Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 28 Deletion review archives: December December 30 >

29 December 2006

[edit]
Chicago Race Riot of 1919 – Deletion overturned, article stubified, non-offending material can be restored – 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chicago Race Riot of 1919 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This was speedied with deletion summary sourcing problems (Jay Robert Nash), which confuses me. I've provisionally restored it for DRV consideration. There are five sources in the ref section, so I'm really quite confused about the deletion reason. At the very least, it was not a valid CSD. Kchase T 23:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. "Sourcing problems" is not a speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. Speedy criteria are supposed to be objective, thus, "sourcing problems" can not be one. Regardless, lack of sources has never been a reason for deletion, unless there is reason to believe there are no sources. -Amarkov blahedits 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See Jay Robert Nash. Nash intentionally inserts false information into his work. If the article is based on his work, then the sources are unreliable. I am not contributing an opinion as to the deletion of this article. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/Jay Robert Nash "Jimmy Wales commented that he would be happy to remove any instances of copying if pointed out, but called Nash's books unfit as sources for Wikipedia regardless of any legal issues. "Nash's work should not be relied upon," Wales concluded, on the grounds that the deliberate insertion of errors "makes it unsuitable as a reference anyway." I suspect that is the issue being responded to. I know I've seen further discussion in the subsequent 8 months, but can't find it readily. GRBerry 23:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roughly delete revisions made after October 2005 The Nash reference was introduced in these three edits (same user, same day) [1]. We can at least delete all subsequent revisions and have a clean version. I'd look for clearly salvagable portions of the current version though - recategorization, images, etc... GRBerry 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commenting further, I think we can preserver the images, external links section, see also section, and categorization. I think we have to toss everything else out of the article that was added since October 2005, because we can't know what later edits were are either 1) also sourced from Nash, but don't say so because it was already listed or 2) used only because of a connection drawn from something else. The other three new sources could be mentioned on the talk page as possible sources to check. The Chicago Public Library link in external links offers as second steps multiple further sourcing possibilities, primarily primary sources. GRBerry 03:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete problematic sections/sources and restore per GRBerry. I must say I don't understand how editors (and many of you seem to be American, unlike moi) can delete an entire article on a signficant epsiode in Chicago's history... based on a sourcing problem with one writer? Maybe I'm missing something but I'm mystified. The event did happen. It's clear it's significant. Tag the article for poor sourcing, edit it till the cows come home, but delete? This should never, ever have been put for deletion in my view. If there's a poor source on Kent State shootings will that disappear from WP, too? I'm not trying to be a wise-ass... I'm really trying to understand how this ever got to the deletion stage in the first place. So if you disagree, help me to see the light. Shawn in Montreal 01:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Deletion and undeletion are basically judgements of whether the topic is encyclopedic. This one is. This was a major event in Chicago that has been the subject of at least one entire book: Tuttle, William M. (1997). Race Riot: Chicago in the Red Summer of 1919. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0252065867.. So there are certainly reliable sources on which an article could be based. If the article is riddled with subtly unreliable material, re-create it as a stub and start from scratch. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for starting this mess, but the thing to remember is that Nash is not only unreliable, he's litigious: he puts stuff in as copyright traps, and actually honest-to-god for real called the Foundation in Florida to talk about lawsuits. Anything that cited Nash as a source had to go: I've been working with user:MadMax to clean up a huge load of organized-crime-related articles that cited Nash as a source, and we found at least two that were (as best as we could tell) wholly fictitious. If you look at talk:Jay Robert Nash, there's this big mess about the scandal that erupted when we incorporated his "calumny of the burning priests" into 1755 Lisbon earthquake... and then it hit the media. I knew this would be a mess when I deleted the article, and I strongly endorse its re-creation, but any and all Nash-based material must be expunged. I'd be participating in this more actively, but my WP access is limited over the holidays. Okay? DS 02:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, that explains it. And no apologies necessary as it's always nice not to get sued! I'd be happy to wade in and slash anything Nashian but as there are no actual citations on what is from Nash (right?) and I have no prior knowldge of the subject matter, I'm not sure I'd be much help. Is there anyone in a better position? Shawn in Montreal 04:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and cleanup sources. This article is a lot better written than numerous ones on Wikipedia. It records a significant historical event that is mentioned in standard history textbooks re the black migration to the North. The "Red Summer" of 1919 of which the Chicago Race Riot is a part is a well known item in black history.See for example Nicholas Lehman's "The Promised Land." A quick Google search on this topic brngs up almost 100 links. http://www.google.com/search?q=chicago+race+riot+1919
Related articles like Mass racial violence in the United States provide a references to the event as well. And there is an entire book on it, aforementioned,--> Race Riot: CHICAGO IN THE RED SUMMER OF 1919 by William M. Tuttle.
Recommendation: 1) Undelete, 2) remove controversial "Nash" reference. 3) Insert other references like Tuttle, and (4) place the cleanup-references tag so future editors do a better documentation job.Odinista 03:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. The speedy deletion button should not be used in lieu of cleanup, making this a technically invalid speedy. If you don't like it, go propose an addition to the criteria at the appropriate venue. Silensor 00:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete anything before Nash was introduced. Ral315 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In my defense, I had used Nash as a source as a reference to support claims made in a related talk page involving criminal involvement during the riots, specifically the claim that members of the Ragen's Colts may have instigated the drowing incident which had caused the riot as well as a possible explanation as to why police declined to arrest them when arriving at the scene. This information also appears in Carl Sifakis's The Mafia Encyclopedia and, I believe, Herbert Asbury's The Gangs of Chicago among others. I would suggest resoring the article prior to my addittions as only one specific paragraph was based on Nash's Encyclopedia of World Crime. MadMax 03:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Sourcing problems do not justify article deletion. If poor sources were used for an article, that's grounds for thoroughly checking everything in it. In extreme cases one could even argue for stubbing the article and rebuilding from that stub. Not deletion. As for Nash's litigousness, avoid lawsuit paranoia; there is, IMO, no valid lawsuit there. Nash presents what he writes as historical fact; he cannot then sue if someone believes him and repeats his lies. Only the text is copyright protected, not the ideas presented. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete per several above, most recently Morven; delete problematic material and place a note on the article talkpage warning that Nash must not be used as a source. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Definitely seems like enough reason exists that it at least deserves a full AfD debate rather than a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Overturn) I wanted to link to this for the Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood) article which was part of Washington Park, Chicago, which was last week's WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the Week. This is an important event in need of an article. TonyTheTiger 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Emcee T – Deletion endorsed – 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Emcee T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

HIP-HOP ARTIST featured in NATIONWIDE MAGAZINES & NEWSPAPERS Emceetstaff 22:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Band is notable - has numerous singles, projects and a music video available at nationwide record stores. Worked with artists who have gone multi-platinum (Rappin' 4-Tay & Ray Luv). Featured in SF Weekly Newspaper - has toured on East & West Coast. All images are owned by me, that is copyright and taken by me. Please advise.

Naturally, as soon as I delete something, it winds up here.  :) Definite self-promotion; on my way to spread a bit of salt, especially given the original poster's username. - Lucky 6.9 08:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gay potatoes – History restored behind redirect – 11:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gay potatoes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Deleted because band was deemed "not notable" after proposal for deletion. This band is notable, passing the following criteria from WP:MUSIC: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. (These bands are most notably Fountains_of_Wayne, Lloyd_Cole, and Mark_Mulcahy). Additionally, one of their songs is(or possibly has been) considered for use in a Broadway musical. [2] pmppk 22:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Premature ejaculation – Speedily closed; premature request, article still exists – 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Premature ejaculation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I'd like to have an external link on this page back again because I don't know about spamming policy. I just saw the other relate article and need to add my site as external link also because I'm belive that my web site has a useful and benefit content for the person who looking for it. I did't mean to make a spamming to wikipedia. If possible, please add my link back to this article again. I'm so sorry for my mistake and in the future it will not happen again. Thank you for your help. Ebiz4life 19:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bryan Reynolds – Deletion endorsed without prejudice – 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bryan Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I'd like to contest this deletion because a) I believe editors at least made a case for no consensus, based on a majority of Keep votes and arguments made b) the administrator User:RoySmith who decided to delete is a member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians and seems to me to have a bias towards deletion even in light of majority Keep votes c) lit. theory types and practicianers of "poetics" (god, there's a word which deserves an apology) are rarely able or interested in applying their work to actual living theatre, the fact that he has done so also sets him apart from many non-notable scholars. Thanks Shawn in Montreal 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a point of reference, his seminal work in Theatre Journal 1997 got six cites. In any case, edit history is restored if someone wants to check the quality of the provided sources. ~ trialsanderrors 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, although I reject the nominator's reasoning. Being a member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians (or the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians for that matter), while not something I agree with, doesn't invalidate one's WP activities or call one's motives into question. That said, I think there's enough notability that it's worth undeleting or at least re-running the deletion debate, as a lot of the best points were brought up after the majority of deletion votes were already in. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would similarly like to contest this deletion. According to the Afd discussion here, there are, I believe, two different consensuses reached, an earlier and later one.
1) With the exception of one Delete vote, the Delete votes were cast in a 10 hour period, from 20:13, 23 December 2006 to 05:49, 24 December 2006.
2) The Keep votes, in contrast, were cast between Dec. 24th and Dec. 29th, a 5 day period.
This disparity between the Delete and Keep votes is explained by the changes made to the entry on Dec. 24th and Dec. 26th. These two sets of changes addressed the issues of WP:NPOV, WP:PROF, and sources, the criteria by which the article was initially marked for deletion by AndyJones. I would like to submit that following theses changes, no further challenges were made to the entry on the above mentioned issues. In fact, as the Afd discussion shows, the main issues were those of hagiography, editting and clean up, not deletion.
I would, thus, like to point out, similarly to Shawn in Montreal, that the administrator User:RoySmith did not take into account the consensus of the community when deleting the entry, whether based on a strict tally of votes, or based on the discussion that reflects "a sense of community." And, certainly, User:RoySmith did not consider the changes that were made on Dec. 24th and Dec. 26th, that improved the article as is evidenced by the Afd discussion.
There is no doubt in my mind that the entry still needs improvement. Yet, as the entry's history hopefully shows, the entry was continually be changed in the spirit of making it a valuable entry for the wiki community. Sincerely, Gregorthebug 20:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse deletion. I'm not convinced that it was a substantial enough change. -Amarkov blahedits 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from the closing admin (me). First and foremost, there were NO votes to keep. There were similarly NO votes to delete. AfD is not a vote. It is a discussion leading to a consensus. Next, the comment about my membership in ADW is just plain silly. It's a joke, man. Get a life. Finally, I didn't look at the raw numbers (see my first point) so much as read the arguments and the article and come to a conclusion. I discounted some of the Keep sentiments; one was a single-use account (i.e. sockpuppet), and another was a first-person-plural essay. Who's we? Was the editor representing the interests of some group? Very strange. After all that, and my own reading of the article, I came to the conclusion that a consensus had been reached (and which I agreed with) that the article didn't meet the notability guidelines. Anyway, just an explanation of where I was coming from. Do whatever you want. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I was just coming to DRV to list this myself. There was absolutely no consensus to delete. It was the opinion of most editors that it STAY. I wouldn't say there was a consensus to keep the article, but it's ludicrous to suggest there was a consensus to delete. I wasn't especially shocked when I saw that the closing admin is a member of Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. Honestly, I don't think administrators who are strongly deletionist or inclusionist should be making controversial closures such as in this case. What the hell happened to policy? Lately AfD is just about administrators acting out their own biases in complete disregard to the will of the community. Owen 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion' and keep deleted. The changes made to the article during its AfD wouldn't affect my vote, at least, and apparent sockpuppetry, or at least votes from brand new accounts, accounted for some of the Keep votes. No real evidence was provided that Reynolds is more notable than many, many other professors. I don't think the closing was out of process. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I won't vote on this matter, since evidently my account is a single-use account, and seems to cloud the issues more than benefit them. In the hopes of clarification, I will say the following. The Bryan Reynolds entry was the first wiki project that I have worked on. I have done my best to cross-reference the entry with other valid entries. I have done my best to improve the entry according to any suggestions recieved. As of yet, I haven't had the opportunity to work on other entries, but I certainly had every intention to do so. And hopefully, the entry on Reynolds has shown that I am quite dedicated to trying to improve an entry to the best of my ability. I have used the plural pronoun at times, because, yes, with some friends I have collaborated on the entry. The list of references alone took us quite a long time to research and collect. In this respect, I don't see what is wrong with a group of friends working on a project together from a single account (If I am incorrect here, please advise).
It's not really apropos to this review, but as a meta-issue, sharing of accounts is contrary to official policy. I don't see anything wrong with several people of similar interest collaborating on a project (in fact, that's probably a good thing), as long as they don't actually share an account. Each person should log in and make edits under their own account name. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I've been the only person to ever log into my account. And actually I think it is perfectly apropos to this review - just look back at your comments. Your justification to delete the entry almost squarley rests on excluding the sentiments of some users. For clarification, please explain how the entry does not meet the notability criteria? Gregorthebug 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. You asked if there was anything wrong with a bunch of people working together from a single account. I answered your question. I'm not going to get dragged into a long drawn-out argument. i explained why I did what I did. If it's overturned in review, I'm OK with that. Really. I have no stake in this. The only reason I made my comments on the DR at all was because it seemed impolite to not explain my thought process, and then again later in direct response to your request for information about wikipedia policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting my intentions aside in this matter, I find it frustrating that the merits of an entry are evaluated according to its editor, and not the content of the entry itself. If you refer to the Afd discussion, I thought the notability of Reynolds was addressed, and the wiki notability criteria reached:

Further to WP:PROF, note that: 1) Reynolds is seen as an expert in his field, 2) by independent academics in the field; 3) his work is well-known; 4) his work is widely cited, 5) Reynolds has come up with a new concept -- a critical theory and methodology: “transversal poetics,” and 6) has received two notable awards/honours for his work. From this it is clear that Reynolds passes every category of the WP:PROF and not just one as required: “If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable.”

In terms of what Rbellin has said: "No real evidence was provided that Reynolds is more notable than many, many other professors". The contention has never been that Reynolds is more notable than "many, many other professors". At the same time, it is clear that Reynolds is a specialist within early modern English studies, at the very least, if not contributing to theatre and critical theory studies, as well.

He was awarded Chancellor's Fellow in 2005 by the University of California: "Chancellor's Fellows are faculty with tenure whose recent achievements in scholarship evidence extraordinary promise for world-class contributions to knowledge, and whose pattern of contributions evidences strong trajectory to distinction." http://www.ap.uci.edu/distinctions/chancfellow.html

In 2004, he was named by the University of Alabama’s Hudson Strode Program in Renaissance Studies, directed by Gary Taylor, as "one the six most brilliant Renaissance scholars in the world under 40," "for work on ‘transversal poetics.’" http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2004/1926.html

Now I could understand an argument claiming that it is not sufficient to be notable in early modern English studies/Renaissance studies to warrant a wikipedia entry. I do not think a claim can be made that Reynolds is not, as a professor, notable within his field. Gregorthebug 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow relisting after rewrite in user space Afd is not a vote and there's nothing scandalous about calling oneself a deletionist which is a pretty reasonable thing IMHO. I believe that the closing admin's decision was fair enough. I am concerned that the current version of the article is wading deep into resume territory (the page number by page number mentions/references section is a little silly for an academic who is supposed to be world-class). It is not clear to me at all that his work has been "widely cited". I think though there has been sufficient changes in the article to warrant a relisting given the time disparity between delete and keep votes (this is a subtle detail, I think, and perhaps something a closing admin is not necessarily expected to take note of?). On the other hand, the article needs a good cleanup and pruning to avoid the resume/faculty bio/book author page feel it currently has, as well as the jargonese. Recommend rewrite in userspace before a relisting Bwithh 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion CV bloating trying to do an end run around WP:PROF. But the closing admin was quite right. Eusebeus 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see a consensus supporting the original deletion. I am neutral (weak, weak keep), but beleive the article should never have been deleted. TonyTheTiger 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MacNab Street Presbyterian Church (Hamilton) – Deletion endorsed, article userfied – 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MacNab Street Presbyterian Church (Hamilton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

What is the big idea??? Bacl-presby 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. The "big idea" is that, after seven days of discussion, there was nothing added to the article which explained how the church is anything more than your run-of-the-mill church. And please see the top of this page, which explains what WP:DRV is. It is not "try to get something undeleted without presenting any arguments as to why it should be undeleted". User:Zoe|(talk) 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment....sorry, I don't know how this is run; obviously in the last five minutes, I'm told that this is "your-run-of-the-mill church"....I'm appealing this hastily swung decision, by folks far from the place, as this is one of the beefs I'm having with wiki; when I find Mercedes McNab getting more space here than a historic church, an integral part of Doors Open Hamilton, and in the overall history of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, it amazes me that one person's tirade against a bunch of Church Stubs, leads to the dismembering of a number of posts....
    Hopefully, the input already recorded, (and remember, the stub was there as more input was going to be added....) and what was added within the recent debate is one reason to keep this intact for now...however, I could be wrong....
    BTW, Does including this into a {{Wikiproject}} keep its life as well??
    Bacl-presby 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Wikiprojects don't trump site-wide policy. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I posted on my talk page, I'd be happy to userfy if someone wants to expand this. There were a few potential sources mentioned in the discussion, but their actual connection to the church were unexplained so they couldn't get due scrutiny and I couldn't just add them to the article retoractively. The article itself didn't assert any notability whatsoever (other than possibly an implied claim due to its age, but that alone isn't enough to meet WP:SCHOOL), so there was no way for me to leave the article in article space. If someone wants to expand this and add a (sourced) claim to notability I have no problems changing the closure to no consensus so it doesn't get G4-ed. On the idea that a local admin should close those discussions, that's a bit, uh, impractical, no? Also, Wikipedia is global in scope so if someone writes an article on a local topic someone with no connection to the place should feel informed after reading the article. And a list of priests without context doesn't really do that. ~ trialsanderrors 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sure, wiki is a global thing, but there are a signifigant number of users and editors in the Hamilton-Southern Ontario (close proximity to Toronto area, (but DO NOT say that Hamilton is Toronto, or visa versa)....I just find this exercise is a farce.... Bacl-presby 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC) PS--what happens if I just start the article all over again??[reply]
      • If it's the same article it will get redeleted. if it's a different article it might stand or be renominated for deletion depending on content. As for your hope that local admins should close those discussions, it pretty much flies in the face of the idea that closing admins should be neutral and decide based on the merits of the arguments brought up in the discussio rather than on personal knowledge. If they have personal knowledge they should weigh in as editors. In any case, the article is now userfied at User:Bacl-presby/MacNab Street Presbyterian Church (Hamilton). ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure despite my contrary opinion in the AFD. I tried to add a claim to notability to the article, but apparently it wasn't recognized as such, and it certainly wasn't a great one. I do believe that the article needs almost a complete rewrite, and from my memory any version that had multi-sentence prose paragraphs or used sources would be substantially different, so I didn't object to the close. Since the page is not salted, there is no reason not to just write an article on the subject from the offline sources. Remember that there is no deadline. GRBerry 19:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Thank you; that's what I'd like to hear (t.i.n.d.); so perhaps a new article on MSPC in 2007, along with other details. Bacl-presby 19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean, the original deleted article? Paying attention to what...I usually don't spend my time looking at this page, hence I don't know what to do when an article gets deleted!! Bacl-presby 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Nothing here but a list of ministers, none of whom seem to be notable, and none of which is sourced except for the last one. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Sorry, I'm often inclusionist but in this case the WP policy against serving as a directory of things seems to apply. As a Montrealer, I live in a city where, as Mark Twain once famously remarked, you can't fling a brick without breaking a church window. Canada has scores of churches with their own history, with artifacts aplenty, etc. But that doesn't mean WP should be turned into a church directory. Sorry. That's my opinion after reviewing the article in question.Shawn in Montreal 04:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete In terms of process 1) I see no consensus on this afd 2) the nomination cited 'unverifiability', but that objection was overcome in the debate. In terms of substance, sure the article is bad - but that's a reason for cleanup not deletion. If no good article could be written here, then a merge would have been more appropriate. Notability? See WP:Pokemon--Docg 13:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TrekBBS – No consensus decision overturned, article deleted – 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TrekBBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AfD2)
  • Overturn and Delete I wanted to start off with saying this review is not that I disagree with the outcome of the AfD, but because I believe the closing admin did not follow Deletion Guidelines for administrators which quite clearly states:
Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.
WP:V is not negotiable. The article contains no reliable sources, and is thus unverifiable, then closing a debate based on consensus is not a valid action to take; the article must be deleted unless reliable sources can be found. It makes claims that can not be validated. The problem is that there are no reliable sources at all, for anything in the article. No sources means no verifiability. No verifiability means no article. It was said that the article could be made verifiable, but there are no sources cited nor found. We can't keep everything on the grounds that there might be sources. I have reviewed the AFD and found the keep votes were not based on policy and provided no refuting evidence against the policies that were listed. For an uncited article to be able to survive on the principle that it is verifiable, just not verified requires some showing that sources are reasonably likely to exist. The keep opinions were based on "It's notable" but could not prove it was with any sources. They also ignored the issue of verifiablility, which was the main concern. (This is the AFD in question) --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 17:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - I agree that the retaining admin. did not pay heed to (unresolved & unresponded-to) issues of verifiability and notability. --EEMeltonIV 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Tough call, actually, but my personal view is that the passing mentions in newspaper articles are indeed trivial, and therefore fail the test. Legitimate difference of opinion, but if we want to improve the quality of the project then we need to be serious about sourcing - without any reliable secondary sources which discuss the subject in detail, we can't verify that the article is neutral. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and delete per policy, as another example of the failures of our sourcing policies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete the article fails WP:V WP:RS and WP:WEB, editors arguing keep did not prove that this article met any of those criteria, one even arguing that the article should be kept despite failing WP:WEB.--RWR8189 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. What is it with all the "I can just completely ignore guidelines if I feel like it" keeps that I've seen lately? -Amarkov blahedits 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think I was quite clear with what I meant. I don't mean that guidelines should be followed to the extent that policies are, but you also can't reject what they say like you can with an essay. -Amarkov blahedits 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. As one of the original 'Keep' voters, I felt that, while the article did indeed fail the various WP guidelines, such guidelines are not intended to be binding in all situations, if the website was notable to the general user. However, upon reading the article again, it doesn't seem to contain any useful information, and is actually a collection of external links, although perhaps a little of it should be merged into the article as suggested by the closing admin. Thedreamdied 21:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, has there been a culture shift at AFD and DRV towards RS! (Even Badlydrawnjeff is on the deletion side?!) It's a good shift; I like it. Anyway, it's a borderline case; the information merits inclusion, just not its own article. The article was already merged to Trekdom#TrekBBS, so I recommend re-redirection after or in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 23:03Z
  • Comment - Including it in another article doesn't alleviate issues of un-verifiability; if the vote decision is to delete TrekBBS, most of the stuff copy-and-pasted to the Trekdom article (which in and of itself is riddled with OR and verifiability issues) should likewise be axed. --EEMeltonIV 00:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, but that can be dealt with on that article (it already had a paragraph on TrekBBS); I still think a redirect is a good idea. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 04:18Z
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jewdar – No consensus decision overturned, relisted at AfD – 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jewdar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|AfD)

Despite a clear consensus to delete in the AfD, this article was kept as 'no consensus', with the rationale being that several sources had been added, thus invalidating earlier 'delete' comments. However, plenty of comments noted problems with this article in addition the lack of sources, and in my opinion the decision not to delete was the wrong one. Nydas(Talk) 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure The "Delete" arguments were weak at best; I count three "per nom/above" votes, or they quote guidelines, not policy. I see citations in the article from the Washington Post, Salon, and the American Dialect Society, which satisfies WP:V in triplicate.-- weirdoactor t|c 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete The only keep opinion after the article expansion was by the expander - and he offered that opinion two times, so one of them clearly needs to be treated as only a comment. The final opinion refers to the most specific relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, which says that "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." That final opinion was that the article should be deleted for failing that guideline. The Salon thing is clearly and obviously a passing mention, not about the term. Ditto the Washington Post article. The American Dialect Society sources are listserv email records, clearly not a reliable source. The very first opinion offered after the one by the article expander was explicit that the article was not yet sourced enough for Wiktionary. The remainder of the discussion was a delete to a no-consensus. Consensus after expansion is clear for deletion. Consensus prior to expansion is similarly clear. GRBerry 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, which is to say, endorse the close. I can see why Brenneman closed as he did, the debate was on the old article. The new one almost certainly fails the same tests ("Jewdar, a recently-coined jocular slang word", um, right) but the close was correct, it should be AfDed in its current form. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. That was most definitely a substantial change, so you can't just assume people have the same opinion. -Amarkov blahedits 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The timestamps of all but one of the delete recomendations were prior to the re-write. None of them had returned to say "yeah, still delete" or anything similar. I'm fairly certain that a new AfD will reach the same conclusion, but since sources had been added the proper place to debate them was in a new afd. I'm hardly in love with this article, and I know whet I'd like done with it, but this venue is not afd, and I stand by the close. - brenneman 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discussion of the original 2 or 3 sentence version of the article wasn't relevant to the present article and shouldn't still be considered. I think the term "jewdar" is neither clever nor funny, and it invokes unpleasant stereotypes, but is Wik-worthy. I left a longer discussion at Talk:Jewdar. -- House of Scandal 08:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (endorse) per closing admin (first choice) or Overturn and delete (second choice) - closing as no consensus was reasonable given that the article was completely rewritten after most of the !votes. Personally, I don't think we need an article on every word or phrase that some famous person has invented, but that's a question for AFD, not DRV. --BigDT 04:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist the substantial changes and new sources make it seem like it is no longer a neologism. I could be wrong, but enough has changed that many minds may have changed too. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete or relist at worst - irrespective of the additions, the article is clearly not suitable for Wikipedia - as the additions were effectively worthless, the closing admin should have closed as a delete. Proto::► 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "the article is clearly not suitable for Wikipedia" - Interesting. "CLEARLY". "NOT SUITABLE". Huh. Do you speak for the whole of Wikipedia, or just yourself? Are there any other articles you'd like to tell us about that are "clearly not suitable for Wikipedia"? I wait with bated breath. -- weirdoactor t|c 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Thompson (researcher) – Merge and redirect decision endorsed and implemented – 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Thompson (researcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Article vastly expanded see [3] compared to old version [4] Article has been fully sourced with WP:RS sources.

I have recreated the article after examining the previous AfD, and my own vote in that AfD. The general belief was Paul Thompson was not notable on his own. The previous article failed to mention some important facts:

  1. A movie titled "9/11 Press For Truth" was based on Thompsons research.
  2. Thompson has given over 100 interviews including on Fox News and Air America.
  3. Thompson was featured in Esquire magazine in the "Genius Issue" where he was noted as a "terrorism expert"
  4. He has testified to a Congressional Panel regarding the 9/11 commissions final report.

These are issues in which his research in general, not his just his book have come into play. It should also be noted the original reason for the AfD was that he was the author of a book that was going to fail its own AfD, however the book did not.

I would also like to note I originally voted to delete, however much more information has come to light as listed above.

NuclearZer0 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was informed after starting the DRV that "merge and redirects" do not require DRV's [5] Sorry for the trouble, it seems this DRV is out of proccess. --NuclearZer0 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as redirect though I see no reliable source for the 100 interviews, and that was not a "Congressional Panel," it was an informal briefing for Cynthia McKinney and Rep. Raúl Grijalva. The article is better as a redirect to his notable timeline. His person can be discussed in said article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both issues adressed in article already. citation for Congressional Briefing ^ July 22nd Congressional Briefing: The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens' Response - Did They Get It Right?. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (July 22, 2005). and citation for 100 interviews ^ Kristen Matthews. "Tracking The Terror", The Sunday Star Times (republished), March 13, 2005. Quote from last source is "He has done more than 100 radio interviews in the US and was profiled in Esquire magazine's “Genius” issue last December." So I think that covers the issues presented by this user. --NuclearZer0 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/allow recreation. Essentially the status quo. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as redirect or mergeI have never endorsed deletion when political view is involved, but I endorse deletion here because there is not substantial material in the bio article not in the book article, and the two should be merged. The additional sources mentioned are all related to the book. If he write another notable book, then it would be another matter. As is, I think it would be better to move the material to the person, and have the book a redirect, butit doesn't matter much.129.25.135.110 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous comment added without signing in, but by DGG 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Jeff, we only have one subject here. I don't care whether it's at the book or the author, it's only one subject. And a pretty dismal one at that - the guy very clearly has no qualifications whatsoever in the field, and it's just another example of the "truthers" working backwards from the conclusion. We have altogether too much of this shit. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd Esquire says he is a authority on terrorism, Richard Clarke the former counter-terrorism czar of the US government uses his book to teach courses, HE was invited to a congressional briefing to speak on the topic of terrorism and the final 9/11 commision report. This is all sourced in the article, so it seems your personal opinion on what he knows is outweighed by the resliable sources presented. And he has a book published by Harper Collins, so apparently they think he knows a thing or two as well. --NuclearZer0 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the future please try not to classify people, divisive labels like "truthers" is quite against the idea of cooperation on Wikipedia, and while we are nto censored, please try to tone down the language, if you are stressed out you can always take a wiki break. --NuclearZer0 05:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn AfD as merge and redirects do not require DRV's anyway. I was informed this after I started the DRV, and the admin explained that the person re-creating the article need to do a good job. I examined the votes of the previous AfD and the items listed above address those points. I went on to add 10 WP:RS sources as opposed to 2 from the older version. The older version only had 2 sources and one was first hand, which now there are no first hand sources, and the sources present include newspapers and magazines such as Esquire, The Village Voice etc. --NuclearZer0 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect --Tbeatty 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This isnt a vote, it doesn't go by numbers, if you have some points to make you should state what they are so the closing admin can review them. --NuclearZer0 13:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect. To the extent this bloke has any notability under this name, it's because of the book The Terror Timeline, as Paul Thompson is a pseudonym crafted for attaching to The Terror Timeline and associated work. Morton devonshire 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has already been covered, have you read the Esquire article? the whole aryticle is about his research and how it spans before the book, spawning the website, and after the book leading to Harper Collins asking for a second book, and how the 9/11 Press for Truth source specifically states his research inspired the movie, not the book. Then we have the Village Voice article which highlites him not the book, have you read the article? He was asked to testify before congress based on what he knew and has researched, not what was in the book. Then there is the SD BEAT article which talks about him and his past and how he go tinto researching etc. Seems most of the sources in the article are about the person, not the book. --NuclearZer0 11:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Following votes attributed after Morton pasted this DRV on the controversial noticeboard: [7] Which it should be noted, users coming from that noticeboard were suppose to state they were per the last AfD User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Note they are all regulars, probably explains the lack of explanation and just the vote. --NuclearZer0 11:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect per above. Eusebeus 01:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect per Guy, Morton above. Tom Harrison Talk 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect his notability is limited to the one book which is already covered --rogerd 01:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As separate article per nom. Notability well established beyond book. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • return to Redirect per Guy, Morton. --Mmx1 02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • return to Redirect; although DrV might not be the proper venue, I proposed merging it back again. As "he's" still a pseudonym, his notability dervives from his work. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been covered, we allow pseudonyms, do you have a guideline or policy that says otherwise? Have you actually read the article yet? We had a nice discussion on the talk page where you seem to have not read a single source, hope you had the chance to go over them before voting. Happy New Year. --NuclearZer0 11:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect.--MONGO 19:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please present an arguement, DRV is not a vote. --NuclearZer0 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I reread the current version and the version redirected. Plenty of sources in the new version, but no additional assertions of notability. Still agree with redirect; if necessary, delete, redirect, and protect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been addressed in the article and above. Nice to see instead of claiming New York Times, Esquire and House.Gov arent WP:RS, that you moved onto a new arguement. However having a book published, being asked to testify at a congressional hearing, being featured in Esquire in their "Genius Issue", having your research (not book as noted by source) spawn a movie, being featured in The Village Voice and giving interviews on Fox and Air America on your research all seem to say otherwise. Please note Arthur Rubin also is from the same noticeboard as highlited above. --NuclearZer0 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. It still wasn't a "congressional hearing", it was a hearing held by a member of Congress. Not really the same thing, now, is it? His notability is still pretty much derived from the book; if there hadn't been a book, there wouldn't have been any notability. Why not merge it back into the book, anyway? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Congressional Panel, per the source. I think we are gonig to forever not see eye to eye, I have given you sources saying his research is notable and the article sources saying the book came from his research which continues on, not sure why you keep insisting his notability is from the book when the sources seem to disagree. Then again this is kinda like you arguing The New York Times is not WP:RS I guess. --NuclearZer0 21:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Leykis 101 – Deletion endorsed – 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Leykis 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Article Speedily Deleted only becuase it contained previously delted material Greataff 08:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and Keep Article has eveolved from a pedestrian POV article that was poorly written to lesser and lesser by the day article, each day this article was becoming encylopedic. Either this page should be undeleted or User:Pilotguy and other dissenters should give a real reason and take this through a dispute process rather than remove the article on site. Greataff 08:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion article at time of deletion was some kind of how-to dating guide and would never pass AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks weird. The deletion reason amounts to a G4, although not worded as such. The log is also clean of prior activity, so it wasn't at this title. Using a search, I find a 2005 VFD resulting in delete at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/"Leykis 101". I also notice a merge tag for merging with this article at Tom Leykis. GRBerry 14:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It was a how-to. A one-para mention in the Tom Leykis article and a redirect might be appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-Up Article was about 1/5 of the programming material of Tom Leykis, a show what has millions of U.S. veiwers. This isn't an atricle about a two-bit radio station content, this is an article about a major topic on a radio program that causes a lot of contoversy. If you look on that vote for deltetion page, you'll notice all of them are from 2005, that vote was taken a whie ago and was not present on this page. None of the merits of the page were imprortant as... "Why was this page delted before a recent vote and proposal for deletion could be made?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greataff (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC).--Greataff 15:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was previously Leykis 101 (without the quotes). An AFD previously deleted the article, which is a perfectly good reason for a speedy delete. Ckessler 00:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been recreated again. Still has no sources. GRBerry 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And deleted again. Oh what fun. This version had sources, but nothing I'd take as either reliable or independent. What a mess. I keep waffling on the fence about endorsing the deletion as a G4 or sending it to AFD again with the sources. If it stays deleted, salt is called for. If it goes to AFD and then gets deleted, salt will be called for at that time. GRBerry 19:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this should be a clear and obvious redirect to Tom Leykis. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Many say that there is deleted content where? Oh, well becuase it was speedily deleted many who had this on their watch list haven't had a change to comment becuase now it no longer appears. I guess there is no hope for this article in wikipeida. Many however, say that this is a how-to, this article does have merit existing in wikipedia's suster project for how-to's. --Greataff 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki As per my vote on the article's discussion page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Project 490 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • I don't know to what degree a dating technique can be copyrighted, if indeed it can at all, but the article as written uses some very specific terminology and such that might be considered Leykis' intellectual property. Transwiki should only be done if we are absolutely certain that it's safe to do so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
7chan – Deletion endorsed – 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
7chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

has become newsworthy and "reasonably notorious". 72.70.19.171 04:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the article so I cannot comment if it should be recrated or not but can you provide sources to demostrate its newsworthyness. Being able to provide relaible sources of this will help is substantiang your claims and would make an argument to undelete stronger. Without sources it will only be your word and that will not be enough. --70.48.109.189 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759563/posts and, on his own site, http://www.halturnershow.com/HalTurnerRetaliatesForAttackOnRadioShow.html Hal Turner is forcing 7chan into the news because of supposed "attacks" on his site and show. As i understand it, the previous artical on 7chan was only deleted because of a lack of news. I'm unsure if his personal site counts as a news source, but i believe Free Republic does. 72.70.19.171 04:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, under the stipulation that a third creditable source be provided. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Keep, Alexa Traffic rankings - !Malomeat 11:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stipulation not met, try again. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion and keep: Causing major websites to be thrown offline sounds pretty notable to me. All the page needs is some good writers to keep it purely factual. Furthermore, 7chan has been sourced on various sites for the attacks. They are even linked to from the Hal Turner wiki page, and being the source of attacks it is only fitting they have their own page.

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking

And,

Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

I think that puts the 'sources' arguement to rest. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 18:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Velfarre – Edit history restored and sent to AfD – 07:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Velfarre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

incoming links suggest an article is needed about this closing nightclub and deleted version was better than current version --Henrygb 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gangsterz2 – Deletion endorsed – 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gangsterz2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Gangsterz 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article should not have been deleted as it did not meet the criteria for deletion. The page had just started and the guidelines clearly state that a new page should not be deleted. We at Gangsterz2 would have edited and expanded the page to make it have alot more information. This article had usful information anyway and it could be of some use to some people. If you would please reinstate this page so we can add more things on. There was no discussion at all and it was deleted without debate even though i put a hangon on the page and posted in the discussion page. Thanks, G2Pie G2Pie 01:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rafed.net – No consensus closure overturned, relisted at AfD – 01:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rafed.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Pretty much we have an AfD here where people voted to ignore WP:WEB for whatever reason. AfD is not a vote, yadda yadda yadda, no reliable sources with non-trivial information about this site were presented, just some weblink directories and Alexa results. Clearly precluded by WP:WEB. W.marsh 00:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informing you? Is there any particular reason why you should have been informed? -Amarkov blahedits 07:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here, i found some Arabic references from Sistani: [9] Search for this string "مركز إحياء التراث الإسلامي", it can be also found here: [10]. The book "Oil in the Gulf: Obstacles to Democracy and Development" By Daniel Heradstveit on page 140 gives Rafed.net as one of the sites that spread sistanis scholarship. --Striver - talk 15:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just got confimation that most of [11] is a coverage of the site. Again, notice that the site making the endorsing coverage is seestani.com , the site of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest Shi'a marja and a major political factor in Irak. --Striver - talk 19:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The policy behind the WP:WEB guideline for notability is WP:RS, and seestani.com does not satisfy that, nor do any of the non-English language references that you have just cited. --72.75.72.174 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's WP:N, and I think the problem is that it can't be made to fulfil WP:NPOV with these sources. I don't know how someone could expect the site of a Grand Ayatollah to give neutral coverage on anything. -Amarkov blahedits 07:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! ... forgot to wikilink "notability" ... Good Trump with the NPOV call! --72.75.72.174 08:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant that it confirms that sitani has a site there... anyhow, ill let him answer that. But how about the book reference i provided, why is that not enough? And in fact, it does not even mater if http://www.sistani.org/ is sistanis page, WP:WEB does not require that, it only requires that multiple third party sources make non-trivial coverage, and i have provided three examples of this. I see many references to WP:N and WP:V here, but i do not see that reflected in WP:WEB. This is totally unjust to demand coverage that is not demanded by WP:WEB, why this double standard?! --Striver - talk 01:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (web): The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
Note that it does NOT demand that the sources are Notable or Neutral, only that the coverage is non-trivial and that the source is independent of the site itself.And this is all done by the book references i gave, a university scholar referencing an author! --Striver - talk 01:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, the sources do not have to be Notable, but they must be Neutral and Verifiable, which are policies that trump any guidelines like WP:N, WP:WEB, or even WP:RS ... sources related to the subject cannot be used because of WP:NPOV, the policy that is the foundation of the WP:RS and WP:INDY guidelines ... simply saying that "somebody important said something about the subject" does not satisfy WP:V, the policy that is the foundation of the WP:N, WP:WEB, WP:BIO, and WP:BK guidelines ... the issue goes beyond the minutia of WP:WEB (which you have previously distained because "it is still in a guidline phase and has not been accepted as a policy") and rests squarely on the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V ... please see the essay Why do articles get deleted? for a clearer explaination. --Dennette 15:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i am not satisfied with WP:WEB, but i have to base my arguments on it for the time being. The source needs to be neutral? Were in Gods name did you get that from? Most cerntanly not from WP:NPOV, plase provide a quote. WP:V? Verifiability is about being able to verify a claim. Are you claiming that the book i refered to does not exist? If not, exactly how is WP:V related to this issue? Please go into details. WP:RS is not related to this issue either, otherwise a site like Faithfreedom.org would never have survived its two afds, boasting zero (0) reliable sources. You have just given a host of arguments that are totally irrelevant to determining notability of a site, what you have shown are policies related to writing an article, not to determining notability! --Striver - talk 15:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to Talk:Faith Freedom International ...

This article was nominated for deletion on July 9, 2005. The result of the discussion was delete.

How it came back to survive two more AfDs is not explained on the Talk page or edit history, but

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 Dec 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

And even now, the debate for deletion of that article continues (see edit history) ... but that is all off-topic anyway, since Faith Freedom International is judged on WP:ORG, not WP:WEB.
OK, now I understand Striver's confusion ... Faithfreedom.org is a redirect to the parent organization for the website because the website was judged by consensus at AfD to be not notable enough for its own article, just as Ali Sina (judged by WP:BIO) is redirected there as a result of an AfD (redirect and merge instead of delete), but all of that history has been lost in the many redirects ... exactly which survived multiple AfDs is still irrelavent to this discussion. --Dennette 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My misstake, i sought that it failed the latest and was overturned in drw, while in fact, it failed the earlier one but was recreated and became no-conensus in the later, still having 0 (zero) RS or Notable sources. The article is about the site, obvious if you read it, it even as a "Traffic rankings" section. --Striver - talk 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the source of a great deal of frustration from me, i feel that people just throw out random policy reference and think that should somehow be enough to support a delete argument, while at the same time ignoring what i present or take into account what WP:WEB accutaly says, going so far as dismissing a source for not being NPOV, a horribly ridiculous statment!--Striver - talk 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_29&oldid=1138428639"