Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 7: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:45, 8 August 2006

< August 6	August 8 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

7 August 2006

Anti-Knowledge

This entry was originally deleted as spam. I explained to the editor that this website is not a business and I do not earn money from this information. I also explained that this term is ten years old (The creative method, directional categorization, from which it sprang out, is 21 years old). He looked at my request and referred me to this site so that multiple editors could make the decision. The anti-knowledge website has been on the Internet since 2002 and was picked up by the Internet Archive in 2003. The concept has gained popularity in recent years as the imperative of questioning is now firmly embedded in the Second Enlightenment Framework. The Second Enlightenment is a global network of individuals dedicated to social transformation. This effort is headed up by Rick Smyre, President of Communities of the Future, who is very supportive of this concept. My CV includes a list of public speaking engagements and published articles on the term. I have been accepted for any conferences I've applied to, and the list is not very long, only because of my lack of time as I also work a full-time job.

Anti-Knowledge explains the coming cognitive convergence by showing how all Mind Disciplines are converging around the concept of Knowledge Creation. The concept of Knowledge Creation gets very, very little scholarly attention and has been grossly neglected. Yet it is one of the most powerful and central concepts in scholarship. The same is true of the question, which is also central to anti-knowledge.

Anti-knowledge is definitely not wildly popular yet, but has been gaining momentum in the last few years. Just as concepts like sustainability are also starting to get traction, anti-knowledge is one of those 'social benefit' concepts that will redefine how we think and work in the future and people are starting to look harder for these kinds of concepts as turmoil in the world increasess. It is somewhat in opposition to mainstream thinking because it is a purely integrated concept and can explain the 'pieces' of many other disciplines and how these fit together in a global mind/brain.

I'd really appreciate it if you could reconsider adding this term. It is an important context for the future of global society and the concept is exceptionally tied into the methodology behind Wikipedia. My online book Knowledge Machine describes how all 'knowledge interactions' could work cooperatively in the future toward the same end under a framework called 'cooperative knowledge working.' Cooperative knowledge working is basically a Wiki concept, but it goes deeper into explaining other interactions involved in this process, why they are important, and why we need these in the future.

If you want to see the future of Wikipedia as a centerpiece in society, study the term anti-knowledge and read my online book.

Endorse deletion, with an Alexa rank over 3.5 million this is unlikely to pass WP:WEB and given the tone of the above there is a very strong suggestion of vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 06:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as failing WEB and as spam with possible commercial motives per If you want to see the future of Wikipedia as a centerpiece in society, study the term anti-knowledge and read my online book. above. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion as above. "Anti-knowledge is definitely not wildly popular yet, but has been gaining momentum in the last few years." In other words, currently obscure, but with aspirations. Everyone with a concept or philosophy to pitch thinks Wikipedia should help them gain exposure. Doesn't work that way. Fan-1967 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pseudoscientists

There we're multiple problems with this CfD. I'm pretty sure that if users who normally work in the pseudoscience related articles had been aware of this CfD it wouldn't have gone this way - however that isn't relevant by itself. What is relevant is that since none of those users were aware of the CfD, the discussion did not deal with fundamental issues that had been discussed before when dealing with the CfD.

First, there has been a long standing consensus on Category:Pseudoscience that ideas go in that cat and people go in the now deleted category. One of the main complaints in the CfD was that it was inherently a POV cat. This is false, as reading WP:NPOV would make clear. A contentious cat does not make it inherently POV. Furthermore, the end result is that all the the people in the cat are simply moved to the larger one, and so that argument makes no sense whatsoever as long as the larger cat exists (and everyone agrees that it should stay). Thus, the cat should have been kept as a reasonable subcat of a difficult but agreed upon Cat. Second, as a matter of policy, this Cat must stay.

WP:NPOV very specifically calls for PS to be identified on the project and its reception by the scientific community presented. Removing a valid inclusion or deleting a PS cat creates a sort of POV fork. NPOV specifically says it applies to cats. This matter was not discussed at the CfD. At minimum, the deletion of this cat involved larger scale policy issues which we're not considered. For both of these reasons, I think the CfD should be overturned. JoshuaZ 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn or relist. Josh's reasoning speaks for itself. Jim62sch 21:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not because the category was POV or not POV but because the category falls afoul of WP:CIVIL. Whispering^(talk/c) 21:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:CIVIL applies to how we treat other users, not to how we classify things, and even if WP:CIVIL did matter, WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and would override it. JoshuaZ 21:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment -- Civil? Huh? As Josh noted, WP:CIVIL deals with interaction among editors, it has nothing to do with articles or categories. Besides, how precisely would it "fall afoul of WP:CIVIL"? Jim62sch 22:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment *sigh* look so I quoted the wrong rule set anyway this category is inherently POV and inflammatory I don't see any reason for keeping it. Whispering^(talk/c) 22:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment So then, I guess your point is that everything should be nice and squishy and fuzzy and there must be no bad news about anything no matter how accurate and verifiable? There is such a thing as reality (I'm not talking philosophical realty here as that topic in inherently surreal), and there really are things that are seen pseudoscience by the scientific community as a whole. That some practitioner or advocated of topic that are pseudoscience get offended goes in the "so what" category. But I digress. Jim62sch 09:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn we need this category. — Dunc|☺ 21:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion The purpose of DRV is not a 2nd round for deletion discussions, only about if the closing was properly done. Repeat after me. DRV is not a second CfD. That means, this is not the place to discuss the worthiness of the category, only to discuss if I closed it properly or not. I say there was consensus to delete it, and that's the only point under discussion. Josh should have spoken at the CfD. My close was well done and valid, and consensus WAS obtained to delet, so it was deleted. 198.82.161.133 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC) -- Drini 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are correct that I should have been commented then, and if I had been aware of it I would have. However, the policy matters related to this CfD are major. We don't make what is a de facto major policy change and then not review it because of a essentially procedural error. CfDs are not the place where we decide policy. I don't think anyone realized the size of the policy issues in deleting this category. JoshuaZ 23:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - it's an important category from an NPOV point of view. As for Drini's comments - (a) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and (b) don't be a dick - *FD doesn't scale, few people watch categories - telling someone "you should have voted" is being a dick. Guettarda 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two points, first the undeletion policy does allow relisting someone was not aware of the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AFD) or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (MFD)." It doesn't include CfD explicitly but I would think it would be included. Second, this isn't about the closure. It is a standard to bring articles to DRV because of new information that was not available or was not pointed out at the time of the closure (examples can be easily pointed out). This says nothing about whether or not the closing admin was correct to close it. In this case, new information has been brought up, and the sole question is whether that information is sufficient to justify a relisting. Given that this involves one of our fundamental policies, it is hard to see how it relisting is not the logical result. JoshuaZ 02:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist per above. FeloniousMonk 02:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, this category title is pretty clearly POV in that it asserts as fact what is in most cases a particular, disputed, POV. I don't see how simply asserting that someone is a pseudoscientist follows (from the NPOV policy): "the policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted." So the policy argument made at the CFD, that the category is inherently POV, seems reasonable. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Three issues- first the matter is not whether or not it seems reasonable to you, the issue at hand is whether the nature of NPOV which was not addressed requires bringing this up for review again. Second, deletion of this cat leaves some people listed as "scientists" without a "pseudoscience" marker, so we are making just as large a POV problem, if not more so, by having deleted the cat. Third, quoting from WP:NPOV "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science" which is pretty close to what the argument that this is POV comes down to. And again, this is all not relevant, since the matter at hand is whether there is sufficient justification for relisting. JoshuaZ 03:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I thought a new argument of interest had been brought up, I would suggest relisting, but I don't think there has been -- the policy you've brought up, NPOV, overwhelmingly supports the deletion that was carried out. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - How so? WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience very specifically calls for pseudoscience to be identified on the project and its reception by the scientific community presented: "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." WP:NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals." Deleting a pseudoscience category creates a type of POV fork because it limits the presentation of how science relates to pseudoscience. POV forks are expressly forbidden by WP:NPOV#POV_forks. Actually reading WP:NPOV, it's clear you couldn't be more wrong on WP:NPOV "overwhelmingly supporting the deletion". In fact, as far as I can tell, none of those who voted to delete then or now have shown the least bit familiarity with the pseudoscienc clause of the WP:NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk 06:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you can explain to me how explicitly and without qualification calling someone a pseudoscientist fairly represents the view that they are not a pseudoscientist, I'd be happy to reconsider. My understanding of NPOV is that where differing views exist they ought both to be represented, and neither should be stated as uncontroversial fact. This may be an inaccurate understanding. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, possible relist. The category is supported by an encyclopaedic topic, pseudoscience. It is explicitly clear that the definition of pseudoscience is a contentious definition, but inclusion can be verified by reference to reliable secondary sources. I guess listify would also work, by the same token. There is no doubt that there is merit in collecitng together notable pseudoscience proponents. Just zis Guy you know? 07:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A list, which could be annotated and note that classification would be controversial, would obviously be superior. See e.g. Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Consider making a list. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that it permits of individual sourcing of each entry, in this case, quite possibly. If anyone wants to start it I suspect we can close this discussion. Just zis Guy you know? 09:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who nominated the category for deletion in the first place, I think this proposal is the most sensible I've heard to date. I have created a list at List of pseudoscientists and populated it with a few entries that people have been trying to add back to the deleted category page. --Wclark 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, possible relist, per JzG. --Fastfission 11:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pokeicon.gif

There seems to be some strange conflict over sle-made Pokémon images, on whether this image, and many otheers, are fair use, or under a free license. —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinkeshi article

Added by anon user to the talk page; I've got no opinion on the matter, but it seems to have been deleted by Pschemp as "started by a banned editor"[1]. -- nae'blis 18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kenkeshi article that covered many different varieties of toys based on the Kinnikuman manga and its derivitives has dissappeared almost overnight. The page was making remarkably quick progress considering the amount of information that was on the page, and would be a valuble resource for collectors of each toyline when completed. Please restore it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.163.150.83 (talk • contribs) 07 August 2006 04:02 (UTC)

This article was started by a sockpuppet of User:EnthusiastFRANCE who is blocked due to using sockpuppets to evade previous blocks for harassment of editors, which his socks continue to do. (Twenty-nine socks so far and counting.) It doesn't matter if the information is good, he was evading his block by doing this, therefore it should remain deleted. I'm quite sure that the anon who posted this request is just EnthusiastFRANCE yet again. pschemp | talk 19:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

these articles were also created by EnthusiatFRANCE/EnthusiastFR (check history log) and therefore have to be deleted too

Xi Qu has been blocked for being a puppetmaster and disrupting WP to make a point, and is very likely a sock of EnthusiastFrance. However, I do suggest that the article should be undeleted, as I think the point of the rule is to simplify deleting subtle vandalistic and POV pages created by banned users. --Golbez 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles were started by EnthusiastFRANCE when he was not blocked, therefore they are legit. This user does not understand how our policy goes. However, letting this current article stay only rewards sockpuppetry, not an idea I am fond of. If someone else wants to create the article, and we start with a clean edit history I have no issue with that. Please make sure its not another sock though. I've removed sock comments calling you a liar Golbez, and note that the socks are coming out not just to disrupt this page, but my talk and Aknorals, whom EnthusiastFRANCE has a vandetta against. Really, contributions by such a disruptive user should not be kept. pschemp | talk 03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete - if there was nothing wrong with the article, it should not have been deleted. --SPUI (T - C) 07:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, someone who is not a banned editor should rewrite it. Undeleting is not acceptable. pschemp | talk 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep Deleted. Per pschemp. -- Bane s 14:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created an article in this position. While based on his, I've substantially cut it down (much of it was crufty lists and such). Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. That should be the end of it then. pschemp | talk 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be fine as well. The article is now not created by a banned user and also since it is not the exact same article it can't be deleted a recreation of deleted material either. It seems safe now. --Edgelord 16:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MonstersGame

Undelete the MonstersGame article. I believe this article doesn't deserve the speedy deletion. I was on the process of adding content to it but it was deleted. The talk page mentions that it was nominated AfD but the vote was no consensus (June 16). The article was deleted by User:Mailer Diablo five days after there was a 2nd round of voting (August 2) where only 3 users voted. However, there was no mention of the holding or result of the 2nd round of voting in its talk page. Since I was on the process of saving it, I continued with the save since I was editing on the main content of the article. Just now, the "new" article I saved was marked for speedy deletion by User:Peephole. And to my dismay it was deleted that fast. MonstersGame is a popular browser game the world over. Please consider. Jordz 17:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st AfD, 2nd AfD Whispering^(talk/c) 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The speedied version could have been speedied by being without context, as well as being a repost. It began in medias res by talking about gameplay. The thing to do would be to craft a version of the article in your user talk page space and then ask for a relisting. At least then we could have something to look at. The speedy deletion was valid. Geogre 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choral Public Domain Library

This is a request to undelete the Choral Public Domain Library article. CPDL is the largest free sheet music site for choral music, and is probably the largest free archive of sheet music in modern editions. It is directly linked as a resource page to a large number of Wikipedia composer articles (maybe 100?). It is closely tied to Wikipedia as a wiki-based archive (ChoralWiki). It is a significantly larger archive than other similar websites with articles, such as Mutopia, and is larger in scope than the Werner Icking Music Archive. It continues to grow at a significant rate, and is used by ~10,000 people daily. It is not just a digital archive, but an in-depth music encylopedia. Individual articles on composers such as Claudio Monteverdi and William Byrd are significantly more in-depth than Wikipedia articles. I honestly don't understand the deletion, unless you choose to remove all music archives articles. Thank you for your consideration. -- Ornes 16:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD here. Whispering^(talk/c) 16:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn or relist. Very little input. CPDL )now ChoralWiki) is an important resource, you can down load free-use scores for vast amounts of out-of-copyright music there. Every choir I know uses it. Just zis Guy you know? 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per Guy -- this is an immensely important resource. Jim62sch 21:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist The AfD only had three comments, counting the nomination, and there are suggestions that some of the comments made may be out of date (that is, correct at the time, but the circumstances have changed since). It seems that a new AfD may be the best option here (undeleting the article during the AfD). --ais523 14:24, 8 August 2006 (U T C)
Overturn Not only is CPDL the largest website devoted to and offering free downloadable choral music, it is the only source for some of the best editions of medieval, renaissance, and baroque choral scores - as well as a now significant number of contemporary choral scores. Perhaps the comments of Wikipedia's own Antandrus on his CPDL User and User talk pages might shed some light on the significance and value of CPDL. Chuck 14:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Datamonitor

I closed the AfD as a delete and deleted the article, and removed all incoming links to it from the main namespace. I was later contacted by someone questioning my decision, so here it is on deletion review. No vote from me. JIP | Talk 11:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Of the three external links that were in the article, this is not about Datamonitor. It does use Peter Ryan, Datamonitor's "call centre and outsourcing analyst", as a source for about two-thirds of the article, but that tells us bugger-all about his employer and is the sort of supposed proof of verifiability that made me write the amnesia test. I can't read the other two links, as this is a blank page for me, and this is a 404, and no more citation was given in the article than 'New Zealand Herald article' and 'CNN Money article', so I have no way to find the articles by other means. However I see no reason to disbelieve Tychocat's assertion that they were passing mentions as well. If the links were more compelling they might be reason enough to close as 'no consensus' given the numbers, but they aren't. Datamonitor may be notable by some standards (I've heard of them), but the standard required of an encyclopaedia is that some secondary sources have decided they're notable enough to write independent, non-trivial articles about them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanide and Happiness

This page was deleted with a solid concensus (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyanide_and_happiness_%28webcomic%29) but the rationale seems weak to me. According to the rules of Deletion review, I will not use this space to show evidence why this page should not have been deleted (and furthermore, it is now protected against all editing) but rather request a Relist on AfD so I may show why this page was deleted on poor grounds. bernlin2000 ∞ 05:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Relist, just stating policy when the interpretation of that policy for this article is under dispute isn't enough. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 06:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and otherwise unsalt, salting should only be a temporary measure for non-notable topics, since things might get notable over time. In addition, the article was deleted as part of another AfD to which it was added after all votes had been cast and still this AfD was used as a reason for speedy deletion later [2], which is borderline with regard to CSD policy. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, I see no problems with the AfD, and frankly, the content of the article was really bad. Should probably be unsalted, though. JIP | Talk 12:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted and salted. Eh? That we delete articles on non-notable webcomics is not under dispute, the AfD clearly validly applied to both duplicates (having focused on the subject, not the current state of either article), and the article should be kept salted given its repeated recreation unless new evidence that the webcomic now meets WP:WEB is shown here. Is there new evidence? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted and salted, per Sam Blanning. Also, this topic is covered at Comixpedia. If that article ever meets our content policies by containing verifiable information from reliable sources on the website's achievements, impact or historical significance, then we could consider a transwiki back here. Until then, keep deleted. -- Dragonfiend 16:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the best thing is always to write a good article in user space and then come here and show everyone. Why does that not happen more often, do we not advertise it enough? - brenneman ^{L} 17:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted: I take no position on the sodium. I wanted to wait before weighing in. (Personally, I think we don't see that very often because the people who read and understand guidelines don't write very many AfD'd articles, and the people whose articles lose on AfD are too often not reading our guidelines and policies, and therefore are unlike to miss any advertising we do.) Geogre 20:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the rules of Deletion review, I will not use this space to show evidence why this page should not have been deleted ← Huh? ~ trialsanderrors 22:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidelines of Deletion review suggest that you should not present evidence that the article meets again guidelines, but rather do that in AfD, that is why I'm asking for the article to be Relisted in AfD so that I may show this evidence. bernlin2000 ∞ 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Chris, you may have misunderstood. What you ought not do is re-argue the AfD ("This article is really cool and the people who voted to delete it were wrong"), but the default decision on DRV is to endorse pending evidence that either the AfD was procedurally incorrectly handled or that there is new evidence that would change the way the AfD would have gone. You're not contesting the closure, which is cool, but you need to indicate why there is evidence now that would have changed the AfD. I.e. you don't argue the old AfD. Instead, you give reasons why it wouldn't go that way if there were a relisting. Geogre 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, valid AfD. If you think you can write a new article which proves the comic's notability, write a new one in your User space then list it here, but as of now, the AfD was valid and you haven't prevented new arguments. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An article has in fact already been written on Comixpedia, which is just an archive of the article that was once on Wikipedia, but was removed because the consensus was that the webcomic had no fanbase or not enough "google hits". The forums for the webcomic have had over 160,000 posts in the time since the comic strip was started (less than 2 years ago). That's no insignificant number, and certain shows more activity than a number of webcomics on the "list of webcomics." bernlin2000 ∞ 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist At the time the AfD was conducted we actually had two articles on Cyanide and Happiness. One of them was sent to AfD, and after I found the second, I added it to the AfD. However, this was after a few days had gone by and I don't think it received proper scrutiny. This concerns me because the second article, which is similar to the Comixpedia version (Comixpedia:Cyanide and Happiness) was the better of the two. I later merged the histories of the two deleted articles and salted, but looking back on it, I think it would have been better if I'd extended the first AfD and relisted it. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted unless there is new information. Re the two articles, the verdict was that the subject was non-notable, so the quality of the article hardly matters. Are there any recent news mentions we should consider? ~ trialsanderrors 07:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, valid (unanimous) AfD with decent participation. The best place to go looking for information on webcomics is defintiely Comixpedia, and per above comments this already exists there. Just zis Guy you know? 09:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brute Force Committee

The article Brute Force Committee was deleted after a very brief discussion in which three users argued to KEEP the article, three users argued for DELETION, and one argued for merging. It should be noted that one user's DELETE was blocked due to some sockpuppet thing. In any case, an agreement was NOT reached, and the arguments for keeping the articles are the only ones that cited reasons; the deleters simply just didn't like the article. The discussion can be found here [3] Nicklob 04:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion per "AfD's are not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia.". I totally agree with the reasoning, which is entrenched in Wikipedia policy, for the deletion. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 04:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The editor with the bolded 'merge' said "if the information can be verified", which didn't happen. One 'keep' argument was the account's fourth edit and violated WP:NOR, and can legitimately be discounted. Another is also on very shaky grounds: "if it were verifiable would it still be a secret society?" - well, yes it certainly could be, and if it isn't, verifiability is non-negotiable. Much of the verification mooted by the other keep proponent was also a) ethereal - he thought there was verification, but clearly had no idea what or where, and I think it's fair to say he wasn't close to being able to write it up in Harvard citation style; and b) most of it sounds very much on the non-repeatable side. If to check verifiability you have to go to a university and persuade them to give you their disciplinary records, which they're not going to do, then that's not repeatable. The AfD also made it quite clear that this is only of importance to those at the university, and while I'm aware that everything anyone does at your university seems amazingly important at the time, whether it be sport, politics or annoying people... it isn't. It would have been nice if the closing admin had included some of that in his reasoning, though. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I freely admit that I did not read beyond this sentence: The Brute Force Committee (BFC) is a secret society consisting of selected students and alumni of the University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Just zis Guy you know? 13:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This particular group has actually been around since 1910-1920. So I guess you could say a few people made it up one day and that the group perpetuated itself for 90 years. Its original purpose was to provide security at University of Toronto Engineering events and to bully voters in elections. Anyways, from what I gather from from this discussion, this article simply needs to be revamped with verifiable sources; I'll see what I can do. Thanks for your help. Nicklob 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion First, I would like to point out that I'm not an admin and have to rely on others' comments to deduce the article's contents. Looking at the AfD: 4 delete (counting the nom), 3 keep, 1 conditional merge (condition wasn't met, and no default was given), 1 struck (blocked-user sockpuppet). Although normally that would be no-consensus, the quality of the votes has to be taken into account; one of the keep votes has to be disregarded due to WP:OR, a policy, and the other effectively says 'keep despite WP:V violation', so also goes against policy. In other words, there was a consensus to delete here when vote quality is taken into account. --ais523 14:17, 8 August 2006 (U T C)

@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 :'''Endorse deletion'''. The editor with the bolded 'merge' said "if the information can be verified", which didn't happen. One 'keep' argument was the account's fourth edit and violated [[WP:NOR]], and can legitimately be discounted. Another is also on very shaky grounds: "if it were verifiable would it still be a secret society?" - well, [[:Category:Secret societies|yes it certainly could be]], and if it isn't, [[WP:V|verifiability]] is non-negotiable. Much of the verification mooted by the other keep proponent was also a) ethereal - he ''thought'' there was verification, but clearly had no idea what or where, and I think it's fair to say he wasn't close to being able to write it up in [[Harvard citation]] style; and b) most of it sounds very much on the non-repeatable side. If to check verifiability you have to go to a university and persuade them to give you their disciplinary records, which they're not going to do, then that's not repeatable. The AfD also made it quite clear that this is only of importance to those at the university, and while I'm aware that everything anyone does at your university seems ''amazingly'' important at the time, whether it be sport, politics or annoying people... it isn't. It would have been nice if the closing admin had included some of that in his reasoning, though. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 14:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse deletion'''.  I freely admit that I did not read beyond this sentence: ''The '''Brute Force Committee''' (BFC) is a [[secret society]] consisting of selected students and alumni of the [[University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering]]''.  [[WP:NFT|Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day]].  [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 13:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
+:*'''Comment''' This particular group has actually been around since 1910-1920. So I guess you could say a few people made it up one day and that the group perpetuated itself for 90 years. Its original purpose was to provide security at University of Toronto Engineering events and to bully voters in elections. Anyways, from what I gather from from this discussion, this article simply needs to be revamped with verifiable sources; I'll see what I can do. Thanks for your help. [[User:Nicklob|Nicklob]] 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse deletion''' First, I would like to point out that I'm not an admin and have to rely on others' comments to deduce the article's contents. Looking at the AfD: 4 delete (counting the nom), 3 keep, 1 conditional merge (condition wasn't met, and no default was given), 1 struck (blocked-user sockpuppet). Although normally that would be no-consensus, the quality of the votes has to be taken into account; one of the keep votes has to be disregarded due to [[WP:OR]], a policy, and the other effectively says 'keep despite [[WP:V]] violation', so also goes against policy. In other words, there was a consensus to delete here when vote quality is taken into account. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 14:17, 8 August 2006 ([[User:ais523|U]][[User talk:ais523|T]][[Special:Contributions/Ais523|C]])