vandal, and mitigate the hard knocks he might receive from ordinary, well-intentioned editors. I suggested that Graham create an account instead of editing as an IP, and then use a sub-page of the registered account to work on his article. Someone mentioned above that "Hedgehog0" is a username violation; if it is then that is my fault, not Graham's, and I ask that we work amicably with Graham to address that issue. Regarding the userspace article itself, since it has been restored all I can ask is that if anyone is able to provide friendly and helpful advice to Graham then I am sure he would appreciate it. He has taken on board the comments I've made, but I'm one editor with limited skills and knowledge. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1520 New Hampshire Avenue – Close endorsed. Nominator withdrawing. – SilkTork *YES! 09:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
1520 New Hampshire Avenue (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The weight of argument was for a Merge. The nom was for Delete, and put forward several valid reasons for there being only one article and for merging back the contents. Two others said Merge. One said Keep or Merge, with the view that "I don't think it's a good idea to cover the building and the embassy separately". The creator of the article said Keep, though later agreed that merging back was a viable solution. User:Stifle (who requests not to be informed of DRV - User_talk:Stifle/wizard/experienced#Deletion) felt that the Merge discussion should take place on the talkpage of the article - though the merge discussion has already taken place with the outcome that the article be merged, so further discussion should not be needed. SilkTork *YES! 09:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC) And merging is an editorial decision and action, so what are you asking for here? If there is already a consensus to merge, get on with it and put an appropriate redirect in place. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Raising it here to forestall a more drawn out debate on the talkpage, or a potential conflict by someone objecting/undoing a merge because the AfD close could be interpreted as not supporting a merge. Just seemed common sense to me. Does that help? SilkTork *YES! 13:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC) As suggested I did the merge, and - as expected - someone objected - [3] - [4]. We are now into the process of suggesting a merge on the talkpage. Nobody taking any notice, other than the creators of the articles who will object. Then taking the matter to Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion. As my interest in this matter is not that strong, I am now withdrawing from this matter, and so - even though there was a consensus to merge the articles, and people here see that as the sensible action, this is unlikely to happen because the AfD did not close as Merge. SilkTork *YES! 09:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse own closure and proceed with merger as suggested. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC) And on that point, AFDs close with one of two outcomes — "delete", and "not delete". What happens after a "not delete" is up to the community, or any subset thereof. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC) There are more close options than a simple Keep or Delete: there are Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki" or "KEEP (including any variant such as NO CONSENSUS, REDIRECT, or MERGE)". It can sometimes be helpful for the person closing to look into possible wider issues to reduce the potential for later drama. Anyhow, as the consensus here is leaning toward someone doing the redirect and leaving the AfD close as is, I'd be quite content on doing that myself and closing this DRV early. SilkTork *YES! 13:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC) The AFD closer simply closes the AFD. It's not the closer's job to actually do the merge - merging can be a relatively complicated thing best left to people actually familiar with the article content. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC) A minor clarification: Mr.Z-man's closing script places {{afd-mergeto}} and {{afd-mergefrom}} tags for merge closures. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse closure. There was no consensus to delete the article and a close of "keep" or merge" would have both been reasonable. Stifle chose "keep". This doesn't prevent somebody from merging anyway. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse. While I see support for a merger, it may have fallen short of consensus. If it were a little clearer, I would support a merge closure. Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse close. Stifle correctly found there to be no consensus to delete and also determined that there might not be enough consensus for a merge. The latter can be discussed on WP:MRFD or the talk page or someone can be bold and simply do it. Either way, nothing can be gained from altering the outcome of the discussion. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Michelle Belanger – Restore and list at AfD. Closed early by suggestion of Spartaz. – SilkTork *YES! 07:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Michelle Belanger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Version deleted at AFD version deleted by spartaz Deleted under G4 by User:Spartaz. Article had, however, been rewritten to address the concerns of the AfD - all promotional language removed, and the article restructured and rewritten to explain the notability of the subject. New sources were added, including media sources such as Fox News Channel, The Washington Post, and Bizarre magazine along with books The re-enchantment of the West: alternative spiritualities, sacralization, popular culture, and occulture by Christopher Hugh Partridge ISBN 0567041336, and Magickal Self Defense: A Quantum Approach to Warding by Kerr Cuhulain ISBN 0738712191. SilkTork *YES! 00:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Overturn deletion assuming SilkTork is correct that the rewritten version addressed the concerns of the AFD. G4 doesn't require a proposed new version be reviewed here at DRV. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse own DeletionThe article was only just deleted at AFD and endorsed at DRV for concerns about spurious sourcing and one admin doesnt have the right to overturn a consensus formed elsewhere without testing to see if it had changed. I'm also not opposed to relisting the article as AFD is a better place to test the new sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 04:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Looking at the new sources. The Washington Post is a general article that she is interviewed in and does not discuss her in detail. Bizarre Magazine is another general article that interviews her I don't think it counts as a reliable source that discusses the subject in depth. The fox news segment is another one that discussed vampires where she is interviewed. Not about her in depth. RS requires non-trivial secondary sources that discuss the subject and all of these are about vampires in general not michelle Belanger. The links to the Bizarre Magazine scans are copyvios by the way and cannot be maintained if the article is restored as we don't link to copyvios. None of these new sources cut the mustard in my opinion and Silktork shouldn't have substituted their opinion for that of the DRV or AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 05:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC) While new sources have been added, that is not the main point here. The concern in the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Belanger was about the promotional aspects of the article. Those have been addressed. The comments in the DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 29 endorsed deletion as appropriate, though suggested the article be rewritten to address the AfD concerns. That has been done. I'll admit I didn't study the wording of the comments closely (I scanned through and saw "userfy", "allow recreation", etc - and as I was addressing the main concerns, felt that was enough), and only note now when scrutinizing carefully that there are suggestions that DRV take a look at the recreation before returning to mainspace. Fair enough. I had expected an AfD challenge as there are issues in the background. What I didn't expect, and I oppose, was an immediate delete under G4, as G4 is not appropriate. There were several other solutions open - returning the article to userspace would have been one, discussing the matter with the admin who userfied the article (myself) would have been another; however, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and we all do things that would have better if we were fully aware of all the facts - however, we are simply volunteers working in our spare time on this project, so lets not annoy each other unnecessarily - a deletion is a big slap in the face that could have been avoided. I am, as people may detect, a bit irked by this, so forgive the wordiness of this comment. SilkTork *YES! 07:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Well, given that I closed the DRV you can imagine that I was a bit irked that this was restored summarilarly without discussion with me. If you read the DRV carefully you would know that there were issues about the sourcing and the sources you have used to restore the artice quote the subject but only discuss her tangentially in the context of the wider article so, if you forgive my grumpiness, it does rather look like you decided to supplant your view of her notability for the communities. You also waited barely 6 hours for a reply before raising the DRV when checking my contributions would have showed I was offline and I actually have no objection to your restoring this and listing it at AFD. I should also note that given the amount of work you have done on the article you are clearly not an uninvolved admin for the purposes of using admin tools on it withoyt a consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Overturn deletion As one of the new editors who was supposed to work on this article, I would have loved to acctually read the revisions prior to deletion again. I trust that SilkTork cleaned it up to satisfy the notability issues and the npov complaints, so now there's a problem with RS? Give me a break. The Washington Post and Fox aren't good enough? I thought the issue for Afd was notability, and that has been established. And let's not forget the vote stacking by sockpuppets that got the Afd happening in the first place. Allow the article to stay, watch it, and protect if it gets spammed by socks again. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC) "The Washington Post and Fox aren't good enough?" I think Spartaz addresses that in the comment directly above that. i.e. the requirement being that the subject is the primary subject of the article in the reliable source. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC) That would be incorrect. Being widely cited or an important figure is also grounds for establishing notability for creative professionals. Having a significant "cult" following or significant roles multiple notable television productions is sufficient for entertainers. No where does it state that a person must be "primary subject of the article in the reliable source." That is simply one path or possible criteria for notability.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC) You mean that would be incorrect in your understanding of the policies/guidelines. Perhaps you can expand on that by reference to the actual guidelines an policies. The view I see being put forward is based on WP:N. The subsection of this Notability requires verifiable evidence indeed doesn't state a requirement that the verifiable information is mainly focussed on the subject, it however does state: "If a topic is notable, there must be verifiable evidence that it independently satisfies the general notability guideline.", which if you then review the general notability guideline states " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail...". --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Exactly, directly not tangentially in the context of the wider subject. The kind of thing we are looking for are biograophies, profiles in wide circulation newspapers that kind of thing. being quoted in the paper doesn't earn you wiki-notability. Spartaz Humbug! 09:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Overturn deletion Belanger is widely consulted as an expert on the vampire lifestyle community by reliable sources: Fox, Washington Post, A&E, History Channel. That meets one of the criteria for notability. Additionally, Belanger has made multiple appearances on the show Paranormal State, a notable program, thus meeting another of the criteria for notability.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Can you point out which policy/guidelines you are refering to as criteria for notability? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I was basing my understanding of notability off what I read in Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals and Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Ok that page has various sections, the basic criteria "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published..." which again requires them to be "the subject of", the additional criteria you list and a special cases section. The latter section specifically considers "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria..." which essentially specifies they aren't suitable for a standalone article and suggsting the information is contained elsewhere. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC) So under or as part of another article that as notability?--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Uncle G put this best: "Notability deals in subjects and topics, not content. That a subject is non-notable does not mean that verifiable information about a subject should be excluded from Wikipedia. It means that the subject is not an appropriate one for an article."—Uncle G in On Notability In other words, as part of another article that has notability.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Although the article and concept seem a bit daft, and it's unlikely that this person meets WP:BIO, the deletion criterion invoked was that the article was essentially the same as an article deleted at AFD, which it was not. Therefore, overturn and relist. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Overturn – the issues brought up at the AFD were addressed. Relist at AFD if needed, but I think it now passes for inclusion. MuZemike 16:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC) List at AfD. The nominator's remarks seem entirely valid to me.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Send to AfD per Stifle. Hobit (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion no significant coverage from independent reliable 3rd party sources required by WP:GNG, this is a BLP, so these should be strictly adhered to. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC) List at afd---which does not mean I'll !vote keep there, but just that AfD is the place to discuss it. There's enough improvement for a new discussion. DGG (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.