Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 5

< August 4	Deletion review archives: 2007 August	August 6 >

5 August 2007

New Utopia

This article has survived three deletion discussions:

No consensus: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/New Utopia, November 2004
Keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Utopia, March 2007
Keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazarus Long (micronationalist), May 2007

The third nomination produced a consensus that the article should focus primarily on allegations that New Utopia is a fraudulent micronation investment scheme rather than on (self-published) details of history, "population", geography, and so on.

The article was deleted on June 15, 2007 by administrator User:JzG, with the following deletion summary:

OTRS ticket 2007060110014307 - sole claim to notability is the SEC case, but that has only passing mentions and is largely smoke & mirrors, no fines, no convictions, no evidence a single bod was ever sold.

The reason for deletion seems to be the claim that the SEC case is a weak one and that the allegations of fraud are therefore unfounded. For context, please view the pre-deletion version of the article, read the discussion at Talk:New Utopia#Start again, please, and/or note the following excerpt from an SEC press release about New Utopia reproduced in this source:

Today Judge Michael Burrage, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa Division, granted the Commission's request for an emergency restraining order to halt a fraudulent nationwide Internet scheme involving the offer and sale of a bogus $350 million bond offering. (emphasis added)

I bring this matter to deletion review so that it can be put to rest. I believe we have two options:

The scam allegations have a weak basis and the article should make little or no mention of them. If so, it should be deleted, since such an article could not be neutral or prove the subject's notability.
The article should reflect the evaluations of reliable sources which discuss the subject and should thus discuss the scam allegations, without giving them undue weight. If so, the deletion should be undone, so that the article can be modified.

Overturn as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, and, obviously,, option 2. A sufficiently widespread fraud to be notable, and the article should reflect it. An OTRS complain that the material about the fraud is included would seem totally unjustified, depending of course on how it is worded and sourced. To put it bluntly, fraudsters should not be able to removes RSs about their schemes from WP, and the preliminary injunction is sufficient if cited as such. DGG (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it is not and never was a fraud, as far as I can tell. SEC called it one but no evidence has ever been produced that any meaningful number of US citizens actually bought these bonds, and as far as I can tell the site specifically said not for sale to US citizens. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Club of Useless but True Info

Deleted purely because of Page's title Not an anon anymore !!!! Yeah!!!! 16:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...And this is DRVed because you didn't like the obvious delete conclusion. Endorse deletion. —Kurykh 16:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, It was deleted because you wanted it to be a Wikiproject. Instead, restore the page and move it so it will be a DoF game instead. Marlith ^T/C 17:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Good Idea Marlith, I think I'll do that if it gets recreated. Not an anon anymore !!!! Yeah!!!! 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid MFD, project promoted the creation of nonsense pages and pretty much amounts to trolling. --Core desat 20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The outcome of the MfD was unambiguous. In response to this comment by the nominator, wherein s/he states that "all I want is to be the founder of some Wikipedia Community", I ask that s/he review the "Wikipedia is not a social networking site" and "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" provisions of the What Wikipedia is not policy. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion and Speedily Close this DRV. Nominator's actions should be viewed as disruptive after these recent shenanigans. Tarc 22:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by generation and subcats

This was a group nom. There were several well-though-out comments in the discussion. Half the commenters suggested that though some of the categories should be deleted, other categories of this group nom should not be. This should probably have been relisted as two or more separate nominations (at least ages and generations) for clarity in determining consensus. - jc37 11:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this nom includes:

Overturn and relist as at least 2 separate nominations. - as nominator. - jc37 11:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse self - This was one grouping of age based categories. More than half of the users chose to delete all of them, so for those persons there is no lack of clarity. Of the 4 users who users chose to comment on them in 2 separate subgroups, only 1 was in favor of keeping the "Generational" categories. So either way that you look at it, this subgroup of categories was delete. For the "Wikipedians in..." categories, there were some arguments in support of keeping these, but I found Black Falcon's and Haemo's arguments to be more convincing. For that subgroup, if you "count votes" it was 6-3 delete, so between both the numbers and the strength of the arguments, I think that deletion of these is also appropriate. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Attempting to establish a connection between age and interest would involve blatant and inaccurate stereotyping. Attempting to establish a connection between age and access to sources involves dealing with the inefficient "hit-and-miss" approach of contacting users in a specific age group to see if they have access to a particular source (You were born in 50s ... have any sources from back then?). Neither one of these issue was addressed by those arguing to keep the categories. In addition, although there were references to correcting systemic bias, it was never made clear what relation these categories have to systemic bias. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, relist, and bring to wider attention. The small number of people active at UCfD should not be able to dictate the interface. The interface should be discussed by the people interested, who should be notified. Generation is relevant to collaboration on articles. the discussion of these wide ranging heavily populated categories should require adequate notice, though obviously most of the regulars at UCfD do not like that idea. I'll just note I do not use such categories myself, but I see no reason why others shouldn't--except for categories indicating one is a child. DGG (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

icebox.com

credible sourced material to justify notabilty Dwanyewest 02:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] evidence provided Dwanyewest 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List at AFD - Has enough to deserve a run through. But this website has essentially petered out, it's by no means a success. - hahnch e n 10:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn protection, clearly a notable startup in 2000 although Alexa shows it never even had significant traffic. Notability does not expire. If the original was not sourced recreating a new sourced article should be acceptable. --Dhartung | Talk 13:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See discussion at User talk:RHaworth. --Dhartung | Talk 13:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 August 2007

New Utopia

Wikipedia:The Club of Useless but True Info

Category:Wikipedians by generation and subcats

icebox.com

User:Selfworm/VandalizeMe (closed)