Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 00:52, 23 March 2011

< May 2008	Deletion review archives	July 2008 >

30 June 2008

Talk:Mongols/Archive 01 – speedy restored; obvious mistake – GRBerry 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was speedied referring to "CSD G8: Talk page where main page does not exist". I assume this was an error as CSD G8 explicitly doesn't apply to archived talk pages where the top-level page does exist. A request to the deleting admin went without result, as he seems to be retired for good. --Latebird (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a pretty clear mistake, speedy restore anyone? Davewild (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear mistake, caused because someone had mucked around with Mongols/Archive 01, which never should have existed. GRBerry 19:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 June 2008

Commune Ango – Articles restored and AFDs reopened by deleting admin – Davewild (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article and all of the following of town/villages/settlements on the French territory of Réunion below were undergoing AfDs and so far the consensus in all of them was Keep.[1] However after somebody discussed these articles in the Village Pump, administrator Gwen Gale immediately deleted all of them, this within one day of the AfDs starts. She used the following comment as justification.

The result was deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Deletion, these are all non-notable former farm and place names which by blatant error have been carried forward as village or town names by some external sources (maybe to begin with through some careless data dump having to do with the island's mail delivery). A sampling of visual inspections of these sites through Google maps clearly confirms none of these places has more than 2 or 3 families, as described in the VP thread. All of these stubs should have been deleted when the prods expired. [2][3]

Not only was this a severe violation of WP:NO ORIGINAL RSEARCH (a "sampling of visual inspections"?), but a violation of WP:PROCESS and WP:CONSENSUS. At very least, these should all be allowed to complete the AfD process where consensus will decide.

--Oakshade (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-list let consensus decide. While I'm not generally a fan of every map dot being notable, I accept that as general consensus and a quick Gsearch, which I commented at the AfD showed these places to exist. Let the community decide, if they're to be deleted let it be through discussion and not " Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commune Ango) which it certainly was not. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list—I was the person who brought these to AfD. I did not think it proper for a Village Pump decision to trump standing consensus regarding the potential notability of these places; as it stands, a decision to delete was made on the Village Pump and the admin who closed this AfD is arguing that the Village Pump thread should be honored over the current Deletion Process .. I don't particularly like the precedent that would set. As far as I could see from the Village Pump discussion, the decision to delete on Wikipedia was based on a) original research and b) prior deletion on the French Wikipedia. (see here) The self-described admin on the French Wikipedia states "You can trust me when I say that the above articles deal with places that are not even known by the local population..." One can assume good faith and trust that this person speaks the truth, but there is no reason to act counter to established norms on English Wikipedia in the "spirit of entente", as one of the involved parties states as a driver behind the deletion here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The thread at VP (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Deletion) happened six days ago, all of the prods had expired and these are not villages or towns. As also noted, the existence of these places is not disputed, but their representation as villages or towns by the cited external sources is a blatant error. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The articles were all dePROD'd one day after the initial PROD; the PROD's had not expired. They were then all re-PROD'd, which violates Deletion Process; they should have all been brought to AfD rather than being re-introduced into the PROD process. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec)Plus, if they were expired prods, as you claim, just their listing here is enough to get them undeleted. Wanna go ahead and do that? --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~With all respect, the deleted histories show you are 100% mistaken when you say "The articles were all dePROD'd one day after the initial PROD." The prods had indeed expired.~~ I see some were PRODed twice. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional articles that I did not get to before they were deleted: These should be included in a re-listing; they also were dePROD'd and rePROD'd against process - I just did not get to these before an eager hand did away with them (not bothering to look at the histories).
- Sous les Bois Noirs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Union, Réunion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Verger Hemery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vue Belle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, possibly re-list. Let me get this straight: Someone from French Wikipedia cam over and said these didn't exist. The pages were put through our normal deletion process (first prod, then a listing at AFD). After 2 comments and 6 hours, the pages were speedily deleted by the admin who suggested the prod in the first place, based on "visual confirmation", and certainly not a neutral party in the discussion. Yeah, there's a problem with that. Notability of these places should be discussed and determined through process and not by admin fiat. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that's not what happened and I did not place any of the prods myself (only suggested this as an option six days ago). Since consensus clearly shows unhappiness with how this has turned out (never mind these are not villages or towns) the only helpful way I can see to handle this is to re-open the AfDs and I'm glad to do it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and possibly relist. (I also contacted the closer asking that this be reopened before I saw this DRV). My major concerns are of process. Let the AfD go 5 days rather than letting a discussion at the VP be where this is decided. Hobit (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the four articles beginning with Sous les Bois Noirs which still have prods on them. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please handle those as you like, they were never AfD'd. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As they already had the prod removed once, I have removed the prod from the four articles anyone can take them to AFD if they want to. I think this DRV can be closed now unless anyone has any objections? Davewild (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As opener of this DRV, I agree with Davewild in that this now can be closed. Thank you Gwen Gale for re-opening the AfDs.--Oakshade (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moneyfacts.co.uk – Overturn deletion. Clear case of new and relevant information being brought to light. Relisting at AfD is at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do not accept that there was a consensus to delete this. On a strict vote-counting basis there was a small majority for deletion, but most of these votes were simple "me toos" without any analysis. Also all the comments coming after I had pointed out how much coverage there was in reliable sources were in favour of keeping, including a previous delete supporter who changed his mind Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There are several things I disagree with on the decision. Firstly there was a significant change of opinion in the AFD after new facts were added to the discussion, I doubt many of the early delete opinions saw this and indeed one who did changed his mind to a weak keep. Second the closer seems to be saying that references from non-notable websites are not acceptable for notability. If they are a reliable source it does not matter whether they are notable or not. I found these two articles giving significant coverage [4] and[5] of Moneyfacts on easier.com. Also I found this article from the Eastern Daily Press which definitely gives significant coverage to Moneyfacts. I can also point to [6] and [7]. Combined with the amount of times major news organisations use Moneyfacts as a source - shown from these I think notability is very clear and this closure should be overturned. Davewild (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, and also overturn the July 2007 speedy deletion of Moneyfacts (an article regarding the company that runs moneyfacts.co.uk), which was G11 speedied as "blatant advertising" despite being a fairly neutral statement of facts, and merge the two of them together. It's clear from the Google News search above that Moneyfacts are very frequently used as a reference by, well, every major newspaper in the UK. I think this clearly meets WP:CORP's standard of "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources .. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." --Stormie (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for the reasons Davewild mentioned. New sources in reliable sources (ignoring easier for the moment since I'm not familiar with it and don't know if it's a reliable sources) were found after the deletes and there was a definite shift in consensus after those were identified. While I wouldn't go so far as to say there was an absolute consensus to keep there was, at least, no consensus to delete. I think there is a good case for including discussion about the website in Moneyfacts, which as Stormie notes, was fairly neutral. Both would benefit from the addition (they exist, but weren't all in article) of the RS coverage and I think in the end the website article could be a re-direct to the main article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article really should be at Moneyfacts which is what the sources mainly use. Davewild (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Overturn and move as indicated. Even the closer knew his decision was doubtful. The sources are fully sufficient for a keep, not even a non-consensus. There's a difference between COI support and support from (at the AfD, 4) established Wikipedians giving reasons--that's why AfD is not a vote. DGG (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per WP:POLLS. DA PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I was waiting to see how this one was closed and am disappointed with the delete decision. I'm struggling to understand the closers rationale, by far the stronger arguments were for keeping, by comparison some of the deletes had the appearance of drive-by opinions. RMHED (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Posting for closing admin at his request : "DGG, I can't access the deletion review page because I'm on a silly public computer that is blocking the page for 'adult content' (low threshold for blocking pages, I think). So I can't comment on the deletion review. Would you mind putting a note on the deletion review to the effect that I welcome the review, and that what I wrote on the AfD when I closed it should serve as my reasons for my decision? - Richard Cavell (talk) DGG (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the closure seems to largely ignore the shift in opinion that came after new sources were identified. I would have preferred to see this relisted to get a better consensus regarding the article and discussion with the new information, and relisting may ultimately be the best thing to do with this article. Shereth 16:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My immediate reaction from reading the AFD is that the consensus was to delete, but given the sources and new info that showed up, overturn and relist. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist to AfD. The evidence added during the discussion is not wholely compelling to me but it does appear to have changed the tenor of the discussion from that point forward. Unfortunately, there is little evidence in this discussion that the editors who commented early returned to the discussion to reevaluate the new evidence. A second discussion will allow more editors the time to review the sources. Rossami (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin: I apologize for the fact that my ISP blocked me from contributing to this discussion earlier. The consensus here is that my decision should be overturned, and I accept this. I apologize for closing it the way that I did. I now recommend overturning my decision and relisting. A move to Moneyfacts seems in order too. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (keep or no consensus). Close was not a correct reading of consensus. Closer did not properly weight Phil Bridger's and DGG's contributions to the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Srinivasan Kalyanaraman – Restored as a contested prod – Davewild (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was deleted due to the reason that there was no asserion of notability. However, Google search returns 134,000 hits for Dr. S. Kalyanaraman. Book reviews of his have appeared in the esteemed The Hindu newspaper of India Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 06:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was deleted by template:prod which I believe can be overturned by any user, just ask an admin and they should undelete it for you. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

World Games 1997 – Article restored by deleting admin to create redirect from sub-stub. Nothing more to review here. The article has been substantially expanded with results. Redirect, merge or keep at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion was made without any clear justification or discussion. Hektor (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am currently working on creating series of articles about the various sports at the world games (see Sumo at the World Games for instance) and will also enrich the articles devoted to the articles themselves. I know, I am doing that slowly. But please don't cut me out by just deleting the articles without other justification than the lack of content. I think that the World Games are an IOC sanctioned event and are important subjects. Now we are in the strange situation that there are articles about all World Games editions except 1997. Thanks. Hektor (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article only said where the games were held, (which means it is probably not a good A3 speedy deletion as there was a very small amount of content), would it not be better, however, to just be a redirect to World Games where everything that was already in the article is already covered until it is going to be expanded? I would support the restoration of the history so it could be used as the basis for an article when it is to be expanded. Davewild (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire textual content of the article was "The fifth World Games were held in 1997 in Lahti, Finland". I recommend working on the article at User:Hektor/World Games 1997 and not moving it to main article space until it has some meaningful content, e.g. competition results. --Stormie (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, and add an "underconstruction" tag, which was designed for just this situation. Did not qualify for speedy as empty. Empty means no meaningful content, and it means it quite literally. DGG (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletor's comment: I've restored the article due to DGG's elucidation of {{A3}}. However, unless the article is to be immediately expanded to at least meet WP:STUB and reasonable community expectations, it should be redirected to World Games now. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly support the redirect. Tony, just go do it, se my talk page. DGG (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Kastoria1.jpg – Informational request, deleted revisions show source was missing. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, can you review the history log of Image:Kastoria1.jpg deleted by East718 on 04:31, 26 March 2008. I am concerned, because it was deleted for reason of Image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days, while this same image several months before this, on 18:08, 28 October 2007, was transferred from EN WP to Bulgarian WP under GFDL with attribution to User:Makedonas, and the transfer was made by one very respected user of my community who is well aware of licenses and such stuff. I am prone to believe that he has correctly cited the license and author and I am wondering what has happened in the meanwhile between October 2007 and March 2008, so that this data was apparently lost. Thank you in advance. →Spiritia 17:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fix't nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When uploaded, the uploader specified {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. This template was later replaced project wide by {{PD-release}} in January 2007. The image page never specified who took the article, so it was later tagged with {{Di-no source}} (associated user warning {{Di-no source-notice}}. The uploader appears not to have been active between when the image was tagged and when it was deleted. GRBerry 02:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks. What does "Fix't nom" mean, by the way? :-) →Spiritia 11:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Just a clerical thing. I used the {{newdelrev}} to make all the links above show. That's it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I guess fix't is an archaic way of writing fixed. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jamie_Allen – Userfied by deleting admin. Non-admin closure. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

notability 78.105.219.85 (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followed a link to Jamie Allen's entry and was suprized to find it deleted. Seems an erroneous deletion, and lack of online references was sited as the reason? I know of these: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]

Endorse closure of AfD. There was no other way it could've been interpreted. If you'd like to create an account and create an article about Jamie, feel free, but it seems that only three of the above links are suitable to show notability ([23], [24], and [25]). The rest are either trivial mentions or unreliable (note that we don't cite other Wikipedia articles as references, and other articles cannot ever help establish notability). However, given these it looks like a decent article should be able to be written about him. If you do create an account, drop me a line on my talk page so I can point you at the relevant policies and guidelines (and explain them if you don't want to read through the entire pages, they are quite long). Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my closure, but am very willing to userfy the article for you, so that you could try and make the article meet the notability guideline (or you could just start a new article but taking care to make sure it does address the concerns raised here and using WP:Reliable sources). You would need to create an account in order for this to be done however. Also endorse Lifebaka's comments. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 June 2008

Matt Smith (illustrator) – No consensus closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't believe there were any valid reasons given to keep this article only valid reason for deletion. One look at the article shows a non-notable person with no coverage in reliable sources. neon white talk 20:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fix't nom. Should link to page, not AfD. Also added AfD2 link above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing admin, I'd like to explain how I came up with a close of no consensus. While the arguments for keeping the article were weak (no real references provided; the best argument was that the subject has won several awards), the arguments for deletion were equally weak. The nominator's argument was that sources showing notability had not yet been added; another editor gave a reason of "per nom" (and also per someone who had argued to keep). This left neon white's argument of "Doesn't appear to have the reliable second party coverage required."... "There are literally thousands of illustrators in the world who work on magazines etc. everyday. None of them are notable." This was the best of the delete arguments (well, the first part was; the second part can quickly be proven false by finding a single notable illustrator, such as Norman Rockwell.)

No where did I see an argument saying someone had looked for notability and didn't find it; the arguments centered on notability not being shown in the article as it currently is. While the burden of showing notablity certainly is on the article's creator, in an AfD it's also important to make a good faith effort to find evidence of notability, and none of the delete arguments mentioned having made that effort.

With weak arguments on both sides, I couldn't justify closing as delete, nor could I justify closing as keep. My choices came down to no consensus or relist; as the debate had already been relisted once, no consensus seemed appropriate.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes no mention of any notable awards won only that he won an art contest on a minor website that itself struggles for notability and a small art grant. Neither of these are criteria for notability. The only valid points made in the afd was that there is absolutely no coverage of this person to be found in reliable sources, this was made by several people and no reliable sources were found to refute that. Web searches were performed and only find his personal website, no news articles or books appear to mention him. I am astounded that this wasn't an obvious delete. The fact that the article has had no improvements made since the last afd which also in my opinion was a clear delete, shows this article is going nowhere and connot be sourced. --neon white talk 00:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might note that I said above the awards argument for keep was weak. Minor awards can bolster other evidence of notability, but aren't enough on their own. It sounds like we are in agreement on this.

The fact that the article has had no improvements since the last AfD is an editing issue, not a deletion issue, and does nothing to show that notability cannot be shown (emphasis mine). It would have helped immensely if you had mentioned in the AfD that you had done a thorough web search -- the way both you and the nom phrased your argument for lack of notability, it appeared you were going strictly off the article as it stands.

Since you initially expressed your concerns here, I have reread the discussion several times, and still feel that, based on the information I had at the time, I would have closed it the same way again. If you had made the argument about having done a thorough gsearch, it is certainly possible that I might have closed it differently. However, just now I have done my own gsearch, and I do come up with several mentions of Matt Smith, but it is difficult to tell him apart from Matt Smith (comics). It's a murky issue, and if the article comes up again for deletion, I hope there will be more research and discussion than happened at the last AfD.

If any neutral party here at DRV has some constructive comments on the close, I'd certainly welcome them.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, if two afds have failed to provide any sources then that should be taken into account. The arguments for keep at both afds make claims (by the creator of the article i should add) that are not verified in the article and all attempts to verify them have failed. I still cannot see any decent argument to keep that is based on policy. An art contest on a minor amateur website can hardly be considered an 'award'. It should at least be given by a reconised body to be considered an award however minor. It is true that there are problems with searches due to a number of people with the same name but this simply further hightlights the lack of notability here. All search hits of this person seem to be largely from his personal website, there is no evidence that he appears in journals, art magazines or news articles. I must point out that this is all irrelevant as the burden of proof is on the article to assert the notability of the subject not the opposite. I feel the decision was made because of a failure to disprove notability during the afd rather than contributors proving notability. --neon white talk 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete or relist. Sources apparently weren't found... sufficient sources certainly aren't in the article now. The burden is on people wanting to keep content to find sources... someone who doesn't think the sources exist can't truly prove they don't exist, you can't actually prove something like that any more than I could "prove" no polka-dotted aliens exist, but you can say no one has found any evidence yet, that's why the burden is on those who want to make claims to find sufficient evidence. --Rividian (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fabrictramp didn't make a bad call here. However, given the relatively low participation, I'd be happier with an overturn and relist than anything else. I'm of the opinion that short "no consensus" XfDs should nearly always be relisted in an attempt to see if consensus can be gathered one way or the other with a longer discussion period. Besides, this seems like the least contentious way to go. If the nom is correct that it should be deleted, the consensus should swing that way after it's reopened and relisted. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustain the no-consensus close, and renominate in 1 or 2 months in the hope of consensus then--I really dont see the point of overturning a non-consensus close when it can just be nominated again after a while, but if people want to relist now, maybe it will get enough further attention. DGG (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the no consensus close, there is no need to rush to deletion in this case. The article can be relisted at any time, though I'd suggest leaving it for a month or two as DGG said. Chances are that the next AfD will see a consensus emerge. RMHED (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, there is certainly nothing wrong with a no-consensus closure here as there was certainly no consensus. Sure, it could have been relisted but it had been once and still failed to attract much attention in the way of discussion - sometimes that just happens. Re-listing ad nauseum is not any better than just closing as no-consensus and letting the issue rest for a while before renominating in hopes of more participation down the line. Shereth 16:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that is true, so i think a relist may been appropriated but you have to consider that half of all afds end with no consensus due to poor arguements. --neon white talk 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close with no prejudice to a relist. I should specifically like to thank Fabrictramp, the closing admin, for fully explaining the reasons for the close. We only overturn closures at DRV when the close was clearly wrong and that is plainly not the case here. Smile a While (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It should not be relisted, that is trying to take a second bite at the apple right after the first. This was closed properly. No consensus at closure means keep. I propose we give it more time, you can then bring it back if significant improvements have not been made. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

youtube poop – ~~Flushing~~ Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unknown youtube poop is a definite internet phenomenon. Why has the entry been repeatedly deleted? Luminifer (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable sources? I haven't heard of it, so I'd like to find out about it. It doesn't seem like it would be appropriate for an article, but if it meets the standard of verifiability, then give us some links here. Ab e g92contribs 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I'm sorry, but unknown = no reliable sources to verify information = no notability. Looking at some of the deleted content in the logs, this is pretty much a textbook A7. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, for the same reason as Lifebaka. BecauseWhy? (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion forced meme does not equate to notability. To Abeg92, a "Youtube Poop" is an intentionally badly made video made from looping together unrelated videos, most often using the CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series and Hotel Mario. JuJube (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above DA PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about urban dictionary? There are just so many sources if you just google 'youtube poop' that I wouldn't know where to begin. Never mind that there's youtubepoop.com, and that if you look for youtube poop on youtube, there are countless examples of the style of animation. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=YouTube+Poop Luminifer (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That won't work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion (multiple times). No version of the article contained any sources demonstrating that this topic had even the slightest potential to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, nor have any sources been provided here. (Urbandictionary does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source.) Rossami (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you suppose it keeps coming up? I was going to do the research to create the article but discovered that I couldn't (or shouldn't?).... but clearly, there is some interest in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luminifer (talk • contribs) 03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, this could never be encyclopedic even by the widest of definitions. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gabriel_Murphy – Move to mainspace. Concerns remain over the local nature of sources. No prejudice against listing at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been deleted in the past and merged into the aplus.net article. However, the article has now been entirely re-written to include over 40 sources and I believe this article is clearly notable per the notable standards. Per Wikipeidia:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

This article has over 40 referenced articles, of which there are around 17 different sources. All but about 10 of the referenced articles discuss the subject directly in detail (as the name of the article include the subject's name or referr to him by his title within the company). All of these sources are reliable as they are from reputable business publications, undersities, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. None of the sources are affilated with the subject other than the APlus.Net Management Team reference, which could be construed as self-published material.

I think this article meets the notability threashold and should be included on Wikipedia. Previous versions of the article did not have many references and supporting content so it was merged with the aplus.net article.

I believe this article should be included in Wikipedia and the decision to delete should be Overturned.

The article can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LakeBoater/Gabriel_Murphy LakeBoater (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm sorry, but not right now.~~ Try working on it some more, and get some more non-trivial mentions in as references. You haven't worked on it since soliciting suggestions from me and C.Fred, even though we left comments for cleanup here. As I said there, the sourcing is excessive, and there are some other issues that I'd like to see fix't before it's moved back into mainspace. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an objection because there's too much sourcing? Am I a not understanding something here? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not the reason I oppose putting it back into mainspace. Mostly it's issues C.Fred raised. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello C.Fred and lifebaka, let me first appologize for restarting a deletion review on this when you had pending comments on for cleanup. As I am new to Wikipedia, I did not receive any new messages (I assumed you would leave your comments on my talk page) after 4-5 days from when I requested assistance. I assumed you were not interested in helping- I was obviously wrong as I have not seen the cleanup comments until lifebaka posted the link to the discussion page for the article. Let's pasue this discussion and let me address those comments. I will post something back here once I have cleaned-up the article per the comments. THanks LakeBoater (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello C.Fred and lifebaka, I have made the edits to the article per the cleanup comments on the discussion page. Please review and let me know your thoughts. lifebaka, I have addressed both of your issues. Thanks much for the feedback. LakeBoater (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. That looks much better. I'd like to get some more eyes on it, but I'm good now. Official switch to move into mainspace. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks much lifebaka- hopefully we can get others to review the article and vote to move into mainspace LakeBoater (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to mainspace As requested by LakeBoater I've had a look at the userspace version of this article and think it is ok for it to be put into the mainspace. I compared this version of the article with the one that was deleted at AFD and find the coverage of Gabriel Murphy in reliable sources to be significantly better. In particular sources 1 and 3 in the references section appear to provide significant coverage of him and neither appear to have been in the deleted version. So I think there is enough to establish notability here and thus should be restored. (I do however feel that once it is back in mainspace it could do with a bit of trimming in the Business Career section which seems to have too many sections and a bit too much information.) Davewild (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lifebaka or Davewild, are we good to go ahead and move into mainspace and close this discussion? If so, can one of you please do so when you have a chance? Thanks LakeBoater (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would prefer to leave this the normal five days to see if others will comment and let an uninvolved admin close this discussion and implement the consensus. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow move to mainspace. Appears to readily meet the criteria of having independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Not enough national, non-trivial news coverage. Most of the non-trivial sources are a local (KC) business paper. [BusinessWire]] simply reprints press releases, which are not good sources for establishing notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello All- can an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion and implement the consensus to move to mainspace (by a vote of three in favor, none against) the userfied article "Gabriel Murphy" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LakeBoater/Gabriel_Murphy? It has now been six days since this discussion was opened. Thank you! LakeBoater (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 June 2008

Bearforce 1 – Overturn A7 speedy deletion (endorse earlier G10), and list at AfD. Given that there may be relevant foreign language sources available, this could benefit from the additional time of discussion at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON I posted this just over an hour ago, it was nominated for speedy deletion, I put the tag in to say that it should be discussed, I found 3 references to show that the band was notable, including a Viacom LOGO countdown link, mentioned the aired on LOGO, linked the allmusic guide catalog #, and then suddenly the page got deleted. What happened???Luminifer (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that "#20 on LOGO TV's most recent Ultimate Queer Videos Countdown" is an assertion of notability and that the article should not have been A7 speedy deleted. But from my searching it seems that they don't meet the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC, and the article would be unlikely to be kept if it was discussed on AfD. --Stormie (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds to me like it should not have been speedily deleted.. At least, it should have been up long enough for the real fans (NOT me) to come along and put some real meat in there. I just thought they deserved an entry, because I wanted to know more about them myself! Luminifer (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone here speak Dutch? [26][27] --NE2 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:It seems clear to me from An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. (A7) that this should not have been speedily deleted. This has happened to me several times in the past week - an article that pretty clearly asserted importance but did not prove notability was VERY speedily deleted. What do we have to do to (a) get this article undeleted, and (b) stop this from happening, as it's a waste of time and clearly a rampant misapplication of wiki policies.Luminifer (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at AfD I rather doubt that "#20 on LOGO TV's most recent Ultimate Queer Videos Countdown" will qualify for a keep, but let it be discussed--it just counts as a good faith indication of some at least minimal notability. DGG (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:FotD 007x.jpg – Deletion Endorsed. Consensus is judged against policy not headcount so any conclusion needs to be based firmly on what policy says. In this case there are a lot of arguments put forward that it is not decorative but a quick look at the talk page of the article concerns shows that there is no consensus to retain the image in the article for precisely the reason that the editors working on the article see it as decorative. In this case it is impossible for the image to qualify under our NFCC - a core policy that we much comply with – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Consensus in IfD of 2:1 was to keep the image. Despite this, the deleting admin unilaterally removed the image and when asked about it, claimed that he thought the image violated NFC#8 and was thus deleted. What is the point of even having IfD discussions if an admin, working to close IfD discussions just decides on his/her own to override "rough consensus" and enforce their point of view instead? At best, the admin was free to make their own argument for deletion, so it could be discussed, rather than rendering it via sole decision to end all discussion.
Maybe as well as reinstating the image, we should examine the closing process a wee bit better, and decide if the admin in IfD discussions gets to decide on their own what represents the actual rough consensus. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)The image[reply]

Endorse (from closing admin) There was nothing in the article that made the image necessary. The text relating to the image was "River, unwilling to let the Doctor die, which would rewrite history and erase their time together, knocks him out and takes his place, rescuing those trapped in the computer at the cost of her life instead of his," which is understandable without an image. Precedents set at WP:IFD and upheld in deletion review have supported that using a non-free image to show a scene from a TV show, movie, etc. without cited commentary as to why the image itself is notable fails WP:NFCC#8 and as a violation of policy cannot be overridden by a majority of keep votes from the IFD discussion. -Nv8200p talk 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dissent - actually, if that is your personal interpretation, you have the option of weighing in during the IfD discussion. When two different folk note that NFC#8 is not compromised by the image, it means that you don't get to essentially say 'I don't care what you think, I'm deleting it anyway'. That is why we have IfD discussions. No gross violations of NFC#8 have occurred, and the admin made a poor judgment call. The image should be reinstated. If Nv8200p interprets the image to be non-fair use, he can nominate the image for deletion again - which is what the rest of us do when we don't like an image. A discussion closer doesn't get to impose his/her interepretation over consensus otherwise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedents set at WP:DRV, the closing admin has to be a non-participant in the discussion. -Nv8200p talk 18:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to be the closing admin. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No opinion on the closure of the IfD itself, but Fut.Perf.'s comment makes me wonder a bit. Would it be possible to have a different image for the same purpose of showing the plot but which makes more sense visually? Note that I have not seen the image in question and I am not familiar with the subject matter, so this is just a blind question. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Standing consensus in these deletion debates is that just to show a plot element is not enough. It must show it in a way that really gives the reader a better understanding of something that is significant about the work, and in doing so, it must be supportive of analytical commentary occuring in the text (or caption). I like to point to some positive examples where I believe this is done successfully. Image:Buffy101-1.jpg in Welcome_to_the_Hellmouth#Plot works great because of its beautiful (and well-sourced) analytical caption. The caption makes a point about the work that goes significantly beyond "this or that happens", and the image really illustrates this in a way that enriches the reader's understanding of that analytical finding considerably. (Ironically, this image, among all the bad ones, was removed since last time I looked. I just restored it.) Another positive example is Image:Homer'sEnemy.png in Homer's Enemy. Here, the caption is not very good, but the image does further the understanding of the whole because it indirectly supports the very good analytical commentary in the "production" section (about the significance of the character constellation, its literary models and so on.) That's the kind of quality we need. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (by previous "deletion" voter) - apart from the fact that I (obviously) find the outcome to be the right one, Arcayne's objection is based on a misreading of the numerical outcome. It was in fact 2 deletes : 2 keeps (counting the nominator), and of the two keeps, one completely failed to provide argumentation, and was calling merely for a "speedy keep" (way out of process, with no conceivable justification in policy) on the vague claim that the nomination was "disruptive". Thus, the closing admin was perfectly justified in seeing even a numerical majority of 2:1 argued votes in favour of deletion. (And I refrain from using "votes" with the silly disclamation mark, knowing full well in what sense it's a vote and in what sense it isn't.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to rephrase the question: if a wandering admin can come by and close the discussion - whether tied or consensus to keep (begging the question of where does it say we delete in cases of ties) - thus voicing a vote without having that vote readily available for discussion, the conversation takes on a tone of 'I disagree, and I win' - which I am fairly sure that Nv wasn't aiming for. In the best of worlds, these IfDs are not closed by someone voting-via-closure, but instead by someone with a somewhat more neutral opinion. As Nv has stated his opinion that the image doesn't fit the criteria and clearly seems unwilling to either relist the IfD or reinstate the image, I think the question of neutrality is somewhat moot. The discussion as to the nfc-credibility of the image is one that Nv had every opportunity in the world to participate in. Discussing it here is inappropriate, and it is best suited to an IfD discussion, and admins - just like everyone else - do not get to vote via closure. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again. The closing admin does not participate in the discussion. -Nv8200p talk 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he doesn't get to 'vote' by framing his within a deletion. You did participate in the discussion by applying your point of view to a tied discussion. Period. Rough consensus was tied, which means the image stays until someone has a more compelling argument to nominate the image for deletion.

Apparently, my first question fell to the wayside, so I will ask it again. In the case of a tie in an IfD (or any deletion debate), does the image stay or go? I think that if someone cannot create acompelling enough number of votes to delete to outnumber those opting for inclusion, it stays. Can someone point out where the admin gets to break ties in IfD debates? I mean, all the folk discussing the weight of the NFC#8 argument here should have piped up in the actual IfD debate while it was occurring.

As it was, Nv made a personal call regarding the image and used his interpretation - which belongs in the actual debate, not as a motivation for closing - to stifle any further discussion on the matter. In point of fact, Nv voted in the IfD debate by closing and deleting.

Let me be clear - this is not really about the image. I am fully aware that admins have a lot of work to do, and Nv does a lot of it. Unfortunately, he sometimes - like in this instance - allows his personal opinion to color how he chooses to close an IfD discussion, despite consensus to the contrary. Clearly, there was no consensus stating that the image should be deleted. In the instance of a tie, the image stays. If an admin (or anyone for that matter, but specifically admins because they have the power to stifle further debate via voting-by-deletion) overrides consensus, then why the heck are we pretending with voting in IfD anyway? Why not just leave the ability of keeping or deleting in the hands of the admins, as Nv has clearly demonstrated the willingness to do here? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at the strength of the arguments, precedents and underlying policy. -Nv8200p talk 00:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again: can you please point to the specific guideline that states that in the case of a tie, you can decide to delete the image without further discussion? I looked at the guidelines that governs your behavior in deletions; there is nothing there to suggest your actions were appropriate in this matter.

Your opinion does not get to break ties, Nv. Period. You do not have that authority. Frankly, I am not sure which is worse, that you still fail to see the enormous potential for abuse of the authority you think you have to act thusly, or worse, that you feel your opinion outweighs anyone else's in IfD. The strength of the arguments argued for Keep. You are construing NFC#8 too narrowly, and imposed that view by closing a tied discussion.

Perhaps you might try to see that your personal take on the arguments, precedents, and policy is subject to scrutiny in the debate. Respectfully, you are acting as if they are not. You do not get to contribute opinion in the form of a delete, which is precisely what you did. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment. Everything I do on Wikipedia is subject to scutiny and that is what we are doing here with the deletion review.. -Nv8200p talk 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion - in the off chance I wasn't clear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, as per Reasons for deletion: Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic. Corvus cornix_talk 02:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

err, excuse me, but what on earth are you talking about? The image is only unused at this time because it was deleted. It is not obsolete. It does not violate Fair-use. It is encyclopedic.

Why the hell is everyone afraid of actually having an IfD discussion about this? Instead of actually dissing the image where folk aren't likely to even know about the discussion, why not put your money where your mouthes are and use an actual IfD discussion? Or are we actually at the point where admins actually decide what images they want to use, despite what the editors choose? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, lets try this again. Someone please answer the following questions as clearly as you are able without wandering off-topic:

Is there guideline that says an admin can close an IfD debate, deciding one way or another in the cases of tie or consensus to go a different way?

We'll start with that basic little nugget. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion was that the image violates Wikipedia fair use policy. -Nv8200p talk 05:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not violate fair use policy. It is your belief that it does so. At least two other editors (and quite likely, more than that) significantly disagree with you. Your opinion - bluntly - doesn't matter when closing IfD discussions. Closing is a housekeeping measure, not one where your viewpoint comes into play. If you felt it did not belong, you had the responsibility to weigh in during discussion, not offer yours in the form of deletion and closure.

I was hoping it would not become an issue, but your exertion of your evaluative opinions in closing IfD discussions is becoming problematic. In at least four different IfD's, you have closed the discussions either prematurely or incorrectly, supplying as your sole defense that you didn't think they fulfilled Fair Use criteria. Your opinions as to fair use do not come into play when deciding to close IfD's, especially when the editors contributing to those discussions are long-standing members of the community. Were they vandals supporting nekkid pictures of Vanessa Hudgens and whatnot, that would be another issue, but this bears no such resemblance to that, and I believe you know it. You are not allowed to discount the opinions of others in IfD debates. as your mandate as admin doesn't grant you that authority or province. Of course, if you feel I am incorrect in this assessment, please feel free to cite where you are allowed these special authorities.

And it is noted that you keep failing to answer the - rather simple, I think - question posed to you. The answer to 'where there is a guideline that says an admin can close an IfD debate, deciding one way or another in the cases of tie or consensus to go a different way' is that there isn't one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand Sceptre's reasoning on the IfD discussion, but his comments don't reflect the idea that you are passing on that there was no fair use violation. That leaves only you making that claim. And if someone's opinion on an XfD discussion disagrees with policy, then it is an admin's responsibility to ignore them. Corvus cornix_talk 07:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, questioning Sceptre's reasoning is something that you or anyone else should have raised at IfD. DRV is not another bite at the apple, discussing the image's relative value. That is clear.

Also clear is that the deletion was done improperly by an admin who admittedly used his tools to delete an image that he personally didn't think met inclusion criteria, despite a tie in the discussion. In the case of a tie, the nominated material stays. That is precedent.

I am not opposed to actually reinstating and re-listing the image in IfD, or at least extending discussion, so everyone can chime in with their views on the image and NFC and whatnot. Admins don't get to edit using their admin tools to push their pov. Period. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - its NFC#8 passing was under debate, so it is inappropriate to force an admin's closing opinion on a debate: even ignoring my speedy keep, it would have been no consensus. Personally, I think the image was fine. The nominator has a long history of being disruptive when it comes to fair use images, especially regarding Doctor Who, and most of the debates he has been proven to be wrong. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse - WP:CONSENSUS is clear, the consensus of the project is bound up in policy, not in weight of numbers at WP:IFD, wikipedia is not a democracy Fasach Nua (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus in the IFD at all, and should've been closed accordingly. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - it appears the closing admin deleted the image because of his personal interpretation of NFCC#8, and not the result of the debate, which was clearly no consensus (therefore default to keep). Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My point exactly. Whether the image meets the criteria is not up for the closing admin to apply their personal interpretation of a guideline currently in flux. As per DGFA. and specifically the part of rough consensus, when in doubt do not delete. As established editors opposing deletion weren't vandals or noobs or folk acting in bad faith, their opposition is not one of simple numbers but of opposition to the interpretation being applied by the nom. If anything, the nom was made in bad faith by an editor who's been overturned for a razor-thin interpretation of NFC#8 that isn't currently in use by the community.

That Nv8200p did not participate in the actual discussion was his choice, as it is general practice to not do so. However, using the admin tools to close a debate in the case of a tie (we aren't do that, btw) simply because he differs in opinion of the policy on point is inappropriate. The image should be reinstated. As per DRV, this isn't to be used as another bite at the apple - this page is not for debating the merits or failings of the image, but instead of the inappropriate closing of the debate and deleting of the image. In cases of tie, the image. BLP, article, etc stays. The admin closing the discussion readily admits that they voted by closing and deleting the discussion, favoring the too narrow interpretation of the nominator, which has shown to have serious flaws. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free content criteria are restrictive and narrow by design. Numerous previous IFDs and Deletion Reviews have supported the very narrow interpretion of NFCC#8 and some of the discussions have served to narrow it even further. -Nv8200p talk 17:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Arcayne (talk · contribs) disputes the closure of this IfD on the basis that it went against consensus, however he or she appears to have been the only dissenting opinion on the point of deletion. Sceptre (talk · contribs) opined that the image should be kept because the nomination was ~~invalid?~~ disruptive in some fashion, without proffering any evidential reasoning for its retention. Therefore, with only one argument to keep and two to delete, I don't see the argument for an against-consensus closure.
Being in violation of WP:NFCC#8 is a valid reason for deletion as brought up by Corvus cornix (talk · contribs) and it was this administrator's discretionary evaluation that it was. That's why we nominate and vote for administrators, to make such decisions. Nv8200p (talk · contribs) has closed and deleted upwards of 122k images without accusations of favoritism or impropriety, and I'm inclined to trust this administrator's interpretation of policy as he has been doing so.
Lastly, as the closing administrator's integrity has generally been unquestioned for so very many deletions thus far, I wonder why this one has attracted such interest. Could those !voting for an overturned decision be preferring that the original nominator, Fasach Nua (talk · contribs), not be allowed to set a precedent? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive439#User:Fasach Nua. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Nv8200p could be having tea with Jesus H. Christ and his interpretation of policy carries no more weight than yours or mine. That's the way Wikipedia works. Even great editors with lots of edits can go off the rails every once in a while, and that is what I am addressing here. Helping to pull him back from the edge of opinionated editing in those places where neutrality is required is to be considered a good thing, as he is clearly not aware that he is doing so. He is allowed to express an opinion. He is not allowed to use his admin tools to enforce that opinion, which he has admitted to doing. It isn't complex, or rife with conspiracy theories. We request that admins closing discussions in XfD to remain neutral, and to opt to keep when in doubt. Nv has admitted that he is not neutral in this matter; why he did not choose to abstain from closure is beyond me. As NFC#8 is in discussion as to its specific interpretations, significant doubt exists, and acting against an informed resistance to removal (and the presence of a tie) provides sufficient doubt to stay one's hand.

That the Fasach Nua's nomination of other images that were appropriate to delete is of no importance - even a busted clock is right twice a day, and FN's track record for correct nomination is far less than even that. That FN's nominations are immediately suspect due to his leanings is clear. However, this is not the point of the DRV. Speaking of precedent, however - if we make allowances for the foibles and inappropriate deletions of one admin, it does in fact set a dangerous precedent for allowing other admins to do the same thing. Imagine Fasach Nua as an admin, closing debates and deleting images simply because he didn't think the arguments are up to snuff. This is the gilded path we are setting upon. The same rules apply to all of us equally. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please quote the text where I admitted I am not neutral in this matter? Thanks. -Nv8200p talk 20:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but are you actually trying to convince that you have have not admitted such? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for the text that I admitted I am not neutral. Otherwise that claim is just your opinion. Please provide evidence to support your accusation. -Nv8200p talk 16:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Personally, I think the picture adds enough context to make it acceptable. But the real point is that a person with a fixed opinion on an issue should never close an XfD. At my RfAdmin people asked if I would, thinking I might close too many as keep on the basis of my own opinion being the correct one, and I said I never would do so. I wouldn't have deserved to pass had I said anything else--and I have kept my promise: I join the discussions instead. DGG (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you basing the claim on that I have a fixed opinion? If you join the discussion on either side at IFD then you have shown an opinion and bias and no longer eligible to act as a closing admin on that discussion. -Nv8200p talk 16:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, if the issue becomes a tie situation, then you should abstain from closing an IfD you have become involved in. Abstaining from discussion and them\n deleting because you feel the image in question is a failure of NfC#8 isn't your call to make. Doing so is back-door voting. Moreover, it is a vote not subject to question or discussion, as the use of the admin tools to close and delete preempts that sort of discussion questioning the very reasons that you wish to use to defend your closure. Neutral doesn't mean you have no opinion, it means you recognize your own preferred interpretation and look at if the tie that is present offers actual arguments for retention or deletion. If your own preference gets in the way of that, you shouldn't close it. Both sides presented valid arguments, and in the event of a tie, the image stays until someone offers to relist it and argue the merits where it belongs - in IfD, where folk can weigh in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/Relist To clarify: this is the picture of River Song, is it not? I, personally, am not sure if that picture was worth staying or not. But, as so often happens, some people here are failing to realise is that the image itself is not the point. The point is that the deleting admin misused his admin power (for want of a better phrase) to enforce his own view on the subject. The image should be reinstated, and discussion should then continue until a clear consensus is reached. U-Mos (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus doesn't trump policy. It's an admin's responsibility to uphold policy, regardless of whether or not an xFD "vote" is 100-1. Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the millionth time (or so it seems), NFCC point 8 is open to interpretation, therefore the "policy over consensus" argument just doesn't wash. U-Mos (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The admin is supposed to uphold his policy, not his/her interpretation of such. Consensus doesn't trump policy anywhere, but when someone is offering an opinion as how they are interpreting a policy currently in flux, the best move for a closing admin is to not proactively close the debate the way they feel it should go, but to look at whether valid arguments and the existence of a tie suggests that the matter is still in flux even amongst the Community, and take their own personal feelings on the subject out of it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Selection of this image from a group of images uploaded by Arcayne was decided in a discussion on the article talk page. The other images uploaded were culled for their lack of ability to meet NFCC. This image was added to the article by Arcayne over the recommendation of three other editors (some hypocrisy here about following consensus), when this image has no more clear, supporting, sourced text as to why it was significant to the article then any other image that might be taken from the episode. Given that failure, it became a policy decision to delete as no arguments were presented in the IFD discussion to support any other choice. -Nv8200p talk 23:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, and you might have been able to better interpret that image upload had you bothered to actually ask me (or maybe looked tat the discussion page of the article where the upload was discussed). I uploaded a number of images from which the editors in the article discussion could choose an image that they felt best represented the discussion (1). The upload was made with the full knowledge that the remaining images would be allowed to lapse as orphans and be deleted (2). On a side note, I don't upload images anymore and use Photobucket with links to images, so as to avoid cluttering up IfD with a lot of non-chosen images. As for the three other editors, one was the same nom was has been blocked for disruptive deletion noms (and yes, this was one of those noms), and the other two thought the image was being offered as a replacement for the infobox image currently in use.

And rather than trying to make the discussion about me (comments about my supposed hypocrisy are diversionary and off-topic), perhaps you could be bothered to actually read what I and others are actually saying here. You added your point of view to a closing of a discussion wherein all arguments were equally valid and a tie existed. You needed to recognize that in such instances, the image stays - your own personal viewpoint doesn't come into play, especially when the viewpoint you are citing is in definition flux. You may have had the best intentions, but your action opens the door to others with less than altruistic concerns. You made a mistake, and no one is considering burning you at the stake. It isn't really a comment on you but instead the process which allowed you to think that your personal viewpoint on policy overrides that of a group of well-intentioned editors who dissent with that view. And clearly, your viewpoint is pretty obvious - you are quite resistant to even the notion of considering that you might have made any mistake, and equally resistant to relisting.

Relisting - as was politely requested in the alternative to reversing the deletion, allows others to see what you feel is obvious. Allow the community to work without attempting to short-circuit that process. I tend to believe in it and think it works, when allowed to take its natural course. You may argue that that means that some crappy material slides through, but everyone here can attest that it doesn't take too long before its eventually deleted of fixed. Lightsaber combat was one of those where it had its sixth nom for deletion, and it forced folk to fix the article or face deletion. The process does work, if you but let it. I think this image is pretty okay, but by relisting, you allow viewpoints (other than your own) to actually be expressed and determine the fate of the material in the venue they are supposed to be for these situations - IfD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Closing admin was involved, therefore IfD closure was incorrect. Also WP:NFCC #8 is widely disputed on a regular basis, so specious arguments that consensus cannot overrule a ~~guideline~~ disputed part of policy is patently incorrect. Not to worry, the pro-fairuse forces are gathering and intend to give the anti-fairuse WP:OWNers of that policy page the boot. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin was not involved in any aspect of the IFD other then closing it. NFCC is not a guideline. NFCC is a policy. There is a difference. -Nv8200p talk 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn As my brother said whilst reading over my shoulder, "someone needs their adminship revoked". WP:DPR#IFD, the guidelines to administrators over closing a discussion, state that:

If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the image is kept by default, but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, in order to minimize ambiguity and future confusion.

If, as you say, the decision was 2:2, this contravenes the policy; there was no concesnsus, therefore the image should have been kept. Any opposing arguament falls by the wayside - an IfD debate is an official process, and so the official guidlines should be followed. An administrator should not choose to disregard policy purely because they disagree with the verdict - Weebiloobil (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin was not involved in any aspect of the IFD other then closing it. NFCC is not a guideline. NFCC is a policy. There is a difference. -Nv8200p talk 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The closing admin (and why you are referring to yourself in the third person escapes me) involved himself by closing a tied discussion using his interpretation of NFCC, not the actual policy, which is in flux. The admin in question is experienced enough to know that if a discussion is being reasonably made by two sides offering equal arguments and ends in a tie, the admin is involving himself by choosing to side with deletion. This is doubly disturbing when the admin fails to see the rather bad precedent this creates for less responsible admins, and even more so when that same admin utterly refuses to consider that they did in fact chose a side based upon their personal interpretation of a policy which everyone knows to open to significant interpretation.

This admin - you - chose to disregard precedent and apply your own interpretation to an IfD discussion wherein your closure acted as tie-breaker. Had you not, the image would have not have been deleted. In the case of ties in deletion discussions (excepting clownish meatpuppet and IP hit and run voting nonsense or the gross violation of our policies), the nominated material is retained. As the image met none of the parenthesized material, you were in error in closing it. An understandable error, as no one thinks their interpretation of NFC is wrong, but your role - as you yourself have admitted - is not to participate in these discussions. By voting via deletion, you inappropriately participated in the discussion, without having to defend your point of view.

Again, it bears repeating that we are not discussing the validity of any NFC argument you might wish to present. The DRV is to reassess the appropriateness of that closure. As you inserted yourself into the voting process of a tied discussion by deleting the image, it is by definition an inappropriate closure. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as you say - I only closed the discussion. And as you say - whether procedures and policy were applied correctly in the closure is what DRV determines. -Nv8200p talk 14:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also as I say, you didn't follow them correctly. In the cases of a tie, the media stays. Both sides of the tie presented solid reasons for their postions (and it bears reiterating that the nom was subsequently blocked for a too narrow interpretation of NFC#8). Your opinion in deciding that the arguments for deletions were inexplicable and inappropriate. You made a mistake. I do believe I said that, too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have said that multiple times so therefore it must be true. -Nv8200p talk 23:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What all the overturners here overlook is that IfD (even more than other XfDs) is not a vote. It is the job of the closing admin to weigh arguments. In doing so, it is his job to take into account not just the local spectrum of opinions expressed on the page, but also long-standing practices and standards. As per multiple precedent, there is a overreaching consensus on IfD that episode pictures of this kind, those that simply serve to show some plot element without a concrete claim to analytical significance over and above that, are deletable under #8. That is not Nv's personal opinion, it is his correct observation of project-wide normative practice. During the initial debate, no substantial arguments were brought forward on the "keep" side showing that this image had in any way a more important function than all the dozens or hundreds that have been and will be deleted in similar cases according to that standard. One keep voter brought no argument at all, the other, despite volumes of lawyering and process-related argument, essentially said nothing more than that the image showed something in the plot. Nv acted totally within the scope of his discretion in determining that these arguments failed to meet the mark. IfDs are routinely closed in this way, this was totally legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion, which is your right, but it is subjective and by no means the truth. The closing admin does not get to decide to ignore a no-consensus keep without good reason. A reason such as serious WP:BLP or copyvio are correct reasons, disagreement over fairuse restrictions is an incorrect reason. There was no ambiguity at all in this debate and the arguments on the keep side were just a good as the delete side. Oh and by the way, your statement here is quite a piece of wikilawyering, too. Pot meets kettle and all that. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can try to keep things a bit more polite. Accusations of wikilawyering don't really help anyone and only serve to cloud the essential issue. FutPerf, the problem with your statement is that you yourself have expressed the belief that images in episodic articles are unnecessary. This doesn't tend to put you in the best frame of mind to neutrally evaluate arguments that advocate the inclusion of those images. This is why, I suspect, you don't do a lot of closure work in IfD - you know you aren't really able to be neutral in the matter. That is a credit to you.

The reason we haven't truly addressed the image's criteria here is that this isn't an IfD discussion, and viewing this DRV as another bite at the apple (ie, arguing the image's content) is inappropriate. It is a conversation best suited to IfD. We are here to address the problem presented by an admin with a preference as to images closing out a tied discussion wherein solid, legitimate and sourced argument was offered by both sides. There has been no process-wikilawyering here - DRV specifically addresses process of closure, which is why process-related arguments are presented. You presented your argument in the IfD, and it was counted, along with the blocked nominator, so of course, you are happy with the resulting delete despite the tie. It is not within the discretion of an admin to put their personal interpretation of NFC to work while deciding which arguments get discounted in an equally matched discussion. If it is, then the guidelines for such are in dire need of revision. Either way, this isn't the forum for that, either.

Point: the admin doesn't like images in episodes. Point: the admin routinely displays a very narrow interpretation of NFC#8, which all will admit is vague and is currently in flux as to meaning. Point: He closed a discussion wherein both sides offered equally compelling arguments, citing his narrow interpretation of NfC#8 as reasoning. Point: In the cases of tie, the nominated media remains, though subject to re-nomination at a future date. Point: DRV is not for discussion of a media's value, but to discuss improper/inappropriate closures or other malformations of the IfD process; IfD is the appropriate venue to discuss the value of the image.

Arcayne has chosen to present another fallacy as fact about me to try and make his case. I ask for evidence to support his statement "the admin doesn't like images in episodes." I love screenshots in TV episodes and movie articles. I have uploaded non-free screenshots myself and watched them deleted just like this one because they did not meet NFCC#8 anymore then this image does (I may still have a couple out there that have slipped under the radar :-). I miss the time when we could steal any image off the web and place it in an article with no questions asked. Then I think it was that Jimbo Wales guy that came along and quashed it all. Sigh. Maybe if some more pro-fairuse forces respond to Arcayne's invitation, the bar can be lowered for NFCC#8. -Nv8200p talk 01:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a question that has begun to bother me is this: why everyone is so very terrified about simply relisting the image at IfD? Is it an ego thing? If so, check that - no egos allowed here. Is it a image value issue? All the better to relist it at IfD; everyone (including the previous discussion's closer) can weigh in with their opinion there. I personally don't care if the image is deleted in a fair discussion; this wasn't one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, my question is: instead of lawyering here, why don't you spend your time and your considerable talents in improving the article instead? I keep saying: write better articles and you get better fair use cases. Show us that there's something in that Dr Who episode that's worth discussing and analysing. Once you have something worthwhile in the text that an image can usefully be hooked on to, I'd have no problem reconsidering this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfuly, that is the second time you've called my filing of the DRV wikilawyering, and I would ask you to stop. The negative connotations of the what the term respresents overrides the fact that my action meets none of the four criteria used to determine such. I am pointing out that an admin made a mistake in how he interprets NFC#8, and used that interpretation to close a balanced discussion and delete an image. That is the focus of the DRV. Not the image's value or lack thereof. Not the article it came from. We have to expect that our admins apply the consensus view of a policy when dealing with these matters and, despite Nv's out of order comments above, he applied a personal interpretation that the image did not meet NFC#8 was not met. His argument was not that either side made a poor argument, but that he thought the image failed the criteria^a. He didn't evaluate the flawed arguments of the nomination (the nominator who was subsequently blocked for disruptive nominations), or those voting to keep the image. He made a personal choice, a vote, as to the outcome of the image. That is a failure of process. In closing, an admin is supposed to weigh the arguments being presented and render a decision based on them (specifically because the image wasn't a gross violation of any policy).

I am not suggesting that Nv be tarred and feathered. I don't think he meant to apply his own personal opinion and vote by closure; nevertheless, he did. It is a failure of the deletion process. The image deletion should be reversed and, if folk have tremendous issue with the image, they can nominate it again. With luck a clear consensus will emerge from the voting, so as to make the IfD discussion closing that much clearer. At the very, very least, it should be relisted. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - the nominator's and Fut.Perf.'s arguments were based on policy - specifically that "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" - and the keep voters were unable to effectively counter this. Accordingly, the closing admin correctly closed the debate based on arguments, not votes. PhilKnight (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the nominator was blocked for too narrowly construing the NFCC, and while you are allowed to feel that the arguments to keep were ineffective, they were provided in a thoughtful, cited way. Those arguments are to be provided within the context of an IfD. Period. This isn't the place for it. The closer utilized his own personal opinion/preference to close. They do not get to do that. As both sides presented arguments, in the case of a tie, the media is retained, It might be nominated later, but the closer doesn't get to vote their preference via closure. It bears pointing out that there is no real problem with relisting, except we are counting bruised egos as part of the criteria for not doing so. The consensus of the DRV, almost a week after it was opened is for keep, with two specifically suggesting re-listing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is lucky for the closing admin of the DRV that they do not have to waste time thinking about this one as you have already decided for them that the consensus is to keep. Talk about an ego. -Nv8200p talk 22:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey hey. Be nice. I understand how you are miffed, but that's no reason to be uncivil. I was pointing out where we are currently, not demanding anything. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get your exercise by jumping to conclusions? I am not miffed. -Nv8200p talk 10:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Appears to be a clear misinterpretation of our policy on use of non-free images. The use of the image is not decorative. Moreover the fact that the article is understandable without the image is not currently a valid deletion criterion (I would further argue that it's not a desirable one, even for non-free images, but that's another matter). --Jenny 08:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse — Decorative image that did not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Matthew (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Matthew, maybe you misunderstood; we aren't voting as to the value of the image here (as mentioned at least 2x before, that's for IfD); we are discussing the inappropriate closing. Allow me to trim things down. You have a voting discussion. Both sides offer equally valid arguments. Admin comes along, already in agreement with one side of the argument and decides to vote with them by ending discussion and deleting the image. The admin has stated here that he doesn't care about the images either way, but in actuality feels that all "Fair use images in infoboxes are merely decorative." That means he considers any image in an infobox to be decorative. That sounds lie a pre-existing opinion to me, and I can assure you that it isn't what our current policy on NFC#8 is. It isn't about the value of the image at all; its about the evaluation of a discussion by someone who was supposed to either be neutral or stay away, as per the guidelines for admins in deletion discussions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image that I deleted was not in an infobox. The image was in the body of the article, so the faulty premise you are using that I have a pre-existing on all infobox images is even more faulty as this was not an infobox image. -Nv8200p talk 14:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. Your comment displayed a disturbingly non-neutral opinion that had implications for this image's IfD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We" are not voting at all. "I want it! I'll hold my breath if you don't give it to me!" does not trump policy. Matthew (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right, Matthew, though not for the reason that I am guessing your snarky remark was intending. The policy and guidelines weren't followed here. And maybe lighten up on the aforementioned snarky. I am sure you are capable of getting your point across without it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may quote my previous comment: 'NFCC point 8 is open to interpretation, therefore the "policy over consensus" argument just doesn't wash.' U-Mos (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, at least, not in this argument and the simultaneous one occurring over another Doctor Who episode image nominated by Fasach Nua. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

You're Gonna Go Far, Kid – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I demand an administrator to restore this article as soon as possible. It has been deleted 2 times this week so (at Accounting4Taste's request) I thought to review my thoughts on the You're Gonna Go Far, Kid article. Some freakin' idiot (named Mdsummermsw) refused to understand that this Offspring song was supposed to a new single from them, because KROQ's been playing it; I listen to that station online. When he requested that article to be deleted about a week ago, he claimed that "You're Gonna Go Far, Kid" was a "non-notable song that might or might not be released as a single". I just know for a fact that it might be the second single off their new album Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace. Users on the bulletin board of the Offspring's website also agree that it will be a single as well. At of this moment, I'm getting tired of having an argument with the users who claim that the article should be deleted and that the song is not notable or going to be a real single. Alex (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and suggest that you review WP:CIVIL before the next time you post. The closing admin correctly interpreted the discussion and DRV is not AFD round two. By the way, "I just know for a fact that it might be the second single" makes absolutely no sense. Otto4711 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and allow recreation when it is the next single and further gains notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and respectfully suggest nominator read WP:CIVIL. Townlake (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've redirected the article to Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace, as WP:MUSIC suggests. Probably would've been a better way to handle it than takin' it to AfD, but there's no need to restore the history under it as far as I can see. Just a heads up. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for now, consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're Gonna Go Far, Kid was quite clear and nothing has been raised here that wasn't raised and considered there. This is not AfD round 2. However, when and if the song is released as a single, I would be willing to restore the article. --Stormie (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If nothing else, I'm inclined to say this simply because of the nom's attitude. But consensus was clear too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse "it might be the second single" is not a reason for keeping until it actually happens. DGG (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). As others have already said, the consensus in this discussion was very clear. I find no process problems in either the discussion or the closure. Rossami (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Twitterrific – Article userfied. – IronGargoyle (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since it's deletion the program has won several apple design awards[28][29]. This should satisfy the notability issues brought up in the AfD. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you just ask me on my talkpage to restore/userfy this? Why DRV first? The instructions on this page say to talk to the deleting admin first. I would've happily restored/userfied this for you CyberSkull. My closing statement on the AFD itself even says, ask me if you want this userfied. This really doesn't need to be here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the DRV itself admits these awards were given only after the deletion, I endorse the original deletion, with no prejudice to recreation if it now meets notability guidelines. DRV was unnecessary in this case. –xenocidic (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close This can be handled outside DRV. Townlake (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Though you don't need DRV here (as above) for recreation, I'd say that award doesn't look that great to me. I'm not sure it's enough for WP:WEB. I'd personally be happier with a restore and merge to The Iconfactory, though I fully endorse the closure of the AfD. If you find some more awards or things ping me and I'll rethink it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like Keeper76 said, let's get this userfied and improved and take a look at it. I have restored it to User:CyberSkull/Twitterrific. Here is an article about Twitterrific on the iPhone which might also be useful for improving the article, and establishing notability per "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --Stormie (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 June 2008

Frank Kratovil – Merge/redirect closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Despite the educated-sounding nature of the opinions at the AFD for this article (which was closed merge), they do not address the simple problem that this is a notable candidate. The man is a the Democratic candidate in a US house race, and, yes, the race is quite possibly competitive ([30]), especially in a year when nominal Democrat candidates are having shocking wins. Additionally, he is the state attorney general for Maryland (the people calling for delete happened not to notice this), and has a plethora of non-trivial mentions on google news: [31], many of which are not local. And the claims that this is a local only issue are troubling; I have read about this race in major newspapers. It is results like this which deeply trouble me about the AFD process. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse redirect. Are you sure he's the Attorney General of Maryland? He's certainly not listed as such on that article, it would have us believe that Doug Gansler is AG. As does the website of the AG's office: [32]. Kratovil is State's Attorney for Queen Anne's County, Maryland, a county of 40,000 people.[33] I don't believe that satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, nor does candidacy in a congressional election. --Stormie (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that was attorney. So you don't believe being a major candidate in a US house race with significant national coverage is enough to pass WP:BIO. So Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria #1 is not sufficient if it's "only local coverage", despite the fact that a) it's not only local, and b) Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians says otherwise? The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think WP:BIO makes it quite clear that being a candidate in a US house race does not meet the Politician-specific notability criteria. As for the general criteria of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", I'm not seeing that in the references on the pre-redirect revision of the Frank Kratovil article - the only newspaper article referenced which I can access is [34], which is entirely about the campaign, and seems to me to be far more suitable for use as a reference for United States House of Representatives elections in Maryland, 2008 than for establishing notability for a biography of Frank Kratovil. --Stormie (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I wrote below. There are dozens which I wrote of on google news: [35], including several major newspapers. What the hell? Anybody would have called for a keep on this person if in an AFD if he weren't a politician. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I closed this AfD, I am inclined to believe that I interpreted consensus correctly. :) However, I note that although the AfD closed as merge, the article seems to have been simply redirected. Redirecting is not what consensus called for here. Ordinarily, when I close AfDs as merge, I attempt to merge them myself, but I lack sufficient familiarity with Maryland's political processes to follow up on User:John J. Bulten's suggestion in that AfD, which seems to have received considerable support, to merge several paragraphs from this article and include a few on the candidate's opponent. Nobody argued for straightforward redirection here, and I'm surprised that the merge discussion tag was removed within hours of its placement, with no discussion having taken place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that policy trumps consensus, correct? Argued above. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, in the sense that policy trumps consensus, it is true policies, such as WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, not "mere" guidelines, such as WP:BIO. We have had a general consensus in the past, not well reflected in WP:BIO, that the best practice for candidates who lack notability prior to their candidacy is to merge their article to an article on the campaign or office, and then only create a biographical article if they win or develop such independent notability. GRBerry 00:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, if we are going to ignore WP:BIO, how exactly are we going to establish what notability is? We have articles with this guy in the International Herald Tribune [36], Forbes Magazine [37], Baltimore Sun, Washington Post, and, for that matter, Houston Chronicle in Spanish [38]. He did, of course, receive dozens of mentions in the Washington Post back in the 90's when he was a judge: [39]. If I can provide all these sources, then notability is shown. Unless you are arguing no politician is notable until he becomes elected, in which case Barack Obama would have been ignored until November 2004. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, a "first-level sub-national political office" which satisfies WP:BIO's "politicians" criteria. --Stormie (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any arguments for merge in that AfD that are contrary to policy. The guideline at WP:POLITICIAN doesn't guarantee that all politicians are notable enough for inclusion. One contributor argued that more potential sources were forthcoming. This is clearly contradicted by WP:N, which says "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." There were three other keeps--one of which was subsequently persuaded that merge & redirect was more appropriate, one of which indicated that "merge" was also acceptable; and a final that offered no rationale except that he or she obviously found it notable. You've got two clear arguments for keep there, one of which is not supported by guideline and another of which offers no support at all. Those arguing for deletion or merge found the source insufficient to indicate notability outside of the election and suggested coverage of the candidate there. If there are sufficient widespread sources to substantiate notability, then there is nothing to prevent an article that does assert stand-alone notability being written. WP:CSD#G4, for instance, only applies to recreations where the issues raised at AfD are not addressed. In my closure, I noted the consensus that "Article does not substantiate stand-alone notability." If stand-alone notability is substantiated, there's no issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Nominator is not requesting the result be overturned and become delete, so this is not deletion review's business. As the article tag says, if the merge doesn't occur the article can be sent back to AFD again, not speedily deleted. GRBerry 00:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know better than that. I'm asking the result of merge by overturned. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you want merge changed to keep. That question is not deletion review business. From the deletion review perspective, merge is already keep, because both involve nobody using the delete tool on the article. Thus you aren't asking for anything deletion review cares about. The proper venue(s) for your query is the article talk page(s), or should it occur AFD#2. GRBerry 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I think closing admin got it right on the policy interpretations resulting in merge, particularly that this gentleman does not clear POLITICIAN. I looked at some of the Google search stuff above, and it sure seems like there should be media sources establishing his notability under BIO outside of POLITICIAN - he's been in public life for a while - but none jumped out at me, mostly just random quotes and articles about his cases (not about him). So I think merge is the right call given the information we have before us. Townlake (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cary_Herrman – Deletion endorsed and keep salted. Other issues are outside the purview of DRV. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_Original creator was blocked from defending the article by administrator after said creator upset administrator. It appears the creator and the administrator were going back and forth, to where the creator offended the admin on the admin's talk page, and the admin had the creator blocked, prohibiting the creator from properly defending the article. In my own attempts at communicating with the admin, he/she appeared to be defensive and paranoid which gave me even more reason for concern. Furthermore, the admin in question slapped a warning on my page when I attempted to edit:

June 2008 This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware as to his/her reasoning, but there is definitely an underlying aggression in regards to this particle article and/or contributor, LDCortez.

Upon reviewing the wiki guidelines, it is without doubt that this article was and is notable. I request that the article be reinstated, protected and that Jauerback be warned against taking such aggressive actions toward contributors. It makes a very unpleasant, hostile and "war-like" environment, as opposed to a forum to exchange information and to learn. Wiki readers deserve to have Mr. Herrman as a part of their library of living persons to study, understand and live up to. I ask that the article be reinstated. My notes are available on my talkpage for any further review. BHOrchid (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted following unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary Herrman. Can you provide a response to the objections raised there? Particularly lack of notability (subject fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)), conflict of interest problems (please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before editing on a subject that you are personally involved with), and a lack of reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for what is expected of a Wikipedia article's sources). --Stormie (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Endorse Deletion - this is laughable. User:BHOrchid is either very naive or is User:LDCortez herself. I don't know what to think anymore, and frankly I don't care. However, I'd be willing to bet that a checkuser would find these two users originating from the same place, but it doesn't really matter as it's not warranted. Anyway, the whole drama can be found on links to my talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The AfD was extremely clear, to the point that it'd be insane to try to dispute it without having notability-establishing sources in hand when doing so (which if someone does, awesome). The speedy was most likely done properly, as it probably had the same failings as the AfD'd version. I'd prefer to stay away from accusations of sockpuppetry and the like, but I'd like to point out that the block only lasted 31 hours and was placed nearly 4 days ago (which is 24*4=96 hours, for those who don't like doin' math). Jauerback, I'd suggest not easily jumping to {{uw-create4im}} for G4's; they happen and get deleted pretty easily, usually just a simple warning about it will do. I'd personally save it for G10's myself. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The speedily deleted revision was identical to the AfD-deleted revision, yes. --Stormie (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Since I believe that these are one and the same user, or at the very least working together, given User:LDCortez's past with recreation of the article, removal of templates (including the AFD notice more than once), and User:BHOrchid's numerous attempts at recreation of the article including under a different spelling, I felt the {{uw-create4im}} warning was justifiable. And as far as the accusation of them being sockpuppets, it doesn't mean anything, because they haven't abused it... yet. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Exactly the core case WP:CSD#G4 is meant for; the redeleted article was an exact duplicate, without the AFD tag and other warning tags, of the article deleted by community consensus at the AFD. GRBerry 00:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the allegations made by Jauerback are correct, it is a worrying development. REcreation of deleted articles is of course to be deplored, but any one ought to be able to contribute to discussion. I known nothing of the subject and thus make No comment on the main issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure you meant to say "made by" or "made about" because of your 2nd sentence. Either way, the creator of the original article had plenty of time to participate in the discussion. She removed the AFD notice numerous times before she was blocked (31 hours) and her block ended before the AFD discussion (5 days) ended. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dogma Free America – Deletion endorsed. There seems to be no question that the speedy deletions were proper. To the extent that this DRV has functioned as a defacto AfD on the userspace draft, there seems to be strong agreement that the userspace draft fails notability criteria at the present time. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This has been deleted 5 times in the last 3 weeks or so (and is now fully protected) so I thought a review would be the way to go. There's a copy at User:Mindme/Dogma Free America that I'd like you to have a look over. This is very much just procedural from me. Many thanks, Alex Muller 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please view the w/u's discussion section for notability support. Mindme (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put some of those sources on the article and it looks good to go to me. I'm gonna' leave another message on the talk page of the userfied version about other issues I'd like resolved, but they can just as easily be handled after it gets into mainspace. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources moved into the reference section and a couple linked within the body. Mindme (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ech, takin' a look those ain't that good. We need stuff that's more reliable, not so much on the blogs and forums; and we also need references that are third party to establish notability, so no press releases. It also really helps to have the sources be written about the podcast itself and not someone else. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There is nothing there that will pass web notability. The thrust of my argument is a) it's the wrong criteria to apply to podcasts, albeit wiki does not have one for this new form of media b) it is notable when it registers thousands of unambiguous google and yahoo hits and c) when a podcast demonstrates a pattern of having on notable guests and its achieved a top ten ranking in its itunes category and it appears as a notable podcast on itune's category page, this should be strong evidence the podcast is notable. A podcast could literally have more listeners than a newspaper columnist has actual readers, but a newspaper columnist would be notable for entirely circular reasoning. But since dead tree media has not yet noticed podcasting, beyond a handful, most podcasts are deemed by wiki as not notable although clearly notable people judge them notable and itunes judges them notable. Am I being unreasonable? Mindme (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was just sticking with WP:N and not WP:WEB. I think that WT:WEB would be the best place to discuss adding a special set of criteria for podcasts, so I'm not going to cover it here (it was discussed here before, just to note). Your arguements are great, and I may have to go support such an effort to add podcasts to WEB, but for right now it doesn't pass either the general N or WEB. If you get podcasts added, I'd be happy to support an overturn. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't appear to meet any of the three criteria in WP:WEB. RMHED (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB seems poorly suited for podcasts. For example skeptoid appears to meet no notability criteria. The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, a top 10 science podcast gets one dead tree media hit. SGU was admitted because notable Randi was a frequent guest. As well, Dogma Free America is listed on a press release (see references) and actively discussed on forums of notable organizations (James Randi Educational Foundation, Richard Dawkins' site, etc.) My notability argument lies in if a podcast has a pattern of having on notable guests, it is because the podcast is manifestly notable. A high school newspaper might not be notable. It might not be notable if the editor's dad gets Jimmy Carter to do an interview. However, if the high school newspaper has a pattern of running interviews with notable people, to me it seems the high school newspaper is manifestly notable. The same criterion should apply to a podcast. It does not strike me as unreasonable. Mindme (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The core concern with notability is having adequate independent and reliable sources to allow editors to write an article on a subject that is neutral, contains no original research, being fully verifiable, while also not being a mere directory entry. For this core concern, if the independent reliable sources can't be found, it doesn't matter who the guests are. GRBerry 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original decision to delete. I took a look at the userspace article's discussion page and the notability (as defined by WP:WEB just isn't there. CredoFromStart ^talk 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse most of the speedy deletions. The one citing G4 is clearly incorrect; that should have cited WP:CSD#A7. I can't encourage moving this into article space; it doesn't meet the community standards documented at WP:WEB. If the nominator is aware of other podcast articles that don't meet those standards, lets get them nominated for deletion as well. GRBerry 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Salting - Still entirely lacks non-trivial reliable sources to establish notability and allow verifiability of content. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone at least answer one question: how did skeptoid and SGU pass notability and this w/u doesn't? Mindme (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To attempt an answer your question, Skeptoid has never had an AfD, it may or may not survive one. SGU has been speedied once as an A7 but has also never been taken to AfD. If you believe these articles fail WP:WEB you can list them at AfD and see what the consensus is. RMHED (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Skeptoid and SGU have now both been listed on AfD. --Stormie (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is decided for those podcasts, please apply the decision evenly to Dogma Free America. If Skeptoid and SGU pass because of notability by assertion, history of having on notable guests, high ranking in its iTunes category, then that goes as well for Dogma Free America. Mindme (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jason Naidovski – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

1) Football player named to 2008 Australian Olympic team, who has played in Olympic Qualifiers. As such he meets WP:ATHLETE having have competed at the highest level in amateur sports. In the AFD it has been pointed out that Football in the Olympics is not amateur, but I feel that is wikilawyering abiding by the letter of a policy while violating its spirit.
2) this AFD was for 4 different people of different situations. While some were clearly not notable, others were more questionable. WP:AFD notes that for multiple deletions If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately (I'll stress the word could). I asked that they be split in the AFD and no one commented. I've asked the person who made the nomination this in other AFDs before and he has refused without noting why he won't follow the guideline.
3) the closing admin didn't provide any explanation to how the decision was reached as recommended in WP:GD#Closure.

Nfitz (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with you on all counts. I particularly agree that the deletion of this article was "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit". Jared Wiltshire (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: can you provide a reliable source for him being named for the Olympic team for Beijing? He's not listed on the current squad here, and I don't see him having played in any of the recent games reported on here. As far as I can tell, his games with the U-23s squad were in the 2008 AFC Men's Pre-Olympic Tournament in February and March 2007 [40][41], one game as an unused substitute and one starting. Certainly playing at the Olympics would establish notability, and if I was confident he was in the squad I would say to restore the article now, rather than waiting until August. But does playing in the qualifiers establish notability? I don't know. --Stormie (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, good point. I was going by Australia national under-23 football team 2008 Olympic Games campaign which lists him as one of the players that have been called up during the entire 2008 Olympic Games campaign. If that Wikipedia article is wrong, then I'll withdraw my point number 1. Though there are still the procedural issues I raised in points 2 and 3. Nfitz (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, yep, that (long) list seems to cover everyone who played in any of the qualifiers. I think it really is an issue of whether playing in an Olympics qualifying match counts as "the highest level in amateur sports". --Stormie (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Player clearly fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully pro league. He has not played at the Olympics, only in the qualifiers, and football is not an amateur sport at the Olympics (how exactly is this wikilawyering, when it is the case??), so "playing at the highest level in amateur competitions" is irrelevant. Ever since I nominated Kilian Elkinson for deletion, it seems that User:Nfitz is pursuing some kind of personal vendetta against my by !voting to keep any article I nominate for deletion, and then taking it to DRV when he fails to get his way (see an incredibly poor choice here). I would also be interested to know why he notified the only editor other than himself to !vote keep in the AfD,[42] but none of those who !voted delete. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal vendetta? Absolutely not true. I have supported most of User:Number 57's deletion attempts; I've only removed one or two of his prod's that he hasn't actually challenged. In this deletion review, I did contact one user who supported keeping, because of all the people involved in the discussion, his name wasn't familiar, and I didn't think he'd find out about it otherwise. To maintain balance I also contacted one person endorsing deletion. And I contacted the deleting admin. I figured everyone else was likely to find their way here - and that appears to be correct. Meanwhile User:Number 57 has made a personal attack against me on my talk page, and yesterday attacked someone else on their talk page who also disagreed with him (on another issue). The only person getting personal here is User:Number 57. User:Number 57 also ignores that he has been making procedural errors in the here - which was part of the reason for the review, and as far as I can tell is simply attacking someone for pointing out his mistakes. Perhaps if User:Number 57 had in the AFD pointed out he was not on the Olympic Team rather than being obstinate, we wouldn't be at this deletion review. Nfitz (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you talking about? I clearly stated in the AfD that Olympics football is not amateur and that he had only played in the qualifiers! As for claiming you have supported most of my deletion attempts, that is a barefaced lie. On all three AfDs I started where you !voted, you have gone for keep.[43][44][45]. As for attacking another editor, I noted that him contacting you about an AfD which you would clearly object to could be construed to be canvassing. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request Censure for Number 57. I am tired of his unwarranted personal attacks against me and others simply when someone disagrees with his views. Bald-faced lie? In two cases he tried deleting multiple pages, and there was only one on each page I objected to - it's quite clear that I supported most of his other AFDs - I've reviewed all the Football AFDs recently, and most were so profoundly clearly non-notable that there was little point in being the 10th person to make that comment. I'd previously noted support for him in his talk page. I have no idea why a supposed respected Admin is resorting to personal attacks, particularily after I've already withdrawn my objection to the deletion! Nfitz (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, football is not an amateur sport, especially in Australia where there is actually a fully professional football league. I might support the article's restoration only in case the guy actually takes part at the Olympic games (not merely as a call-up, however, but by means of playing football in one of the games). --Angelo (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - It would appear that the nominator doesn't quite understand WP:ATHLETE. – PeeJay 08:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure many here understand abiding by the letter of a policy while violating its spirit. I think if he is on the Olympic Team then he meets WP:ATHLETE; though I admit that if the source document (ironically a Wikipedia article) showing he is on the team is not correct, then he is not notable. Nfitz (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being on the team is not sufficient. He has to play to be notable. The criteria are quite clear cut about this. – PeeJay 15:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If he played in the final qualifications this year, then I'd say he has played at the highest level of amateur sport (ignoring the whole is Olympic being amateur issue). Though the evidence appears to suggest he hasn't. Nfitz (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If he plays in the finals tournament later this year, then I would not oppose recreation of the article, as playing football at the Olympics is quite an honour and definitely confers notability. However, your point about playing at the highest level of amateur sport is moot, as football is not an amateur sport at its highest level. – Pee Jay 21:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - players still fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on recent evidence that has come to light of errors in other Wikipedia articles, I dropping point 1. However, my second 2 procedural points stand - which no one has addressed. Nfitz (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing admin has expanded upon his decision, so you can cross number 3 off as well. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The new closing statement is The result was Delete per near unanimous consensus which in my mind is pretty wishy-washy. We've probably hashed out the issues here, but a well-written closing statement would improve the process. Nfitz (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure says A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the four articles nominated were closely related on the grounds that all four were young Australian footballers who had signed to A League clubs, but not yet played for them. It was not immediately apparent that Jason Naidovski was in any way different - the Olympics were not explicity mentioned in his article, there was just 2 appearances for "Australia U-23" in his infobox along with other age grade appearances. --Stormie (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural objection - considering lots of people vote on AfDs about single articles without doing their homework, how can anyone expect an AfD with more than 1 article would be treated in any reasonably intelligent way? ugen64 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or Delete. It's true that listing multiples is not a good idea, but I don't think this one will pass a standalone listing either. CredoFromStart ^talk 21:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it would, or even should, pass a standalone listing now we've had a proper discussion on it. Part of the issue is that the Admin in questions insists on bulking these AFDs together, which only confuses the issue, stifles debate, and leads to things like this. Nfitz (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As pointed out above by Stormie, all four articles were concerning young Australian footballers signed to A League clubs, who had never played. As it has been consensus for a while that youth caps do not confer notability, there was no issue with bundling them together. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As an article existed in Wikipedia noting that he had been named to the current Olympic Team, I'd say there is an issue. And as if there is a possibility of issues it should not be bundled. Nfitz (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, this article was correctly closed per consensus. Trying to get this overturned on procedural minutiae, such as stating that the closing admin didn't elaborate on the closure, is just process wonkery for its own sake. The consensus in that discussion was abundantly clear. Shereth 21:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting comment coming from an Admin who also ignores requests to provided a closing statement. Were the procedual issues the only issues, I wouldn't have started a deletion review. However through the course of the discussion here, it's become apparent that the prime reason isn't valid (something we'd have discovered at the AFD if people had actually discussed the issue rather than simply saying 'Delete - per nom.') Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Consensus is clear. Subject does not meet the criteria to be in Wikipedia. 217.44.188.103 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 June 2008

75th Ranger Regiment (United States) – no deletion to review. What external links belong on a page should be discussed at the article's talk page, guided by Wikipedia:External links – GRBerry 16:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I fit the criteria for my entry on this page 63.125.4.210 (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC) hello, On this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75th_Ranger_Regiment I have been attepting to add to the below section : "former Rangers websites" , my website, http://shadowspear.com. I have even tried my Ranger article (which someone copied and pasted here) at http://shadowspear.com/ranger.htm. Everytime I add it, it is subsequently deleted. I have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment for 5 years, including combat operations in Afghanistan. I am also a graduate of the US Army Ranger School, class 08-01. I fit the criteria for having websites of former Rangers listed in this section. Why does my link always get deleted, and how can I correct this? Thank you.[reply]

This is not the correct venue for this. If you are having a dispute with an editor, first talk the issue over with them on their talk page or the article's talk page. If you cannot work out a compromise between you and the other editor, please consider dispute resolution as a last resort. Deletion review is not a process capable of reviewing editorial decissions such as the inclussion or exclussion of external links. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The irate gamer – Deletion endorsed – Davewild (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wanna make an irate gamer srticle, but some people deleted it. I wasn't done making the article, because I was getting tired. I was gonna work on it now, but I can't. Please let me. I wasn't even warned that it would be deleted. http://theirategamer.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgames22 (talk • contribs) 16:11, June 25, 2008

Note: fix't nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has since been deleted--perhaps this should be reopened? DGG (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure, but I'll opt for it. Looks like the user left, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Only tiny assertion of significance is having 260k+ views on You Tube this is pretty insignificant considering the most popular clips rate in the 20 million+ bracket. RMHED (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, looks like a valid CSD A7. Vgames22, a speedy deletion does not mean that the article cannot be re-created, if you address to notability issue. But you should really read Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria and be sure that the Irate Gamer meets the notability standards before attempting to do so. --Stormie (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 June 2008

Swivel (band) – Endorse speedy deletion, without prejudice against a recreation which does indicate why its subject is important or significant. Merely having released an EP and had a music video played is not an assertion of importance or significance. – Stormie (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted less than an hour after I created it, with no warning! I created it because I saw the band's video on TV (the LOGO channel) and couldn't believe they didn't have an entry. What more does one need that major TV airplay?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luminifer (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note fix't nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was correctly deleted because it did not assert notability of the band. Nothing prevents the creation of an improved article (hint, with independent reliable sources) that does assert notability. —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be a stupid question, but I've been using wikipedia for a while and I've never seen any real guides for how to assert notability - I know a lot of people who are very disenchanted with wikipedia because they don't understand this concept... Is there such a guide? I thought mentioning the MTV LOGO airplay, and linking to amazon selling their CD was enough.. Apparently I don't understand notability, so any help would be appreciated.. Luminifer (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - All sorts of non-notable crap, including self-published and vanity-press stuff, is sold on Amazon; like being on YouTube or having a MySpace/Facebook page, that's not even a hint of notability in and of itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Best thing when it involves bands is to look at WP:MUSIC - those are the generally established guidelines for inclusion. There's also notability in general. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The question is whether "has been featured of MTV's spin-off network LOGO. " is a plausible assertion of importance. I think it just might be, though I know the subject so little I cannot say if it is of even plausible significance. There's a difference between notability enough for Afd , and the assertion or indication of some importance that is enough for speedy. DGG (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Speedy Deletion - Being featured on Logo (TV channel), a very high profile Viacom network, is an assertion of notability. I have no opinion as to being listed to AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:BAND#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #12 says, "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network," which certainly seems to exclude the case of a single music video popping up occasionally. I can't see the deleted article, so I'm not expressing an "endorse" or "overturn" opinion. Deor (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an AfD notability argument, not justification for speedy deleting this article that asserts notability, which is what this DRV is about. --Oakshade (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the nom's "What more does one need tha[n] major TV airplay??" Deor (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that things like LOGO and MTV may count as 'radio' networks in some sense... So, being in regular rotation on a music video network probably is no different from being in regular rotation on a radio network, is it?Luminifer (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me from An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. (A7) that this should not have been speedily deleted. This has happened to me several times in the past week - an article that pretty clearly asserted importance but did not prove notability was VERY speedily deleted. What do we have to do to (a) get this article undeleted, and (b) stop this from happening, as it's a waste of time and clearly a rampant misapplication of wiki policies. Luminifer (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Host.net – copyright violations can not be restored – GRBerry 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following article clearly had a consensus of Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Host.net with 9 out of 10 opinions. In addition, secondary and third party sources from creditable – reliable and verifiable sources were provided to establish Notability. I believe the closing administrator allowed personal standards and/or criteria to influence their judgment when closing the Afd as delete. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~ At least two of those who contributed to the AFD believed that there were sufficient sources available to meet the WP:CORP notability guideline. I cannot see any consensus against this opinion in the AFD. The nominator seems to have used their belief that the sources were insufficient above that of those who contributed to the AFD. No matter how many of the keep opinions that did not comment on notability you ignore, there is still definitely no consensus for deletion. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to Keep deleted per copyvio found. Davewild (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tricky one, most of the Google news hits linked to by Shoessss do not refer to Host.net, those that do link to this company seem to be press releases mostly. Still, to delete when there was a clear keep opinion, albeit most of the keeps weren't based on policy or guidelines, is dodgy. I'd favour an ~~Overturn & relist at AfD~~ then those editors that believe there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can supply them. RMHED (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a copyvio then keep deleted obviously. RMHED (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~ - I can certainly appreciate the closer's rationale that the keep arguments were, at best, weak - however, even if you discount the keep !votes en masse there is but a single !vote for deletion which can hardly be deemed a reflection of community consensus. Shereth 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist (edit conflict) per RHMED. Most Google (and Google News) hits do not refer to Host.net, but nine keep !votes can't be ignored. —paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the closing admin, I think that a relisting might indeed be the best way to proceed. I understand the opinions expressed here that, even though the "keep" opinions were weak, the two "delete" opinions (including the nomination) were not very plentiful. A relisting might produce a clearer consensus. Sandstein 22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, especially since the article changed substantially from when the "delete" opinions were made. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist to allow a more in-depth discussion now that the issues have been clearly identified. It is helpful that this action now has the support of the closing admin. Smile a While (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Good catch. Obviously must remain deleted until a non-copyvio version can be produced. Smile a While (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a copyvio of http://www.host.net/index.cfm?id=27, just like the version previously deleted. Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore? (Admittedly, the diff between the December 2005 and June 2008 versions doesn't format well cuzza the infobox stuck in front, but the same text's still all there.) Endorse, and if someone feels motivated to start an encyclopedia article from scratch, instead of a press release, they should go right ahead. —Cryptic 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one never thought to double-check that it was still a copyvio but you are right - therefore this should remain deleted as such. Shereth 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can repost to my subpage, I'll give a shot at rewritting. As a side note, if this is a copyright violation, I have no problems with a delete, no matter how many Keep opinions were expressed. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the only difference between the cached version and the deleted one (other than formatting) was the ~~Press Releases~~ News section:

* Host.net Acquires WebUnited & Expedient Florida from CBB <ref>Host.net Acquires WebUnited & Expedient Florida from CBB [http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070919006078&newsLang=en]</ref>

* South Florida Biz. Journal Story on the WU Acquisition<ref>South Florida Biz. Journal Story on the WU Acquisition [http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2007/09/17/daily24.html]</ref>

* Host.net Opens Phase III Colo Center <ref>Host.net Opens Phase III Colo Center [http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080515005111&newsLang=en]</ref>

* FiberLight provides Metro Optical Network Solution for Host.net <ref>FiberLight provides Metro Optical Network Solution for Host.net [http://www.host.net/index.cfm?id=142]</ref>

* Palm Beach Post Article on one of Host.net's On-Net Buildings <ref>Palm Beach Post Article on one of Host.net's On-Net Buildings [http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/business/epaper/2008/06/15/sunbiz_thesource_0615.html?imw=Y]</ref> —Cryptic 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion, the right thing was done for the wrong reasons, maybe, but this is a clear copyvio. Gonna have to start from scratch if we want an article about Host.net. --Stormie (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate given the copyvio issues. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not only because of the copyvio issue, but also because this is a discussion, not a vote; nine weak keeps that don't adress our standards do not outrank one or two well-reasoned deletes just because they outnumber them. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does a single well-reasoned delete constitute "consensus" by any stretch of the imagination. The proper course of action - even discounting all of the keeps - would have been to relist. Shereth 16:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Amalgam Digital – Clearly not a case for CSD A7, but keep deleted as CSD G11 and maintain salting. – IronGargoyle (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lack of Citations... I understand the reason for speedy deletion, and that was for lack of citations. i guess i did not truely understand that the citations needed posting immediately, for that i apologize. The Record label and the digital store exist and would appreciate another shot to create the page with the proper citations. Thanks. Amaldigi 19:28, June 24, 2008

I hope the A7 wasn't for "lack of citations". A7 doesn't mention the need for citations anywhere. But since there's no cached version, I won't comment on it. If you'd like to work on recreating an article for the band, I suggest you first work on it in your userspace, though you might first want to create another account as the one you are using currently has a username which may violate our username policy. Then you work on it in a sandbox (at User:USER_NAME/Sandbox or User:USER_NAME/Amalgam Digital or something similar) and bring it back here when you believe it passes our notability guidelines for musicians and is properly sourced in reliable sources. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe one of the seven speedies had to do with citations, but I doubt it. User has been blocked, I think SALT might be applicable pending this DRV. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, RHaworth already has SALTed it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See that now, I didn't when I was looking at the logs. My bad _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted I think the latest version should have been deleted under WP:CSD#G11 instead of WP:CSD#A7. I see one incarnation was deleted under PROD, but it wouldn't have survived AFD. GRBerry 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from deleting admin. The "citations" in question refer to the fact that the new baseline standard for notability is coverage in multiple reliable sources. So, if you can't reference articles where the subject has gotten coverage, that leads to non-notability (not to mention non-verifiability). That said, I could just have easily deleted it under G11 as A7 - I picked the latter because, even if the language were made less promotional, the article would still fail notability, because there's no evidence of coverage of the label. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But lack of sourcing is not a speedy deletion reason. It is an AFD deletion reason. Speedy deletion under A7 is only for failing to make any claim of importance or significance. GRBerry 12:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, but what are the general criteria of Wikipedia:Significance? "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article failed to claim such coverage. Further, in my judgment, "first genre-specific digital download store specializing in hip hop with a strong focus on independent labels and artists" was not a sufficient claim of specific importance under WP:CORP - especially since "first" could be stricken if it was not verifiable. Nonetheless, G11 was a fallback deletion criterion, as noted in my log entry, which would still get us to the same endpoint. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, but assertions of notability are all that's required. There's no requirement to have sources backing them up — if the article says first, but doesn't have a source, you don't get to strike "first" when deciding if it asserts notability or not. Failing Wikipedia:Significance is not a criteria for speedy deletion; it may be a deletion criteria but those aren't the same thing. --Haemo (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, no, no, claims of notability which are not notable despite claims of being so, are not claims of notability. "I am the handsomest man in the universe" is a claim of notability, but would not be proof against speedy deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 02:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Geoffrey Hugo Lampe – Recreation, with actual content, encouraged. Full text of the long-ago speedied article is provided below. I am not restoring the deleted version as in my opinion it is somewhat misleading, it implies that the late Professor Lampe (who died in 1980) is a current Professor at Cambridge. – Stormie (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

academic eminence User:clive sweeting

Rewrite Here is the full text of the article, as edited by you only: "Geoffrey Hugo Lampe, Ely Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, edited the Patristic Greek Lexicon." GRBerry 16:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Restore and rewrite-- to say someone is professor of Divinityy at Cambridge Univ. is an unmistakable assertion of significance. its not much of a stub, but its time we stopped deleting articles for being a stub. It does not have to show significance to pass speedy, just say something that indicates it. If sufficient importance doubted, that's why we have PROD and AfD. If not enough is said that's why we have {expand} and {uncited}. DGG (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could restore it, but it seems like a waste of time for a nearly-two-year-old speedy. It'd be quicker for you in the long run if you just recreate the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - As indicated by DGG this didn't meet the A7 criteria. However, an immediate restoration could easily result in a rapid AFD causing unnecessary extra work. I am with the pragmatic approach of lifebaka that the simplest approach is to rewrite it with rather more content and a source. Smile a While (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - A professor at Cambridge Univerity is not a mere lecturer. I appreciate that theology does not enjoy the academci eminence that it once did, but this sounds like a worthwhile potential article, whcih should thus be permitted. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
meh. Go on, just go and recreate the article but please try and add some content if you want it to survive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Partners in torah – Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am confused as to why this page was deleted given that it is an organization parallel to many others within the same field of Jewish Outreach Organizations e.g. Aish HaTorah, Ohr Somayach and more. I had emulated their editorial style and used sources no different than these pages.

The same is true of the page Jewpiter, which was also deleted. Claudbaker

No offence to Orangemike here, but I'm going to have to say overturn because I'm pretty sure that didn't actually make A7. The cached version states that the program "currently has more than 13,000 participants", which makes me want to do a Gsearch to check for notability. A PROD or possibly an AfD would've been more appropriate. It very well may fail an AfD, but it at least deserves the chance. Also, you probably should've taken it up with the deleting admin before bringing it here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support myself. The requesting editor did not raise this deletion with me or the nominator before bringing it here; but I'm not gonna make any procedural whines about it. In a planet of 6.6 billion, 13,000 participants is not an assertion of notability in my book. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn 13,000 for a religion based organisartion is an assertion of significance. In fact, it might be for anything else also--the standard is not "world-wide significance". DGG (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn probably just barely asserts enough significance to escape speedy deletion. RMHED (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD, the assertion of notability is there although I highly doubt the claim will stick when subjected to community discussion. Shereth 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for improvement. Per WP:ORG, "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." May is permissive, so I endorse the deletion as appropriate and within the guidelines. I think the best approach is to allow the concerned editors to improve the article in userspace; it can be moved to main article space once notability is clearly asserted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list - this was a tight call but I think that there is just enough here to escape an A7. This is a division of Torah Umesorah, a notable organisation. Consequently, if it is determined that there is insufficient notability for a stand-alone page then the solution would be a merge into Torah Umesorah - National Society for Hebrew Day Schools. Smile a While (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AFD As Shereth says I doubt it will survive AFD (especially after having searched for source myself) but there is some claim to importance in the article so it should go to AFD for a decision. Davewild (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spreadtrum Communications – Article restored by the deleting admin. – RMHED (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unusual procedure of deleting,no warning or adding speedel tag,and didn't examine the deleting policy carefully Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and assume that the cached version was what's deleted since there's only one deletion. The cached version doesn't make A1 because it's pretty easy to tell what the article will be talking about, a fabless semiconductor company. However, there's nothing in there which says why the company is important or significant, and failing to assert that is another criterion for speedy deletion. So, while I don't agree with the CSD used for deletion, I believe the content should stay deleted. Feel free to write a lengthier version which does assert the company's importance, however. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its IPO on the NASDAQ do signify the notability even for a layman reader.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which isn't on the cached version. If it was on the deleted version, it was added after the cached version was taken, and the reason I can't see is I lack access to Special:Undelete. If this is indeed the case, feel free to disregard my !vote. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Finance NASDAQ:SPRD--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread. My thinking was more or less close to Lifebaka's in that I saw it straight off as an A7, then, seeing the nom's A1, for me the single sentence was not enough to give the business context so I let the nom's category stand. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. WP:CSD#A1 doesn't apply because the stub uniquely identified its subject. WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply, in my opinion, because the stub referenced the NASDAQ stock symbol for the article, which is a claim of importance by being a company with a publicly traded stock. GRBerry 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only noting here, I don't find a NASDAQ stock symbol in itself to be an assertion of importance, since it can be more or less purchased. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find plenty of Category:Companies listed on NASDAQ,so whether to delete most of them is justified by your criteria?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hope that most of these would also also have some notability beyond just being listed on Nasdaq. -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, Gwen's right. -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold deletion (which would not rule out the later creation -- by Ksyrie or anybody else -- of a longer article about this company, an article that asserted notability and presented sources to back this up). -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Actually, I think NASDAQ is an indicator of significance: "NASDAQ lists approximately 3,200 securities, of which 335 are non-U.S. companies from 35 countries representing all industry sectors. To qualify for listing on the exchange, a company must be registered with the SEC, have at least three market makers (financial firms that act as brokers or dealers for specific securities), and meet minimum requirements for assets, capital, public shares, and shareholders." from the WP article. Now, obviously SEC registration is a minimal requirement, but the other conditions are indicators of importance & enough to pass speedy in all cases. As for AfD, there are 3 levels, Global Select, Global, and Capital market. Global Select, which requires essentially $100 Million revenue (or $3 Million profit) for initial listing is I think certainly enough to pass AfD. The next category, Global, requires $15 million stockholders equity & $1 million income for initial listing (or a variety of approximate equivalents) and I would argue that is significant enough for AfD also. The third, Capital Market, requires only $5 million equity. or similar so I can see that some people might want to require other factors, like market share, for AfD.. See [46]. DGG (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There was sufficient context to identify it as a NASDAQ-listed company, and being listed on NASDAQ is an assertion of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. It seems as though it has now been established that the company is notable, although there really wasn't any assertion of notability in the stub. Still, perhaps AfD would have been better for it then, but given that we now know it's listed on NASDAQ, the deletion should be overturned and the article expanded and sourced. ʝuѕтɛn 22:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as certainly not an A1. The version in the cache, which has no indication that this is a NASDAQ-listed company (as a non-admin I have no access to the deleted version), would have qualified as an A7 but now that it has been shown to be NASDAQ-listed a straight overturn is in order. Smile a While (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the deleting admin I'm happy to restore this following consensus that mention of a NASDAQ listing is in itself an assertion of importance. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reaction to Tim Russert's death – overturning the decision and deleting the article is not being requested here. Whether or not to merge is an issue to discuss on the article(s) talk page(s). – GRBerry 13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

admin closed debate stating that the consensus was 'merge' which has stirred up a new debate on the article's talk page. Some additional admin and other opinions on this closing result and the process used would be appreciated. Rtphokie (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin closed as no consensus and said 'I think that a selective merger of this article to Tim Russert would be an appropriate editorial consequence'. A merger is an editorial decision as he says. I can't see what there is for deletion review to review here. Quite correctly a discussion is taking place in the appropriate place - the talk page of the article - to reach a consensus there. Any discussion of a merger should take place there. Davewild (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure [from AfD nominator]. This closure has been contested on Sandstein's talk page, the talk page of the AfD, the talk page of the article (sort of), ANI, and now here. Interestingly, all of these complaints about the closure are from people who want the article kept... even though the article is still around. That's right; the AfD was closed as "no consensus for deletion, default to keep", but apparently the side note about a future merge was too much for them and apparently so infuriating that it drove one of the most prominent keep !voters to storm off the wiki (ironically after proclaiming four times that I was angry). This is textbook article ownership. If there's any change that should be made to the result, it should be with a more forceful merge; the deletes and merges in the AfD are obviously interchangable, and we have keep !voters saying the equivalent of "keep now, but delete later". But, perhaps even that change is not necessary; on the AfD and on the talk page of the article itself, it's clear, if one can get past the statements of "this article is too long to merge" (more like "we have put too much filler into this article to merge"), that there's a consensus that this article does not belong on Wikipedia. Stop forum-shopping, and accept it. -- tariqabjotu 12:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about this process admin closed debate stating that the consensus was merge which they clarified here. There is NOTHING for this DRV to rule on - A merger discussion is ongoing on the talkpage, the outcome of this administration process will have no basis to influence or inform that editorial process. If at the talkpage, the consensus is that the article should be merged, it will be merged - regardless of what decisions are made here. --Killerofcruft (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum. Consensus to merge was not clear. Appropriate place to debate merger is on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Close was no consensus, not merge. A suggestion to merge when explaining the close is prefecly fine. If you oppose a merger, right now the proper place to do so is the talk page of the article, not here. Also, as a note to Killerofcruft, DRV covers XfD closures whether they ended in delete or not. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify the meaning of consensus: we seem to have a majority who favor deleting or merging the article, with a non-trivial minority opposed to it. The closing admin at the AfD appeared to suggest merging, although I'm not clear on the purpose of this statement if it carries no weight. In the absence of unanimity, is the default supposed to be "keep without merging", against the will of the majority? I realize it's not a vote, but it's not minority rule, either. We have discussed the future of the article extensively at the AfD and on the talk page. I believe it's time for there to be some resolution. I was bold and attempted a good faith merge (not simply a redirect), which was reverted and began a brief edit war. The edit warrior on the "keep" side of the argument now claims to have retired from Wikipedia in frustration, which is too bad, despite my disagreement with him. A clear judgment, one way or the other, would be better for the project and less frustrating to editors. Fletcher (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the closing admin. A somewhat more detailed explanation of my closure can be read at User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes. No comment beyond that. Sandstein 13:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paul Brunelle – Restored - an assertion of notability was made and thus the article should not have been A7 speedied. Brunelle clearly meets notability criteria of WP:MUSIC through his many recordings (more than 40 with major labels according to The Canadian Encyclopedia [47]) – Stormie (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was marked for speedy deletion for non-notability immediately after I posted it and then deleted shortly afterwards without regard to my comments on the talk page.

I actually thought I was doing a service by translating this article from the French Wikipedia. Why is the article notable enough for inclusion on the French Wikipedia, but not the English? Are we provincial? Is the article notable for French readers, but not for English readers? I think education is global. Anyone wanting to study any global topic anywhere in the world should be able to do so without regard to his or her native reading language.

I also checked the notability guidelines before posting. How can this artist not be notable? He pioneered a whole sub-genre of music and considered its founding father. His music has been recorded by major record labels, has had extensive radio airplay, and he has had his own daily radio program. His discography runs from 1944 to 1962 and includes 49 singles and 14 LPs. Billboard.com also has 7 listings of re-releases in the 2000's.

If anyone wants to check the French Wikipedia article, I can save you a few steps in getting a translation by providing this translated link

Jkolak (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might've been easier to just ask the deleting admin to rethink his decision first, but now that we're here... I'm not sure what the previous version stated, but from what I can see the guy appears to pass WP:MUSIC. I'd suggest, rather than complaining here to have it restored (which will probably take about a week), you should just go ahead and recreate the article. This will probably be the fastest solution. You should also make sure that the article does say why he's important up front, so that it won't be speedied again. If you don't already, try using the "show preview" button before saving. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this, since their were no independent verifiable references to support what was claimed. I have no objection to recreation, although as indicated above it needs to make clear why he's notable, preferably with references. jimfbleak (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, but there's no provision in A7 for sources. The issue there is separate from that of notability. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get back to you Jim. I couldn't get back to this right away and your ID is no longer tagged on the recreate/deletion page. Part of my delay was in a computer crash which has kept me offline for a while, and in which I lost my document. If someone could please undelete it, I would be glad to rewrite to better suit your suggestions.Jkolak (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Jkolak/Paul Brunelle. Advice for Jkolak: Add sources in the first edit, or create it in userspace first then move it when your done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - While unsourced, it asserted rather plenty of importance over a 40 year career to avoid a speedy deletion. Actually we have a process that allows for smoother accomodation of interwiki translations: WP:Translation. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn "He is considered the pioneer of country in Quebec and the main source of influence on the artist who would popularize the genre, Willie Lamothe." That is a clear claim of significance, which is all that is needed to escape A7 speedy deletion. Lack of sources is an issue for PROD or AFD, which allow time to demonstrate the existence of sources. GRBerry 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The criterion is no assertion at all, or at least no good faith assertion, and this unmistakably passes. It might need to be improved a little to pass afd, but that's for afd, not here. Contrary to what Jim thinks, "There were no independent verifiable references to support what was claimed" is not one of the reasons for speedy. I notice from his talk page that he has used this reason elsewhere as well. DGG (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC
Overturn - Asserted notability. Sources not yet placed in the article is not A7 speedy deletion criteria. --Oakshade (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The article clearly asserted significance and notability and hence did not qualify for CSD A7. The latter explicitly states that the absence of sources is not a valid reason for A7 deletion: "This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources". A clear error by the deleting admin but Lifebaka is correct that it would have been better for Jkolak to contact the deleting admin before bringing the case to DRV. Nsk92 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn — I can't believe we have admins deleting articles who clearly don't understand the criteria. --Haemo (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:British occupations – No consensus closure endorsed. No prejudice against relisting at CfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am concerned that the decision that no consensus to delete had been reached (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 8#Category:British Occupations) did not reflect the debate concerning this category. My interpretation of the deletion debate is there was a consensus to delete. This category was created by User:DonaldDuck as an attack category and originally included wildly inappropriate articles such as the BAOR and the Falkland War, I reverted many of those changes resulting in a category that was watered down compared with its original formula. In addition to creating the category, he has also been deleting a similar category from articles related to the Soviet Army; namely Soviet Occupations. Its clear that he is acting with a POV agenda and the creation of this category is part of that. Of its own right, it doesn't seem worthy of categorisation since it contains very few articles. Its vague and ill-defined, could I for instance legitimately add Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy? On several policy grounds its worthy of deletion, there was a consensus to do so even if you ignored at least one comment which was for a weak delete, there was several arguments why it should be deleted, there was no real argument for it to be kept - at best it should be renamed. I can accept, with qualifications, that if properly used it could become a legitimate category but not in its current form Justin talk 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my closure. Here's what I put on Justin's talk page: "...consensus isn't about numbers, it's about arguments. Clearly this wasn't an easy one, which is why no other admin had closed it earlier and it was 10 days overdue. There seemed a genuine division of opinion on whether the category could ever be used properly, at whatever name was chosen, which is why I called it as no consensus. Narson was a "weak delete" saying that it had potential if used correctly: that's an argument about use, not existence, of the category, and I gave that delete call less weight. There were some calls for a rename, which counted in favour of retention of the category in some form, but no consensus that this was the way forward. Hence, overall, no consensus but with closing comments that I thought we'd be back here again in due course - because I'm sure someone will initiate a wider discussion at some point." Bencherlite ^Talk 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All other participants in the discussion now notified with the same message. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read through the CfD, and there isn't any sort of consensus there. It's pretty evenly split between delete !votes and keep/rename !votes (both of which do mean overall retention). I endorse the no consensus closure. I'd say that the solution here would be to properly use it instead of deleting it. Work at it for a month or so, and if it's no working go back to CfD. And please keep in mind that a no consensus close doesn't preclude future CfDs on the cat. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it certainly should be renamed and, as I said, it has potential if it is used correctly and there are enough articles there. I still have my doubts how many articles there are that are suitable for the article. Occupations are a relativly modern idea as a term (I think the 'legal' definition is from the late 1800s or early 1900s?). Though yes, as I said at the deletion, it could be given a chance. However, if it remains an attempt by an editor to forward an agenda, it should definatly be deleted until such time as someone is willing to acctually do it properly. Narson (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant, voting to delete, endorse closure as votes to delete or keep/rename exactly matched each other numerically, and there were perfectly reasonable arguments for keeping it in an altered form (which it now is). Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind everyone what the comments etc in the review said:

Myself: Delete, Narson: Weak-Delete, Pfainuk: Delete, Johnbod: Delete, Berks911: Delete

DonaldDuck: Keep

Peterkingiron:Rename to British Military Occupations, LapsedPacficist:Rename

Comments about the category being vague and ill-defined: roundhouse0, Otto4711, Cgingold

There was only one real comment for keeping it unaltered and that was DonaldDuck who created it. All of the other participants noted that it was ill-defined and that it should be either renamed or deleted. If it were renamed or deleted I would have no problem with that, since that was the consensus. Keeping it unaltered is what I have an issue with. Justin talk 09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closure doesn't preclude either of those things. ~~And I'd like to point out that a rename can be done editorially without the need for a CfD.~~ You are still free to persue one if you wish, just as you are free to alter the category within editorial limits (basically I mean not deleting it without another CfD, which is difficult to do without the mop). I still suggest that you work on making the cat NPOV for a month or two before considering deletion again. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused I thought an editor couldn't rename a category, looking at renaming takes me to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I suppose I could create a new category from scratch and move the articles to that, then nominate it for deletion when its empty, is that what you mean? If it can simply be renamed I'd happily withdraw this nomination. Justin talk 11:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming categories is an admin power. Editors have to go through CFD or speedy renaming. Pfainuk talk 12:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, just shows my ignorance of the advanced workings of categories. Fix't above, but I still suggest you try working on it before another CfD. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see where "no consensus" came from based on the discussion - I still think it should be deleted, but there are legitimate arguments to keep (as I said at CFD). If it is retained here and continues to be used for POV purposes - as it certainly has been previously ([48]) - then it should be relisted and deleted. One thing that seems abundantly clear at this point is that if the category isn't deleted there is a consensus for renaming. Pfainuk talk 10:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the category is ill-defined, and only has two entries at present. However, I think it could be converted into a useful category. "Occupation" is potentially a POV category, since it could be applied to any colony (or other territory) seeking independence, something that I would deplore. On the other hand, any succesful military invasion (even temporary) involvesd the occupation of the area behind the front line, but such articles would be better descriebd as "invasions" than as occupations, which suggests something more enduring. The term could however properly be applied to the occupations Iraq for some years after WWI; of Palestine (1918-48) under League of Nations Mandate; of the Caucasus under a British general called Thompson after WWI; and of the British military governement in the British zone of Germany after WWII, in the period before the British army of the Rhine became a mere garrison there. In none of these cases was there any real attemtp to establish a colony. This is not my period of history, so that I am reluctant to start making the requisite adjustments, quite apart from considerations of time. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it had about 8 entries when I commented, all I would say uncontroversial as being "British occupations". It should not really be mutilated in this way during this review. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to suggest that the Falklands War and British Forces Germany and similar articles are put back simply because there is a deletion review then I will object most strenuously. The category was created by the originator to make a point and many of the articles included in it showed that clearly; the same editor who at the time was merrily removing Soviet Occupations from other articles. There were legitimate reasons for removing the articles that have been removed. Some may have had article titles that sounded legitimate but if you looked at the article itself, it was in fact inappropriate. For information I have removed 2 articles, the other articles in there were the two deletion reviews added accidentally by muself which I believe were removed by Bencherlite ^Talk when he kindly corrected my formatting. I suggest you check before bandying accusation of mutilating the category about. Justin talk 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Falklands were not there - as I remember it had articles on Japan & Germany post WWII. You should take your own advice! Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Bizone and Allied Occupation Zones in Germany yesterday. The Bizone refers to the amalgamation of British and American zones following the post-war period. The other article defines how Germany was divided up. Neither fit the category other than tangentially. Both are already heavily categorised and the category Allied occupation of Germany seemed perfectly adequate to me. I believe Narson removed one article, British Commonwealth Occupation Force, which describes a unit not an occupation. You are perfectly welcome to check my contribution history to verify all of this and indeed could have done so before making your last remark. Were you to do so you'll find I also removed the Falklands War from this category as well. 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the occupation of Japan. It is commonly referred to as a US occupation, British deployment was negligable and token. There are some pretty good British occupations in history, the problem would be finding an article that concentrates on them. There was an occupation of Gibraltar, but that is only covered on wikipedia as part of the larger Gibraltar article (And is quite an early use of Occupation, hence why it is interesting). Then there was the British forces at Murmansk/Archangel near Karelia (IIRC) after WW1, but I'm not sure we have an article on that. Also the Icelandic occupation during WW2, where there is a stub about Icelandic history in WW2 but nothing much on the occupation. Narson (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment if I may. The forces in Iraq and Palestine were there under a League of Nations mandate, the purpose of which was to to administer parts of the recently defunct Ottoman Empire..."until such time as they are able to stand alone.", occupation implies the seizure and holding of territory by military force and doesn't seem appropriate in this case. Also we already have the category "Allied occupation of Germany" for the post-war occupation of Germany, adding yet more to a topic that is already over-categorised seems inappropriate to me. Your comment that the category is ill-defined at present hits the nail on the head for me, leaving it open to the potential of its abuse for POV reasons - the reason for its creation in the first place. This is why I believe leaving it unaltered is a mistake and ignored the consensus that it needed attention. Justin talk

I thought about closing it, even thought it was rather tl;dr. Had I done so, I would have closed it as rename, which is keep by another name. So I definitely endorse closure. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- tl;dr? Justin talk 07:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - tl;dr. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 June 2008

Image:Vuillard sPortrait 1889.jpg – Restored for use on en.wiki under {{PD-US}}. I'll keep an eye out on the commons deletion debate and switch back if their copy is kept. – ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is PD-US but not in home country and will soon be deleted from Commons. Commons file name is Image:Édouard Vuillard 001.jpg. -Nard 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstance, an overturn of the most recent I8 deletion seems proper, if there isn't a way to keep the upload history intact through other methods. I'd assume a valid fair use can be made here (possibly not on Self-portrait, but cerainly on Édouard Vuillard), but I would suggest you submit a draft of it here before undeletion so that it can easily be added to the image when undeleted. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Was just put up for deletion, so I don't think this is necessary yet, so it might not be necessary. commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Édouard Vuillard 001.jpg only has the nomination statement on it so far. I'd also like to ammend my previous statement to say that it'd probably be better to keep the image at its current title instaed of the one in the nom to avoid confusion and the need to update the articles. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - this won't survive on commons. GRBerry 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:World Trade Organization (WTO) – Keep undeleted (for now). I don't see anything procedurally wrong with the actions of the closing admin. I probably would have relisted this once myself given the low participation, the dissenting !vote, and the large number of transclusions. TfDs get low participation, though, and you often have to make do with less than this. That said, wider consensus seems to blur the opinion for deletion that appeared to be present in the TfD. No prejudice against relisting. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

While I understand the need to clean up articles with junk, i think this template does add some useful info, namely a quick way to make sure that a country does in fact belong to the WTO. I also think that this template does deserve to be kept on the WTO main article. I think it might be useful to keep this template but make sure it's only on the Articles that deal with the economy, for example, Economy of Foo and not have it on each country's main article. This being said, we do include many other international world membership templates on main articles. Just a note: This template was deleted but was reinstated by Woohookitty (talk · contribs) because more then 250 articles use it. Thanks PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article has already been reinstated, why have you still brought it up at DRV? Shereth 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woohookitty (talk · contribs), the admin who deleted this template and also undid the first deletion, asked me to do to bring it up here.--PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the original nominator, I believe it should stay (rather, should have stayed) deleted. To briefly recap my prior arguments: Yes, we have membership templates, but not for organizations that most countries belong to. As far as I know, there's no UN template cluttering the pages of all UN members. The template is too huge to be helpful, and navboxes are supposed to be navigation aids for readers. No reader is going to want to jump from Economy of Cambodia to Economy of Canada because both countries are WTO members (and that is the point of having a navbox--to connect articles people might want to jump between). This was reflected in the previous discussion. I would not object to reopening the discussion for more comment, but as it was only one person spoke up for the navbox even though its deletion was announced on the 250 pages it was transcluded on. Mangostar (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well to counter you, only two people spoke out about deleting the template. I'm focusing not so much on the navigation aspect of the template, but rather in its information value, it's a very quick way to check WTO membership, which has to be done since over 50 nations are not part of the WTO. This is how i used the template in the past and this is how I noticed it was gone. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the national economy articles should (and most do) have an infobox that lists intl economic memberships. Mangostar (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that many actually have that. I just did ten random countries using the very nice WTO template and only 3 out of ten had it. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the solution is to mention the WTO on the economy article, not to add this navbox... Mangostar (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but who will do this? It's a very tedious task to make all the changes. Let's keep this template for use on the WTO pages and put a mention on the template page that the template should not be used on Economy of Foo pages, rather this info should be added to the infobox. What do you think? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that... and I actually had been doing the changes, but as you said it is tedious and I cannot do them all at once. I probably got through 30 or so a couple days ago? I'll do them chunk by chunk in the coming days. Mangostar (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the very tediousness of all of that work was the catalyst for creating the navbox in the first place. Consider that it's also gone through a good number of edits within its ~3½ years of history since 12.2004, all of which should also be a fair barometer of usefulness.

I've noticed that in addition to "Economy of foo" articles, many country articles also use the navbox and many countries' "Economy of foo" articles still lack the "Economy of Country table", which should instead be an infobox. A sentence noting membership in an "Economy of foo" article without the infobox/table would in addition be inconvenient to look up for. I also agree with PatrickFlaherty in all other points that support keeping the template, including the possibility for a quick overview of who the members are (and aren't).

I just had a fleeting thought that since the number of non-member countries of WTO are in a minority, perhaps if there could be a navbox listing these, too??

-Mardus (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I'm re-arguing the original discussion but wouldn't the template serve a good purpose on just the two articles WTO accession and membership and World Trade Organization neither of which actually have a list of the members? I can fully understand and probably agree with not having it on almost all of the pages but on those two there seems to a good reason for keeping them there. Davewild (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree on this point. This template is extraordinary helpful on the WTO article. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is used on two pages, it could be kept. If it is only to be used on one, it can just be substed. Mangostar (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could still be subs't on those two, except for the qy of updating. DGG (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partially agree with Davewild and and agree with PatrickFlaherty. -Mardus (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the closing admin. I just want to explain why I restored the template. I did it because I deleted it without realizing that I hadn't removed the template from the transcluded articles. I am usually very good at that but I must've gotten distracted. I myself think that this is a bit of a pointless template. Just so people are clear on this, if the template stays removed, we can always engage a bot to remove the template from the articles. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this why we have categories? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, but there is WP:CLN saying why we can have both. No opinion on whether it should be considered here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The template seems usful in some articles such as those countries where World Trade Organization is a more significant part of who they are and perhaps some of the WTO articles. If the template is put in articles where it doesn't belong, such as United States, just remove it from the article.JohnABerring27A (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JohnABerring. —Nightstallion 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's presumptuous in the extremis for the nom to assume he knows what a reader will find useful, or how they wish to navigate. Such links serve better in many cases to a list or a category, and given their complexity and the edit difficulties such table organized items create on a page. In this case, something cross connecting 'Economy of foo articles' is quite likely to be useful to someone vice a template linking just main articles. So have to disagree with noms reasoning there.
Moreover, the concept/guideline that single use templates should be deleted needs itself be revisited/deleted. There is absolutely no reason save the unwarranted fear that someone might vandalize a template unbeknownst to those watching an article for the extant policy to exist.
Frankly, it's far more sensible for those with such worries to watchlist the template than it is for the many that have to wade through and past tables not kept in template space when editing an article. If that means 87,000,000 template pages, so be it, I'm all for "timesavers for editors"—for my part let's start with the infoboxes on all pages so we can read the prose and edit that, not wade past crystallized tabulated data that only occasionally needs an update! Organizing such complicated and relatively fragile constructs and keeping prose in articles neat and editable is what template space is for, forsooth!
Bad enough good articles require tedious care to edit past good citations these days, we need to revisit that 'onesie policy' in light of citations and making things easier on editors in article space. The only other drawback to 'onsies' is categorization, and that can be handled by a "One of templates beginning with A, B, C, etc." category series. Policing templates comes near dead last on any rationale prioritization of needs around here. Next, it's a whole lot easier to protect template spaces than pages which would violate the spirit of the five pillars.
Lastly, most nav boxes these days can be collapsed or shown, and since they are at article bottoms, don't junk up anything. I suspect the whole prejudice against such is lazy editors who resent an extra need to page down one more time to see cats. This is a good looking template. (I just put it in above) No reason someone researching the WTO, or looking at comparative economies, or even finding out about some economies sub-segment wouldn't like the convenience of following link to link. // FrankB 23:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

World development – Closed as closing admin is going to relist the AFD – Davewild (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Decision to keep after a "discussion extended" was followed by unanimous delete arguments. Moreover, no counterargument was given to the claim that the article is WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN. From discussion on closing mod's talk page,

In this case, I agree in hindsight that I probably erred on the generous side in keeping this. I think your point about synthesis is extremely valid but it wasn't specifically discussed in the afd and I did not therefore take it into account in the close.

Since the discussion centered on the very topic being OR, which includes SYN, and keep arguments were simply WP:INTERESTING regardless of OR, and also because delete !votes far outweighed keep !votes, decision should have been to delete. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need this at DRV because I have already accepted that this close may have been in error.. I'm going to relist the AFD when I have a moment. Can someone close this in the meantime? (Oh the irony - being criticised for not deleting something). Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 23 June 2008 (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 groups referred to as cults – Based on my readings of this DRV, the previous AfD, and its closure, I see a fairly consistent thread that the AfD closer was well justified in giving lesser weight to arguments surrounding the procedural "correctness" of the AfD (strength of argument via persuasion also seems like a legitimate metric of consensus). After inspecting the closure on these points--and comparing it with the facts of the discussion--I do not see any point where this reasoning is flawed or the participants in this DRV discussion substantially refute this particular justification. Because the actual "facts" of the case and list content seem to be quite maliable and subject to virulent hyperbole on both sides, the focus on whether the closure was within a valid discretionary range and based on strength of the argument seems clear. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There also was List of deadly cults AfD, and List of religions once classed as cults AfD. JohnABerring27A 08:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the delete was not based on a valid policy reason but based on issues with the content, the false idea that the article could never be cleaned. (There are clear guidelines for list articles making that process easier.) and, most importantly, on the number of votes ignoring the valid points which is evident in the closing editors comment who discusses the number of votes which is incorrect for an afd. There may have been more delete comments but there can be no real consensus to delete if the arguements to keep were not answered or proven incorrect. I believe the article constitues a valid list according to list guidelines and complies with all policies. The afd was also flooded with lengthy straw man arguements, personal objections and discussions about article content effectively burying good productive comments and making it difficult for editors to contribute effectively. neon white talk 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion the standard applied to decide which groups qualify as a cult is OR and it is POV; it was deleted for the same reason we don't have List of movies refereed too as bad or list of restaurants with good food. The article also had a year since its previous AFD which was no consensuses and the issues brought up there were never addressed. -Icewedge (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect and similar to some of the poor straw man arguements made in the afd that i mentioned above. Cult is a notable subject and every article has a POV. The article is not titled 'list of cults that are bad' or 'list of cults that are good' The list would be valid in the article. If the sources are verifiable they are permissable. --neon white talk 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete, but we actually do have List of films considered the worst. I should add this is just an "FYI" as I'm not adding any opinion on the matter since I voted/discussed on the AfD.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cult is clearly a notable subject; thats why we have the article Cult. But their is no valid method to determine which organizations should go on the list, articles such as Christianity and Buddhism were on the list until the completely ad hoc 1920+ rule was established. -Icewedge (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a method to determine what should go on the list, it's called verifiability and it's wikipedia policy. --neon white talk 14:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As if we have lists and articles on everything that can be verified within invented parameters. WP:V does not give editors the right to disregard WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, etc.. I also don't see any point to discussing verifiability in the first place, since this particular objection is about the inclusion criteria and not the material so included. Even the 1920 guideline is a wild interpretation of something Melton once wrote, and not notable and "verifiable" in any sense we promote. The rest are even less "verifiable".PelleSmith (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that the 1920+ rule isn't valid, then no source of authority external to Wikipedia is valid:

Scientific authority source for the 1920+ rule list criterion — separating modern "cult" homonyms from old religions' cults of veneration —

1920+ is based on a reliable secondary source (OCRT — find "During the 1920s and 1930s"), citing a reliable primary source (Superior Court of California, 1985 — find "It began as a sociological term in the twenties and thirties."), which is the sworn testimony of the internationally recognized authority on cults, Dr. J. Gordon Melton, UCSB, author of Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, 1992 (Search).

As if that weren't enough, Dr. Melton is the second most prolific contributor to Encyclopedia Britannica, which folks at the top of WP want to emulate.

Now that you know the facts about 1920+, beware of Escalation of commitment and consider the wisdom of striking your unresearched remark before this DRV is archived. Milo 06:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that argument quite addresses the point, does it. The 1920+ rule had nothing to do with the arising in the 1920s of the term "cult" in its modern sense. Rather, the rule was designed to ensure that more established groups, which had been founded before 1920, would be excluded from the list, regardless of whether they had in recent years been referred to as a cult, in the modern, post-1920 sense of the word. That is really quite separate from the linguistic issue that Melton was talking about. Melton never said that groups formed before 1920 couldn't be cults in the modern sense of the word. Just to cite two obvious examples, the Jehova's Witnesses and the Church of Latter-Day Saints each were founded before 1920, yet both groups have been the subject of well-publicised cult controversies, and criticism by the anti-cult movement, during the last fifty years. I am afraid this is entirely representative of the multiple, and quite egregious NPOV, OR and SYNTH problems the list suffered from, as the closing admin rightly observed. Jayen 466 10:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 (10:43): "The 1920+ rule had nothing to do with the arising in the 1920s of the term "cult" in its modern sense."

Contrary to your counterintuitive assertion (1920+ somehow has nothing to do with 1920s), that is exactly its basis. The idea was to do what editors wanted (even during the 6th AfD, after 1920+ had been hijacked – leading to the 6th AfD) and disambiguate uses of the ancient word from uses of its modern homonyms. For example: Vaquero100 (17:13, 20 July 2006): "...it is intellectually misleading, if not dishonest, to equate the ancient theological sense of "cult" and the modern sociological sense of the term."

Jayen466 (10:43): "...regardless of whether they had in recent years been referred to as a cult, in the modern, post-1920 sense of the word."

~~But they weren't. You are arguing to consider a hypothetical which doesn't happen.~~ There are no [USA] reliable sources which claim that traditional Christianity-generally, is a populist mind-control cult. ~~or other major religions,~~ [LDS, JW are reliable source cult-calling examples given for Europe/Russia] Rulecrafting hypotheticals is impossible since there would be an unlimited number of invisible pink unicorn-type cases to consider. [But ok, in Europe it isn't hypothetical.]

Jayen466 (10:43): "...Church of Latter-Day Saints ... well-publicised cult controversies..."

If so, not all that well publicized [in the USA or on Google news], or ~~not at all~~ [rarely] in reliable sources [given a Washington Post report on LDS being called a cult in Russia]. I did a search of the entire 150-some year history of the New York Times and couldn't find any for-certain instances of the searched phrases in which they had called Church of Latter-Day Saints a cult.

Jayen466 (10:43): "Jehova's Witnesses and the Church of Latter-Day Saints ... criticism by the anti-cult movement, during the last fifty years."

~~No, you are confusing anti-cult movement with counter-cult movement. The latter is a purely Christian theological dispute found in POV religion books.~~ [Pardon, you've convinced me you're correct. European press attitudes must be a lot different than those in the USA.]

Jayen466 (10:43): "Melton never said..."

Oh, but you are saying that? Ok, get your Ph.D.s, in History and Religion, write a historic-revisionism study, titled say, 'mind-control cults of the past', get it published in a non-fringe journal, and then your position will be taken seriously here in criteria rulecrafting. (BTW, pros do that work because certain types of historic revisionism are punishable offenses in some countries.)

Jayen466 (10:43): "I am afraid this is entirely representative..."

~~Since you don't know the cult topics terms of art well enough to avoid confusing two of the major positions~~, your sweeping opinion of anyway-mythical list issues lacks credibility, ~~and consideration of your vote on any related DRV issue should appropriately discounted.~~ Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 has convinced me in the next post (Jayen466 12:11) that he does have valid points, and that he knows a lot about European reliable source cult-calling that I don't know, though his entire presentation would have been more effective without having previously overstated his case. Milo 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 09:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am sorry to have to take up even more space on this page with things that don't really belong here. However, some of the things Milo says above are again so "egregious" that they really deserve a reply.

As regards the 1920 rule: As I have already said, the exclusion of groups founded before 1920 from the List of cults did not disambiguate uses of the ancient word from uses of its modern homonyms. It was simply a means to avoid causing offence to older groups by reporting that they, too, have been referred to as "cults" in the media, in the fully modern sense of the word. But they weren't, you say. Please. The Jehovah's Witnesses were identified as a cult in the 1995 French parliamentary commission report. Do you think they used the pre-1920 meaning? For the past 50 years, the JW have regularly been referred to as a cult in the European press. Every anti-cult website has its collection of material about them. The Church of Latter-Day Saints is considered a cult by the French government-funded UNADFI anti-cult organisation. The Church features on anti-cult sites like rickross.com, prevensectes.com, and on the website of the International Cultic Studies Association. In Russia, there have been widely reported calls for the LDS Church to be banned as a cult (see e.g. here). Just a google news search for current English-language news provides enough evidence that there is a cult controversy around mormonism that extends beyond the field of Christian apologetics. And that's before we get to its polygamous splinter groups.

Regarding your assertion that there were no "mind-control cults of the past", I have no need to write a "revisionist" paper refuting that, because it is common knowledge in the sociology of religion that new religious movements were so characterised in the past. The word "brainwashing" was not there, but Roman intellectuals widely argued that only people not being their normal selves, perhaps because of some Oriental magical spell, may join such a strange movement as Christianity. Christians, in turn, quickly saw heretics as bewitched. In the 19th century, evangelicals in France [5] and Mormons in the US (e.g. [21]) were considered by popular novelists, and other opponents, as "mesmerized" or hypnotized: certainly, nobody would join such obviously unacceptable religions out of free will (quoted from The Future of New Religions, M. Introvigne). Plus ça change ... Jayen 466 12:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Jayen466 (12:11): "exclusion of groups founded before 1920 from the List of cults did not disambiguate uses of the ancient word from uses of its modern homonyms."

It substantially, and logically did so. That it did not perfectly do so is a demand for perfection fallacy that cannot be satisfied.

Jayen466 (12:11): "It was simply a means to avoid causing offense to older groups by reporting that they, too, have been referred to as "cults" in the media, in the fully modern sense of the word."

It substantially avoided offense by preventing the ambiguation source of offense. As Vaquero100 said, "Vaquero100 (17:13, 20 July 2006): "...it is intellectually misleading, if not dishonest, to equate the ancient theological sense of "cult" and the modern sociological sense of the term.""

Jayen466 (12:11): "The Jehovah's Witnesses were identified as a cult in the 1995 French parliamentary commission report. Do you think they used the pre-1920 meaning?"

I agree that they did not.

Jayen466 (12:11): "For the past 50 years, the JW have regularly been referred to as a cult in the European press."

Except for some familiarity with UK press, I'm not very familiar with the European press, and I hope you're talking about mainstream reliable sources.

It appears that the USA press is a lot more tolerant of religions generally, including sects and cults, since there are many more churched people in the United State (about 50% last time I heard), than there are in the UK (5-10% churched, IIRC).

Jayen466 (12:11): "Every anti-cult website has its collection of material about [JW]." .... "The Church features on anti-cult sites like rickross.com,"

No problem, not reliable sources (except the rickross mainstream news archives).

Jayen466 (12:11): "Latter-Day Saints is considered a cult by the French government-funded UNADFI anti-cult organisation."

Maybe reliable. I'd have to know more than I do about how they check facts. How for example do they define a cult (secte)?

Jayen466 (12:11): "International Cultic Studies Association."

I came across them previously, but I'd have to re-research them for reliability. How do they check facts, and what's their definition of a cult?

Jayen466 (12:11): "In Russia, there have been widely reported calls for the LDS Church to be banned as a cult"

Ok, it was reported by reliable source Washington Post. You've convinced me. I'm going to strike some of my previous statements.

Jayen466 (12:11): "Just a google news search for current English-language news provides enough evidence that there is a cult controversy around mormonism that extends beyond the field of Christian apologetics."

Not today, anyway. It's all Christian apologetics and FLDS (plus cult movies). (Btw, "cult-like" doesn't count at LOGRTAC.)

Jayen466 (12:11): "it is common knowledge in the sociology of religion that new religious movements were so characterised in the past."

That's not the Wikipedia definition of common knowledge.

Jayen466 (12:11): " 'The word "brainwashing" was not there...--M. Introvigne' "

It's an interesting reference, and I take your point that there's a long history of the feeling that "mind-control" exists (which btw, is evidence that it does exist). But take mine and Introvigne's that until you get those Ph.D.s, you can't hand me a list of ancient religions that can be reliably sourced as "brainwashed" or "mind-controlled" cults at LOGRTAC. (Or LOGRTAC19).

In general, I've already proposed a solution which would cover what you're getting at about old religions being occasionally called modern mind-control cults. Your quibble about the 1920 dividing line is insubstantial. Articles can be created around that line, and it works because it is a historical watershed. There could be a second list for old religions:

Create the following article:List of groups referred to as cults and founded 1919 or prior(Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC19")

Here editors could work on reliable source cult-calling of old religions, without any guilt-by-association issues related to co-listing of destructive cults. Because of the issue you raise, that there are modern cult-callings of some old religions, this list would have its own set of problems to solve of how to avoid the confusion of cults of veneration with mind-control cult-callings. But with old religions again out of the way, LOGRTAC could go back to a working status. Milo 09:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: That last sentence is a textbook ad hominem and should be considered in violation of WP:NPA. This user asked in the AfD to have another user's opinion discounted because that user was Catholic. Such behavior is not appropriate. See below also for two more examples of this.PelleSmith (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just violated WP:AGF. I've never met Jayen466 before the AfD, and I had no knowledge of his belief system. His vote should be appropriately discounted because he made a sweeping opinion which his knowledge base doesn't support as meaningful. Milo 00:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hide behind policies that are not applicable when the editor in question is clearly violating other policies. Do you disagree that this is an ad hominem argument you are making? Clearly it is. I have nothing further to say. Feel free to retract your various ad hominems and I'll retract my commentary about them.PelleSmith (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←PelleSmith (02:26): "ad hominem argument"

Yes, of course it's an ad hominem argument (meaning "to the man"). You seem to be laboring under the illusion that an ad hominem is necessarily invalid during informal debate, or worse, that it's always in violation of some WP rule. Both your belaborings are just that, illusions.

WP:NPA: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks,...". Did I use any offensive language? No. Did I question character? No. Ad hominems without those elements aren't PAs. Is describing an editor's actions an ad hominem? Yes, it's about what the editor did (or shouldn't have done).

If an editor did something, one can describe it. Otherwise, when editors act objectionably, no one could tell them about it, and they could never know about it to either act differently, or explain their actions.

ad hominem: Real world debates are not exercises in formal logic. If an editor attempts to influence the votes of other editors and closing admins by using dismissive language and sweeping generalizations ("I am afraid this is entirely representative of the multiple, and quite egregious..."), as though drawn from vast expertise in the subject matter, any league debater is going to closely examine that other debater to vet whether s/he is really what they imply themselves to be. When the debater reveals a gross lack of basic knowledge, like confusing two well-known terms of art, that's out of bounds and is validly subject to an ad hominem argument.

discount: Since it's a "vote" in the homonym sense of casting a ballot, but not a "vote" in the sense of an election, voters are required to explain their votes. If a vote is illogically described (like voting one way while talking the opposite), or if a debater tries to snow others (and closing admin) with flawed expertise, it's logical to describe what's wrong, and suggest that their vote be discounted (reduced in value). Of course the admin may ignore it, but it does signal everyone paying attention that there may be something significantly wrong with what that debater is saying. It also serves notice to the other debater that they need to improve their presentation.

PelleSmith (02:26): "This user asked in the AfD to have another user's opinion discounted because that user was a [named religion]."

WP:AGF: I wrote no such thing, and you can't supply a diff of something you only conjured up. I've already denied it once, yet without diff evidence you persist in that slander. Lacking diff evidence to the contrary, that's a violation of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. Milo 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote: "Mamalujo is a member of a major religion (that is also defined as a theological cult), which the hijacking group members planned to use as AfD bait by removing the 1920+ criterion. It worked as planned, and here he is. He can't take revenge on the group members, so he's taking revenge on the article. Since his positions are mostly a rant that doesn't make logical sense, I suggest that the closing admin ignore his vote.Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)" You may claim what you will, but your argument was clearly based on the premise that Mamalujo is part of a "theological cult", and that his being so affiliated had directly contributed to his supposedly illogically ranting. If you just wanted to say ... its an illogical argument, discount it, you did not need to comment on the editor's religious affiliation. I will not assume good faith when you resort to asking admins to discriminate in their own judgment based upon someone's religious identity. I didn't AGF then and I wont AGF now. The rest of your response is simply a poor attempt at sophistry (e.g. you are not civilly commenting on Jayen's "behavior" you are using his behavior as evidence some supposed ignorance endemic to his intellect and asking to discount his opinion based upon this supposed ignorance.)PelleSmith (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PelleSmith (02:26): "This user asked in the AfD to have another user's opinion discounted because that user was a [named religion]."

You have supplied no diff of me naming a certain religion. That means that you researched the name of that user's religion and then attributed your incompetent inference to me.

Thus you slanderously painted me as an anti-(named religion).

Your slander is aggravated because you slandered me after I resolved your complaint.

You complained about my request for the closing admin to ignore the other user's vote. Then I withdrew that request after the other user wrote a second post, that I accepted as understandable enough to debate (see 6th AfD Milo 07:57, 19 June 2008).

This suggests that you are gratified by conflict for its own sake. You also wrote an edit summary which suggests that you don't want to avoid conflict:

Cult 22:16, 13 June 2008 PelleSmith (cleaning up more language and removing advice about avoiding conflict ... this is not a "lets all get along" FAQ, but an encyclopedia)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Go to a boxing gymnasium.

I asked for a diff three times, because diffs are primary evidence to back up an accusation, and diffs link to the entire context. Instead you quoted me out-of-context – which quote also includes a discourteously unnecessary copy of another editor's name. I suggest that you should at least delete his name and replace it with ellipses.

What happened was that the other editor wrote an AfD "Delete", with a wordy series of explanations that were not factual, so I challenged his vote here (page find "irrational"). The preceding section of my post that you omitted is "Most of those statements have too little factual basis for a response. For example, patent nonsense is just random typing, and WP:SYN and WP:NOR are impossible for an article that contains only links and quotes as content. So why would he mount such an irrational attack? .... Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008" I then offered an explanation which you quoted, that he was baited by a group members' plan, which was bait for a member of any major religion that has been called a cult. His specific religion didn't matter, and contrary to your slander, I didn't name it.

The further context was the subsequent long debate between me and the other editor on the "logical sense" of his vote in regard to his misapplication of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. The other editor's religion was not named.

I told you were wrong the first time you raised this issue ("No. Re-read my last sentence". Milo 17:05, 17 June 2008), but you just ignored me. You were unable to parse my initial presentation of issues into its two components, the any-major-religion bait issue and the patent-nonsense illogic issue. You couldn't get off of a wrong track, and now you've escalated your misunderstanding into slander.

Since you appear to be a minor high school student, I judge this slander as a loose cannon blunder consequent to your careless disregard for checking the facts before making ill-considered accusations. Since you were warned that you were wrong, add to that a judgment of willful blindness in an egotistical pursuit of a debate that was out of your league.

It wouldn't be a surprise if you again wolf cry 'Admin, admin, WP:NPA!' , but since I'm prepared to evidence each of the adjectives I've used to describe your actions, there are no WP:NPAs here, and you will have to be satisfied with simple dislike of well-deserved criticism.

Your many small editing mistakes which I needed to clean up, your sometimes pretentious and often wrong-track debate reasoning, and your usually contentious, aggressive demeanor over the last 14 days suggests that you will now try to justify your slander when you ought to apologize. Milo 11:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milo this is a dead horse, and your attempts at explanation get more and more boring. If you think I'm going to take this "minor high school student" emotional bait you're very sadly mistaken. Maybe I'm a "major" high school student ;). But seriously I'm sick of this sophistry. We all know what major religion you were referring to, and its pretty obvious that your original request to ignore his argument rested firmly on the fact of affiliation. Give it a rest. Maybe, just maybe, it would behoove of you to refrain from argumentum ad hominem instead of trying so desperately to defend you choice to constantly point out when someone's affiliation or perceived lack of knowledge should make us doubt their reasoning skills. What affiliations should we be worried about with you Milo? As I've said already I doubt that anyone editing that entry has any more or less of a COI than you do, and I don't even have to know any of your "affiliations" to understand that. We simply do not discriminate the way you want us to, and no amount of paranoia about "group members" "hijacking" the list will change that. If you would just follow a very basic Wikipedia guideline and stick to the arguments instead of the editors this wouldn't be happening.PelleSmith (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer - as I'd anticipated a DRV the majority of my reasoning for endorsing is couched in the close itself, and I will refrain from repeating my rationale. I will stress, however, that the argument that this is a problem with content and not a deletion debate has been repeated at every single previous discussion and yet the issues have failed to resolve. One can only argue for cleanup and improvement over deletion so many times, particularly when the case for deletion is made in such a strong manner. Shereth 18:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Reason for deletion thoroughly explained by closing admin, using context from the AfD discussion. No obvious procedural problems. Townlake (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse at least until such time that Neon White produces compelling evidence of the laundry list of problems he claims plagued the AfD. While there are guidelines for writing lists, there are also policies for all articles and the list guidelines Neon White refers to make us well aware that these policies also apply to lists. For a taste of the policy issues--some delete voters cited WP:NPOV because the list was biased towards groups labeling other groups with a clearly pejorative term (as opposed to being biased towards actual scholarship on the subject); WP:COATRACK because the list promoted this bias for no good reason beyond the various content filled entries already existing on individual groups and/or larger concepts (cult, destructive cult, etc.); WP:NOR because the criteria for inclusion was entirely "arbitrary", and the result of WP:SYNTH. My own objection relates to policy through the fact that the criteria for inclusion wasn't simply arbitrary but it in fact shunned scholarship on New religious movements and "cults". In other words it promoted a bias that was against the most reliable sources on this subject--against the sources that could, if utilized, actually create a reliable and verifiable criteria for inclusion, not to mention an informative entry. I'm pretty sure Neon White calls this a straw man argument, or a delete vote based upon personal objections. I don't agree and again ask him to clarify with examples.PelleSmith (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid sources being used is not a reason for deletion. The list can easily be cited using academic sources. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a coatrack. List criteria is not permanent and therefore not a reason for deletion. Claims that it 'promoted a bias that was against the most reliable sources' is not evident at all. It seems that yet again this is a personal objection to the content. Your arguement is not one of the straw man arguements referred to but i believe it is based on issues with the content rather than the subject of the article. --neon white talk 14:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claims regarding bias were discussed consistently on the entry talk page and the AfD talk page. Scholars understand the popular and media usage of the term as pejorative and misleading, and that even includes scholars who want to restore the academic use of the term. Sociological studies have addressed this directly, but commentary exists throughout the field. One recent study I cited clearly shows how the "cult" label effects popular perception of the same groups and another editor cited a United Nations report that condemns media portrayals of minority religions. Your choice to disregard these arguments is your choice, but I have to note the irony in your own preferred use of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Taking ones cues from scholarship does not equate to a "personal objection", it just simply doesn't. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Thjs was a well judged close well within the closing admin discretion. The inclusion category were so wooly its hard to see how this could have had any consistent encyclopaedic criteria for inclusion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion. The AfD was procedurally flawed. It ran for ten days rather than the normal 5 days. It's not clear if thedeleting admin discounted new, single-purpose editors.[49] I count 23 requests for deletion out of 38 opinions, which is only 61%. Arguments such as those by PelleSmith above are not among the list of reasons to delte articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An AfD discussion running for longer than 5 days is not a procedural flaw, and an AfD discussion is not a vote count, a policy-based analysis such as that given by PelleSmith above is precisely what deletion decisions should be based on. --Stormie (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The article had been discussed to death, was not showing visible signs of improvement to an acceptable standard, and there was nowhere else to go. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - competently closed on arguments instead of numbers. PhilKnight (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Good call on the part of the closing admin. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn ~~Endorse~~ (I've been convinced that, at least, the article needs another chance to find consensus one way or another) though the following question stands: ~~though I might be persuaded differently, doubt I'll have the chance.~~ What did the article accomplish that wouldn't be accomplished by a category? Then the decision as to whether or not to include each group would be a matter for each article on the group "referred to as a cult," which presumably means RS doing so, and probably not isolated RS. The Category would be referenced from the Cult article, and the category itself would describe standards for inclusion. Simple. Somebody wants to get a copy of the deleted article from an admin, they could tag the articles and see what happens.... might be some details to work out, though, a little tricker to maintain, given present software (is there any way to Watch what is added or removed from a Category?) I see this as basically a category, not as an article. --Abd (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC) changed Abd (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Change records for documentation of one method of logging and watching additions to categories. I don't know of a method for logging removals. GRBerry 02:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Deletion review is not a second chance at an AfD, and reasons to overturn should be based upon a flaw in the process. From Wikipedia:Deletion review: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The category proposal is a perennial. Here's the explanation thread from the 6th AfD:

Categorization was tried and rejected long ago. The basic objection was that Wikipedia was seen as declaring categorized groups to be cults, which nearly all active groups deny. The exception is destructive cults, which everyone agrees are cults in fact; but there are less than 20 of those, most of which no longer exist.

"accusations of being a cult ... will already be given in the group's article"

Unfortunately not. Eventually all regular cult topics editors learn that groups' articles are collectively WP:OWNed by each group. Unless endlessly watched and coerced, reliable-source mind-control cult references will usually be purged from their articles. Occasionally certain groups become object lessons for editorial enforcement, but most purge cult accusations as they please. That leaves LOGRTAC as the only place in Wikipedia where further research can be done on most group's cult accusations, and naturally that means LOGRTAC is a target for tendentious group members, who never give up on trying to get it deleted. Milo 04:03, 14 June 2008

Categorization is a potentially worse idea as it gives no explanation or context. Plus we already have Category:Cults.--T. Anthony 04:19, 14 June 2008

Note that the criteria of Category:Cults specifically prohibits adding groups. It is only used for general articles on cults. Will Beback 05:12, 14 June 2008

Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse for the reasons given in the closing statement. The huge volume of the AfD alone indicates that the drama-to-content ratio of this article was excessive, and the closing admin correctly identified several probably irremediable core policy issues. Sandstein 23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be your inferences, not verifiable facts. The closing admin did not mention core policy issues. One of the reasons that close should be overturned was that it did not actually identify any issues at all, meaning that any of the many presented myths he may have believed cannot be determined. His close was indistinguishable from 'I detect a trend toward editors voting WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so I'm going to accelerate that trend.'

Wikipedia:Is wikidrama bad?: "Consider, we would never delete evolution even though the article is a constant source of Wikidrama."

Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, good call. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I disagree with the actual decision, for I think a proper definition could be constructed, but that has nothing to do with it. The close was correct about the consensus. DGG (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - good review and good call. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a member of a group that became eligible for listing at LOGRTAC after 1920+ was WP:COI removed. You then refused to help restore 1920+, and stirred up trouble with a bad listing of RCC, so your opinion here is another WP:COI to be appropriately discounted. Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: That response is a textbook ad hominem and should be considered in violation of WP:NPA. If Milo can show that Storm Rider is in fact in violation of WP:COI then I will retract this, but his claim is a red herring. Milo feel free to tell us what the applicable part of WP:COI is here.PelleSmith (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that someone's opinion should be discounted because of what you perceive to be a potential conflict of interest is not especially helpful and is bordering on incivility. Let's please focus our discussion on the content (or in this case the AfD) and not the contributors. Shereth 23:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the guiderules, and WP:COI is why this discussion is occurring. From Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007 there were no more than minor content problems (discounting exaggerations by listed group members). After the WP:COI hijack of 1920+ there was a return of previously repaired major content problems, which provoked members of major religions, of which Storm Rider is one by his own declaration. I completely agree that his religion shouldn't be listed, but his edits caused harm that would not have occurred without his WP:COI, which in turn wouldn't have occurred if it were not for other WP:COIs.

I don't want to make too much of this, I'm just pointing out that his known WP:COI should be considered in counting or discounting his opinions. Milo 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't write them and it seem you have not read them either. I'll ask once again. Can you please quote the applicable part of WP:COI? Your claim that this policy is being violated is a red herring, and you are using it to ask for someone's opinion to be discounted. That is completely inappropriate. We don't ask everyone with connections to a given subject matter to refrain from editing. Muslims edit Islam, Catholics edit Roman Catholicism, atheists edit Atheism etc. etc. This editor is no more a COI editor in cult related entries than you are. You can prove me wrong of course by actually citing the applicable policy language. Be my guest.PelleSmith (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already quoted WP:COI below. You forgot to update here that you already responded to it. Milo 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you quoted is just as irrelevant there as it is here.PelleSmith (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Full disclosure: I participated in the AfD. While there were some policy issues surrounding the AfD itself, they were settled early on, and it looks like the closer appropriately ignored those issues once they were cleared up. Other than that, consensus seems pretty clear on this one, despite the vocal objections of a few vocal objectors. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This AfD was procedurally dirty and should have been closed immediately. The 6th AfD was incorrectly listed as an invalid AfD procedure by a nominator who didn't want the article deleted, only a "discussion". The opening admin wanted it to be closed as a bad nom, and voters began to vote for close. Then after two days opponents started talking about how it was now a "real AfD". But by that time it was too late. (The phrase "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind (no offense to Miss Piggy).) The final voter was confused by the original header and initial "speedy" votes, and voted "speedy close". Then the closing admin refused to count the "close" votes. Good thing I ignored the advice that I didn't need to revote my "close" vote, updating it to "keep" in the relisted section, because I would have lost my vote. If I thought it were worth analysis, I sense there might be a case for unintentional bias of procedural strictness toward one side and procedural laxity toward another. • Aside from the procedural dirt, the single worst thing about the AfD were the many false claims that the article had failed. It didn't fail – List of groups referred to as cults was Wikipedia:Conflict of interest hijacked because it was working. It was a smoothly working article from Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007, with so few complaints that most of the centrist editors went elsewhere. At the latter date, the article was deliberately deconstructed (led by a now-banned WP:COI group member) by removing its scientifically referenced 1920+ basis for preventing the worst of the 8-some homonymic conflicts. Article deconstruction – editing to make an article fail (in this case by deliberately provoking readers to anger and AfD – is a type of bad faith editing that should be made against future Wikipedia guiderules. • That it happened to LOGRTAC should not be held against the article or its centrist editors, by endorsing an AfD (dirty or clean), which was a setup by editor(s) working for their belief system, and not working for the project. WP:COI editing to make one's belief look better is problem enough, but WP:COI editing to make someone else's belief look worse is disruptive and dangerous . Don't endorse it. Milo 03:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An AfD is not decided by a vote. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments."PelleSmith (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There already is List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. For other groups, people can just use Wikipedia's handy-dandy Cult checklist. You can also use List of groups refered to as cults by the media -- JohnABerring27A (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of groups refered to as cults by the media needs to be deleted. That has not been worked on in a very long time and now duplicates a deleted article. --Justallofthem (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Traditionally we give some leeway to things in userspace. I would very much be against deleting that unless User:Zappaz is, at least, consulted.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - All due respect, but that is not in any reasonable definition of "some leeway". Let me clarify early on that the subject user is not the issue, he has not edited since January of 2006 and I am sure that the page was put there in good faith. I simply make the point that now it must be deleted, see Wikipedia:User page:
      While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion.
      If someone here wants to delete it then please feel free, otherwise I will list it for speedy delete once this review wraps up. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose if you want to be technical. I just don't think we need to be strict on every dumb little thing like that. I'll put a question on the page's talk page about deletion.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but you were the one who insisted on playing hardball. Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On an article. Userspace is a different thing in my book. We allow deleted lists to be in it. See User:Clapaucius/List of people widely considered to be eccentric. As an article I felt that there needed to be a deletion debate regardless of the nominator's motivation.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus/default to keep. The closing admin's editorial analysis and subsequent dismissal of the keep votes was based on a clearly fallacious slippery slope argument for the gradual establishment of a consensus to delete. Well, it's not there yet, so don't jump the gun. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn agree w/ rationale provided above by Will Beback (talk · contribs) and anetode (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – as the closing admin said, the list had multiple, and quite egregious problems, above all made-up, partisan and shifting inclusion and exclusion criteria never tied down to any outside authority, unlike List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. The close accurately reflected the consensus of the (quite lengthy) discussions. Jayen 466 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have conflated your opinion with the closing admin's opinion. He did not name specific problems, which is a reason for overturn.

Jayen466 (11:01): "[Wikipedia:OR|made-up] ... inclusion and exclusion criteria"

External lists (Top-10 this and that) are typically copyrighted. It could be a copyright violation if criteria were not made up, but such criteria generally don't exist to copy. That would mean that Wikipedia can't have lists. Since under WP:SNOWBALL Wikipedia will have lists, made up criteria are both acceptable and necessary.

Jayen466 (11:01): "[Wikipedia:NPOV|partisan] ... inclusion and exclusion criteria"

This is an unsatisfiable demand-for-perfection fallacy. NPOV can never be perfect, and all articles can be discovered to have some or many NPOV imperfections.

Jayen466 (11:01): "shifting inclusion and exclusion criteria"

Another demand-for-perfection. Most articles at Wikipedia shift as consensus changes.

Jayen466 (11:01): "criteria never tied down to any outside authority"

An unresearched exaggeration. Criteria 1A-C are tied to dictionaries. Criteria 1D is tied to the eight-some homonyms of c-u-l-t. Criteria 2 is tied to the ambiguity of types of things referred to as cults. Criteria 3 is tied to the fact that groups typically stop being considered cults with a lifetime, though 50 is an approximation to some number not exactly known. Criteria 4 is tied to the eight-some homonyms of c-u-l-t. Criteria 5 is a convenience criterion affecting formatting rather than content, however it is tied to foreign words. The 1920+ criterion not presently installed is tied to Dr. J. Gordon Melton's scientific history research - see the box on this page titled "Scientific authority source for the 1920+ rule list criterion". Milo 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1A and 1B, for a start, ignore that "sect" and "cult" have been used interchangeably in the U.S. media during the past 50 years. There was a useful analysis of this published in the late eighties:

Utilization of "Sect" and "Cult" in the Print Media: In her content analysis, Lindt (1979) encountered the concepts "sect" and/or "cult" in approximately two-thirds of the newspaper and news weekly issues she investigated. The results of the present study also indicate that the press has had few reservations in attaching the labels of "sect" and "cult" to the various NRMs. There are sharp differences, however, depending on the time periods and the groups concerned.
An analysis of the use of these two categories, in both the headlines (Table 2) and body (Table 3) of contextual units, reveals that a shift took place. After an initial preference for "sect," as a descriptive term for NRMs, the print media later chose to embrace the more pejorative term "cult." When we juxtapose Tables 2 and 3, an unexpected discrepancy emerges. In the contents of contextual units dealing with NRMs, the preference for "cult" is only manifest in the period of November, 1978-April, 1979, which is immediately post-Jonestown tragedy.9 Before and after this period there is no clear choice of terms. This is not he case with regard to categorization in headlines. Here the shift from sect to cult is more dramatic and enduring.10 [...]
There was a certain amount of confusion as to which label, "sect" or "cult," was the most appropriate for NRMs in the print media studies. Labeling of NRMs varied from one contextual unit to another and, as Tables 3 and 5 reveal, multiple units (42 in total) referred to NRMs as both "sects" and "cults." These were then used interchangeably, without an explanation of their respective meanings. Somewhat confusing discourses were the result, highlighted by sentences and phrases such as: "A little-known fundamentalist Christian sect, which some theologians believe to be the nation's second largest cult" (a reference to The Way International in the Washington Post, October 13, 1981); "The right to temporarily remove cult members from their sects" (New York Times, May 24, 1981); Amongst the more feared special interest groups, according to cult leaders, are organizations of parents of children in the various religious sects" (Washington Post, December 16, 1978).
Rarely was an attempt made to define these arbitrarily applied concepts, and on the occasions when this did take place, anti-cultist definitions were much more prevalent than social-scientific insights. Furthermore, merely by adopting the concept "cult" as a descriptive category, NRMs were, willingly or not, condemned to occupy a position in the same category of groups that includes the People's Temple, the Manson Family, and other marginal movements which evoke public fear and horror. A great deal of effort has been expended within the social-scientific tradition to unravel the complexities of marginal religious organizations. Unfortunately it seems that the message is somehow totally lost to the majority of those employed by the major print media. Because of the level of professionalism that characterizes the staff of the newspapers and news weeklies in our sample, it can be expected that the situation is even worse among the more local and popular media, as can be deduced from the findings of Bromley et al. (1979). They note, for instance, that most anti-cult oriented stories were printed in small community newspapers.
The failure of the print media to recognize social-scientific efforts in the area of religious movement organizations (as our previous research [van Driel and Richardson, 1985] also shows) impels us to add yet another failing mark to the media report card Weiss (1985) has constructed to assess the media's reporting of the social sciences.
— James T. Richardson, Sociological Analysis 1988, 49, 2:171-183

It was yet another example of ignoring existing scholarship on the topic and instead heading off into OR-land, looking for sources in agreement with privately-held ideas (not that any source was actually cited, mind you). As for external lists being copyrighted, this is just nonsense. We cite the list compiled by the French parliamantary commission in Groups referred to as cults in government documents, e.g., and we cite various such sources in List of films considered the worst. Criterion 1C asked editors to assess the "contextual intention" of foreign-language material, and so forth. You'll pardon me if I excuse myself from this discussion now. Jayen 466 13:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Jayen466 (13:02): "Criteria 1A and 1B,"

Criteria 1A and 1B read:

1. Listing is based on a single academic or government reference, or two media references, to reliable sources,

(A) as a "cult" in North American English; or,

(B) as a "sect" or "cult" in British English only if contextually intended to mean "cult" in North American English; or,

Jayen466 (13:02): ""sect" and "cult" have been used interchangeably in the U.S. media during the past 50 years."

Your generalization is not supported by your quoted citation. Richardson, 1988, says:

"An analysis of the use of these two categories, in both the headlines (Table 2) and body (Table 3) of contextual units, reveals that a shift took place. After an initial preference for "sect," as a descriptive term for NRMs, the print media later chose to embrace the more pejorative term "cult."

...which doesn't support your "used interchangeably in the U.S. media during the past 50 years" generalization. Richardson's results indicated that interchangeable use occurred some, not all of the time:

"Labeling of NRMs varied from one contextual unit to another and, as Tables 3 and 5 reveal, multiple units (42 in total) referred to NRMs as both "sects" and "cults." These were then used interchangeably, without an explanation of their respective meanings."

But you did not quote Richardson's "Tables 3 and 5", so we don't know how many print media units Richardson studied, or what actual percentage of them interchangeably used "sects" and "cults."

Yet most of the print media units did distinguish the difference between "sects" and "cults" in the body of stories, during a specific period of time:

"In the contents of contextual units dealing with NRMs, the preference for "cult" is only manifest in the period of November, 1978-April, 1979, which is immediately post-Jonestown tragedy.9 Before and after this period there is no clear choice of terms."

Compared to the body of stories, in the case of headlines the two words are used distinctly:

"This is not he case with regard to categorization in headlines. Here the shift from sect to cult is more dramatic and enduring.10"

My understanding of Richardson is that the print reporters have been cautious about cult-calling except during the period of outrage following Jonestown, though headline writers have been less cautious about cult-calling. The Jonestown period shows print media clearly know the pejorative difference, but use some degree of deliberate ambiguity to avoid the perception of bias.

The LOGRTAC article is in any case primarily about the c-u-l-t spelling, as and where it appears, but the "sect" word, as and where it appears, only when it intends one of the homonyms of "cult".

Oddly you seem to be using Richardson to edge toward a position that LOGRTAC should add the confusion of North American "sect" to the article, merely because some print media have done so in a way that Richardson seems to oppose.

The Jonestown period suggests that print media want to call cults as "cults", but often call them "sects" instead. There's no inverse suggestion that print media ever wants to call a sect a "cult". That demonstrates a lack of bias – as opposed to Richardson's conclusion that the print media failed to adequately educate the public as to the cult-sect distinction.

Jayen466 (13:02): "It was yet another example of ignoring existing scholarship on the topic and instead heading off into OR-land, looking for sources in agreement with privately-held ideas

This sounds like a canned algorithm that you regularly use to attack text articles. It doesn't make any sense at the LOGRTAC list of links to and quotes of locations where c-u-l-t is found. Links and quotes are never OR.

Jayen466 (13:02): "(not that any source was actually cited, mind you)."

It would not be possible for me to have posted any more prominently on this page, the Melton source for the 1920+ rule criterion, so it looks like you are ignoring sources not in agreement with your privately-held ideas.

Jayen466 (13:02): "Criterion 1C asked editors to assess the "contextual intention" of foreign-language material"

If you are denigrating source-based research, which editors are required to do, take it to the policy Pump.

If you are implying that Criterion 1C is too difficult, well, the world has changed since you got your education. Surprisingly, a determination of the contextual intention of foreign words meaning "cult" is now possible for English-speaking editors to do, using the Yahoo/AltaVista and Google online translation software.

LOGRTAC editors vetted this method 2008-05-02/06, to compare "cult of personality" in English: "cult promoting adulation of a living national leader or public figure, as one encouraged by Stalin to extend his power."[50] to the contextual intention of "kult líchnosti" with an original source in Cyrillic Russian: "a blind reverence for the authority of some figure, the exaltation of the role of a particular person, conferring upon him supernatural qualities and attributing to him definitive influence on social development"[51]. It turns out that "kult líchnosti" has a somewhat different contextual meaning in Russian, because Khrushchev's 1956 "Secret Speech" (On the Personality Cult and its Consequences) was not officially published in Soviet Russia until 1989. As a result, the English phrase (NYT, 1956) carries a Stalinist head-of-state connotation that the Russian phrase carries only covertly or not at all.

You may think that's not much of a difference, and indeed that's the point – that the determination of foreign "cult" contextual intention can have a fine degree of resolution, well within the source-based research capabilities of English Wikipedia editors. Milo 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 (13:02): "As for external lists being copyrighted, this is just nonsense. We cite the list compiled by the French parliamentary commission..."

I don't know if that one is copyrighted, but if understand jossi's list-OR theory, also no public domain government list can copied here unless it has Wikipedia-style header criteria, which I assume the French Report does not.

The nonsense is jossi's WP:COI rewrite of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) in order to get LOGRTAC and similar lists deleted because they list his own belief group. It's nonsense because if actually implemented, it leads to either a risk of copyright violations or to almost no Wikipedia lists at all.

How jossi made all Wikipedia stand-alone lists subject to (his) arbitrary deletion

Here's jossi stealth-adding "reputable sources" within a lot of other text to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). It's hard to see, but that's a prototype trojan guiderule to eliminate Wikipedia lists.

"Reputable sources"? What's that and how are they to be decided?

Find out soon.

Disputed and removed.

Here's Jossi's reverting fingerprints directly on the prototype anti-list guiderule.

Goal to go.

Disputed again.

Another editor brightly steps up and says "let's use the standard" and replaces the off-key-sounding "reputable sources" with, duh, "reliable sources", because well, everyone has heard of reliable sources so that's what the original writer meant.

Yes. Exactly correct, except he wanted your fingerprints on it.

Jossi's hands-off conception is complete. He can now say 'I didn't write that'.

No, jossi just carved an elephant-shaped hole

and waited for a dupe to plug an elephant into it.

So why does requiring header criteria to be found in reliable sources mean either copyright violation risk or no lists at all?

First, just think about it. Have you ever seen a list with header criteria anywhere except Wikipedia? Well, if there is nothing to copy, then what you get is nothing.

Here's how I explained it while replying to jossi at the 6th AfD (Milo 02:08, 23 June 2008):

...

You have a theory which is not based on a plain-text reading of WP:NOR, and implementing it would require a rewriting of WP:NOR to be understandable to most editors.

But suppose that happened, what would be the result? The short answer is copyright violation, since not even public domain lists would be allowed.

(Take that, pesky criteria-less government cult lists!)

Wikipedia editors are currently required to inventively create header criteria for lists, then populate them with entries found in reliable sources. You claim that arbitrary or invented criteria are original research violations of WP:NOR, rather than required source-based research as presently understood.

Invented/arbitrary criteria as original research is your blue-sky personal interpretation of WP:NOR, stretched beyond the breaking point of reason.

Rightly understood, your claim would restrict all Wikipedia lists to conditions so stringent that most old lists would be deleted, and relatively few original new lists could be created, if any. All Wikipedia lists would have to publish inclusion criteria (specifications) copied from lists existing elsewhere. Since very few or no lists publish formal inclusion criteria, I think you would then claim that Wikipedia is too WP:NOR-helpless to have any lists.

Suppose though, that others began to publish formal criteria. Oops, they're copyrighted criteria. Wikipedia is still too helpless to have any lists.

Suppose the criteria were reworded to avoid copyright, but used synonyms to produced substantially the same list output such as existing Top-10 this or that. Oops, top-10 lists are copyrighted, and substantial similarity is copyvio. Did I mention that Wikipedia is too helpless to have any lists?

By reductio ad absurdum ,your theory requires Wikipedia to either supposedly violate WP:NOR (most/all public domain lists), violate copyright of any criteria'd lists, or, have few or no lists.

No lists is a WP:SNOWBALL. It's a done deal – there will be lists at Wikipedia.

If there will be lists, then copyvio consequences are avoidable by following the originality requirement of copyright law: Wikipedia must inventively create header criteria for lists

Do you still think inventively created list criteria violate WP:NOR? Copyright law trumps WP:NOR, and WP:SNOWBALL ('there will be lists') trumps what you think. Milo 02:08, 23 June 2008

Two months ago (LOGRTAC 10:33, 30 April 2008) I did a formal-logic style explanation that some may prefer:

TO BE PROVED: "By logic, editors are required to near-equivalently invent criteria not previously published."

1. Editors are required to publish criteria for list membership.

2. Any attempt to require uniform criteria previously published elsewhere leads to potential list copyright violations, due to identical criteria algorithms and their resulting list outputs.

3. The Wikipedia criteria for list output should contain creative editorial input, to result in creatively different lists than others have published, because creative invention is the basis of copyright.

4. Since editors must publish criteria, yet should not exactly copy criteria, that leaves modifying or inventing criteria.

5. Criteria are created by rulecrafting, meaning that tiny changes in modifying wording can produce huge changes in list output, so modified criteria tend to be unique.

6. The necessary amount of rulecrafting-changes, required in any previously published criteria to produce a creatively different list, is the functional near-equivalent of inventing unique criteria.

Therefore, Wikipedia list criteria must in practice be the invention of Wikipedia editors.

Q.E.D. (Thus it is proved)

Now that the nonsense-on-steroids elephant is in the list room, what to do about it?

Go around and AfD every stand-alone list? Including List of trees? That would be unpopular, and editors would complain about WP:POINT, even though it's "just enforcing the guiderules".

List of events named massacres may be at risk, though List of films considered the worst will probably just ignore the guiderule.

Ah, I see. Since one can get any list deleted with this rule, it will only be used to get rid of any list anybody doesn't like for any arbitrary reason. Specifically it will be used to suppress any future list like List of groups referred to as cults that might list jossi's belief group.

Finally, a foot in the door to establish WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a Wikipedia article requirement – in other words, jossi's "reliable sources list criteria" is a perfect tool for trolls. Milo 13:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse with hearty congrats to the closing admins for their professionalism. "Cult" is never other than an obscure pejorative, regardless of occasional and doomed academic attempts to control popular usage. The article was an opinionated sham. Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a member of a LOGRTAC listed group or its affliates, which means that your low opinion of a reliable source list of references, mostly to mainstream newspapers, is a WP:COI to be appropriately discounted. Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: That response is a textbook ad hominem and should be considered in violation of WP:NPA. If Milo can show that Rumiton is in fact in violation of WP:COI then I will retract this, but his claim is a red herring. Milo feel free to tell us what the applicable part of WP:COI is here.PelleSmith (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See [52] and search the page for "Rumiton" and read all the relevant Arbcom entries (this is a lot of reading). WP:COI: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Milo 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any findings of COI, and the entry in question is not Prem Rawat but a generic list of so labeled cults. What interests is this editor advancing other than his own interpretations, opinions, and beliefs about this subject matter? No offense, but that isn't COI, and you know it. There are more specific guidelines and I'm sure you'll find that none fit the bill. Feel free to retract your commentary anytime. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Prem Rawat group was on the LOGRTAC list. Rumiton denies he has a conflict of interest. However, as part of a persistent triumvirate of PR editors, he is perceived as having a COI. In conflict of interest cases, perception is as important as fact.

Arbcom Prem Rawat#Remedies: 2.1) Editors on Prem Rawat and related articles and pages who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest with respect to these articles are reminded to review and to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on NPOV and conflicts of interest. Passed 8 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008

I would appreciate that you drop the high school speak of "...and you know it." Unlike students, adults are very dissimilar, so one cannot claim to know what they know. Milo 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no finding or even "perception" of COI in relation to Rumiton in the link you provided to Prem Rawat remedies. I also note that these findings pertain to "Prem Rawat and related articles" which do not include any generic cult entries, and it certainly doesn't include this list. In other words COI related to Prem Rawat involvement officially does not to include the entry we are discussing. Again, a complete red herring. I'm done responding to you, but as I said above I will not AGF when you ask for this kind of discrimination. It is entirely inappropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton has an inherent conflict of interest because he's casting a vote that benefits his group by helping to suppress his group's listing at LOGRTAC. Whether that rises to WP:COI is the closing admin's decision. My perception is that it does.

That Rumiton was among a group of editors recently reminded by Arbcom to "comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on ... conflicts of interest" in a parallel case only further fuels my perception of his WP:COI in this case.

PelleSmith (12:02): "involvement officially does not"

That's wikilawyering (attempting to defeat principles by argument of details and technicalities). Milo 23:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. Milo you link to arbcom case remedies implying that these remedies establish COI for Rumiton in the case of List of groups referred to as cults. I point out that not only did they not establish any COI for Rumiton whatsoever in these remedies, but in fact the remedies do not pertain to this or any other general entry on "cults". And you call this "wikilawyering"? Puuleeasse. As if arbcom didn't have every opportunity to extend the COI into cult articles more generally (though again Rumiton is not party to those restrictions in the first place). Those are Jossi's restrictions and they relate to "Prem Rawat and related articles". Maybe you need to look at the related articles once again, cult is not on it, NRM is not on it, Milo's favorite lists of cults ... also not on it. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read again what I actually wrote. What's this, about four times now I've asked you to read again what I wrote? Put my paragraphs in a simple text processor like Notepad and place each sentence on a separate line with a blank line in between. Think about each sentence by itself. Then think about how they relate to each other. Then compare each sentence to what you wrote. Hopefully you will see that I already covered the issue you raised. The key phrase is "in a parallel case".

I use the sentence separation technique when I don't immediately understand a paragraph someone has written. Milo 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, this is not how we debate in Wikipedia. Just think about what you are saying for a moment. If we applied the principle that you are trying to establish here, this would have far-reaching consequences well beyond this present discussion. For example, it would have to be assumed that all Jewish editors have an inherent conflict of interest in articles relating to Israel, Palestine and the Holocaust. If we followed your rationale, their voices would have to be discounted in any and all content disputes touching on these topics. Likewise, all U.S.-based editors would have to be deemed to have a COI in content disputes involving foreign perception of U.S. foreign policies, and so forth. I am sure that this is not really what you are advocating, and you can surely see that it would be unworkable.

(Btw, I participated in the above ArbCom case. Jossi never had any restriction relating to these articles. He voluntarily committed to a self-imposed restriction of only contributing to the articles' talk pages; the ArbCom commended him for that, and added that the restriction was not actually required by COI policy. [53]) Jayen 466 02:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're "shocked, shocked" to discover the massive inherent conflicts of interest in the articles you mentioned. COIs are inherently there, but they have to rise to the level of WP:COI to be actionable. I didn't write WP:COI, so go argue with them. It's also not quite the problem you seem to think. After a while, editors can tell who accepts the neutral point of view principle, and who is trying to subvert an article for their own group's purposes. LOGRTAC has been thoroughly subverted by group members trying to hide an index to their bad press, mostly crimes they've committed. Milo 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say these are POVs, not COIs. Btw, I have recreated List of cults, with a link to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents, which is authoritatively sourced. Bad press or crimes committed by the various groups should be covered in the articles about the groups themselves, which is where our readers would look for that information; LOGRTAC never aspired to being an exhaustive review of bad press à la rickross.com. But I can see your point that some of the articles on the groups themselves may be subject to whitewashing. In the AfD, I suggested creating a List of cult controversies or even List of cult crimes and allegations, where these controversies could be described in detail. The LOGRTAC sources could be used as a starting point. I think this would ultimately serve readers better than a list of names with two random references using the word "cult". Jayen 466 15:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I have recreated List of cults" - bad idea. I have prodded it. It is contentious and against the spirit of the AfD we just finished and which we are validating here. You are welcome to speedy it but I hope we do not have to do an AfD on it. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the PROD. If you review the AfD carefully you'll see that many of the delete comments concerned the "referred to" part of the title, or the choice of criteria for the list. Neither of those objections applies to the redirect that Jayen created. Indeed, there's no reason not to develop a full list with that title, if problems with the old list can be circumvented. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is your right. Please then see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cults. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I can only apologise for starting this AfD in an awkward manner (with a Keep vote), however having read the talk page and had the article on my watchlist for two years I could not see the problems being resolved on a talk page. And so I went for the AfD, having scanned through the previous AfDs it was clear that in four years a strong case had never been made for a Keep, the third AfD came out with 12 Keep votes to no delete votes but the main reason was the quick nomination (AfD 2 finished in July, AfD 3 started in December and most editors seemed annoyed at the nomination). The other four previous AfDs all verged on delete (6K/5D, 17D/16K, 12K/0D, 17K/15D, 14K/14D being the records of all five). There has been a lot of leeway given to let the article address its problems, however this never happened and more problems appeared. I know AfD is not a vote but 23 Deletes to 8 Keeps cannot be anything other than a consensus to delete, and those 23 editors were not all SPAs or cult members. This (final?) AfD was the most debated and well argued and after a 12 month gap there was no reason not to nominate. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand what a consensus means. Wikipedia is not a majority democracy, there are valid reason to keep this article based on policy that are not being addressed or refuted. They are continually being ignored in favour of i don't like its and issues with the content. There is absolutely no reason given that this article cannot be based on reliable sources making a good encyclopedic article. A list article has to be one of the easiest to clean. To suggest that a list article can never be salvage is ridiculous. I cannot find any reason by the portrayal of cults in the media is not notable. --neon white talk 14:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness the previous AfDs had very little argument (in the case of AfD 3 none at all). Four years and five AfDs (complete with a couple with it under another name) have not righted the problems, the article could not be fixed, and that was the consensus among those who argued in the sixth AfD. I certainly would never fall back on to an IDLI argument during an AfD but the leeway given by the closing admins in the previous AfDs had been very generous, and the article could not be fixed. You are not giving any good reason to overturn. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is worse than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Despite the mythology, the article was working smoothly between Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007, preceding the hijack of 1920+ that was intended to make the article stop working. Most LOGRTAC opposers ignore this distressingly inconvenient fact, since of course they would have to admit they were wrong, which Escalation of commitment does not permit.

It appears that article deconstruction has not occurred before at Wikipedia, at least not on such a grand and obvious scale. I'm not convinced that's a defense for gross failure to acknowledge this obvious condition of article space invasion. Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it ever worked all that well. However that period was based, to a degree, on things editors like me somewhat invented to make it work. We based it on a synthesis of real concepts and terminology, but it was always a bit of a weak foundation. I supported it because I like lists and I felt the topic was notable. Still the situation collapsing was somewhat inevitable and the topic is still dealt with on Wikipedia.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony (23:20): "not convinced it ever worked all that well."

(shrug) You can't argue with success. After 1920+ the vast majority of complaints went away, and the centrist editors departed in the quiet. It had been a rather long slog. That left a few unhappy group members, so it wasn't possible to get any more work done – like sorting by legal status and cult-denial-links, both of which would have improved residual fairness issues that had some validity beyond a satisfied NPOV. Milo 00:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can argue with a claim of success that I'm not sure existed. You state that was a period of success and in relative terms I remember it being so. I suppose I'd need to see the history opened to confirm it was actual success rather than relative.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's consense on a relative article success during the 1920+ era.

←My compliments to all the earlier editors for working through what is candidate for a top-10 most difficult-to-write Wikipedia article. This includes a present member of Arbcom.
The article had its origins as a list within the Cult article started in 2001. Circa February of 2004 there was a series of awkward list moves out of Cult, that spawned the Destructive cult text article, and then moved on to Purported cults, which was renamed several times to the present long name (with an initial-letter acronym of "LOGRTAC"). The present name was consensed to avoid Wikipedia either endorsing or disendorsing references to cult-calling attributable to reliable sources. The name stuck because, as a sound byte, if one does not like references, one does not like encyclopedias and should not be editing at this project.
The simple bullet-list of seven List of purported cults (2005-04-16 version) does not look anything like the last 2008-06-22 version of LOGRTAC with highly evolved multi-color click-links, 25 strict academic references, 85 media references, and NPOV information notices about the reliability of academic and media sources.
For those who want to look at the last WP version or save copies of it, here is a link to the Google cache: List of groups referred to as cults - 2008-06-22 version, Google cache. I strongly advise to not repost it without first restoring it to the 1920+ version. To restore it, add the 1920+ criterion: "Groups referenced must not have been named by reliable sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices." to the criterion list as #6, and then simply remove every entry of a group which was founded before 1920, which includes all old religions.
Cairoi (who always had a redlink like I do) was the number one contributor to both article and talk pages. IIRC, on the talk page cairoi wrote 286 posts, while Will Beback and I were about tied for a distant number 2 around 218 each. (Note: using Wikidashboard which tabulates circa the last two years) I thought Cairoi had the most neutral point of view combined with a no-nonsense pro-reporting position, yet he strictly accepted polled consensus with which he didn't necessarily agree. Accordingly, I always deferred to him as lead editor, and no one could replace him when he departed with excellent timing at the peak of relative success.
Will Beback was quiet, succinct and also irreplaceable as a long term article-continuity editor. I wish I had more of his many talents.
An honorable mention should go to early editor Ed Poor. He was a member of Unification who took a strongly questioning position on cult-calling, but he was serious about working with other editors to reach consensus. The good reputations of group members like Ed are gradually moving Unification along the normal path toward a post-cult-referred denomination. Ed is possibly best remembered for his consensus on the all-time most difficult issue of article title. Milo 22:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 10:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a 2008-06-12 List of groups referred to as cults GDFL contributor's list[54]:
Michael A. White, Pronz, ZipaDeeDooDa, DumZiBoT, Jossi, Milomedes, Kozuch, Christoph616, Jclemens, Ramons lo Montalbes, ClueBot, Kodyack, Mamalujo, Really Spooky, Rjwilmsi, David Plum, Charles Matthews, XLinkBot, Denn034, Storm Rider, Pseudomonas, Vina-iwbot, Raspberrywall, Couchbeing, Rumiton, Simschr, Boodlesthecat, Dance With The Devil, User000123, Flatterworld, Aleta, Cuñado, Wowest, ClaudeReigns, Ryancormack, Darrenhusted, WBOSITG, LAPDboy, Zelduh, Byebyeviking, Gimmetrow, GoodDamon, 77night77, Lucasbfr, Boffob, SatyrTN, Benjiboi, SerialVerb, Dale Arnett, Lonewolf BC, Eproletariat, SmackBot, Chocolatepizza, Wjhonson, Europe22, DJBullfish, Cenarium, PhilKnight, Danlev, Koavf, Jmlk17, I AM JOHN SMITH, Landau7, Lobojo, Sfacets, BotMultichill, Arkalochori, Antonrojo, Mee hlp u, EALacey, Dbachmann, Gatorgalen, Yovinedelcielo, AndrewRT, Conrad.Irwin, GirasoleDE, Dudey239, Cirt, SqueakBox, Matthardingu, FyzixFighter, Joseph Solis in Australia, Love-in-ark, Gaius Cornelius, Moon Rising, Docboat, AangelQT, Dylan Lake, Xanthius, Bobo192, Brian0324, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Artnscience, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Drumpler, RookZERO, Legalist, Rashaun, .V., Ichibani, Matty2487, JetLover, Skep91, Quicksetright, DMCer, Pedant17, Flamgirlant, Voidvector, Olaf Stephanos, Rursus, Karuna8, Spacefarer, Joie de Vivre, Smee, StAnselm, Whobillyocean, Túrelio, DumbBOT, Walton One, BatteryIncluded, Darak Soran, Serpent's Choice, Kkrystian, AJackl, VSing, Abronkeeler, GreenMile, Xnuala, Netsnipe, Endlessmike 888, Alison, Jayvdb, J2thawiki, Pat Payne, Cpcheung, Pjacobi, Formercobuslave, DancingMan, Rams 4 life, Berethor222, Menchi, BabyDweezil, Antaeus Feldspar, Xandiar, Tanaats, TalkAbout, Cairoi, InSearchOfTheTruth, Riveros11, Chameleons84, NlynchN, Dementation, RB972, Justinw, Alphachimpbot, Holyghostofgod, DoctorW, Kmarinas86, Name3rd, Harro5, Merman, Dash77, Bookgrrl, Sm1969, Willia, Zondor, Firsfron, Robma, Cholmes75, Dr U, WikiLeon, Hroðulf, TransylvanianKarl, The Diplomat, TurabianNights, TheGunslinger, Monger, Shadowlynk, Lawikitejana, SJK, Dermo69, Roman Nikolaev, T. Anthony, Coffeemaker, JivaGoswami, Xenumaster, Rajah, Bartleby, Davidstrauss, Argyriou, Sam, Fuhghettaboutit, Thiseye, Betacommand, TheEditrix, Sxeptomaniac, MG8992, Stephanie thomas, The Fading Light, Wow3, Neil, Andries, SSS108, Woohoo74, Leflyman, Bryan Derksen, Pegship, Longhair, CapitalR, Crzrussian, Ig0774, J.smith, Punanimal, Robinfoote, Alexandrov, Butko, Tangotango, Geneb1955, Everyking, Quiddity, Neutrality, Jahiegel, Wikipediatrix, SpencerComoli, ESkog, Khalid1402, Hanako, Accuratehistory, Alienus, LaszloWalrus, Jerry Cornelius, Hropt1421, Michaël, Scurmot, Shanekorte, Buckdj, Psy guy, Ugur Basak, Whosasking, Adbatstone, Zappaz, RST Ninja, Scottinglis, Tommstein, Modemac, User2004, Dtobias, Zanimum, Goethean, Nae'blis, Bcorr, JesuXPIPassio, Mailer diablo, Shaddack, Gng11, Gazpacho, DanMS, Kaliz, David Gerard, Jmchuff, Cberlet, BonsaiViking, Enumclaw, David.Monniaux, Jachin, Pgreenfinch, Smjg, Bradeos Graphon, Thryduulf, AI, Ombudsman, Nigredo, Espantajo, Sjakkalle, Hoary, Brer vole, Butsushin, KneeLess, Hawstom, Bovlb, Scottperry, Pspadaro, Bluemoose, JamesMLane, Carlj7, Jnc, MikeX, The"Return"ofJesusIsLove, Ed Poor, Visorstuff, Alai, Stevertigo, LeeHunter, Szyslak, Grammarbot, CesarB, DJ Clayworth, Sdfisher, TomTheHand, Ahoerstemeier, Moncrief, STP, BM, Squiquifox, Greyweather, SlimVirgin, Pakaran, Michael Hardy, FCYTravis, John Brauns, JoeHine, Cool Hand Luke, Mav, Gary D, Hadal, Anton Hein, Ike9898, OneGuy, BoNoMoJo, ExitControl, Art LaPella, Donvinzk, StopCultPropaganda, Kill Bossy, Francs2000, Formeruser-81, Chris Rodgers, Noone, Jiang, P0lyglut, Jason M, Davodd, RickK, Luis Dantas, Rlvaughn, Adam Bishop, Nilmerg, Wik, Branddobbe, Fubar Obfusco, Someone else, Buddhist72802, Efghij, Balanone, Rmhermen, Cyp, Harvester, Rado Vleugel, IKWOWE, Evercat, Bpt, Olivier, MartinHarper, Tannin, Prefect, Wesley, Vicki Rosenzweig, Sodium, James, Damian Yerrick, Malcolm Farmer, Verloren, and Anonymous user(s) of Wikipedia.
Milo 10:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - time to close this per WP:SNOW ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is almost always a bad idea to snow close a contested DRV. This is obviously contested. For a particularly prominent and flagrant example, read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war#Gaillimh's early closure of the deletion review was inappropriate and associated background. GRBerry 13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed Too much discussion still going on to snow this. No need to rush a close. Townlake (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree Almost inappropriate to invoke that.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree as well. This dead horse, unfortunately, needs to be beaten to satisfaction.PelleSmith (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: apart from administrative confusions, the closing administrator explains the deletion primarily on the basis of statistics and perceived trends. I see the actual arguments for deletion in the AfD as generally confusing POV with NPOV, the past with the present, wide consensus with narrow originality, and secondary mention with primary equation. -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant17, I'm a master of English rhetoric, with a considerable grasp of general systems theory below the math level. I don't understand what you just wrote well enough to explain it to someone else, with any certainty that I was correct. Could you please parse out and expand your compressed reasoning in a bullet point list? Milo 23:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 07:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- POV and NPOV: Discussion in the AfD veered between assigning POV to the selection criteria and to the sources used in List of groups referred to as cults. The contention that the wide range of sources and the vastly different attitudes summarized in a single list constituted, all together, a balanced neutral viewpoint got very little airtime and substantially no criticism. One might well wondere, in the wake of the cult wars, whether opposition to the pejorative use of the word "cult" has expanded to include opposition to the dispasionate discussion or presentation of anything containing the "cult" label. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Past and present: any detected trend in voting-patterns or straw-polls like a the multiple AfDs needs to take into account that an article changes over time -- especially articles like List of groups referred to as cults, which gets edited heavily and frequently. Much of the opposition to the article came from viewpoints which may not have cared if the article had retained its post-1920 restriction (thus excluding presenting (say) Christianity as a group labelled as a cult). -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus and originality: repeated claims portrayed the criteria for inclusion in List of groups referred to as cults as WP:OR. Yet the basis for inclusion rested squarely on the most universal consensus of all: popular language use of the term "cult". You can't get more consensual the whole collectivity of the speakers/writers of a language. Yet it still seems easy for people with a relatively clear idea of what "really" constitutes a "cult" to object to the use of the broader interpretation -- even when backed by relaible source. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondary mention and primary sources: some participants in the AfD discussions demonstrated confusion over the identification of primary sources as opposed to secondary (and even tertiary) ones. This misunderstanding gave undue prominence to claims of WP:OR and of WP:SYNTH, as well as to expressed fears of unmaintainability. It also relates to the widespread confusion between "Org X = a cult" and "Source Y associates org X with the label "cult". -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - The closing admin acknowledged that there was no consensus, basing the decision to delete on what s/he saw as a "trend" towards consensus to delete sometime in the future, stating:

"...over time, consensus in each debate seems to be straying from keep and trending closer to delete, I do not feel that closing as "no consensus" will be of any aid except to stave off deletion until the next debate rolls around."

A perception of trend between different AfDs is not part of the deletion policy. At least a rough consensus must be found within the AfD itself, otherwise the default is keep. The closing admin did not find even a rough consensus within this AfD, therefore according to policy it should not have been closed as delete. (For context, this DRV is the first I've seen of the topic; I did not comment in the AfD and have just now read through it.) --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit this is a good point.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "rough consensus" in the context of deletions is defined here. It is not a headcount. Jayen 466 06:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, Jack-A-Roe. You've identified the specific flaw in a close to 'accelerate that WP:IDONTLIKEIT trend'. (And that's separate from the invisible delete-reasons issue.)

Of course you also have to convince the closing admin that this is 'not a vote'.

( "wink, nudge" -- Monte Python)

Milo 07:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as usual, has nothing to do with this. Or are you now also claiming the closing admin just didn't like it? Lets not forget very basic rationale for deletion here, provided clearly by the closing admin and in full regard for our policies: "To put it more succinctly, the arguments being made in favor of deletion are stronger than those made for keeping this material." Consensus is not reached in an AfD by way of a vote, that is indeed correct.PelleSmith (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse because I don't intend to read all of this crap. whether it's relevant or not.. Corvus cornix_talk 02:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tommy Smith (footballer born 1990) – Keep deleted. There is clear consensus that the the ultimate outcome was unambiguously correct, even if the process to get there was not. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have three objections to this deletion.

- He is notable football player, signed a 3-year contract with Ipswich (England Second Division - or whatever they are calling it now) and on was on loan to professional team in Conference National. As such meets requirements of WP:ATHLETE.
- It is unclear to me how the outcome of an AFD process is a speedy delete.
- Shouldn't the closing Admin be neutral on the issue, rather than the person who argues most for deletion? Nfitz (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted Several points here. Firstly on the substantive issue of his notability consensus in the AFD was pretty clear that they did not feel he met WP:ATHLETE. If I had come along to close the AFD based on the arguments there I would have had to close it as delete - both your points were disagreed with by the other contributors to the AFD. I would also note that the AFD had gone the full five days.

On the speedy delete, an article on the same person went through AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Smith (soccer), the deleting admin felt the articles were substantively the same thus meeting the G4 speedy criteria. On comparing the two articles the new one has some sources (the original was unsourced) and has several new facts (under 18 national, under 17 world cup, playing for Stevenage and being on the shortlist for a trophy). Given these difference I think a G4 was probably not correct. Lastly I don't think the deleting admin should have deleted the article himself as he had argued in the AFD, would have better to tag the article for G4 and let someone else do the deletion if he felt it fit the criteria.

So there's a couple of things I disagree with on the deletion but as the article had been fully considered at AFD and there was a consensus to delete cannot support overturning the deletion. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (as closer). I felt that as it was so clear that he fails the notability criteria (i.e. WP:ATHLETE - I have no idea why Nfitz thinks he meets it - he has never played in a fully professional league - the Football Conference is not fully professional) that there was no problem with me deleting the article once I had discovered the previous AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G4. The speedy delete closure doesn't mean that the debate ended that way, it simply means that the article was speedily deleted during the AfD and therefore the AfD doesn't need to be open any longer. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Smith (soccer) is pretty clear as well. Hope this helps. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer endorsing G4, given comments below. My opinion of the speedy was assumption, since most G4's are properly done and I couldn't see the versions. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for convienience added the lonks to the other article GRBerry 13:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it deleted If there hadn't been a new AFD, this would be a clear overturn of the G4 deletion, because the new article was very different from the original. But the new AFD should have been closed, by a different admin, as delete on its own. So I can't say that we should undelete the article. GRBerry 13:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, even though it was technically improper. The closing admin shouldn't have closed this as anything since they commented in the discussion, and I really don't think this should have been a G4...the last discussion was over a year ago. Still, consensus was pretty clear here. I think any admin could have normally closed this as a delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technicalities aside - Smith was on loan last season, and appeared for, a fully professional team, in a league where nearly all of the teams are fully professional. This clearly meets the intent of "fully professional league", and as such WP:ATHLETE has been met. Nfitz (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ?? You've just shown that it doesn't meet the criteria. Most is not all. The Football Conference is not a fully professional league because not all the teams are fully professional. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It probably shouldn't have been deleted as G4 or closed by a participant of the debate, but those problems aside the consensus of the debate was most certainly delete. Shereth 15:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for notability of a football player is laid out at WP:FOOTYN. It makes quite clear that as long as the team itself if fully-professional, that it doesn't matter if there are some other non-professional teams. Why is everyone ignoring this? Nfitz (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FOOTYN was developed by WP:FOOTY but was not accepted by the wider community, so at the moment is meaningless. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The WP:FOOTYN seems far more tailored to football than the generic "fully professional" note in WP:ATHLETE, which is hard to bend to dozens of different sports. Here we have a professional player, who played for a professional team, in a national level league where the majority of the teams are fully-professional. We have a standard that allows this based on the consensus of those who cover the area. Why would we not stand here and say this is the reason that this article shouldn't be deleted? Nfitz (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Number 57 answered the question quite well - WP:FOOTYN is not a document that has undergone community-wide scrutiny and thus cannot be applied to an article in lieu of accepted notability standards. If you feel that it is superior then perhaps you should submit it for review (perhaps at WP:VPR) but in the meantime it is unacceptable as a reason to overturn the deletion. Shereth 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse some other admin should have closed it, but nobody could reasonably have come to any other conclusion about the consensus. DGG (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Had the closing admin been aware of the previous AfD at the time of his first comment, he would have been within his rights to delete the article outright then. On discovery of the other AfD, he was still within his rights to speedy delete the article. No substantial changes were made from the version that stood AfD—specifically, no new claims of notability were made. The speedy deletion was appropriate; the termination of the AfD due to speedy deletion was likewise appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How could a speedy be at all appropriate? The previous AfD was in 2007, and the player at that time had not played on a team that met the WP:FOOTYN criteria. He didn't do that until 2008. Although many argue that he still isn't notable despite now meeting WP:FOOTYN criteria - it clearly doesn't qualify as a speedy any longer. Nfitz (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural objection - I don't have a photographic memory but I'm pretty sure there is a clause under G4 which says something like "an article can be deleted if it is *substantially identical* to a previously deleted article", which here is not the case. in addition an editor who does not spend all of his life reading discussions in WP:FOOTY can surely be forgiven not knowing that the Blue Square Premier is not considered a fully professional league, and really is there any harm in leaving an AfD open for 7 days instead of 3 or whatever happened in this case? ugen64 (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was open for 5 days. Even if a speedy isn't proper (it's not), it'd be a consensus to delete. No need to be wonky. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, I'm generally a deletionist - if you trawl through my deletion log I'm sure you'll find quite a few speedies that were technically against policy but quite obvious. But there are a few rules on Wiki that 99% of people don't seem to understand, and that's the only reason I make such a big deal in every case. It's true, in this case despite G4 being technically invalid the deletion itself was probably valid, but what about the 5,000 other cases in which G4 has been applied in a similarly invalid way? I'm sure quite a few of those were actually encyclopedic articles, deleted only because some admin or other didn't really know the CSD rules. ugen64 (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slap User:Number_57 for closing a discussion he participated in or for dubious CSD#G4 judgement. He should have modified is !vote. Endorse deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I probably deserve that... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 June 2008

Vic Jacobs – Relist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vic Jacobs (2nd nomination). PeterSymonds (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC) –[reply]

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

This page was deleted at AFD yesterday. After all the delete opinions had been made I posted a keep opinion with two new sources which I believe provide significant coverage in reliable sources thus establishing notability per WP:BIO. Notability and WP:BIO were quoted by those who argued for deletion and in my view this addressed their concerns. However nobody commented after I produced those two sources and the AFD was subsequently closed as Delete. I think this decision should be overturned and the article relisted on AFD to allow the sources I produced to be considered. I think it very unlikely that those who argued for deletion saw the sources I added and the closing admin should have at least relisted the AFD to allow more people to consider those sources. Davewild (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total no brainer. Overturn and relist per nom. This is so obvious that I almost just went ahead and did it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist per nom _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The opportunity should be afforded for fuller consideration of the new sources. I would add that it would it have been better if the closing admin had provided reasoning for the close. Smile a While (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. I'm a little surprised that the closer hasn't done this already. HiDrNick! 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. As neither the closer nor anyone else says otherwise. DGG (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Here's another one. Vic's Sports Illustrated biography. Vic's job change is headline news. Another headline for Vic the Brick. JohnABerring27A (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vic's headlines listed at AfD Job move headline, Vic's career bouncing back. JohnABerring27A (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gabriel Murphy – Deletion endorsed, text of most recent version userfied at User:LakeBoater/Gabriel Murphy for improvement and reconsideration later —C.Fred (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

====

This page is clearly notable (as defined by Wikipedia, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable", as it has 16 links to news articles in reliabile, secondary sources that are independent (Kansas City Business Journal, etc.). In the first AfD (even though that article only had 6 sources, here is the link to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriel_Murphy_1st_nom). On the second AfD, the article was nominated not for deletion, but as a redirect and marge into aplus.net (an article that no longer exists). The discussion on the merge and redirect is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_2. Now that the aplus.net article is gone, and given the fact that the article is clearly notable, it should be created. LakeBoater (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn This article clearly establishes notability and should be included in Wikipedia. The first AfD shows a keep, even though that article had much fewer sources than the present article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.132.152 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How are users suppose to comment/vote on this without having the ability to read the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeBoater (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn speedy deletion, restore the redirect. Rationale R1 no longer valid, since~~ the Aplus.Net article now exists again. (I restored it, since it was deleted for an expired WP:PROD.) Redirect should be restored. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a "hangon" to the Gabriel Murphy page today as I was concerned that the speedy tag failed to mention the "Keep" AfD, as had the "delete" AfD (which was linked from the speedy template) - so editors were deprived of the whole story of the article's history at AfD. It is disappointing that an admin decided to proceed with the speedy deletion and then to salt the page without making any apparent effort to address this omission, or to communicate with me, or apparently to communicate with the article's creator (who also was not informed of the speedy tag, until I did so). DuncanHill (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The old "keep" AfD is irrelevant, since it was a prior AfD. The most recent AfD—which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Murphy (while the old is /Gabriel Murphy 1st nom)—had a result of delete. Instead of deleting the page outright, it was turned into a redirect, which is a reasonable outcome. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously been told by an admin that previous XfD's ARE relevant, as establishing a pre-existing consensus which would have to be overturned. I do think that the latest AfD should have mentioned the previous, just as the Speedy template should have included the link to the earlier one (the template does, I believe, have the ability to do this). A redirect may well be appropriate - deletion and salting was not. DuncanHill (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification from the requester. Which deletion is being contested here? There are three:

The closure of the most recent AfD as delete (and redirect to Aplus.Net).
The speedy deletion (G8) of the redirect to Aplus.Net.
The speedy deletion (G4) of the new version of the article.

It's becoming less clear what the requester is trying to accomplish. IMHO, the status quo is achieved, since the Aplus.Net article is back. If the requester is trying to create a new article about Murphy, that's another matter entirely, and not what my comments address. —C.Fred (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The requester (not me) is requesting that the most recent version be restored. I think that is clear from his post at the start of this review. DuncanHill (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm coming to realize. Hence I've removed my !vote until I look at deleted versions some more. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion of article; keep redirect only. Whichever of #1 or #3 off my list applies, I endorse the deletion. (#2 has already been overturned; I recreated the redirect, but that's not really the issue here.) Yes, the previous AfD was omitted in the most recent AfD, but I do not think that's a fatal flaw that would require relisting. I've also reviewed the most recent deleted version of the article, and I do not feel it introduces enough new assertions of notability as to make it different from the old version, so the speedy deletion as recreation of material deleted by XfD still applies. If one of the editors would like that version restored to userspace to work on, I think that's a reasonable accomodation; however, I don't think the article is ready for mainspace yet. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi C.Fred. I was hoping you might withold your vote until the article is re-written. I started re-writing the article from its previous version but it was deleted no sooner than I can start my edits. I just need an opportunity to add to the article and to understand exactly what threashold for inclusion in Wikipedia the article current does not meet.LakeBoater (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution, then, is to restore the most recent version of the article into a user page (i.e., User:LakeBoater/Gabriel Murphy), so you can work on it there until it's finished? —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with that C.Fred. I just want to add to the article (I am assume that is what needs to occur) so that it can/wil be included in Wikipedia. Can you or someone tell me what the criteria for inclusion that the article is not meeting? Thanks for your help. I will have the article completed later and I will message you on your talk page to let you know when it is done.LakeBoater (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As DuncanHill (talk) pointed out, I am trying to restore the article to its previous version. I admit that I am new to Wikipedia, but I am trying to follow the rules of inclusion for the article. As far as I can tell, the only inclusion criteria is notability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N). According to Wikipedia, there are 4 criteria for notabile sources. Without reciting the article, I have a hard time understanding how the previous version of "Gabriel Murphy" does not meet the notability bar for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have asked for clarification on this point without any response. I have additional edits I would like to make to the article with additional sources (The Kansas City Star, BusinessWire, Inc. Magazine) but cannot with the protection in place. I am asking that the article be allowed to be edited/re-written from the most recent version so everyone can then consider whether the article achieves notability (which I think it clearly already does based on its 16 referenced sources). Please let me know if you have any other questions.LakeBoater (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but no, we shouldn't undelete this. The most recent AfD] was clearly delete and was already endorsed on June 2nd. If you'd like to attempt to write a better version, feel free, but I'm afraid that it's been well established that the previous versions shouldn't be here. We can userfy a version for you, if you'd like. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Lifebaka, the previous version that you refer to as the most recently AfD was actually the first AfD and was a much much different version of the article in question (unfortunately I do not think there is a way to verify this). No one can tell me simply what criteria for inclusion in Wikipeida this article fails to meet. Perhaps you can tell me? And yes, I would appreciate being able to add to the article, but I have no idea how userfy works as I am new to Wikipedia.LakeBoater (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication means that an admin will restore the article to your user space (probably at User:LakeBoater/Gabriel Murphy) in order for you to work on the article to make it comply with WP:BIO. Once you have done that you should bring the userfied version back to Deletion Review for that version to be considered. Depending on how improved the article is it would then either be restored to mainspace, sent back to AFD for another discussion or would stay deleted if people felt it had not improved sufficiently. Davewild (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the text has been userfied, I'm closing the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crash of the Titans – Endorse. The close was appropriate, and the discussion does not appear to be going in a firm direction. Relisting would create more discussion with the same direction, and consensus here is to endorse the close. The AfD was not unanimous by any means, but the arguments were strong. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC) – PeterSymonds (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The last comment in the discussion this time was further evidence of an effort to revise the article. On a project without a deadline, we cannot just arbitrarily decide enough time was given. Therefore, I request that you relist or close as "no consensus". Based on the discussion someone other than me was also attempt to revise the article. There is no pressing need to hurry up and delete articles when editors are actively trying to address the nominator's concerns. We should show those editors respect and give them a chance to see what they can do; we aren't so beholden to an AfD deadline, especially when someone new comes along beyond me and is trying to do so. It'd be one thing if I was the only person who argued these articles should be kept or who was trying to improve them. If AfD was a vote and not a discussion, then okay, but if we look at the AfD as a discussion and not a vote, we'll see that while the first few days of the discussion were indeed moving toward a delete consensus, that began to change on June 19th. After I posted indicating that I had revised the article with "Update: Article has been revised during the discussion. Please note nominated version versus current version and that such revisions are still ongoing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)", two editors in a row argued to keep, the next delete was from an account whom I don't believe I have ever seen argue to keep across scores of AfDs and who was sanctioned by ArbCom for controversial edits regarding trying to delete fictional character articles, then another keep argument, etc. In fact, Stormie, who had argued earlier to delete then said, "The "Creation" paragraph would be a quite reasonable one to merge into Crash of the Titans." A Link to the Past who argued with obvious conviction throughout the discussion to delete then said, "I strongly suggest Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles save the Creation section." And the final comment in the AfD was from someone in effect arguing to keep, who like me was actively working to address the others' concerns. So, if we approach the AfD as a discussion and not a vote, then we see that the discussion did start to see some value in the article or at least aspects of the article and that I was at the end of it not alone in trying to save the article. Even some who argued to delete, started to go in "merge" territory, which if we did that per the GFDL (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete), we would restore the article, merge, and redirect, but not keep it deleted. It's not as if I think all game articles are notable. Please note my stances at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog. But in the case of the Titans, I and at least one other were really trying to address others' concerns and at a certain point, editors did start to see some value in these edits and thus what we had was consensus to delete the nominated version of the article, but a shift in consensus once the improvements, which were still ongoing, started to show some promise. I think it significant to note when more than one who argued to delete starts to think maybe we can at least merge some of it now (plus even before then, you did have at least two editors also suggest merging). Even the second to last delete saying "it easily be summed up within any relevant articles" sounds more a case for redirecting than outright deleting. So, again, please consider the change in course in the discussion and how it concludes as where the consensus was. Yes, consensus was to delete the nominated version, but there was no consensus in the end to delete the revised version that was planned to be revised further, especially when some of those who previously argued to delete started to suggest merging or saving some of the new material. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Endorse my own closure. My talk page already has extensive coverage of this closure. Consensus is judged by strength of argument against sources not head count or assertions of improvement. The article has been tagged for sources for months. The article was nominated on the basis that it was unsourced and thereby failed to demonstrate real world notability and, at the end of this discussion, we were still awaiting multiple sources to demonstrate real world notability. All that Le Gran Roi des Citrouilles needs to do to get the article undeleted is demonstrate the multiple sources that will establish real world notability. Bringing t here instead of providing the sources is just further pointy abuse of the DRV process. by this user. Am I the only one getting tired of this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus shifted once the article started being improved. Even two of those who argued to delete then started to say to merge at least some instead. At the end of the discussion sources were being added by myself and another was also working to improve the article. And at that point the new posts were increasingly arguments to keep or merge. Saying "speedy endorse" is just further pointed abuse of responses of the DRV process by the above user. I am indeed getting tired of unreasonableness in closing AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources??? How do you propose to improve the article without sources without engaging in original research? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, the section on creation was sourced with something other than the game or a strategy guide (I suppose it would be easier for any non-admin if you restored the article and I can point directly to the section) and that section especially influenced others in the discussion to suggest a merge at least, i.e. such comments as [55] and [56] by those who had earlier argued to delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok I have restored the last revision and here are the sources provided:

^ (2007) Crash of the Titans Inverview http://hpzr.freeweb7.com/interviewtitans.htm (in English).

Primary source and mostly about the game. Hopeless for establishing real world notability for the titans

^ (2007) Crash of the Titans Interview http://hpzr.freeweb7.com/ (in English).

Ditto

^ Jon Jordan, "Talking Crash of the Titans DS, PSP and GBA with Radical Entertainment: Six gamemakers spill the beans on next Crash Bandicoot," Pocket Gamer (15/8/2007).

Appears to be game review. Limited application for establishing real world notability for the characters.

^ Crash of the Titans The information contained within this page comes from the events that happen within the game.

Self-referential. Hopeless for establishing real world notability.

^ Crash of the Titans "You'd think he was a really fast hedgehog or something." Ratnician.

This made no sense.

^ Michael Pereira, "Crash of the Titans Review," IGN (October 17, 2007).

game review so not going to establish real world notability for the characters

^ Kravenous (2007). Crash of the Titans http://kravenous.deviantart.com/art/Crash-Foxfeather-65332639.

Screen capture or self made image of a character. Hopeless for establishing real world sources.

^ Crash of the Titans Crash: *Babbles* Aku: Oh, him. Yeah. Umm...leave him here, I guess. He seems OK. Yuktopus: *Looks up and grunts* http://youtube.com/watch?v=xPFt6MDFX-w.

My fave - a copyvio of in game footage. Hopeless for establishing real world notability for the characters.

This is really tiring and time wasting. I will always restore any article I deleted if there is proper sourcing for an article. But there is nothing secondary here that does not discuss the characters in a non-trivial way that is incidental to the game and we already have an article on the game don't we?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is a waste of time, then why continue to comment? In any event, why not compromise with those at the end of the discussion and merge and redirect then? I am never opposed to fair compromises? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - admin took a contentious discussion (made more contentious by the carpet-bombing haranguing strategy of LGRC) and made a proper interpretation. And no, the closing admin is not the only one grown weary of LGRC's tactics. Otto4711 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really think such comments help? And if that's the route you want to take, then keep in mind that plenty of editors have grown weary of your persistent incivility: [57], [58],[59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're a scary fellow. How much time did you spend poring through old revisions of my talk page to find all of those? Otto4711 (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Halloween is my favorite holiday... Anyway, though, the thing that gets me with overly defensive "endorse deletion" comments or claims as if starting a deletion review for a discussion that was hardly unanimous are when those making them have no problem challenging admins who closed AfDs as "no consensus" and "keep" and just keep trying to get articles deleted a la Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (2nd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night 12 (2nd nomination). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Admin: please note that the last revision was undeleted for the deletion review. please redelete if the result is to endorse. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as a list I figured sourcing could be left to parent article. And length then comes into play for daughter articles. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I don;t know how it will go, but another discussion would be appropriate, for the improvements at the end of the discussion were not taken into account in the close. Whether they are enough to change the result this time around, I don't know; we have a good way of finding out, though. I don't think it's clear-cut enough to simply overturn. DGG (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, Spartaz correctly interpreted the near-unanimous consensus. And I strongly object to LGRdC's suggestion that my statement that one paragraph of the article was useful content which could be used elsewhere is some sort of change of heart away from my initial delete vote. I stand entirely by my opinion that this article was "pure game guide material with no evidence nor even assertion of real-world notability," and I believe that there is strong precedent that such articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Stormie (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. saving the "Creation" paragraph by no means creates any sort of GFDL entanglement - that entire section was written by you (admins can see it in this deleted edit), it can be (and probably should be) inserted into the Crash of the Titans article and attributed to you. --Stormie (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem there is that I can't do that as I am not an admin and can't see that section. Please note that I had not re-seen the AfD in time after the other editor said I should save it. I only notice that after the AfD was closed and the article deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, closing admin admits to making the decision based on "strength of arguments" rather than assessment of numbers, which in my view invalidates the decision. Everyking (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on Everyking, as such a long-time contributor and former administrator, surely you know that AfD is not a vote, and have read Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." Spartaz did precisely what an administrator is supposed to do in closing an AfD discussion. --Stormie (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of these notions and I have always rejected them completely. You can't evaluate consensus by considering arguments, because consensus reflects the will of a group. Consensus means that people agree. It has nothing to do with who has the better argument per se—weighing arguments is what voters should be doing, not closing admins. Everyking (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What an amazing rational for overturning an AFD close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD was closed in keeping with the spirit and letter of the guidelines. Relisting is not a necessary remedy here, although if an editor would like to take it into his user space to work on it, I would be open to later consideration of whether an improved article is sufficiently different to warrant inclusion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think at a minimum, I would at least request userfication. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The close clearly reflects the consensus demonstrated in the AfD. There's really very little to discuss here. HiDrNick! 11:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot to discuss, because the actual consensus at the end of the discussion was to keep or merge due to the improvements. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Actual consensus" was not based on policy, nor was it even anything close to "actual consensus" even if it was. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The actual consensus was indeed based on policy and was to keep or merge. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nuh-uh! HiDrNick! 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please take these discussions seriously. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Not even close to controversial, nor do the objections make much sense. And no, I don't need or want an instant rebuttal from LGRDC, thankyouverymuch. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's controversial, because the discussion ended with a different consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Controversial ≠ that you didn't get the outcome you wanted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not about the outcome I wanted, it's about where the discussion ended and it ended with an increasing move toward keeping or merging. I see no reason why it would be a problem to as a fair compromise merge the material that two users suggested be merged and then redirect the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

iPod touch Fans – Deletion endorsed, will userfy on request – Davewild (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Community members had created versions of article that were incomplete and were deleted. Article was being reworked using external references and highlighting notable contributions of the site members, and some of this information had already been added immediately before deletion. The site has a larger userbase and is more notable for its contributions than site TUAW for example, which has an entry. Thank you for your time in reviewing this request. Cruelio1998 (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest working on the article in User space until it's complete and fully cited. Are you requesting a restore of the deleted version to your user space? —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion No non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. The PCWorld reference doesn't even mention the forum; the ArsTechnica link mentions it once in regards to the location of a hack post. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, utterly non-notable website. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Be careful of using "other stuff exists" as an argument. I have listed TUAW for speedy deletion. swa q 15:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Donna Upson – Speedy close of the AfD is endorsed – RMHED (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

An admin wrongly closed the latest afd not even 24 hours after it was started. This is just wrong. Overturn closing of latest AfD. GreenJoe 00:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer - the previous AfD had closed hardly 24 hours before this renomination and hardly hours before related discussion had allowed for the article to be restored and reworked. I fail to see how my closing this rapid renomination is any more "wrong" than the rapid renomination itself. Shereth 00:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Given that the 3rd nomination was within 24 hours of the 2nd closing, given the outcome of the 2nd, and given the minimal rationale given for the nomination—with no expansion from the second—the speedy close is warranted. (If anything, it could be argued that the correct closure of the 3rd AfD should have been speedy keep under criterion 2.iv.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (2nd nomination), endorse speedy closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (3rd nomination) as frivolous and disruptive. The merge & redirect to Ottawa municipal election, 2003 is an appropriate course of action for a WP:BLP1E "biography" such as this. --Stormie (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold on - this is only here because someone reverted the merge saying the 2nd afd didn't count in that sense. So the 3rd AFD was entirely justified. I'll be AFDing it, if it's not merged at the end of this process. --Killerofcruft (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother reading the discussion on the talk page? The user in question discussed it with me prior to reverting the merge and I consented to doing so, pursuant to a subsequent discussion. Anyone taking the time to actually read what's going on would have realized this was not an out-of-the-blue action on the part of one editor. Shereth 03:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it is the closing admin's prerogative to revisit a decision. In fact, that's the recommended first line of action (as in, before taking an issue to DRV). What's missing is documentation on the 2nd AfD that it happened. —C.Fred (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, C.Fred. I learned a lot with this AfD. I had been inclined to go to DRV directly, but then read the Deletion Review material and noticed the recommendation. "Why not? No hurry!" I thought, so I dropped a request for reconsideration on Shereth's Talk. He didn't agree at first, but I, again carefully and noting what agreement I could find (which was quite a bit, his decision was a decent one if one did not have all the information and few administrators have the time to do hours of research to become fully informed, I explained the situation in more detail and stated that I wanted to avoid going to Deletion Review, which was true. Big hassle for everyone. I had no idea that GreenJoe would take it so hard. I didn't have any personal attachment to this article, I just happened to be in position at the time. Anyway, it worked. Shereth agreed to a "compromise," which was actually everything I was asking for: essentially considering the AfD to have been No Consensus rather than a binding Merge. Deletion was never really an option for this article, there was too much reliable source. Merge seemed like a good compromise, but was problematic because dumping all the sourced biographical material on Upson on Ottawa municipal election, 2003 was too much for that article, and nobody had consulted the editors of that article, who were not necessarily watching Donna Upson. This process was, for me, a good example of how Wikipedia is supposed to work, by editors seeking consensus.--Abd (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Personally I would have prefered for the 3rd AFD to continue as I think with the new evidence found by Abd it would have ended as a clear keep. However given that the previous AFD only finished 24 hours before I can understand the decision. Lets give the article a bit of time to see how it is improved and then it can be renominated if someone still feels it is required. Davewild (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The 3rd AfD was clearly premature. There was no point in further discussion at this time. I think, ever, but Shereth was correct that those who oppose keeping this article should eventually have their opportunity to continue tilting at windmills. Yes, I, likewise, would have preferred a clear Keep close, but it seems we might have that already, in fact if not technically. --Abd (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, repeated nominations in such close succession strain my assumption that there is a good reason for them. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Renominating an article barely 24 hours after a no-consensus closure of the previous nomination, without expanding on the nomination rationale at all, is never appropriate in the first place — and especially not when people have explicitly indicated on the article's talk page that they're currently researching to see if additional sources can be found. If you want to renominate after a no-consensus result, you need to provide a stronger rationale rather than simply copying and pasting the same deletion rationale you used the previous time, and a cooling-off period is generally a good idea too. WP:POINT pertains here. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GreenJoe retired in disgust over this, after edit warring with Shereth over the 3rd AfD and notices to the article, with a comment that indicated very strong attachment to deleting the article no matter what. Meanwhile, I did start to improve the article; help will be appreciated. I have a list of sources at User:Abd/Donna Upson; many of them are just a sentence or two from articles that would contain much more information if the whole article could be read: perhaps some of our Canadian users would have access to content or to libraries with full text. (Some of what I have on that user page are not, in themselves, reliable sources, but quote reliable sources, so they have been quite useful in finding such. Lots of links are dead, because once-public content has become pay content.) I think that many earlier Delete voters assumed that there wasn't more RS; in fact, there is plenty of it. --Abd (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please apply WP:AGF here - GreenJoe did not engage in an edit war, he reverted the closure a single time. It is also probably best not to try and characterize his motives for trying to get the article deleted. Cheers, Shereth 21:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respectfully disagree. I haven't stated his motive here, but it's apparent from his parting comment, [81]. As to edit warring, a single revert, in the context, is arguably edit warring, and is sometimes treated so, particularly when done without discussion. With [82], GreenJoe reverted Shereth's speedy closure of WP:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (3rd nomination) (the topic of this Deletion Review). The key is that it was done without discussion. And that was generally true of GreenJoe's contentious actions; there was little or no discussion, and the edits were accompanied by cryptic edit summaries, not uncommonly uncivil, see:[83] where he reverts my unblanking of Donna Upson pursuant to agreement found with the closing administrator for WP:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (2nd nomination) with the edit summary of "rvv." I.e., "reverted vandalism," and then, finally, he does reply in Talk (everything I was doing had been explained in Talk), with [84]. The edit summary for this was "reply to moron," and the edit content was "SHE IS NOT NOTABLE." In fact, the AfD had decided on Merge, and no AfD for this woman ever concluded she was not notable, the only real question was whether or not she was sufficiently notable for her own article ("Keep") or only for mention in Ottawa municipal election, 2003. (To be fair, GreenJoe then reverted his reblanking of the article to restore it and add the new AfD notice to it.)

My interest in this is primarily how a long-time editor like GreenJoe could end up being so ... what would you call it? What leads an editor to essentially flame out like that? I'd say he was isolated, he didn't have a community aware of what he was doing, people he trusted, who would have been able to counsel him that he was losing it, and perhaps encourage him to relax. I wrote a review of what had happened with him that I put on his Talk page after his "retirement," he reverted it (which is certainly his right) with the summary "Violated rules" which is iffy but still not a big problem in itself. I put it on my own Talk if anyone is interested: [85]. He was burning out, he'd acknowledged the stress at one point.

Shereth, I know you are attempting to be as even-handed as possible with this, which is noble particularly considering how GreenJoe responded to you, but you did warn him that if he repeated his action (that is, reverted you again), it would be considered "a disruptive edit," and the difference between this and "edit warring" is academic. All this has only a little to do with this Deletion Review, and it would have even less to do with it if continued, so I don't plan to reply again here. If someone thinks my behavior improper, by all means, warn me on my Talk page. I take warnings seriously, always. Doesn't mean that I always comply, but I don't lightly disregard the opinions of other editors. Meanwhile, is that snow I notice falling here? Is there a reason to keep this open? The nominator retired, never did give a good reason to overturn, and nobody else has !voted to overturn a clearly decent decision that doesn't prejudice future AfDs. --Abd (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 June 2008

Italian Argentine – restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 04:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why was this page deleted? This page was about one of the biggest ethnic groups in Argentina. There are about a million people of Italian descent in Argentina, and they make up about 50% of the country. Why was a notable community in Argentina was deleted. This is an outrage! If Italian Argentine was deleted, so should Italian American, Italian Brazilian, and Italian Australian. And also, there was never any reason or explanation on why this article was deleted. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_4#Redirects_created_by_a_blocked_user_.E2.86.92_various. There was nothing there but a redirect, and the redirect was created by a banned user, therefore the deletion was within proper procedure. If you want to create a sourced article about the subject, then go ahead, but there was nothing there to undelete to. Corvus cornix_talk 23:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, it was deleted. The original article that I created is gone. The original article was called Italian settlement in Argentina, later on the name was changed to Italian Argentine. Both pages are deleted. And the article was sourced, and two other users contributed on that page, but now our work is gone. This is why I am angry. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article because it was listed under the batch of created redirects that were group-nommed in the debate corvus points to. The sheer number of redirects to be deleted there meant I couldn't scrutinize and poke around at every single one. Since there appears to be other content in this article that apparently none of the people that discussed this redirect caught, I'll look at this in more detail, it may have been a gaffe at my part. Wizardman 00:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close this DRV. There was an article present, and as a result it should not have been in that RfD batch. I have restored the article. Wizardman 00:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sandbox (video games) – No deletion to review, discuss on the talk page first then use dispute resolution if necessary – Davewild (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't really want to make a big deal out of this or show any animosity, but User:Randomran circumverted deletion policy by removing nearly all the content while merging with another article. With the design of merging (with Linearity (video games)), he deleted nearly the entire text of the article. While I don't have a particular problem with the merger, per say, I think the deletion of all the content was rash and reckless. I think a warning from an administrator would be useful. SharkD (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute and there's nothing for DRV to do here. Corvus cornix_talk 23:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought this would be a rather appropriate place to discuss issues regarding article deletions in general. Where would the right place to make my complaints known be? SharkD (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion occurred. Whatever information you feel should be merged is still visible in the history of this page. What content should make it into the target article is a subject for the consensus of the editors of that article, guided by policies and guidelines. Merges are not deletions. GRBerry 04:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close no deletion occurred to review. GRBerry 04:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barcelona (band) – Overturn deletion of first version in history. Endorse latter deletions of likely copyright violations of a different subject. No prejudice against nomination at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

CSD A7 The page for the band Barcelona was deleted for some reason. Barcelona has had three albums released internationally, have had all three of their records reviewed by Pitchfork Media, have a bio in All Music Guide, made the CMJ college charts, and have their music available on iTunes, Amazon and eusic, yet the page was deleted because the article did not "assert notability". If the page is undeleted, I would be happy to edit the page so that it links to these reviews, establishing that they are very much notable.

Boy that reads like it was copied from somewhere. It's also not an encyclopedia article and references specific time periods. It would be best if it were rewritten from scratch. Corvus cornix_talk 23:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted three times in one day; the second and third smell like copyright violations. The first looks somewhat better, but appears to be a legitimate A7. I recommend rewriting according to the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 04:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the deleted versions were anything like what's in the cache, I'm going to have to suggest we overturn one of them. Down in the Discography section there's a subsection titled "Featured In", which says:
Several Barcelona tracks including Everything Makes Me Think about Sex and Studio Hair Gel are featured in Todd Stephens' 2006 film Another Gay Movie.
This, while not stellar, is enough of an assertion of importance for me to want a larger forum before deletion. Most likely listing at AfD after undeletion would be appropriate. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted now a fourth time; the fourth is equivalent to the second and third. You are viewing the cached version of the first; that article had hung around for a couple years. I wouldn't object if that version was sent to AFD, but leave the newer versions deleted, they are definitely inferior and smell like a copyright violation.. GRBerry 00:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are two different bands named "Barcelona" appearing in the history of this article. A rock band from Seattle who have released one album, Absolutes, are the subject of the more recently deleted revisions that nobody is particularly impressed by. Then there is a new wave band from Washington DC with several albums and the songs in the film Another Gay Movie, who were the subject of the revision deleted first. See [86] for the most recent piece on them, if you're an admin. I don't think they quite meet WP:MUSIC but you could certainly argue that this article deserved an AfD discussion. --Stormie (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Colin James – Restored. Accidently speedy deleted after article was reduced to an unacceptable stub by a vandal. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Given indication of numerous albums (with articles) and awards (e.g. Juno Award) for this musician, a speedy deletion of this article was an error, to say the least. Dl2000 (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Keeper76, the page was just restored a few minutes ago. Dl2000 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted version said "A high school student in minnesota who loves his dinner. Also enjoys long walks on the beach." It appears this had been vandalised into an unacceptable stub. Kudos to Keeper76 for fixing it and a small trout for the deleting admin and the speedy nominator for not checking the article history. All is now well with Colin James. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 21 June 2008 (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 Dragon Quest VIII characters – Deletion endorsed – —Cryptic 00:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per reasons indicated to deleting admin; also note that a number of those who initially said to delete did so before substantial revisions, but never re-commented in the discussion and some of the others I don't believe I have ever seen argue to keep (by contrast, I have even nominated to delete articles). Those editors who are relatively neutral (those whom I have seen argue both to keep and to delete articles), like Masem and DGG, argued to keep. Even some of those whom I more frequently see arguing to delete (A Man in Black and TTN) had merge suggestions in their posts, which if we did per the GFDL, would result in keeping the article's contribution history public and redirecting. My biggest concern though is that the revisions to the article in the attempt to address the concerns were not finished (for example, I hoped to move the article to Dragon Quest VIII characters and redirect List of Dragon Quest VIII characters to their in order to increase the more prose elements of the article. Per the concept of Wikipedia talk:Postponed deletion, which apparently some others in the AfD support, I think the five day thing is premature in this case. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close as Endorse. This nomination comes down to either AFD2 or that you don't like the outcome. DRV is for where there is a substantive issue with the discussion. Arguing for more time when most of the editors who came late to the discussion voted delete it just perverse. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It comes down to those coming late to the discussion always "voting" to delete these kinds of articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment but of course one brings something to DRV when one doesn't likethe outcome. few people bring one when they do like the outcome. And when an article was deleted, this is the first step in getting DRV2. Deletion process is not symmetrical--after a keep one can nominate until it gets deleted, but one cant go the other way round. Hm.... maybe we need a rule that a delete can automatically be reopened on request after 6 months like a keep can, just to see if consensus has changed. Or else require DRV before bringing a second AfD after a keep decision. DGG (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rightly we discourage editors from bringing stuff here because they don't like the outcome. We usually expect them to have a valid reason to explain why the outcome of the original deletion discussion should be discarded. A valid reason hasn't been provided and Le Grand Roi should, after all this time, know better then that. To argue that they had improved the article when even the late entrants to the discussion were voting delete is clearly unsustainable, disruptive and time-wasting. We give newbies a lot of slack but experienced editors should show more respect to other editor's time rather then creating groundless DRVs like this one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A valid reason hasn't been provided to delete the article and experienced editors should show more respect to other editor's time rather than creating groundless AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The nomination statement said This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the character and plot sections of Dragon Quest VIII; it is therefore duplicative and should be deleted . This is firmly based in policy and grounded in precedent for previous deletions so your comment is, well, totally untrue. Please do not insult my intelligence by making nonsense statements like this that can easily be disproved by as little as 5 seconds checking. That's what is really disrespectful here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - My comment is totally true, because reliable sources and assertions of notability were added. Please do not insult my intelligence by making nonsense statements that can easily be disproved by as little as 5 seconds of ehcking. That' is what is really disrespectful here. The assertion of notability is that unlike the overwhelming majority of video games characters, these characters were also made into action figurs and thus we have sources for both the toys and the video games, which is notable compared to the overwhelming majority of video game characters who don't also appear in other media. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You just don't get it do you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What do you then make of ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional buildings, which turned out to have been nominated by a now banned user who was operating multiple socks and evaded these blocks by returning as yet another account after being banned only to be ideffed again? Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinnok's amulet, where there were just as many arguments to keep, reliable sources actually do exist, and the last comment in the discussion was a note that the relevant wiki-project who may have been able to add such sources were notified long into the discussion? Two people arguing to delete something can somehow justify deletion under such circumstances? In that case you say it shouldn't be delayed, but delaying it could have resulted in the concerns being addressed, i.e. revising it into a clearly encyclopedic article. Why would we not want to allow editors to do so when they reasonably believe they can? If we don't, as in the project as a whole, have a deadline, isn't it not really respectful to not allow editors to have more than a mere five days when they are clearly making serious attempts to address the various concerns or even when some arguing to delete have merge suggestions within their statements? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Nakon correctly closed the debate as delete and this is not a second bite at the cherry, no matter how much mud is slung in my direction on the deleting admin's talk page. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, since you don't actually show anything wrong with either the process or the result. Meta-commenting on the people involved in the discussion and your observations on their commenting tendencies is completely irrelevant, and seems rather bizarre. We don't place more or less value on people's comments because of who made them, only the content itself matters. If you or anyone else wants to fix the problems identified in the discussion, just ask an admin to userfy it for you. - Bobet 17:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the process is that it was closed while revisions were taking place to address the nominator's concerns. It does matter if those commenting have an uncompromising bias and singular purpose with regards to AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That could be a valid argument to relist or overturn an AFD except that users were still supporting deletion after the improvements. Therefore it isn't Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is why it's a problem as indicated, because several of those in the discussion have said elsewhere they will never argue to keep in AfDs or that their whole purpose is to delete articles. I and others who argued to keep in that disucssion, by contrast, have argued to delete elsewhere. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Conensus is what the entire community of editors forms as a consensus; not just the subset that agrees with you. Badlydrawnjeff, who formerly was a DRV regular who opined to overturn some 90%+ of the time he spoke up was still selective about when he spoke up. Those you want disregarded because they "always" opine for deletion are also selective about which articles they opine on it. You need to find a compromise or agreement with them - which will probably be when you come to accept the community norms published in existing policies and guidelines that are the basis for their opinions. Tilting at windmills is permitted, but not very comfortable. Don't expect to actually get anywhere unless you change your strategy and tactics. There are reasons behind the community consensus guidelines; until you understand those reasons you'll have no luck getting other editors to agree there should be a change. GRBerry 20:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem with accounts who approach AfDs as only to argue delete is that it doesn't matter how many improvements one makes to the article in question and so it's not really a discussion when someone comes to it determined to argue to delete at all costs, even when the article has been improved. It's not as if I think all game articles are notable. Please note my stances at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog. And if I can argue to delete, surely some of these others can also argue to keep at least occasionally? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion closure; that was the only possible closure of that AFD. GRBerry 22:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The other possibility would be "no consensus". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close per GRBerry; given the AFD, any other result would be outrageous. HiDrNick! 11:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would not be outrageous to close as "no consensus" when six editors argued to keep and another argued to merge and when the process of revising the article was still ongoing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Consensus was interpreted correctly according to our current policies and guidelines. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Make way for ducklings statue.jpg – restored and tags updated – GRBerry 04:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image previously deleted at Commons for being a reproduction of a copyrighted statue. Image was kept here at en.wiki due to fair use. Someone re-uploaded it at Commons and the local version was deleted. Image should be restored here because the Commons version will be deleted. -Nard 01:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, possibly speedily. This won't survive at Commons, and was deleted here solely because there is an identical image at commons. GRBerry 03:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and undeleted as this is clearly uncontroversial. Nardman you need to fix the tags on it though. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thank you. -Nard 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 June 2008

Gabrielles Wish – restored by deleting admin and {{prod}}'ed – GRBerry 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I removed the speedy tag. Having released 2 EPs and 3 albums is a claim of notability. I'm not saying they are notable, but I removed a speedy tag that had been placed on the article because I figured that there was, at least, a claim of notability there. Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good case of snowballing. The claims as made have no chance of passing WP:BAND. enochlau (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't snow CSDs. There is a clear assertion of producing 3 studio albums which would meet WP:MUSIC if there were released by a mainstream publisher. This clearly needs a discussion and the possibility of some sources appearing. Overturn & List Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it and prod-ed it. The publisher in question does not appear to be "mainstream". enochlau (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacki-O – Restored as a contested prod – Davewild (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contesting prod. For whatever reason, nobody bothered to check the US charts before deleting this; she hit #95 with her album. [87] Chubbles (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Asudem – Deletion endorsed – Davewild (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

very fast deletion after a apeedy for the first time. the movie is IMHO notable IMDB.COM ... Sure it was bad written, but I've got no time to copyedit something ;-) please consider to undelete it. Thx Sebastian scha. (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the closure of the AfD. The AfD was pretty clearcut here, and while I can't see the G4 they (generally) are pretty well handled. The proper solution would most likely be to write up a draft in your userspace (at, say, User:Sebastian scha./Asudem) and make sure that it doesn't have the same failings that the AfD'd version did, then ask some experienced editors of it's ready to be moved into mainspace. We can have the content userfied for you if you want a starting point. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the speedy deletion was not out of the blue as the article had been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asudem and deleted per consensus the day before, the recreated version was not much different and still without third party refs. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, AfD consensus was crystal clear. No new evidence being presented here to support undeletion of this article. I'll second the idea that the author may want to make a version in userspace for review prior to trying to get this back out into article space. Shereth 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note It's not my article. I just wanted to coedit a little bit and as I tried to save it, the 2nd deletion happened ;-). But if it is so dificult to undelete it, just let it be. Thanks for your help. Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Sorry but source it or lose it comes to mind. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joel Widzer – Article restored by deleting admin – Davewild (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am the speedily-deleting administrator - I deleted it for advertising. There has been a lot of tendentious editing on this page and there is some objection to the deletion saying it was not advertising. I feel it was, but I'd like others to review my actions. Please note that this article has been previously deleted at AfD as well as speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7. Toddst1 (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I and other creators of this page have worked hard to make it a valuable piece for Wikipedia. I have looked at other bio sites and try to use the format and editing they have used. This seems to be ok until an editor comes along and changes everything. We have worked hard with editors to remove advertising and to make it read within specs. This article contains factual information that has been verifiable. It was deleted and then reword with all the suggestions of editors. It is not the intent to make a ad but to provide noteworthy information about an important American travel writer. I believe that it was deleted today because there was an editing war between an contributor and editor and of course the editor won out. Please help to improve and restore this page.reagan (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

below read a discussion demonstrating why the page was undeleted. Once more those working on this page have tried to make it fair and non-promotional. Thank you [edit] Widzer Widzer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log) Notability is questioned.... - Philippe | Talk 05:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep This guy seems to be notable per USA Today and a number of other sources. Article may not be NPOV and needs improvement but the guy is notable. --Hdt83 Chat 05:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Keep. This article does nothing but assert notability through the mentioning of coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Someguy1221 05:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC) I see mention of outlets that have "interviewed" him, but.... I'm not sure that's real notability. Is everyone who's interviewed notable? - Philippe | Talk 06:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Comment.I think the key here is having been interviewed by multiple sources. This shows that he is considered notable enough by said sources that more than one person wants to talk to him. Someguy1221 06:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Comment. This is a blatant promo piece the way it's written. It also needs to be blanked per WP:CP pending confirmation of the author's authority to use the text on the subject's website. So if you want to see it for this AfD, look in the history. -- But|seriously|folks 06:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Keep but rewrite as a cited stub. We don't need his PR blurb, which doesn't really even focus on his being a "travel expert". --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Keep the man seems notable because of his media appearances and coverage in USA Today. However the article needs a major re-write (based on the last archived version before the temporary blanking). Pats Sox Princess 13:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reagan (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: I am restoring this article per request from kingturtle Toddst1 (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 June 2008

Joel Widzer – Has already been restored be deleting admin (see 20 June log) – Davewild (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Greetings please help with the Joel Widzer page. It was deleted for being similar to advertising. I and other creators of this page have worked hard to make it a valuable piece for Wikipedia. I have looked at other bio sites and try to use the format and editing they have used. This seems to be ok until an editor comes along and changes everything. I mean gosh, what can be done here. BTW I am not J Widzer, I know him and admire his work, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagan0005 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Image:Dumbledore_and_voldermort.jpg – Deletion is endorsed. Yes, Wikipedia's non-free content criteria are restrictive and narrow. That's deliberate: Exemption Doctrine Polices "must be minimal". – Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The dispute here is mainly predicated on WP:NFCC#8 -- does including a representative screenshot in a video game article qualify as a substantially purposeful use? I think it does -- it illustrates the graphical style of the game, which is a very significant aspect that's difficult to describe in natural language, and provides a bit of insight into the game mechanics. Theoretically anything can be communicated in prose, but prose cannot convey certain information in simple and succinct terms -- consider blend modes, cell shading, and saturation contrast as pertinent examples.

Some comments on the IfD observed that the images were not referenced in the body of the article. This is true. It's not that the images aren't connected to the article; it's just that the connection is intuitive in this case and thus needs no explaining. When readers see a screenshot, they generally understand its significance immediately; an explicit statement of the connection would be superfluous.

WP:NFCC#3a (minimal usage) was also brought up. Originally Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (video game) contained two screenshots, in violation of WP:NFCC#3a, but now both have been deleted. (The box art is still there, but it lacks any resemblance to the in-game visual output, hence their purposes are largely distinct.) I would like to see one of the two screenshots restored so that readers may gain a clearer understanding of what the game is like.

I discussed this with the closer (User:WilyD) but our disagreement over WP:NFCC#8 seem irresoluble, hence I think wider discussion is warranted. {{Non-free game screenshot}} has 9,034 transclusions, and while a handful of these images are the subjects of important commentary, the large majority are used just as this one was -- to illustrate the graphical style of a video game and perhaps provide a bit of insight into its mechanics. It would be nice if we had a clearer precedent to guide us, so that we know what to do with the other ~9,000. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore I think this makes a good case for justified fir use. Verbal description of this tends to be inadequate, and academic discussion of games always uses screen shots. DGG (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll explain the closure. The article contains exactly zero description of the visual style of the game. Bear in mind the images had the captions "Hogwarts is a huge castle just waiting to be explored" and "Dumbledore locked in combat with Lord Voldemort"; the importance of this second plot point occupies exactly zero words. All three unfree images are used entirely and solely for the purpose of identification of the product, that's it. None were actually used for identification or discussion of the visual style. While I don't disagree that an article on this subject could justify the use of all three images under the NFCC, this article simply cannot. Wily D 04:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Deletion review is not for rehashing the arguments of the IfD. Closure was done appropriately and based on a responsibly weighted assessment of the arguments brought forward in the discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arguement is that some comments from the IfD should've been given more weight, which is perfectly acceptable at DRV. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There's something of an impracticable burden here. On the one hand the deletion process is supposed to be about argumentative merit, so many would opine that me pointing out the divisiveness of the IfD would not constitute a proper DRV argument. (I'm hesitant to use the rhetoric of "no consensus", as some editors like to interpret "consensus" is very nonliteral ways.) On the other hand, this isn't supposed to be XfD number two, so we're not supposed to continue with standard keep/delete argumentation. Unfortunately, there's not much in between. Some like to say that DRV should focus on whether an XfD outcome was consistent with policy, but interpreting policy is essentially what XfD is about (these days, at least), so under that doctrine we still an "XfD take 2". In any case, if you prefer the consensus-interpretation paradigm, it's pretty clear that no consensus for either side emerged in the IfD; hence I chose to go the other route in hopes of satisfying both. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, though I perfectly agree with WilyD here. I think an easier fix would've been to change the caption on the image in question to reflect that it is a major plot point rather than deleting it. The deletion of the other image in the IfD seems perfectly reasonable from where I stand. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. DRV is for explaining and dealing with mistakes in the process of the deletion, not advancing new (or repeating old) arguments about why a page should not be deleted. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - discussion was correctly closed. Agree with Stifle, the purpose of deletion review is dealing with a situation where the the closing admin has made a mistake, not a second round of the deletion discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If DRV were for fixing unambiguous mistakes, the system would be wholly unnecessary; admin talk pages are good for that. If DRV is for correcting improper but controvertible decisions, unfortunately that's not possible to do without either discussing consensus (or lack thereof) or commenting on the merits of XfD arguments. Again: if you prefer the consensus interpretation route, the result is an obvious overturn; if you prefer a substantive analysis of argumentative merit, I invite you to join in on the above discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore The basis for the deletion conclusion was "All three unfree images in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (video game) are being used for identification, which does fail NFCC 3a & 8;" Restoring this one image will not violate the "three unfree images" reason for deletion. Restoring all three image would, but restoring this one image will not. Also, enough justification has been posted between the first deletion and this review to demonstrate the image meets image requirements. JohnABerring27A (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the three images so used remains undeleted and present in the article for the purpose of identifying the game. See Image:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Coverart.jpg. Is it your contention that two but not three is reasonable? Wily D 21:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The_Prelude_(band) – Deletion under WP:CSD#G11 is endorsed. As GRBerry so right says, "[t]here is no prejudice against attempting to write a neutral article from independent and reliable sources, preferrably in accordance with the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi there, I ask that you re-install the page for The Prelude (band) since it is a page about an upcoming music band, which I had just created and placed the "work in progress" tag at the top of. It was deleted as blatant advertising, however this is totally unfair, I had a very good look at articles about other bands, and to be honest it is no more advertising than other pages such as The_Paddingtons, or The_Others_(band), or Guillemots, or Alexis_Blue or just about 97% of the bands that one finds in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_indie_rock_groups or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_musical_groups or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_from_London or any other category in the music/band-related pages that appear on wikipedia.

Thanks. I left a message on the Talk page of the admin who deleted it yesterday, and although he has updated his talk page, he has totally ignored my request, not even to say that he is still of the same mind. I had started collating documented sources and had already put them in there, in fact the band appears to meet criterion 4 of the WP:MUSIC notability guideline "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." - but the page was deleted nonetheless, within 2 hours (I was travelling from work at the time). As I had put in my request to hold on for speedy deletion, furthermore, it IS true that if you look at the results of a search on google for "prelude liverpool" you get 5 pages of hits since the band are becoming extremely popular, have recently been praised by the music press on both sides of the pond, and more reasons of the sort http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=prelude+liverpool&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Springfling (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)— Springfling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Endorse - this was a deletion for blatant advertising, not notability. To quote just one spammy clause, "The Prelude have shaken audiences up and down the country with their unique brew of classic song-writing and good time rock and roll." I rest my case. It is possible that the band is notable, but this is press-agent puffery of the most obnoxious sort. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if this is not the correct format for answering this endorsement, I am not a wikipedia expert (yet?) - I accept your concern, however I was working on the page, and if it had not been deleted before 5 pm UK time I would have done it that very evening - inserted complete discography, removed any promo blurb and such like - as it were, I had put the tag for "work in progress" since I had only had time to insert some links and start formatting the page, so that it would not be deleted for notability reasons. Therefore, if the page were restored, I would DELETE all advert-style talk from the page and just stick to facts and links to articles etc.

Thanks. 83.67.89.26 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse As a WP:CSD#G11 this is clearly appropriate. As an A7 it wouldn't have been. There is no prejudice against attempting to write a neutral article from independent and reliable sources, preferrably in accordance with the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 00:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn G11 requires an entirely promotional purpose and the lack of any possibility of readily rewriting the article. I've just looked at it: it was a really spammy article--but the spam was in the initial section and the rest was descriptive. it should just have bee edited. DGG (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- comment perhaps I'm oversensitive, DGG, but the same claim is made about almost all G11 deletions. It's not like I salted the ground after the G11! A non-spam article could be created and stand or fall on its own merits, albeit perhaps someone other than the original editor should do it. I'm just unhappy about restoring something this promotional at the request of an s.p.a. and an IP (if those are not the same person). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per WP:CSD#G11. Eusebeus (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G11 (but not an A7). Suggest that the lister writes a new article and refers to WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Could be written better using sources like http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2005/10/28/summersessions_theprelude_feature.shtml --Faith (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yomin Postelnik – Deletion endorsed – RMHED (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable conservative columnist, was subject of a very targeted campaign wrought with unfounded accusations. Many wrote in to say that subject had shown notability. Was arbitrarily held to higher scrutiny than any wp:bio stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.8.66 (talk • contribs)

Endorse as closer - when you discount the IP edits (likely either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry) everyone agreed that this did not meet inclusion criteria. Even if you don't outright discount the keep (do not delete) !votes, each and every one was based either in trying to discredit the other editors as having some kind of conflict of interest (ie. accusing them of being leftists or some such), or insinuating that the deletion as something to do with a larger plot. Shades of a conspiracy theory going on here. In any case, it was pretty clear to me that the arguments based in policy clearly favored deleting. Shereth 21:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were several independent editors who voted that notability was established and kept their discussion strictly to deletion criteria, see especially ukexpat. Much of the irrelevant conspiracy theories were expressed regarding a contributer to the discuss who did not favor deletion.

Several independent editors who, coincidentally enough, had never edited Wikipedia prior to the deletion debate and whose subsequent contributions (if any) have been limited to the debate and its fallout. Pretty clearly an instance of attempting to "stack the vote" so to speak, even though we don't vote - we discuss. Shereth 14:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse clear consensus among established editors that the article failed the notability guidelines. Closer correctly ignored spa accounts and arguments not based on policy. Davewild (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). No evidence was presented either in the AfD or the article which convinced that community that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted [{WP:BIO|inclusion criteria for biographies]]. Nor has any new evidence been presented here. I find no evidence that the standards were inappropriately applied in this case. (There are other biographies on Wikipedia which also do not meet WP:BIO but the correct action is to clean them up, not to perpetuate the problem.) Rossami (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has well over 4,000 google hits, which was misrepresented as 188, and was covered by Canada Free Press, featured on Richard Dawkins website (not forum), History News Network and About.com. Would ask to consider restoring based on that.

The figure of 188 is the number of unique hits, which is more relevant than the 4,000 total hits. The sources cited were almost all websites written or partially written by the subject and don't count per WP:N. The about.com reference is a brief quote on a blog. We need non-trivial coverage of the subject (i.e. not stuff the subject happens to have written) from reliable sources. Hut 8.5 06:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure closer correctly dismissed arguments not based on policy and arguments from solicited single-purpose accounts. Hut 8.5 06:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Perfectly reasonable close based on the debate, policise and guidelines and the strenghts of arguments at AfD. In short, there was a lack of independent, reliable (not blogs) secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - IPs and single purpose accounts are regularly discounted when determining the result of an AFD and DRV is a venue to point out errors in process rather than to repeat the deletion debate. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flood of Red – Deletion endorsed – RMHED (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

notable band that have toured in Scandanavia, belgium and have headlined many tours as well as touring and supporting many major bands.

Comment Have you got a/some reliable source(s) to show the above? If so then an article on the band appears to meet criterion 4 of the WP:MUSIC notability guideline "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." The original deletion appears perfectly fine as a good discussion failed to find sufficient evidence to meet the notability guideline. If you have such reliable sources then you can either just recreate the article to show this or I can userfy the original article to your user space for you to work on. It could then be restored to mainspace once you have ensured that it meets the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources are on the old article but sources about the tour in scandanavia, i doubt there will be any but there is evidence on their myspace, youtube video's ect. plus they have an album coming out soon. Andrew22k (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry then I have to Endorse deletion the closure seems to have correctly intrepreted the original discussion where it was decided that the article did not meet WP:MUSIC based on the sources that were originally in the article. Myspace and youtube are not reliable sources but it there is some significant coverage in reliable sources of the band after their album does come out then it could meet the notability guideline at that time. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but the videos show that they have an audience and on myspace there are tour posters and pictures.Andrew22k (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think punktastic recently interviewed the band and have yet to put the review up and its about the tour and album, surely they are reliable.Andrew22k (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would suggest waiting until that review has been posted and then using either of the options I suggested above or you could bring it back here again for deletion review at that time. Davewild (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain pending discovery of reliable sources. If needed, I may recover the text and e-mail it to you to work on or to find an alternative outlet for it. (The article didn't really establish notability: it mentioned several tours, but without any details or sources; it also mentioned several singles and a planned album, but all either self-released or on a minor label - Small Town - about which I wasn't able to find any information using Google.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its hard to find sources on a scottish post-hardcore band but they are notable and i want to prove it but i cant find the right kind of sources but the punktastic interview will be useful when it is publish very soon. The band are not signed to small town records anymore they are looking for a larger label for their album. what do you mean by alternative outletAndrew22k (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments kind of suggest they simply are not notable enough to have a wikipedia article. My advice is to go and ask Chubbles if they can help you find some sources. They are the best we have at saving deleting articles on band. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant another website to post the text to, such as a fan page of the band, or a different wiki with less strict inclusion criteria (see "music" listing at wikia.com. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure of the AfD, it was prefectly correct for the debate and most likely the situation of the band at the time. It doesn't look like much has changed since (the AllMusicGuide page is still blank, for example), but you are welcome to create a new version if you feel that an article on the band would pass WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2 and no new information has been presented that might justify a change of the decision. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Miss Pakistan World – Deletion endorsed – RMHED (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON Sonisona (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close unless a reason for overturning the deletion is provided. Have dropped a note on Sonisona's talk page advising them of this. Davewild (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aside from blatant COI worries, nom attempted to recreate the article within 2 days after its AfD, both in its original space and under an alternate capitalization. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Pakistan World, keep deleted without prejudice; as others have noted, the article was essentially a promotional - if it is an appropriate subject for Wikipedia, it should be written by somebody else than the original creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advice. Start with good sources. The must be relaible and independent. Read WP:COI. Create article in Userspace first. Then ask someone experienced, or list it here again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion per afd and no reason given to overturn. Agree with Smokey's recommendations. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All these comments are helpful, no worries about recreation by an uninvolved editor citing independent sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close No reason provided for overturning. Townlake (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was well done.. the issues stared when some users just wanted to highlight the negative side of it meaning the controversies only with no proof.... The article needs to b e restored as there may be some parts which were promoting the pageant... but administrators should have a look at it and decide properly. I think there has been noone who has read it properly. The article has not been through a proper review....--Sonisona (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original closure and speedy deletion. Consensus in the AFD was pretty strong that it should be deleted and the second version did not seem to have addressed the original reasons for deletion. Suggest creating a user space version (e.g at User:Sonisona/Miss Pakistan World) using the Wikipedia:Amnesia test and paying particular attention to neutral point of view, this can then be brought back to deletion review to see if it is ok to be restored. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure of AfD, and I assume that the G4 was proper as well. There's nothing wrong with the AfD closure, the consensus was pretty clearly to delete in this case. I don't quite agree with Sandstein's closing statement, but that's immatterial to the closure itself. I also suggest working on a userspace version before bringing this back to DRV. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ulteo – Deletion endorsed – RMHED (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion review misinterpreted by admin

The new Ulteo page was deleted just after its deletion review. The admin simply argued "not a notable Linux distribution" to justify the deletion. Nevertheless, it was made very clear in the deletion discussion that Ulteo wasn't a Linux distribution, and that it was notable according to Wikipedia standards since several reviews of Ulteo products have published by news sites that are totally independent from Ulteo (such as: Slashdot, Fosswire, or Linux.com). I think that the consensus of the discussion was keep, not delete, so it has been misinterpreted by the admin. Additionally, I'd like to point out to admins that Wikipedia recommends to use deletion only as a last ressort Vautnavette (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prior DRV merely resulted in listing at AFD in order to determine community consensus in accordance with our policies, guidelines, and other standards. That AFD was held, and its closer determined that the right thing to do was delete, based on the strength of the arguments. This is clearly a case where a large number of opinions in the AFD were from new users who didn't understand our policies and guidelines, having made arguments of little weight. GRBerry 17:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure of the second AfD. While there were many potential sources considered, the consensus among established editors was that this topic did not meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. The decision by the closer to exclude the opinions offered by the suspiciously new accounts was well within normal admin discretion. Rossami (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'd personally lean more towards no consensus, but I'm aware that I've aquired a bit of an inclusionist tendency these days. Sandstein usually has a pretty good and neutral eye when he closes, and a delete closure is far from unreasonable in this case. Those in favor of having an article on this should come back and write one once it's out of beta. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Overturn. The close was a proper reading of AFD2. The keep arguments were not substantive. However, I would like to consider sources such as these: http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/running_remote_linux_desktop_web_ulteo which although in blog format, is an article in reliable source by a "trusted columnist" & http://www.datamanager.it/articoli.php?visibile=1&idricercato=25369 which seems to demonstrate notability. This opinion is dependent on the assumption that these sources are independent (not sponsored or paid for in any way). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, but WP:DRV suggests !voting relist when introducing new information. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not new information, but is from the deleted artice. AfD2 was sunk by very poor keep !votes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amendment: Personally, I'm not seeing enough in those two links to meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for companies and products. I'd support a move to userspace if someone independent is willing to take on the task of rehabilitating and definitively sourcing the article but not to overturn the decision and return the page to the mainspace yet. Rossami (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that reputable blogs are borderline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I almost suggested Relist as per SmokeyJoe — i.e. a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulteo (3rd nomination) — but the clear consensus on the 2nd nomination was for deletion, aside from four or more WP:COI WP:SPAs who tried to dominate the discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Rossami's point above. Eusebeus (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, invalid use of DRV - this is a venue to point out how deletion process was not followed, not to advance new (or repeat old) arguments why an article should be kept. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Larry Sinclair/Larry Wayne Sinclair – An absence of consensus to undelete would suffice, but there's more than that here: deletion is endorsed. There seems to be less certainty as to whether the the talk page should remain deleted and/or salted. I'll leave things just as they are. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was deleted as "attack page". I don't know if the deleted versions were something like "Name1 had sex and did drugs with Name2!!" completely unsourced. What I do know is that there was a version put on the talk page that seemed well sourced and balanced yesterday. Minor discussion ensued, but unfortunately, this was deleted under WP:CSD G8, the one about deleting talk pages of deleted pages. I humbly ask that the page be restored, and if necessary be WP:AFD'd. Ab e g92contribs 14:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

second bit in quotes revised per WP:BLP GRBerry 17:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page was first created on 20 Feb. Having reviewed the deleted content, it was properly speedy-deleted as an attack page. The page was recreated on 22 Feb, then moved to Larry Sinclair's Allegations where it was again properly deleted as an attack page. (The left-behind redirect was administratively cleaned up on 23 Feb.) The page was recreated yet again, this time back at this title, on 28 Feb. It was speedy-deleted on 1 March under criterion G4 (recreated content). The justification used in the re-deletion was in error. G4 may not be used unless there was a prior deletion that resulted from an XfD discussion. Speedies and Prods can not be used to justify a G4. That said, the deleted content was virtually identical to the content that was previously speedied as attack information. I found no redeemable versions in history. Endorse speedy-deletion of the page but not for the G4 justification. Do not restore the deleted history of the page.
The nomination also asks us to consider the Talk page content. The Talk page content might be redeemable and could plausibly be the basis for a replacement article. I think it violates WP:NOT#NEWS but that's a matter for AfD to sort out. Allow restoration of the Talk page. The speedy-deletion under case G8 was in error. Talk pages are where we are supposed to work out proposals for new or replacement pages. Rossami (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rossami's summary pretty much says it all. I'd be okay with the talk page being recreated, but think that the article itself will likely, if recreated, come up against several issues. Most notably, the subject is really known for just one thing, which really only gained traction on a few conservative-leaning websites. But, perhaps discussion before recreation will help, and if the article comes back AFD will determine its ultimate fate. 'Recreate talk page and leave the article deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a WP:BLP issue, both for the article subject and the subject of his allegations. The latest iteration of the talk page was heavy on citations, but basically they went to this reliable source and this [88] blog entry, and this piece [89] by the author of the blog entry that falls somewhere between being a reliable source and a blog entry, inclusive. (Plus one primary source akin to a court record.) I'd like to see better sourcing before we restore even the talk page. I don't believe this article would have a snowball's chance at AFD unless the sourcing was massively improved. GRBerry 17:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Desalt I recreated the article at Larry Wayne Sinclair, but it was speedied in the middle of an AfD probably would have closed as no consensus had it been allowed to continue, apparently due to some "badlyDrawnJeff" rule. There are new reliable sources from the last few days (incuding the Sydney Morning Herald,[90][91] The Politico,[92] The Age[93] and on News Limited's site (news.au)[94] and the Times UK[95]), which would solve the previous sourcing problems with the article, but the WP:BUROcracy is in full swing to prevent the rest of us from writing an encyclopedia for some reason. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Age and SMH are the same, just the Melbourne and Sydney versions, by the way. Daniel (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oooh, is that how that works? I've always wondered. Why do they have different headline writers? Must be a union thing, I suppose. Per the below: tell your pet kangaroo I said hi! :-P -- Kendrick7^talk 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse various deletions. Some crappy negative-info-only BLPs got deleted, what's new? Assuming the material is right for Wikipedia, and not wikinews, incorporate it to somewhere else where it won't look like an attack piece and can be presented in a balanced manner. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shit article, keep deleted. See OTRS:2008030110007337 for info. John Reaves 23:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee thanks, although I doubt you read the latest version. Well, unfair of Mr. Sinclair to declare he doesn't want an NPOV article here one week and then hound publicity at a press conference the next, imo. But if he's WP:GAMEd the system, oh well. Score one for the coming whisper campaign. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I'm OTRS and that ticket comes up "No permission." So, maybe you might like to explain more beyond an OTRS ticket that... OTRS admins can't even access? A private e-mail to me would be fine if it's too sensitive for on-wiki. FCYTravis (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket number is #2008030110007337, but John accidentally used the wrong number to link to it. otrs:1381977 should be better. Daniel (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This OTRS ticket refers to an entirely different version that was speedily deleted back in March. It may or may not have been inappropriate - I haven't looked. But at this point, it appears that the current version of the article has not drawn any OTRS complaints, valid or otherwise. Therefore, deleting the current article for reasons of OTRS is inappropriate. FCYTravis (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's partly my fault, although Reaves could have been more clear in the protection log that this was salted due to WP:OFFICE; I would have gone ahead and gone to DRV in the first place. As it was, I was being told it couldn't be unprotected because trolls had gotten there first, and forever fouled up the situation beyond all repair, which I thought was pretty preposterous. I thought, and still think, this article deserves a proper AfD discussion, rather than having to argue from a deficit against people who think Australians are a primitive people not capable of the high art of journalism, etc. Ah well, I had a dream. :( -- Kendrick7^talk 05:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What John said but without the swearing. Are you going all Guy on us John??? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The article was well-sourced and given the references available (about 15 separate sources if I recall correctly), there was enough information available to make a decent, neutral article about this individual. Plus a discussion was already underway at AfD with the majority voting keep, so a speedy delete was out of process. Although the previous versions may have been attack pages, this clearly was not. BradV 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I am referring to the Larry Wayne Sinclair article. BradV 00:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The article probably should have been merged into a campaign events article (the allegations are more notable than the accuser), and should have been discussed before being recreated, but a speedy in the middle of a productive deletion discussion and ongoing improvement of the article short circuited all of that. Further, many of the deletion advocates made meritless BLP arguments. BLP does not prevent Wikipedia from reporting on well-sourced constroversy. Nor should it. Wikipedia was not the source of any of the allegations in the article, nor did the presence of the article give undue weight to the arguments, which had already been reviewed and debunked in the RS cited. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Well-sourced article on someone who has willingly inserted himself into a national political campaign with unfounded (and probably libelous themselves) accusations. One cannot call press conferences and make public political statements about a presidential candidate, then claim privacy. Whether or not there is sufficient reason to keep this article is a subject for AfD, not speedy deletion. FCYTravis (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm not over-quick to see BLP violations, but the most recently deleted version of the article was totally impossible. doesn't mean an acceptable article could not be written, though I think we should see it first before restoring it. Frankly, I don't think we should care in the least what the subject wants one way or another. We have our own standards. DGG (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(xpost from BLP/N) ::I just don't see why there's a BLP problem. We've got dozens of articles on subjects where their relevant felonious past is covered -- and again, this is something, the existence of which, Sinclair has been entirely public about in his own blog and press releases, conceding it's relevancy in coloring his allegations. We've got a half dozen articles about people who claim to have had sex with a later Presidential candidates, just counting Bill Clinton. What invisible line is this crossing? Wikipedia seems like a valuable tool in that it can fairly and dispassionately provide information here. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke history, unsalt - The article history seems to contain versions that either clearly and completely violate BLP and NPOV, or which may be neutral but are inadequately sourced for such a critical point. I have not identified ANY historical versions of the deleted article which are suitable to restore. However - the point that this person may be notable enough for an article and that an article might be created which is BLP compliant is well founded. The solution is obvious - the history versions which cannot be restored under our policy should be nuked / not restored, but people should be given another chance to create an article which is policy compliant.

The claims that something was wrong with the deletion don't hold water when looking at the deleted revisions. The deleted revisions are clear violations of policy and the deletions were clearly proper. BLP is unambiguous. Libelous and poorly sourced negative comment about living people get tossed when admins find it. This was a horrible article.

It may be one which can be recreated from scratch with policy compliant content. And anyone who wants to do so should be on notice that they're going to be under extra scrutiny. I belive it's reasonable to give people a chance on it. But the old content's just bad. Much of it is credibly potentially oversightable, and all of it was bad. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the version at Larry Wayne Sinclair, as that is really the version in question here, and your arguments don't really apply to that article. The debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Wayne Sinclair. BradV 02:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion As the article stood, it seems to me that it was solely about one event. It takes legendary genius or stupidity to become notable for one event in a persons life. Even with sourcing this one event to more reasonable sources, I do not think the article would pass notability. Now if this gentleman continues to insinuate himself into the public eye over a period of time, that may warrant a new article. -- Avi (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a valid point, and, arguably, that was the exactly the case on Tuesday, but that's what just occurred on Wednesday with the National Press Club event. True, the notability might only extend to the press conference itself. Still, there's a fair amount of back story, the YouTube video with nigh on 1,000,000 hits, the monetary reward for the lie detector test, the failing of the test, the lawsuit, the dismissal. But as it stands now, the man is in jail and has a brain tumor. We might not be hearing much from him in the future. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion -- when looking at the sources given and looking for new sources, all I get are blogs and some Australian newspapers. No offense to the Australians, but this story doesn't really seem to have legs yet. Based on that, and the fact that it's a one-issue event, I don't think the guy should have an article. What about leaving it be for now and seeing if anyone wants to recreate in six months? If anyone remembers the person's name at all then, it might be a legitimate topic. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Politico is -- honest injun -- a Washington D.C. newspaper, printed on dead trees and everything and not used by illiterates in the Outback to line their kangaroo cages, or whatever you think happens to the Sydney paper. So six months from now, after the scurrilously and underhanded use of these allegations have resulted in John McCain becoming the next President, only then wikipedia will bravely come forth with a balanced article about them? I just think that's ignoring our mission statement. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(inline reply) -- I'm sorry, I don't think a free Capitol Hill tabloid paper (according to our article on same) is necessarily a reliable source. And it's not that I think the Australian papers are bad sources -- it's that I'm inclined to question the notability of this incident if it's about an American political incident and no American press sources have picked it up. There is a real danger in overemphasizing certain incidents that happen in the campaign, no matter what side they happen on, by giving them the 'legitimacy' of an article without waiting to see if it's a flash in the pan or not. We are not Wikinews. FWIW, I'm American, read the papers, am a liberal Democrat, and this Wikipedia debate is the first I've ever heard of this dude. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you saying that by us not having an article on this gentleman, who has done nothing more than make some rather questionable claims that made some right-wing bloggers sit up and salivate before being proven incorrect (and who has now been dumped by the ConWeb entirely for making them look bad) will be the basis for someone using these claims, building them up to the point where they'll drive the electorate away from one candidate and to another? Because that's *definitely* not encyclopedic, and it's well outside of our mission to publicize information about someone who has really been doing nothing more than apparent self-aggrandizement using the name of a popular politician as the driver. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What publicizing? We have nearly 2.5 million articles. No one is going to find this article unless they come looking for it. Who can say now what the robo-dialers in Ohio will be telling voters in mid-November, but how is letting readers who want to know about this person remain ignorant in keeping with our mission to be a written compendium aiming to convey information? I wouldn't care which candidate is the target, I just have to suspect the robo-dialers might leave a few things out. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your concern, it represents the exact antithesis of what we should be doing. We should provide the dispassionate, NPOV summary of events of encyclopedic merit as related in reliable sources. We are not an investigative journalism body. What you are describing sounds to me more appropriate for Wikinews. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I would like to be permitted to do: provide the dispassionate, NPOV summary of events of encyclopedic merit as related in the half dozen reliable sources available. I don't know why you think there's any WP:OR going on here. -- Kendrick7^talk

Overturn per FCYTravis. The sources were provided to flesh out the article appropriately, not just to leave it coatrack. The speedy delete was an inappropriate overreaction. --Faith (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added at this time point the links for the second title the article was at. The closer can have fun sorting out which of the commentators above (hint: definitely excluding me and those who commented before me) were aware of that second title, its AFD, and its history. GRBerry 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per WP:BLP1E, I doubt we'll ever have a real biography of this person. An article about the allegations maybe, they're far more notable than the person. Mr.Z-man 04:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since my deletion of Larry Wayne Sinclair has been questioned, I need to comment here I guess. My deletion is not based on the article's merit (nor WP:CSD#G4), but the fact that someone obviously created it to circumvent the protection of the other article. You just don't do that (as you don't create a new account once your account is blocked to continue acting on the same manner). The creator should have gone to Deletion Review instead of creating the same article under an alternative title. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to DRV an article that was speedied to begin with. The fact that it was salted is irrelevant. It was presumably salted because a particularly persistent user may have kept recreating an inappropriate version. If an article is speedied based on poor sourcing/bias, that does not preclude a properly sourced, unbiased recreation. A version that is inarguably validly sourced and generally neutrally written is entitled to an AfD on its merits. There is a substantive debate to be had on whether he meets WP:BLP1E. I think he does, but there's a reasonable argument to be made that he doesn't. The place for that argument is AfD. FCYTravis (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I am not commenting (and won't here) on whether or not the article meets WP:BLP1E, but on the decorum. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do we delete articles as punishment for not following the rules? I thought we judged them on their own merit? BradV 14:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a punishment, but a protection to prevent further harm: if we start allowing people to circumvent our policies (protection, blocking, ...), we go a slippery rope (do admins now need to start blocking IPs when a user is blocked, and protect all alternative titles and capitalization when salting?) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I get this wrong (I'm not really familiar with the ins and outs of DRV but, I think if the article was speedied as a recreation and the article wasn't substantially identical to the other deleted versions (by either name) than the speedy needs to be overturned (although I agree the "work around" is inappropriate). A speedy deletion in the middle of an AfD needs to be done for/and cited for the "correct" reason. We can't say really that it was speedied for the wrong reason but, should still be speedied. We should speedy it for the correct reasons for transparency and accountability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV is a funny place/process. It is mostly about process, but also about merits. If we find a G4 deletion that clearly should have been an A7 deletion, we won't waste time undeleting and redeleting under the appropriate criteria; we'll just let the deleting admin know so they can hopefully get it right the next time. (See for example the Dov Soll discussion on 16 June 2008). If there is uncertainty about whether the deletion should last, we'll kick it to XfD. But, the ArbComm in its presumable wisdom has changed the DRV rules for BLP deletions, so for BLPs we need a discussion on the merits of the article, not merely on the procedural merits of the deletion before undeleting it. GRBerry 15:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apols. I didn't see this before my "rant" at the bottom. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The history of Larry Sinclair should remain deleted under any circumstances; I looked at it and declined to unprotect the title based on the revisions in the history. A separate issue is Kendrick7's rush to get this article back on Wikipedia, recreating it under a different title to circumvent the salting. Kendrick requested unsalting at 19:46, 18 June. [96] I declined unsalting, and told him to write an alternate version in his userspace, at 23:21, 18 June.[97] at 23:38, he noted that he had created a new version on the talk page of the deleted article. [98], and then, three minutes later, created his version at Larry Wayne Sinclair. (see deleted revision [99] for date stamp.) It's a bit hard to assume good faith when there is such a headlong rush to get an article on the project that process is thrown out the window, and even more so when the same editor casts aspersions at those who disagree with him, as Kendrick has done repeatedly (here at DRV, and at the AFD for his new article). I, for one, am rather offended by his references to Stalinism regarding admins who follow process. While it is questionable whether Sinclair meets the bar of WP:BLP1E, it appears that sourcing may exist for the whole affair. I oppose recreation under a faux bio, but am not opposed to documenting the allegations themselves. I think that such an article would be fair game for AFD, but at least it would be an appropriate topic, rather than another half-assed "bio" which is rather coat-racky in nature. Horologium (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horogulum, you missed that someone came along and admin deleted the talk page which you told me to create (which I had already created) before resubmitting to WP:RfPP right after I informed you of its existence, and prior to my creating Larry Wayne Sinclair, which seemed solely designed to short circuit free discussion on the matter. I haven't made any references to Stalin here or at the AfD, as far as I can see, so I have no idea what you are talking about. But thanks for painting me as a loon! -- Kendrick7^talk 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you did make the gulag and purge references, but at a different discussion. [100] Both pages are on my watchlist, and I conflated your comments from the two discussions. As to the other issue, I recommended that you recreate the article in your userspace, not on the talk page of the deleted article. Normally, deleted articles don't have talk pages, so it wouldn't occur to me to send you to a non-existent page that would immediately be eligible for CSD, as happened in this case. Horologium (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK; mind you, those were in no way comments about admins or current process, but a proposed de novo process, blah blah not relevant here.
Anyway: You are right, but the first template on the article says to discuss changes on the talk page;[101] although part of the problem is admins and non-admins might not see the same templates, I suspect. One of the technocrats need to fix the wording it that's not actually what is supposed to be done. I'll file a complaint at the technical pump. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Question I thought DRV was about reviewing the deletion process and the way it is used on an article by article basis not to "rehash" discussions about notability etc of individual articles (as those discussions are supposed to be held at the appropriate AFDs). Am I misunderstanding the purpose of DRV or oversimplifying in some way? Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question was answered above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - I never saw the first article (and can't read the deleted version) so I can't comment on it. The second article however, appears to have been created out of process to evade the salting of the earlier article. I will say that I would permit recreation of an article that per WP:BLP1E was about the allegations rather than purporting to be a biography. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per WP:BLP1E. The accusation can be included in a sentence or two in Barrack Obama and sourced. That is all that is needed. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree, because the precise reason for having an article about this guy is to allow for context to be given - i.e., that the allegations have been treated as non-credible by the media because A. there's no evidence B. he failed a polygraph C. he's a multi-time convicted swindler/fraudster. If we don't mention all that, then there's no way we can properly mention the allegations in any sort of NPOV way. I would argue that if this article stays deleted, we should just entirely ignore the allegations, as most of the major media have done. FCYTravis (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In early 2008 Larry Sinclair posted a u-tube video where he claimed to have had encounters with Barrack Obama involving sexual and drug related claims. Non of his claims have been verified and Sinclair has since been arrested on unrelated charges". I don't think it needs much more then that but that is probably a discussion for somewhere other then this review. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FCYTravis; this would violate WP:UNDUE in any other existing article that I know of; and nothing substantial here actually relates to Mr. Obama's biography so mentioning it would be particularly WP:UNDUE there. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about in the viral video section of the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This person is in no way connected to the campaign, so again, I'd nix such a suggestion. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion per WP:COATRACK, WP:FORK, WP:FRINGE, WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:ATTACK, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ENC, AND WP:IT'S A BAD IDEA FOR AN ARTICLE, IT'S NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC, NOT NOTABLE, AND IS AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT WIKIPEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR (that last one should really be a bluelink). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have four standards for articles: verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research, and biographies of living persons. Everything in the (second) article was well sourced and complied with all of those. No one was being attacked in the article, not the subject of the article nor Obama Barack. BradV 14:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of this person's 46 year life, the only things in the article that are not about the allegations about Obama are his name, birthdate, and hometown. Undue weight anyone? That's not a biography. That's the reason we have BLP1E. Mr.Z-man 15:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, and his extensive criminal past. And he status as a wanted felon. And the YouTube video, and the lie detector test, and the press conference.... -- Kendrick7^talk 20:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The video, the lie detector test, and the press conference are all directly related to the allegations. The "extensive criminal history" and status as a wanted felon consisted of 1.5 sentences. Every source about him is mainly about the allegations. If I see evidence that a real biography can be written about this person and not an article about the allegations wrapped in a handful of biographical details, I'll support an article. I haven't seen that yet. Mr.Z-man 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know what our biographies have to contain beyond the notable events in a person's life before they qualify as being a "real biography." I guess if it's just a matter of scoping of the title, then I could create the Allegations of Larry Sinclair article, but I expect I'd just end up back here again with a few more boots to the head: ZOMG, Kendrick7's creating new content under a title similar to something an admin once speedy deleted again! There's only a shadow of difference as we'd have what amounted to a BLP on Sinclair either way. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A biography should contain biographical details - something about the person, not just what he says. The problem is not just the title, the problem is trying to write an article about allegations as a biography. Unless someone writes a real biography about this person that we can use as a reference, an article about him will always be biased toward the allegations, ignoring the unpublished 44 years of his life. An article about the allegations would contain some details about Sinclair, but it would not be a BLP. I feel like I'm arguing in circles here. The problem is a lack of sources about anything other than the allegations, until someone writes more about him, there will never be enough material to write a truly balanced biography about him. Mr.Z-man 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, uh, how is that article "against everything that Wikipedia is supposed to be for?" Hyperbole, much? FCYTravis (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia, hyperbole is exaggeration and is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally.. So yeah, I was hyperbolizing. Not meant to be taken literally, simply meant to convey my strong feelings about how ridiculous this article, in any form, and with any sources, is. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in the conversation, it seems like the sort of evidence that would most sway the conversation is revelation of substantial coverage of the individual who is the article's subject that predate the current allegations and allow a reasonably complete biography to be written. GRBerry 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Further to my unanswered question above~~Comment Shouldn't this discussion be primarily about this point of DRV: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions"? Do we even have a speedy criteria for "This is obviously created to circumvent the protection of Larry Sinclair. This behaviour is NOT acceptable)"? The admin in question should have let his opinion be known at the AfD that was ongoing (heck I agree that creating the article to get around the rules was wrong but, that doesn't mean the article itself is an automatic deletion (that should have been decided by the AfD). Or the admin could have used a valid reason to speedy it. The article didn't meet G1-G12 or A1-A7 from what I can see. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about process was answered above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: Endorse speedy-deletion of Larry Wayne Sinclair (which was added to the discussion since my earlier comment). While I think that the content on the first article's Talk page might be redeemable and I will concede that the content on this page was virtually identical, the pattern of edits does suggest that the page was created in a deliberate attempt to circumvent Wikipedia's established policies and practices. My ability to assume good faith has been stretched beyond credibility in this case. The best interpretation I can put on this is that it was a mistake by a user who did not know to use the Deletion Review procedure. ~~If it was malicious, don't restore. If it was a mistake,~~ fix the mistake by finishing the process here. (No change of opinion on the pages commented upon above.) Rossami (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, it was my mistake. No one told me it had been salted because of a WP:OFFICE action, and I didn't scroll down to read the entire template, but tried to use the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page, which is the template's first suggestion. Someone else had chimed in on the talk page at that point suggesting there was no need to go to DRV either, as the sources were clearly entirely new. But, someone just went and deleted the talk page in the middle of the discussion, which was kind of rude, even if technically permissible, so I just decided to WP:IAR. But we're here now, so I'm fine with going thru DRV. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for clarifying. Comments amended. Rossami (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I appreciate it. While I'm on rare occasion not a stickler for process when it comes to building the encyclopedia, I attempt to act with the best of intentions toward that goal. For the record, I've mentioned my template-related confusion to the technocrats at WP:VPT#Templates on salted pages are confusing and suggest incorrect behavior. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the article is still in the cache and it's a gross BLP violation that is not easily fixed. It contains original research on criminal activity (sourced to "wanted" bulletins in a sheriff's office), Politico being its best source, unproven and likely untrue claims of gay sex and drug use that are BLP issues both against the accuser and the accused, out-of-context discussion of a marginally notable person's rap sheet and unproven criminal charges. However, I would be in favor of allowing recreation if it can be done in a neutral way that is properly sourced, demonstrates notability, and avoids BLP problems. There's a good chance that the person is notable (if only for this incident so it is a potential NOT#NEWS issue) and can be described without BLP vios. If the parties can avoid rushing back to recreate it in BLP violating form then I would propose unsalting it; otnerwise allow recreation in a sandbox or user page and then propose it for a netural administrator's review at that time (or whatever the procedure may be) Wikidemo (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much BLP ado is being made about the man's criminal record, but Mr. Sinclair has been entirely open and straight forward about his criminal past, including the warrant from Colorado, about which Politico I believe is a valid secondary source -- The Sunday Morning Herald also mentions the criminal record (if not the warrant; I haven't double checked). The subject says it in his own blog, his press releases say it, primary sources say it, secondary sources say it, but somehow WP:BLP kicks in for us to say it? That's really "monsters under the bed" thinking -- straight up BLP paranoia. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AFD. I was looking for some way to endorse the deletion here, but neither G8 nor G4 apply, so how can I endorse it if it was wrong? MrPrada (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment: This is still being covered in the news today. Variety: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117987850.html?categoryId=2526&cs=1 who is also referring to the unrelated criminal charges and the arrest after Sinclair's conference. --Faith (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation Yay, he did some bad things, but we have reliable sources for it. The second speedy delete was out-of-process, as there was an ongoing AfD with no concensus on either side. I'm not saying that the subject is encyclopedic, I'm just saying that if he dose become encyclopedic, we don't have to ask an admin to help. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 14:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn strongly. As noted at the AfD, there's no lack of reliable sources for this subject. Completely out of process speedy deletion; AfD should have been allowed to run its course. Enigma ^message 05:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - AFD of LWS would've probably ended up delete anyway. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not for you to say. Tagging it with CSD while an AfD was ongoing was not the right move. If you really believe it would have been closed as delete, then let the process run through. By tagging it in the middle you made the entire discussion moot. Enigma ^message 03:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 June 2008

Rise of raphia – Deletion endorsed – RMHED (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A7 Luke mullet (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Page deleted before even finished, I had not even put the refrences in before it was deleted. I feel this band have enough relevance for a Wikipedia page. At least give me time to finish the page before you decided if it has relevance on Wikipedia.[reply]

Overturn I say restore the article and put a Template:Inuse on top of it, give the editor time to work. If it's still not noteworthy, then we can have a discussion on the completed article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, the page history in question is at
Rise of raphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
and not Rise of Raphia. Looking there, the most recent deletion was in a A3, and given that very little time was given between creation, tagging, and deletion an ~~overturn~~ seems perfectly reasonable. However, I'd like to note that a previous version was deleted under A7 about half an hour before, so please do make sure it passes our relevant notability criterias and that the information you use can be verified in reliable sources, and make sure you cite those sources. This should not at all preclude another possible A7 after Luke mullet has been given a chance to work on it for a while. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the new attempt at the page was again an A7, I'm gonna' have to go out on a limb here and say that the subject might not be suitable for Wikipedia. I'd say keep it deleted, but unsalt in a few weeks. It appears that the nom has lost interest. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the second deleting admin. I removed the article as A3 at 18:43 18 June because it had no context whatsoever. The article consisted only of a {{hangon}} tag. If the author wants to create an article and assert notability I would suggest he works it in a subpage on userspace, or offline until it is somewhat ready, or at least add an Inuse template to it. I did not comment on a previous incarnation of the article, just an A3 for a totally empty one which I see as justified. If another admin feels the original article (which I had nothing to do with) merits restoring, be my guest. -- Alexf⁴² 07:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As obvious from the blue links above, this article has been re-recreated even while this discussion was ongoing. Bad form, that. The band has no releases on notable labels, there are minimal references available to indicate notability. Endorse deletion (which, in this case, suggests that the new version be deleted as well). Tony Fox (arf!) 16:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- *cough* Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The second deletion for A3 was clearly appropriate as there was no content whatsoever. The first speedy for A7 I am not sure about as the article did say that it had a recent review which if there were more would let it meet WP:MUSIC (that is pretty weak however so would probably not support overturning just based on that). However that article has now been recreated so this is moot for deletion review but would strongly suggest the creator work fast to get the article up to meeting the WP:MUSIC notability guideline or it will be redeleted. Davewild (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The original A7 deletion, the A3 and my own subsequent deletion as A7 of the article created while this was raised. Please create a draft in user space - I'll copy across the last version for you if you like, add some independant sources and bring this back for discussion at DRV for approval. Please read WP:MUSIC before you do this so you know the standard the article will be judged by. Also endorse by salting the page to prevent disruptive recreation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Luke_mullet Forgive my ignorance, I am new to this and not really sure how this works, what will it take for the band to be classed as notable for Wikipeida? After looking at the Music page you informed me to visit I fell the band could come under the section for members of the bands in notable other bands. 3 of the 5 members of the band were in bands that have wikipedia pages, the other 2 were in a band that although not featured on wikipedia the label they were released on is. I have seen many other pages that have less notability so I find it strange how the band are not classed as noteable. What will it take me to change to be able to be noteable to wikipedia? Your website is too complicated for me to know how this works, from the last message I received I thought I had to submit a new draft so I am sorry for putting it up there again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke mullet (talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid speedy deletion per Spartaz. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flight Training Europe – Contested PROD automatically restored. – Hut 8.5 06:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article on the organisation Flight Training Europe was deleted because it was a "small company". With respect, Flight Training Europe is a leading flight school in Europe in also well regarded around the world. Moreso, it is one of only four Integrated schools approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. It trains over 120 cadets per year for a fATPL licence, which is a large number in respect of flight schools. To say it is a "small company" is entirely incorrect, since it is prominent in the civil aviation industry. With this in mind, this article should rightfully be restored. Thank you. 82.5.46.104 (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Expired PROD, automatic overturn. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Just being a "small company" is not grounds for deletion. The Rose Law Firm is a small company, but it is notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a contested PROD.. No need for DRV, just restore it. I can't do it myself at the moment though, so somebody else can. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Connecticut Gay Men's Chorus – overturn and list for discussion at AfD. – Shereth 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON This article was speedily deleted, but I believe it has significance because 1) the Chorus is the first (and still the only) performing-arts organization in the State of Connecticut comprised of openly gay men; 2) the Chorus has been mentioned in several publications over the course of its existence as having changed cultural attitudes to the GLBT community; 3) the historical value of the Chorus consists primarily in its having been in existence for over 20 years; 4) the performance style of the Chorus has influenced many other choruses to change from a "stand-and-sing" style to a fully-staged performance style. This page was NOT posted as a source of publicity for the Chorus, but as an actual encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durablescreen (talk • contribs)

Endorse - this was not deleted as spam, but as an article about a non-notable organization. Most American cities have such a chorus nowadays, and most of them are around 20 years old by now. There was no assertion of notability in this article, and none in this review request. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Overturn. ~~Suggest temp undeletion for CSD review, or a userspace version for us to peruse~~. Stating that there are articles about it and that is the "First such organization ... with a 20 year history" is clearly an assertion of notability. MrPrada (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn article makes assertions of importance by saying 'was (and is) Connecticut's only performing-arts organization comprised of openly gay men'. Also notes that it is mentioned in the New York Times offering the possibility of a reliable source saying 'in a 1999 New York Times article, “As is customary with the Gay Men’s Chorus, parody rules'. The article also says that the Mayor of New Haven proclaimed a day 'Connecticut Gay Men’s Chorus Day'. It also say they were nominated for a 'Gay and Lesbian American Music Awards (GLAMA) Award in 1998 in the Cast Recording category'. This is backed up by a google news archive search here which seems to have quite a lot of potential sources. I think there are at least several assertions of significance here making speed deletion invalid. (and with cleanup and sources added I would probably support keeping at AFD as well.) Davewild (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list There seems enough of an argument against deletion that a discussion is required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I'm not able to say if there was indeed an assertion of importance/significance as I can't see the deleted version and there is no cache version. So why am I saying overturn? simply because the deleting admin was Orangemike and I have zero confidence in his ability to correctly judge CSD policy. RMHED (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The role of admins in speedy deletion is not to judge if the subject of an article is notable. The role is to judge is something is totally lacking any indication or claim to importance whatsoever. Everything more than that is a question for the community. If a good faith argument can be presented, right or wrong, its a question for the community. Time we had a rule that any established editor could ask for a speedy to be undeleted by any admin as a matter of course without it being considered wheel warring or impolite. DGG (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AFD. Not enough for speedy deletion here. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mic Spencer – G12 deletion endorsed – RMHED (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article Mic Spencer has been deleted by a bot (I've no idea what that is). I can't find anything that explains why this action was taken. I am a professional colleague of Mic Spencer. Surely someone should be accountable for deleting the article. Alas, it seems that someone with the highly appropriate name of "Android Mouse" has done this. Mic Spencer is a young composer of enviable reputation. Perhaps someone has envied his reputation too much, and this may be malicious.Derekbscott (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because it was a copyvio. It will not be undeleted but you are welcome to start a new page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The delete was not likely malicious. I don't know anything about the article or person in question, but deletions usually do not occur because of envy. A bot in Wikipedia is an automatic program or "robotic" program. In this case, it is likely something that "sniffs out" pages that, under a certain set of logical rules, would consider the page or article to be a candidate for deletion. That's a guess...

No. There is only one bot that has the capability to delete things, User:RedirectCleanupBot, and it only does redirect cleanup (hence the name). To delete things, you need admin powers. Bots don't have admin powers (with the one exception I already mentioned). Try looking in the logs. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is about Mic Spencer as described at University of Leeds School of Music, then the article may indeed be one that Wikipedia should include--or it may not, as I am not an expert in that topic area (but I personally would be in favor of a well-written article on the topic).
However, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. If the original article was a copyright violation, that would certainly be cause for deletion. As stated above, feel free to re-start the article using non-copyright violation material.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page was deleted as a confirmed copyright violation of http://www.scottishmusiccentre.com/directory/r493/ It was tagged as a copyvio by user:Miremare and deleted by user:Anthony.bradbury. Neither of them are bots. (Android Mouse Bot 2 merely adds a courtesy notification of the tagging to the original contributor's Talk page). As others have already said, the copyright infringing content may not be restored. But if the person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for musicians, a replacement article may be created using new content. Rossami (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse per copy violation. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as it was a copyright violation, but as ever, if someone wants to create an article without violating copyright, they're welcome to. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Miracle of Geneva – Article has been restored by deleting admin and AFD has been reopened – Davewild (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closing admin closed as delete after only one day (rather than the customary five) claiming WP:SNOW applied, whereas it absolutely did not. WP:SNOW states that "If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." The article in question had a good chance of getting what the closing admin believes to be an "unexpected outcome" (keep), as there clearly was not a consensus to delete after a day of discussions on the AfD. Also many of the "delete" arguments are flawed in that the users only wanted to change or remove the title of the article, not the content. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore I was about to do the DRV myself but Frank beat me to it. The closing admin miss-represented the SNOW policy/guideline. There wasn't any consensus in the discussion. At the very least the page should be temporarily restored and the AfD reopened for further discussion <Baseballfan789 (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, but only because the deletion process wasn't completed last time. I'll be voting delete when it goes back to AfD. – Pee Jay 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - even though I am a very strong supporter of deleting this article, it looks very much like proper procedure was not followed. - fchd (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - absolutely. --necronudist (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy restore and reopen the AFD to allow a full 5 day discussion. The debate was nowhere near a legitimate WP:SNOW closure. Given that the debate has only been closed for several hours reopening the existing AFD seems sensible if it is done reasonably soon. Davewild (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - did you actually read some of the keep comments? Neıl 龱 18:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and they seem just as reasonable as, if not more reasonable than most of the "delete" comments <Baseballfan789 (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Well, no point in debating that then. Okay, fine, I'll restore it now. Neıl 龱 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reductio – Copyright release confirmed. History restored. – Rossami (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I had the entry on Reductio deleted for copyright violation from the Reductio website (http://reductiotest.org/). I own the copyright to this website so I simply thought I'd copy some of the informative text to Wikipedia, but after reading around, I learned that I must release this text under the GFDL, which is fine by me and I have done exactly this. This can be confirmed by observing the reference to GFDL on all pages of the website at hand. Please restore the contents of the Reductio article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibblego (talk • contribs) 03:50, June 18, 2008

It appears you've already recreated the page with the text. So there's nothing we can really do here. I'm just going to suggest a speedy close. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pen y Bryn – New non-copyvio article has been created – Davewild (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restore the article to User:Geaugagrrl/sandbox so I can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion. Many thanks ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 12:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Always in favor of restoring an article to a sandbox for further development.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was deleted as a copyright violation of http://www.llywelyn.co.uk The original contributor asserted in the edit summary that he/she had copyright release but provided no evidence. Unless copyright release is confirmed using the process at WP:CP, this can not be restored even to the userspace. (There were no non-infringing versions in the pagehistory.) Rossami (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment agreed. But it can still be put in the sandbox as a starting point for the editor to get up to quality, right?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it can not. To repost the copyvio content would contaminate the new version and perpetuate the problem. Better to start over with clean content. (If you just want to see what that content was, you can always go back to the source - linked above.) Rossami (talk)
- How can I see the page history? What evidence of copyright is needed? Who was the original contributor? Thanks. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read WP:CP and understand what needs to be done to address the copyright issue. Now all that is needed is the page to edit. Thanks. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The original contributor and only significant editor to the page was user:BrynLlywelyn. If you can secure evidence of copyright release, the page can be restored by any admin. Of course, I'll also note that the page is not locked. You could just restart the page today with new content that is not at risk of copyvio concerns. Rossami (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still not understanding what to click to see what is not locked. Sorry to be such a newbie *ack* I should have known that restoring the content would have been reinstating the copyvio. Thanks for all your patient assistance. Since I now understand it is ok to start from scratch and create the page again, I will do so. I have found several references that can be used. Kind regards, ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 01:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He means the page isn't WP:SALTed and can therefore be recreated. All it means is that you can edit it still. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Thanks a bunch. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 02:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

National Express West Midlands route 283 – Closed as article has been restored and proposed for deletion by deleting admin – Davewild (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was going to be working on the articles. If the second city of the UK(Birmingham and the surrounding areas) are not alowed to have transport articles, than why should London??? Or any other area. the articles in question also include National Express West Midlands route 82 and 87 Dudleybus^{please talkwith the UK Transport Wiki} 11:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support my own decision. This is one of a myriad articles about non-notable company bus routes. This is the kind of trainspotting fancruft that should be in the UK Transport Wiki, not in Wikipedia. If anything, there should probably be a mass AfD for the entire mess of them; I only deleted the first couple I ran across. It would be absurd to say there shouldn't be an article about transport in Brum; but there shouldn't be an article about route 283, for the same reason there shouldn't be an article about bus route 19 in Milwaukee; ~~all such articles are speediable under A7, to my way of thinking~~. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restored and prodded per this discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dunno how it works in the UK, but in Kansas we have gotten some good value out of our road projects, such as K-9 (Kansas highway) -- also, the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is nothing to do with a road, it refers to a bus route. It would be equivalent to having a standalone article on Kansas City Metro #129-I-29 Express (which is currently a redirect) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Oh, Okay! The KC Metro bus route redirect example goes to "KC Metro Area" which isn't very helpful, but I don't think anyone has written a KC Metro Bus System article. In this case it might be best to merge the article in question with one on the overall bus routes or systems for the area. That said, it's still not a speedy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I've got no opinion on the value of the article in question, but I'm pretty sure that bus routes aren't speedy-able under A7, as they are not persons, web content, or organizations themselves ({{db-org}} specifically states that while companies are speedy-able, software and products produced by them are not). If Orange Mike would like to see these deleted, I suggest PROD or AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Does not meet any of the A7 speedy categories so should be taken to AFD not speedy deleted. The A7 criteria specifically says "Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion". Davewild (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It's a bus route not a company. The A7 deletion was incorrect. RMHED (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn As the author of National Express West Midlands article 87, I believe this article has relevance and importance to users, as it gives a break-down of the route, history of the service, areas of interest, vehicles used on route and information on other operators. As already noted, both articles 87 and 283 are about bus ROUTES, not bus COMPANIES. I believe you have interpreted both articles incorrectly and acted in haste. Thanhuk (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2008 (GMT)
Overturn Deletion policy means what it says about what category of things are and are not speedy deletable. DGG (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I have no idea if this route is anything special, but there certainly are notable bus routes, such as Madison and Fifth Avenues buses. Being a bus route is not a reason to speedy delete. --NE2 05:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steve_McKeown – contested prod automatically restored by deleting admin, also has been sent to AFD – GRBerry 13:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

the reasons for the deletion are not correct, Steve McKeown is engaged to Michelle Bass, He is a Analyst and his book is to be published within the next 8 weeks and is called 'Slimmer Mind'. All this information can be verified and is documented on several search engines. 91.106.42.65 (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request for more info The page in question is gone. Who are Steve Mckeown and Michelle Bass?--Paul McDonald (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article as deleted (via PROD) said the following:

“

Steve McKeown (born November 23, 1978 in St Albans) is a Hypnotist/ Hypnotherapist/ Clinical and Analytical Therapist. Keown attended Townsend C of E School in St Albans, McKeown attended Watford Football Club, School of Excellence pupil as a teenager, he also played for his local county and semi professional football club 'Borehamwood'. He first came into the public eye when featured with new fiance in OK Magazine. Michelle Bass. McKeown met his future Wife at his clinic when she presented herself for confidence issues, and it was reported that the pair dated one year on. His Book is likely to be published in the summer of 2008. He runs his own hypnotherapy practice, The McKeown Clinic, in St Albans, Hertfordshire.

”

The PROD rationale read "'Non notable psychtherapist, as-yet unpublished author, partner of a notable person - doesn't seem to stack up to notability'" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thanks for the clarification. I'd have to support the deletion based on this information, due to non-notability. Lots of people run hypnotherapy clinics--nothing is written that makes this one unique.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion of nn bio. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since I deleted this article through Proposed deletion, and any deletions contested under this process should be automatically restored, I have undeleted the article and taken it to Articles for deletion instead. Please make any additional comments (or repeat current comments) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve McKeown‎. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

various cure album covers – Images restored and fair use rationales added. – RMHED (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've noticed that several cure albums are missing cover images. Apparently, the fair use rationals weren't filled out, and it was easier to just delete than to correct the problem. However, the rationales should be fairly obvious (just like every other album), some of these are limited editions which would be difficult to replace, and the replacements would be identical anyway. So I'd like to request these images be undeleted to fix this hole in our coverage:

-Steve Sanbeg (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve can you confirm that you will fix the FU rationals if I undelete them? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I just uploaded another cover, so I can work on adapting that rationale to these as well. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the images but you need to fix the rationales and remove the tags. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 June 2008

Rowdy Rams – Undelete history to allow merger. Maintain redirect. – IronGargoyle (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article is currently been redirected over or deleted so user:anetode might have to give it to you. The student support group of VCU mentioned by ESPN on a regular basis. This group nearly rivivals the size of Cameron Crazies of Duke, which have a page. The page was deleted out of suspicion of copright however as one of leaders of the organization and had put in that I owned the rights to the pictures and article. It was also argued that the group wasnt important enough but if that were true ESPN, a well known sports channel that broadcasts sports events around the world would not mention them. This group is one of the reasons they say VCU's basketball team has one the most successful records at home in the country. I had more i was going to add to the article about the history of this group which dates back to 2000, however I was unable to add more because of the article's deletion. My article focused so far on the main points of why the group exists, what its main trademarks, and some main historic moments. I can give more reasons that this page should be restored if needed. thanks Nightstanger (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow merger into Virginia Commonwealth University Rams, including restoring the edit history of Rowdy Rams. The article was deleted and turned into a redirect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ionized bracelet – Restored by deleting admin. Non-admin closure. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was speedily deleted under G11 criteria, but it did not reasonably qualify. Specifically, it did not "exclusively promote" the product. Rather, the vast majority of the article was critical of the product, practically labeling it a placebo and referring to false advertisement lawsuits. I was able to recover the text from my browser's cache for your convenience. Here is an ImageShack link: [102]

I've tried twice to bring this issue to the attention of the administrator who deleted it, User:Orangemike,[103][104] but it's been five days and I've yet to receive a response. –Gunslinger47 01:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the version shown there at least wouldn't qualify for G11, so overturn and if necessary revert to a better version (namely the one shown, assuming a better one doesn't exist). I can see the parts where one might think it's spam, but after a quick read it quite clearly isn't. There are some issues with tone that need to be fix't, but deletion is never a good solution for those sorts of problems. Only issues I see are editorial in nature, really. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had recently reworked the page to include concerns expressed by User:Redheylin and earlier editors on the talk page. Only the two of us were editing the page at the time, so I'm confident that my cached copy reflects the quality of the page at the time.

(For some time now, I've been trying to avoid rewriting it myself. I'm a terrible writer who was just a technical maintainer for the page.) –Gunslinger47 03:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 June 2008

Dov Soll – Deletion endorsed – Davewild (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

look at this website [105] haskiel Salomonczyk was dov's father if you click the picture on the left u will find that dov wrote that page of testimony in 1956 king george street, tel-aviv, israel. my granpa is a holocaust survivor and i want his story to be known i ask of u to please let me recreate this article if u would like to help me recreate your welcome to do so.Star-of-David92 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Star-of-David92Star-of-David92 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC) [106][reply]

endorse deletion Dov Soll was deleted as a recreation after an AfD [107]. the article still shows no specific notability., Being a Holocaust survivor is simply not encyclopedic notability, no matter how well documented, and I urge Star-of-David to accept that conclusion. DGG 00:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't at all endorse this deletion, but it should stay deleted. While the article has had two AfDs, both of them ended with a speedy delete. The first is linked above, the second is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dov Soll (2nd nomination). Therefore the G4 cited for the most recent deletion is wrong; it doesn't apply to previous speedies. Deleting admin could've done a little better making sure the G4 was correct. However, it does seem the the subject is still entirely unimportant, and the content should stay deleted because of this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you know, that's an interesting question--the policy says for G4: "deleted via a deletion discussion," I think it might reasonably apply in cases like this where the matter has been exposed to the community .We close a lot of AfDs as speedy these days, & it seems counterproductive to not let the worst of them be redeleted by G4. Place to discuss it will be the WT:CSD, where I've just now opened the topic. DGG (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, but WP:CSD#A7 should have been the tag applied and the deletion reason instead of WP:CSD#G4. Had this ever been at AFD long enough to get a community discussion WP:NOT#MEMORIAL would have been mentioned as a reason for deletion given the absence of WP:BIO notability. GRBerry 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - as (most recent) deleting admin although I agree that WP:CSD#A7 would have been the more appropriate reason to leave in the edit summary. Will be more diligent in the future. :) nancy ^(talk) 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion being a survivor of the Shoah is not by itself a claim of notabilty. The author may be interested in a variety of projects other than Wikipedia which are focusing on collecting the history of survivors. For example, see http://holocaust.umd.umich.edu/ University of Michigan's Holocaust Survivor Oral History Archive]. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jamie Hamilton (motorcycle racer) – Speedy deletion overturned and tagged for improvement. Listing at AfD at editor's discretion. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was speedily deleted under section A7 due to the there not being an indication of why the subject is notable. Jamie is the youngest ever motorcycle racer to compete in British or World Supersport, racing aged just 16. Colchesterkawasaki (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be sourced? Is "youngest motorcycle racer in World Supersport" claim enough for notability anyways? Plrk (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn . This is an assertion of importance/significance Then in 2007 he competed in the British Supersport 600 championship, smashing the world record as the youngest racer ever to compete in British Supersport. Now whether this means he meets the notability guidelines or not is another matter and best decided at another venue. The article should not have been speedy deleted. RMHED (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn As Rmhed says there was an assertion of importance in the article so not eligable for speedy deletion under A7. Davewild (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this can be sourced. If you go to www.tsl-timing.co.uk and go to the BSB results for 2007 you can see Jamie listed as a rider in the results for each race and also the championshìp points during and at the end of the season. Also on the official British Superbike website (www.britishsuperbike.co.uk) you can see his rider profile (listing his date of birth) for the races he is competing in this year (Metzeler Superstock 600). I have emailed the British Superbike web team requesting a list of rider profiles for 2007 Supersport to prove that he is the same person. The previous record holder was Leon Haslam who competed in the 500cc World Championship aged 18. British Supersport is an extremely competitive class and takes a lot of skill to compete in. For someone to come along aged 16 and compete is unheard of and shows real up and coming talent.Colchesterkawasaki (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)— Colchesterkawasaki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Overturn A top finisher in the highest form of a specific type of sport in a major country. I would argue to keep the article at AFD, so speedy deletion was inappropriate. Royal broil 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the assertions being made are enough to pass A7, although it may be wise to send it to AfD to get a feel for consensus as to whether or not it's enough to keep. Shereth 22:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn' clear assertion of notability. AfD will decide if the notability is sufficient. DGG (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

explanation - this spammy article by a COI editor (Hamilton rides for "MSS Colchester Kawasaki") was so full of advertising-style language, peacock words, etc. that frankly I missed any assertion of notability. If these are recognized sporting events rather than brand names ("British Supersport" sounds like a slogan, not a category of event), there was nothing to clue the reader to this in the way of wikilinks, etc. I am not going to argue that this was a top-grade delete, and will not actively oppose its overturning; but the original article is so spammy that I could not support its restoration without some serious purging and wikification. --Orange Mike | Talk 07:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: This says the youngest rider is Joe Burns. This says the youngest ever to get a pole was Jonathan Rea. This says the youngest rider is Leon Camier. I think we're going to need a definiton of "youngest". Corvus cornix_talk 16:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above sources are exactly the sort of thing that should be discussed at an AfD. This is a deletion review, the purpose here is to determine whether the article was deleted in accordance with the CSD policy. RMHED (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Parature – Unsalt and allow recreation from sourced userspace draft. No prejudice against nomination at AfD if draft is deemed insufficient. – IronGargoyle (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is created to explain the history of the company Parature in the same way as other companies currently do. Similar articles exist in Wikipedia, why do you keep deleting ours? I'm including these links as examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salesforce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RightNow_Technologies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstrategy Please attend our request since we are not doing anything different than the pages I just mentioned. Thanks. Parature08 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The last two speedies were done under A7 of our speedy deletion criteria, and those sorts of deletions are usually pretty well done. The previous deletions for blatant advertising may or may not have been correct (a whole ton of non-spam stuff gets wrongly tagged), but chances are those versions weren't all that hot either. What I'd suggest doing is creating a version of the article in your userspace (at, say, User:Parature08/Parature) and work it up until it passes our relevant inclusion criteria and has references to reliable sources to verify the information. It might also be worth looking at our policies regarding conflicts of interest, given your username, and you will definately want to make sure that the text is written in a neutral tone. However, this doesn't preclude you writing the entry, you'll just have to bend over backwards making sure it doesn't seem that you're pushing a point of view or a spam-ish tone. We can have the old content userfied for you, so you can have a starting point, but the two most recent versions probably wouldn't help much. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn As of June 2008, the company has more than 650 customers," for an ondemand software company is a clear assertion of importance, and therefore passes speedy. I advise the ed. who submitted it that it is unlikely to pass AfD,however, unless there are references that can be added quickly, andsuggest he read and understand our Business FAQ about conflict of interest. DGG (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per DGG, I think the speedy deletion of Parature was somewhat improper, but it's not likely to pass Articles for Deletion in its current state. How about we restore to userspace so that User:Parature08 can (if he wishes) try to bring it in compliance with our policies and guidelines (which are, admittedly, sometimes non-intuitive)? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that Parature08 has been indefinitly blocked so userfication for him is not currently possible. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was just a username block, though, not a ban. I'd say keep deleted for now if we don't hear from him by the, but userfy if he comes back with a new account and wants to work on the article after reading through the relevant policies and guidelines (the business FAQ linked above does a nice job covering the most pertinent points). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an email that he wants to return and work on it. DGG (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the role account and COI issues, I've urged him to start a new accoount entirely. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parature has created that new account and recreated the article in userspace at User:ShenanWiki/Parature. I indicated to him in an email to wait for this DRV to close before moving the article into mainspace (wiki space).--chaser (away) - talk 10:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation I note Parature is currently salted, so based on the user space version which does have two secondary sources on it, think we should allow recreation. Davewild (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 June 2008

Matt Lesser – Article restored to mainspace and sent to AFD by deleting admin – Davewild (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was speedy deleted as a G11 (advertising). The editor who originally created it asked me to userfy and help on, which I've done - there's a copy at User:Willorbill1/Matt Lesser and, put simply, I'd like your thoughts on moving it back out into mainspace. I should mention here that I know little of American politics, so can't comment on the notability of this person. Original deleting administrator contacted, and doesn't seem to have any objection to recreation, but I thought I'd get your thoughts on it. Cheers, Alex Muller 16:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It no longer appears to be a speedy deletion candidate but i'm not sure there is sufficient notability for the article to survive an AFD? Davewild (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually we don't consider candidates notable simply for running, and there doesn't appear to be anything there that shows notability outside of this Congressional bid. I'd agree that the advertising concerns are taken care of by the userfied version, but it really doesn't have the needed notability to survive an AfD. I'm going to have to suggest that we leave it in userspace for now, but move it back if he wins the election. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lifebaka; this wouldn't survive an AFD now. GRBerry 13:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AfD It probably wouldn't survive an AfD, though the only way to b sure is to send it there. What is certainly true howevber is it is notthe blatant span envisioned by G11--it is a reasonable attempt at an article. Personally, I hope that consensus will change with these, & that major party candidates for national legislatures are in fact notable. Speed deletion policy is meaningless unless we follow it--a reason is speedy not "that it would fail afd", nor is deletion review Afd1. If a speedied article does not meet the speedy criterion, it should never have been speedied, and must be restored. DGG (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I think it would survive an AfD, there are enough articles from the Hartford Courant and other publications to meet WP:BIO's requirement for notability from reliable, second party sources, even if the candidate fails WP:POL guidelines. MrPrada (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace and list at AFD If some people believe it can survive AFD then I think we should give the article a chance as it is clearly no longer a speedy deletion candidate. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to AfD per the above comments. It would pass speedy criteria but I too am doubtful if it would pass muster at AfD, therefore submitting it for broad discussion there is the proper thing to do. Shereth 18:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What to I do? Hey, I am the co-creator of this article (if you can't tell its my first) and i thank you all for the constructive criticism. Now I am just wondering how exactly i refer this to AfD or what else to do.Willorbill1 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do a thing, it's likely this deletion review will mean the article is moved back to mainspace and very likely sent to AfD. Presuming you want to keep the article then it isn't you who should send it to AfD, but rather someone who believes the article should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, restore to mainspace and send to AfD. It might well survive an AfD, but I wouldn't count on it. RMHED (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, What? I'm not sure what you mean. Am I supposed to move this back to mainspace, and wait for someone else to bring it to AfD??Willorbill1 (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, if this Deletion review decides that a move to mainspace is appropriate then the closer of this discussion should do this. Any editor who believes the article should be deleted is then free to list it at AfD. RMHED (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the deleting admin I have watched this DRV and following this consensus have moved the article back to mainspace and sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Lesser. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aboriginal Kinship – no history at this title; user has no other contributions or deleted contributions; nothing can be done – GRBerry 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I accidently deleted the entry re Aboriginal Kinship whilst editing it by including info about my language group...sorry...new at it pressed wrong bloody button MarvynMc (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear what you are asking for here, but it sounds like you made a mistake and either deleted some information and saved the page, or hit the wrong button and lost the edits you were going to make? If you made an edit that you did not mean to, you can always undo it. Otherwise it is not clear what you are requesting here. Shereth 08:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do to help you here. The page wan't deleted, and if you didn't save your edits they aren't saved anywhere except possibly in your browser history (if your browser saves web form content in its history). I'm afraid you're going to have to rewrite the information you lost. Close this as there's nothing we can do. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kenny Larkin – deletion review request withdrawn – Davewild (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Biographical article that does not assert significance. I have no possiblity to look inside this Article but this Musician reaches the limits of notability very well, becaus this is an important producer with world wide fanbase. Has appeareance on more than one (german) electronic music magazine (de:Raveline, de:de-bug, de:Frontpage) and has releases on reputable indie-labels (Warp Records, Plus 8). See also de:Kenny Larkin. I think that is enough Biezl (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would suggest just writing up a new article, the original article was just one sentence long and said 'Techno artist from Detroit that runs his own record label Art of Dance.' Davewild (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I withdraw my request for deletion review --Biezl (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 June 2008

Alien and Predator timeline – Deletion endorsed. The assertion, that the closure's own reasoning influenced their reading of consensus isn't shared widely, and a general agreement that there was sufficient consensus to delete this timeline is not swayed by the additional cites for some dates that have brought up here. With respect to merging, the history needs only to be undeleted, if content actually remains in the main article but cannot be attributed otherwise. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly no consensus reached to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination); all deletion rationales effectively challenged. Suggest relisting or reclosing as "no consensus." Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I was the closer - this is a summary of what I wrote on GRDC's talkpage regarding why I believed the Keep !votes didn't stand up -
- User:Colonel Warden - "no pressing reason to delete" (personal opinion)
- User:Firefly322 - "It's verifiable" (not from secondary sources it isn't)
- User:Tj999 - WP:USEFUL.
- User:DGG - "Appropriate alternative way to present the material" (well fine, but I'm still not seeing secondary sources, and it's still duplicating information in other articles)
- User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles - I don't understand your vote. You rail against "cruft" repeatedly throughout your reply, but the nominator didn't mention the word cruft at all. You say it's verifiable, but don't put forward any secondary sources. You say "The real world context is obvious", and then fail to explain what real-world context there actually is. You say "Per our First pillar, Wikipedia is a science fictional encyclopedia.", which is plainly taking 1P to mean what you believe it means. "(Wikipedia) is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction or Aliens or Predator or all three." - no, it doesn't mean that at all. I'm sorry but you really need to think about these !votes a little more.
- User:Fordmadoxfraud - WP:USEFUL.
- User:Myheartinchile - WP:ITSSOURCED. No, it isn't. Black Kite 00:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And here is my reply regarding the deletes:
    - User:Seraphimblade - "not verifiable" (from secondary sources it is), "personal synthesis" (anyone would come up with the same from the sources)
      - There are no secondary sources. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reviews of the films at a minimum are indeed secondary sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But they aren't relevant to this timeline and don't address the timeline. Existence of sources for the film is irrelevant - you're looking ofr sources that specifically back up the timeline and provide critical coverage of it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        They are relevant to the timeline and address the timeline. Existence of sources is totally relevant. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then show them. Onus is on you to refute WP:NOR and WP:V using sources. You haven't. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have mentioned at least one in this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That science fiction encyclopedias exist? Oh joy. Not only is your attempt horribly vague, none of the mentioned encyclopedias even mention Alien vs. Predator, or provide any basis that the timeline isn't original research. You know, there's a certain area where despite our differences in ideology, common sense kicks in, and you're dutifully ignoring it every time. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Common sense is that the article covers an undeniably notable and verifiable topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Common sense is actually quite the opposite - watch the films. Read reviews. THERE ARE NO DATES GIVEN for Alien, Aliens only gives "57 years later" (57 years after WHAT DATE? None given.) Alien 3 gives nothing, Alien Resurrection gives a rough estimate of being 200 years after the previous film... Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem only provides the fact that it's not the month of October... there are NO DATES IN THE MOVIES! None given in text, in dialogue, on screen, ANYWHERE! So how can this be verifiable? Even the novelizations don't have any dates! --Bishop2 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I rewatched Aliens the other day and dates are indicated in text on screen in at least two scenes (when she looks at the picture of her deceased daughter) and during the briefing scene. In the former, Burke says that the daughetr died two years earlier, thus we can make a reasonable deduction from there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Only the last two digits of a year are given there. Do you feel comfortable assuming the century? I sure don't. --Bishop2 (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:IllaZilla - repeast points he made in previous AfD that did NOT close as delete; focus on disputed elements of Plot and Notability as rationale, repeats erroneous lack of verifiability claim
      - He points out, quite correctly, the failure of WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:RS. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        All of his incorrect points were refuted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Saying that they are incorrect with no rationale doesn't help your argument. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Saying that they are correct with no rationale doesn't help your argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Hardly. Onus is on you to refute the argument. You haven't. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In your personal universe I guess. Not in that discussion or this one. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In both discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Quale - repeats nom claims refuted above
      - per WP:OR above. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Repeats a refuted point. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And you're repeating a non-argument. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As are you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As are you with your boring repetition and refusal to address any of the issues by circling around the point. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, indeed you just keep repeating things and refuse to address any of the issues by circling around the point. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have. You've never addressed the issues. Vague generalizations don't address issues, concrete evidence does. What you've provided are vague generalizations. The existence of science fiction encyclopedias means utter squat, especially when you can't even confirm that they are related to Alien vs. Predator. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have adequtaely addressed the issues with concrete evidence that seems to be dismissed and ignored illogically. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Dlohcierekim - contrary to what he said, the article is significant to the real world as it concerns one of the most notable fictional franchises of modern times and is not even a list, so calling it indiscriminate is not accurate
      - WP:NOTINHERITED. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, saying notabillity is not inherited is unhelpful. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not helpful when it doesn't support your argument? You cite essays all the time. In this light, your comment here is especially hypocritical. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As is yours. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Mine hypocritical? Not at all. An observation can hardly be hypocritical. You, on the other hand, stated that Black Kite citing an essay (WP:NOTINHERITED, which is part of the WP:ATA that you love to cite so much) is unhelpful, which is hypocritical. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The not inherited cites an example of saying "not inherited" as being unhelpful. Hardly hypocritical. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And he never said it, but instead pointed to the fact that you assumed notability is inherited via your statement rather than saying notability is not inherited. You're attempting to support your point with the same essay while dismissing the parts of it that aren't helpful to your argument. Wonderful logic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't see any argument here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Deor - personal opinion: "...I don't think..."
      - A personal opinion which at least quotes a policy-based reason for deletion, unlike most of the Keep !votes. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Just as personal opinions to keep also quote policy based reasons. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Sgeureka - Plot is heavily contested, so hard to "violate"; makes a reasonable case for a merge
      - WP:PLOT is only contested by a few vocal editors. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Plot is only supported by a minority of vocal editors. The community at large who writes and works on these articles obviously feels otherwise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        PLOT is opposed by a minority of editors at WT:NOT, and it's still policy and not disputed. Trying to say that policy isn't policy until it isn't doesn't work. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        PLOT is supported by a minority of editors and should not be policy as it is disputed. Trying to keep it policy when the community in practice doesn't support it doesn't work. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not disputed until it has a tag and people aren't treating it as policy. This isn't the case. Until there is a disputed tag there and it is specifically mentioned on WP:NOT#PLOT that this is the case, you have no argument. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Editors have attempted to do so, but the minority of editors supporting it do all they can to prevent a disputed tag from being placed on these sections. You have no argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        One editor has attempted to so in a manner that is disruptive. And "all they can do"? When there are two people in that whole discussion (you included) that are opposing the policy, as versus the seven or eight odd people on the other hand, you are the minority until proven otherwise. You haven't. In any case, this is a red herring. NOT#PLOT is a fait accompli - your statements don't mean anything unless they're backed up by substance, namely a disputed tag that is supported by more than two editors. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Trying to force a limited opinion on the larger community seems a bit more pointed. Say seven or 8 in that one discussion support it, well, a whole category of Wikipedians oppose the notability guidelines. Thus, you are the minority. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Coasttocoast - uses "fancruft" in rationale, so rationale is discounted
      - Unhelpful terminology, but the !vote is still valid. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Any use of unhelpful wording discredits the post. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Terraxos - again, repeats inaccurate claim of original research
      - per above. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not about numbers. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Masterpiece2000 - no actual reason
    - User:A_Man_In_Black - again, it is not original research as refuted in the AfD
      - Refuted where?? Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Throughout the discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then point it out. You haven't refuted anything. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes I have. Any honest read of the discussion would see that. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        An "honest" read? Or a read from your very objective viewpoint, right? Please. Again, you've shown that science fiction encyclopedias exist, which doesn't help you because you haven't even shown that any of them are related to Alien vs. Predator in any form. There's a time where ideology yields to common sense and you simply refuse to go there. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        An honest read from a logical viewpoint. You simply refuse to go to common sense here. I have mentioned more than just science fiction encyclopedias. I cannot understand how you overlooking that fact. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Judgesurreal777 - unquestionable notable and verifiable through reliable sources
      - per above. WP:OR, WP:V etc. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which it passes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which it doesn't. No secondary sources, nothing to demonstrate that it isn't original research. Verifiability is our standard, not truth. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reviews of the movies are secondary sources. No one can reasonably call this original research. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're missing the point. None of the reviews address the timeline or the information presented in the article. In absence of reliable sources to back up the information, it is original research. Show the sources and I'll defer, but you haven't, which is quite common for you. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're missing the point. I have mentioned at least one review that addresses the timeline presented in the article. I have shown evidence, which you refuse to acknowledge, which is quite common for you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "I would be shocked if you cannot find any reviews of the films that do not discuss the chronology and timeline in some manner" is the first of your comments regarding reviews followed by random mentions of reviews that you claim address the timeline. Show them. You haven't. My request isn't unreasonable. Show the sources that you know exist. If you're going to claim repeatably that any person looking for sources could find these reviews, then you should be able to find them right now and show them to me. Again, the absence of credible evidence in your arguments just means they're all fluff. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And yet, I have in this very discussion actually included at least one such review, which you refuse to acknowledge. Your arguments are not reasonable and are all fluff. When I have already linked to a review in this discussion and you refuse to acknowledge that, I just don't know what to make of it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Alientraveller - non policy or guideline based reasoning
      - agreed. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - two in a row repetitious non-arguments
      - Two perfectly correct !votes based on WP:OR, I believe. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Two totally incorrect votes based on "I don't like it". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:PeaceNT - just because one user cannot find references does not mean others can't
  - Now I know some of the above posted in good faith, but the bottom line is the actual unique arguments challenge each other and most of the deletes just repeat what others said (might as well have been "per nom" as in some cases the wording is practically identical). Sufficient enough disagreement and given the previous AfD that we are left with no consensus one way or the other and so should allow editors further opportunity to improve the article as many have expressed interest in doing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Closing admin is giving no weight to keep !votes. This approach violates the good faith that a closing admin should show towards the reasoning of all keep !votes. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would I give any weight to !votes that cite no reasonable policy-based reason to keep the article? Because practically none of the Keep !votes do that, as I've pointed out above. Meanwhile, almost all the Delete votes point out the failure of the article to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT; and that is good reason to delete. Black Kite 00:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, there is plenty of policy that provides reasonable grounds to keep the article. Five pilliars especially. Moreover, the delete !votes like the closing argument suffer from a confusion between guidelines, policy, and "proof by intimidation." --Firefly322 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Practically none" is not the same as none. The delete (it is a discussion not a vote) most repeat each other and claim that it doesn't meet verifiability (anyone can see the movies or read reviews of them to verify the information), reliable sources (the films are reliable primary sources, the reviews of the film that discuss the overall continuity are reliable secondary sources), and also it is consistent with What Wikipedia is, all of which mean editors have raised concerns on both sides and there is significant enough disagreement, that while I will grant that it is not a "keep," it is at least a weak "no consensus", but not compelling enough for an unambiguous deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but I can't weigh the issue on the basis of who shouts the loudest. In the end, it has to be policy that decides the issue. Policy says - no verifiability, no reliable secondary sources, mostly plot summary. All of these are deletion-worthy failures. Closing as "no consensus" would be the easy option, but it'd also be the wrong one. Black Kite 00:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we weighed it on who shouts the loudest, then it would be a delete. If we weighed it on policy then we have a serious disagreement. Closing as "no consensus" would be the right choice as the article concerns a notable topic that is verifiable within any reasonable standards and that a significant amount of editors were both working to improve upon and argued in defense of in two AfDs. Just because a handful of editors don't want others to improve the article, doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to or that we can't. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't accept that by repeating your '5 pillars' argument, you can justify keeping any article, no matter how serious the original research problems. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are no legitimate original research problems here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought sgeureka was highlighting somewhere different policies for lists, which is what this is, in effect. It is a pity the only two sources are blogs or personal websites of some sort though. However, though not stricly RS it does invalidate arguments of OR. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not going to indent-reply to GRDC's second set of comments, because sadly they are not worthy of reply. Merely saying that something has been "refuted" without explaining why and how it has been refuted is (and I'm trying to AGF very hard here) really, really, unhelpful and insulting to a large number of people. I'm going to log out for the night now, before I say or do something I later regret. Black Kite 01:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is BK, like me and Neil, for that matter, you have a well-known opinion on these sorts of articles, so closing them will result in scrutiny by the 'other side'. Your opinion is such you should have voted rather than closed (even though the article does want for sourcing) if you find such questioning unwelcome. I should add that if I do close I fully expect my actions to be scrutinized and I have no problem with that. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse as fair reading of a contested AfD, applying cold weightings to !votes based on strengths of arguments. However, maybe starting to see evidence that the closer cares too much, therefore is not necessarily impartial, and maybe should've left this one for someone else. A no consensus close would've been possible. Had I !voted, I might have tried to find a suitable redirect. I don't like seeing deletion of attempts to organise existing content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closed on the basis of the admin own personal reading of policy. He should rather have joined the discussion. He seems to think that such an article needs secondary sources, though he's probably wrong about that. right or wrong, that does not in any event give him the right to throw out the views of those people who disagree with him. The only discretion an admin ought to have at a disputed afd closing is to discard the votes of those with no basis in policy whatsoever, not to pick which[policy he proposes to support in a disputed closing. Admins do not make policy, and their views on what is the correct policy have no more weight than anyone else's. DGG (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as per preceding. couldn't have said it better myself.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request temporary undeletion. Can we please have the article temporarily undeleted. The issue of whether !votes were properly discarded assumes a familiarity of the article in question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cryptic. The deleted version seems to be this. Comparing with Alien vs. Predator, it seems the now deleted content was merged. There are GFDL issues here! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The close did not follow WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete. There was obviously no consensus for deletion and so the guideline When in doubt, don't delete applied. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, someone just restore the fucking thing. There's clearly absolutely no point in actually having a process if we're going to have DRVs that are based on who closed the AfD, rather than their actual rationale for doing so. Well done. You win. I give up. Black Kite 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closing admin followed WP:DGFA#Rough consensus which states that "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." (emphasis added). Verifiability can only come through reliable sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can be verified by reliable sources; if it is unprotected, I will add more. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I can certainly sympathize with the closer's rationale here, but I do believe this is a case where the closing admin has crossed the line between interpreting consensus and imposing their own rationale upon the discussion. It was a close call to be sure, but I really can't see calling this one a consensus to delete. Shereth 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The article lacks primary, not secondary sources. While in general I do find arguments that fictional timeline articles only need sources from the works themselves valid, the problem is that not a single primary source that verifies stuff written here was pointed out during the debate. I fail to see from which source all the exact years come from. This is one of the rare cases where a fiction article seems to fail Verifiability. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The films themselves are primary sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closer correctly based decision on policy based rationale, not personal opinion. Seraphim♥Whipp 10:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There were sufficient policy based reasons to keep as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were not. Policy trumps opinion. When you say "there are sources", you have to actually prove it rather than just say it. Sources that discuss reception are clearly unsuitable to back up content for a timeline. Please don't respond...I've seen the regurgitation of people's comments and I don't want to be prodded about my choice of endorse. I have made my mind up by examining the debates and will not change my mind unless ACTUAL sources are brought forward that discuss content directly related to the timeline. Otherwise I'm seeing something that is original research, unverified by tertiary reliable sources and therefore has no notability established. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, policy does trump opinion and if we go by policy then we would keep the article. I have shown that sources do exist. Sources that do more than just discuss reception, but also mention the timeline coupled with commentary on DVDs are clearly suitable to back up content for a timeline. Actual sources have been brought forward that discuss content directly related to the timeline. It is not original research and is verified by reliable sources and therefore notability has been established. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - closer correctly assessed the consensus at hand that was based on policy, and discredited the parts of the opposition that were backed by personal opinion. Nothing has been shown that the article passes WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOR, WP:V, or WP:NOTE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy based consensus would have been to keep then as it passed what Wikipedia is, is unoriginal research, is verifiable, and notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is not true because you haven't provided sources to back up the information in the article, and you haven't provided any evidence that the article is notable. All of your assertions here are fluff and have no credibility if there isn't something concrete behind them. Actual proof of notability, verifiability, and that the article is not original research changes arguments, not mere statements that it is so without tangible evidence. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you read the whole discussion, you will see that I have presented sources to back up the information in the article. Saying the article is not notable is like saying an apple is a bannana. All of your assertions here are fluff an dhave no credibility as actual proof of notability, verifiability, and that the article is not original research has been presented. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I can safely say the article isn't notable in absence of sources to say otherwise. I've read the discussion. You've shown that science fiction encyclopedias exist; whether they even address or comment on Alien vs. Predator is quite another matter. You've claimed that reviews exist throughout the article, but never shown them. You've never provided a single source that addresses whether the article is notable, verifiable, or that its content isn't all synthesis. Frankly, this is getting to the point I've illustrated above in which regardless of ideology, common sense pervades at some point. You've never linked to a review or provided an example of a review. Claiming otherwise is simply lying at this point, and your perpetutation of basically the same crap time and time again is just annoying. Show that sources exist by showing them now, or your arguments are well, fluff. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can safely say the article is notable, because sources have been mentioned in the discussion. I have indeed cited a review in this discussion that comments on Alien vs. Predator. I have provided a source that addresses whether the article is notable, verifiable, and that its content is not all synthesis. Frankly, this is getting to the point I've also illustrated above in which regardless of ideology, common sense pervades at some point. I have linked to a review. Claiming that I haven't is simply lying at this point, and your perpetuation of basically the same crap time and time again is just annoying. I have shown that source and it is not my problem if you are unable to locate it in the discussion, as your arguments are well, fluff. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Correct closure, WP:SYN creation without honest verifiability. Delete rationales were not rebutted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete rationales were rebutted for a variety of reasons. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure what The Princess Bride has to do with it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - correct closure based on arguments, not numbers. PhilKnight (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If based on numbers in the one particular AfD, then it would be a delete, but if based on arguments, it would be a "no consensus." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anyway, by refuted I mean looking at the AfD and seeing where the various participants challenged the delete rationales. I think some of those who argued there did in fact make good faith and reasonable claims, which is why I am not saying you should have closed as keep, but rather as "no consensus" or to relist to see if we could get some new ideas presented in the discussion. After all Judgesurreal777, Peace NT, and sgeureka, for example, are editors who appear on my list of nice Wikipedians (as do you) and so are editors whom I respect and esteem, even if we disagree here and there. My main concern is that I do not believe the delete rationales were so overwhelming in the face of the keeps made across two AfDs as well as the unheard voices of those who created and worked on the article as well as the many readers who come to Wikipedia for the article that it was a clear cut deletion. When there are fairly strong calls to keep and for a variety of reasons and from multiple editors, I would have to say, barring a copyright concern, libel, or hoax issues, we really should close as "no consensus." If the main criticism is that it's original research, well, we're talking about a major movie series seen by millions of people world wide in theaters, on DVD, on VHS, on television, etc. These films include dates and mention how many years since any given event has occurred. These films have been covered in published magazines. It's not information being presented that one person found in an archive and is reporting to us and we're taking his word for it. Millions of people can verify the timeline. Yes, I know we have a verifiability page, but there's also just being reasonable and it is unreasonable to use a term like verifiability and say it doesn't apply to something that millions of people can verify with relative ease. It's not original research as well, because it is not an essay, doesn't have a thesis, is not some experiment one person conducted and is reporting his findings on, and nor is it an article that only one person originally worked on. Multiple editors with different motivations are hardly original researchers. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts (yes, I know, this was before I wised up and realized "per nom" is week) is original research and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's New Happening on Disney Channel India is what I would consider an unacceptable future "timeline" of sorts. But take such reviews as this, which says things like "This film takes the two popular xenomorphs and sets them in the present. As a result the film slots into the chronology after the two Predator films but before the Alien series." and "Set on Earth in the year 2004..." (such reviews and such comments mentioning specific dates and sequence of events exist for all of the films and events listed on the now deleted article and I would have been better able to add these to the article if it didn't seem necessary to go back and forth with some in the AfD). The dates and chronology and sequences of events are mentioned specifically and discussed critically in secondary source reviews of the films. So, again, I have nothing personal against you or many of those in the discussion and nor do I doubt that many acted in good faith or that every rationale presented to delete was totally baseless. I do however contend that the concerns were responded to and that if the discussion itself had ended as a no consensus then I and others would be able to use these kinds of reviews like the one I cite above to in fact improve the article in a manner that would effectively address their concerns. It is simply hard to do that and debate editors at the same time. Best,--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of refutations asserted, but unless they are successful they do not rebut the rationale put forward. Simply responding to the concerns does not refute them. None of the keep arguments satisfactorily overcome the policy-based deletion arguments. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the delete arguments satisfactorily overcome the policy-based keep arguments, which is why no consensus was reached. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While reading through the arguements, consensus did weave back and forth a little, and no consensus did seem a perfectly valid close. Right up until the end, when PeaceNT made another statement that the films do not actually verify the dates in the timeline. I just checked Alien (own a VHS copy), and this seems to be the case. If the content can't even be verified from primary sources, it can be safely assumed that the content is original research. Given this, the keep arguements are all clearly weaker. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, no consensus would be the correct close. The content can be verified from primary secondary sources, which is why the delete arguments are clearly weaker. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda' saying that quite a bit that is supposedly sourced from primary sources can't actually be. For instance, dates aren't explicitly mentioned in Alien. Nor are they in Aliens (though it does take place 57 years later; again, I own a VHS copy). The dates appear to be WP:OR. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some odd reason my DVD disc is skipping, but anyway my DVD of the Aliens Special Edition includes a scene in which Ripley is handed a photograph of her daughter. The photograph includes the deceased daughter's "DB" and "DECEASED" dates (years, months, days). The dialogue says that the daughter died 2 years prior to the events in which the scene takes place and the DVD description text says Aliens takes place 57 years after Alien. Also, if you watch the next scene in which Ripley is talking with all of the company types and look at the screen with green letters, you will see dates included in that text as well. I'll have to watch all the movies again to see if there are other such inclusion of dates as well and again would have to check again if they match the article's dates, but in any event, there are at least two scenes in the special edition of Aliens that do in fact satisfy that aspect of the primary source element by displaying specific dates down to the days and months even. Sincerely,--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must've missed them; I didn't get far into Alien and had friends over the last time I watched both, so... Whatever. Retracted above comments, I'm now neutral. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check again To the right of each date is a film where the date originated. Checking the wikipedia article Alien (film)#Plot, one finds that 2122 A.D. is that year in which the events take place. Thus, this date is not WP:OR. This procedure can be done for the other dates. Secondary sources are sometimes needed and these have already been used in the articles on the films themselves--as shown. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All that infobox shows is when the films were released, not the fictional dates of the stories the films portray. This list is about the fictional dates, and is synthesis based on extrapolating (ie. guesswork) from the films themselves. The only source cited that is not based on such speculation is the Behind the scenes commentary on AvP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per Le Grand and LifeBaka. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Therefore you mean you endorse overturning deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Me and Le Grand Roi disagree here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion the arguments were given appropriate weight. "Hasn't got any secondary sources" and "consists of original research" are strong arguments. --Hut 8.5 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of which are false or incorrect arguments in this case. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: The deleting admin has done the right thing and restored the article as requested. Kudos to him and thus this discussion seems no longer necessary as the reason for filing the DRV has been responded to satisfactorily. Thank you, Black Kite. I should also note that due to a merge mentioned above, we cannot re-delete the article for legal reasons per the GFDL (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). Finally, if the article is unprotected and will add citations accordingly. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My restoring of the article should not be taken as a change of opinion, and it should still be deleted if the result of this DRV is Endorse. There is no GFDL issue; the information shouldn't have been merged whilst under AfD anyway, and regardless the history will still exist at that article. However, it should be removed from that article, as the result of the AfD was not Merge. Black Kite 19:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is unprotected, then I would be able to add the citations that any reasonable person would see meets our standards. Someone other than one of the participants here merged the material, which is okay, after all we're trying to build an encyclopedia and therefore because of that we do at least need to keep as a redirect per the GFDL. I suggest perhaps contacting the user who merged and notifying him or her of this discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - that would set a really poor precedent. We don't need to keep a redirect because that editor merged the information whilst the AfD was running. If we do this, people are just going to start copying material from any article at AfD to another one, calling it a "merge", and then saying "look, you can't delete it at AFD now because of the GFDL". The original editor might've done it innocently, but that really isn't the point. Black Kite 20:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that would be a bad thing. After all, we do encourage editors to be "bold." And if the information is considered valuable enough by editors to merge in good faith, then it shouldn't be a problem. Now if an editor merged something libelous or that was a copyright violation, okay sure, but in this case when a number of editors also agree that there is some value in keeping the information somewhere, one AfD shouldn't be the end all of the mtter. After all, we allow editors to keep renominating articles for deletion even if previous AfDs closed as keep. So, if someone thinks the material can be merged and others agree regardless of one five day AfD concerning information for an article that has been around for several months and which a number of editors have worked on, we should allow those editors to do the best they can with the material in question so that they can better develop our comprehensive general/special encyclopedia/almanac. It would be unacademic to think that certain articles can never be improved. We already know that this article is a legitimate search term and as seen above, there is a substantial split regarding its value to our project. If we keep it in some capacity, then those like myself who own the Quadilogy four disc set (which means sooner or later I can get around to watching the special features and commentary for any comments on timeline) and those who have subscriptions to magazines or books (I have an Alien novel lying about somewhere that I can check when I get a chance for any mention of dates) can look for interviews with the filmmakers as to when they films are set. I know the films do have some coverage in books and so I would be shocked if there isn't some kind of coverage and discussion of the films' setting that could allow for a beter referenced actual timeline and maybe even a reception section as well. I do not think this is a clear case of something that has no Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. I strongly believe that we can reasonably improve the article further and that we should be able to do so as if we succeed, we will only improve our project, but whereas we don't really gain anything by just deleting an article that a number of editors (I'm not alone on this one) also believe has value. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion'. By what possible rationale can this mess of original research and unreliable sources be kept? Corvus cornix_talk 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the many solid rationales presented over the course of two AfDs and in this DRV. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE GFDL Issue. There is an issue, as deleted content from Alien and Predator timeline exists in Alien vs. Predator without complete attribution. The obvious solutions are (1) restore Alien and Predator timeline as a redirect to Alien vs. Predator, or (2) remove the content from Alien vs. Predator. Arguably, an alternative case for DRV might be that the merge option, while mentioned in AfD2, was obscured by excessive verbiage, not given enough attention, and was actually a good idea. Thus, given that I thing the close was harsh but fair, the question now should be whether the material should be allowed to stay in Alien vs. Predator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted - or redelete now). While this was a closer call than many, I find no process problems in the deletion discussion or in the closure. Closers are supposed to weight the opinions offered in accordance with their alignment with established policy. I would have appreciated a lengthier explanation in the close itself, but the closer has explained his/her decision clearly here. (The GFDL issue will require more investigation, though. Still working through the histories to see if the content was actually copied from another page first, which could make the GFDL impact on this page moot.) Rossami (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The process problem lies in the AfD lacking an actual consensus. Sometimes even if a closer means well and explains themselves, their decision can still be incorrect, especially in the light of additional evidence and sources as presented above, such as secondary source reviews that directly mention dates and primary sources that also directly mention dates (even down to the months and days). Some of the deletion concerns were actually over primary sources and at least two scenes in Aliens do indeed include text that shows years and mention when the events occuring occur relative to those years. And doing a quick search of reviews does turn up some other citable material. A five day AfD is not the definitive end to an article. When new sources appear, we should restore the article and add those sources and then if someone later wants to try again at AfD, so be it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Le Grand, you have made your opinion quite clear. Please trust that the rest of us are smart enough and conscientious enough to have read the comments above - and that even after having read your comments, we can in good faith disagree with you. Responding to every post and repeating the same arguments over and over detracts from your credibility. Rossami (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough, although if it is a discussion, I think it should flow as one, i.e. one in which we interact, and I hope that some of the above will also acknowledge that repeating their same arguments over and over just as much detracts from their credibility. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per my arguments in the AfD. I'm sure that within a few hours (minutes?) LGRdC will step in and say that all my arguments were successfully refuted, but the fact is (and I think the closing admin would obviously agree) they weren't. None of the editors who want to keep the article offer any solutions to its numerous problems: It is original research because it is based only on primary sources. It is merely plot summary in a different form. Even if it were permitted to only be based on primary sources, much of the information does not appear to be verified by the films (on that note: I'm re-watching the films to check on this...so far only watched Alien in which no dates are given. I've been out of town a few days so it'll take me a while to get to the rest). The notability of the article's topic has been challenged and not a single secondary source has been provided to support its claims to notability. It has been 2 and a half months since the close of the first AfD and no efforts have been made to address any of these valid concerns, despite the placement of maintenance tags. The "keep" !voters offer no solutions; they merely claim that these problems are "non-arguments" (ie. that articles may be based only on primary sources...complete poppycock which contradicts all of the core article policies: V, NOR, & NOT). Consensus is of course not a vote, but I see in the AfD a 2/3 majority in favor of deletion based on valid, well-reasoned arguments backed up by policies; vs. 1/3 opposed to deletion with rationales like "wikilawyering" and "helps alien and predator fans". There are of course LGRdC's arguments such as "notability is inherited" and "secondary sources are not required" but as I've already pointed out numerous times these are incorrect assumptions that completely contradict many of our policies and guidelines as well as precedent established in past AfDs where notability was a major concern. LGRdC, you needn't reply to this comment (though I imagine you will anyway) as I'm not interested in another circular debate with you in which you merely take my own words and change "is" to "isn't" & repeat the same opinions ad nauseum. The opinions of the few others who agree with you are the only ones you seem to consider valid anwyay. In my honest opinion Black Kite judged the consensus properly, weighing not only the !votes but the validity of the arguments and their reflection of Wikipedia's policies and best practices. The swift listing here at DRV only shows that the few editors who did !vote "keep" view any closure not in their favor as unfair and "no consensus", which any reasonable person actually reading the arguments in the AfD will see is untrue. To claim that Black Kite somehow simply disregarded the "keep" !votes is complete and utter nonsense and amounts only to petulant whining on the part of those who did not get their way. Just because a discussion does not end the way you wanted it to does not mean that the arbiter ignored your arguments. I find this whole thing ridiculous, and the only thing keeping me from washing my hands of the whole affair is the desire not to appear as though I have been beaten into submission by pointless repetition until finally throwing up my hands in surrender, as it seems Black Kite was driven to do. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. It seems the deletion was driven by some poor overgeneralizations. Our general notability guideline prescribes that articles should generally be supported by secondary sources that substantiate the notability of the subject. A common exception, which is not specifically mentioned in WP:N but is supported by some precedent (albeit an inconsistent one) and some related guideline, deals with forking large amounts of content. Subjects like Alien and Predator are highly notable, so it makes sense to document them in somewhat more depth than usual, but for obvious reasons we don't want the whole . For all intents and purposes the timeline can be considered an extension of the Alien and Predator article, and it should be evaluated as such. We give this appropriately unique treatment to lists all the time (hence we have a list of bridges, which certainly does not meet WP:N); the same concept applies to this timeline. There's a reason why our general notability guideline is not policy (and even our "official policies" are not exactly policies). There is a similar issue with the primary sources. Primary sourcing is bad in many contexts -- often they are difficult or impossible to access (unpublished interview, for example), and often they are subject to varying, contentious interpretations. There is absolutely no problem with using a film as a primary reference for unambiguous, descriptive observations; the interpretations that are being drawn from WP:V and WP:RS have very little to do with the spirit thereof. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the summary style guidelines you bring up caution against splitting a topic that doesn't have real-world coverage, in the section WP:AVOIDSPLIT:

"Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors should fully develop the main article first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and can be split off into their own article."

In this case the specific notability criteria would be WP:FICT#Elements of fiction which is still in development, but also calls for real-world coverage through secondary sources: "Elements of a work of fiction, including individual stories, episodes, characters, settings, and other topics, are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources." "Evidence of notability should explain what is special about the topic, such as awards, rankings, sales figures or studies and analyses specifically relating to the element in question." Precedent does show that list articles are often treated a bit differently (hence we have separate featured list criteria, which by the way still call for the use of reliable sources). However, the article in question here is not a list article. It is an attempt to synthesize plot information from a series in a separate article, and hence is an article devoted entirely to plot summary. The list of bridges you point out is just that: a list of other articles. It serves much the same purpose as Category:Bridges. This article is significantly more than that, as it presents and synthesizes plot information and relies quite a bit on the detective skills of the author (you can see that once the article's talk page is undeleted). As seen there, here, and in the 2 AfDs, there is quite a bit of contention as to whether the films actually verify the dates given in the article. There do seem to be varying, contentious interpretations because the dates in the films are, in many cases, ambiguous. I'm looking into this issue independently at the moment, but obviously this takes time as it involves skimming through 8 films. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section was added about two months ago, following minor edit warring but no talk page discussion. It's unclear whether the addition would stand up to scrutiny if the little-known guideline were watched by a more substantial number of editors. There is some precedent for giving unique treatment to certain types of forks, but as I said, it is an inconsistent one; it doesn't take much searching to see that WP:FICT, WP:NOT#FICT, and WP:SS are in a state of derangement. (The related ArbCom finding, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Unclear status, states it succinctly.) Given this, I think it's appropriate to discuss the merits of various interpretations (which is what my above comment attempts to do). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. Timelines are an important sidebar for understanding complex multi version fiction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion Review is not AfD round 2, please provide an explanation of why you believe this AfD was closed incorrectly. Whether or not timelines are useful in general is irrelevant. --Stormie (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. No evidence that deletion process was not followed properly; no new sourcing has come to light. The mass of verbiage presented by the nominator is merely an attempt to reargue the AfD here. Deor (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please actually re-read the above discussion more carefully. New sourcing has indeed come to light. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only 1 source has been presented: A review of Alien vs. Predator which only mentions that the film is set between the 2 existing franchises and that it takes place in 2004. This is obvious to anyone, especially if you've already read the Alien vs. Predator article, and it certainly doesn't show why the timeline of events in the series is notable. Claiming that "new sourcing has indeed come to light", when it consists only of 1 source that barely addresses this article's subject, is a rather specious claim. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am also referring to the primary source discovery of dates that appear in the special edition of Aliens. At least two of those who had previously argued to delete did so based on lack of primary evidence, so the review is an effort to address those with secondary source concerns (if I could find one, I bet given even more time, I'll find others) and the scenes mentioned from Aliens address the secondary source claims (I'll have to rewatch the whole series to see if there are more, but I wonder if the novelizations and reviews of the novelizations could also turn up stuff? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - could I request temporary undeletion of the article's talk page as well - there were some discussions there on some of the issues that need to be fixed, and/or what people might be doing to fix them. (I also think that expecting huge amounts to be done at end-of-semester for a number of the major contributors was asking a bit much.) I'd ask BlackKite directly, but he appears to have gone on wikibreak. thx, umrguy 42 15:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Y Done — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus per DGG. Closer appears to have acted more in tune with his/her personal feelings about the article, rather than with the consensus (or lack thereof) of the community. To disclose fully, as mentioned above, I myself did argue to keep the article. Ford MF (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Could an interested admin please check on the restoration of the article? It seems to be in some sort of protected state and is not able to be edited, and the talk page has not been restored. Although I still support deletion, the apparent error bugs me and is preventing at least 1 interested party (Le Grand) from potentially making good faith edits. I am conducting some investigating of my own into the article's verifiability problems that I would like to post on the talk page if the deletion is indeed overturned (which, again, I don't think should happen, but if it is overturned I would like a place to present these findings). --IllaZilla (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Done by XDanielx. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. MrPrada (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I wasn't setting precedent with that close, and it's still being reviewed. Shereth 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about that example? I don't see a relation between that case and this one at all. That was a case built around NOTNEWS and dealing with an article about a current event; this is an article dealing with a subtopic of a science fiction franchise. I'm even further confused by the fact that you !voted to delete in that article, yet you ask for an overturn here. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Without trying to be WP:POINTy, the no consensus close there was determined from the NOT#NEWS being unable to sway the keeps, who were poignant in their opposition to deletion. I see the same poingancy here, and none of the NOT#SYN and NOT#PLOT arguments, made any of the keeps change their arguments, or at least consider a merge. That does not strike me as consensus, and since there ratio of people with the same keep argument to people the same delete argument is even closer in this case, I feel they should be closed the same way, as no consensus. Consenus can always change, and at a future AfD, perhaps one argument will be more persuaive. Please note I would have !voted to overturn anyway, but I felt this recent case provides a good example to work from when defining "no consensus" (even though I disagree with the AFD and DRV of my example, I am following what my interpreation of the overall community opinion is). MrPrada (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong endorse. Here's the problem - the people supporting the article keep claiming that the facts in it are verifiable. Bottom line: It's just not true. If you watch any of the films, no dates are given in any of them except two - Predator 2 and Alien vs. Predator. Now, Predator 2 does provide a date for the first Predator in its confines, but that's it. NO dates are given in any of the Alien films for when they happen; you can claim over and over that there's verifiable evidence, but it's simply not there. I even own the novelizations of these movies, and again, no dates exist. We have here all these arguments about "secondary sources' and stuff, and that's just irrelevant; the PRIMARY SOURCES do not back this information up. There are basically no sources. Only through crazy math and a lot of assumptions do you come up with these dates. The last time it was proposed for deletion, the creator backed it up by linking to another fan's online timeline. And that timeline was backed up with... a lot of admitted guesswork. If that's the best we've got, it really doesn't belong on Wiki. Fanon doesn't belong, original research doesn't belong. It's gotta go. --Bishop2 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aliens includes scenes that do in fact provide specific dates and other reliable material does indicate the time that passes between films. Claiming that dates do not exist is just not true; I rewatched the film the other day and there they are in two scenes at least. Unoriginal research does belong. It has to stay. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the above. Original research and guesswork are not appropriate for Wikipedia, and the discussion never addressed this cogently. --Haemo (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unoriginal research, which is what the article is is appropriate for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. After reading the discussion above, the AfD discussion itself and looking at the restored version of the article, it seems to me that the closing admin made a reasonable decision in interpreting consensus. Nsk92 (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that some of it was merged and so due to teh GFDL, we cannot keep the article deleted. Also, requests have been made to unprotect the article in order to reference it and perhaps relist. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (briefly returning from Wikibreak). (1) I have unprotected the article for the time being. (2) There is no need to relist unless this DRV results in "Overturn and Relist". (2) There is no GFDL issue. The material shouldn't have been merged during the AfD, and if this DRV results in Endorse, then we merely remove the merged material as well. Black Kite 08:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doing a merge during an afd doesn't prevent an article from getting deleted, for obvious reasons. The merged material can be removed from the merge target, and if someone starts edit-warring to put it back, he can be blocked for disruption or violating copyright (in case the material wasn't originally written by him). - Bobet 11:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does this refer to list in Alien vs. Predator? I'm neutral to to all this and did not do anything to this timeline article. Ultra! 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, in the sense that if this closes with 'endorse deletion', the list should be removed. And it's generally not a good idea to do a merge during an afd, unless the forming concensus is obvious. If the concensus isn't obvious, you can leave a note in the discussion saying you'd be willing to do a merge if the discussion gets closed with that result; it's always appreciated and can sometimes get merge decisions closed faster (since admins don't always like doing mergers themselves). On another note, when you merge stuff, you should leave a note about it in your edit summary. - Bobet 09:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of article whose premise -- that there is a coherent time continuum/frame and that characters' dialog and small print on a prop sheet of paper -- is original research and a failure to abide by policies regarding reliable sources. Weight of strong delete arguments bolstered by WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:PLOT, WP:OR trump unsubstantiated claims of secondary sources existing out in the ether. --EEMIV (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion - the dates for Alien and Aliens are clearly stated in the book Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual (ISBN 0061053430), the other dates are mentioned in either the movie novelisations or on screen. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, but the Technical Manual isn't provided as a referenced in the article. If you own it, you could add citations to some of the dates and that might help. It still doesn't solve the problem of secondary sources, though (the Tech. Manual is a primary source, as it's a work of fiction and part of the supporting media for Aliens). Also, as Bishop2 points out, the films and their novelizations do not actually mention most of the dates that appear in the timeline article. If you have those novelizations and can prove that they show the dates, go ahead and add them as references or bring them up here. Otherwise it seems several other editors disagree that they give any dates. What's really needed are third-party sources which discuss the timeline of events in these films and why they are significant. This would solve the original research and notability issues. But I don't belive such sources exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - valiant effort to maintain our standards on blatant violations of WP:OR and [[:WP:V}. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the AfD, some additional sources have been added that address the original research and verifiability concerns. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Good close. We need more like 'em. Eusebeus (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, good policy-based analysis of a difficult AfD. --Stormie (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the AfD, the article has nevertheless improved somewhat and as indicated above a GFDL concern has also been identified. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the material is deemed appropriate for Alien vs. Predator then of course the authors must be credited, although I see that it has already been removed as "in-universe OR". If there is consensus to reinsert, be sure to add a note to the talk page crediting the original authors. --Stormie (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Good call. Consensus gets judged on weight of argument against policy not headcount and assertions of notability that are not backed uup by sources are rightly excludable from the closing assessment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the close was a bad call as there was no argument based consensus to delete, with keep arguments in support of policy and assertions of notability backed up by sources, I ask that JediLofty help out by using the book he mentions above to add to the sources in the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense - and you know you really don't need to challenge every comment that is different to you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it is nonsense to delete an article being revised and in a discussion, we interact, i.e. discuss with each other. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is that you are not discussing. You're simply repeating the same thing ("see the sources") without providing anything new to the debate. Trying to twist a commenter's words around, like you did above, also does not endear you to others here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (and redelete). Near-complete consensus at the AFD, Citrouilles' disruptive filibustering notwithstanding, and even if there were not, deletion would be correct. Illazilla's arguments are particularly compelling. —Cryptic 13:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no "near-complete consensus" at the AfD when a good number of editors present particularly compelling arguments to keep and saying disruptively otherwise is dishonest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Closer got this right the first time. HiDrNick! 12:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Queen of Bollywood – currently under discussion at AfD. – Rossami (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguation page was improperly speedily redirected as "total nonsense, unreferenced, magazine/fansite-style written fangush, as well as blatant POV and false," yet this was the title reported in each case by international news organizations as the BBC, CBC, Time, Newsweek, and The Hindu. Dab pages don't cite articles, they cannot be written "fanzine-style" as it is a list of articles with a common characteristic, and attempts to add the cited terms to the appropriate articles [108],[109],[110] have been quickly reverted by a particular fervent editor who subsequently threatened a block for 3RR. Dab pages cannot be POV if they merely contain lists of people who have been reported in the international press as having that sobriquet. The fact that reliable sources, namely news organizations, have reported people as being dubbed with that name, clearly show that A) the term is not nonsense and B) either a dab page or a stand-alone article is needed here. The dab page itself was prompted by a WP:RfD discussion of The Queen of Bollywood, which itself is a redirect to an article that was mentioned on the dab page. B.Wind (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Almost every popular actress/singer in Bollywood throughout her career was called The queen of Bollywood. It's full fangush and POV. Take Priyanka Chopra for example, she is merely a beauty pageant newcomer who is not even considered a talented actress. All of the mentioned sites are, though reliable, often written in a magazine style. It's just a simple magazine/fansite description to praise female actors - there is nothing formal, and Wikpedia is WP:NOT a magazine.
Just a good aside note,
( The list was in addition to being redundant, was full of blatant POV and bias. It implies as if these particular actresses are the most popular, why it's clearly isn't the case. Your list for example did not include top-actresses like Nargis, Rekha, Waheeda Rehman, Nutan, Meena Kumari, Hema Malini (who is the most popular Bollywood actress ever), Preity Zinta (who is Bollywood's most successful actress today), which invalidates their popularity, especially considering they are also described this way, but you - either overlooked or didn't notice, which can happen quite often in this case. And that's only my simple list; someone can come tomorrow and wonder why another actress is not there. ).
Coming back to the matter, another important note, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You can add many reliable sources, but it doesn't mean that you can add everything using them. Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Can we go and add that?
It's by all means nonsense. I ould say, assuming good faith, that you have to familiarise yourself with some policies. This list, dab or whatever is clearly in violation of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE etc. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's check a few of the above assertions here. As stated below, omission is not a reason for the deletion of a disambiguation page - all you have to do is add the missing entries. A dab page listing the articles for actresses and singers that have been reported by international news organizations (not fan sites) is NPOV as long as the entries all meet a common criterion. Third, I urge the editors to revisit the Wikipedia definition of WP:NONSENSE - this clearly falls short of this. Using cited reference from reliable sources refutes any accusation of OR, and a one-sentence mention of such a cited, objective statement by the BBC, and so forth, is hardly undue weight. From this end, it looks more like a turf battle instead of an actual, valid, justification for a speedy deletion of a dab page. B.Wind (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's your problem, you read only my last paragraph, ignoring the other. It is nonsense - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite or some sleazy magazine. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disapproval of the page - "Queen of Bollywood" is merely a loose title occasionally used by the media to glorify an actress in a discussion. For an encyclopedia any "Queen of Bollywood" is likely to be subject to POV of the actress involved and it certianly should not be linked, if mentioned at all in an encyclopedia. I wonder how many actresses could be called a Queen. There are several, whether its Rekha, Hema Malini, or modern day Aishawarya Rai or Preity Zinta, Ther eis only one "Queen" so a dab page is highly inappropriate and not what this encyclopedia is about. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but not for any of the reasons the deleting admin cited. None of the pages on that dab use the word "queen" anywhere in the body text and all should've been removed. This would've left a blank article which could be deleted under A3. So deletion overall is a good thing. However, the reasons cited are nearly all bunk, with the exception of nonsense, which the cached version at least wasn't. The deleting admin and the tagging editor need to note this to avoid mistakes in the future, but in this case the end result is proper. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTES. 1) I brought this to DRV in an attempt for a wider discussion than the three or four people who actually saw it before it was hastily deleted. It would be nice, if not appropriate, to let the rest of the Wikipedia community actually see the disambiguation page that lasted less than three hours. The wider review is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. 2) None of the pages currently have the cited phrase as one of the editors above was particularly fervent in reverting without even looking at either the statement or the sources such as Newsweek, Time, the BBC, CBC, The Hindu, CBS News... and that's just a handful of reliable sources. Thus the reverting was clearly in bad faith, and rather than aim for WP:LAME, particular after a WP:THREAT regarding WP:3RR from the same fervent editor, it was more prudent to take the issue here. 3) Dab pages don't have citations; furthermore, they are rarely complete - omissions are reasons for editing, not deletion. 4) Regarding the comment about CSD#R3: good-faith edits cannot be vandalism (per WP:VANDAL), and the creation of a dab page is clearly a good faith edit; therefore CSD R3 cannot apply here. 5) Regarding Lifebaka's comments, the "nonsense" point is itself nonsense, as reported by international news agencies, as stated above. 6) As I pointed out in my discussions with both User:Shshshsh and the deleting admin, the fact that so many international news organizations globally have used the term in stating to that phrase having been applied to various Bollywood actresses and singers necessitates either a dab page to the various article of the people addressed by the reliable sources only or a stand-alone article covering the term Queen of Bollywood. 7) Denying both possibilities is also counter to Wikipedia policies - as to POV and bias, Shshshsh must be reminded of the difference between the POV of stating that someone is "Queen of Bollywood" in the form of a personal opinion and stating that a reliable news source has applied the sobriquet to her or has factually stated that it had been applied. For the time being, I urge a temporary undeletion so that the rest of the Wikipedia community can view the dab page in question so they can have an informed input into this discussion. B.Wind (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Haven't entirely worked out what's going on here, but cannot see why Queen of Bollywood is neither a redirect nor a dab page. It's a term in existance, has lots of google hits, including reliable sources, and it should not be a redlink. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you also create an article for Hollywood? I repeat, it's just a way to praise popular actresses - and you can praise evewhere: newspapers, fansites. Every possible actress who saw success has been described the Queen.
  It's POV and I can explain wby. Examples only:
  A) That term is used to describe popular actresses, and the problem is that readers will conclude that the list consists of the most popular. But everything is possible, and take for example Hema Malini, who is the most successful Bollywood actress of all-time; it's quite possible that she does not appear in any of those tabloids as Queen of Bollywood. And if an article like this exists, it will invalidate her success. That's an example of POV in this case.
  B) It's also good to note that many other actresses have been called Queens but did not appear on the list. Meaning, they were just ignored by the user who created the page. So he either overlooked some names because he doesn't like an actress or just did not notice. Both cases show that such pages are anything but misleading lists, full of bias, POV and confusuion.
  As for reliable sources - it's still fangush. Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Can we go and add that? Definitely not - because, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
  BTW, if that's so important, would you find a source describing the term itself? Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, before the big brouhahah, I had, in fact found 28 citations from reliable sources stating that various women were dubbed "Queen of Bollywood" (and one as "Queen of Bollywood music") - about 10-11 in the three diffs above. Of course, the arguments immediately above this post are but a obfuscation of the purpose of deletion review, which is stated atop the WP:DRV page to be used to review the process of the deletion. We still do not have an explanation of the CSD criterion being used for its speedy deletion anywhere - the rationale by the deleting admin was a (disputed) rationale for deletion under RfD, not CSD. Of course, as hinted by the posts by Shshshsh/Shalid and User:SmokeyJoe above, should someone wish to write a NPOV article about the widely-used and -reported term Queen of Bollywood instead of the dab page, I would have no such objection and would be more than willing to withdraw my application for review upon the composition and delivery of such an adequately-sourced article. Of course, if someone wishes even to block that article, even if it's written with a worldwide view, it would be clear that he/she/it would be more interested in denying good faith by the other editors that are involved here, in which case there's a deeper problem than just the improper deletion of a dab page. B.Wind (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't realize this discussion was already underway when I found the page. The page at time of deletion did not qualify for speedy-deletion under any of our existing criteria. In particular, it was not patent nonsense in the very narrow way that we use the term here. I assumed that it was a good-faith oversight on the part of the deleting admin and, since out-of-process speedies are to be immediately restored and sent to XfD for community discussion, I did that. Then I backed out my creation of the AfD nomination in favor of some notes on history on the disambig's Talk page. I do not have strong feelings on the content of the article one way or the other but this detailed discussion of the relative merits of the page belongs on AfD. Rossami (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Sons of Eilaboun – Deletion endorsed. I felt this discussion was particularly tricky in that both sides bring up useful points on what amounts to a judgment call. The latitude that a closer has in disregarding the !votes of sock- and meat-puppets is wide. Even if they seem to be making cogent points, their on-wiki credibility and the credibility of their arguments is called into question by the tactics they use and the obfuscation that their participation creates--particularly if their arguments are not endorsed by actual contributors to the encyclopedia. In this DRV discussion itself, the discussion is split between those who felt there was an interpretable consensus for deletion (weighing policy and guideline concerns) and those who felt there was not. Inspecting the AfD itself, I feel as though it was a very close call that the closer made. I then viewed the content of the article and matched the !votes in the AfD to the facts of the article. Given the extremely poor condition of the article (it barely even asserted importance as it stood), the deletion arguments were and continue to be more persuasive, and the burden of proof lies on those wishing to challenge the procedure of the XfD closure. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

horrible amount of sock-puppetering/meat-puppetering, however, please look at the merits of the film itself Huldra (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck, that's a mess. And it really pains me to think that I have to !vote overturn to no consensus here, when the closing admin had such a hard job. I'm guessing he ignored the !votes of all the SPAs in there, but some of them had actual good arguements (namely, User:JFCK and User:87.175.1.42), which is enough to tip the balance off of delete. Not nearly enough to swing all the way to keep, but enough for no consensus. I'd personally suggest giving the article some time to be worked on before nominating it again, but mostly likely another AfD should happen in a few months to check if a consensus has formed, if people still want it deleted. It'd also be nice to get a few established editors who know Arabic in to check sources and such in the meantime. Also, you probably should've discussed this with the closing admin before bringing it here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I still haven't seen any evidence that the film meets WP:MOVIE criteria. WP:COI also a problem, as evidenced in the AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with user Number 57 about WP:COI because there was no real proof, just an assumption. FriedenMann (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. FYI to Lifebaka, I allowed for a couple of the meatpuppeters making decent points but still interpreted overall consensus for the AFD was "delete". —Wknight94 (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – We aren't here to debate the merits of the film itself, only whether it meets our guidelines for inclusion. Right now, it doesn't. Perhaps after it's released we'll see some reviews or other coverage that would show how it's a notable film but, until then, it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note, it has actually been released. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/relist. I think that in all of the meatpuppetry, some refutations of the delete arguments were lost (such as DGG's "Al-Ahram is sufficient sourcing for notability of a film.") Other editors may have been discouraged from contributing due to the socks. MrPrada (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/relist I think MrPrada is right, many arguments were lost, and example waht user Arab48 wrote:

 "This film meets the following WP:MOVIE criterias:
 Other evidence of notability” 
 3.The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio.

 The film also meets the following principles of WP:MOVIE: General principles 3 & 4 
 3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of film making. 
 4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive."

As well as some German newspaper, Aljazeera and Al-ahram. In the film website there are scans of Arabic newspapers as well ( and some have translation).
The award was ignored as well, Badil is a very respected organization, and it's award should not be ignored. FriedenMann (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with user Number 57 about WP:COI because there was no real proof, just an assumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FriedenMann (talk • contribs) 07:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that FriedenMann (talk · contribs) is one of the meatpuppets in question. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/relist The film meets the WP:MOVIE criterias. 217.194.34.103 (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - tough call, but a fair one. If and when the film becomes notable enough to meet WP:MOVIE, we can get a new article. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn due to lack of consensus to delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/relist I think The film meets the WP:MOVIE criterias, and should be recreated. NakoBalaKhof (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NakoBalaKhof (talk · contribs) has only two edits before this one. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 June 2008

Da Vinci Surgical System – Deletion overturned. – Tikiwont (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted for reasons of "blatant advertising" by User:Hu12, without discussion. Prior to this, Hu12 deleted several advertising external links related to the Da Vinci Surgical System, and then mistakenly assumed that this article was part of the advertising, as well. The Da Vinci Surgical System is the first robotic surgical system approved by the FDA, and the notability is established for both historical relevance and widespread use. It has been widely cited in medical journals (see a Google Scholar search here) as well robotics. I'd like the article restore so that the amount of "advertising" can be properly assessed and removed. Thanks!--Jiuguang Wang (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has recently been heavily edited by a user who has been spamming a large number of medical articles with links to this device's company. Nevertheless, this page should have been reverted to a less spammy version, not deleted. Overturn speedy-deletion. List to AfD if necessary. Rossami (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Topic seems notable, at least enough to warrant an AfD. Since I can't see more than the google cache page, I can't comment on what the article looked like in a different version. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the article was spam. If the requestor wants to write an article in user space, nothing's stopping them. Corvus cornix_talk 07:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Seems notable enough based on the Goggle Scholar search. Cached version doesn't appear to be spam and seems to be improvable, therefore not a good candidate for deletion per WP:DEL. As to spam, the Microsoft Windows article mentions Microsoft rather heavily. Does that make it spam? Speedy should only be used for uncontroversial deletions, and as that deletion is now being contested, restore so that the community can decide. If necessary, take to AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy so the nom can try to clean it up. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore doesn't read like spam, seems as though it could well be notable. Send to AfD if there are notability concerns RMHED (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Unsourced, but not spam. There's a lot of true spam that comes to Wikipedia and needs to be speedied, but calling this spam is a total lack of proportion. The refs are there, and an admin has the obligation to actually check on the subject of the article before speedy deleting it. I would be distressed if we were led to remove this criterion from speedy because of erroneous and over=-enthusiastic interpretation like this. DGG (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as per nom. I did a search myself and it looks ok. It was unsourced, but not spam as per DGG. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Farewell (band) – recreated – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was AfD'd and G4'ed until protected a while back. The AfD noted that the group had some claims and that in the presence of more evidence the article should be recreated. I'm here to present such evidence. I took the article as it stood after the AfD (provided courtesy of a generous admin) and added some more sourcing, including English and Irish press for this American band signed to Epitaph Records. Here is a user draft which should substantiate the band's meeting WP:MUSIC point 1. I'd like to have the title Unsalted and the user draft moved to mainspace. Chubbles (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse move, Chubbles' draft to mainspace. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just do it Chubbles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's now unprotected so s/he can. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can the talk page be unprotected too? Chubbles (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry that I forgot that. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arne Paus – Undelete and hope for improvement. – Tikiwont (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is one of the best known Norwegian figurative painters. Sometimes he is jokingly described as "one of the figurative four" together with Bjørn Fjell, Karl Erik Harr and Odd Nerdrum. The phrase is borrowed from a reference to some well-known Norwegian writers; Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson, Alexander Kielland, Jonas Lie and Henrik Ibsen. This indicates the importance among Norwegian painters. Jeblad (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete, a well-known Norwegian painter. --Eivind (t) 15:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and rewrite The article gave a birth year, called him a visual artist, gave his location of education and current residence, plus external spam type links and links to de:Arne Paus and no:Arne Paus two foreign language wikipedia entries. As it was, it was not an informative stub and did contain privacy invading details. Just write something that manages to claim he is important or significant, and preferrably has some sourcing. GRBerry 16:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UndeleteGiven the extensive material in the Norwegian WP entry, this was not a speedy=--the technical failure to assert enough in the article, when the material is clearly present in the articles in other Wikipedias is not reason for a speedy. A deleting admin has the requirement to check the references and the links before deleting. Careless and incorrect speedy. DGG (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Save Toby – Draft moved from userspace and restored to mainspace. – _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

====

Deleted a good while ago for notability reasons. I believe this website is quite notable enough, and I have compiled up a draft here (fully sourced and everything). I'm asking that it be restored. UsaSatsui (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as deleting admin, I believe this draft now fulfils our requirements and can be moved into article space. Neıl 龱 08:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete full history and redirect to User:UsaSatsui/Save Toby. Isn't this a simple history only undeletion that can be done without debate? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. I've already got the full history. I'm bringing it here instead of just recreating it because of the multiple previous AFDs. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks OK. History looks all intact. Move draft to userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restored to article space - being bold, this is fine. Someone can close this. Neıl 龱 10:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redlands Freeway – Redirect created, everyone's happy, nothing to review. Non-admin closure. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC) – UsaSatsui (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting a redirect to be restored. --75.47.218.8 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just create a new redirect? Shereth 03:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPs can't create pages. --Rividian (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But IPs can sign up for an account to create pages :) Shereth 04:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm going to have to say no. The speedy was valid, as I think we can safely assume that R1s are difficult to screw up. If you'd like to create a redirect, you are more than welcome to create an account and do so. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it was deleted, as it was a redirect to Interstate 10 in California. 75.47 does a lot of strange stuff (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x) including blanking redirects, so that is probably why it was deleted. See also [111]. I have re-created it. I would like the history restored to see if my guess that the IP tagged it for deletion is correct. --NE2 05:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2. --75.47.218.8 (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why you linked that here? --NE2 06:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? Because you assumed ownership of articles such as the San Bernardino Freeway. --75.47.218.8 (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect was created. There's nothing to review. Is there any reason to keep this open? --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. thanks anyway. --75.47.218.8 (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 June 2008

First Class Liars – Article userfied – Tony Fox 16:42, June 16, 2008

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

Subject is notable to its location. I wasn't finished with the article, I only had time to write a single paragraph describing the band and its members - I was going to add some more updates and sources today but it was deleted before I could do that. I would appreciate it if you guys could reverse the deletion so I can finish the article. I have no issue with sending the article to my userspace. Thank you Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The article itself asserted no notability, and I've done some looking into them - their Myspace says they formed in late 2007, and under 1000 Google hits for "First Class Liars" - including a lot of uses of that phrase not related to the band - include a number of "also playing" listings at local clubs, etc. I don't see any substantial coverage. Essentially, the band is miles from meeting WP:MUSIC from what I could find, so the deletion is quite appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The band has been playing at some pretty notable places, including Cox Sports Arena and Soma. Could you guys at least put the article is my userspace? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The entirety of the article body was: " First Class Liars are an American rock band from Escondido, California. The current members are Chris Andrews (vocals), Matt Bridgeford (guitar), Tom Blanton (bass guitar), and Christian F.S (drums). " The rest was an infobox, and the fully justified speedy tag. Playing at notable places does not meet WP:MUSIC - notable non-trivial references, albums on notable labels, national touring, etc. do. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok I'm sorry geez. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are still welcome to write an article about them if you can find evidence they pass the criteria at WP:MUSIC, however. Just because it was deleted doesn't mean it's impossible to write a passable article about them. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWell could you guys perhaps send the article to my userspace so i can continue researching? it took me like an hour to get the code right. please? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Melodramatic.com – copy emailed, as requested – GRBerry 16:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to have a temporary review of the page by having it restored to my user page please. Just want to see if there's anyway i can make the article worthy. 5150emergency (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page had exactly two edits in history. The complete text of the first version read Melodramatic.com is a blogging site, started by <name redacted>. The second edit was a redirect to Melodramatic (website). That page had a longer history but was deleted as a result of this AfD discussion. I'm guessing that's the page you want. If you'll specify an email address in your user profile, I or another admin can email you the last content of that page. Rossami (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If 5150emergency can find anyway to make the article worthy (on wikipedia), then this will violate the GFDL. You should simply userfy the deleted article for him, trivial history or not, unless there is a reason not to, in which case 5150emergency should not be allowed to make any use of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the page i meant. Thankyou. 5150emergency (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As of 14:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC), a copy has been mailed to the requesting user. The message did include a note asking the user to remind us about potential GFDL issues (and the need to conduct a history-only undeletion) if/when the content is deemed approrpiate to restore to the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk)

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

Allysse Wojtanek-Watson – Deletion endorsed. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can you please un-delete this article? Thank you.--76.235.133.37 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I'd have seriously considered WP:CSD#G10 instead of WP:CSD#A7 as the deletion reason. You haven't offered a reason to restore. GRBerry 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no reason given to undelete. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion. I agree with GRBerry that this was more credibly deletable under criterion G10 but the A7 deletion also appears valid. The page also falls afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS (though if that had been the only reason for deletion, it would have required AfD discussion). Rossami (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

German Goo Girls – Deletion endorsed – RMHED (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2008 (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 article on German Goo Girls should be restored. Since there are article for 2 Girls 1 Cup, Bangbus, Adam & Eve, and other article with such pornographic content, their should be no reason for it's deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanzhavegoodwiki (talk • contribs) 08:46, 12 June 2008

As with all the times it's been re-created (lots!), this is going to need third-party reliable sources before an article sticks around. Like, y'know, the AFD closer stated. Endorse. —Cryptic 09:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the contentious history of both the German Goo Girls and at least one of the redirects of the same name, it would be much more prudent to start a new article within userspace, and then approach the proposition of establishing it in article space. Since the last article at that name was a redirect, it would make no sense to recreate the redirect without having the proposed, fully-formed and cited article ready to go. If this is an attempt to overturn the deletion of the redirect, I endorse deletion of it. B.Wind (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to proposer: "because there is an article on (XXXX) in Wikipedia" is not a valid justification for keeping an article here in the first place. There are many instances that have been shown that the indicated article in the "justification" was here by mistake. Also, deletion review is not Articles for deletion redux. Its primary purpose is to review if the proceedings were properly done by the admin (and in the case where a new article is proposed for a title that has been deleted several times, it would be best to work with an admin for such a proposed recreation). B.Wind (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). No evidence has been presented here, in the AFD, in the RfD or in the deleted article itself that this organization meets any of Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion standards. I find no process problems in the AfD discussion. (I recuse myself from consideration of the RfD discussion because I participated in it.) Rossami (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. So article A is kept but article B isn't? Look at what article B doesn't have. Hint: it has nothing to do with porn. In this case, it's third party sources. Get them, then it can be overturned. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, lack of sourcing was the concern at the AfD, and no sources have been provided to address that concern. If significant amounts of reliable, independent source material can be found, then we might be able to take a different look. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Let's start drawing the line somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

B. Scott – Userfied per request – _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am interested in restoring and re-writing the B. Scott page. I am a third party writer with an interest in providing a clear and concise page for B. Scott. I understand the need to present him as not only notable but also of interest to the GLBT and African-American communities. I have compiled a list of sources to back up all articles and will not publish anything that is not sourced. I am willing to work with an admin to make sure this page is of interest the the Wikipedia community.

I would like the admins to note that other "Internet Celebrities" are featured on Wikipedia, and as this phenomenon grows, this will continue to be the case. Of note: Michael Buckley, Chris Crocker, Tay Zonday and even The Star Wars kid have their own pages on Wikipedia. While some are better-written than others, each holds their own place in the lore of the Internet Celebrity phenomenon. I intend to show how B. Scott belongs in line with these celebrities.

Also, I would like to note that while the previous Articles for Deletion discussion was inundated by fans of B. Scott, this will not be the case in the future. I intend to re-write this page in a dignified manner and will continuously monitor it against any sort of problems. Thank you for your consideration. RcktManChgo (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Write up a draft in your userspace and bring it here to show. If you need the old info, ask an admin for it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would definitely like to have the old info, seeing as I had never seen what was published. I will contact an admin about restoring it. RcktManChgo (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and userfied to User:Rcktmanil/B. Scott, will notify Rcktmanil_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 June 2008

Victor Allis – Restore and list at AfD. – Tikiwont (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article underwent a speedy deletion on an unfounded basis. The numerousness of articles that link to it is itself already sufficient testament to the person's noteworthiness, to say nothing of the fact that it should have made any possible deletion subject to a discussion. An appeal to the responsible administrator went unanswered. -- Dissident (Talk) 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources within the article at time of deletion included his personal webpage, a company he used to work for and a company he currently works for, none of which demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted [[WP:BIO|inclusion criteria forThe page has been around since 2003 but even after all that time, it still read more like a resume than a biography. There are only 7 inbound links from the articlespace and all of them refer to the concept of Solved games (the other links are examples of the concept). Given the ever-increasing power of computers, it is unsurprising that more and more games are being solved and steadily less notable that they have been. Considering the age of the article, it probably should have gone to AfD instead of speedy-deletion. I don't think it would survive the discussion, though. Rossami (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article didn't technically assert importance in any real way, at least not in the cached versions I can see. Inbound links are useful to consider but don't really prove anything. What is the actual claim of importance, and are there sources to back it up? If there's a decent answer to that question, this article should either be restored or userfied for improvements. --Rividian (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see multiple possible claims, reproduced with intact red links. "he is CEO of Quintiq, a Dutch software company that..." "His dissertation introduced two new game search techniques: proof-number search and dependency-based search. Proof-number search has seen further successful application in computer Go tactical search and many other games". Quintiq was deleted almost 2 hours later by a different admin under A7, and I'd definitely have deleted it myself under A7. If the article on the company fails to assert importance, than being its CEO is at best a tenuous assertion of importance. So I think the real claims are the new game search techniques, neither of which has ever had an article, but might be important anyway. GRBerry 03:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore indicated some plausible reason for importance and that is sufficient. It does not have to show enough to pass afd -- in fact, it probably wouldnt pass at this point, but any indication of notability deserves a group view to see if either the editor or others can source it. But to pass speedy, it doesnt have to "prove anything" or have reliable "sources to back it up". DGG (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For AFD to be anything but an exercise in process, it would be nice to see that evidence at DRV, if it exists. --Rividian (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AFD. There is enough of an assertion of notability there to defeat an A7 speedy. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at AfD. Evidence can be provided in the article during the AfD. If Dissident wants more time, userfy it for him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Emarosa – Overturn and relist at AFD to get more participation – Davewild (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closer seems to have read only the bolded words, not the actual discussion. Had he done the latter, he would have seen that, of the only two users wishing to keep this article, the first had repudiated his opinion, and the second - the article's primary author - had been refuted. —Cryptic 04:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (delete). The keep arguments were clearly unfounded because of misstatement by the 'keep' voters, and it would appear the closer was 'blinded by their science'. There is nothing to suggest that this band meets any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as no consensus, defaulting to keep. Only three people actually stated whether the article merited being kept or being deleted. Ironically, the person who brought this to DRV made two posts without stating whether he/she was recommending keeping, deleting, or something else. Neither did the IP who made a comment (and in terms of determining consensus, !votes by IPs tend to be discounted in this process). So, depending on the interpretation of Cryptic's comments, there was either a consensus to keep or no consensus. Either way, the seven days passed and there was no consensus to delete. B.Wind (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So if Esradekan had put magic <s> marks around his keep, to more explicitly indicate his backpedalling, that would make it ok? If I'd put delete delete delete in my comments, would I then have been counted thrice? There is nothing ironic in me not making a bolded incantation; I was trying to form a consensus, not to vote. And I succeeded; nobody thought this band meets WP:MUSIC except the article's creator. Utter disgust. —Cryptic 07:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Conventionally, it's taken as read that a proposer recommends deletion, except when it is stated otherwise. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we ignore !votes from IPs because they're from IPs. Usually they're ignored because IPs aren't familiar with the AfD process and the WP:ATA, and so make arguements that should be ignored. We don't ignore any arguements except by the merits of the arguement. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse (or change to "no consensus") — there was not a consensus to delete. Also to Cryptic: It's customary to discuss the closure with the closing admin before listing here. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Change to Overturn and delete as the first keep "voter" had withdrawn his opinion. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reopen AfD. I don't read any consensus there, and with the low participation I think it'd be better to reopen and relist it rather than closing it as no consensus. I'd agree that the closure was incorect regardless of what it gets overturned to. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist with more participation hopefully some kind of clear consensus will be reached. RMHED (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, needs more opinions. --Stormie (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take back to AfD discussion could benefit from increased participation, possibility of a consensus being found. Guest9999 (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen, Relist Despite the apparent simplicity of the issue, seems the discussion was closed before a consensus either way took hold. Townlake (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Sloppy close. Relist for more participation. It seems to me that none of the sources are reliable/reputable and independent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete. No need to relist. The two delete arguments are pretty much irrefutable. --Smashville^BONK! 13:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist there wasn't a consensus to keep there, and the discussion was leaning towards a delete result. More opinions needed. Hut 8.5 15:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and get some more eyes on it. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Should have been relisted prior to closing. MrPrada (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Needs more input on whether the article should be deleted. Chadpriddle (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 June 2008

Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge:_2008 – Nomination withdrawn – Rossami (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just wrote a properly sourced new article regarding the latest Real World Road Rules Challenge (which took me a couple of hours.) It was deleted minutes later because of the stated reason: "Recreation of deleted material." While it may have looked at first glance to be a recreation, it was not. If you compare the two articles (which unfortunately I can not) you will see the evolution of the article from when it was nominated for deletion on June 3rd to what I put forth today. The article uses multiple reliable sources, is pertinent and offers concise encyclopedic knowledge.

There was no discussion, and I was in no way informed of the decision to delete. I returned to the page to add additional sources and continue to expand the article, and it was gone. Zredsox (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prior version was Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II. That page has been deleted 4 times so far, once under speedy-deletion case G7, twice under A7 and once via PROD (asserting a violation of WP:BALL). It was then moved, deleted with the explanation "recreated content" and the left-behind redirect deleted under case R1. Looking at the content at the time of deletion, it was substantially similar though not identical. The critical difference is the addition of sources. Overturn and list to AFD. Since the prior deletions were all speedy-deletions (and a PROD), criterion G4 can not be used to re-speedy the content. (Case G4 is limited to deletions as the result of an XfD discussion.) While it still appears to me to be a WP:BALL violation, the addition of sources is sufficient that this needs community discussion. AfD is the right forum to make this decision. Rossami (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason, the deleted page history doesn't show it, but Fram is correct that this content was discussed in a deletion discussion closed on 10 Jun 08. I withdraw the comment about G4 since it's no longer relevant. I'll comment below once I've had a chance to review the discussion itself. Rossami (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Zredsox makes a reasonable case for a second look, and Rossami's argument appears sound. If the sources are inadequate, obviously there's no prejudice against sending it to AfD with this DRV linked. Townlake (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Now Zredsox is saying he needs more time to make the article passable. Therefore, no need to overturn the deletion at this point. Townlake (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I am saying is that with more time (a few days) more mainstream and independent sources will confirm the information (even though I personally feel the article is now effectively sourced.) However, I don't want to have to re-write the entire article again in 3 days just to have it deleted again without discussion. I guess my main point is the article as it stands did not have a chance to be reviewed by community. I rewrote the article, and it was deleted less then a day later. I got new sources, put up a new article and it was deleted minutes later. There was not an ample afD period to vet the sources (as there were none until I added them.) MM Agency is in fact a very reliable source in this genre being they directly represent the cast. They have also been vetted by google news and their stories are aggregated under the rules set forth under that syndication program.64.89.250.90 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So wait a few days, gather your better sources, and perhaps run the improved version by an admin before you try reposting it. Fram's a fair minded admin; I am sure the deletion decision was well considered, especially having read the discussion in this DRV. Townlake (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think I am going to take another hour or two and write the article from scratch for a third time. No one here is saying that the content of the article should change. The argument is about sources and I feel that the discussion has not been fully fleshed out, especially in light of those that were added to the new version of the article which has not recieved a fair community review (in my opinion).64.89.250.90 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you asked Fram to send you a copy of the deleted article? Admins can't always do this, but sometimes they can - never hurts to ask. Townlake (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think I will pursue this any further if the deletion holds without further review. It was the first article that I took the time to craft and the level of frustration that I have experienced is just not worth it - but I appreciate the suggestion.64.89.250.90 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The G4 deletion was incorrect, AfD would be the way to go on this. RMHED (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that Fram has shown that there was indeed a previous AfD I can't say whether or not the G4 was correct without seeing the content of the article deleted at that AfD. So am striking my overturn. RMHED (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from deleting admin. First, when you read Rossami's summary, you may get the impression that this article never had an AfD. However, it was deleted at AfD the same day as this recreation was created and again deleted. The page Duel II had been deleted through AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II the fifth time, but had been moved to the new title "Real World/Road Rules Challenge:2008" (note the lack of a space before "2008") during that AfD. The new sources added after the AfD were closed were this messageboard[112] (i.e. not a reliable source) and this blog from a booking agency[113], which is hardly reliable and certainly not independent. If we allow this kind of recreation hours after an AfD discussion, then this can be prolonged into eternity by adding some new unreliable source to an already discussed article. If these sources were so crucial, they should have been added during the AfD, not hours later. I stand by my G4 deletion. Fram (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no significant differences between two versions, G4 applied. Rossami's mistaken presentation of facts is I assume largely due to User:Fram's misleading deletion summary, citing Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II instead of Real World/Road Rules Challenge:2008. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I don't think Rossami deliberately ignored the AfD at all, just that he missed it due to the complicated history (three different names) and as you point out, my not too clear edit summary. Fram (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't imply that was your thought, either. No worries, deletions after page moves are often really confusing to keep track of. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, author appears to be using slightly different titles for substantially the same page in an end-run around consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article creator First of all, the original article that was sent to deletion and the one that was deleted were two different things. While the original story was in afD there were zero sources and it looks like people were just making up the cast before they were even selected. BMP (the show's creator) actually did cast selection only a few weeks ago, so any version of the article before then would be blatantly false. I rewrote the article from the ground up (24 hours before deletion) and then hoped that there could be meaningful discussion about the new source. The article was deleted before ample people had an opportunity to comment on the updated version (with 3 for Keeping and 1 against.) I understand that there were all sorts of versions of this article in the past, but that has nothing to do with the current incarnation and part of the reason I restricted the article to registered users (these type of articles are targets for vandalism.) Being that this article is about an event in progress and new materials were published yesterday, I created a new version based on those resources. The booking agency's article came out yesterday so it could not be added to the previous article. Secondly, the reason the article is significantly like the one deleted is because: That is the cast. It is not going to change with time and there is no way to alter that large part of the equation. Also, the location is Panama. There is is no way to change that, no matter what sources come online in the future. In an unrelated, but important point -I was in contact with the cast in Panama - which is why I took up editing the article in the first place. I know the materials to be correct. In other words, I am working to prove a positive through proper sourcing, and just need more time.Zredsox (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's not true, the version being discussed at AfD had sources, they were just not reliable sources. As is clear from my comments in the discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: There was only one source listed. I added two more, one which I feel holds enough water alone to keep the article. 64.89.250.90 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There were several sources, one of which was a webforum. Corvus cornix_talk 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There was only one source (Vevmo.com) I even added the source area to the page template, so I should know. When I rewrote the page, I added more sources - although no one ever saw the new page I am assuming beyond the deleting admin. The article proposed for deletion (on June 3rd) was not the same article that was deleted (on June 10th) although there was minor discussion about the major rewrite that I did on June 7-8 - a Consensus was not reached. There was just not time. In fact, 3 out of the 4 commenters on the discussion page after the update wanted to see the article kept and improved (you being the 4th.)Zredsox (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not going to get into a "was too", "was not" argument with you. Admins can see the article's history. Corvus cornix_talk 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are correct. They will be able to see there was only one source on the old article and three distinct sources (external to Wikipedia) on the new revision. Where I think you are confused is that Vevmo.com was used as a source about 25 times in the same article (i.e. for each cast member etc.) That is true, but that does not make it 25 sources. Just one.Zredsox (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my request to undelete. To be honest, now that I have looked at the articles for the other 15 Real World Road Rules Challenges - the one I wrote was one of the most comprehensively sourced yet. That being said, I have nominated most of them for deletion (being they don't use proper sourcing. Actually, being that most don't use ANY sourcing.) I think all reference to the Challenge Series should be removed from Wikipeida unless the articles representing that series conform to the high standards we expect - which includes valid sourcing first and foremost.Zredsox (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 19, 2008 anti-war protest – No consensus close endorsed. The improvements to the article have clearly swayed opinion on this discussion significantly. my personal advice would be for those seeking deletion under not news to give the article a little more time as perhaps it is too early to see whether not news applies. – Spartaz (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Consensus was clearly in favor of deletion by a margin of thirteen to six, the arguments to keep were largely baseless in policy which means most of them should have been ignored, the admin claimed that there was validity in the reliable sourcing of the article however that only established verifiability not notability, the article clearly covers a very small protest and the article has a lot of original research and filler based on undeleted protests such as the Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Center controversy, the article simply does not establish notability and makes uncited original research claims such as "interruptions at the IRS were evident" and POV issues with extended quotes favoring the subject such as "I'm letting the nation know that the troops are against the war, and that there's a whole culture of dissent and we're letting the nation know that exists." with no opposing quotes. Many editors cited that the article reads like a news article and it does, this was discredited by the administrator due to it being an essay, however it is a frequently cited essay and clearly a policy by precedent. This rationale to keep by User:SchuminWeb states "These events did receive significant news coverage, but this article needs a LOT of work to bring it up to standard. If it sounds like news, that means we just need to go through a few more rewrites." However the user fails to point out any of the claimed "significant" coverage. This argument by User:DKalkin makes no mention of policy whatsoever "I'm not impressed by the current state of the article, but it seems to me that it could be improved so that it would be worth keeping. The March 19, 2008 protests were a break from demonstrations on past anniversaries of the invasion of Iraq in that civil disobedience replaced the mass march completely as a strategy. If the article included some of the context, the debates in the antiwar movement leading up to the demonstrations, IVAW's call not to distract from Winter Soldier, Cindy Sheehan's unsuccessful attempt to put together a unified march, etc., I think it would go beyond a news piece and be worthy of an encyclopedia" And is entirely conjecture providing no policy arguments or any links to the claims he makes it furthermore exposed the protests as dysfunctional unsuccessful and not a single unified event which goes to show that its really minor in scope, User:Nwwaew makes simply asks this question "Does having an article about the event in The Guardian count as notable enough?" with a link to a guardian artile about the DC protest only which does not mention the any other actions mentioned in the article that appear to be coincidence and undeleted to the DC protest, the article she links to only speaks of the methodology used in the protests and shows that it was a small minor one as there wasn't even a march. User:Astuteoak's arguement is entirely as Stephen Colbert once put from the gut not the brain as it is entirely unsourced opinion "The protests in D.C. and other cities absolutely merit an encyclopedic article. The main protest took place on a weekday (3/19 was a Wednesday) and the traffic disruptions, demonstrations, and police arrests drew enourmous attention of people who work in D.C. including House and Senate members. The Iraq war and the protests are VERY significant. Since the protest many Congress members now appear reluctant to be seen supporting the war. On May 15, 132 House Republicans even voted "present" rather than "yes" for supporting war funding. This is unprecedented since the war started 5 years ago" and should be disregarded, User:ragesoss exclaims "Has enough significant coverage to firmly establish notability. The coverage goes well beyond "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", the types of news singled out in WP:NOT as inappropriate. Even if much less significant than other protests, this and other medium-scale protests are of lasting interest and merit encyclopedia coverage" but again the user herself establishes this as not a major event and calls it medium, wikipedia has no article son medium protests, wikinews does, an argument by 4.88.22.120 that was unsigned by a unregistered user simple said "keep the article" which is not an argument and even if it where unregistered users don't get a say. So off the bat the administrator should have ignored two of these keep votes and that leaves the tally of consensus at 13 to 4 a very wide margin (and broad consensus IMHO), and those are "deletes" based on solid policy and their associated arguments, these include that it fails WP:N, violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOT, User:Ohconfucius argument probably puts it best with "The event seems not substantially different to any of the protests which have gone before; its scale is also not great; currently, there is a lot of superfluous detail which would only appear in news articles but is not otherwise encyclopaedia-worthy" Myheartinchile (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that two different users felt strongly enough to contact the admin independently due to this surprising "no consensus" result.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer. Without delving into the entire nomination, I will re-iterate my position that while there was a majority of !votes to delete, it did not constitute a consensus. The nominator asserts that the keep !votes were baseless in policy - the same might be said for the majority of delete !votes that cited WP:NOTNEWS, which is an essay and not policy. As there were valid arguments in favor of keeping the material (and a reasonable suggestion to merge elsewhere) I felt that the argument to delete was not strong enough to constitute a consensus. Shereth 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NotNews arguments by registered users are far more valid than WP:HOPELESS arguments and keeps by unregistered arguments.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note that WP:HOPELESS refers to a type of argument to avoid when arguing to delete articles - it does not have the meaning that you are using it for. Shereth 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, but WP:NOT#NEWS is policy (a part of WP:NOT). Most opiners were citing the policy, not the essay, in fact, I can't see even one that linked to the essay. This makes me unsure how well you actually reviewed the discussion; please revisit this and comment. GRBerry 19:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Funny the difference a # can make, and in this case the difference makes for some egg on my face - thank you for pointing that out. In my defense, I did review the discussion with due diligence (at least in my opinion), as generally a single character doesn't make so large a change in the result. Allow me a little bit to reconsider. Shereth 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. There was a clear consensus to delete, more than two to one. Whilst AfD isn't just a numbers game there was no good reason to ignore the clear consensus as the arguments to delete were well within policy and guidelines. RMHED (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist at AfD. The article is now significantly different from the one at AfD. Benjiboi has expanded it greatly, so I think the only fair thing to do now would be to relist and see what the consensus is for this article in its new state. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what a third listing on AFD will accomplish (the AFD was relisted once). It's too soon. As it is, this deletion review discussion pulled in most of the same people from the AFD, and another AFD will just pull those people back over. This whole ordeal has been going on for two weeks now, needs to just end already. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - after reviewing the comment made by GRBerry I have concluded that the no consensus closure is still valid. WP:NOT#NEWS being policy notwithstanding, in the AfD an argument made by ragesoss stated "The coverage goes well beyond 'Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism', the types of news singled out in WP:NOT as inappropriate" in refutation of the argument. On the other hand, the vast majority of those citing WP:NOT did nothing to indicate in what way the article was in violation of the policy, and rather, they simply stated (paraphrased) "Per policy". I still interpret the strength of the arguments to delete versus those to keep to be insufficient to be called consensus and stand by my closure. Shereth 19:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original decision. People need to remember that AFD is not a vote, so while the number of people of various different opinions might certainly be taken into consideration, it is not the end-all for deciding the outcome of an AFD. The flow of the discussion is far more important than the number of individuals involved. "No consensus" was a decision that was properly reached. Additionally, I question whether the nominator has acted in good faith in nominating this article for deletion review, considering that within a day after the AFD closed with a no-consensus, the nominator added a PROD tag to the article, and attempted to add {{Afd2}} to the article (but failed in its implementation) prior to taking it here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How did i not act in good faith, i can't see why i shouldn't be able to relist it for deletion by prod, it was removed, the system works, i never attempted to add afd2 the article i simply accidentally clicked save instead of preview as i wanted to set up a second deletion attempt and wanted to write the argument first then list it, but i changed my mind in favor of deletion review when the prod was removed and decided that was not the way to go.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is the diff showing where you attempted to add the {{Afd2}} tag. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...and here is the diff showing where he immediately reverted his own edit. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. WP:NOT#NEWS leaves a very wide swath for editor discretion (it only mentions "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" as the kinds of things that are explicitly inappropriate), and the idea that most of the keep comments were "largely baseless in policy" a poor characterization of the actual comments. If wants to pick nits, many of the delete comments were even less policy based. The discussion was about the spirit of WP:NOT#NEWS and where the line should be drawn, and there very clearly was not a consensus that this article runs afoul of the spirit of it. (It certainly doesn't run afoul of the literal policy.)--ragesoss (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - notability is only an indicator, not a free pass. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure (delete). I think this was a good faith attempt to close the discussion but it does not appear that the closer gave consideration to the pattern of comments. All opinions offered after the relisting recommended deletion except 1 anonymous comment (which was properly discounted) and one early commenter who declined to change his/her early opinion. Those opinions were expressed in light of all the previous evidence and comments. The article itself did not change substantively during the relisting period, leading me to believe that that the later opinions are a more reliable indicator of the community's collective judgment in this case. This was clearly a close decision and I can not fault the closer but I do read the consensus differently. Rossami (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Zomg the IRS workers looked out of their windows!. Clearly a rack for hanging coat chaped anti-war slogans on. Completely non-notable as a separate article, which is what notability is all about. It warrants a few lines somewhere else, and that's all in my opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overtun and delete As I said in the AFD, "Wikipedia is not the news. Momentary headlines do not make for Encyclopedic notability. Just another anti war protest. It is not notable, and putative usefulness of the information is not sufficient to have an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are an encyclopedia, not the Anti War Movement Archive/Annals/News." In evoking "notnews," I for one was saying that there is no notability and that all there was to the article was a recap of the news. While the others in the discussion should have more carefully phrased and justified there arguments, the lack of notability is clear. Stating that we are "not the news" was a statement indicating a clear evidence lack of notabilityor significance. Furthermore, the "keep" arguments failed in their attempt to assert either notability or significant media coverage. While one make argue the weakness in basing deletion on WP:NOT, the keep arguments were weaker still. Finally, the original delete nomination argument-- lack of notability or significance, was not refuted in any of the keep arguments. Some made arguments of usefulness, or claimed a single mention by the Telegraph met the requirement for significant media coverage. It did not. There was an argument of some sort of inheritable notbility because other protests were notable that was not convincing. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

comment, have i mentioned the Washington Times calls the protest "limited" "Protests marking the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war today included no Hollywood stars and drew only a fraction of the tens of thousands that typically come to the nation's capital to protest wars."[114]Myheartinchile (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do Hollywood stars make or break a protest? Many notable protests have lacked "star power". Not incredibly relevant here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh and lets not forget various users insist on considering the Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Station Controversy with this article, and at that it is laughable, since the sources say that the police outnumbered the protestors![115]Myheartinchile (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one agreed with that removal on its face, because unless there was something special about the Berkeley demonstration on March 19 compared to other days, it should get a bye here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. As Iraq war protests go, this is fairly non-notable. As most it warrants a mention within Protests against the Iraq War. As a matter of perspetive, consider whether a similar individual protest against the Vietnam War would be covered in an individual article. The arguments in favor of deletion are well-founded in policy (including WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTE). Further, as 'a series of autonomous actions', rolling them into a single article is highly questionable. The arguments made to delete are sufficient in both merit and relative number (as compared to arguments to keep) to establish consensus. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and expand. This is more than news and the article would do well to compare how these coordinated protests paled in comparisons to the original massive worldwide ones. This is a good example of how wikipedia can cover a topic that paper encyclopedias would have to justify space for - a thoughtful look at the subject and meaningful content is available as the protests took place at least throughout the United States and likely elsewhere. It may make sense to instead move the article to Fifth anniversary anti-war protest as it seems the first, fifth, tenth, fifteen, etc anniversaries of events get extra media coverage as this did. This article is a split off Protests against the Iraq War and remerging the material into that already huge article seems also unhelpful but cleaning it up and ensuring content is relevant would be. Banje boi 21:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
Kill that article! The article was obviously kept under inexperience, bad judgement, personal bias, and/or, at worst (probably not), intoxication; consenus clearly pointed to Delete. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as no consensus; this AfD is a complete zoo; many people seem to be in favor of deletion, but others want to keep the article. In the original AfD, I voted to delete the article, but it doesn't appear there was clear consesus here. Some of the other voters here have said that the keep votes in the AfD were baseless. Some of them were, but others did have base and were contributed by registered users. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, was that comment phrased to be as incendiary as possible? If it was some attempt at humor it came across very poorly. Shereth 02:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a note suggesting a rephrase. Dloh cierekim 02:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn closure (delete). I entirely agree with the comments of User:Rossami, who incidentally did not participate in the AfD. I believe a consensus existed to delete of 13:4. Of course, the views of an single purpose account and an anonymous IP editor's views are rightly automatically discounted. One also pointed to a Guardian news article as being evidence of notability, but that article clearly frames it in terms of the war's 5th anniversary. Whilst I agree that a lot hinges on the subject's plentiful news coverage, it was obvious to me the news reports were not sufficient to confer a real-life notability out of context of the Iraq War and the ensuing protests, whether sporadic or regular, whether concentrated or dispersed. The two arguments that the article "could be improved" should not be allowed to over-ride the landslide majority view - aside from neutralising its newsy tone, and severely pruning back into a stub by removing the original research and bias, I do not see any improvement of the article is possible by its existence independent of the abovementioned context(s).Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just started doing some research and there seems to be little shortage of reliable sources for this - if anyone finds anything please leave a note on the article talk page and I will add it ASAP if no one beats me to it. Banje boi 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Consensus was clearly to delete per WP:NOT NEWS, there was no consensus anywhere else. In this case the debate was misinterpreted by the closing admin. MrPrada (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & Relist I was going to vote overturn & delete according to AFD consensus, but my opinion now is heavily influenced by the status quo, as March 19, 2008 anti-war protest is currently a nicely sourced article and has been dramatically improved compared with the version that got nominated for deletion. I think the new version doesn't fail WP:NOT#NEWS, but that matter is for another AfD to decide. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete The consensus in the original AfD was to delete the article, especially as several of the keep votes were WP:CRYSTAL violations (eg, that the article should be kept as these protests may one day be judged notable). Nick Dowling (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close for now or barring that relist The article is well-sourced and I'm not sure there's enough of a NOTNEWS issue to justify deletion. PeaceNT makes a good argument for relisting. JoshuaZ (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. There's plenty of consensus to delete and both sides had several "votes" which could be discounted (e.g. by IPs). Stifle (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is deleted could you please userfy it to me so I can rename for 5th anniversary and repost? Thanks. Banje boi 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Comment. Has anyone given the article a look-over again recently? Benjiboi has done a great job reworking the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual added detail about the actual protests that took place are just as insignificant as the ones there originally, and only serving to underline the lack of notability of this 'day'. A pink bed being rolled down a street? Come on. The rest of the additions are pure article bloat, with more free advertising for protest groups, more coatracked slogans and quotes, more backstory content which is duplicated in many other aticles, e.g. the bits on Sen. Feinstein, the bits about war spending etc etc. The stone cold fact is, the addtitions are not adding to the notability of the subject title, and merely starting to make it look more like an indiscriminate list, so the ultimate result might be merge elsewhere for some parts which don't deserve their own article. MickMacNee (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That bed being rolled down the street was one chapter of the national group Code Pink, and that action was one of dozens that day in Washington DC so it seems appropriate, it's sourced and simply lets the facts speak for themselves. ___ happened. I'm puzzled that it seems like an indiscriminate list, at all. These were coordinated protest events done to highlight the 5th anniversary and, so far, the only events I added all occured on the same date although significant events also were held prior to and after the same date. Banje boi 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki WP:NOT#NEWS states that Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. There is nothing in this article that says anything about the impact of the demonstrations. And nothing stated in the keep votes indicates that there is anything to say. Even so, wikinews could likely use the article as, as the article has far more content than [116]. So deletion should not take place before a transwiki process has been carried out. Taemyr (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article is a split off Protests against the Iraq War and it also does delve into how the protests were widespread and more thoughtful perspective on what impact they had is likely given they were covered by nearly every major news outlet. Were they as significant as the 2003 protests, no, but the sources and thus, article delves into possible reasons for it. Banje boi 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus closure and therefore default keep per fairly strong arguments to keep (it's not a vote). Organized and referenced article with real world notability and interest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete It is always a pleasure to agree with editors of the caliber of Ohconfucius and Rossami, who (inter alia) have clearly expressed the reason for reversing this close. Eusebeus (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow, that really has been expanded since the original AfD. It'd be kind of pointless to delete it now I suppose. I need to put that rescue tag on all of the school articles that get nominated for deletion if it works that well! GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, I have reviewed the article since the AfD. No, I do not think that the changes have addressed the fundamental concerns raised in the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete I rarely see the point of overturning a no-consensus close, since the article can be renominated; but this article had already been relisted, and all newcomers to the discussion had spoken for delete. So would I, except that I thought the deletion would be so obvious it would be unnecessary. DGG (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus since the article has changed a bit since the AFD, and is tagged for more work. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus because... it's clear that there wasn't a consensus. More substantively, I object to the characterization of my quoted comment as without basis in policy. The logic here seems to be that if an editor cites WP:NOT#NEWS to argue for deletion, that's based in policy, but if a second editor gives reasons why WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply, that's not based in policy. This makes no sense. Kalkin (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This would set a troubling precedent for what is a "Clear no consensus". Keeping an article like this, when you have 12 or so delete !votes (8 of which say the same thing, e.g. consensus, which in and of itself is rare), and only 4 keeps (1 of of which cannot be counted) and calling that no consensus? Meanwhile, you have notable biographies, articles with much more value then in this case, that have say, 7 keeps, and 4 deletes, and we seem to default to delete just because the four editors said "Not notable". This makes no sense to me. Certainly the widest standard of inclusionism I've yet encountered at two or so years at AFD/DRV. I still this the consensus was not correctly identified in this case, but if we are going to uphold the decision, then this will certainly set a precedent for future deletion debate that I for one will refer to both at AFD, and here if the articles are deleted. MrPrada (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/delete. The AfD looks like a consensus to delete, and the 'article' deserves no better. Relisting would only create yet more heat. dorftrottel (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus - If they want to relist for another AfD I would have no objections, but the first one had enough people who thought that historical relevance was sufficiently established. I've got my concerns about recentism, but at least it's worth saving the edit history and keeping a redirect page. --Explodicle (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus/keep the article due to the great improvements in the article during this deletion review which have made this a worthy article and not the same one that was considered in the AFD. Davewild (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the current breadth and depth of media coverage demonstrated in the current, expanded version of the article, there is not longer any real question of either non-notability or WP:NOT#NEWS violation. The original close could have gone either way, although I think the closer made the better choice. At this point, keeping or relisting are the only options (and relisting will almost certainly result in a near-consensus to keep). I'd like to think this article would make people think twice about knee-jerk deletion nominations based on WP:NOT#NEWS for anything except things that are similar to what the actual policy says is not appropriate, but I'm sure that's too much to hope for.--ragesoss (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would tend to agree that there is often a fine line between what is newsworthy and what is notable, as the existence of news articles is most frequently used to argue in favour of the notabilty of a subject. However, I am not convinced there is anything "knee-jerk" about this particular AfD. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as no consensus per above. Closing admin followed policy. no consensus to delete in AfD Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 02:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as no consensus. The arguments that this is a WP:NOT#NEWS violation are clearly no longer true, if they ever were. The article has been so vastly improved by Benjiboi since the nomination that it's not the same article. Very well sourced and of continued national importance as indicated by the 2008 election issues on Iraq and press coverage. There was no strength of argument in the delete votes, and clearly aren't now. The closer followed consensus. — Becksguy (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marriage Under Fire – Withdrawn, recreation allowed – The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This book passes WP:NB #1 with multiple third party media mentions: [117] (e.g., [118] [119]) and its author, James Dobson, is truly quite notable. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted stub contained no references, and appears to consist solely of original research by a reader of the book. I'd bet you can write a better article without making much effort. Any new article with references or content about the sales or critical reception of the book would not be a recreation eligible for G4. The closure of the debate was correct. GRBerry 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pizza delivery in popular culture – Relist as there is sufficient doubt whether there was consensus to delete the improved version. – Tikiwont (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! I have serious concerns with this closure. Closer originally said a "majority" in his closing rationale; it is NOT a vote. And as a discussion, the ending of the discussion is that the article had been cleaned up in such a fashion that editors now believed it should be merged or kept. There was absolutely no consensus to delete here and I strongly urge you to either relist or close as no consensus. Please note that near the end of the discussion a request was made to "Re-list the new article if you must; I doubt it'd get the same negative response that the earlier article did" after which two editors argued to keep and only one was still in the delete camp. Most if not all of the deletes were made PRIOR to the improvement. Once the improvement occurred the discussion changed course dramatically. Thus the actual discussion ended with a consensus to keep or to discuss further, but aboslutely in no way could that have ended in delete. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The word majority is not a bad word. At times, a majority is an important part of a consensus (while not in all cases). In this case, the number of !votes did not play a large role in my final decision. Mainly. The concerns addressed by the delete !votes that it was an article full of trivia and orignial research did not appear to be addressed (albeit through the inherit subject of the article makes it hard to address them). Even though references were added and cleanup was done, the consensus at the AFD, as it was, was to delete or merge/delete or merge in some way. In other words, the AFD appeared to be about the idea or concept of the article, and none of the keep !votes appears to succesfuly address these concerns. I stand by my orignial closure. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus after the clean up was unequivocally to keep: "Keep per WP:HEY. The article as re-written by GRC in the last couple of days is in every way superior to to article that was nominated. The article everyone disparaged above is gone by virtue of the rewrite, and the rewritten article should not be confused with it or deleted in its place. Re-list the new article if you must; I doubt it'd get the same negative response that the earlier article did" and "Keep per excellent improvement. The newly-added refs show coverage from credible sources and verify notability needed for a detailed article, as opposed to a section in another (already long) article." Sure you had your initial pile on deletes, but once the article was improved, the consensus was unquestionably to keep at that point, with some minor suggestions for a possible merge, but aboslutely was there no consensus to delete and if as you say you think the consensus "was to delete or merge/delete or merge", then that meets there was not a clear consensus, as that's three different possibilities. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I view Delete and merge/delete as effectivley the same thing. If somebody wants to merge it, I am ok with that, I will provide a copy of the article, I do not have a problem with that. Lets see what the rest of the community thinks though instead of just you and I going back and forth. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If someone wants to merge than the article also would have to be restored per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - IF somebody wants to merge it, I will kindly do a histmerge as well. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which would still also need a redirect as it is a valid search term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some of it already was merged before it was deleted. I favor just restoring and redirecting, but if you want to histmerge that's fine too. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure Quite a reasonable close. That anybody can source the various "pizza delivery occurred in X" claims for all sorts of media X is neither surprising nor relevant. To avoid being original research, an IPC article needs sources that are about the phenomenon in popular culture, rather than about media X, Y and Z. No sources with significant discussion about pizza delivery in popular culture were found and added to the article or mentioned in the AFD. The article remained original research without relevant sources, and was quite properly deleted. GRBerry 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevant sources were found and so in was improperly deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked at the sources. They weren't the type of sources needed, which I describe more fully above. The ones that were added range from a low of sales sites for a specific movie to reviews of a specific movie. None contained significant discussion of the article's topic. GRBerry 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which are at least sufficient for a merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per GRBerry, the closure seemed perfectly reasonable to me. Shereth 19:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A discussion that concludes with near unanimity after a major improvement to either keep or relist is not a reasonable closure as delete when even the closer indicated that it was a possible merge, i.e. if that's possible, than there was no consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as a error, because the closer did not show any indication at all that he took any account of the drastic improvement in the article. When something changes this way neart he end of the 5 days, a relist should be the usual way of dealing with it. Had the views not changed, we'd be spared the DRV. DGG (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A relist sounds adequate. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist There was a clear change in opinion after the changes were made to the article. This makes a relist of the debate to see what the consensus is on the new version the sensible course of action. Davewild (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist article had been improved and sourced. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist There were 5 !votes after improvement, 4 keeps and 1 merge, that's reasonably enough to tell which outcome the debate is heading towards. It doesn't seem to me that this AfD was forming a consensus for delete; closer could have been more careful and looked at the timestamp. Also, considering that all delete voters (except the nom) gave no real argument and expressed clear discrimination against this type of article, not "I tried to find sources but nothing turned up" votes, there's no evidence (or even assertion) from the debate that the content is unsourcable, which makes User:GRBerry's point about sources, though fair in general, invalid in this case. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There was no consensus established to justify the closing decision. MrPrada (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While all articles with "in popular culture" should be deleted in my opinion, the improvements to the article during the AFD suggest that relist would be appropriate. Were it not for those improvements and judging all "votes" as they came in, I would endorse. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Close was reasonable and the issue of sourcing remains a concern, as does the general unencyclopedic, trivia-attracting quality of the IPC genre. Eusebeus (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The close was unreasonable and the sourcing issue was adequately resolved regarding this encyclopedic article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure and list to AFD. Comparing the versions as they were on 5 June and 9 June, I would hardly have called the changes "dramatic improvements" - they seemed like pretty incremental changes to me. Nevertheless, the pattern of comments at the end justifies at least some additional discussion. Rossami (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the closure of the AfD itself, but it appears that NickPenguin merged some of the content to pizza delivery, and merge and delete is bad. So, in order to keep in line with the GFDL, we should, at least for now, restore and redirect to pizza delivery. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, I'm that is not necessary. The article under review was removed from pizza delivery in the immediately prior edit of that article. If you go back one more in the history to get the two edit diff containing the removal and Nick's restoration of content you get this diff. Checking, the new paragraphs in Nicks version of pizza delivery were not in the deleted article; they are Nick's work in that merge. So no contribution history is lost. GRBerry 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Arbitrary popculture topics are not what we're here for. dorftrottel (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, as I said at the end of the AfD we have an article on pizza, and an article on pizza delivery. The pizza delivery article is the place for the pop culture infomation. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn PeaceNT summarizes the matter well. At most this would have been a no-consensus defaults to keep. I don't object to relisting either. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist IPC is a tricky area on Wikipedia. Sometimes they're horrible articles, then sometimes they'll surprise the crap out of ya with something really good. With that in mind, I think continuing the discussion would be a good idea. Alternatively, if relist/overturn doesn't gain support, I think userfication should be tried. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Although I would also support Relist. LGRdC is correct, the closure was unreasonable as it appeared to be more about vote counting and there were significant keep arguments even before before the article was rescued. Further, several of the deletes appeared to have insufficient or no arguments, Reductio ad absurdum argument (...capture every time a pizza is delivered in a book, movie or TV show.) or cutsie-pie comments (Delete in 30 minutes or less) that should have been discounted. The trend had clearly moved overwhelmingly toward consensus to keep, per WP:HEY, after the article improvement by LGRdC, with sufficient sources, including the unimpeachable NYT article. Sourcing and notability is no longer a concern. Referring to IPC content as "trivia attracting" is indefensible per WP:CRYSTAL. And even if there was some so-called trivia, that's for a consensus editing process to deal with, not article deletion, per WP:DEL. And yes, it is very much encyclopedic, as noted before. — Becksguy (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Note that all the delete votes were cast within the first two days, before the article was rescued. Overall, of the 15 votes cast, 8 were Delete, 5 were Keep, and 2 were Merge. Obviously not a supermajority (requiring 10 delete votes), in fact, barely a majority (53% for delete, 8 of 15). And not even a majority after discounting the two delete votes without any rationale provided (46% for delete, 6 of 13). And the arguments for deletion that rested on WP:TRIVIA fail, as the information was neither disorganized nor indiscriminate, rather it was "organized by logical grouping and ordering of facts" to provide cultural context to pizza delivery. I see no compelling arguments to delete in the AfD and I disagree with the nominators argument that the keep votes didn't address the delete arguments. I think they did more than adequately, certainly after the article cleanup, as shown by the shift in voting and rationale provided, including an argument to Keep per WP:HEY, which is exactly what improvement during a deletion discussion covers. A closure of No consensus in the AfD would have been acceptable, although there was stronger support for Keep. — Becksguy (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Swedish_auction – Already restored – Stifle (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like a copy of this article emailed to me. I think it might be redeemable. Cretog8 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail content to user. No reason not to. I am curious what sorts of things you think you can do to it, though. Anyways, cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please update your preferences with a valid email address, and I'll be happy to email the contents of the article to you. Shereth 15:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Daniel Boey – deletion endorsed; user space version not ready for article space so title remains protected – GRBerry 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am submitting this article for review and reinstatement based on the edits that were discussed in the previous deletion review. Thank you. Succisa75 (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Succisa75[reply]

Note: fixed malformed DRV nom and added links to previous DRVs. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second note: Succisa is asking if the userfied version here can be put back into mainspace, in case that isn't obvious. Cheers, everyone. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not yet The only real references for notability seem to be the pages in http://www.danielboey.com/img/press and I can't tell the actual sourcesDGG (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I repaired some of the links. Was that the problem with notability or is it something else? If so could you explain in more detail what you are looking for? Thanks Succisa75 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Succisa75[reply]

Keep deleted, very little non-trivial media coverage. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (Keep salted) Persistent disruptive attempts to recreate this rather vain article of a person whose notability remains to be demonstrated. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brian Thornton – deletion endorsed; no reviewer identified a concern and the nominator offered no reason – GRBerry 20:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am submitting this article for review and reinstatement based on the edits that were discussed in the previous deletion review as well as new news found by google on Mr. Thornton. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.46.67 (talk) 16:20, June 10, 2008

Comment - Could you provide a link to the prevoius DRV? I seem to have lost it. Thanks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. No reason provided to overturn. Previous DRV can be found here, but I removed it since it lacked a reason to overturn. Nom doesn't tell what the "new news found by google on Mr. Thorton" is or why it overrides the AfD. You may feel free to open a new DRV if you can provide sources to establish his notability or have found fault with the closing of the AfD, but please at least provide a valid reason. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 June 2008

Dickipedia – deletion endorsed – GRBerry 20:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Delete carried out without discussion and despite changes in web coverage Although the Dickipedia was deleted in Dec 2007, I recreated in this spring and made a clear note on the discussion page that 1) I hadn't been involved in the original article and 2) that the reasons for deleting it in Dec 2007 didn't apply at this time given the greater notability of the topic. The article was deleted today by a bot. When I went to the bot page to start a discussion on this speedy delete, I read that I was not supposed to start any discussions there. So, I'm here. The process of engaging in AfD discussions with a bot is quite frustrating. This is the first time I've requested a Deletion Review and am feeling my way, but I have to note that the process is cumbersome, to say the least.Interlingua 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, the page was deleted by Orangemike, not a bot. A bot only notified you of the speedy. As for the speedy itself, I've no opinion, not having access to the new and old deleted contents. I've notified Orangemike of this DRV. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet the only references at the present are

Zjawinski, Sonia. Huffington Post Helps Launch Wiki of D%@ks, Wired Blog Network [120]
Welcome to Dickipedia, SFist February 6, 2008 [121] there's also other material in Huffington Post, but they're the sponsors of the site. DGG (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Per DGG. MrPrada (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the place you've been looking at that discouraged further discussion might have been the second AfD that had been opened and then been closed after the speedy deletion. The discussion there confirms as well that it should stay deleted.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, not notable and no process violations. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steal their editors a lot of it seems to be quite well written and intelligible. Guest9999 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)... but that's not really relevant to a deletion review, apologies. Guest9999 (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anya Kamenetz – closure endorsed; move/merge should be discussed on the article talk page – GRBerry 20:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfD closed before five days on minimal discussion by non-admin shortly after I revised my deletion proposal. He suggested I ask for deletion review rather than undo his edit. ~~My current proposal~~ One of my current proposals is to move the page to Generation Debt and reverse the direction of the redirect. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my closure, as two established users supported the retention of this article, and no users besides the nominator supported its deletion. Furthermore, the citations provided by Captain-tucker provided compelling evidence that one of Anya Kamenetz's books has been the subject of significant coverage in many reliable sources, thereby establishing a presumption of its notability (and, by extension, the notability of Anya Kamenetz herself) pursuant to our general notability guideline. The timing of the closure was correct, as the AFD discussion was initiated on June 4, 2008, and closed on June 9, 2008, approximately five days later. The exact hour at which the discussion was closed today would almost certainly not have affected the outcome. John254 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The editor that closed this AfD prematurely has a history of doing so. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Moore. I do not state this as a personal attack and I am sure he is a fine editor. I only wish to explain my dissatisfaction with an early and apparently pointless closing of a debate that had not finished. My account is pseudonymous but not a sockpuppet (see my talk page) and although I cannot make an appeal to status as an 'established user' under this identity, I am not an untrustworthy editor myself. There was not yet a decisive Keep consensus on this AfD. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a reference to a seven month old AFD closure is the best evidence that you can provide to support your position, then your argument is without merit. Even a cursory review of my recent edit history would indicate a large number AFD closures, none of which have been overturned at DRV since the reversal of a few closures seven months ago. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Verenikina, which I closed under circumstances quite similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya Kamenetz, was recently endorsed, unanimously, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 26. John254 02:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I identified the users favoring the retention of this article as "established users" not as an implicit disparagement of the manner in which you are editing, but rather to distinguish the participants in the AFD discussion from the "single-purpose accounts and/or single purpose ips" about whom you complain [122] in the AFD nomination. John254 06:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This request for review is not about your record, although it would have been fair for you to say above that the Marina Vernikina deletion was in fact a 'procedural nomination' that was opposed by the AfD nominator himself! For Anya Kamenetz, I offered a new proposal in the middle of the debate, one that would improve Wikipedia in my judgment. This proposal, along with the discussion in total, was cut off prematurely for no reason I can discern. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Verenikina was initiated by MusicBizLady -- the fact that Celarnor actually completed the technical aspects of the nomination is immaterial here. The reason for concluding the AFD discussion is quite sound -- the nominator initiated it alleging in relevant part that "the subject's book has received limited attention by people other than the subject... Thus no WP:RS to sustain notability". When this claim was quite successfully rebutted by the citations provided by Captain-tucker, Antiselfpromotion conceded that the book "may be notable", but nonetheless asserted that Anya Kamenetz wasn't, and suggested moving the article to the title of the book. However, the nominator's prior incorrect assertion of the book's non-notability strongly suggests that Antiselfpromotion nominated the article for deletion without a thorough search for sources, and calls his later assertion of Anya Kamenetz's non-notability into question. More fundamentally, however, since there was no longer any support for the deletion of the article by anyone involved in the AFD discussion, there was no reason to continue it. AFD discussions may, on occasion, be employed to debate deletion-like dispositions of articles, such as redirection -- however, given the lack of comments responsive to Antiselfpromotion's attempt to employ the AFD discussion for this unconventional purpose in the course of the three days since he proposed moving the article, it did not appear that this usage of the AFD would be productive. John254 03:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are making this a personal attack, and that is not appropriate. My search was thorough. Why do you assume that it was not? The reviews that were found by Captain-tucker were in fact not found online, but in a private database. In any case I dispute a subject is notable only because she has written a reviewed book. If the debate were finished nearer to five days after it started than four, perhaps there would have been more comments and the AfD been productive. Why was there was a rush to terminate the debate by fiat? You could have re-listed it or allowed my re-listing to stand if you did not think enough comments had been made. There was no consensus. There was certainly no Keep consensus. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A through search for sources would have included using a commonly available database accessible from many academic libraries. If you're not willing to conduct such a search, but are instead nominating an article for deletion solely on the grounds that a cursory web search provides no sources, you should at least state your claim of non-notability as a possibility, rather than as a definite assertion. Furthermore, it should be noted that AFD discussions are conventionally employed to request the deletion of articles. Where no one participating in an AFD discussion continues to support such a result, there is a consensus to keep the article, in the sense that it is not administratively deleted. Where an AFD discussion has continued for nearly five days with such a consensus to not delete the article, and no ascertainable consensus to do anything else, it is properly closed as "keep". John254 03:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if my claim that your assertion of Anya Kamenetz's non-notability is questionable as a result of the circumstances under which you brought this very article to AFD constitutes a "personal attack" as you allege, then your previous attempt [123] to introduce a seven month old AFD closure as evidence weighing against the correctness of the closure of this AFD discussion is likewise a personal attack, but to a much greater extent, since the relevant incident was quite old, and did not pertain to this particular article at all. John254 04:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not abandon my nomination for deletion. I asked if I should change it to a debate about a redirect, all the while maintaining that I thought that the subject was not notable and that the page should be deleted. Nobody had answered that question before you closed the discussion by fiat. I see that as evidence that not enough people were yet paying attention to the debate, not that there was a Keep consensus. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Nobody had answered that question" because you proposed a pagemove at AFD. While I do support the principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and would concur with a pagemove conducted as a result of an AFD discussion which evidenced a consensus to do so, we can't actually require users to discuss matters at AFD which are outside its formal purview. John254 04:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I additionally wish to observe that inadequately prepared AFD nominations can be somewhat of a nuisance on Wikipedia. So, if someone has actually had to visit an academic library to obtain compelling evidence to support the notability of a book whose non-notability was unequivocally asserted in an AFD nomination easily prepared from the convenience of one's own home computer, I expect that to be the end of the matter, and the AFD nomination to be graciously withdrawn. To continue to pursue this AFD, by means of an assertion of Anya Kamenetz's non-notability which is likely no better researched than the assertion of her book's non-notability is tantamount to a claim that your time and effort is more valuable than ours, such that you may insist on the elimination of our article concerning Anya Kamenetz unless other users are willing to conduct the research which you refuse to perform. Such a position is disrespectful towards the Wikipedia community. John254 04:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop talking down to me and treating me as if I have been disrespectful. I strongly disagree with that characterization. You are talking as if my AfD was 'inadequately prepared' or overstated, but it was not. I am still not persuaded that the subject is notable. You cannot decide unilaterally that nobody else will agree with me. The article is about a living person. We are not to assume even as as default position that it is properly sourced and that the subject is notable solely because the article exists. Recall that it looks as if the subject herself created the page. Preparing the AfD was not disrespectful. Waiting until it runs its course rather than terminating it by yourself would have shown the respect that you are alleging I lack. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closures are intrinsically unilateral -- they are not performed by a vote of a committee. The process is far from perfect, and oftentimes produces heated disputes, repeated listings at deletion review, and even outright wheel warring, where there is little agreement as to the correct interpretation of an AFD discussion. Fortunately, however, Anya Kamenetz is no Daniel Brandt. The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya Kamenetz clearly favors retention of the article as a matter of policy, and is unanimously supported by all users who have reviewed the matter except yourself. While it is considered to be a conflict of interest to create an autobiography in the main namespace, articles may not be deleted solely on this basis. Autobiographies substantially unchanged from their original authorship receive great scrutiny; however, Anyaanya (talk · contribs)'s creation of this article nearly three years ago, in a form substantially different from its present character, is largely unimportant to the disposition of the present article. John254 06:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I know AfD closures are made by individuals. But there is a process. This was a non-admin closure well before the 5-day period was up. It was an early and inappropriate non-admin closure under WP:NAC. All the guidelines there explain why I am unsatisfied with your closure. It was not a 'unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full 5-day listing period'. There was debate and a new question, a resolution to which would have required admin action because a live article cannot be moved to a redirect by a non-admin. It was not a 'snowball' keep, and I was still making my case and introducing new questions and concerns. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, Wikipedia:Non-admin closure contains a prominent tag explaining its status: "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." Before quibbling about whether an editor's actions are consistent with the technical details of policy or guidelines, one should ensure that the page one is citing actually is a policy or guideline. Your claim that the AFD closure was "well before the 5-day period was up" is untenable: the discussion was initiated on 21:08, 4 June 2008, and closed on 00:19, 9 June 2008. Do you seriously contend that it is insufficient for an AFD discussion to be closed on the fifth day after it is initiated; that this AFD could not have been closed until 21:08, 9 June 2008? Of course, the discussion was a "unanimous keep", excluding the opinion of the nominator (which, if counted for this purpose, would render a "unanimous keep" impossible except in the case of withdrawn and "procedural" nominations). John254 06:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you would harp on the word 'guideline' and I regretted using it immediately. I did not mean the word in a technical manner although as I say on my user page I do not claim to be an expert on AfD policy. The page nevertheless is consistent with my opinion. Do you disagree with it, or alternatively do you think that your non-admin closure is consistent somehow with it? All I expected is a full and fair discussion. You cut it short and denied me the opportunity to relist so that the AfD could get more than 2 comments and my question could get an answer. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - the relevant guideline with respect to Non-admin closures on which the mentioned essay elaborates, is Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was reasonable to consider the course of the AfD as indication that the nom withdrew the deletion request and suggested a merger. As nobody else was arguing for delete, a non-admin can reasonably close in such circumstances. But he may have been wrong--bringing this Deletion Review suggests the nom had not really decided what to do. But I still do not see what antiselfpromotion wants--he does not need deletion review to propose his merge and redirect. For an author of a single book, it's equally reasonable to have the article under the book or the person. DGG (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The fact that this is being brought up here at DRV is a good indication that the closure was somewhat improper, and the closer should probably have left for an admin to finish off. Nevertheless, overturning it seems a little unnecessary at this point, because in the end the keep result is what ultimately would have come about. It's one of those cases where the closure was correct but the fact that (s)he is a non-admin is the only reason it's showing up for review. Discussion regarding a merge/redirect can proceed without the intervention of a review. Shereth 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - while it might have been better to leave it for an admin, it being a close decision, looking at the arguments brought forward by those two editors opining keep provide a pretty good basis for the decision; the author's book has been written up in various and diverse notable publications, which would seem to me to add notability. A merge (or rename and refocusing to make the article about the book instead) is still possible, of course, but the discussion should be held on the talk page, not here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Seeing that no one who participated in the discussion, including the nominator, was ultimately seeking deletion, I'm not sure why this is even up for review here. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, strictly a no consensus, but no harm done. Closer is strongly counselled to avoid closing deletion discussions other than unequivocal keeps. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Insufficient time on AfD & should have been allowed more time/been relisted for further input given the AUTO and COI issues raised in the nom. I second the concerns raised by Antiselfpromotion and, echoing Stifle, suggest John254 restrict his efforts at AfD to obvious closures. Eusebeus (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, nom for a Pulitzer Prize is sufficient notability, the close was premature but not that premature. Though there might be two articles here, or else write an article about the book and not the author. It seems like the article is rather schizophrenic. Corvus cornix_talk 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Every year there are 2,400 Pulitzer Prize noms. [124] Every pub. can make them. That part of the bio is just vanity too. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks – restored by deleting administrator and listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks —Cryptic 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability determined by obit in New York Times and LA Times, and court case, she is one of the wealthiest women in US history Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation but the deleted article may just have been a copy of an old Time Magazine article about her: [125] --Rividian (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of non-notable folks have had obituaries in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times, some of them were also very wealthy. Mother is notable, daughter is not and is already noted in Hetty Green. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the best or the smartest, its when the media takes notice of you and publishes information on you. I think you are confusing a "death notice" with an obituary. Both papers carry death notices for locals, but when both publish obituaries, you are notable. Save the fastest and smartest for Guinness World records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, please see WP:N for why Wikipedia's take on this may not be the same as yours. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell people that the answer is in the Bible, quote a chapter and verse. Wikipedia notability says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Not the Guinness World records version of notability which is the smartest richest, or fastest. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you two are arguing about is neither here nor there... WP:N is not a criteria for speedy deletion. If this article did assert importance (such as extreme wealth) it should go to AFD, unless it was a copyvio. --Rividian (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I should say, both the tagging editor and myself (as the deleting admin) did not interpret wealth as an assertion of significance. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why deletions shouldn't be left to the whims of individuals. There is no reason in speedy delete guidelines for deleting the article. Please restore, and put it up for AFD, let the people speak, not two individuals. Subjectively, your rule is "wealth [is not] an assertion of significance". But objectively the Wikipedia rule is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Thats says it all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance in a reliable source is an a priori indicator of notability, and way more than enough to keep this from an A7. Should've been sent to afd. —Cryptic 03:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The text as written made no assertion of significance and was speedily deleted, following the criteria for speedy deletion which in the A7 category notes clearly, this is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources. I'll be happy to restore and send to AfD though. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your reading of CSD A7 is manifestly contrary to its intent, which is to prevent the speedy deletion of articles pursuant to CSD A7 solely on the grounds of a lack of reliable sources to establish notability, not to permit the speedy deletion of articles despite any degree of notability established or the quality of sources provided. CSD A7 is intended to quickly and efficiently dispose of blatantly non-notable material, not as something to play word games with. John254 03:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you think WP:N is a lower hurdle to pass than WP:CSD#A7, you shouldn't be deleting articles. A7's wording was initially chosen, and has since been maintained, such that it can't apply to anything that could possibly be kept at afd, and certainly not anything that passed WP:N (which postdates it, but never mind that). —Cryptic 03:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional overturn, as notability is asserted sufficiently to preclude speedy deletion pursuant to CSD A7, to the extent that the article is not a copyright violation that would be legitimately subject to speedy deletion pursuant to CSD G12. John254 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like some editors see an assertion of wealth as an assertion of notability. Both the tagging editor and myself did not. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 June 2008

Ulteo – Restored and send to AfD by deleting admin. Non-admin closure. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think that the deletetion of my new article about Ulteo was not justified

Hello - following the deletion of the original Ulteo entry on Wikipedia which was very poor, I wrote a full article to cover this Open Source project, with all the references.

My article was soon deleted for the following reason: "repost of a deleted article".

I'd like to clearly state that my article was not a repost, but a new and documented article about the Ulteo project with links to press reviews in well-known websites. Please do a diff of the two articles to understand what I mean.

Additionally, the Ulteo project has really taken off those past 5 months with the release of 4 different products and that's a very interesting project which has gained real notability, and many dedicated reviews on well-known software news sites such as CNET.com, Slashdot.org, ZDnet and many others.

So please consider undelete my work, because I think that Ulteo really deserves a page in the Wikipedia English version like it does in several other languages.

In short: I'm pretty sure that my article meets all Wikipedia requirements in terms of notability of the project and in term of references.

Getupstandup1 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of three admins who deleted it (log) I recommend undeleting for broader discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. — Athaenara ✉ 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, for comparison:

April version which was deleted after the first Afd (before an undeletion following a user request to move it to User:Avant Destiny/Ulteo for improvement)
June version which user Getupandstandup1 argues should be undeleted.

(Added links for admins considering undeletion for 2nd Afd.) — Athaenara ✉ 08:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AfD. The most recent version was substantially different from the previously deleted version (by AfD), at least enough to justify overturning the speedy. As it's a different article, the outcome should be determined by consensus. Shereth 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: re-determine consensus. — Athaenara ✉ 03:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy undelete, based on Athaenara's comment. He She was the most recent admin to delete for content, so I think he she could just reverse ~~him~~herself. DGG (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "new" article has the same wording, the same WP:RS issues and the same WP:N issues. There may be an argument that the article is different but that is on the surface. The content of the article is the same. I would completely understand if this was overturned and brought back to AfD. I suspect that the end result will be the same.--Pmedema (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to previous I disagree with the former argument about WP:RS issue: the new version as I read it in the cache provides several links to external sites that are trustworthy or I don't know who you can trust. I can see a distrowatch.com which is one of the most resespected information site on Linux systems, and several reviews from Linux.com, CNET.com, Artstechnica, CRN, sys-con and Slashdot.org which are well established and respected tech-oriented web sites for a long time. They have covered extensively the latest Ulteo releases, and talk about Ulteo features that, yes, are also explained on the Ulteo.com main website. I've checked wikipedia pages of Ulteo in various languages and they confirm at least parts of information provided in the English page that is in cache. So from my point of view, that's really what I call a reliable sources or a big part of Wikipedia should be wiped out too. Regarding the WP:RS supposed issue, I disagree for two reasons: the information newssites that cover Ulteo are not small ones, they are the biggest ones in their category, and at the time of writing Googling shows 600,000 entries for Ulteo. In my opinion, that's not hype, just a project that is catching attention and growing. As a result, my feeling is that the most recent version should be restored. Vautnavette (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC). — Vautnavette (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As per my own inclinations and as per DGG, Shereth, and to some extent Pmedema, I restored the rewritten version of the article and created the 2nd Afd page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulteo (2nd nomination). — Athaenara ✉ 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michael Bormann – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Entry was all correct Bonfire34 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know who had deleted the article on Michael Bormann, but I only noticed that it was gone today when I tried to make a link from a band's article that he was in to his own entry. There is nothing in the My Talk for me about it and I had no idea there was a problem that still existed with his entry. I had provided and thought I cleared all the problems that had existed with the entry months ago. Since I had no notification, I had no chance to copy the article as a text (as it was long) just in case this would have happened and I would have asked to reinstate. So why was it deleted and why was I not informed since I was the original author? I would also like to know if it will be reinstated as all the information was provided by Michael Bormann himself, the music groups he belonged to, various web site news articles and the most recent information where he was nominated for several Grammys was directly from his management and the Grammy Acadamy. I think that is pretty much reliable sources.

The article was deleted under CSD A7 as not asserting the importance of its subject. Regardless, you cannot verify information from the man himself or his management, as that does not satisfy WP:V. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. You're free to recreate the article, and given what you've said above I'm sure it will not be speedied again (with reliable sources, you've given more than enough to pass WP:MUSIC). Usually this is a much faster course than having simple speedies overturned, especially when the page in question is not protected from recreation. As for the lack of notification, while it is bad form it is not enough for an overturn of a speedy all on its own. I wish you the best of luck on this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion as valid. If the nominator is certain a sourced and verifiable article can be written on the subject, they are more than welcome to do so. Shereth 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; the article wasn't backed up by reliable sources, just personal information from the subject and management, from the looks of it. I'd suggest rewriting it in userspace and ensuring that it's fully backed up with good references, then ask some admins to review it before reposting it live. Note that the Grammy thing is not necessarily notable - pretty well anyone can submit to the entry lists. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid speedy deletion; some citations from reliable sources might convince me that it should be reversed. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close this, but noticed that i had tagged and redirected the article in the past. Part of its editorial problems were precisely that most content obviously came from the subject. the article seems to have been deleted when Jaded Heart was deleted per A7 as well, although it lists eight albums. So I'd start from the band's article or contact the deleting admin about it. While you can ask in any case for the content of Michael Bormann to be restored to userspace or e-mailed, it may better to rewrite from scratch based entirely on external sources as the article should be possible and is rather desirable in a form independent of personal information by the subject.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inventions in the Islamic world – AfD keep closure endorsed – RMHED (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The closing admin makes two fundemental errors, 1. he asserts the POV problem is part of the article text and thus not deletable, it is not, it is part of the article name, i.e. the topic of the article, and thus inherent; and 2. he asserts that the Islamic World is a defined geographic location in the same way that the U.S. the country is, which is a patent nonsense; the idea that this is a defined 'country' that supercedes the established wikipedia naming convention of 'things by country' is not supportable, and is a clear violation of NPOV. The admin has failed to give any more detailed reasons for his keep other than these, despite requests, so there is no choice but Drv. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

Closing admin: I am not asserting my own opinion; I believe that I have interpreted the consensus accurately. The arguments for keep were stronger than those for delete. At the very least, it is a "no consensus," but definitely not "delete." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Close accurately reflects the consensus of the AfD. The delete rationales were mostly based on content issues, not deletion ones. Editing and possibly moving the page should take care of all the problems with it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorswe, at worst this might have been a no-consensus keep, but I have to agree with the closer in his determination of consensus here. There was certainly insufficient will to delete. Shereth 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. When looking only at the second nomination, you could make an argument that this should have been closed as "no consensus" rather than a straight "keep". When considered in light of the additional comments from the prior AFD, a closure as "keep" is well within normal admin discretion. I can find no interpretation of the discussion that would have closed as a "delete" decision.
That's not to say that the article must stay in its current form, title or even remain as an independent article. Decisions to modify, move, prune or redirect the page should continue to be worked out on the respective article Talk pages. Disagreements over those decisions should be worked out in accordance with WP:DR (not WP:DRV). Rossami (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Rossami covers well each of the points that I'd have raised (and more cogently than would have I, to be sure). Joe 02:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse proper closure - the delete comments were all related to the pov of the article, pov is not a reason for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The neutrality violation is the idea that making a list based on the manufactured correlation of inventions made in the Islamic World is worthy of an article, which ignores current categorisation conventions. Just how do you fix that violation without deleting the article? MickMacNee (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move the page, perhaps? Narrow its inclusion criteria? Perhaps split it into two smaller articles, and there's already a discussion going on about that. I also fail to see what's indiscriminate about this list; it only lists things verifiably invented by Muslims. Granted, reading through there seem to be some subtle jabs at Europe, but I'm pretty sure everything can be taken care of through normal editing. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't list things invented by Muslims, there is a difference, there are Muslims all over the world. It is as indiscriminate as if you listed all ships constructed in the Muslim world, defineable (ignoring the vague nature and borders of 'Muslim World'), but not a notable intersection. Not one person in this entire debate has attempted to address the POV violating assertion that an invention made in the Muslim world is separable over and above inventions by country/person/defined civilisation (e.g. Roman, Byzantine etc), which is the standard practice on wikipedia. As said above, the closer even makes the incorrect assertion that saying 'Muslim World' is the same as saying the 'United States', a blatant POV violation. MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a flaw in the title and lede, then. Looks like that's what it is listing, anyways. There are ways of fixing these problems other than deleting the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse closure -- As others have said there was a strong tradition of real science in the Islamic world when Christian Europe was crippled by superstition. As others have said deletion decisions should be based on whether the topic itself merits coverage, not based upon whether a current version of an article has POV problems. Further, how is it meaningful to call this an "indiscriminate list" when the criteria for inclusion are so plainly stated? Geo Swan (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've just justified the topic itself using an extremely non-neutral statement. MickMacNee (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And List of country and western singers with blue eyes would also have very clear "criteria for inclusion", it would still be an indiscriminate list. And Muslim world is hardly a specific definition either, compared to an actual country (the standard method of listing things in Wikipedia), which again just marches this topic directly into POV-land by default, before you even examine the indiscriminate information it contains. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep, both by looking at the AfD and by looking at the topic. I find Mick's nomination nonsensical. Islamic world is a well-understood term. It is not a well-defined geographic location - so what? Neither is Germany, or the US, for that. Was Tecumseh an "US military leader"? Sam Houston? The current article may suck (although it is not that bad), but the topic is notable and has oodles of sources. Even WP:AGFing, it looks like quite some of the (few) deletes are motivated by anti-islamic prejudice, and not by a neutral evaluation of the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, closer interpreted the debate correctly. This is not a place to further discuss the article or its merits. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User talk:SlimVirgin – Deletion endorsed, as there certainly isn't anything like a consensus to undelete. Whilst this large scale deletion of a significant chunk of talk page history was far from ideal it is in the process of being restored by ElinorD (minus the harassment) albeit at a less than optimal pace. Maybe ElinorD wouldn't be adverse to offers of administrative help in this regard. So to summarise, this is undoubtedly a controversial deletion, though to undelete against consensus would be even more controversial and likely as not would all end in tears before bedtime.
I'm not an admin but I've closed it anyways, given that it's been open 6 days and the last comment was over 42 hrs ago. (Please feel free to revert if you strongly oppose my closing). I consider myself to be wholly neutral in this matter, having no conflict of interest. I have never posted on SlimVirgin's talkpage and she has never posted on mine. In fact I've never had any direct interaction with her at all. – RMHED (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I ask that SlimVirgin's talk page history be undeleted (see deletion log). I want every revision, without exception, restored in such away that non-admins can find it in coherent page histories and in user contribution logs.

I collected evidence to support this request at User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/SlimVirgin arbitration evidence/SlimVirgin's talk page. Briefly:

Precedent prohibits active users from deleting their talk pages.

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted his talk page history many times, but other administrators undeleted it. User:Animum explained: "please do not delete your own talk page. If you have left, please email me and tell me so." User:The wub explained: "page histories should be kept intact (barring exceptional circumstances) especially if you are still using your admin tools."

Many users questioned the deletion of User talk:SlimVirgin.

On June 19, 2007, User:Piperdown questioned the deletion on the Administrators' noticeboard. [126]
On July 23, 2007, User:NathanLee asked User:Crum375, the administrator who deleted User talk:SlimVirgin, to undelete it. ElinorD and Crum375 responded. [127]
On August 2, 2007, User:Kelly Martin wrote on her blog: "it's likely that my response [to SlimVirgin] is currently a deleted revision which I, being a lowly non-admin peon, am not permitted to see. (This bothers me somewhat.)" [128]
On August 10, 2007, User:Night Gyr asked SlimVirgin why her talk page had been deleted. [129] ElinorD replied. One day later, ElinorD undeleted some history, but the history between March 2006 and August 2007 is still deleted.
On August 12, 2007, User:Derktar wrote on Wikipedia Review: "It still amazes me how much information can be wiped off the face of Wikipedia to the average user or casual observer, and without much fuss to boot. ... my comment on Slim's talk page was removed after due course, having no place in the history of her talk page though the evidence of the run-in is still present." [130]

The reasons for deleting User talk:SlimVirgin are invalid.

The reasons given by SlimVirgin, Crum375 and ElinorD to support the deletion are:

Individual revisions contained information that harassed SlimVirgin by trying to expose her real-world identity.
In order to remove these revisions, it was necessary to delete the entire page history, then undelete all revisions except for those containing harassment. However, isolating individual revisions to keep deleted requires substantial effort.
Undeleting thousands of revisions would disrupt the performance of the website, so all of the revisions stay deleted.

These reasons are not valid because:

In June 2007, when Crum375 deleted SlimVirgin's talk page, SlimVirgin's real-world identity was not known. In late July 2007, Daniel Brandt published his opinion regarding SlimVirgin's real-world identity on Wikipedia Review, and his opinion was reported elsewhere. Regardless of whether it is true, the speculation is readily accessible from a Google search for "SlimVirgin," so keeping prior speculation hidden from page history serves no useful purpose.
Oversight should have been used to remove individual revisions. On the thread Piperdown started (linked above), User:Cla68 wrote: "I would suggest that anyone, admins or "regular" editors, who desire "outing" or personal attack edits removed from a page in the project ask an oversighter to do it instead of an admin clumsily using the page deletion function. The page deletion function obviously doesn't work well for surgically removing offending edits and it appears that this is what the oversight function was created for."
Instead of undeleting thousands of revisions simultaneously to one page, smaller numbers of revisions could be undeleted to separate archive pages if this will improve website performance.

With non-administrators such as Cla68 and myself reviewing SlimVirgin's history of activity for a current arbitration case, the need for a full, open archive acquires an added relevance. However, even if there were no arbitration case, SlimVirgin's talk page archives need to be preserved for public accessibility for the same reason that we preserve the talk page archives of Jeffrey O. Gustafson and all other active users. Yechiel (Shalom) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. The horse is long out of the barn on the "outing" stuff, and the mass deletion conceals possible evidence of use to an ongoing case. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete for transparency and accountability, especially considering the current ArbCom case. As Shalom says, Oversight should be used for revisions that include harassment, outing and threats – not page deletion. EJF (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete All contributions are GFDL, this is not how you deal with privacy/harassment concerns. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, please. There are many thousands of edits to the page, which ElinorD is very kindly in the process of undeleting and moving to individual archives to make them easier to manage. The reason the page was deleted at all was that someone posted some abuse, which was deleted, and then the whole page was undeleted by mistake, which also undeleted a lot of previously deleted posts, something that often happens in error when admins delete and undelete. Some of it was very provocative sexual abuse. Therefore, the whole page was deleted again, at which point ElinorD suggested breaking it into archives to make it easier to handle in future, and that's what she's currently doing. Anyone with a genuine reason to find a post can look at Daniel Brandt's website; I believe he has posted copies of all my archives there. Alternatively, any admin wanting to check posts by individual contributors can look at the deleted edits. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - as per above, archives minus abuse is being put together by ElinorD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep deleted I see no compelling reason to undelete if Elinor is going through the ok material. MickMac's comment about the GFDL is in error; nothing in the GFDL requires us to continue to make this content available. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - Per above. Garion96 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Slim's reasoning makes sense. IronDuke 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for now, please. Shalom is incorrect in saying that the history between March 2006 and August 2007 is still deleted. A week ago, I did another big spurt of undeletion, and brought it up to the middle of February 2007. This is a very complicated process, as there are many abusive versions in the history, which is why the admin who deleted the page last summer was afraid to restore the whole thing, since he was unable to work out which versions were harassment free. The restored history is in separate archives and can be seen here. The history is most certainly not being suppressed in order to conceal records of SlimVirgin's "misbehaviour". SlimVirgin was happy and grateful for me to do this: while the idea of restoring bit by bit in separate archives came from me, I did not have to force her or "persuade" her, as I read somewhere. She has on more than one occasion offered to help, or to take over, but it's the kind of job that can be much more easily finished by the person who started, and who knows what they're doing. My recent contributions will show that I have done almost nothing else on Wikipedia recently. I am recovering from surgery and am not, at present, comfortable spending long hours in front of a computer screen. I do not want some admin who is unaware of the need to check individual versions to restore the whole history indiscriminately (as happened before when Crum375 had deleted it); that would completely ruin the careful work I have been doing. (I can quickly judge which versions don't need to be checked; an admin closing this DRV might not be able to.) I restored several thousand versions in the last week, and would appreciate not being pressurized into changing my pace. And by the way, would it not have been courteous to have notified SlimVirgin of this discussion? ElinorD (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ElinorD, could you please provide a copy of everything I ever said (ie labeled WAS 4.250; there may be some editing from IP 4.250.* that I label "(WAS 4.250)") at SlimVirgin's user page? She attacked me on the talk page of Animal Testing for being against her so I mentioned that I had said some nice things to her but she insisted that I did not. Place it anywhere you choose; a subpage of my user talk page would be fine with me. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Elinor, but I have a hard time with this. Certainly I can't pressure you to change your pace if it is something you are not in a position to do; however, as far as I can see, the parts that are missing are from approximately February until August of 2007. Is this not something SV can do herself? I'm not sure I understand the risk of undoing your work when those reversions have already been trasnferred to separate archives. As with WAS, there is at least one post where I pointed out the many articles to which SV had followed me, while she was falsely accusing me of "stalking" her in part of a long series of attacks that she leveled against me from December 2006 through March of 2007. She has recently made this accusation again in attempting to have false and damaging accusations retained in my block log, while my comments to her have remained unavailable. The period from February to August 2007 is also from my knowledge the most relevant in terms of the current arbitration case. It seems to me that if you are unable, some other way of returning this on a schedule should be found. Mackan79 (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To ElinorD: I prepared this DRV request about two weeks ago, but I had second thoughts about posting it because I knew it would cause drama. (You can confirm this by looking at the page history of my draft page, which I linked in the second paragraph of the request above.) I decided to post it on Sunday. When I wrote that you had not performed any administrative actions on that page since last August, I was working with information as of two weeks ago. It did not occur to me to double-check the deletion log before I posted the DRV because the deletion log had not been changed in the last six months. I apologize for that mistake. I notified you and Crum375 and not SlimVirgin because you and Crum375 were the deleting admins, and the rules say the requester of the DRV should notify the deleting admin. Perhaps it should have been obvious that I should notify SlimVirgin also, but I thought one of the two of you would notify her anyway (as indeed occurred). If I was remiss in failing to leave a message for her, I apologize. Regarding the substance of the matter, if you are continuing to restore bits of page history and you expect to finish the job in a couple of weeks, that is an acceptable compromise to me. At the time I drafted the DRV, no action had been taken in several months, the deleting admins had declined a talk-page request for reconsideration, and I was frustrated by my inability to see diffs on SlimVirgin's talk page, such as the one where she called Piperdown a "sockpuppet" and the one where Derktar posted to her talk page something related to BADSITES. The first is definitely relevant to the ArbCom case. The second may not be, but when I saw it I lost patience and said, "Enough is enough. This needs a formal review." So here we've come. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted ElinorD is willing to tediously work through so many revisions to weed out the abusive threats and vandalism, threats to reveal real life identity. It's not at all easy to go through several thousand edits and she is , being familiar with it, best suited to do that instead of a complete restoration by an admin who may not be familiar with it. Yes, it would have been courteous to notify SlimVirgin of this discussion.— Ѕandahl 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly this restoration project has been going for quite some time. I support the notion in principle of keeping nasty revisions deleted, but this page seems material to a current arbcom case. As it stands now, admins can see most of the edits (but not all, some were oversighted, so I don't agree with Shalom about "every" revision) which is not at all optimal, but will have to do I guess, but I would ask ElinorD (who should be commended for taking on a big job) how long she would project it will take to finish if things go about as could be expected? ++Lar: t/c 11:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on my talk page that is relevant to an ArbCom case. That claim is being made by the usual suspects in an effort to stir up more drama. You can look at the deleted revisions yourself, Lar, so why don't you do that instead of insinuating there might be something untoward there? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I insinuated nothing. Oddly, when I go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User_talk:SlimVirgin there are no deleted revisions visible to me at all! ... there is no "page history" section there. If I instead go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User_talk:Lar, I can see (in "page history") the one deleted revision that I know I deleted, and review it... It is possible that I am lacking in clue here, or alternatively, possible that something odd has happened somewhere, or possible that there just aren't any deleted revisions, nary a one... either there never were, or they've been moved somewhere... I'm not sure which is the case. But I'm also not sure that if they've been moved somewhere that it's quite as easy as you say to validate that there is nothing relevant... since I've introduced evidence that references edits you made to other people's talk pages, perhaps there is relevant material on your talk page as well. Who can say for sure? I don't think that's insinuation, it's just puzzlement. ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Elinor's project; the deleted revisions are at User talk:SlimVirgin/temp. Deleted revisions there are primarily 16 February 2007 to 4 August 2007, with 6 from 4 June 2006. (There were 949 revisions left deleted at User talk:SlimVirgin, which were restored underneath the active talk page on 26 May 2007.) The logs for the temp page show that Elinor did Slim's archives 1-26 in August-September 2007, then did nothing for a long while, and did archives 27-37 on 1 June 2008. Archive 27 begins with 18 April 2006 and archive 37 ends with 16 February 2007. The number of revisions restored and remaining deleted suggest to me that if ElinorD devoted one more work session of similar length to that she did on 1 June 2008 she could probably finish the project. I haven't checked all 37 archive pages, but the ones I sampled had no log activity to indicate that any deletions or moves had occurred once edits reached the archive pages. GRBerry 04:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up, GRBerry. SlimVirgin's answer is thus technically correct in that there is a place to look, but not very helpful since it doesn't say where the place is. I confess I didn't trawl every single place I might have looked trying to find deleted revisions. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. I am willing to allow users a certain amount of extra leeway in terms of deleting/restoring information on their own userpage and talk pages, and if said user wants a part of their history to be effectively "gone", then so be it. If some of that information is pertinent and relevant to an ongoing arbitration case, I could certainly understand the utility of selective restorations of material deemed pertinent to the case. Asking for a wholesale restoration of the entire history is not necessarily called for. Much of the discussion seems moot at this point, as it is clear that ElinorD is already in the process of restoring material as needed. Shereth 15:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I would not be opposed to elinor finishing her review project if it can be completed in the very near term (soon enough to be reviewed in the current arb com case), if that is not possible, I would rather it all be undeleted into a subpage somwhere for folks to review. This whole deletion thing smacks of simple trying to avoid accountability for less than optimal behavior. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. This is an issue of transparency. SlimVirgin had that page deleted in a bad faith attempt to hide her misdeeds from her critics. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost, it is time that all of SlimVirgin's history be exposed to full sunshine, both clean and dirty. No more secrets, no more hiding behind WP:HARASS, it is time to face the music for your actions, SlimVirgin. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "misdeeds" that I need to "face the music for," and certainly nothing on my talk page that would allow even someone like you to twist into such a thing; and if there is, there are 1,500 or so admins who can read the deleted edits. You're making these claims about me everywhere at the moment, along the lines of "say something often enough and people start to believe it." Please give it a rest. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might consider placing the "There are no 'misdeeds' that I need to 'face the music for'" comment here [131] in the space reserved just for comments such as that one. Cla68 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted for now per above. --Kbdank71 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. If specific diffs are relevant, then maybe they could be restored. However, I consider Dragon695's arguments to be unconvincing. PhilKnight (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me just point out there is an ongoing arbitration case in which SV accuses a long term editor with 23 featured articles of "harassment of his targets, wikistalking, constant niggling, exaggeration, sarcasm, efforts to humiliate them, and misleading descriptions of their actions."[132] This is said without any evidence, while the most relevant periods of her talk page are deleted, and where as a non-admin he can't access them. I'm not sure this is the venue to resolve this, but if people are going to comment they could please keep this in mind. Mackan79 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted I get the impression that if someone wants to find something in particular that may be needed for the case, there are admins who can find it. Is someone saying that information vitally needed for the case is in there? I haven't heard that. It seems to me SV has reason for not wanting this undeleted all at once. I haven't heard of any reason to undelete which would override that. This situation is different from the preivous cases. And thanks for the work you're doing, ElinorD. Noroton (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is vitally needed for the case, which was taken primarily to look at Cla68's actions in creating an RfC (and presumably whether this was reasonable or necessary). As far as Brandt's site, it's worth clarifying that it appears only to include posts that were archived, and not those that were immediately blanked, which would be the much more relevant issue. Unfortunately most of this isn't the kind of issue where you can ask for specific examples or expect people to see it on a glance themselves. I agree it shouldn't be undeleted all at once, but there should also be a way to make the six months available with necessary edits excluded before the case is over. Mackan79 (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Completely pointless drama. User page histories are not for trawling. If there are particularly egregious examples of misbehavior, it should be possible to clearly point them out and have them restored individually (but then the question is why they were not acted on at that time). Small stuff will just clog up the ArbCom case further for no good reason - and it already is burdened down to a level that I will be surprised if it comes to any substantial result. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, trawling for drama for no good reason. --Stormie (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page is not deleted, so this is not the right place for it. Should be on MFD. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I endorse deletion or oversight of all edits that contain information that ~~constitutes~~ may contribute to an ~~undue~~ invasion of privacy. Because of the high total volume of edits, deletion of the entire talk page is a valid temporary measure. As to whether the bulk of the talk page should be deleted permanently or not, I am neutral. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Pointless drama combined with the usual egregious bad faith and conspiracy-mongering. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely agree there is the appearance of bad faith and conspiracy mongering, all right. However, we just may have to disagree about who is giving that appearance and who isn't. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight what really needs to be deleted, undelete whatever is left. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. Crum375 should have done it immediately after mistakenly deleting the whole thing. The oversight function was created to take care of outing vandalism. Why wasn't it used in this situation? Cla68 (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Per Cla68. It should be completely undeleted, and any nasty revisions should be oversighted. There's no reason this should be kept deleted. Al Tally ^talk 14:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - anything necessary for arbitration evidence can be handled via email without violating SlimVirgin's privacy. Besides, I cannot imagine that the probative value of SlimVirgin's talk page from a year ago would be significant. --B (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the period is significant is that it's the most recent when SV was fully editing, and before the other related disputes took off. Of course this also gets to the main claim regarding SV's editing, that she's continued going after editor after editor where it was not called for, despite reasonable appeals to her to stop. For one example that was just recently replaced, see here for instance is an editor pointing out that SV was mistaken in following me to a page, as noted in point three here. Here is another I still can't access where I pointed out several other similar instances. I do find it a bit absurd that edits like this would be necessary to an ArbCom case, but considering the nature of the many accusations and attacks from SV that Cla68 and others have documented in evidence, it's only realistic to acknowledge that the responses to these are at least as important to the case. Mackan79 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted, but Allow selective restoration. There are enough adminstrators arguing to undelete that it should be trivial for them to go through the archives, and restore revisions which do not contain policy violating information. Admins who restore versions should be aware that they are likley to be abusing their tools of they restore versions that do contain policy violating information. As an additional note, I was the recipient of an off-wiki canvasing message in a public forum, that is likley to be read by a large group of people. I believe the sender of the neutrally worded canvasing message believed the group of people was likley to support undeletion, and note that the sender of the canvasing message has !voted undelete above. I decline to link to the message. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I recently asked Requests for Oversight an edit that alleged SlimVirgin's real life identity. The response from an ex-ArbCom member was that the information is already out there so oversight was not going to happen. This should be borne in mind if recommending the use of oversight; users with the oversight permission have now started to refuse to oversight diffs relating to SlimVirgin. I would suggest allowing ElinorD to continue to undelete the pages selectively, although I think she is working very slowly on this - does she need any help? Neıl 龱 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any response to this offer? Mackan79 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. If there's something in there that really does need to be taken care of, let an admin who isn't affiliated with SV deal with it, because the way it has been handled so far is terrible. Everyking (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - oversight exists for a purpose. Why do we have someone spending what will be, by their own admission, most likely a MONTH worth of work selectively hand-rebuilding talk page to remove a couple of instances of abuse? Why are they not being restored wholesale and having the appropriate content deleted or oversight as appropriate, if appropriate? Achromatic (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. From what I gathered above the history will eventually undeleted but this takes time to deal with the violations that got it deleted in the first place. I see no actual reason to rush things here. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Derelict (Alien) – Deletion Endorsed. userfication on request. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Close seems to ignore rationales provided by three respectable editors. Given the respectability of these three editors, the nominator seems to be using too much policy in his or her arguments, which the close also seems to ignore. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as deleting admin; see my conversation with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/May#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien). Also, have I read this correctly: I'm being reproached for favouring the application of policy over the opinion of three editors? And the nominator is being reproached for citing that policy and not anticipating that these three editors might disagree with it? That's certainly one of the most ... original DRV requests that I've ever come across. Sandstein 14:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "most original DRV requests..." Well, thank you. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - correctly closed - the consensus is to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse~~ Changed to userfy below. No good reason provided by nom to overturn, and consensus properly read. I'd also like to note that the article can and should be userfied if an editor would like to merge any non-OR parts of it. I also believe that the OR concerns can be removed by finding some sources for things like the origins of the ship; possibilities were suggested by Le Grand Roi in the AfD. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seriously, editors who really think about the difference between guidelines such as wikipedia policy and law such as the U.S. constitution will see the irony and incorrectness in these Endorse rationales. For wikipedia policy itself would not take itself this seriously, especially in light of the strength of the reasons for keep in the original AfD. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm still not seeing any good reason to overturn. And while the keep arguements were strong, the delete ones had policy and were also strong. I especially see a consensus that the content doesn't really belong in its own article, hence why I suggest something can be done to merge the non-OR parts of the article; delete, while more tenuous, is still a reasonable closure of the AfD. I'd be happy to allow you do make such a merger if you request it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrongly closed Closed as OR, but only one rather small part of the discussion was OR--the speculation of the origins of the ship. admittedly, that was indeed OR, and is not covered by the permitted use of primary sources for such articles--a rule with which the nominator agreed. We dont delete articles because one part of them are bad, we just edit them. Alternatively, the article can of course be recreated without such content, or, even better, with the speculation sourced as GRC promised to do. He actually does sources such things from time to time. It could equally have been sourced by one of the many fans in the first place; it is time to take a more serious approach to writing this sort of article.
- I point out that there are two theories about what the closing admin is supposed to do--to simply report the consensus after throwing out the nonsense arguments, and to actually balance the relative merit of the reasonable arguments. Those in favor of supporting deletes here pick whichever one they choose that fits the case. These different bases for closing cannot both be correct. DGG (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The article was almost 100% unsourced, and as the nominator and majority of delete opiners realized consisted nearly 100% of original research. GRBerry 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The initiator of this DRV (Firefly322) and I are having a disagreement over a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination). Given the convenient timing of this DRV concerning a related article which I nominated, I suspect that this may be a form of retaliation. Firefly322 has repeatedly accused me in that AfD of "wiki-lawyering" because my rationales "contain too much policy" and because I seem to hold rather high standards towards articles (though I should note that these are not new articles...the Derelict article had been around for quite some time with multiple maintenance tags before I nominated it; the timeline article is now in its second AfD, neither of which I nominated). He has also claimed that "experienced editors don't waste time with wiki-policy", which I feel is pretty self-explanatory of his motivations. He clearly does not value policies, precedent, or consensus when they do not support his own opinions, and also clearly gives more weight to the opinions of other editors who do agree with his point of view, as the opening of this DRV indicates. People who agree with him are apparently "respectable", while I, with a dissenting opinion, obviously am not. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's neither here nor there. Let's stick to discussing just the AfD, okay? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, since the reason Firefly322 gave in his/her opening statement for initiating this DRV was the "respectability" of 3 editors who opposed deletion, and the AfD nominator (me) "using too much policy in his or her arguments", I thought it pertinent to provide an explanation and rebuttal. As to the article itself, I endorse the deletion per my original arguments that it consisted almost entirely of original research and did not satisfy notability standards. All of its salveagable content was already present in Alien (film) and Aliens (film) with much better referencing and third-party sources. A separate article on the ship itself did not add any encyclopedic content beyond what these articles already had, merely unreferenced speculation and fan fiction. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, closer validly interpreted consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close was fine. Eusebeus (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion and restore article per clearly no valid reason for deletion or any consensus to do so either. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, as the deleting admin points out, there were several valid reasons for deletion as well as an apparent consensus. Could you be more specific? --IllaZilla (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As indicated in the link on Sandstein's talk page. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This link? In which Sandstein acknowledges that there was sufficient consensus, that the article consisted almost entirely of original research, that sufficient third-party sources don't seem to exist, and that deletion was warranted? I don't see how that supports your arguments at all. Just because you disagree doesn't mean there wasn't consensus, as consensus does not mean a unanimous agreement (you can see that overwhelming consensus here is in support of the closure). Citing your own arguments, which just repeat the same points already made (first pillar, no deadline, etc.), doesn't make those points any more convincing. If I recall correctly (not being able to see the page history anymore) the article was tagged with several maintenance tags for quite some time and nothing was done to improve it until the AfD was initiated, and even then only a few rather weak tertiary sources turned up after the AfD closed. Even though we do not have a deadline, having maintenance tags on an article for several months and still seeing no improvements is, I believe, a sufficient display of good faith and also evidence either that good secondary sources don't exist or that no one was interested in improving the article. If you really feel that strongly about it and believe that you could have fixed the article's sourcing and OR problems, I recommend you do what both Sandstein and Lifebaka have suggested and petition for the article to be moved into your userspace, where you can work on it at your leisure until you feel it can be restored to the article namespace. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course the deleting admin will think there was sufficient consensus, but there wasn't. The status of the article is not entirely relevant as potential matters and the article had potential. I don't see how that supports your arguments at all. Just because you disagree with a DRV rationale doesn't mean there isn't sufficient consensus to overturn the closure, as consensus does not mean a unanimous agreement (you can see that there is not even consensus here in support of the closure). You cite no convincing points here to justify keeping the article deleted. Instead of tagging the article, why not help expand and reference it? AfDs last a mere five days, and for something that doesn't have a deadline, we shouldn't arbitrarily force editors to spin into action in a mere five days. I should not be the only one to have to work on the article in userspace; if it's good enough to be worked on in userpsace, we might as well keep it in mainspace where even more editors are likely to come along and help in the process of improving the article, which is after all what we're supposed to be here to do, i.e. build the encyclopedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing was arbitrary nor forced. Maintenance tags were placed. They remained in place for several months. Their concerns were not addressed. I believe I was the one who placed them. I would have felt better if I was able to improve the article myself, but I didn't have the source material to do so. The tags offer a notice and invitation for others to improve the article. No one did. Good faith was assumed; no improvements resulted over a reasonable length of time. If the article had potential, no one acted on it. This leads me to conclude that it probably didn't have potential to be improved. The status of the article is entirely relevant, otherwise why would we be debating it at all? Just because you disagree with consensus or with other particular editors doesn't mean that consensus doesn't exist. To say there is no consensus here in support of the closure is an absolute fallacy. 9 editors here have stated their opinion that the AfD was properly closed and that consensus was to delete. Only 3 believe it was improperly closed, and of those 3 you're the only one who's stated that there was no consensus. 9 others here have stated that there was. Consensus does not mean "100% of people agree with it." We may not have deadlines, but we have common sense. And common sense tells me this article had problems that no one seemed interested in fixing, though improvements were asked for and ample time and opportunity were given. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Instead of placing maintenance tags, why not help improve the article? Instead of expecting others to do things, why not be bold and just do it? "Reasonable length of time" is subjective and arbitrary. To say there is clear consensus here in support of the closure is an absolute fallacy. Consensus is not a vote. Many of those saying "endorse" just simply say "endorse" with one or two word "rationales". The three believeing it was improperly closed offer strong reasons why it should be a no consensus closure. Common sense tells me this article and surmountable problems that editors seemed interested in fixing, but which would have taken more than five days and that because editors asked for additional opportunites, we should give them additional time to do so. There is no valid reason when editors express a willingness to improve an article further to keep it deleted when the article is not hoax, copy vio, or libel. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent) As I mentioned in my previous comment, I do not have the necessary source material on hand to significantly improve the article. The maintenance tags were a notice and invitation for others to do so (which is the good-faith purpose of maintenance tags to begin with). To the best of my recollection the tags were placed in January. I think 6 and a half months is a "reasonable length of time" by anyone's standards. If the articles' problems were surmountable and editors were interested in fixing them, why did they not do so? You are the only editor in this DRV or in the AfD who has asked expressed a willingness to improve the article or who has asked for additional opportunities to do so; Sandstein and Lifebaka have offered you that opportunity. I have re-read both the AfD and this DRV; there is not a single comment in either that consists of only a vote with a 1- or 2-word rationale. Every editor involved in both discussions has provided strong reasons to support their opinions. There are numerous strong reasons provided in this discussion to endorse the closure. That they may not be as verbose as the arguments to overturn does not mean they are less valid. You seem to be unwilling to consider that the reasons provided by those who do not share your opinion might, in fact, be valid. I do not find that to be a very helpful or collaborative process of discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Valid closure following clearcut consensus of valid arguments. dorftrottel (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no process problems in this discussion nor do I see any evidence that the opposing voices were ignored. The community read those opinions - and disagreed. No new evidence has yet been presented here which would justify reopening the debate. Furthermore, I must note that I am shocked and a bit dismayed that the discussion here asserts that we could possibly be "using too much policy". The reliance of discussion participants and closers on accepted Wikipedia policy and standards are to be commended, not condemned. Rossami (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD itself was a no consensus with strong arguments made to keep the article. The community read those opinions and several editors in good standing agreed. No new evidence has yet been presented here which would justify keeping the debate closed. Editors have asked that the article be restored, not because they "like it," but because they believe it can be improved further and would like another attempt to in fact do so. We are here foremost to build the encyclopedia and when editors believe they can improve an article, we should allow them the opportunity to do that beyond a five day AfD. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't really seen anyone offer to work on it. There may be people out there who would, but they haven't made themselves known here. If you'd like to, I'm sure there are many admins who'd be perfectly happy to userfy the old content for you so you can work on it, or for anyone else who asks. I'm equally sure that at least some of the editors who've !voted endorse here would also be happy to help try to improve it. I know at least I would. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to work on it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'd suggest asking DGG to userfy it for you; he'd be happy to. And, in case I need to, I'll officially change my !vote to usefy. If you need a spot you're welcome to use User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/Derelict (Alien) for it. And would you mind dropping a link to it either here or on my talk page? I'd like to see what I can do as well. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Drill 'n bass – Deletion endorsed – Tikiwont (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original delete reason was that only one source was provided: at least one other source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/release/vb3n/ can be found, and we can tag the article {{onesource}} 68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drill n bass is an underground fan word describing jungle music released by rephlex and warp records. It's not a genre of music, it's a fancruft word. That source shows that a guy on rephlex records got described as drill n bass in a review. That's cool, but nowt to base an article on. Go to the Bogdan Raczynski page and use the word "drill n bass" in a paragraph to describe him, just like that source did, if you please. For your knowledge, Bogdan Raczynski called one of his albums drum and bass classics, so obviously he is drum and bass, it's just that you are one of those online fans trying to make your fan name famous. It's not that notable a term, it's not officially used by the artists and labels which make the music, and there's not enough material to make an article, that's why it got deleted, sorry Mansour Said (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Advice: Try getting the term listed at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page first. Their inclusion criteria are less than ours. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closure was correct with the only possible reading of consensus. If you'd like to recreate it, I'd suggest first working on it as a subpage of your userpage (User:Mansour Said/Drill 'n bass or something) then have another DRV when you're finished. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

a redirect to Genie (feral child) – Deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Courtesy blanked

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

Allegations of Israeli apartheid – discussion closed. This is the wrong forum to propose the deletion of an article. Such proposals must be made at WP:AFD. Deletion review is exclusively for reviewing past deletions or deletion discussions. – Sandstein 14:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Politically motivated, neutrality is a major issue, yet no one has made an effort to clean it up. I remember there being a neutrality headline but it has been deleted..I don't know why. I nominated the article for deletion before using the listed code, but that too was deleted. Its use of Uri Avnery as a credible source is VERY alarming, considering his political affiliation. All in all, I don't see any reason why this article should remain. It offers nothing other than just an unnecessary wikipedia-sanctioned political stab at Israel. I appreciate any support! Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Long propaganda page that is very difficult for one person to clean up enough in order to neutralize. Sebwite (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this is deletion review not AFD. If you believe the article should be deleted take it to Articles for Deletion. You used the prod deletion template orignally on the article which quite rightly was removed as this has survived AFD before and is definitely not an uncontroversial deletion. Davewild (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: Wrong forum. ➪HiDrNick! 11:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at AfD. This is the wrong forum. Unimpressive reason for deletion though. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (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 environmental websites – Deletion overturned – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting mainly occurred prior to clean-up of the page; non-valid reasons

See the page before deletion: List of environmental websites (AFD). This article was listed at AfD concurrently with list of environmental periodicals (AfD). They are essentially the same, yet the latter list received all keeps and the former 4 deletes (3 keeps, including creator Wavelength). The first 3 deletes on list of environmental websites happened before the list was annotated. Plus, the reasons were generally vague "unencylopedic" "NOTDIR". This is clearly not a directory -- it has all blue links. It's a list of notable websites. Plus, the whole argument of redundancy contradicts WP:LISTS, which states that "redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic". The nominator has said that he will not oppose its recreation. This entire line of argument (strangely common) that lists are automatically synonymous with directories, and that lists are redundant, is not in line with consensus guidelines. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator appears to be mistaken that this article was nominated concurrently with the AFD for List of environmental periodicals. This page isn't mentioned anywhere in that AFD. There was a separate AFD for this page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_environmental_websites. eaolson (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They were listed side-by-side in the AfD list. Concurrent means at basically the same time.
  - There is no mention of any "websites" article in the AfD you linked to. eaolson (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. People seem to be not looking at the list as it was when deleted, which is in the first sentence that I posted. Look at it List of environmental websites|here.

Overturn to keep. The delete !votes use a few faulty and vague reasons (for instance, categories and lists do not preclude each other). The comments made near the bottom of the discussion clearly swing the overall consensus towards keep. I'd also like to point out, however, that the list doesn't define its inclusion criteria very well. I'd suggest fixing this if it is restored. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This article exists only to be a list of websites. That's textbook WP:NOTLINK. WP is not DMOZ, WP is not Yahoo. eaolson (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted in the AfD, websites can be, and increasingly will be, more notable than periodicals. So why have a list of periodicals? ImpIn | (t - c) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said they weren't notable. I'm saying that lists of websites are explicitly outside of WP's purview as a matter of policy. If you want to create a list of useful websites, become an editor over at the ODP. eaolson (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that this 'policy' that you have believe in exists nowhere in the policy guidelines. WP:NOTLINK says we shouldn't have indiscriminate collections; this is obviously an annotated, discriminate list, similar to all the other lists. ImpIn | (t - c) 04:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - From the policy:

Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.

This isn't a place to rehash the arguements at the AfD. All we do here is figure out of the close of the AfD reflected the consensus therein. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. No consensus to delete apparent at AfD. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY doesn't apply here. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates. Categories and Lists co-exist just fine, and improve accessibility. We need more navigation aids, not less. Reasons for deletion not compelling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I see what both sides are saying. Upon viewing it, I felt the category was doing the job just as well as the list. Granted, the way the article is being rewritten would satisfy any accusations of a directory and the like. Don't really have an opinion as the closer, whatever happens happens. Wizardman 15:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn clearly meets all the requirements for a list in its latest form--the material is limited to those with articles in Wikipedia, and description is added. DGG (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Wikipedia is not a link farm. An "article" which consists of nothing but links to outside sources is not an encyclopedia article. Deletion was quite right as per policy. A list of bluelinked articles which discuss those websites, and which provide evidence of the notability of those websites, is a different animal. Corvus cornix_talk 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)</S\s>[reply]
This was the latter animal. —Cryptic 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This person apparently did not look at the list either. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not according to what I see in the cache above. This was a list of links to external sites, not a list of Wikipedia articles. Corvus cornix_talk 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

You apparently did not look at the list either. The external sites were all directory links; it was a list of Wikipedia articles. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is going on, but when I looked at the cache before, it was to external links, now it's to articles. I'm confused. I'm stepping out of this discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 16:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Per the title I can fully imagine what kind of POV linkfarm this was before deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently did not look at the list, which is in the first sentence. This was a list of Wikipedia articles. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that this article is a list of Wikipedia article that describe external websites, so it's not entirely straightforward. eaolson (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I agree with SmokeyJoe, and moreover there seems to have been some confusion about whether the deleted page was a list of articles or a directory of websites. TotientDragooned (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It straightforward enough. We have articles that describe websites (and we have criteria for which ones we describe). Certainly we can list the articles on this topic, just like we could on any other topic. If they're notable enough for an individual article, then why shouldn't we list them? The opposite of OR. the opposite of indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 June 2008

Ivoryline – Unprotect - Let me know in case some history should be restored as well. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted a bunch of times and salted, but since then the group has released its debut album on Tooth & Nail Records and hit the Billboard charts in the U.S.. Would like the title Unsalted now that the group passes WP:MUSIC so that I can write them a decent article. Chubbles (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt. Uncontroversial request by an editor in good standing. Go have fun with it, Chubbles. Happy editing. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The typical action here is to write the article in Userspace first, perhaps at User:Chubbles/Ivoryline. That way, we can assess the new article and, if it stands up to policy, unsalt & move. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite —Preceding comment was added at 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~ Unsalt with full history for Chubbles to improve on, to refer to, if he wishes as he writes a better article. In UserSpace first, might be prudent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the last two editors, I don't really see the need for the red tape. I'm here enough as it is. Chubbles (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Chubbles, never met you before. Didn't appreciate your good standing. Unsalt as per Chubbles, he knows what he is doing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt. If the group has a Billboard charting album or single, that is more than sufficient for WP:MUSIC in my book. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Murder of Amanda Dowler/Archive 1 – Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The wrong deletion criteria was used as the speedy delete reason. G6 good housekeeping was used twice and that cannot be used twice on the same article. As it is clearly a contested and controvertial deletion. G6 is only for general housekeeping and uncontrovertial deletions. The deleting administartor has used the wrong critreia for deletion. If the administrator still believes the page should be deleted I would suggest the traditional request for deletion and not a speedy deletion. Lucy-marie (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The archives page is a directory page to the archives it was deleted without warning after the arhived talk page was deleted. This should be considered in conjunction with DRV of the archive page above. Lucy-marie (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They're not salted, and this appears to be more of a dispute with Rmhermen that we can't really help you with. I'd suggest taking it to dispute resultion. There's very little we can really do here. As for the G6's themselves, I'd have to agree that the talk page is way too short to require archiving. I'd wait until there are at least thirty threads before considering it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute between the users it is purly a dispute over weather the articles should have been deleted. I beleieve the process used was wrong and the articles should not have been deleted, that can only be adressed here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The talk page is far too short to require archiving and the archiving was hiding an unanswered complaint. This appeared to be yet another bad faith archiving by Somali123 of which I had to clear up 10 talk pages in total. Working through I also found user's complaining about Lucy-marie's overzealous archiving style; although her name came up first because her talk page was also incorrectly archived by Somali123. Talk:Murder of Amanda Dowler/Archives is entirely unneccessary bloat in any case. Rmhermen (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a definitive answer, the G6's were correct in the situation. Whether or not moving the content back is another matter and creating the situation, but not one DRV is concerned with. Rmhermen properly cited G6 here (G8 could've also worked, too). Basically, when they're empty, the deletion is uncontroversial. There's nothing wrong with having the content at the current Talk:Murder of Amanda Dowler and no need to archive. Let's say I'm endorsing the deletions and have no opinion on any other actions involved. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Content is, as Lifebaka noted, at the main Talk page, so nothing has been lost. GRBerry 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rusty Harding – Allow recreation. It isn't protected, but once created it might it be helpful to link with {{olddrvfull}} to this DRV. – Tikiwont (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I recently put Boomerang engineer up for deletion. User:Pedant's comments on that article's AfD page suggest to me that, while Boomerang engineer should still be deleted, Rusty Harding, the only person that this term ever seems to have been used to describe, might be eligible for restoration, using the references cited by Pedant in the "Boomerang engineer" AfD discussion as evidence of notability. The Anome (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation of Rusty Harding. User:Pedant makes a very good case at the AfD for having an article about Rusty. Using the sources and information provided there, I'm sure a fine article can be written about him. However, the cached version doesn't appear to be that. The AfD for Rusty was closed just fine, and the more recently deleted version wasn't all that great overall, so I'd say recreation is the way to go. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The article that was deleted was not very good, and had history with WP:BLP problems. But were User:Pedant to create the article proposed by his comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomerang engineer, the re-created article would neither be an unreferenced article that fails to make a good case for notability, nor a simple re-creation of deleted content. So I say just do it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: allow recreation per my comments above. Can we close this now, since we seem to have unanimity? -- The Anome (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. (may not get done really fast though, I am swamped this month) I apologise for wasting Wikipedian resources (editor-hours that could be spent writing articles rather than deleting them) by having left such a stubby article to begin with. I must have gotten involved with something else at that time or (insert some sort of valid reason). Thanks, everyone. User:Pedant (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia, and it gets more tiresome that people nominate articles about perfectly notable articles for deletion, simply because they're stubs. I think I have a Fine Woodworking from the 70s (?) with an interview with Harding. This isn't newfound notability, either. --Blechnic (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ljubisa Bojic – Already restored. Non-admin closure. – --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this page about founder of first Serbian Web Journalism School and I wanted to put his publications when this page was deleted Iguana.dragon (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was added to Ljubisa Bojic by nom. Moved here by Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation (not that you need our permission to, the page isn't salted). Assuming the above is true, it's a valid assertion of importance. You might want to wait, however, until you can make sure that he would pass our relevant notability criteria and make sure that the information you use is verifiable in reliable sources. Feel free to ask me if you need any help with it. Cheers! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close review as unnecessary. The article has not actually been deleted, so no deletion review is needed. I restored the content to the most complete version. The article can now be edited normally. Of course, the article may be considered for deletion at a later time, but right now I don't think that is appropriate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 June 2008

User:Jnazaroff – Restored to userspace, on the condition that the rewrite continues. – chaser - t 18:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

ALthough this page is a bit of an advertisement in its initial draft, the intent is to have an article detailing a NEUTRAL opinion about an African-American owned company which has made considerable contributions to the city of Detroit and to the automotive industry. Futhermore, there are several articles on Wikipedia with nearly the exact same content, featuring other companies in the same industry, which appear to have no merit other than simply being a company in the United States. Examples include Kelly Service and Aerotek, for starters. The purpose of this article was to speak more about the community involvement and philanthropic efforts of the companies owner, Jon Barfield. There was barely two paragraphs covering any information that could be deemed as an advertisement of the company; the rest was 100% factual information which will be cited. Finally, the page has only been up for one day and this is my first attempt at creating a Wikipedia page. I had not moved it out of my user page yet, because I know that it needed to be refined and worked on before doing so. There were already two sources cited, and I have a dozen more to enter for the article. I would appreciate the article being returned to my user page so that I can AT LEAST cut and paste it into a word processor and continue editing it. Thank you. Jnazaroff 12:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. A userpage is not to be used as advertising or promotion as a pseudo-article. Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site.--Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy-deletion but... Many people try to use their userpage to create content that would be deleted if it were in the main article space. That's a bad thing. On the other hand, we encourage people to use their userspace to create drafts of content that might later be moved into the articlespace. In this case, I'm going to assume good faith on the part of the requestor that this was a legitimate attempt to draft an article. My opinion, however, is conditional. Please read Wikipedia's generally accepted standards for inclusion of articles about organizations to be sure that coverage of this company is appropriate for the encyclopedia. I would also ask that you closely read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. If, as I suspect from your writings, you have a stake in the company or people, you would be strongly advised to let someone else create the page. If the company is truly notable, someone will sooner or later. Rossami (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with reservations. Yes, the tone of the article was terribly promotional, but in all fairness the author did seem to be actively engaged in working on it. It is far better to have a poorly-written start in userspace with the intention of cleaning it up before moving in to mainspace, and I too am willing to assume good faith on the editor's part that s/he intended to continue improving it to inclusion standards before moving it into namespace. Give them a shot. Shereth 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore as User:Jnazaroff/The Bartech Group (that is, not as the requester's main userpage, but as a subpage). I am taking Jnazaroff at their word that they will rewrite the article in a neutral style and add more sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Green Beer Day – Overturned – seicer | talk | contribs 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I noticed that this listing was removed. It is a real live holiday celebrated by thousands of students at Miami University students in Oxford, Ohio every year. Could you undelete the listing? The article held valuable content relating to a tradition that has been around for over 50 years and is covered annually by news media in the Dayton and Cincinnati, Ohio region as well as by the AP, and is part of the rich tradition of Miami University's students as a form of protest. See http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/03/12/loc_greenbeer12.html

I've notified the deleting admin who seems to be going on wikibreak. It was tagged as spam, but that doesn't really fit and the article has been deleted as copyvio, but that seems to be mistaken since the quoted site [133] explicitly attributes wikipedia itself. So restore. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy-deletion. I concur that this was not a copyright violation. List to AfD because the topic does not seem to meet any of Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. The sources above and alleged in the deleted content are more like human-interest stories run on a slow news day than the kind of substantive and reliable sources needed to support a proper encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AfD, the speedy deletion was a mistake, not a copyvio. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Overturned. Send it to AFD if you need to, as I'm not seeing major notability established. seicer | talk | contribs 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comparison_of_one-click_hosters – History restored, whether to merge or not (if it's even disputed) is not an issue for deletion review. – Daniel (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please have a look at the Afd link above for the discussion before. Nevertheless this page has been deleted again.

There is a small list now included in this article https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File_hosting_service , but it is very incomplete and obviously a list is better suited on a separate page.

If wikipedia admins decide that it is not desirable to put this page back up, can you at least email me the contents of this article, then i can put it up on another wiki, because lots of people are looking for it. Hundreds of thousands of people use one-click hosting every day, so an extensive list of the available services with their details compared in one table is a must to have somewhere online where everybody can update it regularly.

Thanx in advance, my emailadres is najamelan -> gmail -> com

Please not that the deletor has not been notified on their talk page, because i cannot find an edit button on their page. It is semi protected. Maybe that's why i cant post there...

ps: im not the original creator of the page, but one of its users that already misses it alot. Hostingcomparison (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)— Hostingcomparison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I've notified the deleting admin.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion it looks ok to me. I'm also unconvinced that someone who uses it a lot has made their first edit here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Comparison of one-click hosting services exists, however it is a double redirect which needs to be fixed to direct to File hosting service, where the "encyclopedic content" is. If this "one edit" account looks through the history of the redirect the spam linkfam still exists (which he/she is claiming to use "alot"). Wikipedia is not webspace provider, nor is it a repository of links.This DRV is Moot.--Hu12 (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanx for the link to the content Hu12, i will put it somewhere else. I don't care where it is as long as it's not gone.Hostingcomparison (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore as redirect from merge for our own GFDL. - Edit history tells me that Comparison_of_one-click_hosters was immediately spun off from Comparison of one-click hosting services and went through a few hundred edits after its successful AfD. The content was then first pruned to notable entries that have a wiki entry, then merged to One-click hosting and then merged once more File hosting service. After some back and forth between the full article and the remaining redirect, it was deleted as housekeeping. I don't see how that can apply here. Even an Rfd might have concluded that we keep the full edit history in such cases.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy-deletion and restore the history. Pages which have been through an XfD discussion are ineligible for speedy-deletion. Arguing that this was a G6 (housekeeping) speedy is a gross abuse of the intent of that clause. Redirects and preservation of pagehistory are important to the project. "Housekeeping" speedies are intended for temporary deletions in order to make way for pagemoves, etc. That clause was not created in order to allow the deletion of content. Rossami (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Clear violation of WP:Deletion policy. The view of an individual administrator, or even two or three of them, does not trump the community. We interpret the consensus, we don;'t defy it. If someone wants to bring another AfD in 6 months or so, they are certainly welcome to do so, to see if the consensus has changed. There are usually 3 or 4 articles kept at AfD each day that I think should be clearly deleted--you dont see me going around speedying them, though I certainly speedy delete a good deal else when they fit the specifications. DGG (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A two year old AFD for an article which years later has been merged into other articles leaving only a duplicate and depricated redirect certainly isn't against the deletion policy. is it? I don't see any Redirects for deletion debates (RfD) to precident this as non-speediable.--Hu12 (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It absolutely is for two independent reasons. First - merges took place. So we can't delete the history at all. Second - a prior AFD occurred so the only speedy deletions that would still be viable are the copyright violation and pure attack page in all version deletion conditions. GRBerry 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's a discussion here about sightly modifying G6, to avoid things like this. The result of that discussion could influence this, and users commenting here may want to also comment there. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Merges, prior AFD. GRBerry 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion A RfD would have closed as a Keep to preserve history and abide to GFDL. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restored for its history. Done--Hu12 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laughter at GFDL issues, bare facts are not copyrightable, this is a simple list with no creative element. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lupus et Agnus – Consensus is that the latin text does not work as a stand alone article, but reviewing the history that appears not to have been the creator's intent anyway. Since the intent was to use it in a single article, should anyone want it for that article a history merge should be done instead of an undeletion, merge, and redirect. Then the editors of Gallo-siculo can figure out what to do with the content and sort out all the other potential issues. – GRBerry 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello friends. I'm not familiar with all of the guidelines of Wikipedia, but I noticed a message on my user page related to the template Template:Lupus et Agnus. This is a fable written by Phaedrus who lived between 15 BC and AD 50. In response to the message I received: I did not copy and paste this from another Wikimedia project. Nor was this "transwikied out to another project" (to my knowledge). I'm not sure why this would be a copyright issue. My main objective was to show the source of the Gallo-siculo translations of this fable. I didn't know a fable of ancient "common knowledge" belonged to any one person or project. I'm not quite sure if I understand the problem at hand. Please advise me of how I may be able to continue to show the source of these fables. This is merely for comparative linguistic purposes only. The Latin original is an integral part of my work in showing the development of Gallo-Sicilian from Latin. Thank you for your time. Cheers! Zulux1 (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a copyright violation or anything, but all the content was in Latin. This is the English Wikipedia, you'll find the Latin Wikipedia three doors down and hang a left. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few issues here, some of them go beyond this DRV.

You seem to have had a template in mind, but created it in article space.
That article has been compared with the one of the Latin wikipedia and essentially found identical, as it also basically contains the same original text. This isn't surprising since there is indeed only one common ancient source but it is already inside: the deletion reason essentially amounts to it being a duplicate inside the wikimedia family.
The right place for such source text isn't even the Latin wikipedia, but the Latin wikisource, where it is indeed kept at [134], so you can now link directly there, eg. via {{ws}} or the like.
You have now started to work on Sicilian language templates for the same same story, that seem to have been copied form some website. So thy are probably copyrighted. In any case, this wikipedia isn't the right place for them. I'm afraid the new templates need either to be speedily deleted as copyright violation or be put up for deletion at WP:TfD as more appropriate for some thing like the Sicilian wikisource. Or if you follow this reasoning, you can mark them yourself with {{db-author}}.
Besides, you have to make sure that 'your work' here isn't original research

So it is endorse for this deletion.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion What you need to do is add some substantial sourced commentary and background about the fable. I gather you are doing original research on it? You cant use that, at least until its been formally published,but you can certainly discuss what information is available in other sources. Since the text is very short and very much out of copyright, it would not be inappropriate to include it in a more substantial article. If you do this, just rewrite the article. DGG (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about each single translation of original public domain text not really being a copyright violation. I was looking more at the whole website split up into templates and then reappearing together in the article Gallo-siculo. They would at least need to be attributed on the level of template / language and translator (as in the website), but there are other reasons not do to this in template form. What occupies me now more is that Zulux1 has not only removed them but also seems to taken this deletion and its review as reason to leave[135] which I would really regret as all my additional remarks above were mostly intended to clarify the role of the templates and sources --Tikiwont (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gather then you are supporting recreation without the template formatting? DGG (talk)`

Well, let's say with respect to a direct usage of the quotes I would still have editorial concerns, but that is a different level than opposing the templates. If someone writes an article about the Phaedrus fable itself, that would probably contain the full English text and maybe also the Latin one. There may also be other places such as the Gallo-siculo language article where the text can appear, but that doesn't mean that the deleted Latin article should be recreated or that it would somehow be necessary as the source is already available in wikisource. With respect to the Sicilian ones, one of them now at TfD, the website where they are from, informs that they are intended to give an idea about the various dialects, to be taken 'with some indulgence and without claim of scientific rigor'.[136] In requesting and compiling these translations into rare dialects i saw initially the 'creative' element to be considered. On the other hand they still lack a systematic analysis that would actually make them useful or for the English reader which brings us back to the OR problem. But this is really beyond this DRV and I don't want to appear or feel like the wolf hovering upstream and inventing ever new pretexts...--Tikiwont (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. As I understand it, Zulux1 is trying to use this fable to show how various Sicilian dialects compare to each other and to Latin from which they derive. If so, this comparison would belong in an article about the dialects rather than in a separate article named after the fable. Furthermore, the fable would only need to be made into a template if it were going to be used in multiple different articles, but it's not clear whether that is planned to be done. As indicated above, the original text is still available at the Latin Wikisource. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vision_Equities – Deletion endorsed since there were also other substantial issues with the article than the presumed copyright violation. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am the owner of the company. The information that I put on the wikipedia page came from my website that I also wrote. Therefore, it is not plagarism because I wrote it all myself. 68.193.10.19 (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's probably blatant advertising... presumably you put the information on your website to promote your company, and if that's the purpose of the content, it runs afoul of Wikipedia policy, most directly, the no blatant advertising rule. --Rividian (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Run-of-the-mill real-estate firm: see WP:NN. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion even if you are the copyright owner (something which you would have to prove) the article read like a promotion piece and could have been speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your company. Read Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. Hut 8.5 08:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, right result if not the exact reason. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion & I think I'll just leave it at that ... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Having read the article, I agree with much of the above. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 June 2008

Nipissing University Student Union – never deleted, to the extent consensus here it is relevant it is to endorse the close, but Talk:Nipissing University is the right venue for discussion – GRBerry 13:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a perfectly notable organization. Nomination rationale from a now inactive user was faulty. Overturn GreenJoe 00:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - an entirely reasonable reading of the debate. The final version of the article here was all about internal matters with nothing of external or broader significance. Suitable for the body's website but not for Wikipedia. TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nominator here has been un-doing the re-direct requiring said re-direct to be protected. Consensus at AfD was to delete or merge, no problem with how it was closed other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Endorse closure _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Eastman had argued to "keep" Based on coverage from the Northbay Nugget. This is not "significant media coverage." Keep arguments, though several, were based on Eastman's rationale. Student Unions are not inherently notable. Merger is the option supported by the discussion. Dloh cierekim 02:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage is still not significant even though the Nugget is not a student paper. A search through Google news does not reveal any significant media coverage. The Nugget is a local paper this does not suffice. Dloh cierekim 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my closure. I've had another look (the nominator came straight here rather than discussing it with me, after editing warring on the redirect for a bit) and I really don't see how else I could've closed this. The keep arguments were basically WP:ILIKEIT with a dusting of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and brought forth sources that were not much cop. The delete arguments were a bit hollow and didn't carry much weight with me. But the merge arguments had 'pedia policy on their side, offered the best of both worlds (the SU is not notable enough for its own article, but as a section in the parent article it's great) and seemed acceptable to most people on both sides. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. AFDs end in "delete" or "!delete" and anything that happens after that is editorial activity. This should be hashed out on talk pages. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no problems here. Eusebeus (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. If the user doesn't like what was done afterward, that should be hashed out on the respective article Talk pages. DRV is not the right forum for that discussion. Rossami (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse closure~~. Would have been nice if the close came with a better explanation, as it clearly wasn't obvious. I'd have said delete as the sources were not sufficiently reliable/reputable, and were not sufficiently independent. Basically, a student newspaper can't demonstrate the notability of a student organisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain may have a valid point. Referenced material that I looked at was unimpressive, and I guessed wrong that it was a student newspaper. The current state of merge looks good. There is no delete here to overturn. I would not be inclined to separate a separate article, but if a consensus for this decision can be demonstrated at Talk:Nipissing University, allow it to happen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The North Bay Nugget is not a student newspaper, but rather a mainstream daily newspaper. It is a reliable source. --Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dyspraxic Wikipedians – Deletion endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus to delete. Was deleted because of a "precedent" created by very weak participation in WP:UCFD. Deleting admin does not address the merits of the discussion, only that if this user category had been nominated with the older ones then it too would have been deleted. It's nice to know that our hands are tied by old discussion by a tiny minority of Wikipedians. Ned Scott 08:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, unuseful category. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The cached version shows only six members of the cat, and one has since removed the userbox from her userpage. I'd personally want a little of their input before !voting one way or another, since they would know whether or not the cat was actually useful. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these kinds of user categories are "sniped" before they have a chance to grow. Some of the past uCfD deletions included categories with hundreds of users, none of which were ever notified of the discussion (and it's highly unlikely for users to watch-list cats they put themselves in). I would not mind notifying these users at all and getting their input. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, precedent should not be ignored. --Kbdank71 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone makes the same flawed argument to the same group of users, but formats the discussion into several little chunks, that is somehow a precedent? No, it's not. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if it were flawed, yes, but "flawed" is only your opinion, and obviously is not shared by others. --Kbdank71 14:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (as original nominator) - precedent should be followed in cases like these where a keep result would go directly against the results of 40 or so past discussions. Consensus can change, but the best way to do this, IMO, is to bring up a discussion here at DRV on the group of categories as a whole to see if the community feels we should bring this type of category back. Keeping a single category where all similar categories have been deleted creates a double standard, which I think we should try to avoid. Thus, the closure was sound. VegaDark (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When those 40 discussions include the same tiny group of editors, then your "precedent" holds no value. Revisiting all of these categories is something that I've long since wanted to do, but would require more time and effort than I can personally give at the moment. The very least I can do is point out a bad uCfD closure that only serves to further establish this illusion of a precedent. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to put this is that what you had was not a precedent, what you had was a steamroller. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Reflects a clear consensus (of those who participate at WP:UCFD) to strip Wikipedia of mechanisms of easy introduction to contributors self-organising. What's the point of cabals if they can be tracked? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 June 2008

Image:01622200.JPG – Inspecting the newspaper(s) where the picture was published will show whether it was, or was not, credited, but in the absence of such information deletion must be endorsed. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The image is surely either Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine, unless the original uploader's claim is true, in which case it's been released. Either way, it should not have been deleted. See my comments at PUI. Zsero (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as lacking source, if nothing else. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source is only needed to determine copyright status. Since neither PD-Ukraine nor Anonymous-EU require this, it's irrelevant. All we need to know is in the image itself, which is obviously from a newspaper published shortly after the event it depicts. -- Zsero (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not just upload these to commons? That's the place for free images anyway. MrPrada (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone will restore them, I'll do that. -- Zsero (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I've linked the PUI entry above. Without a source, there's no way to be certain about the copyright status. The chance that this is {{PD-self}} as claimed is vanishingly small, especially given the uploader's other deleted contributions. —Cryptic 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So why isn't it either EU-Anonymous or PD-Ukraine? -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Anonymous" isn't "we don't know who made it", it's "nobody knows who made it". Uploading an image you find on some website somewhere doesn't imply the latter. —Cryptic 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How can you ever know that there is nobody in the world who knows who made a photo? We are talking about photos that are scanned from a newspaper. I doubt that Czech newspapers at the time identified the photographers of news photos. So the odds that anybody happens to know this information is much the same as it is for any photo under EU-Anonymous or PD-Ukraine. There's always the possibility that someone, somewhere, knows; so according to you when can we use these tags? -- Zsero (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - When there's some shred of evidence that the author is in fact unknown and the image not just lifted from a random website and uploaded to Wikipedia with a falsified {{PD-self}} stuck on it. At bare minimum this would be when and where the image was first published. Like, y'know, the fine print on both {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-Ukraine}} ask for. —Cryptic 05:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Where the photos come from is obvious just by looking at them - they appear to be scanned from newspapers, and were therefore published shortly after the events they depict. Presumably a newspaper reasonably local to Munkach, since neither the funeral nor the ME's meeting with Benes would have been that newsworthy anywhere else. So unless Czech newspapers in the 1930s were in the habit of identifying the photographers of news photos, one of these two tags should apply. Oh, and what oart of the fine print on PD-Ukraine do you mean? -- Zsero (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Munkacs benes.jpg – deletion endorsed – Shereth 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The image is surely either Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine, unless the original uploader's claim is true, in which case it's been released. Either way, it should not have been deleted. See my comments at PUI. Zsero (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as lacking source, if nothing else. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source is only needed to determine copyright status. Since neither PD-Ukraine nor Anonymous-EU require this, it's irrelevant. We know approximately when the photo was taken and published, what more do we need to know? -- Zsero (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As above, endorse. —Cryptic 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gamma Beta – Deletion endorsed. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm having a difficult getting this page to pass. The organization is a fairly new organization, and the admin that requested the deletion of the article says there is not enough evidence that we are a real organization and not a group of people. I've listed articles to show evidence of the organization but they were rejected. One was a newpaper article and the other the university's website that recognizes us. Another thing is there are a couple of other organizations who have articles on wiki and yet have less evidence that they are a real organization than we do. I feel like since they were able to start their article at an earlier time it was easier for them to stay and since we are trying to start an article now its been very difficult. hawee talk

Endorse deletion - very spammy, probably nn too, jimfbleak (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The problems with this article are that the 'new' version was substantially similar to the deleted version, the tone of the article is excessively spammy and self-promotional, and the sources given do not establish notability. Also, bear in mind that saying other articles like this one exist is not relevant. We have fairly stringent notability guidelines that must be met in order for articles to be kept - you might want to review the guidelines and see about pulling together sufficient reliable sources to back up the article before trying again. Arkyan 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the AFD had a consensus to delete and DRV is a place to point out how the deletion process was not followed, not to advance new (or the same) arguments about why the decision was wrong. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The question is not whether or not this organization exists, but whether or not the article asserts notability. No verifiable, reliable sources have been provided that have shown that the subject meets notability. Despite the bizarre and inadequate nomination statement on the AfD, the outcomess per the AFD, the PROD, and two speedy deletions have been correct. Dloh cierekim 03:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion See WP:N and WP:COI. Coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources are required. If these can be found, then request userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ivobank – Deletion endorsed. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A new independent online bank has just launched called Ivobank, but new page entries have been deleted. Given that online banks don't launch everyday and the online community will wonder what it is, like I did, I think it deserves its own page. Please can we create one? --AbbieG (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~What is the name of the page that was deleted? It's hard to help you without it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Nevermind, found it. Fix't nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page has been salted as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, both previous versions of this article were indeed overly promotional in tone, and had the character of an advert. Unless the nominator can produce reliable sources to indicate notability and demonstrate that an article can be written in a neutral manner, I don't see any reason to unprotect/recreate. Arkyan 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The company is probably on its way to being notable, as it has recently sponsored a PGA tour event. I would suggest userspace creation first before we unsalt it. MrPrada (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; the version in the cache is overly promotional and rightly deleted as a G11. I have been unable to track down good third party mentions, other than the golf sponsorship mentioned above. I agree that notability is likely in the future but not just yet. Smile a While (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a one line explanation of what Ivobank is in my Sandbox, surely it's ok just to have this. Then at least people will be able to find out what it is? User:AbbieG/sandbox --AbbieG (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to above. And no, I'm afraid that is not okay. That little stub there meets CSD A7 and would be very quickly deleted if you created an article with just that. You would want to include some references or external links to places that establish that it is non-trivially covered in multiple places, what we call notability and make sure that these sources are reliable. Hope that helps. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not ivobank.com. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above fine arguments Article did not assert notability. I am unable to locate verifiable, reliable sources asserting significance. Per the article, subject is new and has not yet achieved notability. As what we have so far is overly promotional, moving it to the creator's page would not be beneficial. It would need a total rewrite if it did achieve notability. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we should not have an article about every business that hopes to become notable. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No, we do not cover new and interesting things unless someone else covers them first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jones Lang LaSalle – ~~Contested speedy deletion.~~ Undeleted by acclamation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC) – Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Being quite familiar with retail, I know that Jones Lang LaSalle is quite a prominent shopping mall management firm. A quote from the article read "The company has more than 32,000 employees, approximately 170 offices worldwide and operates in more than 700 cities in 60 countries", which I believe is a rather valid assertation of notability. Furthermore, there seem to be plenty of reliable sources found in a Google News search. One of them even calls the company "the leading global real estate services and money management firm". Furthermore, one of the companies that was merged to make Jones Lang LaSalle has been around since 1783. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/restore per the above links uncovered by fine mustelidian research. There does appear to be enough material out there for this to cross the threshold. Arkyan 16:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & restore It was never a valid speedy A7. Not with 32,000 employees--that's a rather clear assertion of importance,.DGG (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I speedied this - although it's probably notable, it lacks any independent refs to support the data. However, I don't object to restoration. I think that once this is finished, if not before, the creator should have an indefinite block on that username. jimfbleak (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see User:Joneslanglasalle isn't the creator but just did one and actually the last edit, which doesn't seem to be sufficient for a block per Wikipedia:Username#Company.2Fgroup_names. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy overturn 32,000 employees is a reasonable claim of importance. WP:CSD doesn't call for "independent refs to support the data"... just that an assertion of importance be present. Note that this company is even listed on the NYSE (symbol JLL), and gets 22,700 Google news hits which confirm the stock listing and probably much more. --Rividian (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore; the version in the cache includes several indications of importance and was not a valid A7. The grounds for an A7 explicitly state that the lack of reliable sources, which may well be fatal in an AFD, is not a criterion. Smile a While (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn - that's a huge company and would survive AFD, not to mind a speedy. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore 32,000 employees, operation in 60 countries and a revenue measured in billions of dollars is an assertion of significance, even without the references given above. Hut 8.5 18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and Restore Asserts notability. Verifiable sources locatable by a Google Books search and as noted above. Dloh cierekim 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Well known company. Erroneous deletion. Eusebeus (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Sufficient claim of notability to beat Wikipedia:CSD#A7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and admonish for improper speedy delete. Article made clear assertions of notability for a company that is unquestionably notable. Alansohn (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

NBA Championship Templates – Original TfD closure changed to no consensus. I hesitate to say that the deletion was overturned, since no template was deleted. I don't doubt the good intentions and boldness of the TfD closer, but the tone of the closure (and its immediate nomination here) seems to amount to a TfD !supervote. Usefulness does indeed bear relevance for template deletion discussions (what are templates for if they are not here to make Wikipedia more useful?), and citations to WP:AADD should be watched with a careful eye towards common sense. Although these "it's useful" arguments could have been given significantly less weight with the presence of strong and unambiguous policy concerns, I am not not convinced from viewing the previous discussions that such policy concerns were present (the closer admits as much). Certainly, evidence of precedent is presented, but trying to apply the standards of one wikiproject to another is tricky. There is still no emergent consensus in this DRV if the templates should be kept or not. One common thread I see here is a desire for some form of centralized discussion. Although some have doubts on the efficacy of this option, it seems preferable to a snowballing precedent where that precedent may be controversial. This closure does not mandate said discussion (this could be sent back to TfD), but I think it might be something worthwhile to try. – IronGargoyle (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This nomination is procedurally bizarre, as I am the closing administrator in this debate, which can be found here. The debate has been closed as delete. However, due to the potentially vast scope of the deletion, and the certainty of this review being opened, I have gone ahead and filed it. My closing statement is available on the TfD page and should be considered to be my formal statement for this debate as well. I realize this is unorthodox, and I believe I have correctly applied policy in this case, but the work required in undeleting would be very great indeed if my close were overturned, so I simply have not taken that step as of yet. I am personally uninterested in the outcome, so do not expect much participation on my behalf, it would be wise to contact me on my talk page if any more direct participation is desired. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some recommended reading:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Templates - The Football Wikiproject has loong maintained that only current squads have navboxes, the only historical ones are World Cup winning squads. Note that the World Cup occurs only every four years and no player has ever played in more than three, much less on three winning teams (to my knowledge). This guideline has been used as a successful argument in previous deletion debates:
Not soccer, but same principle:
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_30#Template:CZE-Summer-Olympics
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_17#Template:Czech_ice_hockey_team_at_WCH_2006
Recent deletion debates:
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_2#Hockey_Captain_templates
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_21#Template:1915_Vancouver_Millionaires (same level of championship added by Djsasso (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I hope these are helpful. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was an active participant in the discussion, so I will refrain from endorsing the decision here. However, I do want to repeat some comments that are buried in the extensive discussion on the TfD page and might be overlooked. I believe that the "right way" to replace these templates is threefold:
1. Add links to pages such as 2007 NBA Finals from the infoboxes on player articles
2. Ensure complete rosters are included on all pages in Category:National Basketball Association Finals (as they are for the 2007 page)
3. Ensure all player articles currently transcluded from any of these templates have complete infoboxes
After all of this work is complete, then the templates should be deleted. I suggest further discussion take place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Defiantly not disagreeing as I think all of the above should be done. That being said the rosters were already added by someone to all the finals pages. That being said they need beautification but they are there now. -Djsasso (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I strongly dispute the outcome of this afd because I do not agree with some of the assessments made by the closing admin. First, the statement "Many of the keep arguments center around the fact that the templates are nothurting anything, and that they are helpful" is incorrect as I gave many reasons as to why the arguments made by the deletion side are invalid. An exploding numbers of this type of navboxes isn't really a valid reason at all per WP:NOTPAPER, a policy. I agree that the deletion side has not provide sufficient policy evidences to support their position. The only guideline they could provided is WP:EMBED, which I think is fundamentally flawed. Conversely, the keep side has made some strong arguments. I think WP:IAR will back that up because deletion of these navboxes is clearly not going to improve Wikipedia, but to do quite the opposite. IAR also tells us to ignore bad policy that prevent improvement (in this case is WP:EMBED). IAR is also a policy whereas WP:EMBED is just a guideline. This should have been an easy keep. Definitely not no consensus. —Chris! _ct 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to get into the same arguements as the tfd itself. But deleting the templates significantly improves Wikipedia and keeping them significantly hurts the encyclopedia. I think based on the huge amount of precedent in past tfd's and projects scopes that an WP:IAR arguement is not all that valid as there is significant belief in the community that removing them helps the encyclopedia and keeping them does the opposite so I don't believe you can state that it "clearly" will not help the project. WP:NOTPAPER doesn't apply to the exploding number of infoboxes as its not size that is the issue, its the massive number of insignificant links that end up on an article masking the truely relevant information. -Djsasso (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to reiterate my reasoning because I already done that over and over again. All I will say is that WP:IAR is an important policy here in Wikipedia. Your negative response toward WP:IAR makes me think that you simply dislike this policy. If so, bring that to the IAR discussion page.—Chris! _ct 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I believe IAR to be a great policy and think its important to have. I just believe you misunderstand what it is. IAR is for situations where it is obvious that ignoring a rule helps the wikipedia. What I am saying is that it is not obvious that that is the case as many people obviously feel the templates are hurting wikipedia. IAR is only for situations where its obvious and common sense that we should be ignoring the rule. This is definately not the case in this situation. -Djsasso (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are also many people who obviously feel that these templates are helping Wikipedia. You are right, IAR is only for situations where its obvious and common sense that we should be ignoring the rule. The current situation about these templates clearly fits that description and I have explained over and over again why that is so. I think the only reason this dispute continues is that the deletion side refuses to accept what is right and blindly follows WP:EMBED.—Chris! _ct 19:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Chrishomingtang and Djsasso, please note that deletion review is for additional editors to review the closing admin's decision to delete. I don't think this continuing debate you are carrying on is appropriate for this forum. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this, but it is appropriate to point out that the closing admin didn't ignore their arguements is it not, which was my point? That is the point of DRV right? To determine if an admin did or didn't close a debate properly? Based on his comments he is saying the admin didn't close it correctly, I am allowed to put forward a case starting that he did close it properly. Ideally I would have prefered that no one involved in the afd would have comented one way or the other. But y'all have. -Djsasso (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I think it's ok to leave one comment and move on. Back-and-forth debate isn't helping. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually hadn't intended to comment again till you commented. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to continue any argument, but I just want to note that I know deletion review is for additional editors to review the closing admin's decision.—Chris! _ct 20:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)--Tikiwont (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Just read through the TfD, and I come to the same conclusion as RyanGerbil10. It's clearly a valid close, thought some might disagree with it. I would suggest going with Andrwsc's suggestion of moving the information to pages on the teams for each year and adding more detailed information to each player's article as well. Perhaps before deleting, since it'd be easier, but I'm sure someone would be willing to batch userfy them so the same thing can be done after deletion. Also, kudos to Tikiwont for relisting this; it's the first time I've ever seen that at DRV, I think. Cheers all. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW, several FIBA World Championship squad templates were recently kept at TFD. See [137]. Zagalejo^^^ 18:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mu I wonder how many folks have been skipping this one because they just don't care, or how many have been skipping it because it is quite hard to figure out what the right answer is. I've finally reviewed this myself, moving me from the first list to the second. The right close of that TfD definitely was not keep; there was no such consensus and actions are only justified under WP:IAR if when later challenged and discussed there is consensus that the action is an improvement. (Which means that you can't prove something is an improvement by citing IAR, nor can you disregard the opinions of others because of IAR.) So it wasn't keep. What was it? Ryan asking for DRV opinions as a "higher court" is a bit odd. It seems he really felt there was not a clear consensus, but couldn't stomach that answer - and sometimes the stomach test is an important one for admins to use; I've done it myself once when closing a DRV and I couldn't stomach the clear call the DRV editors had made, so I did something similar but different. Ryan's paraphrase of the embedded list guideline is accurate; the community as a whole wants the normal position for links to be inside the text of the article, not stick around at the bottom. I believe the amount of objection would likely be higher had the close been implemented. My DRV mentor, Xoloz, has said that in uncertain cases if the community looks like it is not done discussing something, it should be kicked back to XfD for further discussion. But here, I don't think another TfD discussion would do a great deal to reach a consensus, because TFD doesn't get enough attention (not that DRV gets more, really, just different folks). So I'd like to see this kicked to a centralized discussion of some sort. I certainly wouldn't object to Andrwsc's suggestion; to me it seems more useful to have very team's roster on the seasonal articles and then each player have a link to all their teams than to only have championship teams linked. GRBerry 03:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I initially gave up, on the GRBerry’s second reason. It’s complicated. The TfD was complicated. Putting the complications aside, what I see in fuzzy terms is that the close “The result of the debate was Deletion” was wrong. The result of the debate was no consensus. The closer's rationale does not compellingly overrule reasonable keep arguments. Therefore, overturn. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GRBerry is correct in his assessment of this situation - very few people really seem to care and that is making it difficult to come to some kind of reasonable conclusion. I have to admit that I thumbed past this discussion a number of times, for the very reason that it looked convoluted and less than thrilling a read. In any case, it is true that TfD is not well trafficked and the discussion here has been largely limited to the same folks who contributed to the original discussion. Not a lot new being said or proposed. Kicking it back to TfD doesn't seem to make much sense as it's not likely to get the attention there, nor is letting it linger here helping much. Seeking broader input (via the Village Pump, perhaps) my indeed by the simplest way to address the problem. While I fear it would suffer much the same fate there as here (being largely a victim of disinterest) it does not sound like a bad idea. For what it is worth, I am unwilling to overturn the original closer's rationale, and in the event this situation had to be resolved here and now my stance would be to endorse the close. Shereth 14:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse - long overdue. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There really was no consensus for anything at the TFD discussion. I agree that we could probably find creative replacements for these navboxes, but this will set precedent to delete hundreds of other templates, so we should really set up some sort of centralized discussion before blasting everything away. Zagalejo^^^ 22:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seeing as how one of the other four major north american sports (NHL) has numerous times had these types of templates deleted. And soccer for the most part restricts these templates to World Cups, tho recently some Euro Cups templates survived a tfd, I think we are already well down the path to having that precedent. -Djsasso (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just one sport. WikiProjects develop their own cultures. If I had been there, I would have argued against it. As I said above, several FIBA world championship templates were kept not too long ago [138], and not just for the championship teams, but for the sixth place finishers and such. An NBA Championship is much more prestigious than a FIBA championship. (Historically speaking, anyway; I'll admit that the international basketball scene has changed within the past decade or so.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been forgotten? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 June 2008

Nonoba – Deletion endorsed; way forward indicated below: creation of a valid draft based on independent reliable sources. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is a real site and is big enouch to be on wikipedia however keeps being deleted to soon. The arctle has been posted before being finished to allow the url link be posted to the admins of www.nonoba.com themselfs who agreed to help me write it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowStalker35 (talk • contribs)

Realness or bigness are not a part of our criteria for website inclusion... mostly what matters is whether there are enough reliable sources which have written meaningful coverage about the site. --Rividian (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion, textbook case of a CSD A7. If the site is genuinely notable, I suggest you try again with references to awards won, newspaper and magazine articles about the site, etc. See Wikipedia:Notability (web) for more details. --Stormie (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion, article made no claim of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion made nothing even approaching an assertion of significance. If you can prove it meets Wikipedia:Notability (web) then it can be unprotected, but you haven't. Hut 8.5 11:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you'd like more time to work on the article, try doing so in your userspace at a subpage. Say, at User:ShadowStalker35/Nonoba or something like it. Then, after it meets all the relevant guidelines you can move it into mainspace. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; there are very many gaming communities and the version in the cache did not indicate why this particular one has importance. The way forward, as suggested above, is for the nominator to develop a sourced version in user space and then seek agreement for it to be moved across. Smile a While (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonoba is of note because it's the only website so far to offer the muti-player API that is free as with sources and the whole site I guess I messed up in the planing of the main page for I first made the page so the URL would be shown by the time I have fully wrote the artcule it was deleted and then repeated. Since I am not the only one who wishes to help create the page and it be a lot easyer if it was unprotected. I will have the talk page updated. Umm... could I use the site itself as a sourse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.137.219 (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ed Biado – page already restored – Arkyan 21:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've discussed this with the deleting admin in depth but in short: a) published writer for the fourth largest broadsheet in Manila is enough to avoid a speedy, and these can be verified; b) there's been so much vandalism including hoax claims that numerous speedies have been declined; c) she deleted it as a G7 when the person requesting a speedy was not the original author. While I have doubts this article will pass AfD (tho I'm trying to find secondary sources), I don't think this was a clear speedy because, "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." I'm willing to take it right to AfD if consensus is to gieve it a chance but I wanted to get consensus. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'd already told Travellingcari it was ok to restore it, I see no reason for this DRV. I think it's an A7 (and it has other things in its history) but if others want to save it I'm more than ok with that. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn with OK to restore. Feel free to take it to AfD if you don't think he's notable but he exists and is published, don't think it's an A7. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 12:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 June 2008

Architectural design values – Closure (no consensus) endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails Wikipedia:No original research and WP:SYN. Also not discussed at the is the WP:COI of the user and the copy vios of previous attempts(Design values, Architectural intentions) to insert this content, and the failed DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_23. Copy vios (http://www.aho.no/Utgivelser/Avhandlinger_elektronisk/Holm_Ideas_and_Beliefs.pdf and http://books.google.com/books?id=Gi7vcuGpAW8C ) Sole editor is Ivar Holm (Gutt2007 (talk · contribs) and 84.208.68.188 (talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than related to "his own work". Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought, nor is wikipedia to be used as Self-promotion. speedy delete Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (no consensus). I see no process problems in this closure. Given what was known and discussed at the time, a "no consensus" closure seems quite reasonable. Furthermore, because this has been through an AfD discussion, it is ineligible for speedy-deletion. The one exception is if the copyvio claim can be substantiated (in which case, the normal copyvio investigation takes precedence and no Deletion review is necessary). I will note, however, that the copyvio allegation is unprovable by the link provided above.
The important question, however, is why you didn't raise any of these issues during the deletion discussion? Deletion Review is not AFD-round 2. If you think critical facts were not considered, renominate the article and open a second discussion. (You should, however, very clearly explain why you are doing so only 2 days after the last discussion was closed. Other editors tend to be very skeptical of spuriously rapid renominations.) The prior discussion participants do seem to have fairly considered and rejected the original research/synthesis claim. Other than the copyvio claim, I don't see a basis to reconsider this decision. Rossami (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No consensus to delete, a proper close. MrPrada (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An initial comment on the possible copyvio issue. The talk page of the article claims that the source has a WP:OTRS ticket:

[Ticket#2008051010007236] GNU Free Documentation License

Unless that ticket fails to cover the source for the article then I am not seeing the copyvio. Smile a While (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is citing his own Doctoral thesis, and using wikipedia as a web host. Just because he has Ticket#2008051010007236, doesn't give him a pass to add his own original research. --Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position on this. However, the initial question is that of copyvio since if the article is copyvio it must be deleted irrespective of the OR position. You placed a couple of Copyviocore templates on the page so, I presume, you must have doubts about the validity or application of the OTRS ticket since otherwise there would be no copyvio and the tags would not be appropriate and should be removed. What I am asking for is a clarification of the basis for your concerns. Smile a While (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we can;t speedy delete as OR, and the possible nature of the item as OR was covered in the AfD discussion. If someone should happen to write a review of a subject as part of a doctoral dissertation that is not OR, but source-based, and meets our other requirements, and is willing to release the copyright under GFDL, then I see no reason why we shouldn't use it. DGG (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure As has been said, DRV isn't AfD Part 2. This conversation has already occurred and a correct interpretation of the results was rendered. Townlake (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (no consensus). DRV is not AfD2. Nothing wrong with the AfD close. This is not the forum to debate a debatable copyright question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Close - there was no consensus for deletion. The fact that there are two "possible copyright infringement" templates currently on the article is irrelevant to this discussion (they must be dealt with separately). With the discussion in the AfD, there was no choice for the closing admin but to close without deletion. B.Wind (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barony of Qlejjgha – Deletion endorsed – PeterSymonds (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

endorse. Okay this is definitely not a clear-cut case. Firstly, DRV is not used to complain about process. ~~These articles were deleted legitimately at the end of the five day prod period~~(see addendum). Secondly, sending them to AfD would be adding to unnecessary process, because the outcome of several similar AfDs had been deleted with unanimous delete !votes. Granted, not every article is the same, but when so many were sent to AfD, the net consensus was that these articles should not exist on Wikipedia. Thirdly, the outcome of a deletion discussion back in 2005 is completely different to the outcome in 2008. Every deletion debate is handled separately, so arguments based on the previous debate have little-to-no relevance. Fourthly, while the similar articles were at AfD, User:Tancarville failed to provide any evidence of notability, verifiability, reliable sources or any information that would pass WP:BIO. Despite arguing on the AfD page, no evidence was provided in the time that the AfD was started and concluded, which was the full length of time. Overturning this decision would lead to unnecessary process, with no chance of survival, so closing it as "endorse" is appropriate. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum It has been brought to my attention that they were not all deleted legitimately after a five-day PROD period. The few links I clicked on showed an uninvolved admin deleting after 5 days, as shown in the edit summary. Therefore I correct the statement I made above. However, I am going to invoke WP:IAR which is not something I've done often. These articles have no chance of survival at AfD, as evidenced by the creator's failure to provide any sources/evidence of notability/verifiability while the other AfDs were running. Re-opening it would not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia, or process, as they would have been deleted had they been brought up. This is my decision, but I understand that it is going to be a controversial one. Therefore, if an uninvolved admin feels they should overturn this decision, I give them full liberty to do so. However, please be sure that you are doing so because you feel the article can survive, and not purely because of process, because I am 100% sure that there is no chance that these articles will survive AfD. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RGTraynor prodded this article and the other listed articles for deletion. Unfortunately the Prod wasn't viable as these articles have survived a prior bundled AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barony of Tabria). I removed the Prods explaining in the edit summary why, a short while after doing so DragonflySixtyseven mass deleted all the articles. These deletions were totally out of process and were done on the grounds of the articles lack of verifiability and original research. These articles had been in existence for several years so why the rush to delete? Why couldn't the normal deletion policy be followed? Why the reluctance to send them to AfD?
Yes process can be irksome at times, but generally it is there for a good reason. When I see an out of process, mass deletion like this, I can't help but feel profoundly uneasy. I'm listing these articles as I'd genuinely like to know if the community considers such out of process deletions as acceptable or not. RMHED (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote RGTraynor's prod, "Another in a line of articles on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). While the article has been in substantively the same form since 2004, actual published sources (most unavailable to Wikipedia editors) were only added in 2006 - coincidentally, right after a blanket AfD was filed on these articles - and the sources upon which this article was actually based are the creator's own website and "unpublished research papers." Google turns up only this article, the creator's website and a handful of Wiki mirrors. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR"; to quote my deletion summary, "Hell with it. This is unverifiable, and remains unverifiable. Tancarville has had YEARS to provide better sources, and has not done so."
Procedure is important, but it is not all-important. To restore false articles solely to cross the t's and dot the i's of their writs of deletion is pointless. If independent evidence can be shown for the existence of the the subjects of these articles, I will gladly restore them (this is not a blanket offer; each existence will have to be shown separately); otherwise, they stay gone.
(Interesting point: one of these articles was apparently cited in a court case where the Court ruled that it was "apocryphal at best") DS (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The articles in question were created by User:Tancarville (Charles Said-Vassallo) in 2004 and 2005. The articles have been in substantively the same form since then, but “published sources” (somehow each and every one of them unavailable to Wikipedia editors) were only added the day after the mass AfD was filed last year, and the sources upon which the text was actually based are the creator's own website and "unpublished research papers." Furthermore, WP:COI and WP:COATRACK issues came up in that the alleged holders of a number of the titles were the creator’s own family members; one of the articles RMHED unprodded was a title claimed by the creator for his mother, for instance. Beyond that, the author of the alleged published sources is a "Charles Gauci," who himself was the subject of some of these articles as a “noble,” and who showed up as User:Count Gauci as an SPA in one of the recent AfDs, with phrasings oddly similar to Tancarville’s; for instance, "Please see sense and make comments rather then delete" cropped up in both of their comments at various stages.
At the time of the mass AfD in 2006, the consensus was clearly going towards Delete (the best Tancarville was getting was “Keep if and only if the articles are vastly improved / if reliable sources are found”) when it was suddenly bucked over to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility, a February 2005 discussion where Tancarville’s self-proclaimed credentials as a geneaologist were swallowed without question; the AfD was never properly closed. As it happens the only evidence we have for any of this is Charles Said Vassallo's word for it. While Tancarville holds himself out as a renowned geneaologist on his own and a number of websites, no reliable sources say so. A G-search for "Charles Said-Vassallo" turns up only 83 unique hits, all of them various webpages. There are zero hits on Google Scholar for him, something of an ominous sign.
Those decisions would never be made today, and on the sixteen AfDs that myself and another editor filed last week on these articles, the near-unanimous opinion of those other than Tancarville, Count Gauci and SPAs have been for deletion. Since I do not pretend to be an expert on such issues, I brought the matter to the Royalty Wikiproject, and their unanimous opinion has been for deletion. Since those AfDs, citing huge WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:COI issues, have so far ruled for Deletion with overwhelming consensus, I filed prods on a number of the other articles, since (after all) prodding is supposed to be for non-controversial deletions. I only wish that RMHED had informed me of this deletion review, since he’s obviously curious as to my motives.
My apology for being so longwinded, but basically, Tancarville has had a free ride on Wikipedia for four years, creating over sixty articles based on his own original research, claiming nobility for himself, his mother and father, and his other relatives, all stemming from an island two-thirds the size of Plymouth, Massachusetts, where such noble titles were abolished decades ago, and where such articles have survived so long only out of shaky process and startling misapplications of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
Like DS, I would be happy to see restored any article that passed WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:COI muster. I just couldn't find any in a couple days of search, and neither could half a dozen editors from the Royalty Wikiproject. If RMHED has some information we don't, I'd be grateful to see it. RGTraynor 13:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AfD if User:RGTraynor wishes. The removal of the PRODs was proper, since, quoting from WP:PROD:

Articles that:
Have previously been proposed for deletion using the {{prod}} process.

Have previously been undeleted

Have been discussed on AfD or MfD
are not candidates for {{prod}}.

(own emphasis added) Also nothing in the CSD meets the summary given in the deletion logs. There's nothing to support this sort of admin-discretion deletion. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Tancarville created these articles out of WP:COI, and it's my understanding that almost all of them were deleted via AfD, not PROD. I did a bit of research myself, and like the members of the Royalty WikiProject, I couldn't find any reliable sources about these obscure titles, nor could I find any proof that the author was a "trusted" name in genealogy. Should these be relisted at AfD, I could only see them being deleted all over again; overall, I agree 100% with RGTraynor. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy-deletion of the ones where there was not a relevant AFD decision after the "no consensus" decision from July 2006 that RMHED cites above. I spot-checked a number and found only a few that were deleted via a subsequent AfD. I share the skepticism expressed here that these articles will survive the AfD discussion. The evidence being presented here against the articles is compelling. But the process is important and DRV is not AFD2. We can spare 5 days to do it right. This discussion should have been held at AfD. Rossami (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Its inconcievable that these articles will survive AFd without further reliable sources being provided and this issues was raised years ago (eons in wikitime). Process is important but not to the point of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is sending a few articles to AfD "cutting off your nose to spite your face"? If an admin considers that an article lacks verifiability or contains original research are you saying they should delete it on sight? RMHED (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man argument. Obviously these articles weren't "deleted on sight;" they've been unverified, unsourced messes for four years, they've been pawed over more than once, a pertinent Wikiproject's endorsed the deletions, sixteen similar ones have been under AfD, ~~six~~ all sixteen have already been deleted from AfD, and a couple already have been deleted after the prods expired; it is not remotely a case of a cowboy admin gunning down good articles at random after a moment's casual glance. It isn't even the case that you or anyone else here thinks these articles would survive AfD; in effect, this is process worship for the sake of process worship. As Howcheng cogently states, this is a sound application of WP:IAR. RGTraynor 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This appears to be a good application of WP:IAR. They were kept during the AfD on the condition that better sources be added. It's been years and none have been forthcoming. Ergo, deletion was warranted. howcheng {chat} 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Howcheng. AFD survival was conditional, and the condition has failed. Bastique ^demandez 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are several blue links at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barony of Tabria that deserve a second look. Corvus cornix_talk 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Not all of Tancarville's articles merit deletion. One is of a town in Malta, one is of a CEO of a major Maltese bank who was murdered in mysterious circumstances, one is a Euro MP, and so on. RGTraynor 13:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, and probably relist individually after checking, starting with the weakest. AfD survival was not in the least conditional--it closed as no consensus to delete. Personally, i would very much like to see these articles deleted, and intend to so argue, but trying to use speedy to overturn the result of an Afd is just plain wrong. Its an improper use of IAR to support such a deletion--there was not consensus to delete. It's notsome technicality of the rules that by prevent us from deleting, its the lack of consensus to delete. Using IAR to override consensus is an arbitrary contradiction to the idea that its the consensus that decides what will improve the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Tough call. I would have argued in favor of deleting these, but DGG and Lifebaka really hit the nail on the head. They should be restored and sent to AfD properly. MrPrada (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - per DGG, essentially. It doesn't seem at all inconceivable that the "no consensus" result would be repeated. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Essentially per DGG. I agree that it is unlikely that any of these will survive AfD. However, speedy deletion of articles which have survived AfD is a really bad idea. We don't lose much by relisting. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - per DGG. Dloh cierekim 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD. Much as I'd like to see these deleted, there's a process for it and when they've had a PROD contested and an AFD closed without deletion, deleting at random is not really on. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse When did we become blind slaves to process? If we cannot exercise common sense from time to time, we become needlessly supine in our requirement for bureaucratic warrant for any action, as advocated by DGG above. I agree, therefore, with RGTraynor's rationale as laid out above. Eusebeus (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD and WP:CSD are for uncontroversial deletions. Having a previous XfD closed as "keep" or "no consensus" means most reasons for deletion are already proven to be controversial. This isn't process wonkery, the processes work the way they do for a reason. In this case a single admin proclaiming that he knows better (or different) than previous consensus (or the lack thereof) is wrong: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale". Just take the articles to AfD again. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. They may have been controversial a few years ago. They are proving to be almost completely uncontroversial now. Of the sixteen AfDs filed on those articles, except for Tancarville and the aforementioned "Count Gauci," who dissented on two, every single opinion proffered was for deletion. That's not merely consensus, that's fairly overwhelming consensus. RGTraynor 18:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While consensus can change, I've seen no evidence that it has. I'd like to note that I don't oppose the deletion of the article, I just don't believe that a single person gets to decide it. We wouldn't have XfDs if this was the case. And Dlohcierekim is right about the possibility of snowballing here if it does turn out to be uncontroversial, but I fail to see what harm it could do to have the pages back up for few days or so. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since these survived prior AFD, I would say the thing to do would be to AFD them again. Perhaps with the improved scrutiny of a number of editors some way to ave them can be found. If these deletions are so uncontroversial that PROD or Speedy is appropriate, they should snow-close pretty quickly. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even allowing for change in consensus, the thing to do is send back to AFD. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 12:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and send to AFD. Process is important, no compelling counter-reason here. Sources unavailable to wikipedia editors, if this means “not online”, is not good enough. AGF until references are proven false or unreliable. “Merge all to Maltese nobility”, for example, is conceivably a non-deletion sensible outcome. This was not a good application of IAR. There are good rules written to cover this situation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Fling (band) – Relist to generate consensus – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

In my understanding the criteria was met. Two guidelines were met from WP:Band. Clarification please on EXACTLY what more needs to be done. Blue Gillian (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse for now. I can't see any reasons explicitly given in the nom here to overturn. If you'd like to show evidence that an article can be written about the band, please provide the evidence, and I may change my !vote. Also, I believe that WP:BAND#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #7 doesn't work since Letter Kills is not notabile outside of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles, but I could be misunderstanding the way that's written. If you'd like you can work on the article in your userspace (at, say, User:Blue Gillian/The Fling (band)) while this is going on; it'd help your case here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Letter Kills seems notable per the presence of multiple reliable sources, satisfying both WP:MUSIC and the general notability guidelines. This band contains a former member of Letter Kills; therefore, #7 of WP:MUSIC is met for The Fling (band). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Consensus not established at AfD. Closing explanation inadequate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Foreignchar – Relisted Happy‑melon 09:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The singular name template was a very widely used template but when the TFD was placed on the template a notice to the fact was never transcluded to the articles affected - The public became only aware of the TFD when all instances of use where removed by a bot The plural name version also had a lack of a TFD notice on the template. Agathoclea (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin: That would certainly explain the difficulty we had in getting any involvement in the discussion! I'd repeat the point I raised above, though: there is no point whatsoever in overturning this TfD soley on this technicality, but rather the merits of the template should be considered. Happy‑melon 12:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. While that may have been an issue, it's not enough to overturn here. Even with that the TfD got plenty of traffic, and looks to have generated a decent close. This technicality is a bit too small to warrant an overturn on its own. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Failure to properly advertise a TfD is hardly a minor technicality, as it means that the discussion will take place only among those who regularly review the TfD debates, not among those who actually use the template. I do not believe that the former kind of discussion can result in what is sought by consensus. And I would hardly say that the TfD got plenty of traffic, as it had to be relisted twice to generate more debate. The fact that there was no Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Foreignchar page created is a minor technicality — the fact that interested parties were not informed of the debate going on at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Foreignchar is not. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Failure to properly advertise the discussion is not a minor technicality; it is a flaw that makes it impossible to use that discussion to determine consensus. Since no valid consensus can be formed from that discussion relisting is the only viable option. Might as well relist both together though, instead of just listing one and deleting two. GRBerry 18:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist both and advertise properly. As I see it, there was definitely no consensus regarding Template :foreignchars; it was not really properly nominated and only mentioned once en passant. There have been previous debates on the talk pages from which it was obvious that any suggestion of deletion (that was known about) would be controversial. In my opinion the nominations should have been advertised at WP:GER, since many German articles are affected. As far as merits go, as I see it, use of the hatnote was a tacit compromise that avoided move wars and long discussions on the use of certain German characters. The need for greater discussion on this proposal is obvious from all the discussions on foreign Latin characters and diacritics, as at the failed proposal Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). The issue is not really the template: the hatnote is so widely used and the desirability of standardization is so obvious that it boils down to recommending deletion of the Wikipedia usage instruction (hatnote/footnote) itself without discussing it at a more appropriate and visible place such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, or WP:Village pump, or at an affected project, preferably with an advertisement on the Community Portal using the RFC bot. I don't really think this is the proper place for a detailed discusson of the actual issues, but it is difficult to discuss the issues elsewhere while the hatnotes etc. have been deleted and nobody can see what we are talking about. Perhaps we could agree here on a proper place for the substantial discussion, without which a discussion about the template seems rather inappropriate.--Boson (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per others. Seems ambiguous enough to warrant a proper discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for a better discussion. It's not as if everyone who might be interested checks TfD regularly, DGG (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, comparing the first AfD to the second, I think that there may have been a different outcome if the notification had happened. Everyone who wants a chance to participate should be allowed to. MrPrada (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gabriel_Murphy – Closure is endorsed. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an article with a number of sources that help asset its notability and it should be a stand-alone article rather than redirected to the Aplus.Net article as this individual has a broader business background than just Aplus.Net. This article now has much more substance with backed references to establish that it should be a stand-alone article. 69.76.132.152 (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the admin who closed the AFD and decided to convert the article into a redirect as there was support for the retention of biographical information in the Aplus.net article. I don't believe there has been a change in the subject's individual notability to merit the existence of a dedicated article. I'm beginning to gravitate towards supporting the removal of most of the detail on Murphy if it's considered extraneous to Aplus.net. SoLando (Talk) 08:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. While Mr Murphy is a noteable figurehead as the CEO of Aplus.net, there is much more information about this individual as referenced in the 16 cited sources. There appears to be a number of articles with much less content and cited sources yet they stand on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyc (talk • contribs) 12:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I agree that this article should be seperate from the aplus article as this person has information that expands beyond the scope of aplus. I would recommend removal of the information about this individual within the aplus article and just link his name back to the Gabriel Murphy article, which should be its own article, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.13.22.85 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I generally agree as the article seems to establish notability beyond aplus with facts from sources that are trustworthy and authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.120.11 (talk) 14:00, June 2, 2008

Note, none of the three above editors have many contributions outside this discussion, and User:Troyc and 70.13.22.85 have none (74.5.120.11 should be considered a good faith editor). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For non-admins, I think the revised history that is currently visible under the redirect is sufficient to get a rough sense for whether the new article merits an AFD listing. The personal life section is new and unsourced, the numismatics section is new, as are its "sources". The deleted article linked to 3 sources not from the Kansas City Business Journal, namely: [139] [140] [141]. GRBerry 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I have reviewed the article carefully and I do think there is enough content outside of the scope of the Aplus article that this article warrants is own article (but all info/references on Gabriel Murphy should be removed from the Aplus article and directed to the article on Gabriel Murphy). I do think the sources establish notability though some additional sources will be needed under the "Personal Life" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.120.11 (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree- I have reviewed the previous article for Gabriel Murphy and I think it is pretty clear that the scope goes beyond aplus. Personal life is non-important and should either be sourced to show notability or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.177.2 (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as per status quo. Bad closure, with no consensus to. Merge and redirect better reflects the AfD. Note the illegal "move any relevant information into Aplus.net and delete" in one delete !vote and the unwelcome "vanity" comment in the other.
- Comment There was demonstrative consensus to delete the article. My decision to convert the article into a redirect after deletion was based on the AFD itself and the fact that pertinent information already existed in the Aplus.Net article (check the history of Aplus.Net). In retrospect, that should have been included in the rationale for the sake of clarity. Nevertheless, there does not appear to have been a substantive change in the independent notability of this subject. A large part of the "expansion" is unsourced (likely unverifiable) and that which has attribution doesn't seem to assert individual notability. SoLando (Talk) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the one "keep" suggestion was struck and converted to "neutral"; the remaining comments indicated that a separate article was not merited per the reasons also cited by the admin. No objection to subsequent creation of redirect article. B.Wind (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe you are referring to the discussion on a much earlier version of the article prior to its sources and expansion of other topics. I believe the current version of the article is notable and has enough content outside of the aplus article to stand on its own without a redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.120.11 (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure and current redirect. The AfD was sufficiently clear in its consensus for not having a separate article. Having a redirect to Aplus does not amount to saying that it is the only thing important in Mr. Murphy's life, but creating one after deletion was justified as we have one (and as far as I see only one ) notable topic related to him. The sources in the recreated version do IMO not yet warrant expansion.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Luv Addict – Closing discussion as no longer necessary, as the admin has revised the AfD. If anyone objects to my doing so, as I brought the discussion here, I don't object to the closure being undone. :) – Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article on a song and related articles (Replace Me, Kountry Gentleman, Whatcha Gonna' Do With It) were listed at AfD, where I believe that consensus very clearly developed to redirect the articles according to the guidelines quoted from WP:MUSIC. I do not believe that the AfD closure reflected any of the issues discussed within the conversation. I have discussed the matter with the deleting administrator (here), but she declines to reconsider her decision unless approached by one of the editors who participated in the AfD. I'm perfectly happy to create the redirects myself (trusting that this would not be perceived as a WP:CSD#G4 issue), but I believe that the language of the closure should be revised to reflect the actual outcome of the debate. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After after reviewing comments about my close of this AfD I thought the most helpful thing I could do would be to change the outcome to redirect, which I have done. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that the language of the closure was " delete these OR stubs for now.", I dont see how a redirect would possibly be considered a violation of that. DGG (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither do I, which is why I trust they would not be. Nevertheless, I think that the closure should be revised. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I brought them to AfD and have no problem with the redirects...I usually bring songs to AfD because they tend to be created by fans who incorrectly delete Prods or undo redirects without discussion and in contravention of WP:Music...redirects are totally appropriate tho. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. While Gwen's idea may not be a bad one, it's not what consensus was leaning towards (except possibly with Whatcha Gonna' Do With It, supposing no redirect target exists). I favor relisting them after reopening the AfD's, but simply reclosing as redirect is a possibility as well. As for simply creating redirects now and performing a history restore under them, such redirects wouldn't be G4-able under any reasonable interpretation of the criterion. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/Header}}
-<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 30}}
-{| width = "100%"
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 29}}
-|-
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 28}}
-! width=20% align="left"  | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008 May|May 2008]]
-! width=60% align=center  | [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive|Deletion review archives]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 27}}
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 26}}
-! width=20% align="right" | [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008 July|July 2008]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 25}}
-|}</div></noinclude>
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 30]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 24}}
-<!--* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 29]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 23}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 28]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 22}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 27]]-->
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 21}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 26]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 20}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 25]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 19}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 24]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 18}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 23]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 17}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 22]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 16}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 21]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 15}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 20]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 14}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 19]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 13}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 18]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 12}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 17]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 11}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 16]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 10}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 15]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 9}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 14]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 8}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 13]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 7}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 12]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 6}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 11]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 5}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 10]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 4}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 9]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 3}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 8]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 2}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 7]]
+{{Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 1}}
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 6]]
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 5]]
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 4]]
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 3]]
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 2]]
-* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 1]]