Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 1-15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 16-31 2007 Deletion review archives April 16-30 2007 >

15 April 2007

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

Talk page of Category:Economy of mainland China. Michael G. Davis 22:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Economy of mainland China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|DRV|CFD)

Survived DRV and CFD last month. Michael G. Davis 21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of songs containing covert references to real musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

I object strongly to the recent deletion of List of songs containing covert references to real musicians. It would appear that in the process of discussing it, no effort was made to contact those of us who objected in the previous debate, nor were the many arguments attached to the "strong keeps" there addressed.

Thus, if nothing else, I think this should probably be reversed on a process basis: at least two of us consider ourselves to have been blindsided.[1] [2] and at least one other has expressed surprise at not being notified.

Krimpet apparently feels the deletion was correct, so I am bringing the matter here.

(One more process matter: I would like an undeletion rather than merely permission to start from zero, so that the article history is restored, but would expect that most of the content would be deleted immediately after a restoration.)

But, aside from process questions:

  • One of the votes for deletion asks, "How can anyone qualify that a particular reference in a song is a covert reference to a real musician?" Answer: the same wasy as one can say this about pretty much anything else in literature. Citation. Ideally from the person themself, or acknowledged by that person after someone else has raised the point, though recognized authorities (e.g. in this realm, Rolling Stone) should also be perfectly good sources.
  • Another says "Vague, potentially endless, unreferenced". I don't see what's vague, except for the almost inevitably vagueness in all lists. The fact that a list is potentially long has not traditionally been an argument against including it. As for "unreferenced", it probably had more citations than the average Wikipedia article, even if there was also problematic material.
  • Another post suggested that this material would be better distributed to articles on individual songs. I disagree. Most individual songs don't deserve an article. Nor does this lend itself to a category, for similar reasons and also because each of these requires an explanation and a citation.
  • The other objection seems to be that it is an "indiscriminate collection of information". Unless I am mistaken, "indiscriminate" here is roughly the same as "vague": a lack of a means to discriminate whether something does or does not meet the criteria. As long as people are adding only material that meets our usual standards for citation, I don't see how this should be an issue. If there is a further issue here, I think it should be explained.
  • On my talk page (Krimpet's remark linked above) he says that the article was potentially libelous. I would appreciate an example of what he thinks is a problem on that order.

As is common in these matters, there was material in that article that merited removal. I would not have objected to the removal of most uncited information from the list (although I give examples below of some things so obvious that a request for citation seems absurd), but deletion of the article is another matter. We do not normally delete an article because part of it is poorly cited. I believe that over the history of the article I have either cited or removed every time there has been a specific request for citation: this is pretty much the usual. If people are not requesting citations, they should not be deleting for lack of citations.

Here are some examples of material there that I would say was solid, well-cited, and (at least to me) interesting; this is a representative rather than an exhaustive list:

There are at least a dozen others comparably well-cited. There was also a lengthy and well-cited discussion of covert references in Don McLean's "American Pie", including citations to McLean's own web site that referred to the other citation used as "mainstream" analysis of his lyrics.

Other things are so obvious as to make a request for citation almost absurd.

  • "Everything Zen" by Bush references David Bowie
    • The song contains the line "Mickey Mouse has grown up a Cow" a quotation of a line from Bowie's "Life On Mars"; that's barely even covert, given what an "unlikely" sentence that is.
  • "Death Singing" by Patti Smith references Benjamin Smoke.

I can't quickly see how many of these there are (they are, of course, harder to spot than overt citations, and I'm not going to look at every entry) but there are clearly quite a few. If citation is really needed for these, I imagine it could usually be found, but this is like citing for "To be, or not to be" being a reference to Shakespeare.

There are, by the way, many other list articles that can be looked at for comparison. Allow me to point at some:

All of these are completely without citations and, except for the first, they raise comparable issues of matters not being self-evident (who decides the boundaries of doo-wop? Apparently, whoever last edits the page) and hence comparable need for citation.

Besides all that, though, I'm going to reiterate what I said about this article over a year ago. Although anyone who reviews my edits will easily see that I am not one to spend any large part of my working time on trivia, nonetheless I am firmly of the opinion that we need articles like this as well. They make Wikipedia fun. Certainly they are of more interest than our ponderously dull article on Charmander whose plodding tone is relieved only by the inclusion of fair use images. If we have so much of a stick up our collective arse that we would rather write leaden articles about matters even more trivial (I would hope that Patti Smith and David Bowie will still be fondly remembered when Pokémon is consigned to the dustbin of history), then that represents a serious enough problem to raise doubt about whether I belong as part of the project.

I have no illusion that I'm so important to Wikipedia that the article should be saved as sort of a referendum on my presence, but I do think it is sort of a referendum on whether Wikipedia is going to remain capable of any lightness at all. Which I think it should, and that spirit is/was a lot of why I got involved here in the first place.

Again: let's remove the uncited material. Fine. But why remove material that meets our standards for citation, in an article that several dozen people have worked on, and where clearly there are a lot of people who really like the article? - Jmabel | Talk 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The process issue you raise is to not notifying all participants in a previous debate as to the new debate. I'm not aware the deletion process mandates such a notification. (And "a lot of people who really like the article" is not amoungst the standards for inclusion) --pgk 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't; it's just a good faith move. At any rate, endorse my deletion per the second, unanimous AFD. --Coredesat 20:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Like the closing admin said, the arguments in the first AfD were really weak. If you think that there are some other articles that need to be deleted, too, you are perfectly free to nominate them, but the fact that they aren't deleted yet doesn't mean this shouldn't be. -Amarkov moo! 20:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse unanimous AfD. Lightness? We do it all the time. Hell, every Pokemon article has to be nailed down to sotp if floating away, they are so light on intellectual content. The problem here was cruft, not lightness. There is no encyclopaedic topic "song with covert reference to a real musician". There is not even an encyclopaedic topic "song with reference to a real musician". Listcruft, plain and simple. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn per User:Jmabel's argument. There is nothing inherently wrong with this list which violates any Wikipedia policy. Unicited material should be cited or removed. IPSOS (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per above. Rockstar (T/C) 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn From the Instructions part of this page:" 4. Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a {{subst:Delrev}} tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion." .It would seem a good idea to extend this to second AfDs as well.
As the first AfD ends as: "The result was Nomination withdrawn. People have provided convincing arguments to keep this article" (22:10 with 7 merges) , and a second AfD ends as a unanimous delete (8) it would appear that there is a real contradiction.
And, comparing the names, it appears to me that not a single one of the 39 people expressing opinions at the 1st AfD were among those expressing opinions at the 2nd--including the noms and the closers. Either serious injustice is being done, or we have such inconsistent opinions that the result of an AfD depends on chance.DGG 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nearly all of the "keep" and "strong keep" arguments from the first AfD were flimsy: "it's useful," "it's interesting," "lots of people put hard work into this," and Jmabel's threat to leave Wikipedia altogether if this article was deleted (not really an argument at all, though there were plenty of "Keep per Jmabel" votes). None of these arguments trump the extremely important requirement of no original research. As obvious as it may seem that "Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow" is a reference to David Bowie, it needs to be verifiable to ensure Wikipedia's informational integrity; "obvious" is a completely subjective term, and we could have any anonymous contributor adding references that are "obvious" to them. As I tried to point out, libel is also an issue: what if someone added the "obvious" statement that the song "Midnight Rambler" was about O.J. Simpson? The Wikimedia Foundation could potentially get in trouble with the Stones or O.J. for publishing such defaming allegations. (And yes, I know the song predates the case by over 20 years, it's just a silly example.)

    There's also the problem of the indiscriminate nature of the list. As I stated in my AfD nomination: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Allusions, references, and "namechecks" to other musicians is extremely common in popular music. If this information can be sourced, it should be placed in context, in the article on the song or album containing the song in question. And if a song or the album it's on is not notable enough to have its own article, information on what it "covertly references" is not notable either.

    Finally, I'm sorry if Jmabel and others from the first AfD feel that they should have been notified; I know that it is courteous to notify the primary contributors to an article when nominating an AfD and I didn't mean to be discourteous or anything, but they were amongst dozens of contributors to the first AfD and over hundreds of contributors to the article, I didn't know that they in particular wanted to be notified. Nevertheless, the page displayed a prominent AfD notice for the full five days inviting anyone to contribute to the deletion discussion. A valid, unanimous consensus was reached that this article is not suitable for Wikipedia due to problems with original research and indiscriminate information, and it was thus deleted. Krimpet (talk/review)

  • Let me respond to some of this:
    Please don't misrepresent me here. I'm not saying this is a particularly good article. It's not. I believe it is a salvageable article, and we don't normally delete articles because they need cleanup.
    More importantly, I did not "threaten" to leave. What I wrote was "It looks like this will be a very sad week for me. I always said that if Wikipedia became so tight-assed as to delete this article, then it was time for me to leave. Looks like that day has arrived. Sad. It's been a great three years." If that leads like a threat to you, I'd say that you are a person who has never been threatened.
    What I am saying is that the desire to delete this article (and the un-collegial way it was approached) is symptomatic of a change in the nature of Wikipedia that has left me feeling less and less invested in the project. Also symptomatic of that problem is the sophistry in some of Krimpet's remarks above, and the fact that this community has started to mistake such sophistry for scholarship and good sense.
    • Krimpet's links from "flimsy", etc. are to a page that "is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors." So it has no more standing than if he made those remarks himself. He is backing his individual opinion with someone else's individual opinion.
    • WP:NOR is a straw man here. We are agreed that the uncited material can be removed.
    • While I imagine I could find a solid citation for "Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow" being a reference to David Bowie (I am not the person who added it), and while if the article is saved I'm willing to see it removed if it cannot be cited, I think that questioning something so obvious is games-playing and time-wasting. I am comfortable in asserting that at any time since I've participated in Wikipedia, my own work has met a considerably higher standard of citation than what prevailed on Wikipedia at that time (a moving target, as that standard has been rising), and I've added hundreds of citations, maybe thousands, to support other people's inadequately cited statements, including in response to requests every bit as frivolous as this. But demanding citation for the truly obvious is petty, at best. I haven't looked at Krimpet's own edits, and I'm not going to stalk him, but (assuming that he occasionally writes articles and doesn't only remove material) I would be astounded if his own edits consistently meet the standard of citation he is demanding here.
    • The remark about libel is, indeed, a silly example. I asked for a real one. If the hypothetical possibility of someone adding a libelous statement to an article were a basis for deletion, we would have to delete all articles. Are we having an honest discussion here, or are you just interested in "winning" by any means available?
    The article namechecking is a near-stub, by the way, and could be much expanded. However, none of the examples in the deleted articles are namechecks (that would be overt references); otherwise, I'd propose that merging with that would be a decent solution to this.
    As I promised earlier, I will contact people who were involved in the earlier debates on this (skipping those who have already weighed in here).
    I gather this is most likely headed toward deletion, so I gather I am most likely headed toward departure. I'm not saying that if I leave I'll never come back: I honestly haven't made that decision. But it would certainly be a while. - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD2 No process failures (no, there is no right to receive notice; that is why we have watchlists people...) on the unanimous delete AFD. Looking at it, it was approximately 80% unverified (10 of the first 50 entries claim a citation, whether or not that citation would stand up...), and the only convincing keep arguments I see in the first AFD are those that the list could be sourced. Invalid AFD1 If there is a failure involved here, it is in the closure of the first AFD as nomination withdrawn; the nominator loses that right if there are any other delete opinions, see WP:CSK. Since that AFD was not validly closed, it carries even less than the normal precedent value, which is minimal. GRBerry 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of AFD2. I also find no process problems in that discussion. The assertions made above were available to the discussion participants and failed to convince them. The article itself was properly tagged with the AFD notice for the requisite 5 days (and had been tagged for cleanup for a much longer time with no significant cleanup occurring). As a practical matter, we have to assume that people truly interested in a page either have it watchlisted or edit it regularly. The AFD template at the top of the page is hard to miss. The argument that "I didn't get to participate in the debate" is insufficient to reopen a debate, especially when there is no new evidence to consider. Rossami (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had it watchlisted. I was backed up 19 days on my 4000-article watchlist, so I did not see this. If the arguments from the prior debate had been engaged, then the lack of notice might not be a big issue, but they weren't. - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the consensus in the second AfD was clear and correct. Also as a note to whoever closes this, Jmabel has been engaged in a pretty significant amount of canvassing. Looks like Jmabel did indeed contact everyone, which is probably in line with WP:CANVASS, so I retract that part but still endorse deletion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated above, I have contacted everyone who voted on this either way, in either of the prior debates. That is to say, I have contacted considerably more people who disagree with me than who agree with me. But thank you for the implication that I have been doing something in bad faith. It's a good reminder of the atmosphere around here lately, amd if I leave it will make leaving easier. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Jmabel contacted me, and I voted to delete, so that accusation is unwarranted. --Ezeu 06:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There appears to have been 49 editors who are on the record with a specific opinion about the article through AfD#1 and AfD#2. Of these 49 editors, there appear to be 24 editors who are on the record with a keep opinion, 4 with a merge opinion, and 21 with a delete opinion. Since the opinion of all 49 editors who voted on this either way was overtly solicited on their talk pages, this DRV may have an unfair bias through canvassing towards overturn. -- Jreferee 14:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Clear consensus. The opinions of those who participated in the second AfD is valid, we should not undelete the article because some people missed the discussion. That would be setting a bad precedent. --Ezeu 06:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per all the above. I'm also with Ezeu in that I'm not sure that all those who were involved with the original AfD should have been canvassed because they're not participating now... I would assume their views are clear in the AfDs. Rockstar (T/C) 06:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. It's usually "nice" to notify authors/other interested editors but it's by no means a requirement and failing to do so hardly constitutes a failure of process, or a reason to overturn a deletion. Arkyan • (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vehement overturn per Jmabel. As he likes to ask, whatever happened to that bedrock principle, WP:IAR? This article does improve Wikipedia, so all other rules should be ignored. Biruitorul 07:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I was against deletion in first debate, I see no reason to change my mind. No new argument for deletion appeared in this second AFD nomination. It was not cool that when second nomination for deletion was made nobody informed people who participated at first debate. Why are some people focusing in deleting content in Wikipedia instead of adding?--MariusM 07:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per that last question: if people just let everything slide in Wikipedia and deleted nothing, Wikipedia would not be nearly as good as it is today. Actually, it would be completely destroyed by now. There are policies and guidelines for a reason. Rockstar (T/C) 07:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, folks, I accidentally linked Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_containing_covert_references_to_real_musicians_(2nd_nomination) instead of this on all the notices I placed on individual user talk pages. Sorry. I really don't want to go back and correct myself on 40 user talk pages, especially because I don't want to ping everyone yet again with a "new message" notice. I've put a note about this on my own user talk page. Since my good faith has already been questioned, and since Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_containing_covert_references_to_real_musicians_(2nd_nomination) is closed, I won't place a notice on that closed page referring people here, but I would greatly appreciate if someone else would, preferably someone on the "other side" of this issue. My apologies. Yes, I am a bit upset over this, and I screwed up. - Jmabel | Talk 07:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, proper AFD on what appears to be original research. Why is this such a hot issue? >Radiant< 09:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion blatant original research, an indiscriminate list of songs, absolutely no encyclopedic value what so ever. -- Nick t 10:55, 16 April 2007(UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, but only if there is no prejudice towards recreating a well-cited replacement article. I think Jmabel makes some very good points. I'd be happy to provide the text of the deleted article to anyone who wants to work on a new version in their sandbox. I have been involved in maintaining Films considered the greatest ever which survived 2 AfDs by removing all uncited claims. It still needs work, but I'd much rather see people collaboratively working towards correcting problems than having battles over deleting articles. The big problem that I see is that there are many people who want to delete articles spending time at AfD, and the people who don't want to delete them don't spend much time there, and don't want to spend a large chunk of their time reviewing what is being proposed for deletion. Deletion should be for articles which are impossible to fix. Considering all the effort involved in 2 AfDs and this DR, it would have been much easier to just move all the uncited material to the talk page, or liberally adding {{fact}}. -- Samuel Wantman 11:17, 16 April 2007 :(UTC)
  • There is a crucial difference here: there are books, TV shows, annual spectaculars and all sorts devoted to debating the greatest films ever. AFI has several lists by genre of what they consider the greatest films ever. Halliwell and Ebert both discuss it. Where are the books on "songs containing a covert reference to a real musician"? Even if the "covert" weren't an open invitation to original research and blatant editorialising, the entire basis of the list is a concept whihc does not appear to have any significant existence outside of Wikipedia and a few idle discussions on Teh Internets. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Jmable has created a sourced version, I now Endorse restoration of sourced material. This means that I think the original should be restored so that the history is complete, and then the new version can be copied over. The only question that I see is whether the history should exist or not, as there is nothing against policy about posting a new version of a page that attempts to address the reasons why the page was originally deleted. The value of keeping the history, is that you can see how a deletable article can be improved, and if there are future discussions that reference the AfDs, people will be able to understand what the issues were, and how they were dealt with. -- Samuel Wantman 06:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry to chime in again, but looking at the above I see a lot of straw man arguments, especially the claim that this is difficult or impossible to reference. I suggest that people look at User:Jmabel/songs, where I've placed a stripped-down version of the article containing only what I think was adequately cited (in one case - "Pork Pie Hat" - I tracked down the citation just now. (By the way, our two existing articles pork pie hat and Lester Young that mention that the song is an elegy for Young do not currently cite for that claim.) We could easily disagree over whether a few items have adequate citation - that's part of the normal process here - but that is not a reason to remove an article. (By the way, some of the weaker remaining citations are among the A's, so please skim down a bit.)

Also, I see that several people here have been saying "delete it because the process was OK." Even if the process was OK, I believe that there is enormous precedent for overturning a deletion if there is now a decent replacement article, regardless of the fact that the process for deletion may have been acceptable. And thank you, Biruitorul, for reminding me of "ignore all rules". It has been so in abeyance lately that I forgot it was still official policy (not even a mere guideline). It seems to me that if it is now trumped by a page that "simply reflects some opinions of its authors", so that we must remove a well-cited article that many people have worked on, like, and find interesting, then WP:IAR should be removed as policy. It is misleading to have a policy that we never follow. - Jmabel | Talk 18:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review is very much pitched at being about process. So overturn suggests there was a problem with that process. But here like the AFD isn't dictating that there can never be such an article, you can rewrite from scratch of get the content userfied if you are going to address the issues which led to the deletion (assuming they can be addressed), provided what ends up at the page isn't substantially the same as the original then it should be exempt from G4 deletion. Of course the nature of such pages are they can be high maintenance to maintain the standards which if not maintained may lead to deletion again... As to IAR, I guess it's the improving the encyclopedia part of IAR why people don't believe it would apply in this case. --pgk 19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - article, in the previous form, was totally unencyclopedic. It's totally okay to make a new one, though - with proper references. --Haemo 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support Overturn and Reinstatement of article - as per JMabel's 18:19, 16 April 2007 comment (3 up from here) and DGG. Had I been directly notified of the 2nd Afd I would have commented there as well- and I think that people who commented on the first indeed should have been notified of the 2nd, lest it appear that this is being rushed through in the darkness of night. (I have many hundreds of items on my watchlist and didn't notice this one. It's more than a matter of discourtesy - the response to the original afd should have indicated that there was a lot of interest in this article and the just action would have been to be sure interested editors were informed.) But this is really not an argument about process - I believe this article should be reinstated - with its history - on its merits. It happened to be pretty well-referenced already, and as JMabel said above, since when do we wholesale delete articles that need cleanup? More to the point, JMabel has already offered an edited version. Overturning the deletion preserves the history, and gives editors the opportunity to go back in their copious leisure time to research other songs that were in earlier versions but not yet fully referenced, and re-add them when they meet standards. Deleting all of that three year history deprives editors from the ability to easily improve on other editors' work - at the core of what Wikipedia is about - and undoes over three years of hard work by dozens of editors. This article isn't perfect (how many are?) but it is an excellent example of the greatness of a collaborative project, as I said in the first AFd. Summarily deleting it is a rigid, and I think incorrect, application of rules which has no place here, and there is an easy solution: reinstate the article and its history, and let JMabel and other editors make improvements to it. This is not about defending the action taken, it's about reconsidering it with more input. Tvoz |talk 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support overturn! - as per my posting on afd1 and jmabel and mariusm PaulLev 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse restoration of sourced material (i.e. restore then remove all unsourced line items; needs close review of content right after restoration). There are quite a few sourced items, certainly a minority but still enough to support a list. I don't think that the second nomination at AfD or its closure were out of order, but a number of the Delete comments ignore the notion that any of the material was salvageable. The best course in my opinion would in fact be to follow a recommendation from the first nomination at AfD, to merge into List of songs containing overt references to real musicians. I think that a number of the persons supporting deletion of the list during the 2nd nomination were not making a distinction between speculation by Wikipedia editors and speculation by writers in the public domain; the first is disallowed as content, the second is supported as content (up to a point and not without reservations, certainly). Granted, covert references need to be held to a higher standard of verification than overt references by their very nature; however, once that higher standard is applied, the reference remains a reference. Allusion remains a valid literary device. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a streamlined list, with citations, and plenty of references, would be an outstandingly interesting article, the idea of drawing artistic parallels between artists, through works of art or musical works is neither new or unknown - I think this article can work well. Modernist 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But can it conform to Wikipedia's standards, especially WP:OR? Rockstar (T/C) 01:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can you pre-judge that it won't?DGG 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) Because I saw the original article, and b) Because the article itself is a breeding ground for WP:OR. Show me an independent, reliable, third-party source about covert song references and I'll change my tune. Finally, c) the only reasons given for keeping the article have not been in compliance with Wiki guidelines and standards. I've asked for a basis on an existing guideline at least three times now and have gotten nothing except for "it's useful," "I like it," and "it's interesting." Rockstar (T/C) 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that, indeed, is part of the problem - this is not an episode of Survivor where we vote off an article each week because the producers require it. And since when are decisions that are made by a very small group not subject to review and overturn? That is very much not the way I understand things are supposed to be done here. If the parties involved in the 2nd afd had looked at the list of supporters of the article in the 1st, shouldn't they at least have wondered why they were not speaking up in the 2nd? Tried to contact them, regardless of whether it is required to do so? Would that not have been the fair thing to do? Maybe no one thought of it, but then this process we're in right now should be welcomed by the "tribe" if they are confident that their decision was fair and just. I support Modernist's point and that is apparently what JMabel has already done some work on. I'm not opposed to Ceyockey's suggestion either,depending on the length of the two pieces, and was one of the people who said so in the first Afd. Properly referenced, this article adds to our understanding of the interrelationship of songs and artists, and their subtle impact on one another. Covert references of course are harder to support by sources - harder, but far from impossible. There is a lot written on intertextuality and allusion - they are hardly being invented here. I am not aware, though, of any Wikipedia "rule" that one has to justify the idea of an article's existence by third-party sources - the content of the article needs to be verified by reliable sources, which much was already and everyone agrees is needed here. I also concur with DGG about pre-judging. Overturn the decision, reinstate the article and its rich history, and let the editors improve it. What harm will be done? Tvoz |talk 05:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pgk writes above "Deletion review is very much pitched at being about process. So overturn suggests there was a problem with that process." If so, news to me. This is the first time in my 3-1/2 years here that I've ever requested restoration of a deleted article, so it's not like I know my way around this part of the process. I was under the impression - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that if AFD had reached the conclusion that an topic was "an indiscriminate collection of information", "not even remotely encyclopedic", etc., that I would be quite out of line to recreate any version of that article without coming here first. If that is not the case, then I will move my version to article space. Still, even if it is my version that is restored, I believe that the history should be there. There's probably not enough prose in the article by anyone other than me to raise an issue about GFDL and licensing if the history weren't restored, but I still think the history should be there to show who has worked on this in the past and who added what citation (since less than half of the citations are my additions). - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 17 April 2007
  • That is how I understand it, we don't automatically protect every page of a deleted article we leave it and it may be recreated in the future. We have a speedy criteria for deletion of recreated material, but the material has to be substantially similar to the original. As I said though any new article needs to address the issues of the AFD, if the AFD found it to be "not even remotely encyclopedic" then you would be quite likely to have a hard time addressing that issue. But DRV isn't a process for contradicting the AFD, DRV has to the best of my knowledge about the process of deletion, not AFD round 2. --pgk 18:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the instructions at the top of the page "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." --pgk 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Re: "the tribe has spoken": would you please clarify that? The way it reads to me is that a unanimous decision has been made by a tribe of which I am not a member, and that because that tribe used correct process there is no appeal. If I read you correctly, I have to say: pretty lousy way to approach writing an encyclopedia, and an even worse way to run a community. But please correct me if I have misread you. - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he was referring to the second AfD, and then responded in a "if there was an obvious consensus in the second AfD, why relist it on DRV?" sort of mindset. But that was just my interpretation. Rockstar (T/C) 06:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that is what he meant, but that's the problem - the "tribe" in the 2nd afd didn't bother to wonder why supporters from the original afd weren't voicing their opinions in the 2nd. The 1st afd had a larger "tribe", and after a lot of back-and-forth the nomination for deletion was withdrawn. If you're setting up a 2nd, don't you have an obligation - moral if not literally the rules of afd - to seek out the people from the 1st? I'll say it for the 3rd time, the 1st being in the 1st afd - this isn't Survivor where the tribe is required to vote someone off every time they meet. We should be looking for reasons to keep, not reasons to delete. Tvoz |talk 06:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's nice to let the original voters know about a second AfD, but a second nomination is a separate nomination. Those who participated in the first discussion do not own the article in question and if they missed the debate then they missed the debate. That's just what happens. Furthermore, we are looking for reasons to keep. We're also looking for reasons to keep it deleted. That's the point of a DRV. Rockstar (T/C) 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one Wikitribe. A villager asked for a decision regarding an issue, and those tribesmen who were around at that time sat under the baobab tree and discussed it. Based on the discussion, a village headman issued a fatwa. Now, those villagers who were absent have requested that the fatwa be overturned. However, since the tribal bylaws do not require that every interested villager must by sought after and asked to sit under the baobab tree when the issues are being debated, the fatwa must prevail. But that is just my interpretation.--Ezeu 06:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you didn't just make that up. But I agree with you. :) Rockstar (T/C) 07:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in most cases that's exactly what happens. But in this case objections are being raised by quite a few tribespeople who were busily fighting vandals and writing articles and celebrating birthdays and living their lives, and they missed one tiny line in their watchlists, some of which are huge, and the edit summary line may or may not have been illuminating enough to catch their attention. So when they found out about the meeting they missed, they've come to talk about it and re-open the discussion - because obviously they are very interested. Sticking out your tongues and saying "nyah-nyah, you missed the meeting" isn't exactly community building. And erring on the side of delete is far more destructive than erring on the side of keep, especially when the keep group is agreeing completely with the major objection of the deleters, which was about referencing. PS Do we really want to come down on the side of fatwas? I know Wikipedia is not a democracy or anarchy - I hope it's not a theocracy. Tvoz |talk 07:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fatwa was a bad choice of word. --Ezeu 08:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't. Wikipedia is totally a theocracy. When all else fails, appeal to God. Rockstar (T/C) 09:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take this argument to its logical extreme (Socrates, anyone?): every time an AfD occurs, do we want to tell everyone who worked on the article about it? And if they miss the AfD, then, do we put it up for deletion review just because they didn't comment? I think it's a dangerous line we're crossing when we say it's okay to submit everything to a deletion review if the editors who voted on the first AfD missed the second AfD. It has to be the responsibility of the editor to keep tabs on articles; and yeah, sometimes real life intervenes, but that's the name of the game we're playing. The point of an AfD is to come to a consensus, and taking a look at that second AfD, it was a pretty strong one. We can't underplay those who voted on the second AfD just because they weren't part of the original discussion. And that's exactly what we're doing with this DRV -- we're spitting on the voters in the second AfD (which passed unanimously), saying their votes count less than those of the original AfD. That's not good community building either. Rockstar (T/C) 07:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say we should discount the 2nd afd. And I didn;t say anything about everyone who worked on the article. What I said was that everyone involved in the 1st afd should have been contacted, and when no one of the 23 people who indicated support for the article, plus 4 merge, out of 37 in the 1st afd said anything in the 2nd, someone could have realized that maybe they didn't know about the 2nd and contacted them. By the way, I'd like to see the edit summary that announced the 2nd afd - out of curiosity. WOuld like to know why I missed it. Tvoz |talk 07:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you said that. I was just saying that we're going down a slippery slope (and giving an example of what could happen) when we're DRVing something that passed unanimously, simply because people weren't contacted to vote (which is not a necessary action for AfDs). That's all. And yeah, by having a DRV after a unanimous vote, it really does discount the second nomination's voters. We're concerned with who's offending who but have overlooked that group completely. Rockstar (T/C) 08:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary was: 

16:20, 2 April 2007 . . Krimpet (Talk | contribs | block) (nominated for deletion: see 
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs containing covert references to real musicians (2nd nomination))

--Ezeu 08:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ezeu. One other question about that - was it the last edit summary for the article (or its talk page)? Tvoz |talk 08:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were several edits after, the first one about four hours later. --Ezeu 08:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So unless people were checking their watchlists during those 4 hours, they would never have even seen the edit summary that announced the 2nd afd - am I wrong? If that's the case, I wonder if someone can tell me how I could have known to participate in the 2nd afd. Perhaps the 2nd would not have been a unanimous "vote" (of course we're not voting, are we?) after all. I change what I said above - I guess this is about process as well as content. And I'd like to recall to your attention DGG's insightful comment (amended here) from Sunday, especially his last points. Tvoz |talk 08:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point of time, the rights or wrongs of AfD2 are water under the bridge and endless postmortem argument over it is unlikely to reach a conclusion. What I suggest is: (1) Jmabel recreates the article in the most rule-compliant form he can manage, (2) If anyone still thinks it should be deleted, let them start AfD3 and inform everyone who was involved in either of the previous AfDs and this discussion. This should be enough to render obsolete all present arguments about process and consensus. In order to allow step (2), we need to disallow speedy deletion. Are we agreed? --Zerotalk 09:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we should restore the history. If the new article fails a future AfD it will be deleted. If the new article survives, it would be beneficial to show how how it was improved. In either case, it will be helpful in discussions to understand the history. -- Samuel Wantman 10:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion without prejudice to a new and better article. I don't see any process issues regarding the second AfD, and the reasons stated in the deletion review do not appear to me to be sufficient for an overturn or even a relist. My reasoning for deletion in the first AfD was on the basis that the list was unverifiable. I think WP:V is important. If a new article can be written that consists of sourced, verifiable information--then let's make a new article about this subject. It certainly seems like it could contain useful and encyclopedic information if done right. I'd recommend that an admin restore the article the userspace of User:Jmabel since he seems most interested in the subject. However, a new article would probably need to be written from scratch to meet verifiability requirements; don't simply submit a lightly edited version of the old article with a few references added. Tarinth 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Sam's comment above. I think the article needs rewriting, and careful watch, but the original history is important as documentation. By the way with all due respect "The tribe has spoken, unanimously"[3] - a total of 10, just doesn't seem like the whole tribe, to me. Modernist 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - From above : "How can anyone qualify that a particular reference in a song is a covert reference to a real musician? Answer: the same way as one can say this about pretty much anything else in literature. " This argument itself already clashes with WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Wikipedia is not opinion. Do NOT rewrite from scratch. The title is confusing and is not acceptable. On the other hand, List of songs containing overt references to real musicians, is okay. OVERT is okay. Tonytypoon 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Overturn per Jmabel & IPSOS. It's getting like Conservapedia up in this bitch, y'all. Deletions like this are driving editors like myself to seek less restrictive pastures. -- weirdoactor t|c 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. People which are now voting can not see the article, as is currently deleted. I wonder how many people who are voting now had read the article we are talking about?--MariusM 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now restored and protected from editing until this DRV is closed. As usual, if the DRV endorses deletion, the article will be deleted again. -- Nick t 15:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for restoring the old version. It is now protected. Since no one is suggesting the preservation of that particular form of the article - we all agree that much of it is inadequately cited - would there be any objection to moving this forward by replacing that text with the version currently in my user space (with the appropriate tags added to the top) so that, as the argument continues, we are not arguing about a straw man? - Jmabel | Talk 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been about 5 hours since I asked this; no one has commented. If it becomes 12 hours, and there is no comment, I will assume that there is no objection, since I can't see any harm (just wanted to make sure I didn't blindside anyone). - Jmabel | Talk 21:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection - it's a good idea. Tvoz |talk 23:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Jmabel | Talk 07:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you expect to post a new article after the present one is deleted via this DRV, you will need to provide a diff between the delted article and the revised article to show significant new information added to the article that was not available on Wikipedia at the time of AfD#2. Otherwise, your new article may get speedy deleted and/or get deleted at AfD#3. -- Jreferee 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Jmabel. It seems to me that all arguments brought against the list actually mean to allude to the status of pop culture and its relation to wikipedia. The very fact that there were so many pop musicians complimenting each other means that the list centers on a relavant topic inside pop culture. That is to say, if pop culture is relevant (and it is), then this list itself is: 1) not irrelevant (meaning everything from "not particularly relevant" to "quite relevant"); 2) not problematic (i. e.: if fully referenced, it is not subjective, it is not chaotic, it is not inexhaustable). Dahn 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Jmabel. Rarely is a deleted article the focus of such effort, I think that this more than passes muster as encyclopedic. AFD is flawed in many ways: one problem is inherent bias. It depends on who is looking when. We get articles that are subjected to multiple (often immediate) AfD's because who is looking this week is different than who looked last week and maybe a majority or consensus can form around deletion, then it's done. All you need is deletion to win once, then re-creations are speediable. So under WP's own arcane rules, if the community isn't looking, a small few can delete an article and one admin can enforce a permanent deletion by speedying any attempt at recreation. WP AFD needs reform: perhaps a waiting period for all renominations - longer if consensus to keep rather than no consensus reached was the result - perhaps notifying users on their talk pages who commented in a prior nomination so that nothing gets slipped by (although since many of these get closed in far less than their one-week run and not every WP editor checks in every day, this may not always work). Pardon my rant, but this process is broken and the community should fix it. Carlossuarez46 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfDs are up for five days. That's plenty of time to come to a consensus. The WP community should act as one, and, in this case, did. There's nothing inherently broken about any of it. I think the real problem here is that people aren't able to look past their own contributions or the fact that this page has "been up for a while" or that it's "useful" or "interesting." We need to focus on the article's encyclopedic merits and how it fits in the vision of Wikipedia, not whether or not we like it. Because the fact of the matter is that no one has yet to prove that this page should be kept per our standards. And if that upsets people, then maybe there should be a new website created for all the stuff that doesn't belong on WP's standards but that we like anyway. WP is an encyclopedia and has guidelines, policies, and standards for a reason. Rockstar (T/C) 18:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: This endorsement is not meant against any future versions of articles. This list of links is unencylcopedic and does not talk about well-established patterns that are related and honestly more interesting and encyclopedic, like parody, mashups and inspiration. I'd love to see an encyclopedic article that talked about blatant parody versus subtle homage, and other degrees of references in between. I know there's tons of references handy and I think that sort of article could go far, but Wikipedia is not a list of links, it is no one's pet project, and AfD happened once, then twice. Effort on articles like these is appreciated and wanted, but the article itself never seemed to get off the ground except as a list of links, a relatively few citations and some vague OR hand-waving. There's a huge body of literature in the music industry and music academy about similar phenomena that would, I think, be almost as fun to work on, and would fit in Wikipedia's guidelines. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly interpreted the unanimity in favor of deletion as a delete. People who participated in a previous AFD feel "blindsided" at not being notified? That's too bad, but not a reason to overturn a unanimous AFD. It is considered a courtesy to notify people who create or heavily edit articles of AFDs; it is not a requirement. The notion that there is some process reason to overturn a unanimous AFD because people who participated in a previous AFD were not specially notified is ludicrous. There is no such requirement and as far as I know it's not even suggested anywhere as a courtesy. Otto4711 23:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure per my past reason at AFD1, and per reasons stated by others at AFD2. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original closing decision - There are only two purposes to deletion review: (1) The requestor thinks the AfD#2 debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or (2) the requestor has some significant new information that has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. Here, the requestor thinks that the AfD#2 debate was interpreted correctly by the closer but disagrees with the outcome. DRV should not be used simply because of a disagreement with a deletion debate's outcome. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Purpose Also, the requestor has not provided any significant new information that has come to light since AfD#2. Most of the information presented in this request pertains to things outside the debate or is information pertaining to the debate that was available on Wikipedia during the AfD#2 debate, such as through AfD#1. Thus, I endorse the original closing decision. -- Jreferee 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems to be a lot of discussion here about the appropriate use of Deletion Review. I think the general consensus among those arguing for restoration above is that the article shouldn't stand as it was at the time of deletion, but be severely and aggressively reviewed so that OR is scrubbed out with bleach and steel wool. One of the comments above specifically relates to the article being undeleted in order for it's content to be so reviewed. I think it would be productive to set aside the rancor around accusations and counterpoints related to improper use of Deletion Review and recognise that, in fact, Content Review should have been invoked instead. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment' If any AfD debate was not interpreted correctly because of the closer improperly weighing some arguments more than others, or , perhaps, failing to weigh the correct arguments more than others, it was improperly closed. In effect this means that that the deletion or keeping must be reasonable in terms of the the merits of the actual article. DGG 00:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the requestor wanted Content Review, then the request should not have been posted at Deletion Review. Also, if some significant new information has come to light since AfD#2, the way to present it in deletion review is to compare the deleted article with the significant new information actually added to a copy of the article. The article was undeleted, so where is the significant new information? Making promises to add significant new information to the article usually does not cut it at deletion review. -- Jreferee 19:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. There were many passionate supporters of this article -- okay, at least one, who was Jmabel. And a glance at the now-deleted article's history shows that he was working on it as time & resources permitted; from my knowledge of Jmabel, he has been an active participant in Wikipedia. Yet when this article was nominated for deletion, no one bothered to notify him -- which obviously has offended him. Forget WP:OWN -- how would you like it if an article you cared about was sent thru AfD & deleted without anyone making the effort to inform you about it? Is it that important to delete this article that someone was willing to overlook Jmabel's interest in this article? It's an unadvoidable topic on his user page; I'd expect anyone interested in forming a solid consensus would have dropped him a note. Articles are deleted on as a result of consensus, which means inviting all parties to the discussion, & I find it hard to believe that everyone who had an intererest in this article was invited. And when we fail to seek such a consensus -- which includes minority opinions -- Wikipedia becomes a creation of whoever can play the best game of Nomic. -- llywrch 01:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And not just Jmabel - to my knowledge none of the 27 people who recommended keep or merge in the first afd (out of 37) were notified of the 2nd proceeding or their views solicited. Yet when informed of this current DR, quite a few have stepped in to discuss it. I think that should tell you something. It's not about ownership - I didn't edit that article, but I read and referred to it, and was and am in favor of its being improved and kept. Whether or not the letter of the procedure, the rules, were followed properly, clearly the spirit of consensus and informed discussion was not. Tvoz |talk 07:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the very first article that I ever wrote just got AFDed last week. Not only was I not notified, the only reason it was even nominated was because the nominator was mad at me for nominating some article of his. And I was out of town while the AFD ran so I didn't even get the chance to voice my opinion. Other articles I've worked on extensively and even articles whose first AFD I'd commented on have been put through AFD and I wasn't notified about them. Yet I didn't come running crying to DRV claiming that it was somehow unfair to delete the article without telling me about it. Again, it is a courtesy to personally notify the contributors to articles of an AFD; it is not a requirement. The only required notice to the creator is the AFD notice on the article and the listing at the day's AFD page. Not only is it not a requirement that participants in a previous AFD be notified, it has to my knowledge never even been suggested as a requirement or a courtesy outside of this DRV. If an AFD goes through and an editor misses it, too bad so sad. It's not an excuse to overturn a unanimous AFD. Otto4711 22:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer The spirit of consensus and informed discussion may not have been followed in this DRV. Informing the 27 people who recommended keep or merge in the first afd (out of 37) of this current DRV (see this post) may be unacceptable votestacking and, if so, may be taken into account in closing this DRV. -- Jreferee 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification to closer re Jreferee above - sorry if I was not clear: although to my knowledge none of the people who participated in the first afd were notified that the second afd existed, all 37 of them - all of the people who favored delete and all of the people who favored keep - were notified of this current DR after it began by Jmabel and amended by Krimpet. Please see this above. So I don't believe there's a canvas or votestacking issue, as per Seraphimblade. Tvoz |talk 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Votestacking includes a partisan element and I am unsure whether that is present in this case. To add clarification for the closer, from AfD#1, there were 10 delete, 24 keep, and 4 merge specific opinions about the article. From AfD#2, there were 11 delete specific opinions about the article. Overall, the 49 editors who are on the record with a specific opinion about the article through AfD#1 and AfD#2, there are 24 keep, 4 merge, and 21 delete. Also, it appears that none of the participants in AfD#1 participated in AfD#2. -- Jreferee 22:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Not much to add that previous people seeking to overturn haven't already said.--Alabamaboy 13:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of now the original article, which has been edited and notated considerably by User:Jmabel (who has nearly 58,000 edits) looks very much like a verifiable and reasonable list, people wanting to close it down might give it a new look now. Modernist 18:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per my repeated failure to find a reason this article should not exist. It is the deletion of articles, not the creation, which must be defended in such an open-content encyclopaedia. The arguments against this article's restoration - the ones that are not simple strawman arguments in any case - run along the lines of "This version of the article is uncited/it is impossible to cite", a clearly false assertion given Jmabel's current revision. It is also obvious from the list of atheists that even lists of very poor quality can be cited and organised - in a few months, the list of atheists has gone from completely uncited and poorly organised to being near FL status. We've also seen "I don't like it", [[It's unencyclopaedic" (WP:5P states that Wikipedia includes elements of "specialised encyclopaedias and almanacs"), and "There is no literature written specifically on this exact subject", which drastically fails to be either a policy or relevant. There is no literature written on the specific subject of, say, the All persons fictitious disclaimer, or on many of the geographical features with articles, or on many other subjects with Wikipedia articles. Without reason to delete, restore. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:The Noon Thing (edit | [[Talk:User:The Noon Thing|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm a contributor to KCWU, and some of the information on User:The Noon Thing would be useful in the KCWU article. I agree that the deleted article doesn't belong as it was, but I'd like to request to userfy it into a subpage of my name. Thanks. EndlessVince 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Consider this a review of the deletion review. The purpose of deletion review is to provide "an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." With no discussion in a proper forum on the article in question, and a clear breach of process, the review simply did not come to a proper conclusion. Per strength of argument alone, this should have been restored and listed at AfD, so I'm requesting that the original DRV be overturned and list the article at AfD. Out of respect for people involved, consider this a test case and don't close this down early - if we can't appeal deletions properly, or improper deletion reviews, we have a bigger problem on our hands in terms of a proper content appeal. badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A deletion review of the deletion review? I looked at it and it appears there was a not enough support to overturn the original deletion at the deletion review number one.--MONGO 17:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and if this review returns the same result, are you going to declare this improper too and repeatedly list until you get the "right" result? --pgk 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We'll cross that bridge when it comes. If we can't appeal an improper deletion, or ensure that DRV gets the correct result (and in this case, there is a correct result), then there's a fundamental flaw in deletion review that needs to be addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I agree there is a correct result. The result which helps us progress building a verified NPOV free encyclopedia in an efficient manner. I belie ve the correct form of appeal is to Jimbo, though I personally doubt he'd support process for the sake of process. --pgk 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we can come up with a good way to show that there's a way to appeal a DRV at DRV without escalating it further, it's going to be very beneficial. The result at the previous AfD, however, did not help us progress building a verified NPOV free encyclopedia, however - it endorsed the control of objectionable content to the hands of the few rather than the community, who have long already spoken and said that they don't want that to be controlled by the few. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We'll have to differ on the nature of the outcome. As to getting DRV to futher review DRV I disagree, the building of the encyclopedia is not served well by perpetual process and review on top of review, there has to be a stop point. The whole setup of wikipedia not a bureacracy, WP:IAR etc. is setup to keep the process lightweight. --pgk 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article was unsourced OR, and close to violating WP:NOT#IINFO. What is the point of undeleting it? I would simply remove the protection and create a stub that explains what that compound is, with a proper source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of which were speedy deletion criteria, which was the point of the exercise. Recreation doesn't address the issue, and while the article should not have been deleted, I'm not entirely happy with trying to let people off here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff, I agree the article should not have been speedily deleted and that the DRV didn't come to the right conclusion. However the outcome was what the outcome was. Your opening of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Completely moronic was a good way to express your concerns. Your opening of this discussion is a bad, WP:POINTy way of expressing your concerns and is itself an abuse of process. DRV isn't for review of DRV's, as I'm sure you know; otherwise we admit the fascinating but disruptive possibility of an unending series of DRV's each reviewing the prior one. Speedy close. Pan Dan 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with this request to overturn original DRV closure: majority is not equivalent to consensus, article's suitability is not at issue, this is about whether proper procedure was followed in original speedy delete, article does not/did not qualify for speedy deletion. Wikipedia should avoid the appearance of 'cabals'. I opened the original DRV with an appeal to find out why the article had been speedy deleted and protected, and it evolved that the article had been wrongly speedy deleted and protected, never listed on AfD, but still the DRV was closed because of majority, not consensus feeling that because the article would have been deleted AfD it was okay to wrongfully speedy delete it now. Do we actually have effective policy/procedure, or is it just majority rule now? ---MalcolmGin
  • Overturn. It was there since 25 February, and the admin who deleted it knew that. If it wasn't dangerous enough to be speedied then, it's not now. -Amarkov moo! 17:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion as well as Deletion Review, encyclopedic content must be verifiable. --Dragonfiend 17:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and endorse original DRV per all of the endorse deletion arguments on the original DRV. That said, the idea of reviewing a DRV is an interesting one. Bravo! Rockstar (T/C) 17:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and endorse review. A redirect would be acceptable iff we can show widespread use of the term in the literature. Which we can't. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and endorse deletion review, per SlimVirgin's reasoning, and per Dragonfiend. Musical Linguist 18:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and DRV, and speedy close per above. This was just endorsed a couple days ago, no need to bog down process with this. --Coredesat 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, there was nothing wrong with the AfD deletion or the DRV. Corvus cornix 20:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse review - The closing admin correctly determined that no consensus can override our basic verifiability policy. As the content of the article was completely unverifiable and even the article's supporters admitted that no sources could be found to support its existence, I fail to see how anyone can come to any conclusion other than that the article should not exist. I repeat my offer to immediately unsalt the article name if and when a source is found. FCYTravis 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reversing Blanning's closure ("Original review endorsed by overwhelming consensus; closed as DRV is not a court of infinite appeals – Sam Blanning(talk) 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)"), someone so involved in the first discussion shouldn't be closing this one, and DRVs traditionally run for five days anyway. I've explained why this isn't an "infinite appeal," and it was a one-off edit, so i'm reversing for now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeff, I have the utmost respsect for your beliefs, but I truly believe that what you just did was inappropriate. And yes, DRVs should generally be open for five days, but the original DRV for this article was. This current DRV should be speedy closed now or just reverted back to its closed state. Rockstar (T/C) 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If someone uninvolved thinks closing this down is a better idea than trying to fix the problems, I won't reverse it. But not someone who was involved in the prior discussion and has a history of closing discussions early regardless of what's proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
50 Greatest Cartoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as copyright violation (WP:CSD G12). But the article was about a book (see Google cache). How can it be considered a copyright violation? If the rankings part was copyright violation, it should have been removed. The deletion of article on a book as CSD G12 looks weird. 220.227.179.4 15:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. The list is copyright, and that was most of the article. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and remove the list. Problem solved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, content that violates any copyright will be deleted. To start a non-copyvio version, just go here. --Dragonfiend 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and remove the list. The list is copyrighted, but an article about the book is not. Corvus cornix 20:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and remove the list. In 1998, Jefferson Graham from USA Today wrote an article about an eight-hour Cartoon Network series that was based entirely on this book. That seems to satisfy criteria #3 of WP:BK. Unfortunately, the USA Today archives aren’t working so try seeing the article here. If that doesn’t work, I can cache it onto a subpage on my userpage if you want. Furthermore, per a simple LexisNexis search, there have been many non-trivial articles about the book published. The problem is that many of them were published a long time ago (1994, 1995, etc.), and their websites don’t have a good enough archive to provide a website address. But we don’t need websites to prove notability. We just need published articles, and there are definitely plenty of those. Rockstar (T/C) 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and recreate without list The list was in the very first version, which means that the first version was a copyright violation, and hence we can't keep it. We can't keep any later versions without the GFDL compliant history, including the first version. GRBerry 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that's true... can you show where you found a policy stating we can't keep any later versions, even after the copyvio is removed? I can think of plenty of articles which originally had copyrighted material in them but were kept after the copyrighted material was removed. Rockstar (T/C) 01:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-deletion as a confirmed copyright violation. The proportion of the page that was about the book was trivial compared to the proportion that was dedicated to the list. While we do sometimes recover articles where the copyright violation is a small part of the edit history, in this case the ratios run the wrong way. If someone wants a temporary undeletion of the non-copyvio text, I think we could oblige them but in this case we ought to start with a clean edit history. We can satisfy GFDL with a note on the article's Talk page. Rossami (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A silly end around, but sure - drop it in my userspace, and I'll move it in once this completes if need be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand the problem. Per Wikipedia's own copyright violations page, "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source." If the entire page is copyvio, then it should be deleted. In this article's case, only the list is copyvio, the rest of the article isn't, so the list should be removed and a note left on the talk page. Rockstar (T/C) 05:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, given that there isn't a whole lot left after the copyvio is removed (see the cached version). Starting over from scratch isn't really a big deal. --Coredesat 06:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To all those who have endorsed deletion, giving reason that re-creating article without copyrighted content is no big deal: I could've re-created it myself copying content from the Google cache, but GFDL compliance is required even if the content is two paragraphs, right? 220.227.179.4 08:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the point is that so little of the article is include in those couple of paragraphs and at a glance the article doesn't stand up just being those two paragraphs, you can start again from scratch. i.e. No one is suggesting taking a cut and paste of those. --pgk 09:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the list might not be covered under copyright law - if it's a poll for instance, if you, me and the publisher asked the same question to the same people, one would expect to receive the same answers, so there's no element of creativity in the work and it's mearly a list compiled in much the same way I could recreate the list of the top 100 Wikipedians by edit - it would be identical to the list on Wikipedia but I would have created it myself, so it wouldn't be a copyright violation. -- Nick t 14:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is actually a grey area. The creative element can come in selecting who to ask and the questions to ask. Your example of number of edits which is purely factual isn't a good comparison. A closer match to your example would be if the list was cartoons by running length. The lists which don't come under copyright IIRC are polls based on random selection and statistical analysis, i.e. you'd expect the broad trends to be the same regardless of the participants, those where those being polled are selected aren't quite the same. I don't think that you can say definitively it is not a copyvio (nor can I say it definitively is), though the general view seems to have been in such grey areas to err on the side of caution. --pgk 16:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, This is an interesting discussion, because I tagged as similar list, WGA 101 Greatest Screenplays, for deletion as G12 last week, but the tag was removed by someone claiming that a list of films is not copyrightable. The WGA don't appear to agree as they put © 2007 Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. on the webpage that this list was copied from. Even the brief descriptions of the films are copied word-for-word from WGA's website. I would have removed the list but then there would be no article left, as it's only a poll, rather than a book. I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I believe if an organization has spent their money and other resources carrying out such a survey, then the right to publish the results of that survey would belong the organization. Masaruemoto 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
without discussing the merits of this article or this list, what a publisher may claim is copyrighted is just an assertion. It's a warning, but nothing more. DGG 02:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per my knowledge, the rankings are copyrighted because the person(s) who decided the ranking used their time, effort and creativity to make the list (not sure about what happens in case the rankings have been decided by a poll). From Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service: "O'Connor states that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself." The list of cartoons can't be copyrighted, but the ranked list of cartoons can be, since it's a creative choice. 220.227.179.4 07:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WGA 101 Greatest Screenplays is clearly a copyright violation -- it was decided by a poll, but voters were all WGA members. So, the rights to publish list belong to WGA. The WGA page has an explicit copyright notice. 220.227.179.4 07:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
South Australian general election campaign, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The majority of editors commenting on the deletion supported keeping the content, either by keeping the page or by merging the page with South Australian general election, 2006. Because this page is locked from editing, no merge took place after deletion.

ALso, the reasons given be some editors for deletion were suspect. one thought an FA shouldn't be edited, another incorrectly identified the page as a duplicate fork. ChampagneComedy 07:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Orderinchaos

Endorse closure Summary: The original decision was sound, took account of both the consensus and the unusual and arguably disruptive actions of a small minority, and should be allowed to stand, or alternatively replaced based solely on the consensus with a decision to delete and redirect. As presently stands the page has *not* been deleted, so a deletion *review* is unnecessary. Below is a more detailed account of the events leading to this point.
The page was indeed a fork, created on 22 February 2007 [4] by User:Joestella entirely from content from the article South Australian general election, 2006 [5], which was featured in a near-identical form on 10 January 2007 (changelog 10Jan-21Feb FA discussion) on its 3rd attempt. The basis of this was a discussion on the talk page for WikiProject Australian Politics initiated by Joestella on 3 February 2007. [6] There was no real discussion of the proposal, with a single comment opposing the move as "overkill". After its enforcement, I raised an issue about it on 11 March 2007. The discussion was quickly derailed into an unrelated conversation about an infobox. End result - no consensus, although the originating user clearly supported it and two clearly opposed. No attempt was made to contact any of the individuals involved in featuring the SA article, especially Timeshift, who was responsible for creating nearly 80% of the original article's content, for thoughts or ideas on how to best do this. It should be noted that at this time, Joe was involved in proposing a number of controversial actions, many of which were being publicly opposed at WT:AUSPOL, and that at the time of the discussion, the campaign section was *well* removed from the key sections of activity at the bottom of the page. Version on 11 March
On 6 April, Timeshift restored the campaign section to its previous position. [7] The following day, User:DanielT5 nominated the article which is the subject of this DRV for deletion. It seemed fairly uncontroversial - two versions of exactly the same page, one which acknowledges the editors who created it prior to 10 January 2006, the other which only acknowledges the cut and paste by Joestella on 22 February 2006. Apart from Joestella's keep vote, consensus was pretty firmly on the delete side. On 11 April, the AfD proceeded to turn into one of the most bizarre events I have ever seen on Wikipedia where, at just after midnight local time, Joestella blanked the parent article then attempted to rewrite it from scratch. In the ensuing hours, as probably the only person insane enough to be up at that hour, I tried to engage Joe in discussion both at his own talk page and at the talk page for the article. The end result was well over 5 screens of discussion, but a continuance of the rather aggressive editing behaviour which had caused both disputes in the first place. I feel that this behaviour was a failure to show good faith - no edit that major is so urgent that it can't wait for consensus, the result was the near-total demolition of an article that had been featured by the Wikipedia community (despite some flaws, which I think everyone involved have agreed can be worked on), and some of the edit summaries were blatantly misleading. As soon as other editors became aware sometime the next morning, several editors weighed in and suggested that a more collaborative process was required - Joe actively refused to acknowledge this, and with user ChampagneComedy (who has been a reliable ally of Joestella's on a number of seemingly unrelated disputes and had no prior involvement in this one - [8]), started work on the Campaign article [9] in apparent contravention of the emerging consensus on the AfD.
As one would expect, the behaviour of the user in question resulted in some changed votes. Several community members, now aware of the details, either changed their vote to "Strong Delete" [10] or added new votes reading "Delete and merge". Several users weighed in with other opinions - stating that the changes on the page had rendered it inferior to the original, or simply noting that it was a fork rather than a duplicate in its present state. [11] Bizarrely, Joe modified a user's "Strong Delete" vote to "Comment" [12], provoking a strong reaction and some community concern as to what exactly was going on. Finally, an admin who was completely uninvolved in Australian politics articles, and who exercised what I believe was careful judgement, closed the discussion after 8 full days of debate, only to receive abuse and "demands" on his talk page. [13]
The entire process has been abused, as far as I am concerned, by a couple of minority editors who want to hijack the Australian Politics WikiProject for their own ends, and are unconcerned about or even actively disregarding consensus of views on a range of issues, including this one. It is not an intractable dispute - the infobox one, while still controversial, has been largely fixed with moves by Joestella on 10 April to integrate some of my concerns raised back in February into what he was doing, the end result being Template:Infobox Election Result which I hope will be a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Also, ChampagneComedy's edits on the same date to an unrelated set of articles relating to the 2005 WA election, which had reached a similar impasse between two competing and inferior POV versions, resulted in a better article which we can actually work with rather than fight over. For the simple act of doing what I believe was right, I have copped a fair bit of abuse from one person (I even got called a "misguided left-winger" yesterday, which quite amused me), but numerous emailed and other supports from a wide range of people concerned about the editing style reflected in the above articles, and the seeming determination of some users to push other positive, contributing users to the point of leaving the entire project (a sideshow was Joe's attempt to have a userpage deleted which criticised him) rather than cooperate with them. Accusations of POV bias which have been introduced into some of the articles (see for example Talk:New South Wales general election campaign, 2007), and even a rather strange statement by Joe on this AfD that matters relating to elections need to be sourced back to the conservative-leaning Liberal Party of Australia [14] as well as uncivil edit summaries such as "poor research", which *are* seen by the initial editors who carefully researched the material, lead me to believe there are other issues beyond the mere (unnecessary) separation of two articles. Orderinchaos 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as noted this misses large amounts of editing history due to it being a cut and paste of another article (creating potential attribution problems). Creating forks is not a dispute resolution technique. The inability to merge back is due to a dispute concerning if the content is appropriate in the article and hence the article is currently protected, again looks like a dispute resolution issue. --pgk 11:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion I'm in a bind here. I can't very well write my own version of the above Orderinchaos essay and address the misrepresentations I can see within. And I think it inappropriate to recreate the debate at this page: editors can read it for themselves. Safe to say that OIC was a full partner in this dispute and his summary of my actions shouldn't count for much.
In response to Pgk, the original article was a duplicate fork and condemned as such. As in the past, I used the AfD nom as a spur to make the article better. Over the course of a week, South Australian general election campaign, 2006 changed almost 100% — rewritten and brought up to the standard of New South Wales general election campaign, 2007. The article is not a duplicate fork. The edit history is not, given the comprehensive rewrite, an issue.
I would suggest to whomever makes decisions on things like this that:
  1. South Australian general election campaign, 2006 be reprieved until a discussion of the desirability of campaign articles in general can be concluded. At present, three recent elections have them, one of those saw an amicable resolution to POV disputes, the other survived a recent AfD vote, the third is subject to an ongoing AfD. As OIC mentions, a general discussion began at WP:AUSPOL. It continues here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Separate campaign articles.
  2. AfD discussion on Western Australian general election campaign, 2005 be suspended for the same reason.
  3. Failing that, South Australian general election campaign, 2006 be reprieved until South Australian general election, 2006 is unblocked and a merge can take place. A majority of editors voting on this supported the retention of the now-deleted content via a merge. The closing editor missed or ignored this; the content is no longer available to readers.
  4. Either way, Orderinchaos and his supporters be encouraged to flag and/or edit biased sections in the South Australian general election campaign, 2006 text itself; or discuss specific change proposals on the article's talk page.
Irrespective of the offence I may have caused (and I apologise if I have), Victoria shows that the content exists to write substantial, notable, verifiable campaign articles. New South Wales shows that it can be done well. I ask that all editors of Australian politics articles be given the opportunity to have their say on the general campaign-article issue before the article in question is forever removed. Joestella 15:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should note all the edits are still visible in the article history so merging etc. can happen when any disputes are resolved without problem. You seem to be asking for things not within the realm of deletion review, again this is not dispute resolution --pgk 15:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the points raised by pgk - the solution as provided allows the edits to stand in the edit history, while acknowledging the redundancy of a campaign article. As an aside, most of the above proposals by Joestella fail the reasonableness test anyway, as a clear majority of Australian politics editors have now spoken about these articles during the AfDs and articulated a lack of need for them except in certain circumstances - essentially it is a barrow being pushed by two individuals, one of whom has a documented history of supporting the other across a range of disputes, against the entire flow of the WikiProject, in the hope that the WikiProject will eventually concede the point through sheer fatigue. In a community where consensus is the status of a policy, denying the majority to spite a tiny, often disruptive minority is like mob rule in reverse - the Naming conventions ArbCom case had a very similar behavioural issue at its core and was resolved clearly in favour of consensus. Between those who have emailed, those who have expressed an opinion at the pages, and those at the AfD, I see almost anyone with an opinion - including many valued contributors who have written well-researched articles on these subjects - on one side, and 2 at the other. The sad point is that I am genuinely curious how many of these supporters have arisen as a result of solidarity due to opposition to past edits and behaviour by Joe on utterly unrelated disputes, rather than a genuine feeling on the topic at hand. I sense on this one that it is the latter, although the former increases the number of people who would have an opinion on such an esoteric topic as whether campaigns deserve their own articles. (My personal feeling, as expressed at the AfDs, is that some do and some don't). To be frankly honest, I would use Victoria as precisely an example of why these articles *shouldn't* exist sometimes. That sort of content belongs on a site like pollbludger (a site for whom I have the deepest respect) but not on Wikipedia. I would much rather (as would many) that Joe start to acknowledge the presence and views of fellow editors and accord them with the respect he desires for his own, and these disputes would simply not occur, and we could all go back to doing what we came here to do - writing articles. Orderinchaos 16:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Orderinchaos can't make his point in 1100 words, what use does he have for another 400? PGK, I don't think we need WP:DR just yet. I think by freezing and reversing the AfDs in line with Joestella's suggestion and letting editors discuss the general issues involved at the project talk page, this whole debate would be a lot less personal than I and others have been guilty of making it. It's a good compromise for now -- one that will give us a specific and comprehensive "consensus", not one that is merely inferred from selective quoting of talk pages. ChampagneComedy 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I think by freezing and reversing the AfDs"... You mean by ignoring the over side in the dispute and doing what you want. Sorry I cannot see this as an issue for WP:DRV --pgk 22:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure 1) History was already restored underneat the redirect prior to this review opening, so anyone asking to overturn or endorse a deletion knows not what they are speaking of. 2) Everything except this specific article is out of this deletion review's scope. 3) Normally, the regulars at DRV would easily decide unprotect a protected redirect, for the issue to be subject to discussion on the target article's talk page. However, that page has had to be protected due to an edit war. Get consensus there, and then we'll talk about how that consensus affects whether this should be an article. Adding fuel to an existing edit war would be a bad idea. GRBerry 01:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I agree pretty much (with only minor differences) with the Orderinchaos summary of the situation. If the decision were to be overturned it would set a really bad precedent, that if one person is just disruptive enough that they can overrule consensus and Wikipedia to make a point, I think the closing admin made the best decision in trying circumstances. As I said in one of the related arguments to this, the attitude of Joestella and CC has been pretty much "This is what I want to do and stuff the rest of you, it's my way or the highway". That is wrong. Wikipedia policy clearly says so. They're unhappy because the majority, whom they look down upon, decided differently to themselves, even when actively canvassed (there was at least 4 people directly contacted - but I won't complain about WP:CANVASS because it kind of backfired on those doing it, as some strengthened their existing vote) DanielT5 03:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a matter of fact, CC and Joe did not violate WP:CANVASS.--cj | talk 05:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Those approached were well aware, or able to make themselves so, of goings-on and hence could cast an informed vote regardless of who brought the matter to their attention. Orderinchaos 06:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per GRBerry.--cj | talk 05:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per GRBerry and the points made by Orderinchaos. I'm with CJ though - Joe didn't canvass for my vote, he merely asked me to review based on his improvements, but I still thought it wasn't good enough, so I left my vote as delete. JRG 06:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose delete and closure: What disturbs me most about this debate is the loaded language being flung across Wikipedia. "Conservative-leaning", "personal agenda", "tiny disruptive minority", "barrow being pushed". When did we stop talking about the article and start talking about the author? And why?
The only relevant facts here are the words written by Joestella and ChampagneComedy in the article. Are they true? Are they independently verifiable? Are they objective? Everything else must be ignored, or Wikipedia will stop being about peer-reviewed articles and start being about peer-reviewed personalities.
Shame on anyone whose decision was based on "patterns of activity". it utterly ignores what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, and it's not a community. It is a hundred thousand invisible hands moving towards the same goal.
Apparently it's helpful to be an Australian politics expert in order to weigh in on this debate, and I'm happy to say that I am. After sifting for hours through various edits and revisions, I still feel strongly that Joestella's work was reasonable, fair, balanced and worthy of inclusion. As Australian defamation law teaches us, it was both true and in the public interest, so I consider it perfectly defensible.
In the strongest possible terms I support Joestella's revisions, I support keeping the revisions open for debate, and I oppose deleting his work.
(talk to) Caroline Sanford 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close The page is not deleted, it was made into a redirect. Joestella's text is available (in full, and the source can be copied from) here. At this point, there are two questions:
Neither of these questions belongs here, however. Take it to Talk:South Australian general election, 2006, and WP:RfPP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Q (Street Fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There seems to be a revived interest in restoring this as a full-fledged article instead of a redirect now that User:A Man In Black, the primary force behind making it a redirect, has left Wikipedia. This is procedural and I have no real interest in it either way, so there's No Vote on my part. JuJube 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PHAROS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was speedy deleted as spam (blatent advertising) but I don't think it qualified. The project described seems to have involved some notablwe peopel and to be notable itself. The article does need beeter sourcing, and perhaps a rewrite for better NPOV. But it was not the typical one-or-two-editor spamvertising page, and i don't think a speedy is a good idea. Since this is a judgement call, I'm bringign it here. Overturn and List on AfD. DES (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC) DES (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

endorse It's the one I heard of. I think the article as it stands in the google cache is such as mess that it should be recreated from scratch--not that I intend to do it. DGG 06:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Elaine Draper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The subject is notable, has been mentioned in Take a Break magazine, which is a non-trivial source (it's a British magazine), and the article should be undeleted. Candyfighter3333 15:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Melissa Guille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closer's notes
I know I'm closing this early, but the position is quite clear and it's best to avoid any unnecessary hassle. Clearly, based on all the comments, there is one appropriate course of action open:

  • this version of the article should remain deleted.

but

  • this does not prejudice the creation of a new version of the article if it is well sourced and neutral and so on.

Just to make it clear, for this and future cases: we don't need to undelete this version of the article in order to start another version of it. As long as the new version doesn't exhibit the same problem that led to the old version being deleted, it's a welcome addition.

It seems that the title is not protected anymore, so work on a new version can begin. --bainer (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was originally protected from re-creation due to a repost of a biased article containing no sources at all; the protection is now removed since decent editors seem to have decent sources to work from. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you for unprotecting the page, but could I ask what you mean by decent ediors? I certainly hope you don't mean that editors who have an honest disagreement with your position are not decent. If you mean something else, then I apologize for reading too much into your statement. If i'm correct, I would ask you to apologize for this statement. I understand that these debates can heat up and emotions get the better of us, but there's no need for passive aggressive comments. AnnieHall 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guille is the leader of the Canadian Heritage Alliance (the article for which was recently undeleted), and a prominent member of the Canadian radical right. The last version of this article was a sourced stub, which was deleted without an afd or speedy notice. CJCurrie 06:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last version of this article was actually an attack, and the "sourced stub" before that was sourced from http://www.canadiancontent.ca/ - "thoughts and rants from the inside out" - more or less a blog. Nor do we need the history back, thanks all the same, as it is riddled with subtle smears. Please feel free to start afresh if you want, but the deleted version was, as far as I can tell, pretty much irredeemable. Note that the CHA article is very small due to the tiny number of sources which actually address it; I don't think there are many, if any at all, which addres Guille separately, so a redirect may be the best solution. Whatever, endorse the deletion of that which was deleted as an article whihc served primarily to disparage its subject. Guy (Help!) 06:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with CHA page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelmcardle (talk • contribs) 12:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Well, if we're looking for articles on Guille, this might work, and Google is bringing up plenty of other pages which, put together, would probably support an article. No opinion on the original deletion, but it seems like we could uphold something here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff, that is a single line court report. We already have that information, the charge was brought by the same guy who seems to bring most of the charges under Canada's human rights act. Thing is, though, it actually says nothing. I mean, if I were charged with driving under the influence, I'd get about that size paragraph in the local paper. We need better than that. I know more must exis, but the only sources for more that have yet been cited are not reliable. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is untrue, it only appears like a single line report because the full article is only available by paying for it or by subscription (or from Factiva and Lexis Nexis). However, if you look around you can find the full text on the web here [16] and it's a far more substantive article that gives her age, details of the complaint, the fact that she moved from Kitchener to London after being "exposed by the media" and also discusses, and give credence to, Matt Lauder as an infiltrator and investigator of the white supremacist movement. Therefore, this article can also be used to justify including references to the source material, ie the articles Lauder has written on the CHA. Also, this complaint by the "same guy who seems to bring most of the charges" isn't trivial. If you read the Richard Warman article it seems most of his complaints end up being successful, In fact, I can't find a reference to any of his complaints being unsuccessful as of yet. He also isn't just any guy, he's a noted human rights lawyer and former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. You can find the text of another London Free Press article on Miss Guille here http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:ajQM07VKZJMJ:www.recomnetwork.org/articles/05/03/27/0640235.shtml+%22randy+richmond%22+%22melissa+guille%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=ca

if you don't have access to Lexis/Nexis or Factiva. --Duke of Duchess Street 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Lexis/Nexis and Factiva return numerous non-trivial citations that can be used which have sources such as the police describing Guille as a white supremacist and as leader of the Canadian Heritage Alliance. Also numerous articles about her case at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Salting this page when there hadn't even been an AFD on it was a complete over-reaction. At minimum overturn and list AFD. --Duke of Duchess Street 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to unprotecte it, especially if you can write a sourced article in user space, but the claims Guille (not I) objected to may be hard to pin down to reliable sources. Either way, as long as a new article does not contain the links to an organisation she denies any involvement with, and does not engage in original research, it should be fine. No undeletion is required for this. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overturn - Yet another white supremacist who doesn't deserve their true colours hidden. --Mista-X 02:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn First, another complete copy of the “London Free Press” article can be found at [17]. It seems to me that one of the main issues we are concerned about is the legitimacy of certain sources. There was a similar debate a few months ago concerning the Marc Lemire article. On my talk page, Jimbo Wales provided the following concerning his views of what sources may be used:
I fully support the use of carefully quoted information directly from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, B'nai Brith, etc. For Nizkor, the main things I object to are allegedly archived usenet posts and email correspondences... we have no good way to judge what scholarly standards they used, and anyway those things do not seem to add much. There is plenty in the reliable sources.

--Jimbo Wales 04:03, 1 January 2007

A few points. First, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal articles stand alone as sources of information and do not need secondary media sources to back them up [18][19][20]. Second, if B'nai Brith are considered to be legitimate sources for an article [21][22][23] (note that Richard Warman wrote the section on Hate on the Internet in Canada in the 2005 analysis) [24], it makes sense that Canadian Jewish Congress articles are also legitimate sources [25]. Third, If this CJC article is a legitimate source, then should not the Canadian Content articles by Matthew Lauder also be considered legitimate? I think Guy has the wrong impression about the Canadian Content website; it archives articles and other media written by Canadians and is certainly not a blog. Finally, while Jimbo Wales said his concern about Nizkor had to do with usenet posts and email correspondences, based on this statement should we not accept archived mass media articles such as [26]? AnnieHall 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Canadiancontent.ca has editorial oversight. BLP forbids using self-published blogs, but e-zines with editorial oversight are fine. The London Free Press is also a reliable source. If the most recent version was troublesome, reverting and/or stubbing the article would probably have solved any problems. Kla'quot 08:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For crying out loud! Why on earth would we undelete a badly sourced, inaccurate, defamatory biography? What is wrong with you people? Make a new article, with sources, fine, great, dandy, but DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES undelete an article which leads with an unsourced statement the subject asserts is both false and defamatory! This is pretty basic stuff, guys! Rewrite fomr proper sources is the correct answer, here, not restore that which was deleted as defamatory. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the article didn't say she was a leader of the Heritage Front. I bleive it stated that she was a member. Second, I'm wondering if you read my input on the issue and looked at what Jimbo Wales wrote concerning the Marc Lemire article? The sources you believe are not reliable are in fact reliable. Finally, I would ask that you follow your own advice concerning being overly passionate. What is wrong with me is that I believe that you were overzealous in deleting the article and protecting the page and I'm merely trying to explain my position, as is others who are posting on this particular issue. AnnieHall 19:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy, you keep saying the article is full of unsourced statements, and the only backup you provide on that is canadiancontent.ca doesn't pass muster as a reliable source. I've just given you a reason that it does, and all you do is keep saying, "The article was unsourced!" I might be convinced of your premise if you undelete the history behind a screen. And even then, you can stub an article instead of deleting it. This is what Jimbo has done several times for unsourced and defamatory biographies.[27],[28],[29] Kla'quot 16:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if you can find a reliable source, that is reliable enough that we would include it against the subject's categorical statement that it is false, to support her being a leader of the Heritage Front. When you've done that, I will undelete the article and you can add that as the source for that statement. If you can't, then go to work on a new, sourced article which does not start fomr the premise that because she was a leader of a group of which she denies ever haivng been a member then she is necessarily a white supremacist, and therefore the canadian Heritage Alliance is a white supremacist group beacsue it includes Guille, who is a white supremacist because she was a leader of the HF. OK? Because I have to tell you that I did check Factiva before I removed the article, and I could not find a source for this claim. That may be down to my Factive namespace, of course. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy, Heritage Front and the Canadian Heritage Alliance are different organizations. Please correct your statement. Kla'quot 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well she's written two letters to the editor signed "Melissa Guille, Canadian Heritage Alliance" or "Melissa Guille, Member, Canadian Heritage Alliance" in which she refers to the group as "us", so if she is not the leader of this organization she has been acting as a spokesperson. A Toronto Star article described her as the designer of the group's website. Under these circumstances, referring to her as the leader is debatable but it is not defamatory. Sources:
  • Waterloo supremacist group has road 'adoption' revoked ; Sign is plucked from roadside; [Ontario Edition] Liz Monteiro. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Apr 19, 2001. pg. A.04
  • Free speech is chained; [Final Edition] Melissa Guille. The Record. Kitchener, Ont.: May 1, 2001. pg. A.06
  • Group was maligned; [Final Edition] Melissa Guille. The Record. Kitchener, Ont.: Mar 7, 2001. pg. A.12

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clayoquot (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • And common sense says that when you have a pile of decent sources and some editors who want an article, you go right ahead and write one, without arguing the toss over a deleted history that is full of junk. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD with all the sources present. Still no comment on the original deletion, but it's obvious that there's a lot to go with here, and it should get a proper hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with no prejudice to recreation of proper article per Guy. Defamation is defamation. -- Avi 18:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse so that the article can be started all over again from scratch. FCYTravis 18:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Guy, FCYTravis, etc. I have no opinion on whether or not an article on this subject meets our inclusion criteria, but we don't need to be publishing this article's history if we want to start over with a properly sourced, NPOV one. Jkelly 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point I'm less concerned with publishing the history than I am that legitimate sources are going to be denied as being legitimate: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal documents, Canadian Content articles, information from B'nai Brith annual audits, etc. If only information presented in the mass media is a legitimate source, then I would suggest that most specialized scientific articles on Wikipedia that might be found in only a handful of specialized publications read only by a few hundred researchers should be rejected as poorly sourced articles as well. AnnieHall 20:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long as those documents are not used out of context, and can be verified, you should be on solid ground. Agreed that Mass media is not the sole source, but with stuff in the edit history, it's better to start afresh IMO. -- Avi 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You need to be wary of WP:NOR as well. Reporting what is found in court documents or tribunal documents is OR if conclusions are drawn from it. You need reliable sources that draw conclusions to report those conclusions. We are tertiary source editors, not investigative journalists engaged in synthesis. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Guy and Mbimmler. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Guy, Jossi, et al. There is no need to undelete a bunch of smear stuff. Just write the article again, from good sources, if such can be done, keeping WP:BLP in mind, which clearly the first article did not. There's no need to oversight it away but there is also no need to bring the deleted revisions back. Start afresh, no need for AfD... if there are proper sources that's a waste of time... ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Guy. And why bring a deletion here when the deletion is without prejudice to a decent recreation. Go write a good article, if you can.--Docg 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What statements of Guy are you endorsing? That canadiancontent.ca, which has an editorial board, is not a reliable source? That Guille denies ever being a member of the CHC, despite writing at least two letters on the CHC's behalf? Kla'quot 21:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect he's endorsing Guy's actions here, not specific statements. As am I. Guy is doing difficult work here... People who delete things that are apparently poorly sourced smear jobs that push POV and skirt BLP ought to be thanked, not hindered. Go write a good article, if you can. ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors who write properly sourced articles in good faith should not have their work thrown away and be told that they have to start over. Lar, you are saying the article was poorly sourced. What is your basis for saying that? Kla'quot 21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My basis? First... Guy said so. His word carries a lot of weight with me, and I trust him to have done the research in this area. What is your basis for syaing that this article was well sourced and does not contain synthesis or original research? I trust Guy a lot. So you have to make the case that it is well sourced. Second... I reviewed the last version before it was stubbed (since I am an admin I could look at the deleted version) and in my considered opinion it was as I characterised. Not well sourced, full of synthesis, and a smear, not an objective, well written NPOV article. Again.. Endorse Deletion. You'd be farther ahead to have spent the time you spent ruleslawyering here on a fresh start, that article is not worth starting from as a basis, in my considered opinion. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When an admin speedies an article, they are expected to have a reason and to explain it. We are here to review admins' explanations for speedying articles, not to pat people on the back for all the good work they've done when they weren't deleting the article. "In my opinion, it was poorly sourced" is not an explanation; "Another person says so and I trust him" is just about the weakest argument imaginable. Can you at least elaborate by saying what the new synthesized argument was, what statements were poorly sourced, or what sources were unreliable? Kla'quot 21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're missing the point. "pat him on the back" is quite misleading, no one is doing that. However, Guy knows what he's doing in this area, based on my experience. Therefore when he says something is poorly sourced, J Random Editor has to strongly prove him wrong before I'll agree with them. You just don't have that same credence with me, I have no prior experience of you and you're not scoring many style points now. Hence Guy's reasoning, which has been given in spades, above, is good enough for me, absent refutation. Your asking me to regurgitate that reasoning ("Can you at least elaborate") is a waste of time because it's up there, and you haven't actually refuted it in my view, your arguments seem more like arm waving to me. When you have the credence with me that he does, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but not just yet. Others may differ but my money is on Guy knowing what he is talking about. THAT said I did look at the article and in my judgement, a good article could be written but that one is so far away from a good article, and so filled with slanted POV, that it needs to stay deleted. In my judgement. Go write a good article if you can. But this is just the sort of article that OTRS gets complaints about all the time, the sort of article that BLP is designed to address. What is needed in this case is that the article writer meticulously source statements made in other sources, and keep the article completely devoid of any OR. Someone could do that, maybe. Maybe you could... or maybe you could not. But I urge you not to argue here but rather to go write the good article that some think is there. The consensus seems to be fairly clear. Go write it. If you can. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - One woman and the low traffic website she runs are notable how exactly? Every single 'source' about them seems to trace back to Richard Warman... whether it be his connections with B'Nai Brith, his status as a former member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the fact that he has been the complainant on more than 80% of the challenges brought under the Canadian Human Rights Act (including the one against Guille), et cetera. We don't have an article on every single person Warman has hauled before the commission and there is no reason we should. He's essentially the single source for all 'news' about her - and clearly not an impartial observer in the process. Guille hasn't been 'found guilty' of anything because the charges against her and the website are still pending... though apparently the tribunal has a 100% 'conviction' rate. None of the statements listed in the complaint were actually written by her... apparently the claim is that Canadian law allows her to be guilty of 'hate speech' if she 'does not prevent' other people from posting biased comments to her site. I see no evidence of either notability or impartial sources for an article about this person... or her Canadian Heritage Alliance website for that matter. --CBD 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, Sited data is flawed missing factual information Rdouc 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

13 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Feed Me Bubbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Since deletion has gain additional notiriety in it's field. ZDnet, On TV RLTV and BBC let me know if you need additional resources. If you doubt it's growing popularity and notable features just search google for Feed Me Bubbe and you will see a lot of big people including Jeff Pulver talking about the program. Chalutz 23:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Barkeater Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Undelete: Barkeater Lake is a comic distributed by United Media, deleted by User:Sandstein under A7, a user with a known bias against comics distributed online. The comic clearly meets any notability criteria as it is distributed by one of the largest print syndicates. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
It's A Dog's Life/Egg Yolkeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedily deleted as A1 (no context) although the context was undeniably clear even by what's in the deletion summary. Should be undeleted, we have articles on most Ren and Stimpy episodes. Also, as a contested prod, Pixie King/Aloha Höek needs to be undeleted - I'd ask the admin who did it, but s/he's on wikibreak. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The entire contents of the deleted article was as follows: "It's A Dog's Life" and "Egg Yolkeo" are 15-minute episodes of the animated television show, Ren & Stimpy. That is not a stub, it's an unreferenced factoid. So: why treat them together, and what is supposed to be notable about these two episodes, and where are the sources for that, and how many other Ren & Stimpy episodes do we have articles for and how many of them are paired like this and - here's the clincher - how come there are fewer than 200 unique Googles for the titles?. Or put another way, Jeff, please persuade me that this content is worth the time you have wasted on it. Because to be blunt I think there are more productive uses of your time than challenging the deletion of worthless unsourced one-liner factoids. Or rather, in this case, re-deletion, as it has been deleted before. For exactly the same reason. Can't be bothered to write a full paragraph? Probably a bad idea for an article, then. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the first time it was deleted was for patent nonsense, not because it was a short stub. We don't delete episode articles not notability, nor do we delete articles with context. Is the content worth the time I've "wasted?" Well, I had asked you to undelete it before, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And it wasn't worth your time then either. You could have written thirty or forty better stubs than this in the time it's taken you and me to debate this useless one-sentence factoid. Below, someone who cares has done just that. If you genuinely care about content, then make content. If all you care about is slavish devotion to process than I have wasted a lot of time treating you as someone whose opinion has some value. When the toilet is blocked, do not place unnecessary obstacles in the way of the plumber. Don't like articles being tagged for speedy? Go to CAT:CSD and untag the invalid ones and add a {{prod2}} to the rest, people will thank you for it, it will save real time and real content. What you are doing now is not saving time, not saving valid content, and not doing you or me much good. I'm done here. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll be final arbiter of what's "worth my time." This could have been avoided when I first asked you about it, and I got stonewalled, so don't complain when I try to do something about it. Feel free to close this thing up when you're done, and there's still a prod undeletion to be taken care of. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This obviously isn't about the article, since there's no useful content there, nothing worth discussing. So, DRV isn't the place for whatever this is about. Friday (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it was about the article, which did have useful content and did have an improper deletion worth discussing. Since it's been recreated, however, I guess it's not really important anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've recreated the article in what is hopefully better condition (a whole paragraph and a source). Maybe now we can end the DRV and go do something better with our time.--Chaser - T 20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cortex Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Cortex Command (http://www.datarealms.com) is definitely a notable game, which could be released as complete without disapproval. Irishguy claims that because the game is still being expanded on, it it not notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irishguy#Cortex_command has the debate. Austonst 05:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Purple Pussy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Todd Goldman accusations of plagiarism. Malkinann 04:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above statement makes no sense. Please expand on your reasons for seeking a review. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creator of Purple Pussy has accused Todd Goldman of plagiarising Purple Pussy. This has been reported in one newspaper to date. The Purple Pussy article was deleted for lack of notability - these plagiarism accusations (which Goldman has acknowledged and apologised for) demonstrate notability. -Malkinann 09:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No they don't, they demonstrate that one newspaper reported a plagiarism claim. Please cite multiple independent non-trivial sources on the primary subject of Purple Pussy. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally, let's suppose that something like an accusation made a quantity of "note." To whom or what would it go? The strip, the accused, or the accuser? Perhaps it would go to "accusations of plagiarism 2007." Perhaps it would go to the host service. Perhaps it would go to the particular episode/strip being alledgedly copied. In other words, one guy making an accusation against another guy doesn't have any value for primary notability. Geogre 10:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what was in the article before, but I'd like to see what was in it. Given that it has been deleted and restored before, I believe there may be a couple of sources already in it. (For example, perhaps the ISBN of the book that Purple Pussy was published in.) Does an accusation have value for notability if it's true and verifiable? This plagiarism claim, and the newspaper article, (not to mention the coverage by the webcomic community) may help the case that Purple Pussy is notable by Wikipedia's standards. A couple of sources that I'd intend integrating into the Purple Pussy page, if it's undeleted: "Dear God, Make Art Thievery Die. Amen". Retrieved 2007-04-13. http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/do/2007/apr/12/566637041.html - Retrieved: April 12, 2007 "Todd Goldman is a hack, throw rocks at him". Retrieved 2007-04-13.-Malkinann 11:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The AfD was in January. The plagiarism charge is much more recent than that. The article's subject needs to be weighed with that in mind, especially since the press about the incident has increased. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a news service. "This comic was plagiarised, and it got in the paper" is not a reason to resurrect an article on the comic - at the most basic level, we require multiple independent sources, which by definition we can't have if the entire reason for notability (none other having been found earlier) is a single event surrounding a single strip (a single image, in fact). So far we only have the Las Vegas Sun anyway (the other being a blog and another webcomic). --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Page: One newspaper APPARENTLY (I disagree) does not determine notability; but look at what it has NOW:
    Two newspaper articles.
    Acusations of, and ADDMITTANCE OF said plagairism by Todd Goldman, the one who did it.
    Many mentions of the plagiarism by many "notible" people in the webcomic community.
    If this does not attest to notability, then we might as well just delete all but the ten or twelve that are hyper-notible (Justyn 01:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). The sources that were in the article before deletion were thoroughly investigated during the AFD discussion and were rejected by the community as grounds for supporting the article. (There were no ISBNs) The new sources listed above are about the artist and his ethics, not primarily about the webcomic itself. For the purpose of establishing the notability of the webcomic, they are passing or "trivial" references. They do not substantiate the overturning of the previous consensus decision. A redirect to the author's article might be in order but there is insufficient sourcing to support an independent article. Rossami (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'd rather see an article about Dave Kelly restored/created and a paragraph about purple pussy merged into that. Between the man and his comics, I'd think we have enough to support an article now. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist It seems to be appropriate for another full discussionDGG 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and new information is unpersuasive. The articles are about Goldman and hiss paintings, not this webcomic. Being plagiarized does not make one notable. --Dragonfiend 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore or relist. There seems to be enough material now. Additionally, PP was published in Keenspot Spotlight. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and head to Wikinews with news items. And "was published in Keenspot's whatever" is no indication of notability at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've made a small survey of the status of Keenspot comics and AfDs which can be found on my user page. Of comics that have gone through AfDs, four were deleted, four were kept and six were kept as a result of no consensus. Since admins in general do not give their reasons for their final decision to keep or delete, it is difficult to make a detailed analysis of how Keenspot membership affects notability. It does seem to often be considered to confer notability according to WP:WEB's third point to a degree that many AfD's become no consensus. Epameinondas 23:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Keenspot Spotlight is a comic book published by Keenspot. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

12 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PNMsoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

WP:CSD#A7 90.152.2.211 19:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator that deleted this article refuses to condsider undeleting "as it is the second time..." The administrator also states that his decision to delete was because "someone marked that article for speedy deletion and he agreed ..."

The first time this article was deleted was due to begginers errors (my mistake). I changed the article to confirm to Wikipedia's rules. I spent time & effort creating the article. If I'm doing something wrong, please tell me what, but allow me to change it and not blindly delete it.

This is from the Administrator's Talk:

Hi Wknight94. You have deleted the page PNMsoft (reason (WP:CSD#A7)) PNMsoft is an article about a real company and does assert the importance or significance of its subject. It is not controversial nor an advertisment. Could you please undelete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.152.2.211 (talk • contribs).

Someone marked that article for speedy deletion and I agreed and deleted it. See WP:CSD#A7 and WP:N for more information. This is the second time the article has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PNMsoft) so I am not going to restore it. You can submit a request at WP:DR. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I disagree with you but thank you for your answer.

  • Endorse deletion in the deleted form makes no assertion of notability and doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. The initial recreation was by User:PNMsoft which may indicate a WP:COI issue. --pgk 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PNMsoft is one of the pioneers in the development of BPM & Workflow software. is a real and proven claim of notability. The previous recreaction (by myself) was done since my previous article sounded like an advert, and was changed to meet the standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PNMsoft (talk • contribs)
  • Weak list for AfD. PNMsoft is one of the pioneers in the development of BPM & Workflow software. is a claim of notability which should have not let it be speedy deleted. Corvus cornix 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massive conflict of interest list for AFD I work for a company that actually is a leader in the BPM space (as selected by Gartner - publication 28 June 2006, ID Number G00139775 if any of you care to buy the report yourself). This company is not such a leader, nor even significant enought to merit a mention by Gartner in their annual report on the BPM market space for either of the last two years, but the article did claim that they are a leader. This is just typical marketing speak that means "does business in", not actually "leads" in the absence of credible third party support. A claim of notability merits an AFD, even if the claim is false, but this really is spam. If I didn't have such a massive conflict of interest I'd be prepared to endorse deletion under the more accurate reason of WP:CSD#G11. GRBerry 21:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • GRBerry is in a rival company (pegasystems). GRBerrys company is not in Microsoft's BPM Aliance, nor one of leading BPM & workflow leaders (yes, they appear in Gartners report - so what). GRBerrys comments shouldnt appear here (conflict of interests) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PNMsoft (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse deletion of unsourced hype-ridden article by blatantly conflicted single-purpose account - for which, read spam. Righteous WP:CSD#G11. No prejudice against a rewrite form sources by someone whose username does not match the company name, Guy (Help!) 23:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of the old AFD discussion. I find no process problems in that discussion. Endorse redeletion under either cases G4, A7 or G11. The deleted versions contained no assertion or evidence that the this company met our generally accepted inclusion criteria. Neither has such evidence been provided here. The conflict of interest issues make the situation much worse. Note: I have no prejudice against a recreation from independent, reliable sources (if they can be found) by someone independent of the company. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, it is your decision but seems unfair. One of you is in a rival company. One of you endorses because I forgot to log in. I humbly request a change to recreate, change or undelete the deletion. Thanks. PNMsoft — Preceding unsigned comment added by PNMsoft (talk • contribs)
    • Please reread what GBerry is saying above. Not only does he acknowledge the COI, he is supporting a call for a relisting for AfD, which actually supports you, in that it gives more eyes to the discussion. Corvus cornix 23:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, from the old AfD closure. There is no evidence presented that was not presented there, so there is no reason to overturn. And if the opinion of someone in a rival company doesn't count, why does the opinion of someone in this company count? -Amarkov moo! 19:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Diversified Technology, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted for CSD-A7 company. What and why? Speedy deleted earlier for lack of notability, which I corrected and gave references for. I cannot fathom why it has been deleted now, and wish it to be explained and reviewed, as I feel it is unjust. Dbmays 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.vdc-corp.com/Purchase.asp?viewtype=detail&id=1924&pagesection=ehw http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=11313 http://www.heavyreading.com/details.asp?sku_id=780&skuitem_itemid=753&promo_code=&aff_code=&next_url=%2Fdefault.asp%3F http://www.compactpci-systems.com/news/db/?1480 http://www.rtcmagazine.com/home/article.php?id=100653 http://www.tmcnet.com/voip/0107/it-feature-fault-resilient-computing-for-telecom-part2-0107.htm

Two of those are market studies that I have physical copies of so I just linked to the study site. --Dbmays 15:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Diversified Technology was the first to introduce an AdvancedTCA Infiniband CPU Node and Switch, introduced the industry's first AMD Opteron Rev. F based Node in 2007, and is the leading shipper of AdvancedTCA products worldwide." Those three items don't count as "notable"? Dbmays 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Silkroad forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The reason that it was deleted was because there was an edit war between the users from the forum. However, there was no actuall post at first. It was simply all the users trying to post random things. However, i have created a elegent post to start with, and i will keep adding to it. However, for me to create internal links n all i will need it up and running. The protection was due to me asking for it to be protected, however i realise now i should have just waited for it to be removed. I will also be contesting for it to be de-protected. Im still new to being a user, not just reader of Wiki. So do forgive me if i have missed a step. K3y-J 10:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Levite Tithe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It was deleted under the reason "POV fork". But that's impossible, as it was created 2 days before the article (Maaser Rishon) it is alleged to be a fork of. Maaser Rishon, on the other hand, is a POV fork; its main author (Shirahadasha), admits that the Maaser Rishon article is POV - "the article is ... representing the Orthodox Judaism POV". The Levite Tithe article, on the other hand, comes from this article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which aims to be NPOV.

Additionally, Shirahadasha (who was the individual which proposed the Levite Tithe afd) changed his view half way through the AFD, and instead asked for the articles to be merged, rather than one of them deleted. For a merge to be possible, the Levite Tithe article needs to be restored. --User talk:FDuffy 07:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
B-Movie Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please forgive me if I mis-dot some of the is and ts, this is my first DRV closing. The decision is: "We can rebuild it. We have the technology." Nominator agrees, by presenting a whole list of good sources. Deleting admin agrees ("Feel free to write a proper article"). Most of the others arguing fiercely here endorse one or the other of those views. That's good enough for government work. Closing, because I humbly propose that we are here to write an encyclopedia, one article at a time, not to make sure that anyone's wrist is thoroughly slapped (and that goes for both sides). Now I'm going to go and write the article using some or all of the sources Mel cited. It should be better in, oh, 4 to 48 hours. I think I am going to undelete the deleted revisions first, but I hope most people agree it doesn't really matter that much, as long as it does get made better. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The article (which had existed for nearly two years) was speedily deleted as part of an attempt to get another article (Democrazy (film)) deleted at an AfD. It's true that the article offered no sources; there is, however, no real doubt about its existence, and there are sufficient potential citations to establish notability. Aside from its own site and the IMDb page, see [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] (PDF), etc. It's linked to from six other Wikipedia articles. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. JzG, you're much, much better than this. Very disappointing to see occur especially in the context of the deletions of Democrazy (film), Honey Glaze, and his war against the alleged "walled-garden" (talk about a wiki-term that needs to be disposed of post-haste) of films made by the director. Borderline WP:POINT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, COI/Admin abuse by JzG. He is involved in active AfD disputes. One of the points of contentions is that since the Democrazy film won this award, it was notable. In turn, JzG deletes the article on the award in clear COI! Overturn. :( - Denny (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse of course. It's a commercial venture, and it made absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever. WP:CSD#A7 applies. WP:PARTOFAVANITYSPAMMERSWALLEDGARDEN is not an assertion of notability, as Mel seems to suggest, and there were no sourced claims in the article. IMDB is not independent either. Feel free to write a proper article with sources establishing notability, this debate is already three times the size of what was deleted. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, how does "endorse" sit with "Feel free to write a proper article with sources establishing notability"? Which is it: the article should remain deleted, or it should be undeleted so that it can be improved? (I'll pass over the obscure red-linked and capitalised jargon which makes the accusation made against me impossible to understand, and therefore to respond to.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The endorse relates to the decision to delete. Deletion review as it states is all about the process of deletion, not about the content hence half the overturns here are in many respects irrelevant. Deletion isn't necessarily about the subject, but often about the article as written. As it says at the top things like "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted.", this is generally true of deletions, if you can address the issues which led to deletion just create a new article. (Speedy G4 only applies if the article is essentially the same and does nothing to address the issues). Reasonably we spend 5 days here on wasted discussion, either to (a) undelete a poor quality article in the belief that endorsing the deletion is in somehow saying we should never ever have and article on that subject (and just end up leaving a lousy article around) or (b) undelete and have someone do the work they could have done before the discussion even started.... --pgk 10:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Add to that of course in most such cases hopefully the deleting admin will be willing to restore to userspace (or even mainspace) if there is going to be a good faith effort to address the issues (assuming they are apparently addressable), which of course you could just do yourself. --pgk 10:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Speedy was inappropriate. It seems clear from the description that the article was sourceable, and it must have been clear that the deletion would have been controversial, and so speedy does not apply.
  • In general admin action is, or so I have been given to understand, totally inappropriate in a case of editing or a dispute in which the admin himself is involved. Understanding could be demonstrated by undeleting the article right now, and , if thought necessary, sending it to AfD in the usual way. DGG 00:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Overturn, harmless, and notable (if only barely). Even if it was transparently created to bolster spam, deleting it won't help rid us of the spam itself; and if the spammer's managed to convince actual well-meaning Wikipedians to help him foist his self-promotion on us, the least we can do is snatch the seeds of worthwhile articles that he also leaves behind. I'm sorry I brought it up. —Cryptic 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, as the deleting admin has indicated he has no objection to a better article on this topic, without prejudice to listing if the article isn't enhanced within a reasonable time. Newyorkbrad 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice. Plausible topic, but article was nearly devoid of content ("screenings can be long films or short films ... various genres are included ..." O RLY). Somebody simply write a decent stub with sources and we're done. >Radiant< 08:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, notability is in dispute, speedy deletion did not help. From what I found at Google it seems to be a mostly local Syracuse, NY, affair with little wider coverage, but that's for an AfD to decide. Kusma (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Radiant. The deletion was fine, if it is notable has all the sources etc. just create a version which addresses the basic issue leading to the deletion. --pgk 10:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Acsys, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

User:Hu12 deleted this page due to spam. I aplogize for adding the article which was considered spam and I have rewritten the article using Wikipedia standards. Please consider undeleting this article. Thank you Klachman 16:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Georges Chatelain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Tom Harrison deleted two pages of which I am the author: Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher) and Georges Chatelain, whose bio I was in the process of finishing, under the pretext of non-notoriety. Both the personalities are well known, not only in France but also in English-speaking countries and correspond exactly to the criteria of notoriety imposed by wikipedia.

Thank you.Adrienne93 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The principal notability criterion we use here is: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works. Such sources should be reliable and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source should be considered in determining the number of sources needed. Further definition of this concept is provided at the notability guideline. I am pretty sure this is different from frWP, and I note that the frWP articles are essentially unsourced, as were the articles you posted here. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that's somewhat controversial, still. Assuming my limited knowledge of French, and assuming the articles in English were essentially translations, the French ones at least assert notability, and that information should avoid a speedy here, so overturn and list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you say. Meanwhile it's been the standard benchmark both here and at AfD for most of the time since it was moved into [{WP:N]] from User:Uncle G/On notability. Yes, Jeff, we know you'd like to include stuff that has only trivial sources, but I think it's safe to say that you are in the minority. It's also safe to say that it's not especially relevant here as there were no cited independent sources, and there were also problems with tone and neutrality, as pointed out below. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these assert notability, but I can't fault Tom for speedying them. The claims are marginal at best and are buried amongst heaps of promotional language, unencyclopedic detail, a total lack of third-party sourcing, and in Chatelain's case, direct links to purchase his cds. Should be sent to afd, though I strongly suspect that, if kept there, they'll remain problem articles for quite some time. —Cryptic 15:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not oppose listing them at AfD if people think that would be useful. Tom Harrison Talk 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list, by consent (preferably after giving the creator a couple of days to finish drafting). Newyorkbrad 20:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and list Marginal items are not speediable. speedies are only for articles that are undoubtedly NN, and can not be reasonably considered controversial. We can argue about what is deleteable at AfD in terms of sourcing, but unsourced articles are not a criteria for speedy--and in fact, making them so was explicitly rejected by the community a few months ago. DGG 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, heck Speedy Overturn. In what sense was notability not asserted, again? I see "founded the most advanced recording studio of its time" ... wrote a song that was later covered 40 times ... was taught guitar by Paul Simon, and recorded Sounds of Silence in French under his guidance ... put out a record played for 3 years on the radio ... recorded 7 hit singles ... for the love of! Unless you are asserting this is a hoax, this guy is quite notable! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can ensure you that it is not a hoax and that these personalities are completely notable. I have photographs of George Chatelain in company of Johnny Hallyday, Paul Simon etc. If you prefer that I withdraw the bonds towards commercial sites, that does not pose any problem. Moreover, the articles were not finished because I was creating them and to improve them when they were removed.
Thank you. Adrienne93 06:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wildness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Problems with the article were resolved, it was re-written and referenced in non-OR style, thus the AFD tag was removed, but it was deleted anyway. (Admin: Please note that the article in the Google cache is the old disputed version) Orgone 00:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. If we really really care then the debate can be reopened, but the article as deleted still reads as a personal essay and a POV fork of wildlife and wilderness. Like the article said, The mechanisms involved in producing wildness have not been elucidated. Quite. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. The article was just a personal essay that i strongly supported the deletion of. However, it was then well re-written by User talk:Lauriec. Turns out it is a valid concept in the field of Ecopsychology. Now, this whole area may be considered fringe, or even pseudoscience, but it is notably established, and Wikipedia has an article on Homeopathy, so i don't see why it shouldn't have one on Wildness. Orgone 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I consider myself well and truly whacked! I've never dealt with an AFD before, i'll get it right next time :) Orgone 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

10 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MySpace Events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I do not think this article should have been deleted since it had more than enough sources, facts, good grammar, and tone and was very informative. It was deleted for allegedly being a copy and paste of MySpace Secret Shows when in reality it was a whole 'nother article with another author and more (than enough) information. I do not think this article should have been deleted since it had more than enough sources, facts, good grammar, and tone and was very informative. It was deleted for allegedly being a copy and paste of MySpace Secret Shows when in reality it was a whole 'nother article with another author and more (than enough) information. Martini833 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per the discussion on the previous day's log, the "List of MySpace Shows" was not the right place to discuss this, even though it was speedied as a repost of a previously-deleted MySpace Secret Shows. With all of this said, the cached version shows a page that needs incline sourcing, but otherwise meets out standards for inclusion. With no prejudice toward the deletion of the old versions, overturn and allow this one to stand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, List of MySpace Shows was a speedied as a G4 it was a repost of the list at MySpace Secret Shows. This article was a more expansive explanation of the concept than existed at MySpace Secret Shows and is essentially a completely separate article.--Isotope23 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since you're an admin and i think you believe MySpace Events is a completely different valid article then can you bring it back?Martini833 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the version available seems OK, if it had sources for the individual events--just as Jeff says.DGG 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit history restored behind tag, no opinion yet. --Coredesat 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; a lot of work was put into improving the article. As mentioned above, the AfD discussion seemed to have turned into a debate over other pages and the original author's actions, not the merits of the article itself. After the improvements made, and pending those in progress, I see no reason for deletion. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. (to above comment by vendetta) Martini833 01:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, no offense to those who worked on it, but the article is still quite promotional in nature, and is rather abysmal (and has never been anything but). If there is to be an article on this subject, this is not it, and the only way to fix it is to start entirely from scratch. I imagine quite a few admins would still see this as being borderline G11. --Coredesat 01:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense to CoreDesat but why don't you try and write it from scracth cus it was written from scratch three times there so pleasing you is there... Martini833 02:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • i don't know if I'd agree with any admin trying to force a G11 on this. there's really noting self-promotional in nature about it, and certainly not enough to warrant a G11 with that in mind. The article is in tough shape, but I've seen much, much worse, and it doesn't need that much help - a removal of some of the dodgy fair use images and a little cleanup on the how, and it's more than a useful start. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't really help but comment on this; it is extremely difficult to write content about a promotional event without it sounding promotional. I believe that with the changes made, it is simply describing the promotional events (the subject matter) rather than promoting them. That's the main reason why I had asked for specifics on what to do, as a writer and editor, during the original AfD discussion; if anyone knows exactly how to accomplish this, they really should be instructing others rather than simply voting for deletion. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 03:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this article goes back up i will add an extra event called The List [www.myspace.com/thelist] and others if any. Also i'll put them in a more convinient order. You'll see what I mean...Martini833 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion while I appreciate the effort made to create the article, it still boils down to unencyclopedic promotional material. I agree with Coredesat that it is quite abysmal. If in the end we are going to have an article in the encyclopedia on this subject, then the current article is the wrong road to take to get there. I see it as a borderline G11. Jerry 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i can see the page is much much better than before and does not sound like an ad (look at the first attempt and you will see what they meant with an advertisement tone) but for now it looks great especially after vendetta fixed it. And if its soooooooooo bad as you say FIX IT! 65.11.27.42 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and keep You probably know this was my opinion all along but i never officially voted so here it is keep. Martini833 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I think this needs to be taken less as a debate about recreation of material and more as a debate about the quality of the material in the first place. Whether or not it is speedy-able is irrelevant here. The bottom line is that the article was an advertisement for MySpace (even if that was not the editors' intention). Axem Titanium 14:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion but i dont think so at all. Why doesnt someone step up to write it less as an advertisement. Deleting it would be a waste of an article (and the writers time). Everyone who says its an ad and doesnt step up to try and rewrite it is a hypocrite. Martini833 15:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy to anyone willing to rewrite the thing; otherwise, endorse deletion. The subject of this article is probably notable, given the extensive sourcing. Nevertheless, the content deleted is promotional, especially the scheduling information. I can't bring myself to overturning an AfD for this stuff, because the AfD's conclusion was justified in policy. Still, I do see a slimmer of merit in the content -- as a well-documented example of modern marketing. I won't "SOFIXIT" myself, because I know nothing about MySpace, and I'm not inclined to learn just to save this thing. However, if anyone else is willing to, I think there are possibilities here. Xoloz 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fictional portrayals of psychopaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn and delete - leaving aside the dueling psychobabble over the validity within the psychiatric community over the utility of the word "psychopath," the point still stands that the article suffers from fatal WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems. The most ardent defenders of keeping the article resorted by and large to arguments like "At least in films, there's usually pretty litle doubt if someone is a psychopath" and "Could anyone deny that most of the characters listed in the article are psychopaths?" and "It is utterly beyond reasonable doubt, in many cases, whether a film character is a psychopath in accordance with the usual dictionary definition of the word." A list article whose inclusion standard is premised on there being little or no doubt in the mind of an editor that a subject should be on the list in the absence of any source is the essence of a WP:NPOV violation and arguments from that standpoint should be discounted, especially in the face of at least one of the people making it expressing his belief that a character that in one editor's opinion belongs should be deleted. The essay portions of the article are completely lacking in sources and appear to be a textbook case of original research. The arguments offered in favor the article do not address the policy violations. The article should be deleted. Otto4711 14:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the OR issue is that there are no reliable sources for this data, since the judgement of what constitutes a fictional psychopath is being made in just about every case by the editors of the article themselves. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While re-reviewing the comments, it seems that those who endorsed keeping the article seemed to address the comments on the title (more specifically, the word psychopath) and not, as the user who initiated this deletion review stated, the concerns with NPOV and OR. Admittedly, the article is very poorly sourced and looks very much like OR. I was probably wrong in deciding to close this article as a "keep," but instead probably closed this as a "no consensus" discussion. Perhaps the solution is WP:SOFIXIT, but perhaps the article should be allowed to start anew: delete the article, and start from scratch. I really don't know which way we should approach this. Hopefully I made some semblance of sense, and if I didn't, you can always ask me to re-submit another comment. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 19:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete this uncited mess, but don't salt. There could be a decent list of fictional psychopaths, but it would have to have sources for each one - either the character would have to be referred to as a psychopath within the work of fiction, or some reliable source like the author or the series bible (for TV shows) would have to say that. The current article is pure original research. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOFIXIT by either 1. Validate which characters are psychopaths by getting each one them to fill out the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Non-compliance means expulsion from the article, ergo a basis for deleting the article. 2. Ask the ficition author/script writer of each psychopathic character to fill out the questionnaire on the character's behalf thereby at least giving a humorous reality to this ficition. If the character has no friend in his/her creator or the creator has crossed over, then another basis for trimming/deleting has arrived. 3. Ask Robert Hare to pass a NPOV eye over the list and delete those who in his opinion fail to meet the minimum criteria of psychopathy. 4. Rename the article as 'Fictitional portrayals of ficitious personality disordered characters uncritically diagnosed in absentia as psychopaths' or FPDCUDIAAP for short and replace each ocurrence of the word psychopath, sociopath, narcissism, anti-social personality disorder etc with FPDCUDIAAP. This is my vote as it will at least keep a brilliant list of crazy films together in an original and enkuklios paideia form, which offers readers an opportunity of a well-rounded education. Fix with the addition of Critical thinking --Ziji 11:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure This is within reasonable administrative discretion. I suspect that much of the list that is contained within the article needs to be whacked as original research, but the article itself is legitimate, as was shown by the AFD discussion. If part, and only part, of an article violates WP:NOR, the correct solution is to whack that part, not the entire article. GRBerry 16:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I have begun to FIXIT. It will take some time and care to deal with issues that violate WP:NOR without whacking the article since it contains original ideas, opinions and has signficant merit. It's a big job, please lend a hand--Ziji 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Keep arguments support the validity of this article. Any OR/POV issues can be fixed and are being fixed as indicated above. –Pomte 21:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Darvon cocktail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I cannot find or obtain enough information to know why this was deleted and protected. I and another user have attempted to contact Slim Virgin (talk · contribs) about the reason for the deletion/protection. Dextropropoxyphene links to Darvon cocktail, so it's not as if there is no relevant extant discussion. The deletion log lists speedy deletions and says "dangerous" (unless I'm mistaken, the Wiki policy on censorship does not allow for that as a valid reason for deletion), but I don't know if that's the full story. I am filing this review not in an attempt, necessarily, to get the page restored, but to find out the full story. Greener grasses (talk · contribs) is the interested party on behalf of whom I am filing this request. MalcolmGin 13:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment/inquiry/reminder: This review is not so I can get the article restored, but rather to try to discover what process/policy got it deleted/protected. I don't particularly care one way or ther other whether the article is restored (though Greener grasses (talk · contribs) might). I just want to find out why the article was deleted and protected. --MalcolmGin 00:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • And the answer is: becvause it was an unsourced article on a term for which there are fewer than 120 unique Google hits, most of which appear to be blogs, RX spam or mirrors; it was reposted numerous times, always without a single source for anything at all, including the name. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since citation is one of my specialties, I'll do what I can to figure out whether it's a workable article from that perspective. If Greener grasses (talk · contribs) wants to take up the torch, I'll suggest it to em. What's the process for getting a workable article reviewed and reinstated from User space? Another Deletion review? --MalcolmGin 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but we have different versions of what may be a worthwhile article. In my view, something for which there are under 120 unique ghits, with Wikipedia as the leading source for both the information and the title, is not likely to be a worthwhile article. There being zero hits in the usual medical sources I use, that sounds to me like the very opposite of a worthwhile article. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that any of this is anything more than conjecture at this point, as none of these facts changes what was an improper deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 2,160 unique hits on Google for "darvon cocktail", but only 71 for that phrase in English. It does seem like a lot of it is spam linking, it's true. On doing a preliminary survey via Google alone, I admit the results are pretty shoddy. However, I think there's more than enough citations to work with in the medical literature (search Pubmed for "darvon risk" (1341 hits) or "darvon suicide" (86 hits)) to make a good, well-cited article that could be published and perhaps protected afterwards. I have a trip to a medical library scheduled to do research on Klinefelter's syndrome citations, so I'll fold this research on "darvon" into it and see what I can get. I think in cases like these it's vital to be well-read and well-informed. Using abstracts only to provide citations would seem to me to be inadequate. --MalcolmGin 18:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. All this could be at Darvon, no problem. What we have here, however, is a mix of uncited content and an OR title. Wrong content plus wrong title = bitbucket. A redirect would be no biggie if you can cite the suicide element properly (rather than the recipe that was at this article). Guy (Help!) 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that some of the articles I glossed on PubMed used the phrase "darvon cocktail", but am not completely sure. I'll see if I can find a citation for your review. --MalcolmGin 00:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still can't find the phrase used in PubMed, but I'm only going on Abstracts for the most part, and there's still a search to be done on the phrase in the popular/periodical press, which generally is not indexed on Google nor on PubMed, and where I think there is probably the most fertile ground for moving the title of the article itself out of WP:OR-land. --MalcolmGin 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does one create a cited, workable version of an article that is deleted and protected? This is not a wise-ass question, but one meant to try to divine proper procedure. Do we use a sub-article article name, or an article name with a number attached, or do we e-mail it to you or some other admin/arbitration board? I'm happy to help users follow process, but only if there is documented process on how to do it properly. --MalcolmGin 14:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list, I don't see "dangerous information" listed anywhere in the Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion. I also don't see "how-to guide" there (though it is in WP:NOT). Unless this is an office action, the article deserves its fair shot at AfD. With five days, maybe someone will be motivated to do the necessary clean up and turn this into something appropriately encyclopedic. And if not, no big deal, we can delete it then. I don't think we need officious admins arbitrarily deciding what is "safe " for us to see. Xtifr tälk 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Guy without prejudice against an article that is verified and otherwise meets policy. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn so it can be improved. Amounts aren't listed, and that's the key safety factor. The general practice in discussing these things seems to be avoid stating exactly what the lethal dose range is, though it generally can be found in the medical literature, since professionals do need to know. Given references to the use of the mixture, I think the article could stand; For an article giving lethal ranges, it would be an interesting discussion.DGG 23:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The process here isn't "Make a bunch of stuff up and then have other editors try to come up with a post-facto way to justify its existence." SlimVirgin nuked an article that was both (a) original research (b) a how-to on how to do something that (c) could probably hurt the encyclopedia if anyone took our advice. I'm glad to see it gone. I hope it doesn't come back. I think any time spent kneading our hands over this article's fate is wasted time. Nandesuka 23:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. Many topics are dangerous. - I don't see any proof that just because there's an article about it in this project means it is more likely that people will commit suicide (the Methamphetamine article can be called dangerous since it describes its compounds). But it is an encyclopedic topic and I will speculate that it can even be a suicide-preventative tool for psychologists, pharmacists, counselors, etc. Even if editors disagree, by all means it should be talked about and not speedy deleted. --Oakshade 23:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no valid reason to speedy delete the article. If you want, list it at WP:AfD. There's enough opposition to this speedy deletion; process is important here. WODUP 04:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I speedied this because it was unsourced and dangerous (and would arguably be worse if sourced). Someone had already tried to add the precise amounts to it, so it was a page that was likely only to get worse. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dangerous" and "inappropriate," the reasons you mention on your talk page, are not valid reasons for deletion. I think I am going to attempt to make another version of it on a subpage of my user page, hopefully with a bit of help. I'm just disturbed at this issue, as it is the only time I've seen censorship on Wikipedia in my time here. Also, can anyone tell me where this all goes from here? Thanks so much; I've learned quite a bit in the past few days. Greener grasses 08:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the last time, it was not deleted because it was dangerous. It was deleted because it was unsourced, and it being dangerous merely makes it more necessary that we ignore the wikilawyers who think that "The world is flat" should be tagged {{citation needed}}. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's ridiculous to use the word 'improper' to describe the removal of unsourced content which in no way assists the creation of a policy-compliant article. On Wikipedia, process follows practice, not the other way around. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Providing this type of information constitutes an indirect form of assisted suicide, which is illegal in more direct forms in Florida, where the WP servers are located. I am not saying that promoting or helping an illegal act is automatically illegal in itself, but I would suggest that before we do so, we make sure that the entry clearly meets all our own notability and sourcing criteria, which it did not. Crum375 12:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That should be up to the Wikimedia Foundation lawyers then, shouldn't it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. What I am saying is that we as WP already have some recent black eyes in the public's perception, so in this case where we could be stepping on some legislative toes in Florida, we should at a minimum be absolutely sure we meet our own inclusion and sourcing standards, which we don't IMO. Crum375 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then we should ask the Foundation. "Office action' is a perfectly valid speedy-deletion criterion. But to preemptively delete this on the off-chance that it might cause legal problems, without consulting any lawyers, and using a deletion summary that blatantly violates Wikipedia policy, and almost seems carefully crafted to cause the maximum offense to those who take our no-censorship policy seriously—that is not acceptable! Xtifr tälk 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are missing my point. I am not focusing on a specific legal issue - I am focusing on our perception by the public, which has recently taken a beating. All I am saying is that in sensitive cases such as this one, where a news reporter may decide to use it to further denigrate WP as contributing to teen suicides or violating anti-euthanasia laws, we should at the very least be absolutely sure that such problem articles meet our own inclusion and sourcing criteria, which this one did not. Nothing to do with Office or Legal. Crum375 22:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well...that's certainly a unique argument, I'll give it that. I'm a little dubious about the proposition that we should allow our content or processes to be swayed by fear of what the popular press might say. But even if I accept that, there's another possibility that you're overlooking. What if the press picks up on the fact that some admins are blatantly censoring Wikipedia in violation of it's own established rules and procedures. What if they try to spin that into a story about the massive hypocrisy within the Wikipedia community? I suspect that a properly motivated reporter on a slow news day could turn that into a real hit piece. The fact is, if the press wants to write a negative article about Wikipedia, they'll be able to do so no matter what we do, pretty much. So to me, the proper thing to do is be honest, consistent, and true to ourselves. It may make people mad, but at least we'll be able to hold our heads high. And I do not feel that this deletion was honest, consistent or true to our principles. Xtifr tälk 11:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think we agree that we should stick to our basic principles, which means that if an article has no visible sources or notability, it should not exist. The issue here is that if the article can be viewed as 'dangerous', it makes it even more important to dot the i's and cross the t's. I can't see any media outlet being excited about WP sticking to its rules extra carefully about a dangerous subject. Crum375 12:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • You and Guy and others who are arguing for deletion are arguing (quite well) the next step in the process. First we overturn this improperly deleted article, list it, give editors 5? days to cite the article properly, then when/if the article is found properly lacking, we put it up for AfD. Circumventing the proper policy/procedure does none of us any good, helps, in fact, make Wikipedia look like it is run by Cabals of Administrators who think they know better than established, official policy. --MalcolmGin 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Proper procedure was not followed. If I understand the aim of this process (i.e. Deletion review), the aim is to determine whether proper procedure was followed, not to determine whether the content is dangerous or offensive. If the article is listed and remains unsourced (especially the title itself), then definitely take the article to AfD or delete it per other documented, defensible process. If we at Wikipedia don't have process we can rely on, then we won't make progress. If admins take the policy into their own hands without following process, if non-admin editors cannot rely on proper process, then we'll become lawless. Policy/procedure should not allow exceptions, except via changing policy/procedure. Policy and procedure keeps us all honest. I'm willing to personally go after admins for not following policy/procedure, and I hope other editors are as well. All Wikipedia users agree to follow the policies explicitly when we join the community, and this includes admins. I personally find it objectionable to the extreme that there are admins here arguing to ignore policy (and endorsing the deletion) on the basis of arguments grounded in censorship. --MalcolmGin 13:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article has the wrong content and the wrong titlke, as this one did, undeleting and listing serves no purpose other than to waste more time and effort. You can have it userfied to work on if you like. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say the point is "What is best for the encyclopedia?" I believe Slim was acting in good faith here, and that bringing this article back (without prejudice to some separate, hypothetical, correctly sourced article) is cutting off our nose to spite our face. Nandesuka 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As should be clear, I'm a policy-loyalist to the extreme, so please cite policy/procedure that supports your procedure, otherwise you are wasting my time. --MalcolmGin 15:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, then, "what is best for the encyclopedia" is not two admins deciding what's best for the rest of us, especially when we have a series of consensually-laid out policies regarding what should be removed without discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopaedia, ignore them!. There is absolutely no sense whatsoever slavishly following process just so we can all look at this and agree it's an uncited recipe with an OR title, thus neatly failing three core policies in one. No, what's important is not whether process was followed. What's important is, is this article of any conceivable use to the encyclopaedia? Answer: not as far as any of us can tell. I'll userfy it for you to play with if you like, but we have quite enough crap articles without arguing endlessly over another one. The content belongs in Darvon, with proper attribution to relibale sources. You'll find nothing in this article thatwill help get from here to there, but you are welcome to the text if you want it. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:ATT and WP:NOT are policy. Articles that egregiously violate policy are deleted. Articles that are reposted despite egregiously violating policy are protected against re-creation. And policy is, we are supposed to be at least reasonably clueful. I really can't believe the length of this argument over an article which everyone who has read it agrees is dross on a number of levels. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason it has come up is because some people (including me) feel very strongly about Wikipedia's no censorship policy, and the deletion clearly violated that! Now, to retroactively justify this out-of-process and offensive deletion, you cite WP:IAR, which has never trumped WP:CENSOR! Worse, you set yourself up as the sole arbiter of whether this article is attributable. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The proper place to find out is AfD! Note that the logs suggest that this article has never once been deleted for violating policy! Admins are not censors, and this deserves to go to AfD, if for no other reason, to drive that point home. Some people may oppose censorship only because they want to see pictures of boobies and penises, but some of oppose it because we think it's wrong, even when it doesn't involve boobies and penises! Xtifr tälk 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said elsewhere in this discussion, you are arguing, quite handily and well, for the next step in the process. It's clear that proper policy/procedure shows that this deletion was improper. What we should be doing, if we follow policy/procedure is undelete this article, unprotect it, give X number of days for editors to come up with a properly cited article. If after X number of days the article is not properly cited, put the article up for AfD. That's how the process goes. Speedy deleting this article is/was improper, and I don't think you can argue effectively that it wasn't. As I've also already stated, in my opinion it is objectionable to the extreme that you believe (and others do as well) that admins should be free to reinterpret policy as suits them. That encourages the public impression that there is a Cabal, that admins think they know better, and that they think they don't have to follow the same rules everyone else does. People keep arguing that Darvon cocktail makes Wikipedia look badly. What about the image projected by rogue admins who don't follow the rules but are allowed to because they say so? If you don't like the rules, change them. Don't just subvert them when you feel like it. --MalcolmGin 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find one reliable source (that is discussing euthanasia in the Netherlands) that includes dextropropoxyphene as part of a euthanasia procedure. However, it doesn't call it a "Darvon cocktail", it gives different dosages to the ones in the deleted version of this article, it doesn't include at least one of the drugs mentioned in the article (I'm leaving out specifics.), and it presents the recipe as just one small part of a larger discussion of several recommended euthanasia methods. (Apparently, a set of guidelines was created in 1987, giving several choices. Our euthanasia article is clearly missing some history.) The article didn't discuss the subject in context, used a made-up name, related the subject to suicide rather than euthanasia, and wasn't even factually correct, to boot. Whilst it should have gone through AFD in the first place, if this article is undeleted, I recommend that it be sent immediately to AFD, where you can record my opinion right at the outset in favour of deleting it as unverifiable from reliable sources, with the reliable sources saying something quite different, that shouldn't be covered in an article by this title. It's a classic example of Usenet/WWW folklore, originating from wholly unreliable sources (some participants in a newsgroup), that doesn't belong here. Uncle G 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment all of this would possibly be relevant at AfD, but it in no ways justifies a speedy. If verifiability will consist of adding the dosages, I'll certainly defend that. "If you stay under water you'll drown" and "if you stay under water more than 3 minutes you'll drown" are both of them perfectly legal statements. Only the Foundation has the authority to decide otherwise about a dosage range. The dosage should be given in ranges in any case, there is for no substance a single fixed amount which is lethal. See LD50DGG 00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed with respect to friends I've had who've taken euthanasia, as far as I understand it, the dosages of whatever terminal medications are dispensed by hospices are calculated from body mass and whatever other clinical metabolic information the hospice has for the person taking the medications, cocktail or not. --MalcolmGin 01:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, I'll avoid most of the arguments that have been mulled over repeatedly, but one view that I think has yet to be countered is the idea that this article is a how-to. The most direct (and somewhat ironic) counterargument is to compare this article to wikipedia's articles on various cocktails. For example, Martini (cocktail) not only says what's in the drink, but how much of each item and a significant section on perpetration. Admittedly martini might be breaking policy, but the darvon cocktail article comes nowhere close. It doesn't describe how much to use, how to prepare the ingredients or how to consume them. If you're going to call any article which lists it's components a how to, then it's also time to delete steel. Vicarious 02:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Guy, pharmacological mix of a pain reliever, anticonvulsant, sedative-hypnotic, antiemetic, Wikipedia is not a pharmacy, no dosage info, WP:OR, unsourced.--Dakota 03:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Guy. Why would we list something that will just be deleted anyway per WP:OR and lack of citations? Per badlydrawnjeff, while the rules are good from stopping anarchy, they are not the purpose of the community and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Furthermore, as stated above, you can be bold and ignore the rules if it helps Wikipedia in the end -- this is why the article was speedied. We're not here to debate policy or rules, we're here to make Wikipedia as good as it can be. So why waste time here and make Wikipedia more of a bureaucracy than it already is? It would seem, per this debate, that many of us are losing site of Wikipedia's original goal. Rockstar (T/C) 06:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might be deleted. Not "will", "might". We don't know that it would still be OR and citation-free after five days at AfD! That's part of the point of listing something at AfD—it gives the creators (and other interested parties) a last-minute change to clean up an article and add proper references. Which is why the speedy criteria are so narrow! Anything that might have a chance should be given a chance. It's quite possible that the people who have repeatedly created this article have all the references we want—after all, they're the ones that created it, and surely they know what their own sources were. I have seen numerous articles at AfD that I was convinced could not possibly be saved where someone has come up with some good references at the last minute, and turned an OR piece of crap into a damn good start. Sure, it's rare, but it happens often enough that I'm convinced these rules are important and not just bureaucracy! And I find it amazing that a prod always gets overturned, no questions asked, but an improper speedy which should have been a prod, at most, turns into a huge debate! Why not WP:IAR whenever a prod undeletion is asked for? Xtifr tälk 09:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because we don't know if it will be deleted, and I don't think the speedy helps the project at all. Interestingly enough, by censoring something we don't like, it appears that we're losing WP's goal that way, not by trying to figure out if a piece of informaiton is worthwhile. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point: forget the speedy discussion, it seems as though the search for sources has already been exhausted in this deletion review. I, personally, along with other editors, have searched and found nothing reliable. Thus it seems pointless to relist it and go through the same process that has already been done here. Don't misinterpret my statements, I'm not saying that everything should be speedied or that we should completely abandon the AfD or Prod process -- I'm saying that sometimes the rules don't apply to every situation and that it's pointless to be bureaucratic when we can just use common sense. Rockstar (T/C) 16:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen other cases where established editors at AfD (including me) have been unable to find reliable sources until someone who knows the subject comes along and knows just where to look. To me, the fact that this kept getting recreated strongly suggests that this actually has a better chance of having sources than many prodded OR stubs that get undeleted without question. And that, combined with a strong smell of censorship and hints of pink-cheeked admins (first time I've ever linked to that essay without my tongue firmly in cheek) says to me that a simple, uncomplicated listing at AfD is not only the right thing to do, but our best path to improving the encyclopedia. To me, that is common sense, TYVM!  :) Xtifr tälk 20:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen that happen in AfDs too. But per numerous searches (including taking Google searches out to the thousands and a comprehensive search on LexisNexis), nothing reliable has come up. Furthermore, I have seen nothing that has convinced me that any admin was rogue-ing around and attempting to "censor" Wikipedia. This is a common sense matter, and, furthermore, whatever happened to assuming good faith? Rockstar (T/C) 05:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Wholly unverifiable content which lacks any reliable sources, which means it *must* (not "might") fail any AfD that will be brought, because AfD is not a vote, and WP:V is fundamental policy - no "consensus" can override it. If, then, it will be an automatic "delete," I see no reason to go through process for the sake of process. If reliable sources are found, the article can be recreated at any time - just notify an admin that you've got sources. FCYTravis 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy criteria? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, if the article is entirely unverifiable at this time, there's no reason to put the article through a "process" which Wikipedia policy dictates it must fail. Furthermore, for those who want to keep the article, when it gets deleted by AfD, even if you *find* a source 6 months from now, you'll have to go through DRV to get the article back. If you can't find sources for it now, the speedy will stand until sources are found - no more DRV mess needed. FCYTravis 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • More eyes may find the sources you look for - we don't run the AfD at DRV. So, again, CSD criteria? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:SNOW. This article has no chance of survival as currently written and despite repeated Google and Medline searches, nothing has been found to support the article's existence. The burden of proof is on those who include content to demonstrate that it can be verifiably sourced. They've failed, so far. Find a source, and I change my vote. That's all it takes. Apparently, for you, that's too much to ask. I repeat my offer - if someone finds a source, just leave a note on my Talk: page and I'll undo the salting posthaste. That's all I'm interested in - verifiability and encyclopedicity. Not process or rules or "speedy criteria." FCYTravis 22:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you can't justify it. Gotcha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Process uber alles. Gotcha. FCYTravis 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just protecting the masses against abuse. No harm in that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Supporting the immediate deletion of an admittedly-unverifiable medical article for which even a single reference cannot be found is "abuse?" That's so bizarre a claim as to be laughable. FCYTravis 00:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Is it that bizarre? I don't think so. Supporting the deletion of something with no legitimate justification is abusive, yes. I'm sorry if you don't agree, and you should probably stay away from CSDs for a while if that's the case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • badlydrawnjeff badgers every single "endorse" voter and calls them abusive. Film at 11. Nandesuka 00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No, it's called making a human judgement, which is what administrators are given mops and buckets for. We are not robots. We are allowed to make decisions based on our own good sense and interpretation of the situation. If an admin's call is a bad one, there's recourse - to DRV, to RFC and ultimately, to the ArbCom.
                      • If this DRV is successful, it'll go to AFD. If the DRV isn't successful, you can appeal with an RfC for abuse of power. You can even take it upstairs to RfAr if you like. They've not been shy about yanking the sysop bit lately.
                      • Or, if you were really interested in improving the encyclopedia, rather than just invoking process for the sake of process, you could dig in and find a freaking source to verify the freaking article and shut all of us up, ending this freaking mess. Your call. But see, I don't think you believe there's a source for this either. All you want to do is drag this out to prove your freaking point that we should all be following process to the exact letter, crossing all t's and dotting all i's, ensuring that no marks are made outside the bubbles and that we do not bend, fold, spindle or mutilate the 52 forms in quadruplicate which must be correctly completed before deleting an article which is in flagrant violation of not one, but several of our most basic policies - WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR just to begin with. FCYTravis 00:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I have no interest in running an AfD at DRV. If this DRV fails - and, logically, it should not - then I may in fact have to escalate it. We'll cross that bridge when it comes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I have yet to be convinced that any admin has abused his/her power. I'm afraid that some of us are taking this DRV personally. Furthermore, I'm with FCYTravis -- it seems that some of us are doing a reverse WP:POINT -- purposely following all the rules to prove a point, when it would be easier just to let it go. Rockstar (T/C) 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Do any of the overturn supporters really think that sending it straight to Afd, wasting 5 days of debate and redeleting it is worth following the letter of the process. It has no chance of being a real article and should remain deleted. Yes the deletion does not follow the LETTER of policy but we are not a democratic, wikilawyering bunch of process wonks; we are writing a referenced encyclopedia. Occasionally we must bend he rules in the interest of a better encyclopedia and this is a perfect example- Peripitus (Talk) 02:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because you asked, yes - I think that there's a good chance that this could be kept with more eyes and more people seeing a) what's there, and b) possibly having some work on it. Contrary to the perpetuated myths, this has little to do with "process" and more to do with giving it a proper hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but I do notice that there are no news articles to be found, no journal articles and nothing that shows this is not a cruel and very very stupid hoax. This is one instance where I believe we should take the attitude of no references -> no article whereas on any other subject (like your favourite, biographies) more leeway is rightfully allowed. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yes, this horrible, bureaucratic process that will probably cause some admin to waste whole minutes of his life. That sure would be a disaster! Then of course, there's those 5 "wasted" days of debate. Yes, Wikipedia will have to screech to a complete halt, because this article is at AfD. As for finding sources, let me say again, why does this keep getting recreated? It's not like your typical garage band, webforum, shareware game or furrycomic, where you can expect a small but persistent group to keep trying to promote their favorite hobbyhorse. (If it were, I would probably be shouting IAR with the rest of you.) This is a really odd one, and the fact that it keeps getting recreated makes me pretty sure that there must be some sort of source out there. Maybe not a reliable one, but we don't know, since we can't find it! I think AfD gives us the best chance of rousting the source so we can judge its merits. And maybe, just maybe, the result will be a good article we can be proud to keep. So, if we do the right thing, and follow process (oh noes!) in this one instance, either we'll improve Wikipedia or a couple of people will have wasted a few minutes. I think that's a risk worth taking. And if someone accuses me of being a "process wonk" again, I'm going to have to get out my LART and show people what kind of process it is capable of!  :) Xtifr tälk 07:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sarcasm needs work, as subtle is better. I think I said we weren't process wonks but I do admit your way is funnier - Peripitus (Talk) 08:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe someone should test the method to prove verifiability. Maybe we should give the process wonks their time of day and list it. Or maybe we should just keep it deleted because you, I, and everyone else knows that an AfD will just end in a delete. Whatever. This has gotten stupid and out of hand. Rockstar (T/C) 19:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Honestly, while I don't think "keep" is a probable result at AfD, I do think that "merge" is a strong possibility. Assuming the persistent re-creators haven't been scared off completely, and can be persuaded to reveal their source(s), we may well conclude that the topic deserves a mention somewhere (perhaps in the coiner's article), even if it isn't notable enough for its own article. As I say, I have no problem with an IAR closure when the (re)creator's motives are clear, but this one is murky and strange and deserves (IMO) a little further investigation. Especially since the speedy was clearly invalid (nobody has denied that) and the creators have never had a chance to justify themselves (and probably don't know this review is happening). Xtifr tälk 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your entire argument is based upon the false premises that (a) the article is persistently re-created, (b) that the creators were working from sources, and (c) no-one here knows the source for this content. In fact, as you can see from the deletion log, the article was deleted before only once, on 2006-08-30, and thus re-created only once, and not "persistently re-created" at all. Furthermore: The initial edit of the re-creation, by Mattcam3 (talk · contribs) included a "from Wikipedia" link at the bottom and was word-for-word identical with the immediately prior deleted content, indicating that the "source" that that editor was using was a cached version of the article from prior to its deletion, and this "re-creation" was nothing more than a resurrection of deleted content from a cached copy of the article.

              It is also untrue that no-one here knows the source for this content. I know the source for this content. As I said above, I went looking for sources. The source for this content is postings on Usenet newsgroups, and web pages whose content is gleaned from those postings. This idea of a "Darvon cocktail" originates, as I wrote, with some participants in a newsgroup, going by pseudonyms such as "I_Love_Busoms". Usenet postings are simply not reliable sources. They have unknown provenance and clearly don't go through fact checking processes. The fact that one of the earliest Usenet postings on the subject is a "I haven't got this to work myself, yet." posting should be amply illustrative of utter lack of research and fact checking that is behind this idea, if the simple fact that the entire idea originates as hearsay on Usenet is not damning enough. As I wrote above, this whole notion is simply Usenet/WWW folklore.

              In stark contrast, the sources that talk about the use of dextropropoxyphene in euthanasia in the Netherlands cite guidelines created by the nl:Nederlandse Vereniging voor Vrijwillige Euthanasie. Part of the history that we are missing from euthanasia is the Postma case and its fallout.

              We don't need this rubbish, and my opinion at AFD will be to outright delete it, not to merge it anywhere. What we actually do need is more content from reliable sources on a different subject. Uncle G 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

              • To a) I see four deletions, on 2006-08-30, 2007-02-25, 2007-03-07 and 2007-04-02. Without access to the history, I had (and have) no way to interpret that as anything but four creations. To b) I cannot see the initial edit of any of the recreations. All I really have access to is some very disturbing and misguided delete comments, both by Slimvirgin and Doc glasgow. To c) I did see your earlier reference to this being "Usenet/WWW folklore", but did not read that as clearly saying that you'd identified the source. Now that I do, I feel much better. Thank you very much for addressing my questions directly, rather than making vague implications about bureaucracy-obsessed "policy wonks", though.  :) Cheers, Xtifr tälk 05:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A few Endorsers are asserting that research for proper citations is complete and has come up empty. This is a misrepresentation. I've put about 30 - 60 minutes into using Google and PubMed to try to find verifiable, proper attributions. There still exists a strong possibility that a basic public library search (anyone have LexisNexis?) and a search of various other reference works I do not have ready access to may bring up a suitable reference. I would not throw out the possibility of proper citations just yet. Another factor is that I'm currently travelling and attending to family duties, and the rest of April is looking pretty bad for me getting to the proper kind of library to do the research. What would be a wonderful gesture, I think, would be for a deletion endorser to put up some time and research to try to put the subject of citations properly to rest, instead of misrepresenting what I've said about citations and sources. --MalcolmGin 03:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have full access to LexisNexis and a very comprehensive University Medical Library. I was in the Med Library earlier today and went ahead and spent some time checking up on the topic. There was nothing in either the Med library or even a complete and comprehensive search on LexisNexis. The topic is a neologism at best that has been promoted and furthered by newsgroups and Usenets. Rockstar (T/C) 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. I still strongly object to short-circuited process, but I also see that there's a lot of momentum among editors and admins to short-circuit and I know that my force of will alone can't move all mountains. I'll keep my overturn on record, but it does look like majority (realize that this does not mean consensus) is to endorse the deletion even though it's not a subject of full process. For now it sounds like it'll need to stay in Greener grasses (talk · contribs)' user pages until/unless the title's phrase makes it out of neologism land and is listed by a verifiable source in some useful context. Thanks for doing the research work. --MalcolmGin 03:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Neutral per Uncle G's direct answers to my direct questions above. I cannot bring myself to actually endorse what I consider to be the most inappropriate, misguided, and borderline-offensive deletion log entry I've seen in...well, ever! But I will withdraw from the debate, as I feel my strongest motives for persisting have been addressed. Xtifr tälk 05:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

9 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Boston slang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2)

Undelete - I am not sure why this was ever deleted by Premeditated Chaos (User:PMC). If the reason was "listcruft" than I beg to differ. Although, Boston Slang may seem to be of interest to people in Boston, The movie "The Departed" (the Acadamy Award Winner for best picture this year) had many Boston Slang terms being thrown around in the dialogue, so the interest has just peaked to an international scale, and this article may be extremely useful to those folks (and there are millions of them), trying to understand what Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Matt Damon, or Leonardo Dicaprio are saying. Oh, and there is a sequel scheduled for production. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.117.21.7 (talk • contribs).

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of MySpace Events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was made to complement MySpace Events which was getting too long so I made a page for it. I think it should be reposted as it is one of the many LIst pages.65.11.27.42 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure I understand your reasoning Jeff. This DRV is only for the List article, which I speedied as a recreation. MySpace Events is a separate (though related) article that went thought AfD. If someone wants to contest the deletion of MySpace Events, that should be done separately in another DRV. One (the list) was a recreated list of past event. The other (events) was a separate article on the concept itself... two entirely different things.--Isotope23 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you get it this is just another list out of the many on wikipedia. it's just an aid. GET THE PICTURE!!!!!!!!! Martini833 21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, please. As for MySpace Events, it needs a separate DRV. which it has gotten, so never mind. --Coredesat 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Online Football Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The game is played by over 300,000 people and the Dutch version (Online Soccer Manager) is played by even more people. It was deleted for being biased to OFM. I can redo it to make it neutral. Michaelmcardle 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment See WP:BIGNUMBER. Lots of subscribers isn't enough to make it notable. Oren0 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. While several people commented that it was biased or poorly written, it was deleted for failing to provide evidence that the topic met the appropriate inclusion criteria - in this case WP:WEB. No evidence was provided either in the deleted versions of the article, the AFD debate or this discussion to show that the site does meet the inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Dutch version (Online Soccer Manager) is in the Dutch Wikipedia so shows that it can apply to the criteria. Also having it closed forever means anyone not with the site cannot make an article for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelmcardle (talk • contribs) 08:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    The different language wikipedias set different standards for inclusion, so making it in one does not make it automatically valid in another (or even within the same wikipedia). This is lacking evidence that it meets the notability standards, if it is as popular as you state you should be able to find multiple independant non-trivial reliable sources which discuss this. --pgk 10:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Upfunk Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was unfairly deleted. The recent edit made to PROVE Upfunk Creek as a notable Australia band was ignored. Either restore or provide me with the article to further edit it to wikipedia standards--Shmonia 05:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hindutva propaganda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is an interesting DRV, so bear with me.

Simply, I closed this debate as delete as, after reading and re-reading the entire thing, I was of the opinion that the keep opinions were far weaker ("bad faith nom" was used a couple of times, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as well, for example), and generally they neglected to respond to the WP:NPOV and WP:OR arguments in a satisfactory fashion. However, that appears to be my opinion only, which is where the trouble starts.

Subheadings number 24, 25 and 30 in User talk:Daniel.Bryant/Archive/30, as well as a thread on ANI (under "questionable deletion", will be archived soon) is the strong dissent. However, these users refused to come here (or have forgotten to), and as I have noted in those sections in my archive and on ANI, I will not be changing my close, nor expanding on it. So, I bring it here, for a definitive response. Naturally, I endorse my own deletion, but I'm sick of people whinging at my talk page after I've already said I won't entertain any more trolling/discussion on the matter, so I bring it here to force them to argue with the primary focus on process (ie. my interpretation of the debate).

Can I ask we stear away from relisting it, because, put frankly, we're just going to end up with the same AfD debate in round two. Undelete, or endorse, are the only real options here. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse I am personally in basic agreement with the views expressed in the article. Nonetheless, i think it is POV-pushing to insist on the insertion of the article, unnecessary because the same views are thoroughly presented in the articles for each of the individual topics discussed. However well meant, the effect of this article is to increase contention on an intrinsically contentious topic,, and the debate on it--as with the previousarticle--is therefore interfering with the actual editing of WP. Let it rest. DGG 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - This is what I said then and I stand by it. Also per Daniel and Bakaman. Sarvagnya 09:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember that this isn't completely whether you thought the content of the article was didn't meet the guidelines, but also whether I interpreted the consensus of the debate properly and closed it correctly. However, thanks for the support. Daniel Bryant 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interpretation was perfect. You also displayed rare courage in taking a stand to delete it. I congratulate you for that. Sarvagnya 09:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear endorse, good close based on the weight of argument presented. A compelling case is made for this being a POV fork. This despite my broad agreement with the POV expressed - the fact that most of the Hindutva arguments are generally regarded as specious seems to be well supported by sources, but that should be reflected in those articles, not in a fork. I have every sympathy with those struggling to maintain that balance against impassioned supporters, though. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I was one of the "bad faith noms" Daniel.Bryant mentioned.
  • In fact, I wrote "bad faith third nomination", pointing to the previous AfD. As the commentary following my vote showed, I should have been explicit about the timing, to avert the risk of my vote being reflexively ignored. In any event, it seems that Daniel.Bryant has deemed four days "a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again", and thus perhaps disregarded the earlier AfDs as of no evidential value, especially towards (a) the existence of a definite POV lobby, and (b) the fact that "propaganda" was a word suggested as an alternative to "pseudoscience" and thus adopted. Subsequent arguments against the word "propaganda" should therefore have been disregarded except as a case for another renaming, for which possibilities (such as "pseudoscholarship") had already been mentioned.
  • I did not concern myself with debating either WP:NPOV or WP:OR arguments in this AfD, because I could not find either of these considerations listed as significant. Either Daniel.Bryant's skills in parsing English surpass mine, or he has applied the phrase "but not limited to" to comprehend WP:NPOV and WP:OR, which would mean that he considers pure content disputes to be within the scope of AfD discussions. Beyond that, he has required that every argument for deletion, no matter how trivial, must be answered, lest the closing admin take the lack of response as significant. I cannot fathom this.
  • In adjudicating NPOV and OR concerns, Daniel.Bryant wrote "I cannot see these concerns being fixed anytime soon, if at all." Really, "if at all"? Quite frankly, I never expected to read such a pompous dismissal, of the consensus process central to Wikipedia, by an administrator, let alone from someone so young as to call into question the depth of his experience to be offering such summations. He was swayed by the "rough consensus" for "delete", but it appears that he concluded that this consensus was specific to this article. I will assume that he is not aware of phenomena such as POV lobbies, and thus not aware of how his decision has validated gang warfare on articles, for no essential reason other than "we don't like it", as it now suffices merely to scream NPOV! and OR! in unison.
  • If Daniel.Bryant read the article as of the AfD closing with dismay, I sympathize. The state of the article was impacted significantly after the initiation of the AfD, by contributions from parties who had already voted to delete. More than one section went from prose to gibberish. Attempts to revert to a sane state were re-reverted. Apparently sabotage is acceptable, and I was even put on notice by an admin. I therefore elected to "let the debate run its course" and desisted from wasting my time editing the article with prompt reverts in the offing. Daniel.Bryant's decision implies that I should have wasted my time anyway, especially since the only protracted debate followed a reading of the sabotaged version of the article, and since, apparently, closing admins are not to consider edit histories. I am duly enlightened.
My opinion of this decision, on procedural grounds alone, should be obvious. Thank you for your time. rudra 11:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, well-reasoned close on Daniel Bryant's part. --Coredesat 12:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion concur that Daniel's interpretation of the debate was completely reasonable. Addhoc 13:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Agree with Daniel.Bryant. He also deserves praise for standing up to the personal abuse he's received from the article's main supporters since the close. ॐ Priyanath talk 13:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Delete per Daniel Bryant but we need to keep in mind is that NPOV is not generally used as a policy for deleting articles. I have seen this discussed many times in the village pump. Further deletion of this article is not an end to the subject matter. If the subject matter really becomes as notable as the proponents indicate by using wiki process we can always recreate the article sometimes in the future or perhaps not. Right now all what this subject matter deserves is a section under main Hindutva araticleRaveenS 14:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy undelete, Daniel.Bryant's decision was completely flawed. The Afd result was, even counting blatantly trollish votes (entirely on the "delete" side):
    • delete: 14
    • delete/merge: 6
    • keep: 15
there is no way any admin can close such an afd as a "rough consensus to delete". This is not how Afd works, sorry. If Daniel has a strong opinion on the case, he could have voted, but not closed the debate. This is an admin conduct issue, and I will sure to bring this up in an RfC and/or Arbitration case. For the purposes of DRV, this deletion needs be overturned as procedurally flawed. As it happens, the AfD was in utter bad faith beginning to end, and the "delete" side presented no argument beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article was closely sourced to academic publications, so "OR" obviously doesn't apply, and "pov" concerns have nothing to do with AfD. Attempts to address pov-concerns were reverted because they lessened the chance of the AfD succeeding. read the AfD talkpage. Argubly, the decision could have been merge, turning the article into a redirect, and importing the full text of the article to Hindutva. If Hindutva would have become over-long by that import, the article would have to be recreated per WP:SS. dab (𒁳) 14:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Baka. Just for the sake of clarity, I voted "Merge", and NOT "Delete", because I wanted it to be Merged. I looked at the article and it was a mess. The introduction had listed summaries, which were actually not present in the citations at all. Only blind could not see the terribleness of the construction. I assume User:Rudrasharman to be a master of English, but instead of using his knowledge to correct my "bad english" in the article, he just reverted it. Notice here that other editors were editing the article none the less. The creator of the article actually moved it to Hindutva pseudoscholarship (during which I edited the article, resulting it having a focus on scholarship and not propaganda) and then back after AfD. I did NOT had a problem with the move. The AfD policy also says that one can edit the article during AfD. Actually, the reason previous AfD was closed was because it was "moved", and mind you, not under consensus! Instead of all the hard work, all I got was edit-warring and ad-hominem attacks. After THIS, WP:OWN problems became clear to me, and I changed my vote to delete. The timing listed could have been incorrect because of daylight time saving. I changed the offset in my Wikipedia preferences. After that, I resisted editing either the article or AfD. I had no idea of any accusation at AfD's talk page until User:Rudrasharman listed them here. Now that article is deleted, am replying here than on AfD's talk page.--Scheibenzahl 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, you first voted to "Move", not "Merge". The only other edits I recall were: (a) a name change to "Hindutva Scholarship" as per your suggestion by Dbachmann (talk · contribs), (b) a prompt revert of that by the AfD proposer AMbroodEY (talk · contribs), and (c) an addition of two references by me at some point later in the revert sequence. The final revert by Bakasuprman (talk · contribs), refered to in my post to the AfD Talk page, wiped the slate clean and left the article in the state after your omnibus edit. Your single edit changed some half dozen different areas of the article, including a sweeping change to the lead paragraph that was the subject of our discussion on my user talk page, during which you changed your !vote, and then of a debate on the AfD page following Sarvagnya (talk · contribs)'s !vote. (He later claimed, on the Talk page, that the tenor of his critique would have been the same for the suppressed version.) Your change basically made the article into a caricature, if not indeed an attack. It's unfortunate that you still don't see this, but it should put my reverts into context. Anyway, the possibility of merging has already been belied -- see the recent edit war on Hindutva. So much for POV forks, or other excuses. The basis of this DRV charade can be infered quite easily from this "Neutral" !vote in an RfA, this crass boast, and the fact that an opportunity to vote bank had presented itself when the AfD revealed a POV lobby and thus an unseen larger gallery of sympathizers: which decision on the AfD would maximize the pleased/annoyed ratio, as a strictly political calculation? rudra 01:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This one had to have been difficult. This is one of those cases where the closing admin has to do their homework and actually took time to sift through the !votes and make a judgement call, knowing full well some people are not going to like it. I believe the interpretation to be correct in this case. Arkyan • (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: The closing administrator did it after proper application of mind and analysing the matter in its entirety and did not draw his conclusions solely based on numbers (particularly of involved parties), but on the merit of the case. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Interesting, some people have a habit of calling others trolls - even users with one edit [35] and users with a long history here. --Bhadani (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are interesting comments and replies: [36] and [37]. I do not have any comments to offer on the contents except that if comments are favourable people go all the way to respond and if the comments are not favourable people call the other party a troll. Even Dab considers me a troll and I have nothing to prove that I am not one! --Bhadani (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Daniel.Bryant has asked for primary focus on process, which he defines as his "interpretation of the debate". As for his interpretation, he has offered not a single statement of fact, not a single concrete detail, and no indication that he viewed any material save the AfD page, and perhaps the article. He has offered only his conclusion, that he found a case for NPOV and OR persuasive on balance. Duly therefore, endorsements have come forth, commending Daniel.Bryant for, inter alia, exemplary diligence with unspecified materials, perspicacious analysis of unmentioned facts and judicious reasoning on unsubstantiated evidence. Some endorsements, to their credit, have elaborated on Daniel.Bryant's process to find that Daniel.Bryant's interpretation really also means UNDUE, BHTT, WAX, ad hominem and, compellingly we are told, POV fork; these revelations, harmoniously in keeping with requested process, being equally bereft of supporting facts. Since this DRV has remained resolutely content-free, I take the liberty to conclude that the following principles have been established regarding a somewhat different, and now apparently superseded, notion of "process":
    • four days is "a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again".
    • This list of considerations for deletion is, well, just a list. Its complete absence has no bearing on the merit of an AfD.
    • During an AfD, sabotage edits and reverts to enforce them by "delete" voters, and admins if needed, are acceptable, if not normal.
    • Closing admins are under no obligation to substantiate their reasoning with concrete details; may place the statement of their disinclination to discuss matters in their archives where whingers, being whingers, will obviously not look to see who has whinged before; and then bemoan, with righteous dudgeon, the further whinging.
I am thoroughly impressed. rudra 02:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you stop? Please go on. Everyone's holding their breath. Sarvagnya 09:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting long? Sorry about that, you can breathe now. Oh, you were wondering about a fifth principle? Aren't you happy with these four? Ain't consensus wonderful, when you can make the rules up as you go along? rudra 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - agree with Daniel.Bryant and Bakasuprman.Sbhushan 14:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn.
    • As I stated on Daniel's talkpage, I am all in favour of courageous closes that go with the strength of the argument rather than counting heads. This closure was not one of them. Daniel did not so much as discuss the points made by each side, as most admins would have done while making a controversial close.
    • As Rudra points out above, allegations that an article violates WP:NPOV are irrelevant to an AfD unless the article can be demonstrated to be a POV-fork; Daniel does not engage with the argument at all, or indicate what persuaded him that this article was.
    • The particularly depressing part of his supposed 'reasoning' for the close was that he believed that the article's detractors had 'achieved a rough consensus'. This is truly extraordinary, and I find it deeply worrying that someone who cannot recognise a bunch of SPAs voting as a bloc on a contentious issue is set up by this encyclopaedia as someone who is capable of mediation on those issues.
    • More to the point, Nobody who thinks that 'consensus on a particular side' is a valid reason for closing should be allowed to do so without having it overturned for a closer look. (I remember when normal users familiar with the subject-matter and policy would close AfDs all the time, and I begin to wonder when that became the province of admins who dont bother to look closely at the material.)
    • Clearly all the above votes, by a group of users whose edit histories are very instructive, once again indicate that those in favour of endorsement have achieved consensus, and that higher state of being should be rewarded by the closer? If you recognise that most of the votes merely congratulate Daniel on his infinite wisdom, and not one engages with the actual arguments made by the closer, then you might have a somewhat different view. Have fun, WP! Hornplease 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as per Daniel.Bryant et al. --Duke of Duchess Street 17:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to endorse. My, this is a tricky one. This DRV, and the AfD, had a few very simple "Foo because Bar" comments that can and should probably be disregarded -- it's nice to see that people are expanding on those comments, here, and I appreciate that we're all enaging more or less reasonably in this process together. I first became aware of this via WP:AN/I, and kept thinking I should have a look at it. I will confess I'm not very familiar with the subject itself, but if we accept that a closing admin's job is more to judge consensus, then perhaps my lack of knowledge could be considered an asset (not knowing the subject, it's hard for me to have an opinion on anything but the discussion). With that in mind, I do think that both sides developed robust cases, but also that those favoring delete were more in line with the ways I feel policies and guidelines should be applied -- in particular, Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, or a place to post any particularly novel thought. If our purpose in creating an article is to "raise awareness," or spread a particular slant on ideas, we're not quite following the right path -- rather than advocating particular points of view, or publishing new ideas, our goal, as I understand it, is to present current mainstream thought. I do respect that several editors on both sides feel strongly (as seems to frequently be the case, in some of this area, I gather), but I'm hoping that you all will be able to merge what content here was useful (and some was, I think) into their respective articles. Might be worth revisiting this, at some point in the future, but I'm not sure. As I said, I don't have as strong an opinion on this as it seems most of you do, but I figure I'm an outside voice, so. Good luck. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

8 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians who support Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)

This was supposedly deleted as inflammatory under WP:SOAP. The argument was that it sets a dangerous precedent to allow it. Delete that page, and you need to delete Category:Wikipedians who support the United States, Category:Wikipedians who support Western Saharan independence, Category:Wikipedians who support the United Nations, and Category:Wikipedians who oppose the Iraq War, among many others. In fact, almost every article at Category:Wikipedians by politics would have to go. Unless the consensus is that any category expressing support for a country, region, or political movement needs to be deleted, this category needs to be undeleted. To leave all the rest and remove the Israeli one only reeks of Anti-Semitism Oren0 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - from deleting admin. From my deletion message; " (WP:CSD#G6 content was: '{{db-xfd}}{{cfd-user}}Israel')", you can see that it was marked with a header for speedy deletion and that it was listed at WP:UCFD. You can see the closed UCFD entry here, where it states that the almost unanimous decision was to delete the category. The UCfD was not closed by me, nor did I vote in it. I've no interest in the category other than being the janitor who got the job of deleting it. Thanks - Alison☺ 00:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion there was clear consensus, no process violations, its over. If another user category is inflammatory, propose that it be deleted too. --Iamunknown 00:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You all seem to be taking for granted that supporting Israel is inflammatory. May I ask why? Is supporting the United States or any other country less inflammatory? Oren0 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus did not exist solely based on the category being inflammatory. Have you read the discussion? There was the suggestion that this category is overcategorization and unhelpful to the encyclopedia because "Collaboration may be better among Category:Wikipedians in Israel and Category:Israeli Wikipedians, though these do not include non-Israeli Wikipedians interested in editing Israel-related articles." There was also the suggestion that "We don't want to see a "support" category for every country, do we?" With those two comments I agree and endorse the deletion. --Iamunknown 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The category being inflammatory was the primary reason for deletion. There were 7 votes for deletion. 1 didn't give a reason, 1 only gave WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and 3 said it was inflammatory. I think the counterpoint about non-Israeli Wikipedians who support Israel (which would include me) is a valid one. So I ask again: why is it inflammatory? For those of you who support this deletion, would you support deletion of all categories of the form of "Wikipedians who support X" where X is a country or political movement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oren0 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • Sigh. No, the category being inflammatory was not the primary reason for deletion, it was the primary reasoning for deletion. They are other equally legitimate reasons. That they were not mentioned as reasoning or were in the minority of the comments is irrelevant. We simply do not categorize users by any whim that you would like. Does this category help build the encylcopedia? No, it does not; Category:Wikipedians in Israel and Category:Israeli Wikipedians do, and they are not being deleted, so your accusation of antisemitism is baseless and moot. --Iamunknown
  • Endorse deletion; consensus was reached in the UCFD, so I see no reason to overturn. The nom is advised to assume good faith and not make unfounded accusations of antisemitism. I will switch to overturn if the nom can list one, just one, encyclopedic benefit of this category. Picaroon 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, the reason this was deleted in the first place was in retaliation to a category supporting Hezbollah being deleted. I'm just saying that deleting this category while supporting categories about other countries would be anti-semitic. I'm not accusing anyone of anything beyond that. As for encyclopedic use, it helps collaboration in Israel-related articles and furthers these articles. It's just as encyclopedic as all 131 categories in Category:Wikipedians by politics. Oren0 00:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      First off, why aren't you trying to get the Hezbollah deletion overturned? (I could accuse you of antishi‘ism right now, and I'd have as much backing as you did in accusing Alison and the UCFD partipants of antisemitism, but I'm not that much of a dick.) Second, none of the rest of those categories are remotely encyclopedic either. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:FISHING. Third, opposition to Israel isn't antisemitism. I'm no fan of the Great Wall of Concrete, but I have plenty of Jewish friends. (You should feel free to debate me on those first two here; if you really want to tussle on the third, email exists.) Picaroon 00:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do believe that the Hezbollah deletion should be overturned. If that's put up for undeletion I'll support it. I had nothing to do with that and wasn't even aware of it until this debate. I only saw this because I was in the category and noticed a red link on my user page. I'd appreciate if you'd refrain from name-calling. I'm not accusing anyone of Anti-Semitism, I'm just saying deleting only this seems fishy. As such, I nominated Category:Wikipedians who support the United Nations for the same reasons stated here. I trust you'll all support the deletion here. Oren0 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - It was a valid UCFD. I'll have to nominate the "Wikipedians who support the United States" category for deletion, as per my comments about us not wanting a support category for every country. VegaDark 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest to someone to put all the categories listed above for deletion. Jimbo Wales once made a statement that user boxes of a political nature are not conducive to building this encyclopedia. Allowing Wikipedians to categorize themselves along lines of "I support this country" and "I support that movement" etc creates conflict and emnity between editors. Please, I urge deletion of such politicisms. It only creates bias and disharmony and we already have too much of that for our minds to bear the burden of. Khorshid 03:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment one possible solution is to merge all the "Wikipedians who support X" and "Wikipedians who oppose X" categories into "Wikipedians interested in X". I'd definitely support this, but I'm not sure if DRV is the correct venue. --Iamunknown 03:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support this. What is the proper venue to discuss such a thing? Can we have a general discussion or do we need to propose each merge individually? Oren0 04:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I question whether it is necessary and whether we want a Wikipedians interested in X for each and every country. That aside, I think that you could just create the category ... it certainly is distinctly different than this one so I don't think it would be subject to speedy deletion. --Iamunknown 04:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete for the time being - the article was deleted as a WP:POINT by someone who apparently supprted Hizballah and opposed Israel. Therefore I have more of a problem with the deletion process than actually support the template. Moreover, if this category should be deleted, then so should all the others like it, therefore it stands to reason that this one can be deleted only in an organized CFD including all similar templates. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a personal attack and I think you owe User:Alison an apology. Picaroon 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Though the ucfd might have been done to make a point, it was still done in process. Keep deleted as well as delete similar categories as they have the potential to be detrimental to the project rather than enhance it. —Ocatecir Talk 09:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't even know Israel had a team. What league do they play in? Guy (Help!) 13:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Large print Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Large print Wikipedia was a project that was called both humorous and nonsense. Yet it was a supposed to help the elderly. At least where I come from many of these people have poor vision and usually do not have a computer so they must go somewhere else like the local library. Many of the Web Browsers in these places do not have the text-zoom feature and thus a larger font Wikipedia is needed and I made it . It took a long time to get the project started and rewrite its two articles and write the instructions for creating a large print article. Neither this comment or Large print Wikipedia were written as jokes. Thank You very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by P2me (talk • contribs).

  • Endorse deletion given you included several <big> tags without appropriate closes the page renders as a total mess. Regardless such a project would need to exist in the Wikipedia namespace, not the mainspace. And there are far easier ways of doing this (such as a modified monobook.css) or if it is a serious issue getting mediawiki modified to do it. --pgk 15:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - There are much, much simpler ways of going about this. A nice idea, but it's up to the libraries to change browsers. Hawker Typhoon 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'd like to know what browsers are being used that don't allow text size to be changed; both IE and Firefox do this, and that function seems to work fine with Wikipedia (it won't work on some pages that use fixed text sizes in their HTML). Creating duplicate articles with different HTML tags is a bad idea. But despite all that, there was no justification for a speedy deletion. This should go through WP:AFD (for the mainspace article) or WP:MFD (for the article moved to the Wikipedia: namespace) and be deleted there. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Noble idea, but fatally flawed, as noted above. On this (Mac) the double big tags render the text as all overlapping and utterly unreadable. There might be some merit in offering logged-in users a large-text css, but most of them will be unable to use any website if they can't use Wikipedia. And yes, you really do have to laugh at the idea of a "large print website". Back in the day I used to get people complaining that sites looked different on 800x600 and 1024x768; the answer "yup, they do" did not satisfy frustrated graphic designer wannabes. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Avant coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Received notification that page was marked for prod delete, but was traveling and never had the opportunity to address the errors. I have no idea what the problems were, but worked very hard on that page and would like the opportunity to at least review the page so that I can avoid the errors in the future even if I can't rescue this entry. Im not the guy 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Liam Mcleod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The AFD nomination of this article was frivolous, and was created by a vandal (see [38], for example). The article was deleted against a majority of established users who favored keeping it, without any explanation whatsoever. If we are to invoke the theory that "AFD is not a vote" in the deletion of articles, then surely the closing administrator should provide an explanation as to why the article was deleted. John254 14:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if you want an explanation, I suggest you ask the deleting admin as indeed the instructions on this page say you should before listing here (in nice bold letters). I also note you haven't informed the deleting admin of this request for review. The entire text of the deleted article is "Liam McLeod is a football commentator on Sportsound for BBC Radio Scotland. He is currently largely an online commentator, although can occasionally be heard on the Radio Scotland Frequencies. Liam was born in Aberdeen but now lives in Glasgow", which would appear to me to be an A7 deletion. The keep comments really didn't actually address why this should be kept. --pgk 14:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a "football commentator" for a national radio network could well make Liam McLeod a notable public figure, and thus constitutes a non-frivolous assertion of notability. Insofar as CSD A7 is extended beyond its literal terms, it should only be applied to articles in which an assertion of notability is clearly frivolous. John254 15:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, I'm confused – is this about me closing a deletion discussion, or is it about the nominator being a now-banned vandal? I'm willing to explain my decision (which falls within the bounds of admin discretion) if this small point can be clarified. Bubba hotep 20:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both factors are at issue here. John254 03:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, well, first of all, the nominator didn't appear to be a vandal when they opened the AfD and I had no reason to suspect that they had any ulterior motive. Secondly, the given reason coupled with Ng.j's was sound; one "keep" comment said they were "well-known" – a fact not substantiated in the article itself, and goes on to provide an argument which I saw as within the bounds of WP:INN, and the other "keep" offered nothing more whatsoever. Therefore, the deletion argument was stronger. I wouldn't say substantially stronger, but enough to make a decision on. As a side issue, because this is not AfD part 2, I agree with what pgk said above in essence. Bubba hotep 10:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; I'm not impressed with the arguments on either side of the debate (such as it was). While the keep argument was weak, it would seem sufficient to counter the only valid delete argument (that notability was not asserted). While I'm not convinced the person is notable, I concur with Jon254 that notability (of a sort) was asserted, at least sufficiently to preclude A7. I find it hard to see how this could be closed as anything but "no consensus", but I think relisting would be more appropriate. Xtifr tälk 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tough call; leave deleted or relisting would be plausible outcomes. Frankly, if there is real notability, recreation in a substantially better form (with a source, for example), would be pretty much trivial. So I come down as endorse deletion. GRBerry 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per GRBerry's above suggestion of recreation with a source, I have done so. Englishrose 11:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Doba (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Nonsensical result, not within closer discretion. If Quarl thinks that, despite clear consensus to delete on an afd, specific, non-notable company names should be arbitrarily redirected to their type of business, thereby doing spammers' work for them, he should express that opinion on the afd just like anybody else so that the argument can be refuted as the idiocy it is. —Cryptic 12:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn redirect and relist. Am I seeing a consensus to delete here? No. Is there a consensus to keep here? No. Does the redirect make sense? Not at all. A relisting where a few more eyes can see it makes sense here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete consensus for deletion seems quite clear. --pgk 12:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Why it needs a redirect 9or an article at all) is beyond me! Hawker Typhoon 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or relist. In as much as the debate showed anything it showed that informed (as in informed about policy) opinion holds that they fail the primary notability criterion, but there were few enough !votes that reopening and relisting would not hurt. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete This is simply spam in disguise. Rec'd AFD. --LeroyWilkins 01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. We have no precedent of redirecting company names to their industry - nor can I think of a good reason for starting that practice. It's not a compromise that was proposed during the discussion. The bulk of comments clearly challenged the notability of this company. No evidence was presented either in the deleted versions or in the discussion demonstrating that the company meets the generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist or Delete; I mostly agree with badlydrawnjeff that it's hard to see a consensus in the debate, but have to concede that Guy may have a point as well. If relisted, I would probably argue for deletion, but that's neither here nor there. Anyway, redirection is clearly not consensus! Xtifr tälk 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per consensus of established users in the AfD. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-13 05:00Z
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Füritechnics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was speedily deleted as possible advertising. As it happens, I wrote the article and really don't know much about the company, so I used their web page as one of my main sources. Considering their signature product is endorsed by a major American TV chef (Rachael Ray), would it not be prudent to at least restore it and put it through AfD rather than speedying it? It seems like it could be rewritten to not look like advertising. Haikupoet 03:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Canadian Heritage Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted by an administrator, who cited BLP concerns. I believe this was an overreaction. The offending sections could have been removed, and proper citations added for the rest of the article (indeed, much of the article was already sourced). The CHA is a noteworthy far-right organization in Canada, and its article should be restored and improved. CJCurrie 00:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn speedy-deletion and nominate to AFD. This is an article about an organization, not an individual. BLP does not apply to organizations. I'll also admit that I am unable to find any specific claims in the article that fall afoul of WP:BLP. But if there were any, that would be solved by editing them out (and maybe deleting specific edits from the pagehistory), not deleting the entire article. Nominate to AFD because I'm not sure that this particular group meets our notability criteria. Rossami (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Rossami said what I would have. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important: the WP:BLP concernes were not in respect of the organisation, but the individuals named in the article as being associated with or leaders of a white supremacist organisation, which claim was uncited, and at least one of the individuals states categorically that they were never a member. I would be very strongly against undeleting this article as the lead states something which is unverifiable, stated to be false and considered defamatory by its subject, and that sets the tone for the entire article - in other words, I don't trust a word it said. The (few) sources for the article were all polemical in nature and I think that if this is a genuinely notable organisation we can and should write a far better article than this, per WP:FORGET, which would not contain what appear to be defamatory falsehoods. So I endorse my own deletion without prejudice to a rewrite from credible neutral sources, for which purpose I am more than happy to email the content to any editor who wishes to work on such an article. I don't think I need repeat what Jimbo has said about the desirability of sitting back waiting for sourcing on negative material about living individuals, this appears to have been hijacked by people with an agenda and if there are good, interested editors I am confident we can do better starting from scratch. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Material I followed the evidence (the public stuff), and it seems to revolve around Melissa Guille, who vehemently denies being a white supremacist, and the sourecs for it are not at all credible [39] (quote from deletion log/JzG). Although, a quick search turned up the London Free Press calling her one of few female white supremacy organizers. Looking through the deleted material, most other things are sourced to this paper. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it. Guille may or may not be a member of the Canadian Heritage Alliance, which is not, as far as I can tell, a white supremacist group, although the Heritage Front was; it is asserted that Guille was a leader of the Heritage Front (she denies any involvement with that). I can't see any disinterested sources calling Guille a white supremacist, and there is a preponderance of anonymous edits wherever this claim arises. Whether someone is repeating in good faith what they believe to be true, or is deliberately promoting guilt-by-association, I can't tell, but I do know that the sourcing was patchy and did not cover many of the claims made, and Guille was most unhappy about it. If someone is a prominent racist, like Nick Griffin, it is usually trivially easy to find substantial dispassionate coverage of that. If a group is a prominent white supremacist group, that, too, can usually be verified trivially easily. It may indeed be that CHA is a relaunch of HF in an attempt to clean up their image, but I haven't yet seen a dispassionate source for that. Much of the article was looking to establish guilt by association, through use of names of living individuals. It was not a good article. We can, if the group is genuinely significant, do a lot better. Canadian editors please step up to the plate here. I'm not against documenting a hate group, if that's what they are, but not by reference to polemical sources, please - www.canadiancontent.ca is an interesting website, but it's not what I would call a credible source for claims that someone is a white supremacist. That's dirty talk, and you have to be sure of yourself when you put it in Wikipedia.
Note that the London Free Press thing says "One of the few female organizers in Canada's white pride movement, and a potential national leader, is to appear today on charges she violated Canada's Human Rights Act." - I can find no evidence that she was actually charged with anything, or convicted of anything, or that she is in fcat a leader of a white pride movement. If I could, I would have included it. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say endorse deletion then based on Guy's evidence. BLP is very important in wiki. I would say recreate it without the guilt-by-association add-ons is a good idea. About that one paper, the website slogan is "thoughts and rants from the inside out". No chance it passes RS. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That was my principal concern with respect to the Guille case in general: the sole source for her links to the documented white supremacist organisation seems to be that one site, which is also the sole source for the links between the two organisations. That plus the fact that there is very little input from known editors, raises red flags for me. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I believe that Guy may be misinformed on some important points. Guille's affiliation with the Heritage Front may be disputed, but her membership in the Canadian Heritage Alliance is emphatically not: she's been identified as its leader by the mainstream media, and for that matter by other far-right organizations in Canada. Her legal difficulties have also been reported by the mainstream media, and, indeed, the CHA website contains detailed information about Richard Warman's complaint against her before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Finally, while Guille may deny being a white supremacist, it's surely of some significance that groups like B'nai Brith and the London-area police believe otherwise.
    • I can accept the possibility that some of the information formerly on the CHA page was unverifiable, but I still don't believe page deletion was the correct course of action. CJCurrie 23:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no doubt in my mind that Guille is associated with CHA, the problem is that this article stated that CHA is a racist organisation because it includes Guille, who it asserted was a former leader of the Heritage Front, something she vehemently denies. Its perspective on the group and its history is largely defined by this assertion, for which no reliable source exists. That's why I say we can do better by applying WP:FORGET and rewriting from reputable sources, because this article looks to have been part of a deliberate smear campaign. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturnthese are editing questions. BLP can almost never be a reason to delete an article about a subject, because individuals need not necessarily be mentioned. The above presentation of the reasons is totally besides the point--the questions discussed are editing questions. DGG 02:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. Leaving defamatory material in the edit history is not really a good idea. Plus the entire article appears to be, as I noted above, a soapbox. We can do better starting from scratch. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. If this group is notable enough to have an article, there will be news items about it in major newspapers and we can start a new article from scratch, based on those items. If they're not notable, we shouldn't have an article.
    Comment. The difference between White separatists and White supremacists may seem quite minor to you and me, but the people involved see huge moral gulfs between them, and we should respect that, no matter how we feel about those people. CWC 13:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC) (Added "in major newspapers" 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment If anyone wants to see the article before it was deleted, it's still available at answers.com for now (I'm not sure how old it would be). The article on Melissa Guille is also there. Although I'd say this has more to do with important policies like BLP as opposed to some inclusion policy. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 23:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per CWC. GreenJoe 23:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stub. When you read the arguments of people who are saying delete they actually favor restarting the article from scratch as a stub that doesn't mention white supremacy or the Hertitage Front rather than not allowing an article on this subject. I've created such a stub from authoritative sources and I hope this will be accepted. I've been directed to this argument by friends on wikipedia so I hope my comments are accepted as a well intentioned suggestion from an outsider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by White Rose Remembered (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong overturn - Obviously important article about a white nationalist, white supremacist and far right movement in Canada --Mista-X 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

7 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retarded Animal Babies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV)

I would like this page to be unprotected from recreation and then restored for the following notability:

  • The series appears on G4's Late Night Peepshow. That means it is published by a source independant of the website (Newgrounds) and of the creator, and therefore meets WP:WEB.
  • The creator of the series (David C. Lovelace) was hired by "Weird Al" Yankovic to make a music video for his song "Virus Alert". Weird Al specifically discusses David Lovelace and Retarded Animal Babies in interviews about the song and video. The Retarded Animal Babies themselves also make appearances during the video, meaning that they are again published by an independant source.
  • The cartoon is a current internet phenomenon
  • It has been released on two different DVDs (though through the creator)
  • It has its own merchandise sold on CafePress.com Helltopay27 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep deleted, these are the very same things presented last time (only three weeks ago, might I add), and they were all found on several copies of the same press release. These were found not to be good enough for notability; you need multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. --Coredesat 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn televised on a national network for petes sake... working for weird al! that certainly passes the bar for inclusion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We knew this before. It was determined through the endorse result of the last AFD that that wasn't enough. --Coredesat 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...Which doesn't make sense: On a Weird Al video and on G4 television, which are reliable (i.e. they're basically mainstream), multiple (more than one), and independant of Dave Lovelace. Seems like it fits to me.
      • Hell, it's even on the IMDb, another non-trivial and independant source. Helltopay27 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of both the AFD and the recent DRV discussion. All of these facts seem to have been well known and discussed in the previous discussions. They failed to sway the community. I'm not seeing any grounds to overturn the previous decisions. Rossami (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (speedy?) same reasoning as a couple weeks ago when we last went over this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:IMG 1794.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as being an image that also existed on Commons [40]. Commons recently deleted it as a copyvio [41] but Jimbo has described it as a "free image" [42] and he's always right, right? Nardman1 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't seen the image, but from the descriptions I've read of it as a fan-made version of the Mystery Machine, I don't see how it could be a copyvio because of the significant amount of creative effort put into making something like that, which would be eligible for a separate copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 103 (See congressional commentary [43]. Derivatives are only legal if copying the original to make the derivative was legal. The congressional commentary indicates that even if the only rationale available is fair use it's still legal). Nardman1 15:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Jimbo would have been referring to the tag on the image at the time, not making a legal analysis of the situation. If it is a derivative that doesn't grant exclusive copyright control to the person making that derivative, the original owner still has an interest and hence it cannot be released under a free license. --pgk 17:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think DRV is even remotely the place to have copyright discussions. I don't deal with images often, but I'd assume IFD is (or some similar process). So, with that said, I think it needs to be undeleted and put up for discussion at the most appropriate venue, whatever that is. It's definitely not a clear black-and-white issue, at least from my understanding of copyright. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that place is commons. It is either a free image or it isn't, we can't have the ludicrous situation that we accept it as a free image whilst commons declines it. --pgk 18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's very true. Has the picture's deletion been discussed at commons at all? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not that I'm aware of. Although it is very possible we could accept this as a free image and they don't, since they would claim a derivative under a fair use rationale was still unfree. It should be noted this image was slated to be on the main page on 12 April 2007, so there is a time constraint here. I would argue for its temporary undeletion on three grounds 1) Commons appears to have deleted it on the action of a single admin, without discussion, 2) we're going to need a main page picture on 12 April, and 3) I would argue Jimbo didn't just rely on the image tag. I would argue he made an off-the-cuff determination that an actual physical van someone made wasn't a copyright infringement of a cartoon. Nardman1 18:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • A derivative, citing fair use, is by definition "not free". We sometimes accept them (per our fair use policy); commons never does. My question is whether this is, in fact, a derivative work under copyright law and can effectively be released under a free license. If it's a derivative work, it cannot, period. Wikipedia could accept it as fair use, pending discussion over whether fair use is properly asserted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • How about undeleting the image, allowing me to write a fair use rationale, and then immediately listing it at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Fair_use_claims_needing_a_second_opinion? The experts regularly troll (in the fishing sense) that page. Nardman1 19:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would say the best course of action is to go through Commons's review processes to determine whether it is in fact a derivative work. If the review confirms that it is a derivative work and cannot be hosted on Commons, then I'd say you can try to assert fair use and then we can have a discussion about that. I'm unconvinced about whether this is a derivative work (IANAL, YMMV, etc.), so if it can be released under a free license, that's the best choice. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Turns out their derivative image policy is incredibly strict commons:Commons:Derivative works...much stricter than our rules here. If it were undeleted here I could write a convincing rationale for allowing it. Nardman1 18:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Submitted to Commons. commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Image:IMG_1794.JPG Nardman1 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, guys, this isn't a drawing of a mystery machine, it's a photograph of an actual van painted to look like it. The van may be a trademark/copyright infringement, but the photo is a wikipedia:fair use per things like {{statue}} Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also the logs on Wikipedia and Commons.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD 1, AfD 2)

Overturn and delete - nominator wrongly closed as no consensus. The !vote count was 2-1 in favor of deletion and the keep reasons basically amounted to "there are other articles like this one" and "without this article people will add bad stuff to the main article." These are not compelling reasons to keep in the face of 66% in favor of deletion. Otto4711 14:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. The weight of argument against deleting seemed quite strong, and even one delete suggestion noted the possibility of a merge, implying that the information may be useful. Nothing's stopping you from merging the information as it stands - there's nothing wrong with this article as is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is strong about "Wikipedia has plenty of articles of this sort", especially in light of the huge numbers of deletions of articles of this sort? While one of the deletes mentioned the possibility of a merge (and only under specific circumstances), one of the keeps was expressly based in the editor's opposition to a merge. Otto4711 14:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the strength comes from the fact that there's plenty of information available that would overwhelm the main article, and that we have evidence that such articles can be maintained in a way that is of high quality to the project. In my opinion, the content is more important than anything else currently, so, again, nothing wrong with you performing a merge with some input from others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that some similar article might be maintained strikes me as a rather dangerous argument. For every article that's deleted one could probably find multiple similar articles which are well-maintained. Adopting the reasoning that because a similar article has been done well nominated articles should be kept would effectively halt AFD. I have no interest in performing a merge because I don't believe that any of this trivial information belongs in the main Sammy article. Otto4711 14:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Certainly, the argument can be dangerous. It doesn't mean it always is, however, nor does it mean that every article of every type is appropriate. Just because we should generally ignore the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments doesn't mean it's not necessarily valid at times. I think this is a good compromise - it retains the information and keeps it out of the main article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Accepting for the sake of discussion that an invalid argument might sometimes be valid, no one has yet shown that ignoring OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid for this article. If the only reasons offered for keeping articles are arguments which are by and large invalid, that does not speak to a strong answer to the deletion arguments, or, really, any answer to the deletion arguments. Otto4711 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - 2 to 1 is a reasonable consensus, and the arguments for deletion are much stronger. This article is full of OR trivia. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete consensus seems reasonable clear. However current pet gripe, there doesn't appear to have been any discussion with the closing admin on this, nor notification of the review. --pgk 18:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - per everyone else: one also has to be bear in mind what consensus has consistently been as regards this type of article recently. Basically, a random collection of unencyclopedic "facts" should not be strung together in this manner merely so people don't have to bother with pruning junk from the main article. Moreschi Request a recording? 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first deletion discussion was properly closed as "no consensus". The renomination was a month later and did specifically note that no clean-up had occurred in the intervening time. One month seems short to me, so I think it's appropriate to consider both discussions together. After consolidating (and de-duplicating) the arguments, a closure of the second discussion as "no consensus for now" seems to be within reasonable admin discretion. Endorse closure but without prejudice against a clean renomination if the "keepers" have still failed to clean the page up in, say 3-6 months. Rossami (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, delete. Keep and clean up is a common cry on AfD; people should put their money where their mouth is. Plus, this is an "in popular culture" article, and they always suck royally. This is no exception. The way to fix an over-bloated "in popular culture" section is to prune it, not to split it out into a non-article full of dross. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Of course some of the information might be useful; I don't think that was in dispute. What was disputed was the need for a seperate article for cultural depictions of the guy, and most arguments against that were either "But look at these other articles!", which is invalid, and "But then people will add the stuff to the main article!", which makes no sense. I don't understand how someone can think that information which is inappropriate should just be sent to a seperate article. -Amarkov moo! 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jeff. Everyking 11:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete This sort of article should not exist. Just because such flabby and trivial articles can be written, it does not follow that they should be. Nathanian 00:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Barbara Bauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2)

Okay, so this page was speedied in 2006, overturned here some time later, speedied again, overturned again, and AfD'd. The weighting of arguments, frankly, was done poorly - standards were met across the board as demonstrated, did not violate any important policies. Overturn and undelete, there's simply no consensus for deletion here whatsoever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC) badlydrawnjeff talk 12:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me her claim to notability is her cabaret appearances and her academic degrees. People have had plenty of time to dig up other notable things she's achieved, and that seems to me to be the limit of it. By all means correct me if I'm wrong. I personally am impressed by her having a doctorate from St. John's University, but don't see how she passes the "average professor" test... since is not, in fact, a professor. What other claims to notability are there? Initiating a civil lawsuit? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I don't know if a better close could have been had, both in terms of transparency and strength of argument. The bottom line is that BLP is non-negotiable policy, and, at present, no article can be written that isn't an attack piece using questionable sources. I hold no prejudice towards article recreation should enough reliable sources arise to enable us to write a neutral article. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I feel that this was certainly within administrator discretion, and the fact that it was so well-explained leaves me in no doubt that this was not a close made hastily. Seems the right close to me, but then again, I did !vote delete...take that as you will. Daniel Bryant 00:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The closing admin explained his decision carefully. In this matter the "keep" voters did not indicate how the subject was notable. The filing of a lawsuit has not, so far, resulted in the subject being noted in any reliable secondary sources. Inclusion on a list does not make a person notable either (Nobody else on that list has a WP article). WP:BLP calls on us to take extra care with biographies of living people. Should the subject become significantly more notable in the future we'll certainly have an article on her. -Will Beback · † · 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Notability might have been proven, but if it was, it is very borderline. When most information is thoroughly negative, that is not enough. -Amarkov moo! 01:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm again stunned by our ability to close our eyes whenever something potentially scary comes around. no one's saying the closure was hasty, simply that it was incorrect. Why people are defending this outcome is beyond my belief at this point - affirming improper closes simply proves further how broken DRV is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... does it occur to you that maybe, when the result you like doesn't happen, it's because people disagree? Seriously, what is with this "I don't get what I want so the process is broken" mindset? -Amarkov moo! 01:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not when it comes to issues like this. This is absolutely what's broken about the system - it has nothing to do with "what I want" - what I want rarely occurs. It's when we consistently abandon standards and guidleines and policies when things get uncomfortable that there's a problem, and this is a very clear example of that. The original deletion was overwhelmingly overturned, and consensus was very clearly on the side of keeping and the arguments were sound. Instead, we're trotting out the line that completely defies reality. How is this a net positive for the project? How is this proof that this is working? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, precisely. People disagree. Large numbers of people making good arguments on each side of the disagreement. Therefore, I think it is pretty plain to see that there is no consensus, and according to WP:DP, articles should only be deleted at AfD if there is consensus to delete. I don't see that in this case. I see an administrator who was convinced by the arguments of one side that he should ignore the arguments of the other side. That isn't consensus. JulesH 17:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a solid close decision. I felt the references were weak, and beyond being listed on a rather subjective list, the subject really didn't, in my opinion, meet notability. The decision was definitely well within the closing admin's discretion, and the explanation seems reasonable. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and commend the closer not only for being astute, but for doing the community the courtesy of a fully explained rationale. When serious BLP issues arise on low-notability article, the default should certainly be to delete.--Docg 02:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Leave aside the fact that this was one of the most comprehensive closes, the question to ask about any deletion is: was it correct? The answer here is yes. This gossipy scandal-rag of an article constituted a flagrant abuse of Wikipedia, and its continued retention for so long is a black mark on our reputation as an encyclopedia. Let's not do this again. --Tony Sidaway 07:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with the idea that BLP prohibits this kind of article, and I hope this doesn't become a precedent for deleting other negative bios. In this case though, the notability arguments were very weak. If someone were to create an article on someone whose notability was entirely based on being in a "20 best literary agencies" list and having fans rave about her on blogs, we'd be deleting it faster than Superman on crack. Kla'quot 08:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree. If a well-known professional writer's association gave such an honour to an agent, I think Wikipedia should have an article on that agent. Why shouldn't we? JulesH 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the agent actually placed first, i.e. was the winner of an award, I would agree that it is a valid reason to keep under the provision of "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." However, placing somewhere on a list of best to twentieth-best would not qualify. Kla'quot 03:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. On examining the deleted article, I find it to be a perfect example of Weregerbil so usefully calls calls a coatrack: "a Wikipedia article that obstensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the 'coats.'" This is not an never was an article on the topic of Barbara Bauer; it always was about the "bias topic" of SFWA names Barbara Bauer as among Top Twenty Worst Literary Agents, or possibly Barbara Bauer's Lawsuit against SFWA. Beyond the complaint, the original article said nothing except to identify her as a literary agent. Over the editing history, basic facts about her educational history and cabaret career were added, none of which would have justified an article in the first place. The article is a coatrack for criticism of Bauer, in fact criticism by a single source. I don't think SFWA's naming her among the twenty worst literary articles qualifies as notability (do we have articles about the other nineteen?). On reviewing the AfD discussion I am not impressed by the "keep" arguments which mostly simply assert that she is notable or controversial or passed WP:BIO without explaining why. The article is also marred by verifiability problems. The fact that she is suing SWFA is sourced, but all of the sources for the claims that she's a dishonest agent are borderline. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see how an official warning published by one of the most important professional associations operating in the industry in question can be considered "borderline". The source is perfectly adequate for the claim it makes. JulesH 17:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, undelete - follow the decision of the people who participated in the AfD. The closing admin's opinion is worth no more than that of any of the people participating; the opinion of the group is what counts. Or at least it's what should count. Everyking 11:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Attack page "sourced" with things like blogs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, undelete The balance of the AfD was quite clear, not just in numbers but in arguments. If some of the references failed WP:RS, they should be researched and improved - don't throw out the baby with the bath water.--Runcorn 14:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, if the references are not reliable, they, and the content they support, should be removed from the article until they have been researched and improved. When you do that, what you have is a legitimate biography—of a person whose main achievements are appearances as a cabaret singer and a Ph. D. dissertation from St. John's on Italian-American writers of the New York area. Is that the "baby" you are referring to? Or is the "baby" you're referring to essentially the story of a dispute, with a few sentences of "biography" acting as a figleaf to mask the true purpose of the article? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There were no references that even implied notability. Just a couple of blog mentions and that top twenty thing, which at most makes her agency notable. The closing explanation was perfectly reasonable.--Dycedarg ж 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Well reasoned close, especially for the reasons noted by Dpbsmith and Tony Sidaway, but also those advanced by Coredesat, JzG, and Rossami, among others. A not-so-borderline attack page effectively. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The blog source is a publication of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, an extremely well-known and respected professional body, hence a reliable source. There are no BLP violations here, nor are there NPOV violations: the only opinions that have been presented in reliable secondary sources are negative, therefore a negative tone of the article is to be expected. As to notability, the deletion was unable to take into account new secondary sources: [44] [45] [46]. SFSite is a well respected newsletter in the science fiction community; Ansible is an award-winning publication; Publisher's Lunch is an extremely well known publishing industry magazinenewsletter. I feel these three sources should be more than enough to confirm notability, even if it is constrained to the narrow field of professional science fiction writing and the publishing industry. JulesH 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC) (corrected JulesH 17:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
All three of those sources are short mentions of the lawsuit; I'm not sure that does a lot to advance her notability. As to the fact that all of the opinions in secondary sources are negative, ArbCom did discuss that kind of topic in the Rachel Marsden case, and the findings of fact indicate that unbalanced articles are subject to speedy deletion, especially when they have BLP implications. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Setting policy is outside ArbCom's purview. The community's accepted definition of an attack page is at WP:ATTACKPAGE. Kla'quot 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Wikipedia:Attack page is only concerned with pages that attack other users, not with article-space biographies. The policy statement at WP:CSD#General criteria is better:
  • Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to.
However this article wasn't unsourced, strictly speaking. -Will Beback · † · 01:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this article, I believe, is that it was sourced in an iffy manner, and all of the sourcing leaned negative. That was the problem with the Marsden article originally. After a speedy, a big fight and general mayhem, it's now got sources that are more reflective of a neutral point of view. If the Bauer article can be neutrally written and sourced, and indicate notability outside being listed on someone's naughty list. then I'm sure it'd be fine to be rewritten. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how sourcing it from a well-respsected professional association can be described as "iffy". The sourcing leaned negative because, as far as those of us editing the article could tell -- and we did put a lot of effort into finding out -- there are no reliable secondary sources about the subject that aren't negative. It would, in fact, be a violation of NPOV to make the article too positive in tone under these circumstances. JulesH 07:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a clarification, Wikipedia:Attack page applies to both article-space biographies and pages on users. Kla'quot 05:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PESWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD, RfD)

PESWiki is about free energy Altermike 07:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feh, process for process' sake. The article was part of a spamming campaign, the redirect makes no sense as the wiki is not mentioned in the redirect target, nor should it be. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vagyoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Still in Modification Process Vagyoga 06:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I was new to make a page on wikipedia. I am a Professor of Statistics, I get lesser time to modify it and it was in the modification form. The article was on a new technique which is followed all over the world. (See. www.vagyoga.com) This technique is yoga of speech which has application in Sanskrit Grammar and Kundalini Yoga. I strongly recommend it to relist so that I can expand this article as per Wiki Criteria.
Reason 1 : I was not knowing this fact that user name and the page name should not be same.
Reason 2 : Editor found non-IP editors, I am unable to understand this?
Reason 3 : It has reliable sources ( This is my main and strong point )
--Vagyoga 07:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vagyoga. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.[reply]

I told several times that I was new for making a Page. I have interest in
Sanskrit, Local languages of Northern, eastern and western regions of India, Sports, Mathematics, Instrumental music, Computational techniques etc.
I made a page (gave information) about a invented technique VAGYOGA This is my first project in Wiki, though I was a good reader of Wikipedia for last three years, I have gone through many books of this technique. Whose geniune reference is given in my maidon page. Fact There are several followers of this technique and by that they are able to speak Sanskrit which is rare in India. By Vagyoga : Mnemonic Sanskrit one becomes free from Panini's typical grammer. Panini grammer is so vast, hence one is not able to follow Sanskrit grammer.

      • In AFD an editor Buddhipriya wrote he has found only nine hits on "Gurudeva Vagish Shastri". Whereas respected Buddhipriyaji if someone like to search for Sir Sunil Gavaskar he will simply search for Sunil Gavaskar. For your kind notice if any one searches for Vagish Shastri he will get more than 600 hits (including news papers The telegraph [47][48][49] among others) as I told in AFD. ****Clear to say my article is intended for the Vagyoga technique only.

Thanks to all whether making garbage of my first Wiki-article or giving suggestion so that I may improve this article. --Vagyoga 05:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Weekinthewoods.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closing administrator chose to close this image as keep, because apparently things like this are just swept under the rug. [50] [51]. This image fails fair use in any number of ways, including not having proper source data, merely being used to illustrate what the book looks like with no critical commentary, no rationale as to how this is irreplaceable with a free (or more free) image (take a picture of the author at a book signing for instance), no copyright data. Uploader has had more than adequate notice to add this information, making it eligible for speedy deletion under csd I7. Nardman1 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. This is the same guy who spent weeks trying to get the book the article illustrates deleted. We use book covers in infoboxes on articles about books. It's been upheld and cleared hundreds of times already, two people (one admin, one not) have reviewed this already and saw no basis. Enough already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse no basis for the speedy on the book, no basis for trying to delete the image, no basis for taking to DRV.DGG 04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please tell me how this meets Wp:fair_use#Images "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)." The article text doesn't mention the cover at all. That's just one of my policy based objections. Nardman1 04:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; completely in line with current practice, which is to ignore the fair use criteria for book and album covers. Nardman1, if you want to fight this fight, please use an article that does not make it appear like this is a personal issue between you and Jeff. Kusma (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Not clear what better illustration there can be for an article on a book, than a scan of the cover. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

6 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Timeline of the Phantasy Star series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The user Shimeru deleted this entire entry for no discernible reason on April 5, 2007 — the article proper was entirely fact-checked and accurate.

Right next to the entry in the Deletion Log, s/he only listed the word "prod," which renders the article eligible for restoration if another contributor so desires it. --The Bandsaw Vigilante 00:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed article title, restored contested prod. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Turkish settlement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The closing administrator closed it as no-concensus, nevertheless I feel that the AfD was treated as a vote rather than a discussion.

1- No proof whatsoever was brought into the discussion proving the usage of the term "Turkish settlement" in the English usage - (among one of the examples I cited, such a search in the BBC News web-site returned zero hits [52] - whereas the term "Israeli settlement has an established usage in the English language.

2- No sources were brought attesting to the meaning of the term "Turkish settlement"

3- Nearly all impartial editors agreed that it was a WP:FORK of the Cyprus dispute article, and numerous administrators voted for deletion.

4- The article is in a mess, with no clear indication of what it is talking about, what its title means (thus WP:OR) issues and what should be done with it.

5- The article was created by a user who has only six edits, four of them on that article. In my nomination I raised the WP:OR issues, and expressly said that any meaningful content should be merged to Cyprus dispute instead of getting deleted.

6- I believe that the listing of this article in Greece and Turkey related deletion pages was detrimental to the discussion and therefore clouded the evaluation of the closing administrator - I would like an additional review to see if the WP:OR-title and WP:FORK issues have been dealt with, to see if any sources brought that attest to the usage of such a term in English, and whether this article shouldn't be merged to the Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 00:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn as nominator Baristarim 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse but on the basis that there is no reasonable ground to expect that further discussion of the deletion of the article would be productive. If there was ever an AfD which fully justified a non-consensus close it was this one. DGG 04:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Indeed, there was no consensus, since a large part of the commenting users were more committed to one pov than to the npov character of an encyclopedia, and therefore willing to overlook the irreparable defects of the article. I feel that the arguments proffered in favour of "keep" have no substance in relationship to the issue.  --LambiamTalk 06:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I can't disagree with the result in this case. Perhaps if it is borne out that it can't be expanded, we may have reason to take a second look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly endorse. At bottom, I have to agree with Baristarim and Lambian here, and Future Perfect at the AFD: this smells like a rather neologistic POV fork, and we delete those. None the less, it is just about possible that Jeff is right and that some inspired, collaborative editing can fix this. I do hope that Niko, Yannis, and the other editors who wanted this kept will prove Jeff right and me wrong, but I'm not very optimistic and I think this will end up back at AFD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Per Baristarim--Doktor Gonzo 12:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further discussion right now does not seem to entail any productive feedback. Notability was established. Now, if there is a disagreement about the title, let's discuss it in the article's talk page; I have declared I have no objection to rename the article to something like "Turkish settlers in Cyprus" or something similar. But the subject the article treats is notable by itself, and deserves an article. In any case, the discussion that took place during the AfD is the very definition of non-consensus in every respect. Therefore, I have to endorse the initial AfD closing.--Yannismarou 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Per Baristarim--Must.T C 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Yannismarou and may I add that as there are no new actual arguments which weren't raised during the AFD, this request shouldn't have been made at all. Text is sourced (despite the large and misleading invocations of OR by those who favor deletion) and too much to be merged into another article.--Domitius 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please give me the source for the statement that after 1974 new Turkish settlements have been formed in Northern Cyprus?  --LambiamTalk 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issues a Recommendation for the "Colonisation by Turkish settlers of the occupied part of Cyprus" (Recommendation 1680/2003), calling on "Turkey, as well as its Turkish Cypriot subordinate local administration in northern Cyprus, to stop the process of colonisation by Turkish settlers", what does it mean?--Yannismarou 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "The number of settlers had grown considerably and continued to grow throughout the decade of the 1990s." (Green- Collins, Embracing Cyprus, [53]--Yannismarou 19:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yannis, the finer points raised by Lambiam and FPaS are important: we are talking about the definition of the word "settlement", and that's why he is asking if there have been any new settlement which has been formed. Were there new colonies built exclusively for them just like in the Americas? Or were they just blending in? Anyways, let's just merge this into the Cyprus dispute, there are so many bastard articles lying around, seriously. For example, how is this article any different significantly than Naturalized TRNC citizens? Believe me, nobody is against content, but because of a certain assumption of bad faith, so many articles have proliferated that it actually took me three months to track all of them down and I still don't see why some of them exist. Cyprus this, Cyprus that, Cyprus us, Cyprus them - and the worst thing is that they are all in a dire state. I am sorry, but you are actually the only one who is actually putting in the effort to back up your keep votes: in nearly most of the AfDs we have had, the articles have completely dropped off the radar as soon as the AfD finished. There are at least ten articles about the Cyprus dispute + a handful who slightly overlap each other, but none of them are even GA, nearly all of them have NPOV tags on them with no clear future in store. I don't know, the article doesn't really disturb me really, and I do see that an article covering immigration from Turkey to Cyprus has merit, but I am just afraid that this article will lay there with lame POV tags all over the place and an inviting style for edit-wars. Let's just merge, that's all I am saying.. Baristarim 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid "lame POv tags and an inviting style for edit wars" is up to us. I think that the article treats a notable topic, and instead of deleting, why don't we just rename it? Proposing deletion reminds me a Greek gnome: Πονάει δόντι, κόβει κεφάλι (If it hurts the tuth, cut the head). It seems simpler and more constructive to me. And IMO it is not bad to have many articles about an issue, if there is material supporting them. And, in this case, there is material both for improvement and expansion.--Yannismarou 19:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if it is up to us, then someone better work on them or something. You still haven't answered my question: I consider it a fork of Cyprus dispute, but even pretending that it deserves its own article since there are armies of editors just itching to work on it, how is it any different than Naturalized TRNC citizens? They cover the same damn thing - and your suggestion is wrong, you know it, I know it: no-one will work on it' just like Angus McCellan mentioned above, and he is assuming a LOT of good faith. Not only will this article become a bastard article, but it will be a fork of multiple articles. It is amazing to me that such an obvious fact isn't that clear for you Yannis.. Nobody said delete the content: merge the damn thing for the sanity of Wikipedia and the rest of the similar articles.. Baristarim 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - sourced and procedurally correct. May be renamed to "Turkish settlers" (1400+ links in Google scholar) but that's hardly the right place for such a conversation. NikoSilver 20:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know as well as I know my name that nearly none of the keepers here will contribute even one bit afterwards. How is this article any different than "Naturalized TRNC citizens", really? Whatever, there are so many stupid forks lying around that Turks and Greeks are becoming the laughing stock of all of Wikipedia.. Merge the damn thing, the rest of the articles are already in a dire situation. Let's create another stupid lame fork - go ahead, like I care.. It is not like one lame article in Wikipedia is going to make the Turks look bad or something.. They are not going to say "oh, did you see this article in Wikipedia? We have to pack our bags and go back to Central Asia!" This article is a lame fork, no-one will work on it, it will lay there with stupid POV tags all over just like the rest of the ten Cyprus-related articles, and it will invite people to edit-war for no reason - you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Blindness to see facts is not an atout.. Baristarim 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'd be damn surprised if I saw you endorse the deletion of a pro-Turkish FORK... I suggest you start from there. NikoSilver 20:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha.. Create one and you will see.. Unfortunately there are not many of them laying around. In any case, this is not even a "pro-Greek" fork: that's the funny thing - in what way is it "anti-Turk" btw? Turks in Cyprus are there and will stay there, they are not going to do anything because of some lame Wikipedia article u know :)) Nearly all impartial editors agreed that it was a fork - this can be covered more healthily somewhere else - in fact, come to think about it, as it is, it is the exact duplicate of Naturalized TRNC citizens and forks both the Cyprus dispute and Demographics of Cyprus. Let's create more forks: Citizens of Turkey in Cyprus, Turkish land acquisition in the TRNC, Influence of the TR in the TRNC, Immigration from TR to TRNC, Property disputes in Cyprus, Property disputes in the TRNC, Property disputes of the Greek Cypriots with the barbaric Turkish Republic. Maybe if we created some more, those Turks will go back to Central Asia, eh? :)) Baristarim 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, the problem with your examples is they're red. I'm really bored to list the blue ones. NikoSilver 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact it was an encouragement to create them u know :) Baristarim 20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The result was no consensus. So, what is this about? Does overturn mean that it should be re-evaluated? Is it about not voting based on solid things? Are we re-voting here? It seems to me that keepers became endorsers and deleters became overturners, I voted 'delete'. I also dislike the fact that it was ambiguous. People might have voted for either of Turkish "settle-ment" or Turkish settlements . From the title it should be the former one. So, we need to change the article quite a lot. We might need to revote for the people who thought it could be the latter one. denizTC 07:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion in "articles for deletion" is not a vote, and the closing administrator should base the decision not on "head counting", but on the weights of the arguments presented. A contribution of the form Keep because I say so should have no weight. For an example of a recent discussion where the head count was 10 to 3 in favour of Delete, but the closing admin's decision was No consensus, see here. In deletion review, we present arguments concerning the question whether – given the AfD discussion – the closing administrator reached the correct conclusion. Endorse means support for the decision (think: "If I had been the admin, I would have done the same"). Overturn means: the decision (in this case No consensus, defaulting to Keep) should have been different. This is not the spot to bring in new arguments (unless new facts come to light); an excellent argument in Deletion review (when it applies) is that various contributors were actually sockpuppets.  --LambiamTalk 12:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dates in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article has been rewritten: meets the demands in original AfD for out-of-universe perspective, citations, removal of original research. Michael Sanders 22:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cache redirects to original version, rather than speedily deleted version of today: [54] rewritten version took this form when reposted today. Michael Sanders 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it's still original research, see WP:SYNT WP:NOR. --Coredesat 02:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Could you please let me know exactly what the original synthesis is? I am probably one of the few remaining people on earth who has not read any of the Harry Potter books so I would appreciate your clarification. Thanks in advance, Black Falcon 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, whoops, it's not a synthesis to advance a position (which is what WP:SYNT is). However, it is a synthesis of information from primary sources (the books themselves, and fansites that record raw information from the books themselves), which is still original research. The rewrite did little to resolve those issues. --Coredesat 07:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Synthesis from primary sources which does not advance a position is officially encourgaed on wiki. I quote from WP:NOR: Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.. The argument you have presented here is one for reinstating the article, not deleting it. Sandpiper 10:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CRUFT, fancruft as a term expresses a users distaste for something, but it not grounds for deletion. Some reason apart from distaste is needed. It is regrettable that issues like this should be decided on whether some user likes a particular aspect of modern popular culture, or not. This term featured in the original debate as a reason for deletion, and as such should have been discounted when the debate was closed and the vierws of contributors were being considered. Sandpiper 10:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - this one is clearcut: fan synthesis, not an encyclopedic topic. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - could you please clarify how it is a synthesis? Since it is merely the information deriving from the books, and Rowling's statements. Michael Sanders 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The synthesis comes when you put that together to create this timetable. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, no. The manner in which the data is used can be supported by external sources (e.g. Harry Potter Lexicon, the timeline on Warner Bros. DVD), which means any synthesis is attributable; moreover, I would contest that it is synthesis to create a timeline based on clear statements in the books: any synthesis is attributable, anything referencing only the books simply derives straight from them. Michael Sanders 13:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Seeing as the Harry Potter Lexicon is fan-created, my guess would be that fails WP:RS, comfortably so. Synthesis referencing the books is still WP:OR synthesis: you need to reference something else to prove that someone got there before you. More importantly, WP:N needs to be satisfied to prove that anyone actually cares beyond Harry Potter fanworld. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Lexicon, although created by fans, is approved by Rowling. That gives it reliability in this area. Moreover, this debate is not over the original deletion, but the speedy deletion of the recreated article: the original debate summed up that the article was being deleted because it contained OR, was uncited, and too in-universe; I recreated the article after rewriting it to address those flaws, which should at the very least call for a recreation and new deletion debate: since the original objections of those who wished to delete the article have been removed. Michael Sanders 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Furthermore, according to Wikipedia:Attribution#What is not original research?: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." Michael Sanders 15:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's still not properly attributed because the sources in question are primary, and thus not reliable according to our standards. The whole of the article is original research; the only way to remove it is to remove the article. --Coredesat 19:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Just to clarify: See Rowling's official site for her recommendation of the Lexicon. Someone beat us to it at creating the timeline, which was then followed by a second source, a DVD by Warner Bros. I don't see how that's not sourced properly. But please see my comments below about what we are questioning the deletion to. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Coredesat, please see my comment above and consult WP:NOR. Synthesis of primary sources which does not create an argument is officially 'strongly encouraged'. It is a core element of creating any encyclopedia and without it Wiki could not exist. Sandpiper 10:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - admin correctly interpreted the debate and deleted appropriately. Otto4711 14:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Michael Sanders brought up this point in response to a comment, but it might be lost among the many comments above. It is important to note that this is not in response to the AfD, but in response to a new article that was speedily deleted. This article was heavily sourced and written from an out-of-universe perpsective. If you still feel that this new version of the article is inappropriate, than you should take it once again to AfD for a larger consensus. But this is different now, it was considerably different from the article that was deleted as a result of AfD. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the sources in the new article were primary, therefore it was still original research, and fundamentally the same as the previous article. It should also be noted that Michael Sanders attempted to recreate the article again, but I have deleted it as a G4 recreation. If someone wants the history restored for the review, they need to request it here instead of just recreating the article. --Coredesat 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a synthesis of primary sources. First of all, primary sources in this case are Rowling's original writing, not the novels based on that writing. Second, it is questionable whether rules on primary/secondary sources apply to novels. Thirdly, such complaints were not included in the original AfD, and therefore, are not appropriate for Speedy Deletion criteria. Fourthly, the article makes use of secondary sources - e.g. Harry Potter Lexicon, which is recognised as a reputable source by Rowling. Fifthly, according to Wikipedia:Attribution#What is not original research?: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." Michael Sanders 20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; original research, not an encyclopedic topic. Encyclopedic topics have third party sources, but the most recent revision in the page history doesn't seem to have one. Picaroon 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a corect statement re sourcing of articles. It is desireable that articles have third party sources, but it is not essential. Wiki seeks to improve its credibility be widening the range of sources as far as possible, but this is an aspiration. It is not always possible to do that. However, in this case the timeline originated from a reliable website and has been adopted by Warner brothers. Sandpiper 11:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Michael Sanders. The main argument to endorse the article's deletion is that it constitutes original research. According to WP:OR, an edit is OR if it meets any of 7 criteria. The issue here seems to be point 6:

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.

Note that point 6 applies specifically to analysis or synthesis that builds a particular case favored by the editor. There is no POV-pushing and no "case" here. I shudder to think that the simple act of ordering of dates chronologically or subtracting numbers could be considered original research. -- Black Falcon 20:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I suppose - if we had an encyclopedic article on dates in Harry Potter, this would be it. (the userspace version, linked.) I learnt stuff I hadn't known, i.e. that Rowling-sanctioned material included traceable dates - I was all set to come here and say "bollocks, there are no dates in the books." This is no more "original research" than really quite a lot of our other stuff on popular fictions, and way less than most. Something DRV needs to keep in mind: you will never decruft en:wp. You may however make the cruft encyclopedically-written cruft - David Gerard 20:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In responses to claims of OR: it is categorically not Original Research. It derives from the books: WP:OR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources says "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." Obviously, this has been published by a reliable source (let's not even bother debating that point); the information has been carefully cited from the novels. Any reader, with or without specialist knowledge, can go to the cited text and read the references to the dates. And there is no 'interpretation' of anything that does not refer to secondary sources, which are heavily used: in particular, Harry Potter Lexicon, (deemed reliable by Rowling, who apparently claims to use it to check details herself), which contains its own date references. So please, demonstrate the OR to me. Michael Sanders 21:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And from the same: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." Michael Sanders 21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Keep The subject matter is incredibly relevant to Harry Potter, a subject that has been clearly determined to be encyclopedic. Anything that can relate and link the subject to the real world is needed. With something like 75 references and sources, this is one of the better ref'd articles in Wikipedia. John Reaves (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Keep I had it in mind to post this on DRV myself. I asked the closing admin his grounds for his decision, but am still slightly at a loss which specific reasons for deletion I should be attempting to rebut. The deletion debate was rambling, bringing up just about any argument anyone could think of.
It is my view that the arguments above that the article was original research has been demonstrated to be incorrect. It is accepted that wiki articles can be based upon reorganised material drawn from primary sources, so long as they do not make an argument. This applies to half the article by word count, which is the collected dates. The collected dates have anyway been largely published by HP-Lexicon (although despite the author's endorsement, some challenge its reliability as a source) and by Warner bros. As creators of the films, I do not see how they can be impeached for unreliability as a source. Whether they are a second primary source of the same information (something of a paradox, having two primary sources for the same thing), or a secondary source, seems also in debate.On balance, I think they have to be classed as a secondary source, with the author as primary source. It has been reported on mugglenet that Warner did submit their proposed timeline to her for confirmation.
The other half of the article discusses references within the book to real world events, and some comments by Rowling, which together have been used to create absoulute real-world reference dates for events in the books. Stating these items is again a synthesis of primary sources, but not one making an argument, so it is permitted as a way of creating an article. It is merely permitted cataloging to state the book mentions a real-world person Nicholas Flamel, or that such and such ghost claims to be celebrating the 500th anniversary of his death in whichever year it was. I have to say, I also see it as permitted cataloging to point out where the source may contradict itself, i.e. separate references to the same date being both a monday and a tuesday at different points in the book, or discrepancies where the ghost is suddenly 400 rather than 500 years old in a different book. However, an argument is made when this collected information is used to support specific conclusions, e.g that book 1 is set in such and such year. This is still not OR, because the process of outlining this argument was done by Hp-Lexicon, who also host pages explaining how their dating of events was arrived at. Furthermore, the dates arrived at have subsequently been accepted by Warner, so their reliability does not depend upon the arguments, and nor do the conclusions. The evidence is includeable, and the conclusions are includeable. If it accepted that the article simply reports Lexicon's derivation of the dates, then explaining the argument is also includeable. Even if it is not accepted that this is how the official dates were dervied, it remains a matter of record to note that Lexicon claims to have derived dates in this way, and again is a matter of reporting that claim. There is no 'official' version of the article to now refer to, but it may be some rephrasing is needed to make the staus of the information more clear. I can see how someone non-knowledgeable on such an abstruse subject may not appreciate that the article is reporting, not originating. It is regrettable that there is a need to write wiki articles in a form designed to convince other editors that they can continue to exist according to the rules, rather than as any other encyclopedia might do to best explain to a reader. Sandpiper 11:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me that no one has observed that this article needs to be considered as part of the whole set of HP articles, and containing the summarised dating information for all. As to the noteability of this subject, I see that two HP article are now listed in the top 100 most read articles on wikipedia. The practical effect of this articles existence is to resolve arguments which continue to arise on other HP pages as to dating. All dating references were linked to refer to this page, so that a reader gets an explanation before changing articles, rather than after. The existence of the article, whatever else its merits, furthers the ability of editors to maintain the accuracy of the other articles. Sandpiper 10:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Allegations of apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No consensus for deletion

  • Overturn. In the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (second nomination) I count 6 arguments for deletion, 6 arguments to keep. Deletion seems to be based more on personal bias than anything else. Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was pretty cruddy, though, wasn't it? Guy (Help!) 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it would help if you were more specific; "pretty cruddy" describes at least 50% of the articles on Wikipedia. It certainly was very well referenced. Jayjg (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Overturn. I Agree with Jay: every section, actually every paragraph is sourced, thus totalling 87 references. For WP standards, the article is not cruddy at all. --tickle me 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Per Jayjg, imperfect content is not a good enough reason for deletion. Looks like a case of creative accounting. Sorry I missed the vote. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Its hard for me to believe that the parent to so many other entries is "pretty cruddy," especially when AfD was 6 to 6. TewfikTalk 21:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as within admin discretion. AFD decisions are not decided by vote count. Comparing the actual comments, all but one "keep" opinion were at the front of the discussion and were short to the point of being fairly unhelpful in the discussion. Once new arguments were presented in the discussion, the weight of opinion fairly clearly turned toward deletion. (Note: It would have been nice if the earlier participants had returned to the discussion and either changed their minds or explicitly endorsed their prior opinion. Unfortunately, people seem to have fallen out of the habit of returning to deletion discussions.)
    The issue of sourcing is not, in my opinion, the definitive issue here. No one is disputing that the word "apartheid" is being used in each of these contexts. The problem is in deciding which uses are appropriate to list in this article. The opening paragraph of the last deleted version even says that "its meaning has been extended to include any wholesale cultural, intellectual, religious, economic, or gender based discrimination." Apartheid has become so widely used as an epithet that we are left to determine for ourselves which uses really qualify and which are mere rhetoric. That's the original research problem. I don't see how that problem could have been solved - and neither, apparently, did the folks participating in the deletion debate. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I see arguments both pro and contra, but why this particular case should be made an exception/example/revenge for other cases where count matters? I don't like polls in general, but given the outcome, why should one janitor's... errr, admin's discretion be given preference rather than another admin's? I don't think it is a good idea to brandish mops. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with prejudice. I'm not sure 6 votes is even a quorum, even if they were unanimous. Not only that, but an admin's job is not to be judge and jury over these cases - this is why consensus is sought. I have every reason to believe the closing admin acted in good faith, but has clearly misunderstood the limits of his/her mandate and authority. --Leifern 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as a violation of consensus. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, but rename. The title "allegations of apartheid" is very illogical. First of all, a couple of articles I've read describe real-life facts, not "allegations". The title must correspond to facts the describe, not political labels assigned to tyhese facts. Apartheid is a specific term applied to a specific country. To call apartheid enywhere else is similar to term like Feminazi which is just a slur. A supposedly NPOVing addition "allegations" is a clumsy way to introduce NOPOV: it leaves an impression that these "allegations" are just opinions of disgruntled political opponents. For what is described there is a universal term, segregation. Mukadderat 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Rossami - an AfDs is not a vote, what matter is the debate. The article is cruddy: it is a mishmash of stuff which belongs to "Human Rights in X" articles under a better encyclopedic format. Baristarim 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure although the timing wasn't good. The articles on Israel, Islam and Cuba should also have been simultaneously up for deletion with any salvageable material going to appropriate serious articles. At present there is a whole game going on being played by a handful of opposing editors over this issue, that's been running for over a year, and it is just one massive violation of WP:POINT. Its damaging wikipedia. Deleting this article was the first step towards unravelling this mess and it shouldn't stop there. Basing a series of disparate themes that are merely linked by a perjorative, and nothing else, is not good practice.-- Zleitzen(talk) 01:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Sounds about right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry, I generally don't like commenting on other people's votes, but I think that this goes to the heart of this debate: it is "votes" like this that create this confusion, and is the precise reason why this AfD is in deletion review. People: it is not a friggin' vote, please explain your reasons - "sounds about right" doesn't mean anything in itself, right? :) I am sure you have very good reasons why you want it overturned, but can you go the extra mile and explain them please? Baristarim 03:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. I can't really say much more than needs to be said, but it's been made clear that weight-of-argument doesn't factor as highly here as it does at AfD, so an added voice agreeing with what's been said above better helps the closer in this case. Until DRV starts using strength of arguments, I'm forced. Sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to lack of consensus and because it is inconsistent with the result of the latest attempt to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid which was going on at the same time but had a different result. I agree with Zleitzen that all articles about accusations of apartheid should be merged/renamed to articles that do not have apartheid in the title (other than the one about South Africa, of course.) However, I think it has to be done as part of a coordinated effort. To delete this one while "IA" remains -- and now seemingly even further immunized against deletion because it supposedly has had 4 unsuccessful nominations -- sends the wrong message, in my opinion. 6SJ7 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS] ;) Kla'quot 08:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not apply when the two articles in question are, essentially, one article that has been split into two parts, which is the case here. 6SJ7 05:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse we don't count votes, the article is an irredemable mess of unconnected rhetoric - allegations of fascism anyone?--Docg 08:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the keep arguements were based on a "me two" response with it needs to be cleaned up not deleted, where as the arguments for deletion were based n WP:SYNT policy which states that joined together in an article in order to advance [a] position becomes original research. Gnangarra 13:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Without prejudice. I think there was still much discussion to be had on the subject; I'm sorry I didn't see it until after it closed. IronDuke 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Doc Glasgow. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of allegations. Such articles should be deleted without prejudice. The day Britannica and other print encyclopedias carry this junk (in other words, when pigs fly), then bring them back to Wikipedia. Khorshid 21:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, that was a well documented article. --Shamir1 05:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The policy of no original research is non-negotiable, and there was a consensus that this article either had lots of OR or was entirely OR. Perhaps this article can be retitled and rewritten in a way that addresses the concerns raised in the AfD. Kla'quot 08:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per jayjg and humus sapiens. I find the Pokemon analogy refreshing and also the fact that the article was well sourced.Bakaman 15:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per jayjg and humus sapiens.--Urthogie 18:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per jayjg and humus sapiens and as the article was obviously well-sourced. I would like to address two comments above. (1) if the content belongs in "Human rights in X" articles, that's an argument to merge and not to delete. (2) Khorshid wrote, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of allegations". Politics, in large part, consists of series of allegations and counterallegations; hard facts are often difficult to come by. Also, allegations may be encyclopedic if they have received sufficient coverage to render them notable. -- Black Falcon 18:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Mud may be slung in other places, but this is not a credible academic topic, and articles about mudslinging are likely to be far more trouble to keep neutral than the miniscule importance of the article can ever justify. Nathanian 00:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As this article was deleted based on the belief that it violated WP:SYNT, I would like to see "overturn" arguments that explain why it did not violate WP:SYNT. Pointing out the copious references doesn't help when the problem is novel synthesis. Kla'quot 08:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I do not understand is why, if the deletion did not even get a majority, much less a consensus, one administrator has the right to delete the article in the first place. It seems to me that the restoration should be automatic, and then the deletion process can start over if someone wishes to do so. This article and Allegations of Israeli apartheid were nominated for deletion on the same day, for the same reason, by the same person, and both got similar numbers to keep and delete (exactly even in this case), and yet this article goes and the one about Israel stays. 6SJ7 12:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article was deleted on the grounds that as it linked disparate phenomena in a way no actual notable forum has ever attempted, it was judged to have violated WP:SYNT and WP:NOR after arguments made by editors, totally within process. Afd is not a vote. The problems with the other article, of which there are many, are different and should be assessed on their own merits. But all the articles should have been up for deletion simultaneously, and the nominator should have given proper reasons which applied to the relevant articles. As it is, the nominator made a mess of it.-- Zleitzen(talk) 13:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the nominator set the mess in motion, but the administrator who closed this AfD and deleted the article without a consensus, while at the same time another administrator was (properly, I must admit) closing the one about Israel consistent with the consensus, perpetuated the mess. Regardless of how the mess got here, it is here, and it needs to be corrected. 6SJ7 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn The question here is (or should be) not whether the article was a synthesis, but whether the topic is a synthesis. And what could be simpler? Allegations... apartheid. Said allegations are made in various venues in reference to various allegees by various allegators. Perhaps this would have been more compelling had the deletion of Allegations of Brazilian Apartheid been pushed through first then the dust allowed to settle in order to cover the POVness of standing Allegations of Israeli Apartheid up on its own. Gzuckier 15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist This should all have one more go through the blender. -- Kendrick7talk 23:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On a note raised by 6SJ7 about the Israeli article... I don't think that the two are related in the sense that one is about a specific country, nevertheless had I been aware of that AfD I would have voted for a merge with Human rights in Israel article. But again, there is no reason to overturn this because the other one was a keep/no-concensus. I know this will be a straw man, but there is no reason to set a thief free just because another one got away :) Baristarim 13:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:SYNT, the way I see it is using two or more sources to draw new conclusions supported by none of them. If there are multiple sources each supporting a section segregated from the others, no new conclusions have been drawn, and there is no synthesis. The validity of the article therefore rests on the validity of the sections, and I think there was not a consensus that those were invalid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it was having sections on numerous different disparate topics on the same page linked only by a rhetorical word, rather than by subject matter, that makes it WP:SYNTH. Meaning that it is original research to combine and link these disparate topics, as they had never been studied as a collective phenomenon elsewhere. It means that wikipedia had effectively created and collectively studied a topic, "allegations of apartheid", that didn't exist in the outside world, and elevated a rhetorical descriptive term used in passing to the status of a topic in itself, which in reality it isn't. Individually, "tourist apartheid" in Cuba stems from a wider programme of policies initiated after Cuba's economic collapse of the early 1990s, "social apartheid" in Brazil relates to years of economic disparities in Brazil that can be traced back to the time of slavery, "Israeli apartheid" refers to a particular dispute in the middle east. None of these have any connection to each other other than one rhetorical term used in passing, and have never been associated or studied as a collective phenomenon elsewhere. Because they do not form a single topic or subject.- Zleitzen(talk) 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, violation of WP:SYNT and WP:POINT.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (my) closure. (Apologies for the delay; was mostly idle over Easter, and since nobody had informed me this was being listed at DRV, I only noticed it a minute ago while resuming activity.) Sources aren't really the issue here; the problem is that the sources established only that the term "apartheid" had been used or misused to describe cases X, Y, and Z. So what's the problem? Well, the article covered "gender apartheid", "Islamic apartheid", "financial apartheid", "water apartheid", and a half-dozen other "apartheids", some of which had been used by a single individual and some by a greater number of individuals, a couple of which were somewhat questionably defined, and few of which had anything to do with the legal definition of "apartheid" with which the article began. None of the sources backed up any sort of equivalency between these differing forms or interpretations of "apartheid". There is no such connection (that I could find) between these different instances, according to our sources -- we were creating this connection, and that is original synthesis. They're all allegations, and all use the word "apartheid", yes, but what is meant by all of these terms is not necessarily the same thing. Additionally, some sections were unsourced/OR, and others might have been treading on giving undue weight to given POVs. Shimeru 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Banks of mainland China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)
Category:Companies of mainland China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(restore|cache)

To restore older edit history prior to re-creation. Both look like speedied after emptied. Neither went through CFD. See

for related discussions. - Privacy 17:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Deletion log of Category: Banks of mainland China indicates it has been deleted once, and Category: Companies of mainland China has been deleted twice. The two categories you mentioned were never deleted. - Privacy 09:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This vote canvassing (and potential puppetry) on all the discussions around creating/deleting "mainland China" anything is extremely disturbing. SchmuckyTheCat 01:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Faye Turney – A "redirect" closure at AfD is a subspecies of keep. While it should be accorded some respect, it is not binding over a talk-page discussion that reaches the conclusion to revert the redirect and restore the full article. DRV review is unnecessary here. I have unprotected and reverted the redirect, to allow talk page discussion of the matter. – Xoloz 17:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Faye Turney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Subject is notable within Wikipedia's meaning of notability and the AfD discussion had not reached a consensus when it was closed. Greenshed 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; not notable at all. Maurauth 16:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. By checking the last version of the article before it was redirected, we can see that there are multiple reliable sources that address her (and not just the capture incident) non-trivially. Ergo, she meets our notability guidelines. Also, if I'm not mistaken, a "15 minutes of fame" test has been repeatedly proposed as an indicator of notability and repeatedly rejected. In any case, AFD is not the place to change policy. A merge may be appropriate to improve content organisation, but the AFD close was clearly inappropriate. -- Black Falcon 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should properly be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages, not here. AFDs that close as "redirect" are no more binding than any other discussion with equivalent participation. But since the question has been put before us, I will endorse closure (keep as redirect). I also checked the sources in that last version of the article but do not reach Black Falcon's conclusion that they establish notability independent of the one incident. Had she been killed in the incident, we would have unambiguously rejected an independent article because Wikipedia is not a memorial. I find it very strange that we would reach a different decision just because she and the others lived. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. Not everything in the newspaper belongs in an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse perfectly reasonable close. Come back if she becomes notable for something else independent of the seizure, in the mean time a redirect is the logical answer. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am more than happy to discuss the notability question here in detail. However, my main point is procedural, namely that the AfD discussion had not reached a consensus when it was closed (if anything I thought that it was heading in the direction of "Keep"). I submit that the article should be reinstated and if someone wants nominate it for merging or deletion then they can do and we'll debate notability then. Greenshed 19:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. While I agree with the nominator that a consensus hadn't really been established, closing a debate as no consensus is fairly unsatisfactory and relisting the debate would not likely help with the lack of consensus issue. Reaching a compromise in the form of a redirect is a bold move on the part of the closing admin and is an admirable thing to do. A redirect is not a delete and it can be reverted by any user - a better forum for discussion on whether this ought to be a merge/redirect or a standalone article is better suited to the talk page. Arkyan • (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. Would you agree that if I were to revert the redirect and add to the article, this would also be bold and admirable? Greenshed 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be a little inappropriate without some constructive debate on the matter. The problem is that in XFD matters the closing admin is often forced to make some pointedly difficult choices, particularly in matters where consensus isn't clear, knowing full well how likely it is someone is going to either complain about the income or call the decision in to question. So, often a judgement call has to be made as to which decision will be the least contentious outcome. If the consensus here in the DRV is to endorse the closure, a unilateral decision on your part (or anyone elses) to revert the redirect would be bold yes, but flagrantly disrespectful toward both process and the editors involved. If, afterward, you can get a constructive debate on the topic going on in the talk page and the consensus is then to restore the article, that is perfectly fine, yes. Arkyan • (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason why I have nominated this article is because I intend to respect both process and consensus. I agree that closing the article as no consensus is somewhat unsatisfactory but in this case it would have been accurate. My understanding is that if a consensus cannot be reached then the article should stay. Assuming that my understanding is correct, then by upholding the actioning admin's flawed judgement (no doubt made in good faith) the principle that no consensus means no removal of the content is turned on its head. Greenshed 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, there is no deletion to review - reverting a redirect is an editorial decision that can be discussed on relevant article talk pages. --Coredesat 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Not notable outside of the Incident. Leave it deleted! Nooie 00:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I advocating keeping the article without the redirect. However, this was a reasonable close.DGG 04:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - whatever one's views on this, procedure has not been followed. Far too many debates get closed with a "the decision is X" just because a particular admin supports one case. SteveRwanda 06:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel seems sensible. If she becomes famous for something else, then the redirect should be undone and it should become a separate article. Really this is one case where listing for deletion was a waste of time (wasn't going to happen) and a redirect makes Wikipedia a more informative encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion she hasn't done anything notable that isn't covered by the parent article on the seizure itself. The parent article covers all the aspects which many argue make her notable enough for her own article, I think that it would just be duplication. SGGH 14:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and unprotect and keep. Highly notable, this should not be a question for anyone. A protected redirect is would be inappropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep. This event is still ongoing with the whole selling of stories issue coming up while this process has been going on. Hypnosadist 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alluc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

improved notability and layout Iyenweyel 07:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Edeskonline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The argument given by closing admin that maxzine.co.in is an online magazine is incorrect. It is a print magazine with an online version. Hence argument of low legitimacy is incorrect. The closing admin has accepted this mistake on my User page and asked me to go for deletion review. Also there were only 2 Delete comments (including the nominator) versus 3 legitimate Keep comments. Also the 2 Delete comments were posted before I added the external references for notability and hence should not be given due weightage. Based on the above facts, I request undeletion of the page. Dhshah 06:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gandhi's views on race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

{{{Appears notable}}} It was improved substantially since the proposed deletion and quoted 30 different accurate references. It was completely balanced with the counter point of view. Teabing-Leigh 05:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Furthermore, after improvement more people wanted it kept or merged than deleted.[reply]

  • Comment: I agree the issue is notable, however I think that the first concern was that any "balance" was serving as a fig leaf for a tendentious scolding of Gandhi. The second concern was that there was a lot of primary research that was chosen selectively in the article as written. (I'm not convinced that was cause for deletion, so much as an artifact of the editor's referencing.) As for my opinion, I think that NPOV should no more be used to help prop up a selectively glowing view of a historical figure than to allow personal attacks masquerading as neutral history. While the article as submitted was problematic, I think Wikipedia should in future remain open to a balanced presentation of the issue both on the main Mahatma Gandhi page & on a subpage should there be sufficient length to require one. Ventifax 06:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree entirely with Ventifax's assessment. The article as originally nominated for deletion was very much problematic. But the topic itself was notable, and the article was actively being improved throughout the deletion debate process. The version at the time it was deleted was certainly still very much a work in progress. But if one compares it to the originally nominated version, I think it's pretty clear that it was moving in the right direction. Perhaps the deletion decision doesn't need to be overturned immediately, given that even the deleted version was still not yet completely free of the concerns voiced in the deletion debate. But certainly, once it's finished being rounded into better shape, there is no reason the topic shouldn't be open to re-introduction, whether as its own article or as a subsection of the main Gandhi article. (I don't have a strong preference between those two options, but the Gandhi article is fairly long as it stands, so that might argue for a new article.) Mwelch 07:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - to be honest, it's hard to see how any article on this topic is going to be much more than a POV fork. Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic, but I really think these "X views of Y" articles are not altogether desirable. No prejudice against a recreation that really complies with NPOV, though. Valid AfD, and it should be considered that perhaps this material is redundant to that contained elsewhere. Moreschi Request a recording? 11:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, agreeing with Ventifax's assessment above. There is probably enough for a short factual paragraph in the Gandhi article, but most of this is, if not revisionism, then at the least looking at a historical figure through 21st Century eyes. Undue weight applies. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am willing to reintroduce the subject matter after editing by Mwelch, Ventifax, Moreschi and Guy (if he at all agrees that there should be an article on this issue). To Guy... the issue here is two fold: 1. Many of Gandhi's contemporaries did not share these views. 2. Gandhi's role as an inspiration of many civil rights and anti-racial movements around the world, which had been duly emphasised and pointed out in the deleted article, makes this issue very notable... Teabing-Leigh 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest, that if you are interested in reintroducing the subject, that you first try some of the other suggestions - such as by creating the content as a smaller section in the main article about Gandhi? It may be a bit less contentious that way, as then if there are problems they can be brought up through regular editorial discussion rather than having it dragged through deletion processes. Barring that, if you truly feel there is enough material on the subject to warrant a standalone article, then instead of jumping back in to the fray and creating the article over again, try creating a test version in user space, perhaps under User:Teabing-Leigh/Gandhi's views on race or something similar to that. Then you can seek comment and review on the proposed version and once you have something that is more generally agreeable to the community it can be moved into namespace. Being too hasty to recreate a deleted article can be viewed as a lack of respect toward the other editors and an unwillingness to abide by consensus. As for the AfD debate in question, I have to endorse the deletion as being in proper process. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing wrong I saw with the process, and what I saw of the "article" appeared to be quote-mining in service of a POV, anyways. --Calton | Talk 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is, in fact, the absolute most POV article I have ever seen here. Teabing draws conclusions like "Gandhi thought black people were incapable of humanity" (which he actually put IN THE ARTICLE, by the way) even though Gandhi never said anything of the sort. To add to that, after I helped the article get deleted, Teabing attacked me on my talk page. Belgium EO 19:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Its sourced to some Black nationalist propaganda rather than bona-fide studies of Gandhi.Bakaman 21:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Inferno Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Appears notable: [55] Λυδαcιτγ 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility would be to incorporate the information into St Austell. Λυδαcιτγ 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[57] [58] [59] [60] [61]. However, these are all local news. Λυδαcιτγ 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

4 April 2007

[edit]
  • Scary Movie 5 – Recreation permitted, article unprotected. Note that previously-deleted edits have not been restored, as they amount to nothing more than old speculation. Since DRV concludes that new sources have emerged, use them to write and source the article. – Xoloz 15:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Scary Movie 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • Overturn Numerous sources cited on the talk page that this movie is IN PRODUCTION (including IMDB), and confirmation of actors who have signed onto the project Sumnjim 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article deleted some time ago when there was nothing but speculation concerning this, once again no discussion with deleting admins first as mandated before deletion review. Personally pretty neutral as to the outcome of this discussion. That said the "numerous" source cited about this being in Production appears to be one, IMDB. Similarly the "actors" again is of the non-multiple variety i.e. one. So the verified article from the sources provided so far, are it is in production, due 2008 and will feature Leslie Neilsen as the president. --pgk 20:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-redeletion until it's been released and we can write a proper encyclopedia article about social impact, reach, etc with multiple non-trivial sources. Until then all we can write is either a regurgitation of new stories or future speculation. We have no need to scoop anyone here at Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that no movie deserves to be on wikipedia until it's physically been released to theatres? Sumnjim 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems fair. Rumour site <> encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • rumor site > encyclopedia is a possibility? Herostratus 04:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • IMDB is not a rumor site. To reiterate, this article was deleted a long time ago, when not much info was out on this movie...however if you read the discussion page there are numerous sources documenting that this movie is now in production, which means that it should be undeleted. Sumnjim 14:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, it is. IMDb allows anyone to edit. They do employ a few fact-checkers and have some social controls on editing but not all edits or contributions get properly vetted. IMDb should be used as a source only with great caution and with significant cross-checking of the facts. Nevertheless, my core point is that we can't write an encyclopedia article solely based on the information findable in IMDb. Proper encyclopedia articles focus on the context, impact and social analysis of a film, not a mere regurgitation of the actors, plot and release rumors. Rossami (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete plenty verifiable information is available about this movie.  Grue  16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion per verifiable information en masse[62]. Matthew 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be the one to tell you, but not everything you can find in google is considered a reliable source. The article was deleted pending availability of reliable information so far that information is still pretty lacking. --pgk 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sonny Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Vanity article LifeStar 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Delphine Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not a valid reason to delete page Dashfan00 17:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WP:WPMOVIE (edit | [[Talk:WP:WPMOVIE|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This redirect to User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie was deleted based upon a strict interpretation of WP:CSD#R2. However, I accrued consensus on the criteria for speedy deletion talk page that such redirects (i.e., from a shortcut pseudo-namespace) to user pages were fine. This nomination is merely a way to see if such consensus works for everyone, works specifically in this case, and can be enforced. GracenotesT § 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Godfather films in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I do not believe that the debate indicated that a community consensus had been reached. Yes, certainly, more people advised a "delete" than did a "keep", but the substance of the debate indicates not consensus, but a fundamental philosophical division between those who are ideologically predisposed to delete any and all so-called "trivia" articles, and those who have a more relaxed attitude towards them. I think that dichotomy runs throughout the Wikipedia community, but I also believe that the former attitude is more prevalent among those most likely to become involved in AfD debates, and the other backstage processes of running Wikipedia. However, that fact that this eliminationist philosophy is overrepresented in this small slice of the community doesn't speak to the attitude of the community as a whole. If you were to ask, I'm fairly certain that more people would agree with the idea that on Wikipedia "everything that's not (explicitly) forbidden is allowed", while those dogmatically predisposed to elimination of certain types of material believe that "everything that's not allowed is forbidden." Given this, it's hard for me to understand how the closing administrator could reach the conclusion that a consensus had been reached. I suggest that a community consensis was not reached, and that the article be reinstated. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Consensus on the AfD was unquestionable, and whether the nominator agrees with the "philosophical motivations" of the !votes is irrelevant to the consensus. It appears that the nominator has some fundamental disagreement with the AfD process (believes that consensus on AfD does not reflect Wikipedia community consensus) however it is not the place of the closing admin to try and second guess the consensus reached. There are other places to bring up disagreements with deletion policy, but since this was closed well within that policy there is no sensible conclusion other than to endorse the closure. Arkyan • (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion in popular culture. A completely valid interpretation of a debate in which pretty much every opinion was for deletion, and which therefore follows numerous recent precedents. The way to deal with bloated pop culture cruft in articles is to prune it, not to split it out into whole articles comprised of nothing but cruft. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say that I disagree entirely -- I have no particular problem with the AfD process, except that I keep reading that it's not a vote but an evaluation of consensus. Clearly if you just count votes, there's no question of what the outcome is, but my understanding that it was more important to evaluate the essence of the discussion to determine where consensus lies, not to count noses. I don't see where it's particularly reasonable to read that debate, and all the objections laid out to the eliminationist philosophy, and say that a consensus was reached -- unless some other meaning of "consensus" is being invoked. And then, how does one ignore the other arguments that were brought out? To wit:
      1. The material in the article in question was spun-off wholesale from another article, where it was the subject of intense debate between myself and the AfD nominator. After the spin-off, the nominator brought the new article up for deletion. In what conceivable way can that not be a violation of the deletion's policy's absolute proscription against using the deletion process to settle editing disputes? Why should the nominator be rewarded for blatantly violating that rule by having the article deleted?
      2. The policy that was cited to justified deletion was WP:AVTRIV, but that policy is not a proscription against any and all "trivia" articles -- it recognizes the existence and the worth of those articles, as well as their drawbacks, and counsels avoidance of them. There is no part of that policy that calls for the absolutle wholesale deletion of "trivia" sections or articles, as suggested by the AfD nominator and his supporters.
      3. A sizable portion of the people who agreed with the nominator that the article should be deleted were also the people that agreed with the nominator (against me) in the editing debate on the original article, and many of them had entered that debate original discussion at the nominator's suggestion. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but I am suggesting that the debate was overwhelmed by editors of one particular philosophy, who opposed any and all "trivia" sections or articles wherever they appeared, no matter of their content. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe you are missing the point. You are correct in saying that the deletion debates are not a vote, and are not decided by vote count. That is to prevent people from saying "Delete!" or "Keep!" without elaboration and have their opinions counded as strongly as actual informative debate. However when an overwhelming majority of those expressing their voice are in favor of deletion, and the overwhelming majority of those voices are not simple "Delete" votes but include a rationale for deletion, that is exactly what constitutes a consensus. If the debate is overwhelmed by editors of a particular editing philosophy, the closing admin has no choice but to conclude that said philosophy is the consensus in this case. You may not like the philosophy or the rationale provided, but when the tide of opinion is against you, it's hard to argue that a consensus has not been reached. Arkyan • (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think I'm missing the point, but I am defintely missing the distinction you are trying to make. An "overwhelming majority" can only be determined by counting voted, which makes it a quantitative determination and not a qualitative one, which is what I understood the consensus process to be -- at least that's how it's touted. What I'm asking for is a qualitative evaluation of the debate, and by that criteria it's clear that there's a fundamental split in philosophies which prevented a consensus from coming about. On that basis, and in light of the points I brought out above, I believe the article should be restored. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ed, we know you dispute the deletion. Te problem is, you appear to be alone in that. Your very very lengthy arguments have been seen, weighed, and found unpersuasive. Now would be a good time to give up. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy: You are, of course, correct. I'm disappointed not so much that the article will be deleted -- it's hardly a major blow to the encyclopedia, or to me, not to have it -- but that my arguments, especially those which go to the supposed nature of the Wikipedia enterprise -- seem to have fallen entirely on deaf ears, and apparently haven't even provoked an iota of doubt or re-thinking on anyone's part. C'est la vie. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the debate was open, extended, proper, and properly interpreted in the end. To respond to Ed's points: 1 - don't assume that this deletion settles the issue of the section in the article it was spun off from. Rather, consider this part of the Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles cycle. This debate was about the fate of the stand-alone article only. 2 - De facto, it is well-established in the community that articles that consist entirely of trivia sections can be deleted, and WP:AVTRIV is usually cited as justification, alongsite WP:NOT. The AVTRIV page should probably be updated. 3 - that's a serious accusation but I couldn't find any evidence of it being true. Do you have diffs to support your claim? Where did this solicitation of votes take place? Mangojuicetalk 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I thought it was clear that by saying explicitly that there was no conspiracy, I was making no accusation of solicitation of votes. What I am saying is that editors of a certain philosophy, who were aware of the original editing debate between myself and the AfD nominator, were overrepresented at the debate, that's all. As to the other points -- perhaps it wouldbe better to leave WP:AVTRIV alone, since it seems like a perfectly reasonable and moderate policy, and ask editors to actually follow the policy that's been approved, as opposed to the one that would like to have? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see where the misunderstanding came in, and it's my fault. When I wrote that the nominator asked the others to "join the debate" I was thinking of the original editing debate on The Godfather, not the AfD debate. It was a very poor choice of words on my part. Let me make clear that I am not saying that any solicitation of votes or canvassing took place in the AfD debate. I've changed the wording so that nobody else will get the wrong impression. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly interpreted the discussion to arrive at the result. Otto4711 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So when I see statements like this, from WP:AFD:
      Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote...
      and this from WP:CON:
      Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works (see Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate.
      Am I to take it that these are merely pro forma statements, and that on a practical basis admins really just ignore the content of the debate and count votes to determine that a consensus has been reached? I admit that in this case the "deletes" outnumber the "keeps", that an "overwhelming majority" supported the deletion, and even that a supermajority of "deletes" was reached (over 80%), but it's hard to reconcile those standards with the basic policy declarations about what a consensus is and how it's determined. By those standards, judging by the quality and content of the debate rather than by the numbers, I don't think it can be said that a consensus was reached, not when a significant portion of the participants remain unconvinced and unmollified. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, these aren't merely pro forma statements. As I do not wish to endlessly belabor this subject here on DRV, I'm going to leave a comment on your talk page and hope I can clear a few things up for you. Arkyan • (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). The consensus of the AFD decisions was not ambiguous. I recommend that you read the Talk page archives of WP:CONSENSUS for an understanding of the "rough consensus" we seek (which is different than the "ideal consensus" that you imply). Rossami (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It turns out that "rough consensus" in practical terms equates to "supermajority of the people who show up to comment". While that may be an adequate model for determining the consensus of the very small group who participated (a statistically insignificant subgroup of the entire community), it's not nearly adequate to determine the probably consensus of the community as a whole. That requires something much more difficult, a qualitative analysis of the arguments being made and a reasonable extrapolation about how those arguments would play in the community. It's quite possible that there's no practical way for that model to be implemented, which is what I somewhat suspected, and why I kept asking in the AfD debate how consensus was determined.
I'm not a fool, I can see where this DRV is going, and I don't really relish putting myself in the position where I look foolish by tilting at windmills, but I guess I'm just a bit disappointed (OK, more than a bit), that the promised community-consensual model that Wikipedia was said to embody turns out to be something quite a bit less interesting. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the consensus on AfD was quite unambiguous. Everyone contributing to the debate stated their argument well; there was no profliteration of pile-on, no-substance votes like the nom of this DRV seems to be suggesting. Additionally, the nom of the AfD was 100% right in trying to integrate trivia into the main article, and did nothing wrong by nominating the spinoff article for deletion. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick correction -- the nominator of the AfD was not trying to integrate the material into the article, he pronounced it all entirely worthless, and under pressure from others left in a single (uninteresting and not illuminating) entry from the material that now has been deleted. In fact I was the one who wanted to integrate the material into the article, and I was the person making suggestions as to how the material could be reconceptualized and rendered into prose, either in the original article or in the spin-off. The people who voted to delete took the stance that the material was entirely worthless and should be totally deleted without integration. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 08:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Yeesh, that's a lot of text. The argument that the nomination was out of order because it was the result of an editing dispute is not convincing. With that out, you can't deny that the close was proper. Herostratus 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Sprawling, messy trivial "in popular culture" sections are to be found in far too many articles. Separating them out will only reduce further the inadequate level of self-restraint that editors show in writing this dross. Nathanian 00:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Frederique_Constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD 1, AfD 2)

Insufficient Notability

After this discussion was closed, Kinslayer proposed to change his opinion. Asked if he could review new drafts, but did not receive answer. Believe notability of Frederique Constant as Watch Manufacturer was established and accepted, please see draft and [[63]].

  • Undelete Frederique Constant, it's a notable company and IMHO passes WP:CORP. Merge Peter Stas there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete the deletion discussion needed wider participation--there were only 3 voices: the nom, 1 ed., and the closing admin. The correct thing to have done would have been to relist for further discussion. DGG 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration of both AfDs, I see that issues related to this were discussed more widely, albeit in a rather confused manner, involving both the company, and Peter Stas, the proprietor. I can only guess that a reasonable close would have been to keep one of the two article. As the other one has been deleted, this one might stay--and appropriately, for I think the company is the more notable. Whatever COI might be there can be removed. I comment, of course, without having actually seen the articles. It would greatly clarify DR if the items in question were made visible to all participants. DGG 07:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have previous articles either. Anyhow, please see drafts for what I suggest to be neutral text referenced with various sources. Pcstas 10:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closures (keep deleted) but no prejudice against recreation from verifiable sources if written by someone without the inherent conflict of interest. First, not only was the originally deleted version flagrantly advertising, it was also a copyright violation. I can not endorse the undeletion of the 2005 versions of the page. Second, the versions created (and deleted) in 2007 seem to be governed by this second AFD debate. The second debate got plenty of participation and still closed with everyone except the article's author (and subject) arguing to delete. I find no process problems in that second discussion either. There was some evidence presented late in the discussion that the company might be approaching WP:CORP's standards for notability, although some of the references appear to be mere reprints of press releases. I do note, however, that none of the participants in the discussion actually changed their opinions. Even Kinslayer's subsequent comment is ambiguous. The real deciding factor for me, though, is that autobiographies are bad for the project. If you and your company are really notable enough for coverage in an international encyclopedia, then let someone else write the article. It is impossible to be sufficiently neutral when deciding to write about yourself. Rossami (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted on autobiographies. Believe drafts show neutral text. Please feel free to adjust. Listing Frederique_Constant is primary aim, fine to merge additional text there. Pcstas 10:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Looking for various watch brands to prepare for Basel watch fair. Found many but missing Frederique Constant and then stumbled on this page. Company very known here in Netherlands, in my opinion they should have an entry. Hwilli 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of abbreviations for names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Seems to have been speedied. Reason given as "recreation", however, I was not aware of any previous version of the page, created it completely from scratch, and fail to see how it merits deletion. — Swpb talk contribs 12:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason is probably that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The actual article is here, in our friendly neighborhood wiktionary. We do appreciate your enthousiasm. >Radiant< 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware of wiktionary, but this list is not a definition. Someone researching old documents and looking for the name corresponding to an abbreviation, or vice versa, would not likely look first in a dictionary, but in an encyclopedia, as Newyorkbrad seems to concur. I'd like to know if there is a formal process to review the merits of inclusion of this article, rather than immediately speedying it because a previous incarnation was AfD'd. I'd also like to note that I'm a fairly experienced editor, and I'm bit offended at your (seemingly) patronizing tone. — Swpb talk contribs 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a prior AfD, the link to which is above. For what it's worth, had I seen the AfD I would have voted "Keep", as I think this is useful encyclopedic rather than just dictionary content, but I don't believe we have a process for reviewing a deletion just because of disagreement with the result, where the result correctly reflects the consensus that existed at the time. (As difficult as it might be to believe that deletion, the most over-rule-governed part of the project, is missing a process!) Newyorkbrad 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looked like a substantially similar article to the one already deleted, which is at wikt:Appendix:Abbreviations for English given names. I would invite you to work on the article at Wiktionary; we'd be happy to have you. Dmcdevit·t 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm. This was speedied as a recreation. However, the spirit of CSD G4 is mainly directed toward intentional recreation of a known deleted article, I think. The article is substantially the same as the deleted version, so the AfD for that version may inform us. It was a proper close, BUT... the discussion was awfully weak. Comments such as "Who's to say that "Henry" should be abbreviated "Hy." rather than "Hen."..." indicated that the person doesn't know what's going on; the other comments were mainly very short, of the "WP:WINAD" variety and not showing a lot of depth of thought. And while it's technically true that paper dictionaries might contain this type of material and paper encyclopedias may not, we living here in the bold future of the 21st Century are not necessarily tied to conventions of paper media: there's no reason it can't be in both places. So while not saying the close was actually improper, I'll WP:IAR here and say Overturn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I put in a Soft redirect, how's that? >Radiant< 09:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of the AFD and the speedy-deletion as reposted content. There were no process problems in the deletion discussion. The decision was consistent with standing precedent that those kinds of pages are better handled via the appendices in our sister project, Wiktionary. (The soft redirect is useful.) Rossami (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted for CSD G5 which is Pages created by banned users while they were banned. The user who created this page is unrelated, but the page was deleted because Sock Buster added to it. However, the Sock Buster account was in fact not a sockpuppet of the said banned user, and was in fact a legitimate sock of mine. I am requesting undeletion of the pages created by Sock Buster and and unblock of the account. —KingIvan 11:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion If you think an account should be unblocked/unbanned, I'd suggest attempting that before coming here with the related undeletion request, as determining who should be banned and who is a sock of who is beyond the scope of what we handle here at DRV (the andministrator's noticeboard would probably be the best place for such requests). Note that this is a suggestion only, and I'm not advocating actually unblocking anyone or undeleting anything at this time. This is beyond the scope of DRV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In general, checkuser requests are not subject to deletion. Only the Checkusers themselves are empowered to rule on these requests. I can imagine a circumstance of exceptional abuse where a request could be summarily deleted but this doesn't rise to that level. However, rather than proceed with a formal deletion review I would suggest merely resubmitting the request. Newyorkbrad 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the page was not created by Sock Buster, but by EppurSiMuove (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet of the banned user Afrika paprika. Ivan, just create the page again under your own username this time. Sock Buster was not a legitimate sockpuppet because it was created to avoid scrutiny. Khoikhoi 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

My interpretation of this debate is that we should leave the Word Association sandbox game, and remove the subpages as being a violation of Wikipedia is not a social network. The so-called Sandboxians re-created them a few times, and now I see that Grue has taken it upon himself to undelete all the variant games and the template which promotes the variant games. There are a number of pages including:

If someone would like to spend a moment convincing me of the encyclopaedic merit of inventing and promoting, particularly through use of a template, novel variants of word association, I'd be grateful. I can't say I'm especially happy that I only found out about Grue's undeletions when he told me not to delete them again; he did not tell me he had undelete dthem the first time, so I nuked the bluelinks in my deletion log because the "sandboxians" had re-cerated them under "much better titles" a few times since. Grue undeleted them again and left me a note saying not to "unilaterally" delete them again. I do not consider this particularly constructive. I am open to debate, and deletion review is here to challenge a deletion. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep undeleted the debate was closed with the result "delete the archives, keep everything else". Instead, JzG took it upon himself to delete all subpages, without any discussion supporting his actions. I restored pages to their status quo status after discussion was closed. Wheel war ensued. I believe my actions were supported by community consensus, while JzG's were not.  Grue  11:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you really went out of youre way to discuss it before starting a war, didn't you? Oh, wait, no you didn't even leave a note on my talk page. Thank you so much for that token of respect. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted no evidence these have caused any harm or disruption; I read the MFD and there doesn't seem to be any consensus to delete, and I can't see any specific policy they violate. On-wiki games don't use enough server space to be worth worrying about, and since all Wiki editors (except a few Foundation employees) are volunteers, they deserve the right to engage in such pastimes if they so choose. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not helpful in building an encyclopdeia, and per the MFD. >Radiant< 14:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Reluctantly, I agree with Grue on the interpretation of the MfD, although I'll note that Grue only undeleted some of the variant games so even he apparently sees the worthlessness of many of them. Most of these games don't play differently but simply have different formatting, so really I think they should all be deleted with maybe one or two exceptions. —Doug Bell 14:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the most obvious of linkclutter.--judging on the merits of the pages. Its not the space I object to, but the insertion of extraneous and irrelevant links to articles . The closing summary, which was fair enough, was to keep the main page and delete the archives, but did not mention the subpages. DGG 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted. My reading of the MfD was that there was a concensus that all archived games should be deleted, I'm not convinced there was a concensus to delete the spin-off games in the subpages. Perhaps a fresh MfD to determine the outcome for these- some subgames look pretty trivial while others may be worth keeping. WjBscribe 00:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted as Grue's actions do seem to be consistent with the consensus at MfD; however, I agree with the nom that Grue should have notified him the first time to avoid provoking a wheel war. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

3 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Placeblogger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I created a fully referenced article on Placeblogger, the foremost directory of local blogs and hyperlocal sites, because they are of significance to those on the interface of media and politics, particularly us planners. I have been publishing a number of entries relating to planning, and this is just one of those many entries. I am in no way connected to Placeblogger, and my intention for the article was not meant as advertising.

The least I would expect is a discussion about why my article was considered to be spam, and how I may have improved it. I reviewed the "How not to be a spammer" policy and concluded I came out squeaky clean.

I am disappointed that there is no transparency with whoever the adminitrator was that deleted the article. They even deleted the history of the article so I don't even know who it was. Could I have some support here please to at least go through an open and transparent process that communicates why it is invalid to have a Placeblogger entry, and what a valid entry would look like?A.J.Chesswas 23:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:AleMoon.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted out of process. The issue had been raised on AN where an editor doubted the accuracy/truthfulness of the license given by the uploader (which was "GFDL_self". No substantive reasons for the doubt were expressed, IMO. I put the image on WP:PUI. After a little more discussion on AN, and long before the PUI time had run, it was delted with the comment "Invalis license" DES (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I propose that the deletion be overturned and the image be relisted on PUI or WP:IFD. DES (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore all rules and keep deleted. Uploader has only a couple of edits including the uploading of another image that should probably be deleted as well (Image:Rosiemarc31an.jpg). If the user ever comes back, then they can claim they had the correct license, but unless they do, the highly specious license they submitted should be taken as a false license, and the image should remain deleted. To undelete the image just to go through a kangaroo court that would be IfD (no possible way it would be kept) seems absurd and counterproductive. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the idea of an anonymous professional photographer pseudonymously uploading their photos of celebrities for the good of Wikipedia is attractive, it is also rather naive. The only other edits of Cutebunny121 (talk · contribs) were to link the disputed image in an infobox which explicitly requires a free image, and to upload File:Image:Rosiemarc31an.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with {{No license from license selector|Somewebsite}} as the license tag. Sadly Mary Poppins is no longer at home, so I deleted the image as an almost certain copyvio. Sure, we could list it on IfD and wait five days before deleting it, but deletion is the way it was going, and honestly I couldn't see any reason to waste further time and effort. Needless to say this review has done just that, but there you go. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess I am missing something. Why are you so convinced that this is a copyvio and the uploader is lying? I didn't see any obvious signs of this. The picture is not bad, but does not have the look of an obvious commercial or promotional shot to me. If the subject is a famous person, i didn't recognize her. No one has cited anything beyond the limited editing history of the user and the fact that this seesm to eb a well-taken photo (but nothing that looks to me as obviously beyond a good point&shoot camera). Whatever happened to WP:AGF? What am I missing that has you all so convinced that this is a vopyvio disguised by a lie? If thsi is in fact a copyvio it should obviously go at once. But I was wary of what looked like a rush to judgement based on nothing more than suspicion. Am I overlooking obvious indicators of a copyvio? DES (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the image was of Alessandra Ambrosio --pgk 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Point noted, attempted use tends to confirm. Nomination withdrawn. It would have been helpful if someone had said that when this came up at AN. Please close. DES (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File talk:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png (edit | file | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This may be a distasteful picture, but deleting the image talk out of process without any explination in the deletion log isn't the answer. Note that while the image does show a redlink for some reason, it does indeed exist on commons, and is used in Pearl necklace (sexuality) 69.142.111.235 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us to judge whether the content was worthy of existing, he deleted it as a G8 and it was an invalid G8, because the image exists on commons. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not this one: 02:59, 28 March 2007 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image talk:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png" --69.142.111.235 03:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. What exactly are we supposed to do with talk pages of images uploaded to Commons? And the technical point notwithstanding, I'm still curious about what exactly is so precious about that talk page that deserves a DRV rather than a simple talk page message to the deleting admin. Pascal.Tesson 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave them, like talk pages of images present here? DRV is the standard procedure when a page is incorrectly deleted. It's not even that much more work than just an informal message, and gets more eyes on the problems. I don't think this apparent snobbishness (as if this page is unworthy of being placed on DRV) helps. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deleting admin didn't specify G8 so maybe that was, maybe that wasn't the reasoning. Irrespective wikipedia is not a bureacracy if the page contained irrelevant junk we shouldn't be blindly restoring it for the sake of it. --pgk 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actually you're right, in which case it should be a speedy restore as no deletion reason specified. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same comment wikipedia is not a bureacracy --pgk 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is true, we shouldn't blindly be bureaucrats, but when there's a dispute, Process is important. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT is a pretty fundamental policy, process is important doesn't quite have the same sitting in the scheme of things. In the context of your comment, the admin didn't put a reason is pretty much a text book example of not a bureacracy, not dotting the I's and crossing the T's isn't a reason to invalidate the action. When there is a dispute, we should probably discuss hence why it is here, merely pointing to the "rules" doesn't help resolve a dispute. --pgk 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snobishness? Was that a comment intended for me? Certainly anyone asking for deletion review believes that there is something worth keeping in that talk page, I'm just wondering what this is. If the talk page consisted of a single "I think this image is distateful", I'm wondering why we have to bother with bureaucratic process. Pascal.Tesson 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleted page contains discussion on the appropraiteness of the image, and whether it should be delted or improved, and if so how. This seems like a textbook example of the kind of content that is normally left on a talk page in such cases. Overturn. DES (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because in my opinion the appropriateness of this image does indeed need to be discussed, & here is not the place. Though another could be started, the record of the discussion should be preserved--and it might even be relevant to why it was deleted. DGG 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've got a weird feeling that this is a stupid question but why not move the talk page to Commons? Similar comment: how is the discussion of the tastefulness of the image be of any interest here now that the image itself has been deleted? I mean it's just going to float here in neverland while the debate (maybe) continues on Commons. Pascal.Tesson 02:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored the talk page. I've also made pointers there to both Talk:Pearl necklace (sexuality) and the image's talk page on commons. Mangojuicetalk 17:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Universities and colleges in the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

The CfD discussion was closed by Radiant. It's not an unreasonable call but I want to argue this should have been closed as no consensus and in any case that it's a mistake to delete this category. The strict vote count is 11-4 in favor of deletion. However, I believe that a lot of reasons given for deletion were flat-out incorrect and that the arguments made in favor of keeping the category were never adressed. We have a category Category:Education in the European Union and it seems particularly relevant to have the university cat as a subcategory here since the sole involvement of the EU in education is in higher education. Through the Bologna process, the EU has pushed for increased uniformity among EU universities, leading to significant changes in many curriculums. The EU also provides significant research funding for universities and programs such as ERASMUS and SOCRATES. All these issues affect solely universities in the EU which I believe makes the category meaningful for browsing. The nominator's rationale was that The EU is just a regional body, and it does not run the university and college systems of its member states. This, of course, is entirely true yet of little relevance. Canada, the United States and many other federal countries do not run their universities, yet grouping the provincial or state categories makes perfect sense because of the common issues run at a federal level that affect the individual universities. A number of deletion supporters argued that the existence of this category is part of a Europhile conspiracy to overstate the role of the EU [64] [65]. These arguments are pretty much meaningless and don't participate in a constructive debate about whether the category is a useful categorization tool or not. Many other comments had a strong political undertone and, as I did in the CfD debate, I'd like to add I'm Canadian, have no stake in the EU and am saddened to see that the debate turned out to be about the EU's importance in education. I should add that the category doesn't create any category clutter since it is solely a supercat for invidual country categories. Pascal.Tesson 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to be that it should be relisted on CfD in the hope of a broader discussion. DGG 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's note: I have no objection to more discussion. The CfD was pretty clear-cut imho, but Pascal brings up some good new arguments here. I suppose it depends whether the cat is supposed to hold college articles, or cats of college articles, et cetera. >Radiant< 09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category was used solely as a supercat for categories of the form Universities in EU country X. Pascal.Tesson 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
under the rationale "Unneeded userpage for an indefinitely blocked user"

Over the past month or so, Pathoschild has deleted literally hundreds of userpages of blocked users out-of-process. His deletion summaries cite WP:DENY, but that is just an essay and is specifically NOT a policy or guideline. It's important that every indefinitely blocked user have a userpage that contains a template showing why they were blocked or banned. That has always been Wikipedia practice and it should continue. Block log patrol 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. If a user is indefinitely blocked and they have a userpage, generally we replace it with {{indefblock}}. That template places the page into Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, where you'll find the instructions are to delete them periodically as they serve no useful purpose once enough time has passed. User talk pages are where block notices and explanations of blocks go, and user talk pages should never be deleted. User pages of indefblocked users can be deleted pretty much at will. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One exception to your observation about not deleting user talk pages: I've deleted talkpages of users where the account was a harassment account and the username itself reflects the harassment (e.g. incorporates the real name of the person being harassed). Newyorkbrad 02:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the policy on creating userpages saying indef blocked in the first place? Since your whole raison d'etre appears to be that and it isn't based in policy I guess you'll be stopping? --pgk 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might also like to read wikipedia is not a bureacracy. The project is to build a free npov encyclopedia, not to catalogue each and every idiot who arrives here. --pgk 18:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment notified the deleting admin, since the nominator doesn't appear to have discussed nor informed the admin concerning this issue. --pgk 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion In general, there aren't too many reasons to leave user pages lying around from indef-blocked users. If there are any specific instances where this was not the case (for example, user pages that contain information relevant to current arbitration cases), please list those seperately so that each can be considered on its own merits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse all deletions, standard procedure unless there's something that needs to be kept on a particular page. --Coredesat 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (As the deleting administrator:) User pages belonging to sockpuppets, banned users, users blocked following arbitration cases, and sockpuppeteers are not deleted. The only pages deleted are those belonging to run-of-the-mill vandals, whose block and reason is recorded in the block log. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:54:42, 04 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletions, rationale above is sound. Guy (Help!) 07:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above, and note that I have blocked the nominating single purpose account because the account name violates the username policy. >Radiant< 08:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; no point in keeping those pages. Tizio 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions, keeping those user pages would be pointless. VegaDark 04:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, no need to keep a userpage when the block log will suffice. Naconkantari 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zeotrope Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It's not that the close was improper per se, but: the author of the article (User:Definate33) makes the argument that, since the nominator lives in the town where the theater is located, his ability to judge the the importance of the theater beyond the immediate local area is clouded. (Normally this would probably militate in favor of keeping the article, but the converse is also possible.) If the nominator is recused, we don't really have a quorum, nor are any really strong arguments made. I am making this post at the behest of User:Definate33. Herostratus 05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. Reading the nominator's comments, it is clear to me that if anything the nominator was reluctant to nominate it because of the local connection. Rather than considering the nominator's judgment clouded, it appears to me that the nominator deserves credit for rising above parochial concerns and making a clear and policy-based nomination. Neither the article, the deletion discussion nor this review have uncovered any evidence to suggest that this theater met Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there is no such thing as quorum on AFD. >Radiant< 12:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bigger issue here is that when this original article was posted and voted for deletion, it was written in an unencyclopedic tonem biasedly in favor of supporters of this theater. After further research on the requirements outlined on wikipedia, the author (yours truly) rewrote the article with a more encyclopedic nature and an unbiased tone. Unfortunately, when it was reposted, the article was deleted for being a "repost" even though it was not a repost. In fact, I believe the repost had the title "Zeotrope Theatre" rather than "Zeotrope Theater" and was posted only 1-2 days ago. It is not fair to make a judgement based on the old version. That said, I plan to rewrite and repost the article with an emphasis on relating it to more regional, national, and international subjects to solidify its relevance for you. I am only trying to help Wikipedia. Lastly, the closing of this theater was extremely controversial in town, and it is likely that regardless of the nominator's claim of sadness, he/she was amongst those in favor of its closing. In conclusion, when I repost this, the article will be different in nature and will clearly show the significance of the theater and also easily meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Please judge the repost based on its REVISED content rather than its original content. Thank you, and have a nice day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Definate33 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. An attempt to overturn a valid AfD decision on a "technicality" by noting that the nominator may have in some way been influenced by the fact he lives near the theater in question is a case of Wikilawyering gone bad. It was a good faith nomination, and if the nom is in good faith then how "clouded" the nominator's judgement may have been is irrelevant to to the discussion. If the original author feels that an encyclopedic article can be written on the subject, there is nothing to prevent that from being done - the name is not protected and there is nothing preventing re-creation, so long as the content was substantially different. Perhaps a better suggestion is to write it in userspace and then seek comment as to whether or not it should be moved to namespace. In any case, the AfD was clean and consensus was clear. No reason to overturn. Arkyan • (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Frivolous nomination. I can't find evidence of a G4 deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reposted content and the G4 deletion were at the title Zeotrope theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (variant spelling and capitalization). While not word-for-word identical with the AFD-deleted version, the changes were minor - primarily corrections to tone, not changes to content. No sources were offered in the revised version. Rossami (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In any case, we're discussing the AfD decision here. Fixed your link to give the deletion history. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In ANY case, all I'm asking at this point is that when I repost the article within 1-2 weeks, you will reread the content rather than immediately dismiss it as a "repost." I will have a new article with an emphasis on the significance of the theatre locally, regionally, nationally and maybe even internationally. I will have legitimate sources to back up the information, and the article will be quite encyclopedic in nature. I will post it under the exact title: "Zeotrope Theatre" (capitalization difference). Please judge the new one as an entirely new article. It will be posted by my username. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your opinion of my new article. definate33
          • Are you withdrawing the DRV request? No one here can guarantee that no admin will perceive it as a repost, if that happens and after discussing with the deleting admin to try and resolve it, that's when DRV can review it. --pgk 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorsevalid AfD, the article was written in conversational, not encyclopaedic tone, contained hyperbole and did not contain evidence of notability. If reposted without non-trivial independent sources then it may be deleted again as WP:CSD#A7, or WP:CSD#G4 i fit is substantially similar. I recommend that rather than keep reposting it, as he evidently intends, the author work a new article up in user space and bring that here. Repeatedly re-creating deleted articles is a bad idea. Guy (Help!) 07:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kelvin Kwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Decision to delete rested on two votes made before the article was improved, and two more votes which discounted the Chinese sources on the grounds that the voters could not read them.[66] Lack of English-language sources is not a valid reason for article deletion; plenty of notable things are only written about peripherally in English (for example, Japan's highest-ranking Korean WWII general). The only policy statement in this regard is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in_languages other than English, which merely recommends that English sources be used rather than foreign language sources where English sources of equal quality are available. In this case, they are not; the policy requirement is for multiple sources, not for multiple English sources.

The article established notability by means of citations from six Chinese newspaper articles (Ming Pao, Sing Tao, Sina.com Taiwan version, as well as a mainland newspaper) which covered the subject non-trivially; almost all content was WP:ATT to those sources. An English-language citation from China Central Television was also provided pointing out that his duet with Alan Tam was ranked as 4th most popular duet in China; this proved that the subject of the article met WP:MUSIC criteria #1, "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." cab 03:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added information: Some pointers to more discussions on the topic of non-English references. General consensus seems to change every time.

Thanks, cab 08:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Closer's comment) Endorse Deletion. I said the following to User:CaliforniaAliBaba on his talkpage:
    I closed it as delete as the lack of multiple English sources for the article. While I do not discredit the existing sources, they are not available to our English speakers (which, this being the English wikipedia, make up the majority of us). You are more than welcome to take this to Deletion Review, but as it stands right now, I'm standing by my decision. ^demon[omg plz] 03:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see relevent Google searches for 關楚耀 (the Chinese name of the subject): Google News [67], Google [68] (77k GHits). cab 03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to make a centralized decision on whether or not foreign language sources are enough. Many people seem to think they aren't. -Amarkov moo! 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Languages other than English are perfectly valid sources, specially when there are no English sources available. The decission is made long ago, you can reopen the discussion if you wish but while this policy exists, you should abide to it. Anyhow "foreign languages" is POV: English is the international language of our time and hence it may be a "foreign language" to many en.wikipedia editors, as it's my case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sugaar (talk • contribs) 13:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn sourced article, no consensus to delete. English language sources are preferred but by no means mandated. We have enough Mandarin speakers to check the veracity of the sources. ~ trialsanderrors 06:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the core principles of Wikipedia is that every article must be functionally verifiable by the average reader who has an interest in following up on the topic. In situations like this, I generally defer to the expertise of the Wikipedia project in the native language. Editors of that project have both knowledge and access to sources to determine whether a verifiable article can be written and sustained on the subject. In this case, the Chinese Wikipedia has an article on this person but it's a one-line stub. (A BabelFish translation of that stub turns up no real supporting evidence one way or the other.) That's not really enough to base an article upon and doesn't successfully verify the claims that were made in the english version. Since I as a reader can't verify the content by trusting my Chinese Wikipedian counterparts, I have to find some way to verify the content myself. For pop-culture topics when the only sources available are foreign-language sources and when we are unable to independently confirm the translations (as appears to be the case here), then the sources are not functionally verifiable by the future reader of the english article. My recommendation is that you work on the Chinese Wikipedia article. If you can convince editors of that project that the subject is notable and that the coverage is fully verifiable, then bring a translation of the stable version of that article back here. Rossami (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still, we don't require every reader to be able to verify immediately. We allow articles based on paper-only sources, or pay-only journals. Anyone can learn chinese or find a chinese translator and check the chinese-language sources, just like anyone can pay for a lexis-nexis subscription or head to their local library to verify some other obscure article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest, the idea of developing the article over on zhwiki and then porting it over to enwiki in one fell swoop to me seems even less transparent and verifiable. At least if an article citing foreign language sources is built up organically on enwiki, you can see and understand the past contributions of the editors to the article, to tell whether they're reliable Wikipedians or just a bunch of POV warriors. But if you can't read Chinese, you really can't do the same kind of vetting of the zhwiki editors. cab 08:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That the version of this article on Chinese WP is very small is not justification or critiera to delete. Many articles on Chinese WP are very under-developed, and more importantly, English WP has more than 10 times the number of articles than Chinese WP. The reverse action would seem to be logical - that the Chinese version of this article needs expansion and referencing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see where WP:V mentions "functionally verifiable". They do mention a preference for English sources when available but that's it. As for translating the zh-article, I don't quite see how this helps in making the article verifiable by your standards. Pascal.Tesson 17:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, was deleted due to a lack of notability, as demonstrated by a lack of multiple independent sources. This reasoning is patently false as these sources do exist. WP:ATT states: "Sources in other languages are acceptable if no English equivalents have been found". You can't just ignore most of the world when they decide to write about things in languages other than English. - Bobet 09:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal but benefit of the doubt. I feel comfortable where the identified in-depth sources are non-English as long as there's some sort of toehold to confirm notability without translation. Getting towards NPOV in a spectrum of subjects often needs using a mix of language sources. This subject at least has a song in a "best recent songs" compilation CD that's described briefly in English[69]. It's not 100% clear just from that this new artist is notable, but I'd lean towards benefit of the doubt. Expansion of the article needs reliable translations as sources, and Rossami's right with one suggestion. VSerrata 10:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or overturn. I've always been under the impression that foreign-language sources are okay if English-language sources cannot be found, and it appears that the policy backs that up. This was marginal and could have gone either way, but I personally don't see enough discussion there to warrant a delete close; I personally would have {{relist}}ed it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I have not been involved in discussions about using non-English sources, but I would say the idea that the subject of an article must be notable specifically in the English-speaking world is a great example of WP:BIAS. Plus, I'm not aware of any policies which state this as a criteria for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humm. Situations like this are problematic in that by and large the editors who are reviewing an article up for deletion are unable to determine whether or not a source is actually applicable. There ought to be some recourse to take, such as asking for comment from some of our users who do speak the language as to whether the source has anything to do with the subject or not - but the editors cannot be expected to accept a source without at least some verification of it. It's important to WP:AGF and assume people aren't going to put improper sources in an article, but when the issue is contentious and the factual nature of the encyclopedia is called in to question I think the need to verify trumps that assumption. I suggest relisting this on AfD and seeking input from users who can verify whether or not the articles in question are indeed applicable. Arkyan • (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your input. In fact, I think we already have an ad-hoc mechanism to request verification from editors who speak the language in question --- Deletion sorting. In this case, it seems to have worked precisely as what you're requesting: I added sources to the article and delsorted the AfD debate; later, HongQiGong (a WikiProject HK member) came along, presumably also read the sources, and voted "Keep" too. cab 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is good to know. Perhaps for future reference, when an editor reviews an article for deletion and deems it worthy of a keep, and in part of that process they are reading sources in a language that the rest of us cannot get to, it might be helpful to the rest of the editors involved (as well as the closing admin) to disclose the fact that they are a speaker of the language in question and have read the sources of the article and can verify them, rather than simply assert notability. This way when I see someone say "Keep, I speak this language and read the articles and I can verify that they establish notability for the subject" it is far more useful to the discussion than "Keep, subject is notable and referenced". Arkyan • (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benefit of the doubt overturn The fact is that Verifiable does not necessarily mean verifiable by anyone who speaks basic English. For instance, many math-heavy articles are based on sources that are in books that most Wikipedia readers do not have access to and in any case are too technical to be understood by the average reader even though they're in English. This of course is not a problem because a significant part of the readership for these articles actually have the background necessary to assess the validity of the sources. I trust it that we have a significant enough portion of Chinese-speaking readers to verify the validity of the sources and if they are satisfied with these sources, I'm more than happy to take their word for it. It's also reasonable to assume that a significant portion of readers of an article about Kelvin Kwan will know enough Chinese to check the sources. Pascal.Tesson 17:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judging from the comments of other AfD voters and the closing admin, I think they felt that the failure was more in WP:N ("No English coverage = non-notable") rather than WP:V (the article didn't make any particularly contentious claims, and the broad outline of the article --- that he's a Hong Kong singer who did a hit duet with Alan Tam --- was in fact referenced to an English source, the China Central Television article mentioned). Cheers, cab 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn as against policy. Personally, I think there is a good reason for he policy, for a summary of chinese language sources for english language readers can be very helpful. (It is usual to summairze briefly what they say or translate the key passages). There are a large number of eds. at en WP who also read Chinese, and this would be sufficient in case of doubt. The problem adffecs not just pop culture but history and other topics. DGG 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, ofcourse non-english sources are perfectly acceptable. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion was unjustified, there's no mandate for english language sources. WilyD 23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Suicide_City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was deleted over one year ago because considered not-noteworthy. Evidence included low google-count and artist not being listed at AllMusic. Today google-count is higher and artist is listed at AllMusic. Therefore undeletion should be considered. Tornfalk 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Among the Google hits are news stories from Metal Hammer and BlabberMouth. Their CD is available from Amazon and has been reviewed in the paper version of Metal Edge. They have been a feature in the paper version of Kerrang. JPEGs of the paper articles are available at the band website. Tornfalk 08:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted unless you can present multiple non-trivial sources. AllMusic is only one source of questionable non-triviality, you need to provide more. --Coredesat 05:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources presented above. Please comment. Tornfalk 08:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So does the above sources qualify as "reliable independent non-trivial" or not? Among them are major publications within their genre. Tornfalk 08:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jeffree Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

He is a successful recording artist who recently put out an EP, Plastic Surgery Slumber Party, and even though he has explicit lyrics, many other artists on Wikipedia [that aren't deleted/protected] have lyrics that are even more explicit. The fact that his current gender is disregarded and that he is most definitely a transvestite shouldn't stop him from having a Wikipedia page. His fans support his music and how beautiful a mannequin he is. 76.202.163.82 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Hockey families (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was no clear consensus to remove this category. There were just as many people saying keep the category as saying get rid of it.--Djsasso 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just as a comment, you were the only person who argued to keep the category. Misrepresenting the facts in the CfD is not looked upon kindly by me or, I'd assume, most others. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what cfd you were looking at but I see 3 people saying keep the main cat. I am not advocating keeping the two others. I am only advocating the main cat be kept. --Djsasso 02:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Failing to count the actual votes before chastising someone for (accurately) counting the votes is not looked kindly upon by me, or, I would hope, most others. RGTraynor 04:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, I missed the one tacked on 3 indents in and also missed the last one. I've struck my comment and I'll let others read for themselves. I'll just say "point taken" to your snark; I shouldn't say things like that when I'm only skimming. I guess I'm just conditioned by the numerous frivolous DRV complaints I see every day. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Not a vote, so vote counting isn't at issue. Of the keeps one is on the basis of a previous discussion was no-consensus so... Doesn't work like that consensus can change, surviving one discussion doesn't give a free pass for any future discussion. One of the other keeps initially says delete when challenged says keep the main category (this one) but gives no rationale. The final in favour of the main category only, but not for use in the way it was being used, again no rationale. Not being a vote it looks a reasonable closing to me. --pgk 06:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. As stated in the nom, "the main category is being used as a dumping ground for any hockey player who has a relative who plays hockey, creating the false impression of familial relationships far beyond those that exist". This is a strong argument that was not addressed by any of the "keep" commenters. Perhaps a list article should be created. >Radiant< 08:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's actually quite a weak argument. First off, it ascribes a motive never explicitly or implicitly expressed. Secondly, I'm wondering where nom got his information about how close familial relationships between hockey players are, because the degree to which most players are chummy or not with their kinfolk is unknown to most of us hockey researchers. Unlike the nom's entirely subjective POV -- does he characterize every category as a "dumping ground" for those articles which, err, um, match the category? -- it was a terribly unsubjective cat; are these two hockey players related? RGTraynor 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you appear to have misunderstood the nomination. It had nothing to do with how close related people were. There were something like 100 individuals, most of whom were related to at most one other person in the category, categorized as "family" members. The false impression given (whether explicitly or implicitly) was that individual members of the category were related to each of the other individual members of the category. Compare that to for example Category:Kennedy family in which all of the category members are all directly related to one another through blood or marriage, or the similar Category:Rothschild family. Otto4711 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could be wrong but did it not say right at the top that it was for people who had family members involved in professional hockey. Nowhere did it say they were all related so it would take quite the leap to assume people would think they were all related. Especially since there was no single common last name. --Djsasso 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It's a bit harder as I cannot see the history but I do believe the notion of categorizing people based on the intersection of profession and familial relationship is a trivial intersection and overcategorization. There are exceptions, such as the Kennedy family where it can be shown that the intersection of profession and familial relationship is persistent and non-trivial, but I feel those situations are indeed the exception to the rule and the category is thus not needed. All that aside, I believe there was enough consensus to delete and the closing admin made an appropriate closure. Arkyan • (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Mario Party 2 minigames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was a perfectly reasonable encyclopedic article. No real consensus was established and no reason was given for ignoring this. AfD is not a vote and this seems to have been treated like one. Henchman 2000 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If all results for these DRVs are endorse, can I have them on my userspace? Henchman 2000 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (my) closure. Arguments for keeping were as follows: "It can be encyclopedic", "Why can't the nominator just accept these articles, and how many afds will they have to survive?", "This can be rewritten or merged into the main game article.", "If you keep posting these up for deletion -- at least give it a few days in between deletion notices.", and "This is information directly relevant to the game". Of these, the second and fourth are not valid arguments. The first, third, and fifth can be addressed by a rewrite which also addresses the points set forward in the delete arguments (and two redirect arguments), which centered around WP:NOT and WP:ATT. The latter is particularly concerning in my view, since sourcing issues were raised in the first AfD nomination of 27 February, and, as of my closure of the second AfD, no sources had yet been added. Shimeru 18:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to find sources, except I didn't have time, I would've done it had I had enough time before the AfD was closed. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly stated in the AfD that I was going to address the issues of the AfDs for ALL the articles, so that they would be accepted again. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Articles fail the notability guidelines. As I mentioned, it must be the subject of multiple non-trivial works according to the policies, and the best we could do for these would be game guides, considered trivial. -Mask 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These lists were not game guides, they were WP:USEFUL and WR:NOTABLE lists and can be of use to people. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the articles were game guides, although they are. I meant the only reference would be game guides. If this is to stay and meet notability guidelines, you must present a non-trivial source for each minigame. If you have newspaper articles that refer to each minigame you list, I'll recommend overturning. Untill then, WP:NOTABILITY is policy, not an option you can skip if you really, really like something. I suggest fully reading our policies and procedures before contributing further. -Mask 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they weren't, they were citing policies and guidelines, as were the delete arguments. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin is supposed tyo look at the debate and see if they can find a consensus, which shouldn't have been able to happen. The admin is not supposed to make a judgement call, that is not there job in an AfD, they are supposed to fid a consensus, and no consensus should've been able to be found. Henchman 2000 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking to the debate and evaluating consensus takes a judgement call. There isn't a simple algorithm which can be applied to give a result, otherwise we'd just get a bot to do it. --pgk 08:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not the same thing as complete unanimity. There can be !votes in opposition. Leebo T/C 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Mario Party 3 minigames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No real consensus had been established and the AfD hadn't ran its full length. Henchman 2000 (And I am also nominating the others) 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment About the length of time it was open... 5 days is considered "full length". Is there something I'm not seeing? Leebo T/C 18:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad endorse similar to the MPAdvance games DRV below. I disagree with the debate and it's unfortunate that it turned out that way. That said, it was indeed properly closed. I like to think that AfD gets it "right" about 99.9% of the time... but there's always going to be that other 0.1%, and that's what this is. Should have been kept, but consensus just isn't there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus wasn't there to delete it either, unlike in the MPA one. Also, if you feel it shouldn't have been deleted, then why are you voting endorse? Henchman 2000 18:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying that consensus was there to delete. He doesn't agree with that consensus, but that doesn't make it an invalid AfD. Leebo T/C 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except there was no such consensus. Henchman 2000 18:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you disagree with him. I'm not arguing his point, only explaining that one can endorse a deletion process while disagreeing with the consensus. It's about process and he felt process was upheld. Leebo T/C 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see one straight keep vote, one keep or merge, a smattering of merges and an overwhelming flood of deletes. Closing this any other way would have been a perilously bad decision for the closing admin. I don't always agree with consensus here, but I have to acknowledge it when I see it, and that AfD was nearly unanimous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD for the LMPmgs lasted way longer, and also, I said no real consensus was established, which is true, as some delete arguments were very weak, unlike many arguments for merge and keep. Henchman 2000 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. The Kinslayer 11:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is the consensus clear? Henchman 2000 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse can't see any problem for DRV to review. --pgk 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Most of the users voted delete on the page, with only one keep, and one keep or merge. That's a clear consensus to delete the article. Merging doesn't need to happen: as there was already a consensus to NOT list all the games in the articles (see talk page of Mario Party 8). Going against one consensus due to an AFD, just so a few users "get their way" isn't how editing works. RobJ1981 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Think you'd better tell yourself that, as you clearly ACT as though people must ignore consensus to suit you. A keep or merge can be counted as both and there were lots of merges, oh, and AfD is not a vote, it is a debate. Henchman 2000 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having a go at someone for acting as though people must ignore consensus to suit their opinion of the article in question? Pot calling the kettle black much? The Kinslayer 11:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where?
  • Endorse deletion. AfD began on March 28, closed on April 2; it was able to run for the usual five-day debate period. And there's a pretty clear consensus to delete visible there. WarpstarRider 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Henchman 2000 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why. Nowhere above have you made a single point you haven't spammed in 3 other reviews, 2 of which ended with the deletion being firmly endorse (although I'm sure you'd try to argue a lack of consensus for them also), the third being the next one up from this review. And nowhere above have you even attempted to explain just how exactly an AfD that has run for the standard amount of 5 days entitles you to say 'the AfD hadn't ran its full length.' I'm sure we would all like to know why you lied where you got this mistaken assumption from, especially seeing as it is the ONLY legitimate reason for having this DRV, which, as everyone is fond of poitning out to each other, is for establishing if there was problem with the procedure, and not as 'AfD 2-The Sequel: "I Didn't Like The Outcome! (Coming soon to cinemas worldwide)The Kinslayer 12:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles were perfectly reasonable encyclopedic content, there's another reason for you. Henchman 2000 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of valid debate. No credible reason to challenge it. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Five days is how long AfD takes place (unless a debate is relisted); this was just closed late. — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closure was well within guidelines and there were no glaring issues with the AfD. Consensus was clear in spite of nom's assertion to the contrary. Arkyan • (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Yet again we have the same people raising the same complaints over the same results with the same articles. Please note that This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. No procedural incorrectness in the AfD. The only 'error' is that the admin deleted an article the DRV nominator wanted kept. AfD was run for standard length of 5 days, don't know what Henchmans smoking. Consensus was reached, I suspect Henchman actually means 'The consensus I was hoping for' when he uses the word 'consensus'. The Kinslayer 09:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Henchman, can you please explain what you feel makes this encyclopedic content? That might help you out here. The arguements you are making are either not valid (length of AfD debate) or unsupported by comment or citation (assertion that it is encyclopedic content). I would support something about the types of minigames, breaking it down by type of teams (2 vs 2, 1 vs 3, free for all) and the type of game (race, memory, reaction) but I would say that needs to be in the main game article, not in a separate list. Slavlin 15:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My argument of it didn't run for its full time isn't valid, I knw, I just got confused with the other AfD running for WAAY too long. People do want to know about these minigames, an encyclopedia is supposed to be somewhere where you can check every last detail about a topic, and these lists allow this to happen with the Mario Party sereis. Henchman 2000 08:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess your understanding of an Encyclopedia differs from most. No encyclopedia I am aware of claims to cover "every last detail", they are general reference works covering a broad range of topics (though in doing so a more subject specific encyclopedia will of course end up covering that subject in more detail). --pgk 10:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am with pgk here. I have never considered Wikipedia as a resource for every last detail on every subject. It is not really possible to do this. Have you thought of putting information of this detailed nature on www.nintendowiki.net? It is a Wiki devoted to all Nintendo games. I love Oblivion and World of Warcraft, but I leave the in-depth stuff to the Oblivion Wiki and WoWWiki. Slavlin 17:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There was no procedural problem with the closing of the AFD. However, I believe the request to userfy the articles to User:Henchman 2000 should be granted, if s/he believes (as s/he has stated) that s/he can improve the content to address the concerns raised in the AFD. WP:NOT#WEBSPACE may be brought up if the articles are not improved after a few months, but to deny userfication on that basis in advance seems like a failure to assume good faith. -- Black Falcon 16:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yoga Booty Ballet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The Yoga Booty Ballet entry has been unduly deleted from Wikipedia. Moreover, a Talk Page has been created about the the Yoga Booty Ballet entry but it still was not spared from speedy deletion. The creator wish to reiterate that the article is not a blatant advertising for Yoga Booty Ballet. Lenayism 06:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admin misperception of intentions after editor misrepresented purpose of WP:ER I requested on myself and my behavior towards said editor Anynobody 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 'CLARIFICATION I would like to emphasize that the point of the WP:ER I requested was to gain comments on how I have behaved toward Justanother, whether or not his behavior is good or bad I'm interested in outside opinions on how I handled it. I do not want this as a back door RfC, that would be inappropriate and an abuse of both WP:DR and WP:ER. I am in the process of setting up an RfC on him whether or not this WP:ER gets undeleted, why would I need this as a "back-door" when I still plan on going in through the front? I don't mean for that to sound sarcastic, but the logic does sound pretty absurd for a back door RfC. Justanother feels that any time I mention his name I am attacking him. I frankly think he is wrong, and have tried to be as fair and civil as possible with him. He has managed to evade the attempts at WP:DR I've made for some time, so now I want to know if I'm doing something wrong. I apologize for having to bold that statement, but it seems like many people are accepting his notion that I am gaming the system somehow. On another board or through a WP:RFC I'll address my beliefs about him. WP:ER is about me and is not a RfC on another user. Anynobody 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your opinion wouldn't have anything to do with your disagreement with User:Justanother concerning some of his subpages? --pgk 06:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not. Anynobody should be given a good faith opportunity for other editors to comment, without the page being summarily deleted. Smee 10:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
As nothed another user did comment that it was inappropriate for ER. --pgk 11:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also be sure to see how he discussed this on my talk page: User talk:Anynobody#AN/I again. Anynobody 04:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

1 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Greenbriar Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The Atlanta Mall shooting the other day that is all over the news was at Greenbriar Mall. Not sure if it was the same Greenbriar Mall that was deleted in December, but I believe an article is warranted just like the one for Trolley Square shooting. JAYMEDINC 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks to be the same mall, but the deleted article is unsourced links only a primary source and according to the AFD is apparently written from firsthand knowledge. Endorse deletion without prejudice to a proper article. —Cryptic 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Cryptic in endorsing deletion sans prejudice against recreation. Article is not protected so no reason a new and proper article cannot be written now. Arkyan • (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted) and do not recreate based just on one news event. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. It would be nice if we lived in a world where these kinds of incidents were so rare that they really were notable, but we don't and they're not. Shootings occur at stores every day. Most times, the crime is not notable, much less the location of the crime. Even if this crime does turn out to be notable, the article should be written at a title about the crime, not the mall. Rossami (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There is no problem with the previous AFD. If an article could be re-written about this, with suitable sources about the mall (and not ones about the shooting which mention the mall only in passing), then a new, sourced, referenced article could be written from scratch. Though the mall would probably still not be sufficiently notable to keep the article anyway, we can't have an article on the location of every murder everywhere... Inner Earth 19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This page was a redirect to User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie, but was deleted due to WP:CSD#R2: the latter page is in the user namespace. However, I contend that "WP:" can not be considered "article space", and in addition, most mirrors do not copy WP: shortcuts, and request that it be undeleted. GracenotesT § 22:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Exeter School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Arbitrary deletion - no good reason in article history. This deletion has caused multiple red links as the school is very notable Weggie 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Reason for deletion was "poor excuse for an article, I'm tired of babysitting it". It was a frequently vandalised directory entry, which made no pretence to be anything but a directory entry, and the tedium of fixing endless juvenile vandalism on articles with no actual provable encyclopaedic merit will eventually drive even Pilotguy to conclude that it's more trouble than it's worth. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Plenty of articles are vandalised -there are ways and means to prevent this. Exeter School is an extremely notable British school. Just because someone can't be bothered to carry out admin duties, this shouldn't mean deleting an article. This is farcical Weggie 20:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they are usually encyclopaedia articles, not directory entries. Feel fre to write an article, it will probably take less time than has been expended on this DRV thus far. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. That's not even... close to a valid rationale for deletion. There is no reason that something should be speedy deleted saying that it's more trouble than it's worth. List on AfD, and if there's a consensus that it is more trouble then it's worth, that's fine. One admin does not count as a consensus. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 20:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless non-trivial coverage by independent secondary sources is shown - no-one can pretend that there's any point in restoring otherwise. It is much easier to defend articles against vandalism if there is actually some verified encyclopaedic content to defend. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Not sound reasons for deletion, protection against re-creation seems like overkill. 'Fear of vandalism/more trouble than it's worth' shouldn't be considered grounds for deletion. Perhaps expansion/protection over speedy deletion would have been a better course. Unfortunately one can't see the article now to assess it, but fortunately there is still a cached google page, and this shows it to be a valid stub at one point, not a mere directory. I believe there are other schools out there with less than even this. --Keefer4 | Talk 21:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just got around to checking that cached page; it's worth pointing out that it's in much worse shape than the most recent deleted revision. (Not to say that I'm all that impressed with the most recent deleted revision, but.) —Cryptic 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as an arbitary deletion without consensus of a type of article there is widespread support - after American communities, school articles are just about the biggest group of articles Wikipedia has. Also this is a way above average school that's been around since 1663, and possibly now the only English public school (English meaning of public school) without an article. Osomec 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, protection should be implemented if the article suffers from constant vandalism, not deletion. --Sn0wflake 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, this school seems notable enough to me. --JAYMEDINC 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Deletion reason is invalid, plain and simple. If there are sourcing problems, send to afd. We absolutely must not delete articles because they are vandal targets. --- RockMFR 02:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and sanction User:Pilotguy for out-of-process deletion. "Article is frequently vandalized" is a reason for semi-protection or full protection, not deletion. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRV can't sanction anybody, you need WP:DR and even then sanctions are unlikely. --pgk 11:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn All the reasons above. Why do administrators have deletion powers if they're unaware of or unwilling to abide by the rules/guidelines/conventions? Most articles begin as stubs, lots of articles are subjected to frequent vandalism, and lots of existing articles and stubs are in dire need of reliable sources - but none of these are problems to be solved by deletion. bobanny 04:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn way, way out of process and policy. Articles on schools are always a bit problematic and attract vandalism, that doesn't mean we can just delete them. Mangojuicetalk 14:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable this school may be, but the article, even in a nonvandalized state, is truly miserable. There's no context - not even a location, other than a category indicating its county - the only sources given are the school's official site and that of its canoeing club, of all things, and most of the assertions in the article cannot be verified from the official page. (I'll admit to not looking at the club website too closely.) We may well be better off without it, and creating a proper article written from sources instead of firsthand knowledge. —Cryptic 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If you school proponents can't keep the article maintained, then we don't need the article. --Carnildo 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. It was a horrible, horrible article. Sending it to AFD will do nothing; how many articles are kept with the rationale "keep and cleanup" and never actually get cleaned up? If you want to make a new article, go right ahead. Maybe Pilotguy shouldn't have salted it. But to overturn the deletion of a crap article just because you don't like the deletion reason or because it was "out-of-process" is silly.--§hanel 18:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Article appears to be notable and the reasons for deletion are controversial. The semi-protection and full-protection buttons are available for frequently vandalised articles, and poor articles can always be rewritten or cleaned up. Camaron1 | Chris 16:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The School is very old, with many notable alummni. Justifying a decision to keep deleted based on your personal dislike of the article is even worse than the original reason for deletion. There are numerous other school pages on wiki, and if you have a look you will see there is a consistent style for this article to aspire to. List_of_the_oldest_schools_in_the_United_Kingdom --ADevNull 10:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Angry Video Game Nerd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

When deleted, the subject was agreeably not notable. However, The Angry Video Game Nerd is now a popular figure in gaming culture, and has recently participated in television interviews. In my opinion, the character is more than notable for an article in Wikipedia. MrHate 08:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:CreekPromoHolmesJackson.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

An image being used to display an award-winning actress in her most famous role with plenty of critical commentary being deleted as replaceable fair use?? How does that work? There's no such thing as a free version of an image of a person in a copyrighted role. It should be noted this was in a former featured article and the image was good enough to display on the main page at the time. Nardman1 03:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete. I don't know whether there was a decent rationale, but a good rationale definitely exists. This image obviously cannot be replaced with a free version, as it was being used to show her in her role on Dawson's Creek. --- RockMFR 03:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I see from the delete log that this image had been deleted and restored more than once in the past. I also find the rationale persuasive, and no response to it or discussion seems to have been made. If someone thought the rationale insufficient, this should have gone to IfD. DES (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - seems to clearly fall under fair use criteria as defined both by U.S. law and Wikipedia policy. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Streets in Vancouver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

It is a subcategory that is consistent with all Wikipedia policies, guidelines, conventions, and consensus decisions; the CfD that preceded the deletion did not result in a consensus. There is a related CfD currently in progress here. Bobanny 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There seems to have been a lack of consensus to merge and (given the current discussions) lack of consensus on a standard. On the other hand, there are so few articles currently; maybe there is consensus for cities with only a few articles. Can we maybe redirect the category? --NE2 01:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/ot-Because I feel (in the words of Wikipedia:Deletion review) that "the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer." Although I disagreed with the principle of the parent category Category:Streets and squares in Vancouver's creation on March 9, I saw no reason to dispute the basis of this administrator's decision to create it. However, this March 24-30 decision to delete the subcategory at hand follows the same (apparently flawed) logic of streets and squares category precedents that I raised during the discussion. In the decision notes, it is stated that "Despite Keefer's argument, analysis of Category:Streets_and_squares_by_city shows that the cats for most cities are not in fact subdivided into a "street" cat and a "square" cat.". The decision maker has proven in these words, that the "most cities" qualifier used in the decision is their own subjective definition used to advocate the merging of the categories. I had raised the same type of point during the discussion, by pointing out the precedent for "most" cities in North America, which DO consist of separate street and square categories. In addition, none of User: Bobanny's points were addressed specifically in the outcome decision, and the discussion leading to that did not achieve anything resembling consensus. The points made in the final sentence: "It's also rather quickly after an earlier CFD that had the same conclusion, so arguably this cat is recreation of deleted material." is, I feel, erroneous. The earlier CFD (March 9) mentioned, was not of the same subcategory. And, what is being implied in that sentence is that there is a foregone/discussed "conclusion" here stemming from the discussion, which clearly there isn't, as detailed by the lack of consensus. The decision is then made based on what the decision-maker calls "arguably... recreation". To summarize I believe the decision is a flawed one, based on this. Thanks. --Keefer4 | Talk 04:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my closing is that I interpreted the fact that ~90% of Category:Streets and squares by city follows the same naming as a naming standard. From recent reactions it seems that this standard is not all that consensually solid, so I would favor more debate on it. In the meantime, I'm overturning my deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiant! (talk • contribs) 08:07, April 2, 2007 (UTC)

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/2007_April_1-15&oldid=1108884721"