Jump to content

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

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

15 July 2007

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

Deleted as no sources although it listed 3. Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete or at least userfy to improve. It needs to clarify what it is though... "community" isn't gonna cut it. it seems to be a subdivision or a residential development of some sort, which are not "automatically notable" in the way that towns are. The Fire Island, New York article claims it's a hamlet, which is a legal place, but that claim needs confirmation. Whatever this place is it seems to have some news coverage [1]. But just saying a newspaper wrote about a place (as the deleted article did) is not enough, it will need to mention what article on what date. --W.marsh 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the deleting admin, I ran across this one and was confused. The article contained about four sentences: Dunewood is a very family-oriented community in Fire Island, New York, where they go to shop, that there are tennis courts, and that there is a yacht club. Reading the article, I had no idea that this was a hamlet (as my deletion log rationale states, it looked like a subdivision or homeowners' association group). That being said, I have no objection to userficiation and perhaps someone can assist the article's creator in putting in some sourced encyclopedic information, much as the articles on the other hamlets at Fire Island, New York contain and using those as examples. --Kinu t/c 04:46, 16 July 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 about masturbation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was nominated for its 4th AFD on 7/4, but the 3rd AFD was accidentally put on the AFD day log. This was not corrected. The error was finally realized and relisted, but Ryulong closed it within 20 minutes, then refused to re-open it. Consensus is totally unclear because this was not properly listed. It's true that the AFD was "open" for 11 days, but only people who had the article watchlisted or otherwise visited the article would see the AFD, this leads to a very skewed consensus that is not useful in saying consensus was to delete an article. Without proper listing, it would be easy to manipulate the system to generate "consensus" deletes or even keeps for articles by controlling who's likely to know about them, and those consensus are not very meaningful. The community needs to be notified that an article is actually on AFD, and have a few days to respond, if the AFD is to be fully valid. This needs to be relisted properly so we can see what consensus actually is, but Ryulong refuses. This is not "process for the sake of process" - I have no idea what consensus would have been after 5 days of AFD. We shouldn't delete articles on such shaky ground. W.marsh 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse WP:NOT Rackabello 20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn/relist per Marsh's logic. Personally, I'd probably prefer to see this article deleted but we clearly can't determine what the AfD consensus was in this case. JoshuaZ 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for proper discussion. I assume the close was due to confusion. DGG (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Krimpet's was, he reopened it when asked... resulting in the first 20 minutes it was actually listed correctly. Ryulong refused to reopen it when asked. --W.marsh 21:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, procedural error. AecisBrievenbus 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care either way, but this is an extreme example of process for process' sake. There was a complete 11 days on AFD in some fashion (it managed to get a couple dozen !votes). Is this article really all that necessary, or is process all that's necessary?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue isn't the number of people who commented but whether they constituted a representative sample. Samples can be very large and still be unrepresentative. The normal AfD listing process tries to make sure that samples are representative. Given what happened, we have no idea if this AfD was at all representative of the community consensus. JoshuaZ 01:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ryulong, I've explained why this isn't process for the sake of process... it was only "on AFD" for 20 minutes. Not telling the community about a contentious AFD is not an acceptable thing to promote. --W.marsh 01:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy relist for 5 days given that the article had not been listed in the daily log. --Coredesat 02:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist W.marsh is correct. Shalom Hello 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I see nothing overly process-bound about making sure the debate is properly visible to the community. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Process for the sake of process should be opposed at every turn. --Agamemnon2 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you actually explain that, rather than just state it? If it were true, we'd know what the outcome would be, and would just be running it through the process for the sake of process. But we have no idea what the outcome will be. It's process for the sake of consensus.. --W.marsh 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist As much as I want to see the article deleted. AfD's need to be listed for longer than 20 minutes to properly gauge consensus. Process is a tool used to determine consensus. In cases where consensus is not clear it should not be lightly ignored. I would endorse if I thought the article had no chance at AfD (see WP:SNOW) but since I don't know what the result would be the community should be given a fair chance to weigh in. Eluchil404 17:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Because it was probably my mistake that it wasn't put in the log correctly. The # of AfDs was really confusing because several ones were nominated under a different name. Sorry about that. However, maybe consider just re-opening the current AfD instead of starting all over? Bulldog123 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as per W.marsh. Without listing in the daily log, the afd sample may be as baised as if ther was a major votestacking attack. I have no opnion on the articel itself, but there is a reason why we do things in certian ways, and why this is not anarchopedia. The is not "process for process's sake" but "process for the project's sake". DES (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I am no fan of process for process' sake, but this was sufficiently botched to warrant a re-do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkyan (talk • contribs)
  • Relist: I was tempted to cite IAR to endorse the deletion, but there is a nagging voice in the back of my head that says that this may have been the subject of proper scholarly study. Certainly stranger things have happened. So I have just enough doubt to support following process in this case. Xtifr tälk 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong relist. Just like there would be an outcry and public flogging (well-deserved, IMO) if a bureaucrat promoted an admin candidate after 20 minutes of his request being listed at WP:RFA, the so-called "consensus" here has been substantially tainted. If the bureaucrat said, "Oh, but more than a dozen users supported the candidate" he would be laughed off and deprived of his makesysop bit. While the situation here isn't as drastic, there simply is no reason for me or anyone to endorse the outcome, besides "I want that to be the outcome, so let's screw process and use excess process as a justification". Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I supported deletion in the AfD - after supporting keep in prior go rounds - and frankly haven't changed my mind again, but let's relist to establish consensus without a cloud of "procedural error". No reflection on the propriety of the close itself, but it's better to have a controversial thing done without the perception of error, since the community has survived 4 of these AfD's a 5th won't kill us. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 16 July 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.
FlyLady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article existed since 2005, but was deleted with the reason "Speedy deleted per (CSD a7), was an article about a club that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject.. using TW)".

Isn't having 380,000 members an assertion of notability? Aren't bestseller books (Body Clutter, "Sink Reflections") an assertion of notability? The article also contained external links to The FLY Show on World Talk Radio (but the link was dead), and an article on FlyLady by the author Karen Kohlhaas. Aren't these assertion of notability? How else do you "assert" notability of such a group?

FlyLady has been given non-trivial coverage by almost every single notable newspaper in the Western Hemisphere: http://news.google.co.in/archivesearch?q=flylady

The article had been tagged with speedy deletion earlier as well, but the tag was removed by an administrator saying that it does not qualify as speedy (I can't remember the name of the administrator, because the article has been deleted and history is not available). Then why was it deleted this time? If there are no references in the article, shouldn't it be tagged with {{unreferenced}} instead of being speedy-deleted?

Thank you for your consideration. 202.54.176.11 09:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete You should have talked to or at least notified the deleting admin first... this DRV might not have been necessary. The article minimally asserted importance (by way of the published book) but needed a lot of work. Nevertheless the news results seem to indicate a proper article could exist here. --W.marsh 14:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion-I don't know if the article met notability guidelines (hard to say without reading it) but it sounds like there was at least an assertion, making A7 invalid.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Doesn't sound like CSD A7 would have applied here. Undelete article and start a proper AfD discussion if nessacary Rackabello 20:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no it's not an A7, but it is blatant advertising, or G11. Suggest that the deleting admin be more clear about such issues in the future. >Radiant< 08:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted under WP:CSD#G11, not under A7. Needs a total rewrite to become an encyclopedia article. I offer no opinion on whether such an article is possible on this subject. GRBerry 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn but if overturned list on AfD. This was celarly not an A7, but is near the edge of being speedy-deletable as spam. I don't think it is quite over that line, but it would need significnt fixup to remain as an article, IMO. DES (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against a proper rewrite that asserts notability and doesn't smell of porcine byproducts. Neither A7 nor G11 precludes the creation of a proper article. If you really want a review, though, I would recommend creating an article in userspace and bringing that to DRV. That might help avoid future misunderstandings. Xtifr tälk 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, G11 is heavy-handed in this case. I can see an AFD nom under WP:WEB, but while the article is, shall we say, upbeat it mostly communicates factual information of varying importance, and the parts that are her philosophy are denoted as such. The article that I see had no nag tags of any sort, and I imagine most of the content has been sitting there untouched from prehistoric Wikipedia before rigorous citation became the standard. --Dhartung | Talk 11:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

14 July 2007

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

It's a notable subject and, as such, it should have an article here. It is not an attack page at all! A.Z. 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted If it's a notable subject, cite some sources... independent articles written about this topic. Otherwise it's just a self reference, if not an attack page. --W.marsh 18:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Might have better been deleted under WP:CSD#A7 rationale (I don't see any claim of notability for Wikipedia online administrators and thus their alleged abuse). If there is reliable, independent sources discussing admin abuse then it can be recreated (and would run the AfD gauntlet, I suspect) but the speedy was a good call in its current form, so no reason for an undelete. Rockpocket 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about Wikipedia, though. There is some administrator abuse and some abusive administrators anywhere where there are administrators, just as there is abuse of authority everywhere where there is authority... A.Z. 19:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I deleted it, I had to work real hard and keep my tongue out of my cheek, as I was tempted to delete for "A7 - non-notable group" or "non-notable web content"...after all, mop-wielders just aren't that notable! Seriously, though, A.Z. isn't being completely honest, as the only example he used in the article was Wikipedia admins. He's previously been blocked for abusing an admin with uncivil speech, so this really strikes me as him trying to make a point, and strikes me as the pot calling the kettle "black". I stand by my decision and suggest keep deleted. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article as it stands is nothing more than a WP:DICTDEF. It had no sources at all, and seemed like it was being set up for later use in some campaign or another. If this is a real phenomena that has literature, it could be an article. Write one in your userspace, making sure to hew to neutral point of view and citing your sources, and contact the original deleting admin who is a very reasonable sort, and he will no doubt move it over the deleted article for you... for now Keep Deleted, as the deletion was valid. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not. There's nothing there to work with. Better to try again... start by finding sources that are not self referential. That is not going to be easy I don't think, because just googling for "Administrator Abuse" mostly turns up text on various wikis. I think the suggestion to add germane material to Power (sociology) is a better one. But again, make sure it's scrupulously sourced, and leave your POV behind. (I got curious and started looking at your contribs... this seems to be an area where you have some interest, and some notions that don't necessarily square with generally accepted thinking). ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion not an attack page, but without sources you really can't have an article on a subject like this. If we overturn we'll just go delete it at AFD.--Chaser - T 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation if sources can be provided. I agree with Chaser that as written it does not appear to have been an attack page. JoshuaZ 20:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No administrator can be considered impartial in this matter, so it is not suitable for speedy closure. Nathanian 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally don't think it matters so much whether an administrator can be impartial, since it is always bad for the community and for Wikipedia when a selected group of people (be them impartial or not, intelligent or not, trusted or not) have the right to make decisions alone, without the participation of whoever wants to participate. The Articles for Deletion are not there just because they're efficent, and therefore should not be dismissed just because the result would clearly be the same: the fact is that there is a side effect to each unilateral action: authority increases and repulse for the project increases, along with the feeling of non-administrators of being worth less than them, of not being able to contribute to Wikipedia as much as them. Administrators do not have the right to make any unilateral decisions. The community makes decisions, and administrators just apply them. Whenever there's one good faith user that thinks an article should not be deleted, then the administrators should not delete it unilaterally, even if the result will obviously be that the article will be deleted. Or else they'll have an authority that is not theirs: that small group will be stealing the authority of the community of users. A.Z. 23:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure I agree, but this is not the place to make that case. In fact, making that case detracts from your argument that there is no POV to the page and that it's not an attack page. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why this is not the place to make the case, nor do I see how making that case detracts in any way from my argument that it is not an attack page. A.Z. 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a deletion review discussion. You are raising matters of policy, and administrative philosophy. Those belong elsewhere. You clearly have a point of view about adminship, and in my view "that small group will be stealing the authority of the community of users" and other phrasings suggest that it's a negative one. Your repeating assertions about administative actions and whether they are morally proper or not detracts from the discussion of whether to keep this article deleted. The only matters to discuss here are, was this a proper deletion, why or why not, and should it be overturned, yes or no. In my view this was an extremely proper deletion, if it was about any other subject at all it would not be controversial in the slightest (Dictdef, devoid of content, no sources, not verifiable, and no notability established)... you are trying to make something out of nothing. If I were less assumptive of good faith, looking at your contribution history lately, I'd suggest you are trolling. As it is I do tend to think that the creation of this article was to make a point that you have not been able to make in other ways. Make that point elsewhere, is my suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 13:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, neither "Dictdef", nor "no sources", nor "not verifiable", nor "no notability established" is grounds for speedy deletion, and i would challange the speedy deltion of an article deleted on any or all of these grounds, regardless of the subject. I have seeen a fair number of aarticels that initally met or appeared to met all of these turned into perfectly valid articles. "devoid of content" is a speedy reason, but the article, while short, was NOT empty in the sense of WP:CSD#A1. In short the deletetion was quite improper (although i'm sure it was done in good faith), as an attempt to anicipate the decision of an AfD, which is not what speedy is for. DES (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it suit you if the article were undeleted, tagged with A7 (which it qualifies for handily) and then redeleted? We can do that if we must but I think G10 is just fine. ... There is no way this article will survive AfD and we both know it, so to insist that the deletion was improper is just wasting everyone's time. But you're addressing a tangential point of my reply, not the main point, which is that I doubt the benign intentions of this creation, and instead, suspect it of being a way to make a point. See also Jreferee's comment, below, which is spot on. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This was in no sense an attack article. A7 doesn't apply to articels about concepts. This would need sources to survive an AfD, but they might be added during or before an AfD. In any case, lack of sources is not a speedy delete reason. I don't compltely agree with A.Z., a good faith user who wants an article retained in clear violation of a CSD, such as a copyvio or a blatent ad, should not and will not prevail. But in more doubtful cases significant good faith oppsoition does tend to suggest that a speedy is in approprite, and many of A.Z.'s argumetns echo Process is important which i support. DES (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Unsourceable nonsense. Wickethewok 04:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, probably not an attack page, but given that the subject is more than likely unsourceable and unverifiable, there's hardly any point in process for the sake of process here. This article would most definitely not survive an AFD (unless the article creator can prove that the subject is indeed notable/verifiable/sourceable). --Coredesat 05:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AFD. The article does not satisfy A7 or G10. A7 says: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be listed at Articles for deletion instead." I think it's reasonable to say that administrators deleting a page about administrator abuse could cause controversy. G10 says: "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile")." That was the reason given by the deleting admin, but it's obviously not satisfied here. There is actual information in the article (i.e. it does not consist of 100%, or even 50% attack). ugen64 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Let me address the comments brought up here and my thought process in evaluating the article for deletion. It had been nominated under G10, and it seemed clear to me that the intent was to disparage a group of people, administrators. Yes, as I've commented earlier, I also considered listing A7 as a reason, because I truly believe that it was about a group of people, administrators, and that they (as a group) simply aren't notable as a group, and no notability was asserted. I personally try to assume good faith unless bad faith is clearly demonstrated. If the article had covered some outside article or media coverage of problems within the Wikipedia system of controversies about admins and their powers, if it had been a genuine effort by a neutral party to examine issues about how folks in authority deal with the stresses of competing issues, then I would have clearly seen that attempt as good faith. But in this case I saw someone who'd been blocked for abusing an administor (the irony of the double meaning of "administor abuse" was not lost on me!), who's been putting forth multiple proposals for changing the system, someone who's clearly demonstrated a bias against the system, and who created an "article" to make a point, in short, to disparage the subject of the article. In that context, G10 made a lot of sense to me at the time, and I still believe that it was appropriate. I have no problem with the presence on Wikipedia of discussions about genuine admin abuse, but there are proper forums for that. Thinly disguised unsourced pieces in the main space simply are not the correct forum. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - In dealing with suspected disruptive editors, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing advises to assume good faith but remove uncited or unencyclopedic material. As Akradecki points out above, A.Z. previously was blocked for abusing an admin with uncivil speech, A.Z. was the only one to edit the article, and the only example A.Z. used in the article of administrator abuse was Wikipedia admins. A.Z. also failed to cite any sources in that article and manufactured original research for that article. WP:Point states that gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy and this can be a form of disruption. Whether A.Z. realized it or not, A.Z. created an article on administrator abuse that was substantially certain to get it listed and discussed for five days at AfD. Because of how A.Z. chose to present the content in Administrator abuse, Wikipedia administrator abuse would be the likely topic of that five day AfD discussion. The article had one post and there was no eariler post to which Akradecki could rollback. Instead of letting this matter grow into a disruption of AfD, Akradecki correctly remove the uncited or unencyclopedic material by speedy deleting the article as permitted by step 1 of dealing with disruptive editors. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you came up with an entirely new reason for deleting the article. A reason that doesn't concern the article anymore, but concerns only the author. A reason that somehow has to do with my previous block for being uncivil, as if getting blocked was such a big deal. Yes, I did realize that the article on administrator abuse was going (though it actually wasn't) to get listed at AfD, and there's no problem with creating an article that you know will get listed at AfD. I thought someone would immediately list it. Had I known that an administrator would find a way to speedy delete it, I would have listed it myself. I thought some editors would vote for it to be deleted, and some editors would vote for it to be kept. In the process, as it often happens with articles nominated for deletion, editors would find sources and references, making the article verifiable. As I already said, there is nothing wrong with that. What would be wrong is if I had created the article just to discuss a bit and complain about administrator abuse (is that really your theory?), which was not ever my intention: my intention was to start an useful article, just as useful as the other articles, where there would be information about a topic that happens to be of my interest. A.Z. 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disruption is not an entirely new reason from attack. An attack page can be a form of disruption and Akradecki has explained in detail why he speedy deleted the article. The G10 reason for the speedy deletion is fine. Also, there are multiple reasons for speedy deleting this article. To the extent my reasons support the speedy deletion, they are in addition to Akradecki reasoning, not different from Akradecki's reasons. As for more reasons to support the deletion, you might want to consider that you had a conflict of interest with this very issue and yet created an article about this issue in a way that you knew would push this issue into the AfD process. And just because your intentions were good does not mean that the speedy deletion was wrong. WP:CSD#A7 also applies. The importance or significance of the article's subject was not asserted and there is no controversy about whether the article asserted the importance or significance of the article's subject. As noted above, thinly disguised unsourced pieces in the main space simply are not the correct forum to discuss administrator abuse. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn I do not see how G10 applies. . Administrators are a very loosely defined group, and as in any other group, a few admins presumably have abused their position. Some at WP have even be de-mopped for it, so it's not merely an expression of opinion. I'm a member of the group referred to, at WP and elsewhere, and I don't think it abusive. Is someone prepared to say s/he feels personally aggrieved? Tentatively, I am not sure it belongs in article space in its present form, but should either be expanded more fully and generally, or developed into an essay in WP space. But that's my immediate personal opinion only, and it seems obvious that it is not universally shared. I'd like to see the matter discussed, and AfD is the place. DGG (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most voters don't think it is an attack page. A.Z. 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe it doesn't matter whether the editors are respected or not. What really matters is that their argument was way better. There was no reason for speedy deletion because it is not an attack page, nor is it a page about any group of people. A.Z. 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then what is the proper place. If I hadn't already commetned in the discussion i would simply revert the close. The editor who did the close has rejected further discussion on his talk page. And i don't think one close is enough for a user conduct RFC. DES (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point I guess... :) I'd suggest taking it to AN/I, and see if there is an admin (who hasn't already commented) who thinks it needs reverting. If no admin does feel that way, then I'd suggest that consensus is that the close was proper. (and by inference, that the original speedy was proper enough as well) ++Lar: t/c 10:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that an admin needs to think it needs reverting. I guess any regular user that hasn't already commented can decide to re-open the discussion. Do you agree, or was this discussed before and there was consensus that only administrators can re-open discussions like the one above? A.Z. 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Plot of Les Misérables – This is possibly the most interesting DRV I've ever seen. Using WP:IAR as a device to suspend WP:NOT in specific cases rarely (if ever) happens explicitly. Any use of IAR requires a firm consensus to support it; employing IAR does -- as Arkyan points out -- shift some of the presumptions of an XfD. If the major argument for retention of an article is IAR, then the article's supporters carry the burden of proving that an exception to policy is needed in a given case. Whereas, in a typical XfD, a close case results in a "no consensus", in an AfD where the keep argument is largely IAR, the IAR argument is open to being ignored by a closer if it fails to garner overwhelming support. In short, by basing their rationales in IAR, the "keep" commenters "shot themselves in the foot"; unless their argument clearly won the day outright, it was useless, and could not be used to support a "no consensus" result. The lesson here is clear: don't employ IAR unless one is absolutely sure of what one is doing.

I hope the AfD's closer will admit that he did not explain his close perfectly: saying that one ignored a certain argument as soon as it was seen is not the best way to elaborate one's position. Technically, however, I think there is no doubt that the closer was within his discretion to ignore "IAR" keeps once it was clear that the IAR invocation was without the necessary wide support it would demand in order to be upheld as valid. In any case, in light of nominator's willingness to compromise, here is a result that reflects the consensus below. The deletion is endorsed as correct. The redirect now in place is clearly proper. A history undeletion will allow any attempts to merge relevant material back to the main article; if the "plot section" is still unduly large thereafter, a recreation/un-merge (with sources attesting to the importance and innovative nature of the work's plot) would be reasonable. If such a recreation were then AfD'ed, the article's advocates would better understand the need to cite policy and sources in making their case, as it is clear that an IAR argument against WP:NOT would only fail here. There will probably be another AfD on this question in a while (which satisfied those who requested overturning here), but I hope this DRV closure will result in substantial improvements to the "Plot of..." text before that time, and that all parties will leave IAR and meta-analytic concerns aside, and focus on the value of the article then at hand. As this DRV involves many folks who obviously care a great deal about wiki-policy issues, I will be happy to discuss this closure at greater length upon request. – Xoloz 04:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This closing ran roughshod over Wikipedia policies and practices in a way that disenfranchised Wikipedia editors who were engaged in a serious discussion over whether to keep this article.

The discussion was lengthy, lively and focused on principles, policy and facts, with a lot of back-and-forth discussion from many editors who took the time to seriously consider the matter. By my count, a total of 38 editors took a position on whether the article should be kept or deleted. A majority, but not a big majority, was in favor of deletion or merger — 21 editors (including one who had conditions for keeping that weren't met by changes in the article). A total of 17 editors were in favor of keeping the article, including one editor who changed a delete vote to a keep vote.

The delete position was favored by 55 percent, which is not a very large majority (a change of two votes from delete to keep would have eliminated the majority).

In order to assert that there was a consensus, not just a majority, to close, it seems to me that the closing admin would need to drastically assign less weight to an enormous number of the "keep" arguments.

Much of the discussion centered on my argument that Wikipedia editors have wide latitude to ignore certain Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The policy I recommended ignoring in this case was Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:NOT#PLOT.

The closing administrator, User:Kurykh, decided this argument was so inappropriate that it should be ignored. In his closing statement, the administrator said:

The result was IAR delete. Most "keep" arguments hinge on WP:IAR(?!) and textbook examples of WP:ATA. I close this with no prejudice towards expanding the section in the main article, transwiki of contents, etc. —Kurykh 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This decision was out of process for these reasons:

Although it isn't my main argument, it's worth noting that this statement and decision violated Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete, specifically items 1 ["Whether consensus has been achieved"], 2 ["Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants"] and 4 ["When in doubt, don't delete."]. The "?!" was not just insulting, but in no way even respected the judgment of participants.

User:Everyking questioned the administrator on his talk page. The closing admin's response on Everyking,'s talk page was at this diff

I disregarded Noroton's "IAR keep" argument almost instantly, and hence also dismissed the "per Noroton" arguments with it. Cab's "slippery slope" argument had only inclusionist pleadings and little basis on policy, and hence was given less weight than most. Ditto with Edison and those associated with it (this is why "per [insert user]" !votes are risky). I also dismissed "Keep because Les Miserables is important"-style arguments because importance does not confer exception to policy.

In other words, a close vote that would otherwise be a no-consensus close was in fact a consensus to delete because numerous arguments against or ignoring Wikipedia policy were simply removed from consideration. The assumption seems to be that only arguments referring to Wikipedia policy could be considered in a deletion discussion. This despite the fact that WP:IAR is, in fact, Wikipedia policy. Again, Kurykh's comment indicates no respect for the judgment of editors he is supposed to use his authority to serve.

Wikipedia editors may ignore all rules when they think there is good reason and their authority for doing so is WP:IAR, a policy. This policy should be considered carefully and must be applied carefully, but it must not be ignored or denigrated by closing administrators in considering deletion discussions.

One of the limits on WP:IAR that prevents it from creating anarchy on Wikipedia is that the community as a whole prefers having some rules, and so any action taken under WP:IAR can be checked by administrators and, ultimately, by consensus.

Deletion discussions are obviously consensus-based forums. The duties of administrators in closing discussions is a combination of fairly and in an unbiased way assessing what the consensus was and ruling with that consensus unless the consensus violates certain Wikipedia policies.

Under Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus administrators are directed to three policies, and only three, that should automatically negate consensus. (Other policies can require deletion of information or entire articles without even going to the deletion-discussion process at all, so that violation of copyright or libel laws, for instance, can override consensus). The three policies that automatically override consensus are mentioned here:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions.

If consensus was not allowed to override any policy, then there would be no reason to point out only these three, or at the very least, the the passage would be worded differently because a no-override policy could be stated in a much simpler way. WP:NOT was not one of the policies that can't be overridden by a consensus (or, a lack of consensus, because that reverts to "keep").

The administrator's comments, both in closing the discussion and in commenting on it at Everyking's talk page display bias — taking sides in the discussion rather than fairly assessing in a disinterested way what the consensus was. As the "Rough consensus" section states:

Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached.

According to the "Rough consensus" section, disregarding comments seems to be generally limited to bad faith comments, mistaken coments and comments that refer to aspects of the article that have been substantially changed by the time the discussion is closed. I wouldn't criticize a closing administrator for disregarding arguments or comments made in ignorance of Wikipedia policies.

When Kurykh said on Everyking's talk page, "In my analysis of the article, I disregarded Noroton's "IAR keep" argument almost instantly, and hence also dismissed the "per Noroton" arguments with it." he showed how he overstepped the bounds of a closing administrator.

If we are to have WP:IAR in Wikipedia at all, then we must be able to use it in deletion discussions, which rely on consensus. I wouldn't argue that IAR should overrule those Wikipedia policies that Wikipedia specifically states overrule consensus. But if consensus CAN overrule other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then an explicit reference to WP:IAR is valid and, it seems to me, can be used to further bolster an argument to ignore those other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

In disregarding appeals to WP:IAR, Kurykh negated Wikipedian's ability to use that rule at all. There may be an argument to be made that there was something wrong about using WP:IAR in deletion discussions or in this particular way in this discussion, but I haven't heard it.

Oddly, while Kurykh was disregarding appeals to WP:IAR he was simultaneously using not another policy, not even a guideline, but Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, an ESSAY with NO official Wikipedia standing as his justification for disregarding the arguments of a large number of the editors seriously involved in that discussion. Kurykh, in his closing comment stated: "Most "keep" arguments hinge on WP:IAR(?!) and textbook examples of WP:ATA."

The use of the question mark and exclamation marks beside "WP:IAR" indicates both a lack of seriousness in considering the discussion (as also shown in his comments to Everyking) and a contempt for the editors who made up a large part of the deletion discussion. If nothing else, other editors should tell Kurykh that as a closing administrator he should avoid disparaging the efforts of serious Wikipedia editors in the discussions he's closing.

The deletion should be overruled as out of process because the discussion did not reach consensus, and no-consensus conclusions are automatic keeps. Serious appeals to WP:IAR cannot be summarily ignored by a closing administrator and essays cannot be used to overturn consensus or the right of Wikipedians to appeal to a Wikipedia policy.

Consensus is not just important, it is extremely important. A lack of consensus is a decision in itself, and if Wikipedia editors are to be given the respect they deserve, a no-consensus result must be respected just as much as consensus in terms of closing discussions. As Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with consensus tells us:

By long tradition, the consensus opinion of the community about an article's disposition is held virtually sacrosanct, and may not be overturned or disregarded lightly.

This is precisely the mistake Kurykh made Noroton 03:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn no admin should close a discussion in which they have been personally involved, or even contentious matter where they have a strong opinion, if the matter is at al contentious. Basic fairness. DGG (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide a link to the diff in which Kurykh participated in the discussion. I searched for it on the archived AFD and he did not comment as far as I can see. bwowen talk•contribs 04:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding your addition: "...even contentious matter where they have a strong opinion"? I rarely edit literature articles, if ever, let alone have a strong opinion about Les Miserables. If you meant something else, please clarify. —Kurykh 23:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Admin freely admitting to instantly dismissing Noroton and related arguments. In certain cases, people have more that one idea on why to keep or delete. I'm afraid that Kurykh is implying that once he saw an argument that mentioned Noroton, he dismissed it by association. Skimming to find consensus is not acceptable. the_undertow talk 04:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry if my comments gave erroneous implications. I did not instantly dismiss all arguments associated with Noroton, but I did dismiss those that only stated "per Noroton" or similar wording. —Kurykh 05:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate the clarification. the_undertow talk 06:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wish I could say I appreciated the clarification, but I see Kurykh's statement as a simple assertion. He gave a certain amount of his reasoning in his closing comments and explained them a bit more in his comments on Everyking's talk page. I asked Kurykh on his talk page to comment on my concerns before I initiated deletion review. He didn't reply. His two-sentence reply above is the only statement I've seen him make about this since his statements to Everyking. I've made my case against his application of closure policy, but I haven't seen his detailed reasoning. Without it, and with the troubling implications of what he has said (as I go into at length up top), we're entitled to draw our own conclusions as to how he came to his decision. He told Everyking he "almost instantly" dismissed my argument. Well. Frankly, he hasn't been very helpful in this review (that's his right). Noroton 14:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision is fine. The deletion review argument is essentially that the closing admin didn't count just votes to close the AFD, when that is actually the desired behavior. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, a full article of plot summary? Also, while the rules can be ignored, it takes a clear consensus to do so. Under normal circumstances, when an article might nominally meet normal rules and guidelines, "no consensus" does indeed default to keep. On the other hand, "IAR keep" shifts that burden. In that case, the onus of establishing a clear consensus to ignore the rule falls upon those who argue to ignore it. There is no such consensus here, the article does violate WP:NOT, and it is inappropriate. The right result was reached, even if some of the steps in reaching it may not have been the greatest. When plot summaries grow overlong, it's time to get to trimming, not split out a whole article for it! Finally, "55%" is not at issue here. AfD is not a ballot, it's a discussion, and we need more AfD closers who look at the unbolded words, not just count the bolded ones. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course one of my points is that the unbolded words were ignored along with the bolded ones for many of the participants who had valid points. I've been clear about what part 55 percent plays in my argument both up top and elsewhere in this discussion (that is, that a further case has to be made to call that a consensus). I didn't say there was a consensus to invoke IAR, I said proposing that IAR be invoked doesn't remove an editor from consideration in figuring out whether there was a consensus (which is what seems to have happened). You've conceded that a consensus could impliment IAR. That makes IAR a legitimate point to raise in the discussion to form a consensus. If it's a legit point, then when figuring out whether there's a consensus or not, it is wrong to dismiss editors for making that point. Noroton 15:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, although I reject the "IAR keep" argument. Since the rule is only meant to apply to copyrighted works, I feel it is baseless to delete this article, which is about a non-copyrighted work, for violating it, and therefore there is no need to invoke IAR to justify keeping this. Furthermore, a closing admin should only make a decision that reflects the community's will, rather than weighing arguments according to how much he likes them, and since there was no consensus here, it should default to keep. Everyking 05:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The community's will is also expressed in documents such as WP:NOT, and the closing admin should weigh how the arguments in the discussion relate to these documents. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus clearly indicates that a deletion discussion can result in keeping an article that violates guidelines such as WP:NOT. The community's will is expressed in the consensus to keep WP:NOT as a guideline and the community's will is similarly expressed (maybe even with more editors involved) at the deletion discussion which can result in keeping an article such as this. Wikipedia is perfectly capable of making exceptions to rules. That's the clear implication of WP:DGFA. Noroton 15:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because although I personally would have said delete, I don't see a consensus to delete. According to the guidelines on closing AfD's, consensus is overridden by WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV but not WP:NOT. Eventually, a consensus will form to either delete this article per WP:NOT or modify WP:NOT. In the meantime, we're just going to have to live with anomalous results like this. -- But|seriously|folks  05:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. And let me add that I am rather appalled by the presumption of this deletion review request to use IAR for Les Misérables. This is not a situation where editors are unable to comply with Wikipedia policy. To quote this DRV requestor's post in the AfD, "This is Les Misérables!" There are numerous scholarly works exploring the plot and all facets of it. The plot posted on Wikipedia was original research that lacked references and it violated three of Wikipedia's Article standards: (1) Verifiability, (2) What Wikipedia is not, (3) No original research. This deletion review request now ask us to ignore the numerous scholarly works available on this topic just so the contributors to that deleted article can aggrandize themselves beyond people who have dedicated their professional lives to this masterpiece? I am really taken aback by this request. I do not ever recall seeing such a request in connection with one of the best-known novels of all time. What seems to take the cake the requestor's attempt to have WP:NOT#Plot changed so that the multi-rule violating plot could remain on Wikipedia. In addition, despite being familiar with WP:CANVASSING[2] and being with Wikipedia since June 18, 2006, the requestor of this review informs me on my talk page that the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules and in view of this I should participate in this DRV. This is exactly what Raul's law #11 states happens: the users who most zealously advocate changing Wikipedia's rules are the users who refuse to obey the rules as they currently exist. To make my position even more clear, I repeat that the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Noroton was telling you the closing admin was in violation. I take it as he is explaining why he has requested the review. There is a difference, although admittedly, the wording is ambiguous. the_undertow talk 06:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I said Kurykh violated rules, I simply meant he violated the rules for closing administrators by misinterpreting or misapplying those rules. I initiated this review because I think so. Now that you bring it up and I'm thinking about it more, I think "violated" may be too strong (every misinterpretation or misapplication is technically a violation, but "violation" has more disparaging meanings I didn't mean to convey when I used that word). I have no reason at all to think he consciously violated any rules. Yet I am very troubled by some of the implications in his statements, as I said in my statement at the top.Noroton 14:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Jreferee: WP:IAR is a policy or it isn't. If it is, we have a right to invoke it in deletion discussions. If we have a right to invoke it, then in principle invoking it can't be summarily dismissed, which is what Kurykh did. Thank you (amid the ad hominem attacks, allegations of bad faith and other allegations irrelevant to this discussion and the bluster) for putting forth an argument, something more than Kurykh has done so far. (1) Verifiability: The verification is in the book itself and the article referred to specific chapters throughout; how much more verified can it be? (2) What Wikipedia is not: Well, this is what my whole argument is about. WP:IAR is a policy that gives us the power to overrule rules in deletion discussions; Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus is more restrictive but also more explicit and shows that WP:NOT can be overruled; (3) No original research: There is no possible way that a plot summary, simply because it's a plot summary, is original research. Wikipedians look at texts and summarize their contents and put the summary in articles all the time. It's what we do. Perhaps you could explain this allegation. Noroton 14:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The issue here is not what rules were broken by the article: that was the issue for the AFD. The issue here is whether the closing admin was right to discard the keep arguments as he did. The fact remains that WP:IAR is policy, and noroton's argument (along with those that supported him in it, including me) was a valid application of that policy: we felt that the fact that the rules told them to delete this article prevented them from improving the encyclopedia, so we ignored them. I see no policy-based grounds to discount this argument, therefore it should have been considered by the closing admin, and the result should have been "no consensus". JulesH 07:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, just running through the votes it was 12 Keep to 18 Delete/Merge with one Keep/Merge (unless there are any I've missed). It seems to be a straight argument in the AfD of whether the plot of the book can be placed in a seperate article. The admin didn't debate or vote so I can't see a reason for overturning as there was no clear violation during the AfD and the consensus was clear, even if the Keep arguments ran up more k. Darrenhusted 11:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see 13 keep to 18 delete as a "clear consensus". JulesH 11:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? You don't see a five vote majority as clear? What is a clear consensus, ignoring all the Not#Plot and IAR filibustering? One vote or two votes I can understand, but by the time you have five the percentage is 40% (keep) to 60% (delete) (putting aside the Keep/Merge). And this is simply the plot of the book, not the actually article on the book that was deleted/merged? As stated below the keeps combined WP:ILIKEIT with WP:IAR and then tried to change policy on WP:NOT#PLOT at the same time. The process here was sound. Darrenhusted 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stand by my count of 21 Delete; 17 Keep. I counted three or four times and described how I assigned some cases at the top of this deletion review. Anyone who really doubts the numbers should do the count. I counted a "delete/merge" is a delete and a "keep/merge" is a keep.Noroton 14:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment When considering numbers alone I don't think there is a clear consensus to delete much short of 2:1, or 66.6%, a level clearly not reached here. Of course, often numbers alone do not and should not determine the outcome. DES (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think it's one thing to call for WP:IAR when a policy requires an exception, but many of those commenting that it should be kept for that reason stated that they thought WP:NOT#PLOT should be changed. AfD discussions are not the place to change policies, and IAR doesn't give one a free pass to attempt to do so; IAR provides an opportunity to make isolated exceptions, while this reasoning called for all "important literary works" to receive plot summary articles. I feel that the delete comments were grounded in current policy, rather than trying to change policy through AfD. Leebo T/C 12:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No policy whatever would have been changed by keeping the article. The result of a keep, in terms of Wikipedia policy, would only be to make that one article an exception to the policy. Any other changes would depend on consensus decisions made in other forums. People might invoke the precedent of this AfD in a future deletion discussion or discussion over a policy change, but only as a way to try to convince others. And a no-consensus keep isn't a very strong precedent. I did start a discussion on the talk page of WP:NOT, since I agree that AfD discussions are not the place to change policies, and I'll revive that WP:NOT discussion when this deletion review is over.Noroton 15:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. After following this debate extremely closely, I felt that consensus was established and that it was established correctly. "Articles for Deletion" was changed from "Votes for Deletion" because the deletion process isn't about counting up the bolded words, it is about making a strong argument one way or the other. Editors contributing their opinions on the Keep side, for the most part, made arguments that fell under a couple of categories, all of which fall under WP:ATA. Although this is, in fact, not policy, but an essay, it states: "[These] arguments [are] based from side issues that are not relevant to the issue of whether or not a page on Wikipedia should be deleted." Furthermore, WP:ATA states that "when taking part in deletion debates, then, it's best to base arguments on the policies of Neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability and what Wikipedia is not." Editors who favored deletion of this article made arguments based on WP:NOR and WP:NOT, just to name two. Consensus was established by the strength of the arguments, and deletion should be upheld, especially because violations of WP:NOR are, as Noroton showed, consensus dealbreakers. bwowen talk•contribs 12:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You addressed none of my actual arguments, nor any arguments based on Wikipedia deletion policies and guidelines. I pointed out that the support for delete was 55 percent because that's one aspect of figuring out consensus, not the only aspect. I think a closing administrator must have very good reasons for declaring a consensus when the percentage is that low. If, as you say, it's proper for a closing admin to rely so much on an essay, why is it proper to ignore a relevant policy referred to in the discussion: WP:IAR? (Oops. Looks like I forgot my sig: Noroton 14:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
      • Because WP:IAR is a policy that must be carefully used and, in this case, it seems that he felt, and I agree with him, that it was being inappropriately; i.e. due to a combination of WP:ILIKEIT and "it's important." bwowen talk•contribs 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we can invoke WP:IAR at all, then appropriateness can be judged only in terms of harming Wikipedia, which is what the explanation Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus is all about. The three policies pointed to at the Rough Consensus section are about harming Wikipedia's reputation or even harming subjects of Wikipedia. But that section does not mention other policies or policies in general, which it easily could do. If we invoke WP:IAR we necessarily are violating some policy or guideline or other. Simply labeling that violation "inappropriate" is not a strong enough reason to dismiss the opinions of editors who invoke IAR. Since consensus is so sacrosanct, strong, explicit reasons need to be given before taking the step of dismissing a large segment of the group trying to form consensus.Noroton 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure what you define as consensus. The Rough Consensus guideline gives no "number" because AfD is not a vote. Consensus is built by a combination of numbers (which are not weighed heavily IMO) and the strength of arguments. People voting Keep did not make particularly strong arguments - I like it, it's important, and so on. Delete arguments leaned heavily on NOR and NOT#PLOT and so on. Kurykh, in my opinon, did right by weighing both numbers (in which more favored deletion/merge) and arguments (which were stronger for deletion IMO). bwowen talk•contribs 22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • IAR is an argument and you haven't shown why the arguments for it were weaker than the delete arguments based on NOR and NOT#PLOT. Neither did Kurykh.Noroton 02:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - admin correctly interpreted an involved and contentious debate. Otto4711 14:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as there was no consensus to delete. The fact that some "keep" advocates talked of IAR, given the unique character of this book, does not justify closing admin in flip fashion to use IAR to disregard fundamental requirement of consensus to delete article. --Mantanmoreland 14:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn and relist at AfD. This is rather a tricky question, as I'm not in favour of separate articles for plot summaries, nor of over-liberal use of WP:IAR (a policy that should not be invoked in controversial circumstances, IMO). As such, I would probably have !voted Delete had I participated in the AfD. Nonetheless, I don't think it's really appropriate to ignore a large number of well-reasoned arguments in closing an AfD. I think it needs to be relisted to gauge a broader consensus. WaltonOne 14:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the article as it concerns one of the arguably most noteworthy novels of world history that has even been made into at least one movie and one musical. Also, the AfD discussion looked more like a No Consensus. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Terrible AfD close. This policy wonkery is getting out of hand. —Xezbeth 14:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion I fully agree with the various endorsement arguments above and particularly note Serpahim's point that AfD is a discussion, not a headcount, and the exercise of admin discretion in weighing debates is salutary; it would be beneficial to see more of it. Bringing this up for deletion review, given that leeway of interpretation, is also a highly salutary exercise. Eusebeus 15:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per JulesH --W.marsh 15:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Kurykh said that he "instantly" discounted any argument which cited a basic policy of long standing, WP:IAR and that this policy was somehow trumped by a mere essay, WP:ATA. That is all that is needed to overturn the deletion, which is this out of process and inappropriate. Without this incorrect trumping of a policy by an essay, there is no consensus for deletion, and the outcome is "No consensus" with the article kept. Edison 16:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but this is simply not an accurate description of the closure. Kurykh did not say that ATA trumps IAR. He said that he discounted arguments based on IAR, and also discounted ATA-style arguments. Otto4711 17:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right on the niggling small point and wrong on the larger point: He obviously treated the policy, IAR, with less deference than the essay, ATA, and in that sense the essay trumped the policy. I can imagine that there would be circumstances where it would be right to do that, but that case hasn't been made. Noroton 18:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, now you're just making things up. In no way was this closed by saying that an essay trumps policy. The close states that 1) keep arguments that invoked IAR were not sufficient to save the article and 2) keep arguments based in ATA arguments were not sufficient to save the article. This claim that the rejection of IAR and of ATA arguments means that ATA trumped IAR is nonsense. Otto4711 23:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noroton, we can do without you making false and outright ridiculous assumptions on my evaluation process, thank you very much. Please stop grasping at straws. —Kurykh 23:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the closing admin IAR may be policy, but is a policy meant to be used only in extenuating circumstances, not to be used liberally when one sees fit. Also, the burden of the need to invoke IAR is on those who wish to invoke it, not those who dispute the invocation of said policy. I think this debate boils down to whether IAR can be invoked in the case. —Kurykh 17:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What justification do you have for disallowing IAR from being invoked? Your justification should be something in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or be based on some kind of logic and facts that can gain widespread acceptance. If you're going to limit editors' use of a Wikipedia policy, you should say why only "extenuating circumstances" should be involved. I don't even know what you mean by "extenuating circumstances." Also, more specifically, what was defective in the invoking of IAR in this discussion? Noroton 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not for me to tell you. It's your obligation to prove to me that IAR should indeed be invoked. And I see no such pressing rationale. —Kurykh 23:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, my obligation was to prove to the editors trying to form a consensus that IAR should be invoked and my argument convinced enough of them so that no consensus was, in fact formed. If you step in and weigh the reasons why IAR was invoked, you essentially become the sole person deciding the outcome of the discussion, because it wouldn't matter what opinions were held by anyone else. I explained at length in the deletion discussion why IAR should be invoked. I'm not obligated in any way to convince you of the reasons why. That's not your job. You are obligated to follow consensus unless it conflicts with certain Wikipedia policies as outlined in WP:DGFA. Your only decision regarding IAR was whether it could be invoked, and you have nothing at all in Wikipedia policy telling you it cannot be or should not be invoked. In fact, you have Wikipedia policy, in the form of WP:IAR telling you that it can be invoked. Your decision was out of process. Those who agree with your disallowing IAR have no basis in policy whatever for their personal beliefs. This is what I meant when I wrote that you were in violation of Wikipedia rules. Noroton 01:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; AfD is not a vote, and the closing admin's analysis (both at the time and here) seems accurate to me -- WP:NOT is there for a good reason. --MCB 17:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - Because this article violated was in clearcut violation of WP:NOT and WP:FICT and I dont want AFD to turn into an WP:IAR popularity vote. Corpx 19:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that WP:IAR is, in fact, policy. So are you invoking WP:IAR to nullify WP:IAR in this case? But if you can invoke it, anybody should be able to invoke it and then let consensus rule. And why not, in fact, follow the clear implications of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators? You talk about the "clearcut violation" of policies and guidelines while you, without saying it, advocate a clearcut violation of the policy WP:IAR. For the most part, Wikipedians want rules. Anarchy won't result.Noroton 21:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How exactly do you determine consensus by IAR? By counting the votes? Corpx 21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would think you determine it exactly the way you would otherwise determine it. Invoking rules and vote counting are not the only factors in determining consensus today. IAR already has some limits, as shown at WP:WIARM and WP:DGFA. Noroton 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are both essays and I dont think very many people take them seriously. I still stand by my position that WP:IAR keep votes should be kept out of AFD, because it shouldnt be a popularity festival. Corpx 04:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, WP:DGFA is a guideline. You want to pick and choose the policies you want to follow. And you would, against policy, denigrate the voices of editors forming consensus when it's a consensus you don't like. You have no basis in policy for keeping WP:IAR out of deletion discussions and no consensus to do so. Noroton 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I voted on the afd, but the closing of an afd should not be counting votes. The conclusion was based on policy but it appears there are some who believe there is a confliction between two policies and their's didn't win. I don't see how a new afd would produce a different result: same conflict between NOT and IAR will emerge. Like it or not, the closing we got was related to policy and consistent with other similar afds: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. --maclean 19:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You haven't addressed any issue brought up here at all, much less any issue dealing with whether policy was followed in the way the discussion was closed, which is the actual purpose of this discussion. I thought maybe your examples might shed some light on the issues here, but they don't. Out of all those examples, in all but one was there an overwhelming consensus for delete. The closest that the Keep side got in any of them was your fourth example, where the !vote was three deletes, a merge, a keep and a weak keep, which to me looks like a 2-to-1 consensus. Your argument addresses the deletion discussion not the discussion over the closing. It's true, I'm counting votes in looking at the examples you gave, but it's a quick first step and it's obviously hugely influential in determining consensus. But I don't understand this focusing on one point in my argument (and only one point in the arguments of others) as if we haven't said anything else. Just because an AfD is not a vote doesn't mean closing admins can do whatever they want.Noroton 20:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "haven't addressed any issue brought up here at all"? Really, at all? Why so dramatic? "doesn't mean closing admins can do whatever they want"...but the closing admin did what the majority of participants wanted, not exactly going rogue. The vote to ignore policy was ignored and your loophole to re-open the case is that vote-counting produces only a slight-majority to delete, opposed to the concensus-majority typically used at uncomplicated afds. My opinion is that the discussion was closed appropriately because the closing admin read the discussion and used his best judgement based on the arguments presented. I don't buy the arguments that it should have been a "no concensus" result (first, the irony arguing that the closing admin ingored the rules by ingoring the 'ignore all rules' rule is amusing, and second, strict vote counting should not be done in long, complicated afds), that the "feelings of Wikipedia participants" were hurt (no, it was not the most well-spoken comments but producing more drama won't help anyone), and "disenfranchised" voter agrument (WP:IAR keep votes were specifically addressed in the closing comments and weighted very low as an argument). The theme of the examples is that all the "Plot of..." articles were all deleted based on the same argument at this afd. --maclean 21:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you believe a large majority should not be required to establish consensus? I can see that if and only if there is a strong reason given by the closing admin and if that reason makes sense. The closing admin here said next to nothing in a situation when the vote was close. You've asserted that he used his best judgment (in his "almost instantly" dismissing my arguments), but that's based on faith: No reason was given to discount IAR support, or perhaps, if it isn't to dramatic to ask, you could interpret "?!" for me. (Do you think it's possible that a perception of unfairness might raise a little dramatic tension among affected editors?) If he has great reasons, why haven't we heard them yet? The longer the closing admin waits, the more I suspect there weren't good reasons to discount certain types of votes. Certainly, if you can come up with great reasons, we don't need his in order to endorse the deletion. Yours give very little weight to consensus at all, it seems to me, and my response is to refer you to the last quote in my opening statement at the top of this discussion. When weighting arguments very low, is it a good idea to do it "almost instantly" with the editor who leads with an argument and then pretty much automatically for anyone who agrees with that editor? And why is an argument "almost instantly" weighted low if, like opposing arguments, it appeals to policy (and then also appeals to common sense, to the best interests of Wikipedia)? Does a closing admin get to weight arguments low for no reason at all? Your reasoning about the examples you gave sounds interesting. It's something I have to think about. It's the strongest argument I've heard on your side so far.Noroton 23:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Deletion This article was a (very detailed) plot summary, that violated WP:NOT and WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries, no matter how detailed and well written they are. A brief synopsis is certainly appropriate in the book's main article, but Cliff notes style synopsis pages such as this one do not belong in an encyclopedia. The admin did his best to interpret Wikipedia policy and act in accordance with the consensus, which was to delete. Concerning IAR, WP:IAR is more of an attitude that is appreciated on Wikipedia, similar to WP:BOLD, meaning that a good encyclopedia only becomes a great encyclopedia when editors take risks. I interpret IAR as take risks and go against the established norms, but within reason and using the fundamental Wikipedia policies as guidelines. IAR is not a license to blatantly violate WP:NOT, WP:FICT, WP:NOR, WP:POV etc... Not only this, if AfD articles were argued on a basis of IAR, deletions discussions would become popularity votes. If we kept this on the basis of IAR, then we would be required, for example, to keep a nonsense page that was opposed deletion on basis of IAR on the grounds that it was an experimental article. Let's keep IAR out of AfD. Rackabello 20:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides, if we allow this article, what are we going to start seeing next? Detailed plot summaries of every work of fiction that an individual editor deems important? Like:
      • Complete works of William Shakespeare
      • The Aenid
      • Great Expectations, David Copperfield, Tale of Two Cities, and every other novel by Dickens
      • The Lord of the Rings
      • Huckleberry Finn
      • The DaVinci Code
      • Beloved
      • Harry Potter
      • A Series of Unforunate Events
      • The Goosebumps Series
      • Goodnight Moon
      • et cetera, isn't this getting absurd
If there's really an interest for articles like this, why not start a WikiNotes project? Rackabello 20:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All uses of WP:IAR are, by their nature, both a license and blatant. When some authority (an administrator or editor) finds an IAR action, it can be reversed by that other editor. Then, if the blatant, licentious IAR editor wants to appeal, the matter can go to some forum where consensus rules and where the participating editors can themselves ratify the IAR action. Tell me, how else could WP:IAR possibly work? Tell me, how is that different from any other action in which two parties disagree? You and other editors are tiptoeing around a very simple, inconvenient fact: WP:IAR EXISTS. YOU MUST DEAL WITH IT. Somehow Wikipedia isn't totally anarchic despite the embarassing fact that the policy does, in fact, already exist. Sorry you don't like the results in Wikipedia articles that you foresee, but that's not the topic here. Certain important policies and consensus in favor of rules will always limit WP:IAR, just as they do now. Welcome to the Wikipedia we actually have, not the one you wish we had.Noroton 21:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)edit for clarity Noroton 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Reply So then what you are saying is that we shouldn't have any policies and editors should be able to do what they want willie-nillie. Yes IAR does exist, but I believe it was put into place to make a point that if rules are preventing you from improving Wikipedia, then ignore them. Some people may interpret IAR to mean that they can use Wikipedia for whatever purpose they want, such as advertising, making political/ religious statements, etc.... Think about what you're saying here Rackabello 15:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. IAR should never be used as an argument in an XfD discussion. If that were the case, then we'd wind up with people arguing IAR in every discussion, and an admin would never be able to delete anything. Corvus cornix 20:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have people using arguments against the rules. It happens in just about every deletion discussion. In fact, you're arguing against policy right now because you're arguing against WP:IAR, you're just not admitting it. On what authority can you say "it should never be used as an argument in an XfD discussion"? Consensus? IAR? Some other policy? You're arrogating to yourself the IAR card you want to deny to others. Since your argument is against policy, will the closing admin of this discussion dismiss it? Would you feel wronged if that happened? In fact, isn't it the case that whenever two policies conflict (and IAR must always conflict), consensus will ultimately mete out the decision on which one will prevail? Well, that's true except for the exceptions in WP:DGFA. I really hope you or other editors will address what I'm actually saying here and either accept it or explain where I'm wrong. Noroton 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noroton, you are overemphasizing the policy part of IAR. You sound like you are shouting "IAR is policy!" and expect everyone else to shut up. IAR is policy, but does not allow the blind use of said policy. And may I note that the exact wording of IAR allows its invocation only when the rules prevent you from 1) build and follow consensus, 2) improve and maintain content, and 3) use common sense. I see none of these being violated before you invoked IAR. —Kurykh 22:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're using a very-recently edited version of IAR that may or may not have consensus. The version that stood at the time of the AFD read "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." That was the phrasing then, and had been for the majority of several years prior to then. The point here is that having the plot summary in a separate article improved wikipedia, because the plot of Les Miserables is complex enough that it cannot be adequately addressed in the main article. And to people who suggest that the deleted summary was in any way detailed, I reiterate my earlier statistic: there were less than 5 words of summary per page of book. Is this really too detailed? JulesH 00:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec) I will agree with you on your first point, that WP:IAR has been changed recently (for some reason) from the more familiar one you reiterated above. However, that does not answer the point of my argument: that there was no pressing rationale such that we must toss our consensually-crafted guidelines out the window to make way for a ironically long plot "summary" (as Everyking pointed out to me). —Kurykh 01:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No I really don't expect everyone to shut up (especially you, since I've been complaining we haven't heard enough of your reasoning; and please see the last sentence I wrote just above your comment). In fact, I'm trying to encourage editors to think and to come up with their best arguments, which is why I've been making so many responses. I've been told that my efforts aren't coming across that way, something that concerns me. In the form of WP:IAR you cite, #2 applied because deletion of the article prevented good content from being maintained because it was liable to be deleted under WP:NOT (that was the rule preventing us). (My argument was an application of IAR in both versions that we've just cited, and I doubt IAR will contradict that as it keeps changing shape since I seem to be appealing to the heart of it.) If you review my comments in the AfD I said precisely that, and so did others. I also think it's common sense (#3) that something so important be included in Wikipedia at the length it was included, and I made that argument in several ways and very explicitly. And a large number of the editors in that discussion agreed with it. The best way of deciding whether or not my invoking WP:IAR was correct was to let consensus decide, not assign less weight to my comments simply because I made that argument or, worse, dismiss the argument and those who agreed with it. Now, I ask you yet again: What was defective in the way I brought up IAR? Why did you credit WP:NOT#PLOT instead of IAR? Do you believe IAR can be brought up at all, and if not, why not? I'm going to take a short break, but I hope you'll give us all an explanation because it doesn't look fair so far.Noroton 01:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your invocation of #2 of the 3-point IAR version does not seem to make much sense. "#2 applied because deletion of the article prevented good content from being maintained because it was liable to be deleted under WP:NOT" is not sufficient rationale to throw WP:NOT out the window (btw, "good" is a vague adjective, and does nothing to augment your argument). Your use of #3 ("I also think it's common sense (#3) that something so important be included in Wikipedia at the length it was included") is not qualified enough because it does not give sufficient rationale. Is it common sense to include long plot summaries of the Iliad, Odyssey, or the Aeneid? But I digress. I dispute your use of "large number of the editors in that discussion agreed with it" as it gives an air of a majority agreeing with your opinion, which is, of course, false just by vote-counting (which did not impact my closing to any significant extent). Please correct me if I misinterpreted your statements. —Kurykh 01:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The plot summary we already have of the Odyssey is 1,500 words in length. This is for a book that is just 416 pages long. This is a similar level of detail to the one in the deleted article, which was 6,000 words for 1,200 page book. JulesH 09:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (redent)I made exhaustive arguments at the AfD on just the points you refer to and which you're now apparently ignoring. When you say my argument is "not sufficient rationale to throw WP:NOT out", that's an assertion on your part, not reasoning or rationale. Ditto with your assessment of #3. You didn't make your decision several days ago on the answers I gave you several minutes ago. You ought to be able to tell us all why the IAR arguments already given weren't good enough and why appeals to WP:NOT#PLOT were. If you believe you can dismiss arguments with such abandon, how can you go about fairly assessing whether there is a consensus? You say looking at the numbers "did not impact my closing to any significant extent." Well, it's beginning to look like that's part of the problem. Do you believe your role is to figure out what the consensus actually is, if any, or craft your own "consensus" based on "advice" from the editors participating in the discussion? Based on your description so far, it looks like the latter. I've been looking for reasons to believe you worked by some neutral standards in assessing arguments, but I haven't found anything in what you've said that allays my suspicion that you simply sided with the side you preferred. I'll leave it to other Wikipedia editors for the next 24 hours. Noroton 02:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hum, generally it looks better to have plot summarys in the main article, like this one. Although some of the stuff could have been added further to it, which why it was better to merge some to les Miserables.--JForget 02:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing admin came to the conclusion that delete comments were backed by policy and guideline and that the keep comments were ignoring policy for the sake of ignoring policy. Circular arguments don't count. Jay32183 03:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OverturnThe outcome was most assuredly "NO consensus" but some people care more about inane policy procedures than wikipedia itself. I think the decision made was based on bias and innapropriate, especially in that it ignored a large amount of contributors for very specious reasons. Anyway, as the current 13-13 vote (by my count) stands on this page, its pretty easy to see the lack of consensus for deletion. Thank you. 03:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Deletes backed by policy (and common sense imo), keeps backed by IAR (why?) ad. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place for giant summaries of works. Is Wikibooks a more appropriate place for a massive plot summary? The Les Mis article isn't even that long... Wickethewok 04:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - and I say this as one of the people who advocated keeping the article in the original AfD. I'm disappointed to see the result of the AfD, but I believe the closing admin made the right decision. In the absence of a clear consensus, he examined the arguments used by both sides, and determined the arguments for deletion were stronger: they were backed by core policies, while ours (those of the 'Keep' side) were not. Our arguments were based around IAR, and while I still believe this would have been an appropriate application of that policy, I concede that it needs a strong consensus to overturn arguments based on core policies, and that consensus was simply not present. Deletion was, regrettably, the correct response. Terraxos 19:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - No offence to the keep voters in the original AFD, but which idiot votes "Keep - IAR"? You're more likely to have the result go your way if you had voted "Delete - IAR". The article was not original research, it's obviously sourced from Les Miserables. For a novel such as this, a subarticle on the plot is clearly a valid subarticle should the main article get too long. Of course, I have not seen the article, but I feel that with such a split of votes that this should have resulted in a non consensus keep, and that any problems with the article should have been addressed by those so adamant to keeping the article. - hahnchen 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you haven't seen the article, how can you say it's not original research? In order to delve into the level of detail required to summarize any plot to this extent, one must make choices when describing events that a reader can't verify by simply reading the back cover the book or such. To say "it's sourced because it's a plot summary" is not exactly realistic. Leebo T/C 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is realistic. You can summarise a plot without going into the realms of analysis (which would constitute original research). Take a look at sections such as Dog_Day_Afternoon#Plot or Final_Fantasy_XII#Plot. Given that one of them is a film, and the other is a computer game, I'm guessing that a rather lengthy novel could have enough content to cover an article, even with OR removed. - hahnchen 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of sourced analysis is exactly why the article violated WP:NOT#PLOT. Also, those two plot summaries combined wouldn't have equaled a quarter of the Les Mis plot article. But now this is turning into AfD part 2, which is not the point. Sorry for going off track. Leebo T/C 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Consensus is not, nor should it ever be, a counting of votes, so any arguments about it being a rough majority to keep mean that as far as I can see, at best you might be able to argue for a "no consensus". However, as the closing admin pointed out the keep !votes were arguing on the basis of IAR, or ILIKEIT, while the delete !votes were arguing on the basis of NOT#PLOT. IAR is always a dangerous thing to use, and (at least as I see it) there isn't much justification for its use here, since the first point of IAR pretty much says that NOT is still a consideration (after all, you aren't improving Wikipedia by including something that Wikipedia isn't, although I know there's been much discussion on whether IAR beats NOT or vice versa before). On that basis, then, the IAR keeps don't seem to be valid and the AfD was closed properly. Confusing Manifestation 22:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course--consensus isn't about numbers, it's about who's right. Well, I think my keep vote was right (and it was not based on IAR or ILIKEIT), and everyone who voted delete was wrong, so I say we disqualify all those opinions and we can say we have full consensus based on my vote alone. I mean, isn't that what consensus is all about? Everyking 08:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'd not outright discount the so-called "IAR" keep votes, but in an XfD discussion an argument based completely on IAR is inherently weaker than one based on established policy. When there exists concensus that a rule is deficient the proper place to address that would be in proposing a change to the deficient policy, not via referendum on an article. IAR is for exceptional circumstances and requires unmistakeable consensus in order to outweigh established policies. That was not the case here. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is addressed to both Arkyan and other editors who have made essentially the same point: Where is your basis in policy for saying IAR is for "exceptional circumstances"? How can you define "exceptional circumstances" in a neutral way? How is it that IAR is not "established policy" (and please define what established policy is)? If you don't "outright discount" the IAR votes, I don't see how you find consensus here, and I think your endorsement is an endorsement of what really was dismissal as the closing editor put it. Who are you to ignore the policy-based !votes of editors just like yourself who had a different opinion? How is it that their contributions don't count at all until they're a consensus? If their votes matter when the vote is overwhelming, then the votes must still matter if they're a strong minority (all other things being equal). The closing admin can't discount further based simply on whether a position has 60 percent or 30 percent of the participants. Not a single one of my questions here is rhetorical -- they need answers. Noroton 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I ask you, what is the definition of consensus to you? Consensus is neither just a number nor just an argument. The Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus guideline you have pointed to multiple times does not have a number minimum. There was a clear majority of "delete" !votes, and those who !voted delete made stronger, more policy based arguments than "keep" !votes. The combination of a stronger, more cogent argument with a majority of more than a couple of !votes creates, in my opinion, a clear consensus. bwowen talk•contribs 21:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, those who !voted delete and those who voted !keep both made policy arguments. You seem unable to accept that invoking WP:IAR is a policy argument when it is. IAR was dismissed by the closing admin not because the argument for it was good or bad but because the argument was raised at all, meaning the closing admin acted as if it didn't exist as a policy. That decision by the closing admin was out of policy. Noroton 02:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my interpretation that WP:IAR exists to address fundamental deficiencies in current policy and guidelines. WP:WIARM addresses the fact that guidelines may have loopholes and exceptions, the fact that consensus on Wikipedia is not set in stone and thus any and all rules are subject to interpretation. But WIARM also dictates that IAR is not to be used as a trump card to justify every "outside the norm" action. A reasonable justification is required. In this particular case, the stated justification(s) were in the minority and there was thus no consensus that the IAR invocation was justified. Seraphimblade summed up the remainder of my train of thought previously - when there is no consensus that IAR is a justified reason for circumventing another rule, it becomes a weak argument. When the majority of the !votes are to delete and the "keep" minority is based on a weakened argument, it is not outside the purview of the closing administrator to interpret this as a consensus to delete. It is my interpretation of all the policies involved, including IAR, that this was not closed inappropriately and thus I will endorse it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A reasonable justification is required" — any administrator who tries to assess the justification for IAR becomes the supervoter in the discussion, because the nature of IAR is different from the nature of other Wikipedia policies and guidelines: The purpose of IAR is broader than all the other rules, and the only justification for invoking it is essentially that Wikipedia would be harmed in some way if an exception were not made to some other policy or guideline. Having administrators decide whether the reason for invoking IAR is good enough or not arrogates power to administrators that belongs to the editors participating in the discussion forum. (This assumes that Kurykh actually judged the arguments for invoking IAR rather than just dismissed all invocations of IAR, which is much worse.) The only role for an administrator in judging whether IAR can be invoked is to decide whether the reasoning is -- very, very broadly -- something that a reasonable person with Wikipedia's best interests at heart could subscribe to, whether or not the administrator agrees with that reasoning.Noroton 02:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can all agree that in any XfD debate, the arguments presented are always subject to review and assessment by the closing administrator. Merely citing a relevant policy or guideline may not be enough. Again, IAR is not a carte blanche argument to excuse an article from having to meet inclusion criteria. As you say, the core reason for citing IAR is a belief that Wikipedia will be harmed if a particular rule is not broken. Absent any compelling argument as to why the 'pedia will be harmed, all we have is nothing more than just a belief. On its face there is nothing wrong with this argument, but it is not a compelling argument by itself. I believe what we have here is a fundamental philosophical difference regarding the use of IAR, particularly in deletion discussions. I feel that an invocation of IAR requires justification to be a useful argument, whereas you seem to believe that an invocation of IAR is sufficient on its own (at least that's how I interperet your stance, pardon me if I am incorrect). I do not think either of our arguments are going to sway the other, and at this point it is likely best to simply agree to disagree and await the judgement of the community on this matter. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find some of your points, and some points brought up by other editors here, very persuasive. I'm going to suggest (below) an idea that might actually bring some consensus to this discussion. I agree with you that no editor can simply invoke IAR and have it stick -- there must always be a check and that always has to come largely from other editors. When it comes to deletion discussions, I think we have to respect the consensus of the editors, so I think the primary check should be consensus, not administrators. As I think about it though, I can see potential for abuse as fans of some subject swamp the deletion discussion and carve out an exception in the rules for no good Wikipedian reason. And yet passing over the same decision simply to the closing admin is just as likely to create an opening for abuse. See A possible way forward below. Noroton 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no consensus to delete. When in doubt, don't delete. Also while I am a strong proponent of process and like to see IAR used as sparingly as possible, I do not agree with the comments that IAR has no place in XfD. I think that anywhere the result is clearly contrary to the goal of building an encyclopedia, IAR can apply. Where better than when deleting a useful article would result due to the rigid interpretation of a guideline or a broad interpretation of a policy. (I am not saying that is the case here, I am not opining on whether this is worth keeping, just that the argument cannot be written off as invalid). -- DS1953 talk 04:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. We have no place on Wikipedia for original research. A brief precis of plot of a novel is appropriate for Wikipedia; a long section, much less a whole article, about the plot (as opposed to a sourced article discussing significant critiques of the plot) is absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia. If you want to engage in that kind of creative venture, try wikibooks or something. And if adherence to process would have resulted in this monstrosity being kept, then let that be yet one more nail in the coffin of process. --Tony Sidaway 13:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original research? Let me repeat this for the editors in this discussion who have made this assertion: It. Is. Common. Practice. In. Wikipedia. There is nothing different about this plot summary, other than length, with every or nearly every plot summary in the entire encyclopedia. Your problem is with commonly accepted practice. It makes not one bit of difference that this long summary of this long book is longer than the shorter summaries of shorter books. It is no more "creative" than writing anything else in Wikipedia articles — in fact, it is quite a bit less creative because the purpose is far narrower. We have a source for every single word in every single plot summary: the original work. It happens to be the best, most reliable source available. Anybody who writes an encyclopedia takes information and (unless they're violating copyright) puts information in the writer's own words. Anybody who does that must — by necessity — make decisions about how to describe something or impart some information. I do not understand how any editors who have actually written articles can make this WP:OR charge. The idea of relying on other sources is a technicality that has absolutely no practical value, which is why we've always done it this way. Please take your objections to the relevant policy page. Best of luck with it. Noroton 23:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may, in fact, be why NOT#PLOT exists. Plot summaries usually are not sourced, that seems to be true from what I've seen - but plot summaries are not supposed to be entire articles. Individual articles, in order to be encyclopedic and give a full amount of information about a topic, need sourcing. Also, editors are clear on your positions in this DRV. You do not need to post rebuttals to every comment made, as it can fray nerves and inflame emotions. As I said to you before on your talk page, I'd recommend you let this DRV run its course and not worry about it until after the DRV is over. Thank you for your time. bwowen talk•contribs 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response on procedural points: Actually, I'm arguing the subject and I'm drawing out people on the subject who are making assertions when reasons for assertions are what's useful. That's what a discussion (as opposed to a vote) is supposed to be about. I have nothing to regret in doing that, and in fact I'm pleased that people are discussing some extremely important issues more fully. The only proper objections are (a) length (in this case it just can't be helped, there's a lot of substance to discuss) or (b) the discussion is becoming unproductive because too much heat and not enough light is being generated, and that just isn't the case. Some editors have ignored arguments already put forth, and I want to see what their reactions are to those arguments. Some very useful points have been developed by the back-and-forth. People have almost entirely stuck to the issues. I notice that even when you're telling me that I should be backing off on making a point, it comes right after you've made a point -- kind of hard to refrain from doing in an important discussion, isn't it? And if you feel you've got a useful point to make that helps the discussion, why refrain? Noroton 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response on substantive points: No, every single plot summary is sourced. By definition. This article, you may recall, did include a few footnotes. I put some in at the top only to mention that four books like Cliff's Notes had been published (and are still in print) that focused on the plot. I did that for notability reasons. I think it was DGG who put some links to academic article descriptions from JSTOR (the actual articles are behind a subscription wall). I proposed on the talk page of WP:NOT what I considered a useful change: Allowing plot articles that gave full treatment of the plot but that allowed for longer plot summaries than a typical section of a Wikipedia article (in effect, creating an exception to a rule about overwhelming an article with inordinate emphasis on one point -- in this case, plot summary). That would have created a space in the rules for a long plot summary in an article that met some of the objections of some editors. I plan to revive discussion of that after this DRV is over. Noroton 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Noroton, if you're telling me that this deleted item was simply a long description of the plot with no creative input, no critique, and no commentary, then obviously it wasn't a Wikipedia article at all. And as for length, our plot summary for War and Peace is about 1,000 words. The article Les Misérables itself has a perfectly good 900-word plot summary. You hardly need a separate article for a decent plot summary, let alone this 6,000 word monstrosity! --Tony Sidaway 23:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony, thanks for your interest, but deletion review discussions are for discussing whether the AfD was closed for good Wikipedia policy reasons or for new information. Comments that don't contribute to that don't get counted by the closing admin of this discussion. Noroton 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think you're trying to say that the points I make are worthless. I think we'll have to agree to differ on that. That the deleted article was redundant, original research and devoid of use is certainly relevant to whether the deletion debate was closed correctly. The purpose of the deletion policy is to delete worthless articles and to retain good ones. If it produced the correct result in this case, that's all I have to show. --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - There was no consensus to delete, so article should have been kept. --Jack Merridew 13:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, could you please elaborate a little more? My opinion is that consensus absolutely existed; I'll spare everyone typing that argument out again and ask you to scroll up and look at my earlier comments to see my exact opinions about it. Thanks, bwowen talk•contribs 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A possible way forward I don't envy the closing admin. The raw vote indicates no consensus and yet WP:IAR clearly stands in policy and was invoked in good faith by serious editors. I think the "endorse" side is in an uncomfortable position of, on the one hand, wanting to support rules as a check on anarchy and on the other hand having to ignore a rule WP:IAR or mutiny against it. I haven't seen a rules-based defense of summarily tossing out IAR votes and it's pretty evident that there hasn't been a case made that the closing admin seriously evaluated them. And yet I've been swayed by some arguments that for practical reasons we can't have groups of editors, in an unchecked way, invoking IAR in deletion discussions and forming consensus around that, because that could erode all other rules.
We have administrators to check raw consensus and we have DRV to check administrators. Since IAR is, in fact, policy, and we should not, in fact, avoid recognizing that it is policy, we should incorporate IAR into the system we have now. It wouldn't require any changes in policy or guidelines, although spelling it out in a guideline (probably WP:DGFA would be a good idea.
I would incorporate it this way: Recognize the right that editors have to invoke WP:IAR in deletion discussions. After all, that reflects policy as it stands. But then recognize the right of closing admins to check WP:IAR by invoking it themselves in those cases where IAR has gotten enough support to affect the consensus (or cause there to be no consensus, as I say happened here). In this case, Kurykh would be allowed to invoke IAR, saying that if the no-consensus position stood it would harm Wikipedia. In any other case, a closing admin invoking IAR would be a rare thing, but if it is invoked in a deletion discussion to counter an invocation of it by editors in that discussion, it should simply be considered another tool a closing admin has to figure out whether there is a consensus. If editors like me are going to say, for instance, that the plot summary of Les Mis is simply too important to leave out of Wikipedia and therefore WP:NOT#PLOT should be ignored in this case, then closing admins like Kurykh should be able to say, "I disagree, I don't think that it's important enough" just as if he were participating in the discussion. The reason is that the power of a deletion consensus, like everything else needs checks and balances, and if IAR is invoked, that's the only check and balance that we have. Further, to prevent a closing admin from abusing that power, we should be able to take the matter to Deletion Review and DRV editors should also have the power to invoke WP:IAR (as, actually, we already do have that power). Invoking IAR would mean that DRV discussions in cases where IAR is invoked in the original deletion discussion and has affected whether there is or is not consensus should be able to bring up all the good or bad reasons that an article should be deleted or not, contrary to usual DRV policy.
Look at how editors have been tied in knots in this discussion over the contradictions in invoking or supressing IAR: Maclean has said I've contradicted it by not acknowledging that Kurykh should have it. I've said that another editor will have no grounds to stand on if, when denying others the right to invoke IAR in deletion forums, that editor's own vote is ignored in this forum by the poor closing admin who's taken on the task of reading through this novel-length discussion. IAR is fundamentally unlike any other Wikipedia rule because it's basically an anti-rule. We are forced to treat it differently and use it differently, and yet, because it's a rule, we are forced to recognize it. Anything else leads to editors being silent about it and ignoring it or coming up with untenable justifications for doing so. I think this discussion has been an illustration of that.
My suggestion, as outlined above, is a compromise: I don't get to use consensus (or in this case, the result of no consensus) to force IAR, Kurykh does get to overturn consensus, but he's encouraged to do so explicitly, and DRV remains to put a check on Kurykh. You could call invocations of all these possible IARs a little messy, but I would call the evasions that currently go on something worse than messy.
I would rather have a consensus here that recognizes the Wikipedia policies we now have and that recognizes a way of adjusting our behavior to those policies rather than have a lack of consensus here that just makes us all cynical and embitters us in the future. Because when we hide behind administrator authority or invoke one policy while ignoring the other or set up administrators as all-supreme czars or consensus as some all-supreme mob, we harm Wikipedia.
Not that it matters in any practical sense, but if several editors on the endorse-side will agree with me that using IAR in this way is a better way forward, I'll change my own !vote to endorse. We should also consider putting this idea in a guideline, probably WP:DGFA. Noroton 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC) {edit in third paragraph: "to counter an invocation of it by editors in that discussion" Noroton 18:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I for one appreciate the attempt to reach some kind of consensus on this issue. Lenghty discussions involving IAR tend to be difficult because, as IAR is a unique policy, it presents unique sorts of problems. Its invocation can be subject to abuse - but then so can a fanatical devotion to a literal interpretation of the existing rules. IAR is really just a policy extension of the fifth point in WP:FIVE and an acknowledgement of the fact that Wikipedia will never reach perfection - but will undergo numerous changes in the pursuit thereof. With the exception of few solid and straightforward rules such as copyright violations, all rules are subject to this constant evolution. IAR should help prevent us from getting mired down in the status quo and becoming resistant to change. I for one find your compromise to be an acceptable solution - or at least direction - in this problem. IAR cannot be ingored but it also cannot be used as an ultimate rule to trump all other process. Interestingly, Kurykh did (originally) close this as an "IAR delete", just as your compromise allows. Fortunately, that's why we have DRV, to ensure that admins aren't abusing policy for their own gain. The near even divide between those endorsing and rejecting this closure illustrates that perhaps there is a deficiency in current policy regarding plot summaries, but that would be the sort of thing best handled by a broader discussion forum. In the meantime, I feel your compromise is a good way to move forward with this deletion debate, at least. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, Noroton, could you please post that in the form of a one or two sentence response? I understood almost none of that. Also, would this "new" system allow editors to invoke IAR just to make a "policy-based" WP:ILIKEIT argument? bwowen talk•contribs 20:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

13 July 2007

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

This has been deleted by AfD, has had a DRV which clearly indicated the consensus was to endorse deletion, but it got undeleted anyway. The article has three references: one is to the site's website itself and two are just passing mentions of the site. And based on the Wired article, Pownce appears to be in a closed beta (at least as of less than three weeks ago). There is nothing in this article that even implies notability save for the person who started it. Undeletion was improper, it should be deleted again. Corvus cornix 23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a redirect to the social networking websites "# (cur) (last) 13:01, 10 July 2007 Zscout370 (Talk | contribs | block) (36 bytes) (for now #REDIRECT Social network service; it is a social network site that I am seeing on the news, but I agree we should wait and see if the site does much once it goes "alpha live")." The restoration was done by someone else, listed at here: "14:20, 10 July 2007 Fuzheado (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Pownce" (38 revisions restored: obviously notable, article in BusinessWeek)." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Zscout, I misread the history. Corvus cornix 01:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, it happens. Anyways, relist due to the new information presented. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy relist. This article has never actually gone through a full afd; it should. No reason for a second DRV. Chick Bowen 01:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This has new info: the Buisness week citation, now in the article, which is non-trivial. List it on AfD if you like, it shouldn't be deleted as a recreation. Also, the AfD should not be clsoed early on this one. DES (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no need to relist -- have you all lost all common sense? A web site mentioned prominently in Business Week and Silicon Valley publications is a speedy keep. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, we're not a magazine or newspaper, "mentioned in Business Week" is a good reason to consider again, but by no means a reason to speedy keep. And the fame or not of the founder has absolutely no bearing on whether we should keep the article or not, I'm not getting that one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as the books of a notable author, or the albums of a notable band, are normally themselves notable, the buisness projects of a highly notable investor are more likely to be notable than those of an unknown. And it was more than a mentuion, it was the focus of a multi-page article in BW, I think that counts as "non-trivial coverage by an independant source" DES (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it used to say "multiple independent sources", which was far better, we shouldn't rely on a single source. I've also never believed that notability is inherited. Album, book, etc. articles should stand or fall based upon the coverage that subject has received, not on who produced it. For less-noted works, we can always make a short mention in the article about the author, band, etc., and split back out if more sourcing becomes available in the future. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting is optional by definition... you don't need a DRV for that. But as much fun as it is to delete an article on some website, there seems to be way more than just the Business Week source [8]. --W.marsh 14:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, Fuzheado's undeletion was perfectly proper. Don't relist and don't redelete. Picaroon (Talk) 04:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted per common sense.  Grue  13:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More inline sources added to article. DES (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Grue. I also note 4,650,000 hits in Google, is this really "non-notable"? Walkerma 01:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman – Since the existence of BLP concerns is disputed by the DRV consensus below, the article will be restored -- but protected blank -- and referred to AfD to consider whether deletion, merging, or the independent existence of the article is appropriate. – Xoloz 01:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is (was) an article about a child, now 3 years old, who developed meningococcal septicaemia aged six months, which led to her having all four limbs amputated, and who was not expected to survive, yet she did. The article was speedily deleted by User:Doc glasgow and again by User:Swatjester with the comments "WP:BLP and WP:NOT", by which, I believe, they meant that the publicity from having such an article in our encyclopedia would be painful or harmful to the child, her parents, and other living persons mentioned in the article. However, I believe those two fine administrators were either unaware of or did not have the time to look at (SJ says he doesn't even now), http://www.babycharlotte.co.nz/, the public web page maintained and regularly updated by the baby's parents which tells the child's story, with photos and videos, including a television appearance, provides a specific link to search Google for others, maintains a trust raising funds for the child, asks companies to sponsor specific projects, and thanks contributors, so apparently the trust is successful. In short, it seems that the parents believe that additional publicity for the child isn't a bad thing, but a good thing, in fact it helps them provide for the child's non-negligible expenses. They aren't ashamed of their daughter's handicap, as much as they are proud of the child's achievements in overcoming it. I don't think the intent of WP:BLP is for us to think we are wiser than they and protect them from publicity in spite of themselves. For what it's worth, I do believe the child is sufficiently notable to have an article due to multiple independent and continuing news and documentary coverage (see that Google link for example), but that part can be discussed at a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if people like, I am merely addressing the WP:BLP speedy deletion reason here. BTW, this was mentioned in a certain larger arbitration case which got somewhat heated, but I hope can be avoided here, so this discussion not be equally heated. Let's talk about the article, not the editors involved. Could everyone try really hard? AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion The grounds by which this is speediable under WP:BLP seems somewhat questionable, but I'd say it's a reasonably valid A7. It's a sad case and it's wonderful that she didn't die, but making a medical recovery against the odds and at a young age doesn't necessarily mean an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I went on too long about the BLP then, and not enough about the notability, sorry. Did you miss the part where I wrote she has been covered by newspapers [9], television [10], and a documentary [11], over the course of all three years of her life? "public face of the meningococcal campaign - 2006" "fourth set of new limbs - 2005" "disease ravages angel - 2004" Her story is a big deal in the NZ medical community.[12] There were 4 references in the deleted article, dated 2004-2006. AFD debate or BLP deletion perhaps, but I can't imagine this as a speedy deletion for no assertion of notability. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge, it looks like a news story to me, and those only go as full articles over here, but it could serve as great material in the article about the disease, and perhaps in articles about child surgery. I really don't see the BLP concern, though, there's no indication whatsoever that the family is averse to or hurt by publicity. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and discuss at afd. it does not meetthe conditions for speedy as non-notable A7 because it asserts notable, nor for BLp, per Seraohimblade. Therefore it should be discussed at Afd where the questions raised above can be decided by the community. this is not the place for the discussion- DR is not a substitute for AFD. DGG (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per DGG. DES (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion this is not a biography it's a case history, mention it at the article for the disease if you like but this is really just another tabloid piece. Guy (Help!) 03:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP is clear that individuals only notable for a particular incident are unlikely to be notable enough for their own article. This person is only notable because of a childhood illness.... The biographic article should stay deleted. As adding material to the disease article is independent of the existence of this article, there's no need to worry about merging in this discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person is notable for the information about the campaign for vaccination in New Zealand and elsewhere. Obviously neccessary - if we speak about "the desease". It is named Meningitis, the particular crisis was a Waterhouse-Friderichsen syndrome and vaccination is possible but has to be supported by state in areas where population cannot afford the vaccination for its children. This is what the demonstrations in New Sealand are about. Greetings from Germany, Simplicius 11:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion although this is admittedly borderline on being a speedy candidate. However, I agree with the BLP issues raised above (single-issue notability). Eusebeus 15:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn clearly answers the concerns raised in the speedy. Anchoress 20:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn, list on AfD maybe merging per logic of DGG, consider merging per Seraphim's comments. There's no BLP issue when the parents in question (who are the relevant people) clearly don't care or if anything want the child to be in the public eye. Whatever the final result, there was no need delete per BLP given the large number of sources and cooperation from the family with news sources. JoshuaZ 20:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subject's wishes are only one factor, and not the most important one. We don't delete articles upon request nor create them upon request. This person is not notable apart from a single event, as I pointed out before. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being notable for one thing is why we should consider merging. The subjects wishes are very relevant when the claimed basis for deletion is BLP. In particular, the lack of problems with publicity undermines any basis for a speedy deletion due to BLP. JoshuaZ 23:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, did not meet any of the speedy criteria Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge per logic above. violet/riga (t) 08:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above.  Grue  13:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list The BLP spirit of "do no harm", in this case, calls for having an article. (More vaccination leads to less harm to others, and we do not act in loco parentis when we act contrary to the expressed desires of the parents.) So the BLP deletion clearly needs to be overturned, because this deletion was actively against the spirit of BLP. As notability is debated above, and AFD is the proper forum for evaluating that, the article should be sent to AFD. GRBerry 12:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The subject simply doesn't merit an article. A mention as a case history may be merited on an article such as septicaemia, though probably not. What parents, and newspapers, and broadcasters, find interesting and important does not decide what should go into an encyclopedia. Moreover this individual's experiences fall short of the relevant biographies of living persons threshold for individual biographies by a mile. Collecting these pseudo-biographies of infants who have suffered some misfortune or other has little if anything to do with constructing an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No real claim of notability here. Having an unusual medical condition is not grounds for a biography in an encyclopedia. This falls within speedy deletion criteria, I think, as the existence of sources is not the issue. The existence of thrid party sources are a red herring here. The same as local bands, small businesses, college professors, or many other types of non-notable subjects, some people might generate mention in the media but still not be notable per our standards about what is encyclopedic. FloNight 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the coverage she has gotten is impressive; if a local band got three years worth of regular newspaper articles, television programs, and documentaries, all of nation-wide scope, it would be indubitably notable. However, due to the BLP speedy grounds, I can't rewrite the article and actually show it; so one side of this argument is arguing with one hand tied behind our backs. Please, allow recreation, give me a few days to actually write the article to show the notice the case has gotten. If you then still believe it to be non-notable, send it to AfD; but otherwise the speedy deletion is being used as an end-run around a truly fair appraisal of the article. That's what AfD is for, not speedy deletion. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      If you simply wanted to rewrite, couldn't you have done that without all this song and dance? Even now you don't need permission to write the article. --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, actually I do. See, arbcom has admonished the last admin who did just that, for "undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness". In other words, because BLP was cited as one of the speedy deletion reasons, I absolutely do need all this song and dance.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're confusing two things here. If you wanted to undelete, you should not do so without consensus. To create a completely new article, however, which is what I think you mean when you say "allow recreation, give me a few days to actually write the article to show the notice the case has gotten", you're asking for permission you don't need. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I hope you're right, Tony, but that's not at all clear. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Having an unusual medical condition is not grounds for a biography in an encyclopedia." Actually, that's not my argument, my argument is Wikipedia:Notability, which she clearly meets, with extensive continuing coverage, not just of one event, of her whole life. However, yes, having an unusual medical condition, and the way the world reacts to that, certainly can be grounds for a biography in an encyclopedia: Robert Wadlow; Joseph Merrick; Laura Bridgman ; Joseph Merrick, Britannica Laura Bridgman, Britannica --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm thinking that those people have encyclopedia articles for other reasons than having a medical condition. Such as Wadlow is a record holder as the tallest person, Bridgman is the first deaf-blind American child to gain a significant education in the English language, Merrick is very well known in popular culture as The Elephant Man due to his relationship with the royal family, bioghraphies, and a successful modern film. I'm still not seeing Cleverley-Bisman as an encyclopedia article...an full biography...rather I see some encyclopedic quality content that could go in several articles. FloNight 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's rather silly to put Charlotte in the same category as Joseph Merrick. For one thing, Merrick has over 3000 current hits in Google Scholar, while Charlotte has not even had a LexisNexis hit in the last 12 months. Thatcher131 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, possibly list on AFD for a regular discussion. There do not appear to be any BLP issues here; nothing negative in the article, plenty of press coverage, everything should be sourceable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a collection of survivor stories (whether disease, crime, natural disaster, etc.) Certainly you could add Charlotte's case to the article on Meningitis as a notable example, and include the drive for vaccination. However, as the subject for a biography I can't see any three-year old being important enough for a biogrpahical entry, or having sufficient independent reliable sources (most/all of the info comes from her parents). One indication of importance (as distinguished from "notability") is inadvertently proven by AnonEMouse above. The famous disease sufferers he mentions have all survived the test of time; there are thousands of current hits in Google Scholar, for example. In contrast, there isn't even a LexisNexis newspaper hit on Charlotte more recent than 12 months ago. American cable TV shows real-life medical and forensic cases constantly: American Justice, Cold Case Files, City Confidential, Impact:Stories of Survival, Code Blue. There's an entire cable channel (Discovery Health) devoted to medical emergencies that has to somehow fill 8760 hours of programming a year. Surely we draw the line somewhere. Thatcher131 20:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely we don't demand that coverage continue indefinitely - would we delete the article of every person who doesn't get Lexis-Nexis hits in the past year? She got continuous coverage for 3 years, that shows it's not just one event. International interest continues to this day. (Finland television, for example). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily, but I believe it has some bearing on the relative importance of a 3 year old. For example, there are recent stories on Chernobyl survivors. Or, take 5 cheerleaders who tragically died a week after graduation in a head-on accident. Just local news until the sheriff reported that the driver's cell phone had been sending and receiving text messages, and in fact had recieved a message less than 30 seconds before the fatal crash. Now the story is world-wide. Still just a newspaper story. It is not suddenly more encyclopedic because of the texting angle, just as I believe Charlotte's story is not made more encyclopedic than any other childhood survivor of crippling disease by the especially severe outcome, or by continued interest in the documentary, or by the parents' efforts to advocate for vaccination. Thatcher131 01:29, 18 July 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.
Barnraisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
After the AFD this was recreated twice. The authors appear to be attempting a DRV given the tag at the top of the article but failed to list it, so I’m doing it for them. But don’t worry, this is not one of those “procedural listings.” I do think the administrator who closed the AFD came to the wrong conclusion.

First, as Kubigula noted in the AFD, additional references were added midway through the AFD and opinions expressed before that should be discounted. After that point, 2 users (Kubigula and me) opined that the amount of source material was sufficient to keep the article, and 1 user (17Drew) opined the opposite. 2 others users (Giggy and SalaSkan) !voted delete without giving any indication that they examined the sources at all. AFD is a discussion, not a vote, and drive-by votes that add nothing to the discussion should be given no weight.

I do think this is a borderline case given the lack of depth of the two sources whose subject is this band. However among the users who opined after additional references were added to the article, and who gave an opinion that was based on looking at the sources, it was 2 to 1 to keep. The result of the AFD should have been keep or no consensus. Overturn and restore the revisions that Neil deleted when he closed the AFD. Pan Dan 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as closer. Following the additional sources, the opining was actually 3 to 1 in favour of deletion per failing WP:BAND. There were a total of two editors plus the creator of the article who argued for retention. There were many many more who argued in favour of deletion. The "multiple reliable 3rd party sources" cited by the few "keep"ers were pretty sketchy, and the band has had no releases to support passing WP:BAND. Neil ╦ 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thank Neil ╦ for his comments but perhaps he should re-read category WP:Band which clearly states that a band is notable if it meets any one of the criteria listed. As stated on multiple occassions, The Barnraisers clearly meet points 1 and 7, therefore the fact that this band has yet to release any material is irrelevant. Also with regard to the 3rd party sources not being reliable please refer to User:Emerson1975's comments on Talk:Barnraisers regarding the credibility of the references cited. Also, the so called 'many, many more who argued in favour of deletion' failed to cite adequate reasons for doing so. See Pan Dan's comment above.Dajbow 17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Pretty close call given that there are a couple of sources, but the sources are both local. This just doesn't seem like a noteworthy band to me at this point. NawlinWiki 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again. Nothing in WP:Band states that sources can't be from well established local sources. This just stresses further that the band does in fact meet criteria number 7 in WP:Band. Also, please note that there are multiple sources, not just a couple as mentioned by NawlinWiki, including a live radio interview and further review articles.Dajbow 18:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BAND states that a band is notable if it meets "any one" of the listed criteria. The band has indeed "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" such as "newspaper articles" and "magazine articles". And as those cited articles demonstrate the band has met criterion 7 which states the band "has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". It seems reasonable that if becoming representative of a "local scene of a city" is grounds for notability then a newspaper (The Wilmington Star-News) or magazine (Encore Magazine) serving the readership of that city and the surrounding eight counties would demonstrate a legitimate claim to reliability. Emerson1975 18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum Newspaper states "Most nations have at least one newspaper that circulates throughout the whole country: a national newspaper, as contrasted with a local newspaper serving a city or region. In the United States and Canada, there are few truly national newspapers". Is it to be assumed that all Wikipedia articles must rely solely on the "few truly national newspapers" that circulate in the United States? Also, I would suggest NawlinWiki take a look at Chalkdust which lists as its only two sources The Anguillian which even if it were read by everyone in Anguilla would reach only 13,500 people and Caribbean Beat for which no distribution numbers could be found and has been in print since 1992, seven years less than Encore Magazine. Emerson1975 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, this is not AfD redux. The article is mainly trivia, and then a list of In The Press which seems like trying to justify the article. The Bluegrass wikilink at the top takes you to a disambig page rather than the correct topic, the external links include a myspace page and there is a youtube video listed. The AfD was a majority to 6 to 3, and I see no reason to overturn the closing admins descision. Darrenhusted 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've trimmed it down to make it conform to the correct format for bands, but the In The Press section still need to be integrated in to the article rather than forming a list. Darrenhusted 13:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and remove them, no page should list Myspace or Youtube as they are not reliable sources. I always delete them. Darrenhusted 20:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from removing external links. You are in no position to do so or comment on the reliability of myspace or YouTube. External links offer the reader alternative sites to find out more about a particular subject and are not used as references or indeed sources. I feel you fail to understand the basic difference between references and external links.Dajbow 23:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that youtube is a copyright violation, and that myspace is not a RS. No pages should have myspace links, and unless you can show you own and waive the copyright for the youtube clip then you should leave them off. I would work on improving the main body of the article rather then fighting a war over youtube and myspace, both of which are no more than linkspam, and the only place they should be listed as external links is on the articles for youtube and myspace. And this is really not the place for this discussion. Darrenhusted 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Providing a link to an external source does not violate copyright laws as far as I'm aware but if you can provide some reference to support this then I'll gladly remove the link. If I had posted the video on this Wikipedia page or any still images from this, then I could understand your concern. However, YouTube provides multiple options to link to videos from 3rd party sites. With regard to Myspace, it's also a legitimate external link and is not being used as a reference source in this article. Good luck, Darrenhusted, if you plan on having all myspace links removed from band pages on WikipediaDajbow 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum As a link to the YouTube video also appears on the Barnraiser's official website, I assume the band has no problem with the video and that the recording was done so with their approval.Dajbow 21:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "desire" to keep the article, Steve (Stephen) , is an attempt to battle the hypocrisy that has come to light in the process of its deletion. As I have stated several times, WP:BAND states that an article about a band must meet any one of the listed criteria. And I don't understand why everyone keeps pretending that it doesn't say that. The band indisputably satisfies criteria 1 and 7, at least. I am also shocked that the users who endorse deletion are doing so based on arguments that they have ignored in articles that they have created, and then have applied a "stub" notice to protect their articles from scrutiny. In short, Steve (Stephen) , it's the principle of the thing. Emerson1975 15:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete, the close was proper on its face, and consensus was unarguable regardless of how well or not the band actually meets WP:BAND. This is not AfD part deux. — Coren (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? I can see why you'd want to discount SPA or socks, but most AfD discussion is borne out of "drive-by" editor. You actually want uninvolved editors chiming in: if the only people who contribute are those who followed the link from the article, then you will unfailingly get a very biased discussion. — Coren (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I should have explained more clearly what I mean by "drive-by voter." (I strongly agree with you that uninvolved editors should contribute to the discussion.) By "drive-by voter" I mean someone who gives no indication that their opinion is based on more than a cursory look at the article, the subject, and the sources. Pan Dan 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes and no. There is an argument to be made that an article should be clearly notable enough that a cursory glance to the article and sources is sufficient to establish it. If I stumble on an AfD for an author, for instance, whose article talks only about an "upcoming" book, and which only has a blog and a press release as sources, I don't think there's a reason for me to start doing in-depth research beyond a quick google. The article should have had better sources/claims in the first place, or at the very least the contributors should vigorously defend the article in the AfD (and with better rationales than WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:ILIKEIT). I've never hesitated to switch a !vote around when someone brings in new information, but as a rule the article should be judged on its current merits, not on what it could hypothetically be. — Coren (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD participants didn't have to look for sources themselves in this case. The article already cited two articles in 3rd party publications whose subject was the band. It was possible to reach the conclusion, as 17Drew did, that those sources are not enough for a neutral Wikipedia article. But 17Drew was the only delete opiner (after the 2nd source was added to the article) who gave any indication at all that he looked at these sources. Pan Dan 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I wasn't commenting on this particular article, but on your comment on how to assess consensus (which has now gone all-meta and should probably be kept off this DRV). — Coren (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said that AfD participants should judge an article on its current merits. The gist of my response was that some delete opiners in this AfD failed to measure up even to that (relatively low) standard. (How is that not relevant to this DRV?) Pan Dan 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am slightly disturbed by the assertion that un-interested parties should not be involved in an AfD, after all if I happen on an article and think it has no merits then I would PROD it, if that PROD were removed then I would AfD it, and I regularly scan AfD to check to see if any articles up for deletion merit keeping. SPAs are almost always interested parties, whether it be to delete or keep, if a number of people look at an article and, having absolutely no prior knowledge of the subject, decide it is not worth keeping then surely this is consensus, and those who seem to have a vested interest in the article (like the creator) need to accept the majority. But saying that "drive-by" editor's opinions should be disregarded leaves all AfDs open to being stacked by single interest SPAs. This article was correctly deleted, and should return to that state. Darrenhusted 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are arguing against a straw man. Please, please, please read the above comments more carefully, especially this one:

    :::*I'm sorry, I should have explained more clearly what I mean by "drive-by voter." (I strongly agree with you that uninvolved editors [like me] should contribute to the discussion.) By "drive-by voter" I mean someone who gives no indication that their opinion is based on more than a cursory look at the article, the subject, and the sources. Pan Dan 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    . As an example, note that I consider myself an "uninterested, uninvolved" participant but certainly not a "drive-by" one, because I did examine the sources. I hope this clarifies things. Pan Dan 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are we all looking at the same article!?! Every statement in the article is referenced and each reference leads directly to the newspaper or magazine article that was cited. There are also several links to other Wikipedia entries. Plus my point wasn't that other flimsy articles exist so why not this well-documented one, it was that other flimsy articles are protected by stub labels because they were made by editors. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the reasons for deletion. I am beginning to think logic and truth are useless in the "Through the Looking Glass" world of Wikipedia. Emerson1975 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I participated in the original discussion. I said that there wasn't significant coverage of the band, and there isn't. The references provided are of questionable reliability. Some are just lists of performers, and others are definitely or appear to be self-published. There's quite a difference between "local" coverage and "some guy on Tripod.com". More to the point though, the AfD seems to have been closed properly to me. Kubigula's !vote was pretty much a different interpretation of how much coverage the band would need to pass WP:BAND, followed by a comment by Emerson1975 about how the publications are reliable (with no explanation for why they meet WP:RS) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 17Drew 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 17Drew please re-examine the references for this article. In particular references 4,8, 9 and 11. All are from credible sources. Please refer to earlier comments by myself and by Emerson1975 on Talk:Barnraisers regarding why they meet WP:RS.Dajbow 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to WP:RS "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." The newspaper articles that are referenced are from The Wilmington Star-News which has a circulation of 50,000+ each day and is owned by The New York Times Company and the magazine articles are from Encore Magazine, an entertainment magazine which has been in print for 22 years and circulates 20,000 issues each week. The review by "some guy on Tripod.com," as you put it, was added by Ricky81682, an administrator. Emerson1975 23:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, we keep getting told that the band meets #1 and #7 from WP:BAND. So for #1 they've had a few reviews and write-ups, as has even the shortest lived pub band. But for #7 where do we have the evidence that they are the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city? And let's not forget that WP:BAND is a guideline, not an absolute policy. And let's not forget what elements of WP:BAND they do not meet: never charted, no gold, no tours, no albums, no notable members, no awards, no competitions, no media, no radio, no TV! And yet we still keep getting told this band is notable? --Steve (Stephen) talk 05:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. While the band might, in a very technical sense, meet WP:BAND, there's just no reason I see that one like this would need to be included in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It seems to me to meet WP:N (or criteria 1 of BAND) in a pretty straightforward and non-technical way. Encore and the Wilmington paper are both respected and reliable third party sources. I see no compelling reason to deviate from the guideline. The close decision was certainly reasonable, but after looking at the article and the deletion arguements, I respectfully disagree.--Kubigula (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If and when the band actually release anything, or get significant non-trivial pres attention, there'd be no problem with an article being created then. Being deleted now doesn't mean it'll be gone forever. Neil ╦ 07:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to address this abiding demand for released material. I understand that things are quite different in other parts of the world, such as the UK, where press coverage is often hyperbole and mass popularity is generally seen as desirable, but this is not always the case in the US, and I suspect that is why the framers of Wikipedia saw the need to require "any one" of the elements that make a musician "worthy of notice" rather than requiring all of the possible guises of "fame", "importance" or "popularity". The band in question is a Bluegrass band, folk music that is by its nature not a mass market genre and relies heavily on live performance and grass roots support. And is not the point of an encyclopedia to offer gathered information on a vast array of subjects great and small, not just to act as a Who's Who of really popular stuff that is common knowledge anyway? Emerson1975 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This could possibly be the most ridiculous, subjective, and uninspired attack on the notability of an article that I have witnessed on this increasingly poor-excuse for a website. I came to Wikipedia to find more information on the Barnraisers, as I had recently seen them perform, and unwittingly stumbled upon this mess. Those of you attacking this submission; get over yourselves. Who honestly has this much free time to stage such a relentless, baseless crusade for the deletion of a bluegrass band? Did the Barnraisers somehow wrong you? Are they a threat to national security? Perhaps it is that you are the singular authority on all things music and anything outside your comfort zone scares you. By voting to delete this page, you are furthering the agenda of a "name brand society" that essentially dictates to the wiki audience who and what should be known. This faulty logic of needing a CD to be relevant is tiresome. The Barnraisers are a known entity--albeit not by the droves of crazed fans that you apparently require for notability. The citations and sources for the page are legitimate. There are plenty of wiki articles in existence with fewer references, far more obscure content, and somewhat questionable sources; some of them submitted by this article's biggest detractors. The critics of this page and those voting for deletion should be a little more introspective and take a closer look at their own contributions before casting their stones. All I ask is that you simply stop the hypocrisy. Though, if it is the case that the Barnraisers are, indeed, a threat to both Wikipedia and national security, please let us know.
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.
Obesanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This place was deleted as a hoax/nonsense article, when it clearly is absolutely not one. It's a place-name of several merely obscure little villages: one in Northumberland, one in East Riding of Yorkshire, and another in the Scottish Borders. This was deleted wrongly. His Third Grace 3Pd 11:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse deletion unless you actually have any evidence this isn't a hoax. I see none: [13]. --W.marsh 12:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion When a town has has no Google hits and doesn't show up on maps of the area, it's almost certainly a hoax. Source it or lose it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion was in-process, reasonable, and supported by policy. An opposite conclusion might also have been reasonable, and i might have opted for a keep had I noticed the AfD, but this isn't supposed to be AfD part 2, and I see no errors of process here. One sentence is hardly a major loss. If additional information can be found, preferably with sources, this could be recreated -- it has not been salted. DES (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; the onus of verifiability lies squarely on the editors of the article, not the closing admin (or AfD contributors). — Coren (talk) 17:28, 15 July 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.
Crimson Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A notable text editor. The first afd shows a strong response to keep the article (6 out of 9 vote for keep). The second afd has only 2 votes, which are "weak delete". There is not enough strong reason for deletion. minghong 10:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 3 actually, including the nominator. In my opinion, three unopposed delete votes is pretty much consensus to delete. If this fails, I will happily restore everything and start a third AfD to gain better consensus. —Anas talk? 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The nom would have us restore a non-notable article on a technicality and the idea that there's a quorum at AFD. We're not a bureaucracy. Is there any evidence to contradict the strong 2nd AFD nomination? I note that strong AFD noms tend to result in less participation, as no one really can refute them, and if the nom says it all a lot of people don't want to just say "delete per nom". --W.marsh 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per lack of reasoning. AfD has no quorum, and 2 votes (3 counting the nom) counts as consensus. Besides, while their votes may have been weak, their reasoning was strong and grounded in policy (non-notability and lack of reliable sources). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; "unopposed" is about as strong a consensus as you can get! I might have chosen to relist to garner stronger numbers, but the closure was correct. — Coren (talk) 16:56, 15 July 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.
Truth_in_Numbers:_The_Wikipedia_Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A lot of my solid reasons can be primarily found in User talk:NawlinWiki#My reply concerning "Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story". To expound that, its references have been added. Also, this article is not a crystal-balling stuff as it refers to a living, real-time collaborative media documentation as well as an upcoming feature film. Why does Wikipedia fail to acknowledge its upcoming documentary film about itself? Plus, Nic Hill, who is the director of that Wikidocumentary, has his own userpage here a la User:UDP and he has been trying pretty hard to woo several users to his announcements about his daily workings on this film like for instance from this talk taken from User:Deiz's talk page. Go ahead and prove me wrong if Jimmy Wales does not recognised this Wikipedia feature film when you asked him about it! What is more, some other foreign Wikipedias already has this upcoming film article in their place, these include the French Wikipedia, the Hindi Wikipedia, and even the Indonesian Wikipedia has a special Wikipedian page about it! But regrettably not in this Wikipedia at all albeit it is hugely well-known and no one seems to bother about it. Pole Heinz Tower 08:57, 13 July 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.
Anime_South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Addresses all reasons for previous deletion. Over 10 published citations are now used. Animesouth 05:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the very least, this should not have been a Speedy Deletion. 15 new citations created an article which allows it to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Since the article the article's deletion prevents it from being reviewed, the citations are listed below: [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

  1. ^ Sherman, Fraser (November 16, 2005), "Emerald Coast's first "anime" festival begins Friday" (PDF), The Destin Log
  2. ^ Delahanty, Patrick (2007-07-09), AnimeCons.com: Convention Schedule, retrieved 2007-07-09
  3. ^ Fandino, Daniel (2005-11-03), An Interview with the chairman of Anime South, retrieved 2007-07-09
  4. ^ ""The Anime South Show Part One"". Digital Frontier Plus Radio. November 13, 2006. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |serieslink= (help)
  5. ^ ""Finally, The Other Anime South Show!!!"". Digital Frontier Plus Radio. December 3, 2006. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |serieslink= (help)
  6. ^ "NexTag". “Hilton Sandestin Beach, Golf Resort & Spa in Destin, FL”. NexTag.com. Retrieved 2007-07-09. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  7. ^ Maboroshi (2005-11-19). "Anime South 2005". Risingsun.net. Retrieved 2007-07-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  8. ^ Tomecek, Nick (November 5, 2006), "Animenia", Northwest Florida Daily News
  9. ^ Sherman, Fraser (November 15, 2006), "Anime draws hundreds to Sandestin", The Destin Log
  10. ^ "Things to do", Northwest Florida Daily News, November 2, 2006
  11. ^ Sherman, Fraser (November 15, 2006), "Cartoon voices step into the spotlight", The Destin Log
  12. ^ Holt, Keri (November 15, 2006), "Anime fans up to speed on dating scene", The Destin Log
  13. ^ Maboroshi (2006-11-04). "Anime South 2006". Risingsun.net. Retrieved 2007-07-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  14. ^ "Weekend Guide", Northwest Florida Daily News, November 3, 2006
  15. ^ "Anime South 2007". AnimeSouth.com. Retrieved 2007-07-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
-Animesouth 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - sources seem to be trivial mentions that do not establish non-local interest in the event. Furthermore, there are WP:COI issues (as noted) - and also be wary of the fact that you seem to be a good-faith single-purpose account. Wikipedia is not a public relations service; there are other ways to promote your event. - Chardish 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People really need to tone down the COI stuff. We get it, it's there, but the guy still has a right to contribute. COI is something to keep in mind, not to beat someone to death about. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. We need to take COI seriously now rather than later: WP must be, firstly, a source of reliable and unbiased information, a mission obviously compromised if editsors write on subjects with which they have COI. We're now having some problems with coprorate COI as well, even from some fairly large companies one would expect to be above that sort of thing. As WP continues to become popular and attract press attention, COI is a problem which will only get worse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm having a tough time swallowing the method of thought that says the only way a directly related party in an article can contribute to Wikipedia is through issuing a press release, or somesuch. Original research is one thing...RCHM 21:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Nothing out procedure here. Eusebeus 15:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please note that this article meets all WP:COI guidelines. It is a very neutral article, and it is newsworthy, as seen by the sources given. There are 5 verified separate published news articles on this event. No other anime convention article on Wikipedia is as well-sourced. -Animesouth 16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn

- I'm concerned the veracity of this article's existance is being at least partly clouded by past interpersonal issues between users shown in various comments left, and would request more parties look at the picture in here. I see lots of badfaith presumptions executing here when I lurk around other articles' history sections and edit summaries, both by Animesouth(which I've openly criticised the behavior myself) and many other users as well. This seems like it's still leftover remnants from wether or not Anime_South was to be included in the List of anime conventions.

-This deletion seems peculiar in the face of some other anime conventions that still have articles and are strikingly similar. Some other users, such as Monocrat voiced similar concerns during the FIRST deletion back in January. Since then, similarly written articles for anime conventions continue to exist.

-If there's COI in the edits made by Animesouth, fine, revert them if so necessary. But I don't see a COI in the article's original creation. And (with respect to other anime convention articles) comparatively speaking, I see no notability problems with the last iteration of the article. The only thing I saw that should be removed is some things edited by Animesouth which are just too far into original research, and weak citations like blogs. Lets actually get into specifics. Below I shall state what I think needs to go as of last entry before deletion:

  1. 15 self referenced to the subject of the article, not the best source for a cite which should ideally be 3rd parties.
  2. 13 is a photo gallery, NOT an article or a reference.
  3. 8 is just a HORRIBLE image, but also is a footnote, not an article.
  4. 6 is nothing more than a link advertising services, and the section that references it Partnerships should be trimmed accordingly.
  5. 5 and #4 should go being only blog entries.
  6. 1 also should go as its nothing more than a pdf file of locked text, not an image record of some kind.

-Also, all remaining references being used as citations that are being hosted by Anime_South itself on their domain lack any kind of link on their own webpage which hampers the veracity of using them as citations. There isn't any information or linking in the NEWS section that discusses these on their webpage, or an IN THE PRESS section, which leads one to think those citations are only being hosted for Wikipedia's benefit. That narrows the scope of the cites usability significantly.

-Let me reiterate, I see no reason this article should be deleted especially considering the establishment of OTHER anime convention articles which have not or never been nominated for deletion in line with the reasons listed on Anime_South's first deletion. But I have no problem recognising that Animesouth's edits and contributions should be held with the highest of scrutiny to WP:COI. RCHM 23:15, 14 July 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.
Loserz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am only assisting the creation of this deletion review per request on my talk page. Hence, I have no opinion regarding the article in question.

The editor who challenges the deletion, Loriendark, said this regarding the deletion:

In this page's defense, I'd like to point to the fact that there is a webcomic section. This is a popular comic and it deserves a page to explain about it's origins, characters, plot and creator. It is no less than comics like Control Alt Delete, VG cats and Penny Arcade who still have pages on Wikipedia.

This page was deleted by NawlinWiki with this rationale:

a7 nonnotable webcomic, no sources

As stated before, I abstain from commenting on the merits of this case. Kurykh 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Loriendark also posted this on the talk page of the aforementioned article:

This page was posted for speedy deletion by someone who clearly does not understand the Webcomic section, is infact.. for webcomics. He did not give reason for its deletion. Could not backup why it was deleted and why other comic pages still exist. This is not about destroying an entire section, it is about improving Wikipedia as a whole. Not taking from it. This is utterly a disgrace.

—Kurykh 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Loserz comics themselves are hosted here after an issue with site host:http://loserzcomic.comicgenesis.com/
  • Loserz is recognised by:
  • Endorse deletion no new information to overturn AfD, article was unreferenced and would be deletable under A7. Also, fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was under construction and will have references. As I posted above. It is not an advertisement for Loserz, simply reference for all those who want to know more about the characters and plotline as well as the creator. I'm sorry, I don't believe you're looking at the precedent here. Loriendark 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Lori[reply]
  • Boy, the history here was convoluted at first glance, so I broke it down:
    • 2005-September 2006: Article created and grew organically
    • 2 September 2006: 1st AFD closed as "no consensus" by Xyrael
    • 10 September 2006: DRV sends it back to AFD
    • 15 September 2006: Second AFD closed as "delete" by Xoloz
    • 20 September 2006: Article recreated, then speedy deleted and WP:SALTed by Lucky 6:9
    • 12 July 2007: Article \recreated and speedy deleted by NawlinWiki.
  • So what deletion is actually being challenged here? The DRV Nom, such as it is, presents no real argument. The article needs sources towards meeting WP:WEB, not obviously invalid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. So endorse deletion for now pending actual arguments/evidence. No offense, Kurykh, but couldn't you have looked into this before bringing it into DRV? It's convoluted at first but once you figure out the essence of the complaint, there's really no credible argument for undeletion yet... this could have been told to the petitioner without the time of a DRV. --W.marsh 03:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, what would be needed for an article are real, reliable sources, not Comixpedia or the like. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion decision, but there's an article that could exist here in future; if the article was under construction then construct it in your namespace before bringing it here and asking for the okay to move it back into articlespace. Neil ╦ 08:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay, I'm new here, but I've done a bit of research both before and after putting the article back up- I think that the fan base, the number of other artists (Josh Lesnick of Go Girly and CuteWendy, notably) who respect and refer to Mr. Schoenek, the 25th best Webcomic of All Time rating, and the generally well-known nature of Loserz in the Webcomic community justifies leaving it up in its current incarnation including several references and external links, including the link to its rating at 25th best webcomic of all time- while Loserz may have more of a cult following than the mass appeal of some other webcomics, you will find few people who have been webcomic readers for a long time and have not come across Erik Schoenek's work. Article's previous incarnation lacked sources, but my version includes verifiable sources and references for notability. Saydrah 03:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems as though Wiki has it in for "Cult" status comics. Yet the comic "Something Positive" has just as cult a following and has a page here. Why axe the Loserz wiki page? It's being brought up to the standards of the rules, it's just taking a little time, I mean the page was only put up two freaking days ago, since then it's been given references and source links. Honestly now, why rush to delete? Give it two months. If it still doesn't meet the rules word for word as they've been laid out in the wiki rule book then delete it. I mean christ, even in the didgital age this stuff takes time. We're not all Wiki-editing masters you know.

Foomartini 07:59, 14 July 2007

  • Endorse deletion and salt, the first AfD was stacked with SPAs, the second AfD was conclusive, the two speedy deletes were correct, this second DRV should not be happening for an article already deleted three times. And once again we are in a situation where the Keep editors are treating this like AfDx3, ther has been nothing wrong with the deletions, this is not the second bite of the apple. And the "something positive" argument is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and has no place in a DRV. Darrenhusted 13:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does not matter if it was deleted three times. The issue is that it has enough references to now stand on its own as a n informative article about a popular webcomic in the webcomics section. It has been proven as a notable and entertaining comic and deserves its own Wikipedia page for those who'd like to know about the artist/author and his characters. He has a history with other comic sites and a fair fan base. Loriendark 01:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Lori[reply]
  • Endorse deletion As the closer of the AfD at issue here, I cannot close this DRV also. I can opine that the sources provided are not reliable, and offer no new information that would merit reconsideration. Xoloz 02:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

12 July 2007

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

Unknown to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittym (talk • contribs)

  • It was deleted for not asserting importance. It actually did assert importance ("the Manhattan Brewing Company pioneered the brewpub concept in New York City. The first working brewery in the city for many decades") but was probably actually deleted for being unformatted, uncategorized and unreferenced. --W.marsh 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional undelete Nomination is a complete non-sequiter, but I do think this subject is notable enough for an article. I'd like to see a better one than the deleted version, without adversting tone ("entrepreneural visionary") and with sources. Do that and this is... golden. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As W.marsh noted, it did claim importance. That claim, however, I find completely unbelievable; given the History of New York City includes European settlement back to 1613; every pub brewed its own beer at that point. The History of beer tells us that industrialization of beer brewing did not commence until the late 1700s. Absent a reliable source for the claim of notability, which the article conspicuously lacked, this wouldn't survive AFD. If such a source appears during DRV, send it to AFD, otherwise endorse deletion. GRBerry 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
& the article words it properly "first working brewery for many years"DGG (talk) 21:44, 12 July 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:Yogidude/Swami Shankarananda Saraswati (edit | [[Talk:User:Yogidude/Swami Shankarananda Saraswati|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Administrator Steve has indicated the page needs to go through the deletion review process. TheRingess nominated the page for speedy deletion minutes after it was posted on the grounds that it 'appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted...'.

As editor of the current page I assert that it is not a repost of deleted material. It perhaps has a common subject. But the current article contains none of the original articles material as was used as criteria to delete the original page. Incidentally I agree with the action to delete the original page, it was very short on factual content or verifiable citation. I respectfully request that the page be restored. Yogidude 13:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn G4 deletion WP:CSD#G4. The new article is significantly different than the old 3 sentence stub. It uses multiple sources, none of which are the one that was present in the old article. Whatever else it may be, it is not substantially identical, which is required for G4 to apply. GRBerry 13:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn, per same logic as GRBerry. JoshuaZ 16:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. While I applaud the author's research efforts, I feel that the coverage from sources is very bad. The sources are mostly self-published and thus not reliable. There is an interview, but the interviewing publication seems extremely highly specialized towards this particular area, and in any case, interviews aren't reliable for sourcing facts, just statements. This might be better discussed at AfD, though: I don't see the harm in moving it back and starting a new debate. The old version was not at all like this one. Mangojuicetalk 18:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, one of the seven references cited could perhaps be argued as self-published, the other six are by independent sources. In which case the seventh appears in a completely independent, highly regarded, (some would say authoritative) publication. Perhaps there is some confusion in the presentation? The three items appearing under the heading 'Bibliography' which, while listing books published by the person who is the subject of the Bio, are nevertheless not directly cited in the body of the article as references. In which case it may or may not be more appropriate further distinguish them in some way. Irrespective of the outcome of such consideration, the fact remains that the new article is completely different from the earlier one of the same name Yogidude 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to overturn. Yeah, I may be being overly picky here. I'm concerned about the lack of biographical coverage, but there is coverage of his work at least. Mangojuicetalk 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, tag the article if there are any major flaws, but since it was not the same article it does not qualify for G4 and should be given a chance for other editors to improve it. IPSOS (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. As it's significantly and substantially different from the preceding deleted article, G4 wasn't applicable. Mango's argument for keeping deleted would make an excellent argument for deletion in an AFD; this is not AFD. Neil ╦ 09:04, 13 July 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.
Alfian_Sa'at (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was deleted due to "BLP concerns"; when asked, deleting admin cited "exceptional circumstances" warranting its deletion that apparently can't be disclosed. As the editor who created the article, I recall no contentious or libelous information on the article, and without any idea of what was originally wrong with the article, I cannot recreate it to conform to whichever policy it ostensibly violated. I thus move for undeletion and clarification on what is wrong with the article so I can fix it. ryand 11:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see in the history a bunch of edit warring over material asserting some things about the sexuality of the subject. The primary participants appear to have been User:InfernoXV (adding material) and some IPs and newly registered editors. The first edit by InfernoXV appears to have been on June 18, and the prior version of June 14 (by User:Dirtybutclean) does not appear to have any BLP issues at all. The only other major section added since then was a couple paragraphs on the subject's name. As part of criteria for deleting BLP troubled articles is that the deleting admin has reviewed every version in the history and determined that every version fails BLP, the deletion should be overturned, as there are BLP compliant versions. However, since it has been deleted, why not simply partially restore versions through June 14, 2007. GRBerry 13:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the only problem with the article, unfortunately, and it isn't actually to do with the content per se. The best compromise would be to undelete a couple of versions which are free from any BLP issues, but with the strict understanding that none of the previous editors should be permitted to edit the page, given the conflict of interest which exists here. Nick 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh dear god, just overturn clearly notable as a person, even when we do have BLP concerns about factual issues we generally just revert and if necessary delete those reversion. If necessary partially restore per GRBerry's comment above. I presume that Nick will keep a close watch to make sure that the people with COIs do not make any serious edits to the articles. JoshuaZ 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn The BLP policy should be applied strictly, but only within the limits set by the policy. DGG (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per the others. This is a BLP issue that can be solved by editing, deleting the whole article was not necessary here. If after the article is restored, BLP-violating edits become a continuing problem, I would rather see harsh blocks applied than deletion to avoid the issue. Mangojuicetalk 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion as improper. any needed reversions, selective deeltions, protections, or editor sanctions to deal with past improepr edits, or prevent future ones, can then be applied. I might add that i can't see any good reason why the deelting admin was so reticient when questioned about the matter on his talk page. DES (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore - then clean up any BLP issues. TerriersFan 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete to June 14. I don't see anything too bad before then. Chick Bowen 01:16, 13 July 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.
Ipjobs.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

not an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. article is neutal and factual. it discusses a web based business in a factual manner but is not promotional as such - such articles are allowed by the guidelines 87.112.22.106 09:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • User:Rfwoolf/Evidence – Deletion endorsed, per the Black Falcon compromise. I will make available to the user the historical content of the page, solely for the purpose of the filing of an RfC. The consensus below does support the notion that information may not dwell endlessly on-site for the sake an RfC never actually filed. However, given the lack of clarity in process, it is reasonable to allow the user access to the content for its stated legitimate purpose. – Xoloz 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Rfwoolf/Evidence (edit | [[Talk:User:Rfwoolf/Evidence|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence

Should be relisted for the following reasons:

(1) User Rfwoolf was compiling evidence for possible RfC. (2) User who submitted for deletion was the subject of said RfC. (3) Debate was closed less than a day after it started. (4) The debate was 6-4 to keep (all from registered users) when it was abruptly closed. Frankly, this speedy closure stinks...see this ATren 10:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) no he wasn't, this is a half-year-old issue; (2) yes, and so?; (3) yes, because of speedy deletion criterion G10; (4) MFD is not a vote count, and the aforementioned CSD trumps MFD. Endorse my deletion, this was an attack page. We speedily delete pages that have no purpose other than to disparage their subject. This was an obvious example, and we don't need such nastiness. Also, if this really had been an RFC, it would have been deleted ages ago per RFC policy - we delete uncertified RFCs for good reason. >Radiant< 10:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the aforementioned CSD trumps MFD" - I don't think so. See my extract from WP:CSD above. If there is any doubt, other deletion processes trump CSD. I think copyright infringement and WP:BLP are exceptions. --Richard 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when is compiling evidence with diffs considered an "attack"? This is an especially broad interpretation of WP:NPA. ATren 11:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page had no purpose other than to disparage its subject. That makes it speedily deletable, per WP:CSD. >Radiant< 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...had no other purpose..." - Can you not see this page was a Request For Comment - materially so in its opening paragraph. Your tunnel-vision claim that it's an attack page completely fails to acknowledge this. You are appearing rather biased on this issue. Rfwoolf 11:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ths act of compiling evidence in the form of diffs is not "disparaging". Come on. Is it any wonder that attack sites are cropping up to document this stuff, when people here are so eager to squelch well-presented criticism of the actions of adminssee this? ATren 11:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The way Rfwoolf has been behaving over the last 24 hours..." - what on earth are you talking about? He politely but firmly pointed out what he believed to be a hypocritical stance by an admin, and even after he was subjected to a vicious personal attack ("shut the fuck up you whining twat") he remained civil. This double standard we apply to admins is getting quite tiresome.see this Regardless of past disputes, Rfwoolf did nothing wrong here, and it is incorrect of you to insinuate so. Jeez, the way people are acting, you'd think Rfwoolf is the personal attacker here... :-( ATren 12:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are an impartial user (and I hope you are), you are to assess Deletion Reviews on a case-by-case basis. Even if Rfwoolf has behaved badly in other cases and on separate issues (and I'm not saying he has), you are obligated to assess this case of deletion on its merits without factoring irrelevant content in. Your philosophical question remains:
1) Did the deleted page "serve only as a purpose to attack a user?" and,
2) Does the content of the page satisfy you as being RfC material? (As an admin has already pointed out, formulating an RfC post in one's userspace is allowed although slightly uncommon.
Rfwoolf
All right, please explain the difference between an RfC and an attack page? Please explain why RfC drafting should not take place in userspace? Your logic and reason is welcome on this one. Rfwoolf 13:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, incomprehensible that I would object to an admin telling another user to "shut the fuck up you whining twat". Incomprehensible. What is this place coming to when an admin cannot unleash a scathing attack without being called on it? ATren 15:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The MFD should have been closed as "no consensus". There is a difference between an attack page and a draft RFC which collects evidence in support of conduct in violation of policy. The policies in question here are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Allowing this to continue as a WP:RFC may result in closure of this dispute. The response on WP:ANI and on the user's Talk Page have already indicated that many (including myself) think the editor should drop it. However, it is up to the editor to do this voluntarily. Forcing him to drop it is censorship. Continuing to suppress the plaintiff's complaints could result in it boiling over into an WP:RFARB with this deletion being cited as evidence. Stop trying to squelch dissent even if it is overblown. Let the man have his day in court. --Richard 13:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're essentially saying that unless he voluntarily chooses to drop it (which he already stated he won't) he can "have his day in court" by bringing it up repeatedly in any process he can think of. Interesting view. >Radiant< 14:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, from the horse's own mouth: I never stated I won't "drop it". I'm also not sure what "it" is - there's a whole lot of issues here: a SALTed article, userpage censorship, and 5 personal attacks -- all by JzG. This deleted article User:Rfwoolf/Evidence deals with the userpage censorship. Will I "drop that?" I don't know -- all I know is that I should have the right to collect evidence on an abusive admin should I wish to hold him accountable. To prevent me from collecting evidence would I feel be censorship. Rfwoolf 14:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion - Unless someone can point out the precedents for a) prohibiting the use of userspace in this manner, i.e. collecting evidence for an RfC, and b) the declaration that the act of filing an RfC is a personal attack, this seems like a pretty disgusting display of an abuse of power. Tarc 15:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're saying that we should allow blatant attack pages (such as this one) as long as the author simply claims he's collecting evidence. That would be a nice loophole, but WP:CSD says otherwise (and incidentally there's plenty of precedent for deleting attack pages). >Radiant< 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure there is plenty for deleting attack pages, but where's the precedent for declaring an RfC-gathering page to be a personal attack? Tarc 15:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Blatant attack page". I mean 'cmon, even on a very worst-case scenario it isn't a "BLATANT" attack page. I imagine even the most biased of admins couldn't call it "blatant". Anybody that's, well, literate can see it isn't any way blatant. It's an RfC. Then you confuse attack pages with RfC's. Smells like something that the Arbcom would love to hear about: Wikipolicy: Are all RfC's attack pages? Rfwoolf 15:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion vote by involved editor - if I'm allowed to, I obviously strongly vote for an overturn Rfwoolf 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, inappropriate use of user space and the closing admin was within their discretion to axe it as an attack page. Using a temporary user page to collect evidence is one thing, but it looks like the user was planning to run a private little "pseudo-RFC" there. Just isn't appropriate. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nothing but an out of date attack page. Nick 15:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although I personally disagree with the closure (speedy deletions should be such that "reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion"; there is no such agreement in this case), I won't call for it to be overturned yet. In the hope of avoiding even more pointless drama, I will quote something from the userpage guideline:

    If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so.

    • Now, it's nowhere near clear that there is consensus that the material should be removed, but there is obviously opposition to allowing it to remain. So, I ask that Rfwoolf agree to the removal of content. If there is anything on the page that he wishes to preserve (perhaps for a future RfC), he may do so by saving it to his personal text editor (e.g., Notepad) or word processor. As the version of the page cached by Google is not up-to-date, I also ask that Radiant temporarily restore the page for Rfwoolf if he so requests.
    • There is no good that can come from everyone 'sticking to their guns' in this case and any non-compromise outcome will only perpetuate the problem. If the deletion is overturned, we'll have another MfD and more infighting to look forward to. If the deletion is endorsed, it'll seem like a cover-up and censorship. Please let's not unnecessarily make this more of a big deal than it already is. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 15:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This is why I keep all my nasty difs and partially formed RfCs on my hardrive. I really don't understand why anyone does this at this point. Black Falcon's solution seems highly reasonable at this point although it doesn't seem to be an attack page to me. JoshuaZ 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It was not an attack page. There was nothing said there that is inappropriate for WP or out of context. If it is appropriate to say that an admin abused his power in a RfC, it is permissible to prepare an afd with that contents in user space. Further, saying an admin abused his power is not an attack in the sense of NPA-it is criticism, fair or unfair, & I quite expect that those unhappy with what I might do might say similar things--it's part of the rhetoric. The reaction to that is to be very sure one did not abuse one's power, and then ignore it. Stretching the BLP policy to permit speedy removal of such material is particularly unjustified. DGG (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • THIS DELETION REVIEW HAS GONE OFF THE RAILS. Deletion reviews are supposed to be about the process of the deletion decision, NOT about whether or not the deletion was justified. IMO, the deletion was not justified based on the merits of the case, but more importantly for the purposes of this discussion, it was not justified because it was an "out of process" decision.
This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.
A Wikipedia article, page, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page.
It should be noted that this guideline is not meant to apply to formal good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior made in accord with policy. For example, a request for comment filed in good faith would not be considered an attack page.
If there is any doubt at all, switch the article to a process like Wikipedia:Proposed deletion that allows time for others to review the proposal.
Looking at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence, it's clear that there is doubt since the discussion was running towards "No consensus to delete". IMO, Radiant! inappropriately short-circuited the MfD process in order to follow a "Speedy delete" decision which runs against both the guidelines outlined above.
My recommendation is to restore the page and re-instate the MfD and let it run to conclusion. If editors below wish to express an opinion on the MfD, then let them do so. A consensus may yet form to delete the article but the correct place to form that consensus is at the MfD, not here.
It should be clear, however, that process has not been followed in this case. Let's get this whole deletion process back on the rails.
--Richard 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Or at worst, relist. There's a reason improperly-certified RFCs are routinely deleted: not closed, not marked as inactive, but deleted. I think it's fine for someone to start collecting information towards an RfC they aren't ready to file yet, but our practice of deleting them goes to show we don't tolerate the existence of this kind of page for long periods of time. If Rwoolf decides to put forward an actual RfC, I wouldn't mind temporarily undeleting the page so it can be moved to an RFC. Mangojuicetalk 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn - The MfD should have been closed as No consensus. Further, looking at the page in question, it was not a CSD G10 attack page; nowhere did it contain personal attacks on Guy. What it contained was a list of diffs detailing a legitimate dispute. As I haven't been involved with the dispute, I can't comment on who is in the wrong, but this is certainly not a case for deletion. Indeed, this whole thing has done nothing more than escalate the dispute further. WaltonOne 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn - This overturn is based on the deletion process it was ran through, not the justification. I feel that Radiant! misdetermined consensus, as there was simply no consensus, but used it as a basis to promote her own beliefs about the justification of the deletion of the article subpage. The G10 was nonsense, it wasn't an attack page; it was evidence. I've kept subpages before to hold evidence, although I only use them to hold the information until it's transferred to the proper forum or subpage. There's also nothing to keep the editor from copying and pasting the data onto a page of Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or the like. I feel that this, however, should go through a second MfD to determine the real consensus, since the admin determined improper consensus. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Mangojuice, whose comment I suggest everyone re-reads. – Steel 20:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Mangojuice unless the user actually plans to file an RFC. Otherwise, it's essentially an attack page, and deletion was the right move. --Coredesat 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per Richard. Process was improepr, this isn't the place to debate the merits. DES (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn not a blatant attack page by any reasonable definition. Editors have a great deal of latitude in their userspace for material that helps in writing the encyclopedia. Drafts of good-faith RfCs fall well within that, whether or not we agree with their merits or likelihood of success. Vadder 23:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion and I have to admit that I had actually formatted a closure of this DRV and came very, very, very close to summarily closing this as endorsed and deleted without further discussion. I have hesitated only to see if others agree with this path. Newyorkbrad 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Valid interpretation of G10; evidence belongs in an RFC where it can be questioned, not in userspace where it is merely a one-sided gripe: i.e., an attack. This was within process. Chick Bowen 00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh more drama. Black Falcon's argument is particularly cogent; if the community lets one know they would like something in your userspace deleted, you should consider deleting it. I agree. Plus, no one actually needs to post stuff on-wiki; just keep it on your desktop. Further, Mangojuice's comment is spot-on; we don't allow RFCs to sit around forever precisely because this is what would happen every single time; similarly, we should not allow RFCs (in userspace) to sit around forever. So endorse deletion. --Iamunknown 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Richard has rightfully pointed out, deletion reviews on a Speedy-Delete are about process, not content. In other words, you may rightfully agree that the article should have been deleted, but, do you agree that the article should have been speedy-deleted? If so, you can only agree based upon the G10 Attack Page criterion, so specifically, you can only endorse the speedy-deletion if you "agree the page was an attack page, and should have been speedy-deleted". Your comments don't seem to say any of that - you instead refer to keeping RfC pages around for too long. If that's how you feel, vote to overturn the speedy-deletion, and vote for 'delete' on the MfD page when it reopens Rfwoolf 18:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Herewith is the policy that was violated regarding the relevant speedy-deletion of the article User:Rfwoolf/Evidence
  • 1.0 - The Wikipolicy that was applied:
(From Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General_criteria)
(Speedy-delete reason was:) "Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile")."
The incorrect application of it:
The deleted page clearly did not just "serve no purpose but to disparage JzG". In fact it claimed to be a Request For Comment (or RfC). It was very very civil. It also was fair to the subject (JzG) by saying that any feedback is made without prejudice because the subject (JzG) hadn't yet been called to the page.
  • 2.0 - The Wikipolicy that was applied:
From Wikipedia:Attack_page:
"It should be noted that this guideline is not meant to apply to formal good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior made in accord with policy. For example, a request for comment filed in good faith would not be considered an attack page."
The incorrect application of it:
The deleted page was clearly a good faith report on a user's conduct or pattern of behaviour.
  • 3.0 - The Wikipolicy that was applied:
Also from Wikipedia:Attack_page:
"A Wikipedia article, page, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page."
The incorrect application of it:
Once again, the deleted page was not "created for the sole purpose of disparaging..." JzG. It was in fact a Request for Comment.
  • 4.0 - The Wikipolicy that was ignored:
From Category:Candidates for speedy deletion:
"If there is any doubt at all, switch the article to a process like Wikipedia:Proposed deletion that allows time for others to review the proposal."
The violation of it:
Clearly there is doubt by several editors and admins, both on the original AfD, and on the Deletion Review, as to whether the article should be deleted, or even speedy-deleted.

Rfwoolf 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise The more I think about it, the more stupid this discussion seems to me. I'm not calling any single editor one of us, just all of us collectively are going about this stupidly because of the yes/no nature of the discussion. The current "vote" tally seems to be 9 endorse, 8 overturn which shows that there are strong sentiment on both sides of this question.

A point that has popped up a couple of times in this discussion has been "Should be an RFC, not in userspace". How about we just offer to Rfwoolf to restore his text if and only if he intends to turn it into an RFC in short order (i.e. within 3 days or a week?). If an RFC is not created within that period of time, the page will be redeleted as a speedy using the original MfD and this discussion as justification. The man has a right to issue an RFC. I think the consensus is clear that, absent an RFC, the page should not exist in userspace. (I disagree with that consensus but I'm more interested in compromise than in insisting on my personal POV). --Richard 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Richard has earlier rightfully pointed out, deletion reviews on a Speedy-Delete are about process, not content. In other words, you may rightfully agree that the article should have been deleted, but, do you agree that the article should have been speedy-deleted? If so, you should only agree based upon the G10 Attack Page criterion, so specifically, you can only endorse the speedy-deletion if you "agree the page was an attack page created solely for the purpose of disparaging its subject, and should have been speedy-deleted as such". If that's how you feel, vote for endorse, otherwise vote to overturn, and you can always vote for deletion based on content when the MfD reopens. Rfwoolf 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, relist and be more civil. I don't see consensus that this was an attack page, so the MfD should have been allowed to run its course. And knock off the namecalling. -- But|seriously|folks  18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Although I distinctly prefer my original suggestion (temporarily undeleting to allow the page to be copied to Notepad), I believe the deletion itself was unwarranted. I do not agree that the content of the page justified a deletion per CSD G10 for various reasons already noted by others and, if nothing else, because there is substantial disagreement about the validity of the deletion, which implies that MfD is warranted). In fact, the early closure may have backfired in terms of perpetuating what seems to a rather unproductive debate. I once again urge Radiant! and Rfwoolf to consider the suggested option of temporarily undeleting the page and saving it offline. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as an attack page. I'd be ok with the idea of taking it offline, though. --Kbdank71 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Evidence pages are routinely deleted as attack pages. Arguments about "out of process deletion" are misguided, as process follows practice and not vice-versa. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • File the RFC. I'll bring the popcorn. It'll be 48 hours of people saying "oh, an audacious attempt my good fellow" for the attempted textual goatse, then people will laugh and suggest he goes away and does something useful with his life, there's a good chap, then when it's deleted JzG will probably want a copy to frame in his userspace (as the subjects of failed RFCs are allowed to do) - David Gerard 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah! Beat down that troll! Mock him for daring to follow policy! Block him for civil discussion! And then, for good measure, frame a copy of the public stoning for JzG, so he can gaze upon his favorite whining twat whenever he needs a chuckle. I'd say that most of you long term users should know better, but I'm now convinced that common decency and civility is dead around here. ATren 00:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot emphasize enough how disgusting the sentiment is that is displayed in Gerards' comment above. This coupled with JzG's noted and linked-to obscenities is putting a very dark and ugly side of the wikipedia on display. Good show, boys. Tarc 05:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other side, to rwoolf; you could short-circuit this witch hunt by simply filing the RfC now. What's the holdup? Tarc 05:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm... could the fact that he's been blocked by User:Steel359 have anything to do with it? The longer this drama runs, the curiouser it gets. Curiouser and curiouser. Who's the Mad Hatter? The Red Queen? Me, I call dibs on being the Dormouse. --Richard 05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I understand the occasional need (on a very temporary basis) to use userspace to compile diffs to determine if an Rfc is warranted, but what are we talking about here...? Rfwoolf was involved in the article Anal stretching which was deleted a long time (7 months ago) and tried he to recreate it a number of times...ah...okay. So JzG is a bad admin cause he deleted this article? Rfwoolf badgered JzG about the deletion then. Also, in petition, Rfwoolf pitched a bitch about it in his userspace and JzG removed the bitching and protected Rfwoolf's userpage...okay...well...the message was that if you are going to complain about an article being deleted, make sure it is an article that really was worth having to begin with. Any Rfc based on this issue was probably going to just be a magnet for everyone that has ever had a gripe about the mean, vile evil JzG and a waste of everyone's time.--MONGO 11:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Should not have been deleted as it is ok to compile such content in user space. For instance many users here have even, including above me MONGO on [14] which seems to have been fully deleted of Wikipedia now as I cannot find a deletion log. Some cases take 5 minutes to prepare, some longer, let him have his day in court. Further this was obviously not a speedy candidate. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine to work up an RfC in user space, but this sat unmodified for six months until Woolf chose to re-ignite his ludicrous dispute last week. The same, incidentally, applies to the disputed article, which he left hanging around unedited in his userspace for months. It's fine to use userspace as a scratchpad, it's not fine to use it as an end-run around policy, which is what Rfwoolf was doing. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, It does not seem like an attack page, just a gathering of information regarding their confrontation with you it appears. Much like MONGO's was not an attack page, or so he argued against me that it was not. As I stated and it seems you did not disagree with, some cases take longer to build. My understanding is that you are an admin, after seeing the response of other admins in defense of other admins, I am not surprised that one person would look to have as solid as a case as possible. I am not sure what the problem is anyway, unless you are running around breaking policy, there should be no content for the page right? Stating you do not agree with a decission is fine, noting dif's of what you feel are policy violations is fine as well. Saying "Person X is a (expletive deleted)" would be an attack page. Also the fact that you came back from what appeared to be a break just to delete a page they requested be undeleted is also odd, as if you are watching this user. I would also like to point out, that while I have no trouble writing an article in a few days, some people do not have the time, or are working on multiple things, finding sources for the article mentioned, I would think, would be difficult. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, some cases take longer to build, but that rather implies that they are being built. This wasn't. It sat unedited for nearly six months until Rfwoolf chose to reignite the long-dead dispute last week for God alone knows what perverse reason. His dispute itself is completely and unambiguously without merit. The article was deleted throgh process, his repost was deleted under WP:CSD#G4 and endorsed as such. The "gathering of information" about other editors is permissible as a way of working up an RfC, it is not permissible to create laundry lists of grudges and leave them hanging around in user space (ArbCom has said as much, I believe), and it is certainly not permissible to write up your side of the story, missing inconvenient facts like your reposting of deleted articles in substantially identical form, and not bring it to RfC where the wider context will be seen. Put simply, Rfwoolf has taken nearly two years to make under a hundred edits to mainspace, and has caused at least two orders of magnitude more server space to be wasted on debates about his frivolous complaints than he has contributed to the encyclopaedia. The time has come for him to put up or shut up. Preferably the latter, but if the former he should be prepared for a rough ride, as noted above. The word "troll" accurately describes his actions to date, as a contributor to the encyclopaedia he is without doubt a substantial net negative, and this deleted page is one of a number of facets of his vexatious and counter-productive editing. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever considered that leaving the page, since you say it does not contain anything worthwhile, would have saved "server space" which I did not know Wikipedia was short on. The constant watching and deleting of this users "stuff" by yourself is what is driving this drama. If you had left the page alone, one that you say will never be used, and does not actually contain anything, that precious server space would have been preserved for something else ... again not that I ever heard server space to be an issue. As for comments like "The time has come for him to put up or shut up. Preferably the latter ..." and calling another editor a net negative etc. These are all unnecessary and particularly hostile and in violation of WP:NPA, which I am sure you as an admin are already aware. While there is no problem calling a spade a spade if you feel that way, instead of violating policy you simply could goto RfC against them, or Arbcom for that matter. However my point being, the drama over this situation is more based on you deleting content then them creating it, as only you had a problem with its existence, and now the community has to discuss your actions and the closing admins. Do not take this as against you, or for him, just your argument of lost kb's on a server of TB's seems pointless, further the wasted space is not due to the kb's it took up to sit there, but the wasted bandwidth and additional kb's being used to maintain this discussion. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already have been. In the month I have been here I have created 5 articles and every week I have had violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF on my talk page. This di dnot lead me to cursing people out however. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that this is a Deletion Review about the speedy-deletion of an evidence page or RfC page, about whether it was an attack page, and whether there is consensus about such. Bringing in the count of edits to mainspace, or the deletion of an entirely separate article is an entirely separate matter, and says that you are sidestepping the issue implementing straw-man tactics. Rfwoolf 00:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a review of the deletion of a grudge list which sat untouched for six months before you decided to rekindle the dispute last week. The merit of the thing is informed by the fact that you have virtually no edits other than trolling, and that your complaint is itself baseless since the article deleted was indeed a substantially identical repost. The fact that you have continued the trolling here also informs the debate over the merit of your grudge page. You could easily have repaired the appearance that you are a troll of no value to the project by actually contributing some worthwhile content to mainspace, but since your trolling and canvassing edits outnumber your mainspace edits at least ten to one I think that is unlikely to happen. Feel free to go back to ED or wherever you came from. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, keep blaming on everyone else: grudge holders, trolls, ED users, everyone except JzG. Like we are somehow responsible for your incivility. For what it's worth, I looked through some of Rfwoolf's logs from January until now - I don't see much evidence of this "trolling" you speak of. Maybe he's a little immature sometimes, but I don't honestly see bad faith. A lot of his non-mainspace posts are on places like the reference desk, not on others' talk pages, and almost none of it has to do with anal stretching. His only crime here seems to be reacting too loudly to trollish comments like "shut the fuck up you whining twat" - but, to be honest, that would get me riled up too. So, JzG, why don't you stop citing misleading edit counts and making vague troll/grudge-holder accusations and actually respond to Rfwoolf's evidence rather than trying to suppress it? Goodness knows, he has meticulously researched and documented his complaint - if you're correct and he's a worthless troll, then provide the diffs that prove your point. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? If he's as trollish as you say, it should be easy to find diffs to support your case, so what are you waiting for? ATren 15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several days later, and several long comments from JzG, but he never bothered to provide a single diff to support his case... just ad hominem attacks and vague unsubstantiated accusations of trolling. It would seem that JzG's definition of troll is "a newbie who disagrees with me", because I've looked at Rfwoolf's history and I can't find any blatant evidence of trolling. ATren 23:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..your complaint is itself baseless since the article deleted was indeed a substantially identical repost". --You're not listening, are you? This deletion review has nothing to do with the recreation of Anal stretching. This Deletion Review is about an Evidence page concerning my userpage and your censorship of it. Please stick to the topic at hand Rfwoolf 12:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you're not listening. You are allowed to work up an RfC in user space, you are not allowed to maintain a grudge list. You left it unedited for months, adding to it only when your frivolous complaint was again dismissed. The page is worthless as part of the process of building an encyclopaedia, a process in which you appear to be playing no part. The use of the word "censorship" almost without exception indicates a baseless complaint, and this is no exception. You created a baseless complaint page about your baseless complaint, and then you complain about its removal, which complaint is also baseless since the deleted page has no merit and was clearly not being worked up as part of the dispute resolution process, which is the only acceptable reason for keeping pages like that in user space. All the distractions in the world are not going to fix that, and the more you troll about it the worse your troll-to-edit ratio gets. Your response to errors being pointed out is, repeatably, to repeat the errors as if no such correction had been made. This is clearly no exception. The sooner you are banned the better. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This type of response is a glaringly obvious example of why an RfC was being filed against you in the first place, and why some here are using their personal dislike of this rwoolf person to color their reasons to endorse an obviously-fraudulent speedy closure. Tarc 20:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you say. But as it happens, no RfC was filed. You just created a grudge page and left it hanging about in user space for six months, which is unacceptable. Not a surprise, you've not worked on mainspace to any measurable extent either. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't matter if it was filed or not, you calling it an attack page does not make it so. DRV should be a review of process, rather than you re-hashing the AfD. Looking at the process of the AfD, it is quite plain to see an abrogation of administrator authority. BTW, nice argumentum ad personam tactic at the end there. Classy. Tarc 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, Guy is not the only person calling it an attack page, so you calling it not an attack page likewise does not make it so. --Iamunknown 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it already is so, I don't need to "make" it. As I asked in my very first post in this mess, where is the precedent that an in-progress RfC is classified as an attack page? The answer is that there is none, which is why this was an improper closure that should be relisted. Tarc 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tarc, yes it does matter, uncertified RfCs are deleted for a reason. This was not even an RfC, it was just a statement of one side of a dispute missing inconvenient facts like its having been rejected every time it was aired anywhere. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I'm not particularly interested in reading an article about "anal stretching" myself, but I'm also not happy about admins misusing CSD, either. CSD is supposed to be for clearcut, noncontroversial deletions. Yet Radiant, with full knowledge that a debate had begun in which several people had already rejected the proposition that the page was an attack page, went ahead and speedied it. I also agree that it was not an "attack page" as defined by G10. An attack page is not any page that happens to be critical of someone, but one that is virulent. "That admin is an arsehole with a tiny mind who should shut the fuck up" would be an example of a G10 attack page. Laying out one's case in a reasonably civil matter is not, because then fair-minded people can differ about whether it is constructive criticism, free discourse, or an attack.

I myself think it's perfectly fine to tell your side of the story about a dispute on a userpage, as long as you remain civil about it. CBM commented above that evidence pages are routinely deleted under G10. On the other hand, many aren't. My take is that evidence pages that are rants are not protected from G10. But just as you don't get a free pass by calling an attack page an "evidence" page, evidence pages are not automatically attack pages that can legitimately be speedy deleted.

I'm also not swayed by the argument that this is a pseudo-RFC that shouldn't be kept around indefinitely, and Rwoolf should put up or shut up. First off, I don't have a problem with him telling his side of the story, whether it's in the form of an evidence page or not, as long as he does so civilly. And even if this case does not become an RFC, he may want to piggyback his case onto someone else's RFC. Let's be real here, it's only a matter of time before an RFC about an admin as controversial as Guy gets certified. A vocal faction of the community believes that Guy does the Lord's work, putting troublemakers in their place. Many others feel that he is an abrasive, rougish admin. If Rwoolf were to put this up on RFC and fail to get it certified, it would not be due to a lack of dissent, but because dissenters are waiting for a more appealing issue than "anal stretching" to make their stand.

In closing, let me say that neither party has covered themselves in glory in this affair. Rwoolf has been dogged in his push to get his article, and it's not clear that he would be willing to accept an ultimate verdict from the community that this topic is unsuitable. On the other hand, I think some of Guy's actions have not helped. First, in the original AFD there was enough support for the article to at least raise the possibility that a better referenced, better written entry might pass, which raises the question whether the topic should be indefinitely salted. Also, some of the participants argued that the relevant information is already in "butt plug," so why isn't there at least a protected redirect? It also appears that Guy deleted Rwoolf's draft version for being in the wrong namespace; why not just move it into his userspace? Also, while the evidence page reflects one side of the story - which Rwoolf actually noted in his introduction - Guy has apparently not even considered taking up Rwoolf's offer to let him respond on the page.

Also, while I understand being uncomfortable with having a page of criticism hanging around, Guy's reaction has been counterproductive. If Guy had kept his cool, this subpage would still be languishing in obscurity, and anyone who stumbled across it probably would have laughed it off as the griping of a tendentious editor with a strange obsession about anal stretching. Instead, by lashing out with profanities, he has disturbed editors concerned about incivility, and in pushing to get it deleted, he has attracted far more attention to it than Rwoolf's own efforts. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is that Rfwoolf reposted viurtually unaltered a deleted article which was userfied to help him rework it, then made the most hysterical fuss when it was (quite properly) deleted under WP:CSD#G4. The subject is irrelevant, it was an utterly unmbiguous speedy deletion under one of the least controversial speedy deletion criteria, and he has done pretty much nothing else since but bitch, troll and forum-shop. Every time he has done so, his complaint has been rejected for the simple reason that it is baseless. He got the article userfied to be "worked on" and proceeded not to work on it. He has had every opportunity to demonstrate some attempt to build the encyclopaedia, and has not done so. His main space edit count remains under 100 in over 18 months, slightly over one edit per week, and that includes the deleted article, to which he "contributed" the removal of, I think, one sentence, plus a move back to mainspace. His "research" in support of the article yielded articles which I know, as a former manager in a surgical device manufacturing company, are discussing something else entirely, a fact which was pointed out but ignored. Actually by then he seems to have lost interest, until he saw an opportunity to get under my skin. Well done Rfwoolf, you certainly managed that, by reasserting your baseless complaint at a very bad time. The correct response to this kind of egregious fuckwittedness is to ban the troll. Instead we have a small group of grudge-bearers and some perplexing troll-enablers perpetuating the "debate" over something that is, as noted by several long-term contributors above, actually blindingly obvious. Unfiled RfCs that don't even follow the RfC template get deleted, summarily, and for excellent reasons. Vexatious complaints by non-contributors ditto.
And I can't stress this strongly enough: nobody misused CSD and any point. The page deleted this time was Rfwoolf's statement of his side of a dispute, which side was comprehensively rejected every time he raised it, it was a laundry list of grudges as seen, and sanctioned, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi. He left is hanging around in user space for six months, where if he'd filed it as an RfC it would have either turned into an RfC on his own behaviour and likely led to a block, or would have been rapidly deleted as meritless. The dispute lay dormant until Rfwoolf chose, for whatever reason, to rekindle it last week. Rfwoolf has contributed approximately the square root of fuck-all to the encyclopaedia (remember that?) but has consumed a truly gargantuan amount of the community's time and effort in rebutting his querulous complaints. This page was no exception. The careful formatting and awesomely precise selection of only those facts which suited his argument are in stark contrast to the total lack of any discernible effort he has put into mainspace. This is not even a case of "fuck process", because process was clearly followed: unfiled RfCs are summarily deleted for good reason. Rfwoolf states that this was an RfC in the making, but that is complete bollocks - at no point did he attempt to follow the RfC template, at no point did he attempt dispute resolution, because wherever he took his dispute he was told it was baseless. The reaosn he was told this is because... it was baseless. If you get an article userfied to "rewrite" it, remove on sentence and bung it back in userspace, it is not really a surprise when it gets deleted under WP:CSD#G4. That's what happens to reposts of deletded content. He had months to fix the deleted article, he did not fix it. He had months to file an RfC, he did not file an RfC. He had months to make contributions to the encyclopaedia, he did not make contributions to the encyclopaedia. And this debate is a perfect example fo the kind of shit that is making this project joyless for those of us who are prepared to actually take on the occasional hard case, because even the blindingly obvious easy cases now bring crowds of malcontents to cheer the trolls on. This one debate is several times the size of all of Rfwoolf's mainspace edits added together. Which is precisely what he wants, I am sure, since he is a troll and nothing else. So thanks for taking the time to give succour to this worthless waste of other people's time, but please understand why I don't think much of it. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, ... at various parts in this DRV, you have provided a relatively thorough account of Rfwoolf's inappropriate behaviour. Should he have mixed together the issues of deletion of a page, removal of content on his userpage, and the appropriateness of content on your userpage? No. Should have bothered you about this issue as much as he did (or at all)? No. Should he have at least stopped posting to your talk page after you told him to effectively fuck off? Absolutely. Should he have been blocked? Probably.
However, you seem perfectly content to completely overlook the inappropriateness of some of your actions. The fact of the matter is that you attacked him twice, first by telling him to "shut the fuck up you whining twat" and then "go away and take your tiny mind with you". Now you've labeled anyone who has disagreed with you "grudge-bearers", "perplexing troll-enablers", and/or "malcontents". Rather than being perplexed by us supposed troll-enabling malcontents, you should consider that you are exhibiting some of the very behaviours of which the so-called grudge-bearers have accused you.
If you have been baited and/or lost your temper, I will ask you (for the third time) to please consider disengaging from this issue for a while. If the speedy deletion was valid, it will be endorsed. If the "evidence" page was inappropriate, it will remain deleted. If Rfwoolf is a troll, he will be handled. Nearly anyone else who had done what you did would have earned a block. Please consider that and refrain from further personal attacks in your comments. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick response - While I certainly appreciate Groggy Dice's rather constructive and quite insightful feedback on the issues like the Anal stretching article etc, it must be stressed that this DRV is not about the Anal stretching article - it was about an Evidence page which concerned my userpage being censored and protected by JzG. More over, JzG's rebuttle is that my complaint on that isssue is "entirely baseless" - which is an extreme surprise considering User:Jossi disagreed, and unprotected my userpage and allowed me to put back my comments. Groggy Dice was also right to point out the irony here - an Evidence page which nobody was really paying any attention to - is now the centre of attention. I'll also thank Groggy Dice for reading the opening paragraph of the Evidence page because very few people have managed to acknowledged the very civil and relatively respectful tone of the Evidence page, thereby making it not an attack page. JzG's ad hominum attacks remain irrelevant as ever-before. "Rfwoolf says he's right be he can't possibly be because he hasn't contributed much to Wikipedia". So in closing, Groggy Dice is right to point out that the evidence page was not an attack page. His comments about the Anal stretching article I of course agree with, and I can re-table that issue some other time if I find it necessary, for example by rewriting it and tabling it for Deletion Review - which is what everybody has said I can do if I want to.
  • And FWIF, Groggy Dice is also correct, the Anal stretching article doesn't need to be indefinitely SALTed. Typically articles are only SALTed for a month or so, unless there's long-term reasons, such as consensus that the article shouldn't exist to begin with, not consensus that the article read like a how-to-guide or didn't have referenes. But I re-iterate, the Evidence page in question has nothing to do with Anal stretching article Rfwoolf 01:27, 17 July 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.
Awkward turtle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2|DRV)

Published Secondary Sources. Two articles in (printed) college newspapers discussing the term directly. http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/02/03/Columns/Andrew.Stein.06.If.Being.Awkward.Is.Cool.Im.Miles.Davis-1598494.shtml and more recently, http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2007/04/27/Opinion/Break.Out.Of.Your.Shell-2885641.shtml These are secondary sources about the term, not merely articles using the term. This is not analysis or synthesis of primary material on my part. They satisfy both the neologism and notability guidelines. The coverage is:

-significant (the articles address the meaning and context in detail, certainly more than trivial),
-reliable (in an edited, published, paper college newspaper, describing a term popular among college students - "The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources..."), and
-sourced, from a secondary source that is independent of the topic (as well as following the verifiability guideline that "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources ... The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.")

The February deletion review presented ample further evidence (in addition to the sufficient evidence above) of notability "in another manner" (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Notability#fn_6). The wiki article should be composed of information from secondary sources (i.e., the two college newspaper articles) and include more than the mere definition, but also a description of where it is commonly found (the articles mention college campuses around the country), and its notoriety (as also described in both articles). - Anonymous 12 July 2007


Additional articles from similarly reliable sources (college papers describing a college term = very appropriate, and making a very unexceptional claim). http://www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2007/02/13/Viewpoints/Jamie.Bologna.Dc.In.A.Box-2715758.shtml describing in detail the motion, meaning, and notoriety of the term. As well as http://media.www.emorywheel.com/media/storage/paper919/news/2006/10/03/Editorials/Why-Does.Jon.Heder.Still.Have.A.Job-2327584.shtml describing it as a gesture, and explaining its meaning. Also, http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/10/Opinion/Angela.Ruggiero-2899046-page2.shtml describing it as a hand gesture. - Anonymous 12 July 2007

I see that the Brown Daily Herald article was known of at the time of AFD1, because it is linked there by one of the delete opiners. The Lantern article is being presented for the first time, so far as I see. In reading these two articles, neither one is a secondary source about the term, contrary to the nominator's assertion above. Both are college paper opinion columns that use the term. There were no reliable sources presented in the February deletion review. The Tufts Daily, Emorywheel, and CaliforniaAggie things all also fall short of secondary sources about the term. With no secondary sources about the term, it still falls short of the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline, and should not have an article. I have no doubt that the term/motion is real, but we can't have a policy and guideline compliant article on it yet. keep deleted GRBerry 13:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted for now per GRBerry, the term is becoming more common clearly but we still wouldn't have an article that wasn't complete original research. We need secondary sources. JoshuaZ 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • permit restoration the version deleted was OR, but earlier versions had references that were appropriate to the material, and was thus not entirely OR. Particular parts that might be OR can be challenged. Major student papers such as the Crimson are RSs for student behavior. DGG (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion student papers aren't reliable sources for a darn thing, and an article about a silly hand gesture that never even really caught on?? Come on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 12 July 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.
Wedlock (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

legitimate signed licensed band StacieVan 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 July 2007

[edit]
  • Joy Basu – I will restore my deletion and trim per WP:BLP. As I have said, there is no practical difference, so there is little reason for continuing this discussion. – — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joy Basu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not a prroper application of speedy deletion criteria. As I pointed out at User_talk:CBM#Your_deletion_of_Joy_basu, the criteria cited (A7) explicitly states that it is not to be applied to articles where there is controversy about whether notability has been asserted or which have been put through AfD and kept. Both of these exmptions applied to this article. Concerns about referencing are to be handled at AfD, not by speedy deletion (this article did cite reputable sources to establish notability). I request a overturn as deletion was against established policy regarding speedy deletion. Loom91 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the deleting admin, I considered merely removing the unsourced BLP information, but that left virtually nothing, so I chose to delete the article per common sense, the proposed deletion criteria for unsourced BLP articles, and this arbcom principle. I did so under the expectation that it would be recreated as an improved article. To explain myself, I left a detailed note on Talk:Joy Basu explaining my concerns, in which I explicitly pointed out that the article can be recreated.
Rather than complaining about the deletion, I would encourage interested editors to write a new, well sourced article. If the deletion is overturned, the result will be little different, as most of the short article was already unsourced BLP information that would need to be removed and then reinserted with sources.
It is also worth mentioning that Loom91 inserted a redlink into the article for a name that he has identified as his own. I suspect there is a conflict of interest in his editing of the article. This is not a deletion concern, but his opinions on the article should be evaluated with this in mind. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion log entry cited first WP:CSD#A7 and then WP:BLP. To deal with these in order, The statement that a playwright has been both script writer and assistant director for a film that has been reviewed in a major newspaper is a claim of notability. it might not be enough at AfD, or it might, but it is enough to take this out of the realm of speedy deletion. As to BLP, the content here is neither negative nor contentious. If this sort of article can be speedy deleted under BLP for lack of sources, that is saying than any article deemed to have insufficient references (and note this did include multiple references to reliable sources, specifically two articles in the Calcutta, India Telegraph, here, and here: one of these describes him as "the writer-backbone of the film" and the other as "Calcutta playwright and critic") may be speedy deleted. There have been proposals before to speedy delete unreferenced articles, or unreferenced biological articles -- all of them failed. Note also recent discussion at WT:V#Blanking unsourced articles and tagging them for speedy deletion as empty suggested that removing content as unsourced, and then promptly tagging for speedy delete as empty was improper, or at least unwise. How much more unwise if the person removing content is also the deleting admin, and the whole process takes place withing a single edit. That is what User:CBM describes as "common sense". i find it not at all sensible, and i hope not very common on Wikipedia. Strong overturn as neither desirable nor supported by policy. DES (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I agree non-BLP articles should not be blanked and deleted, because they shouldn't be blanked. But in this case, after the hard pruning needed for BLP there was so little content left that there was little difference between deleting the article versus removing the content. That's the common sense part. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What "Hard pruning needed for BLP" was there. Are you adopting the position that positive, non controversial content about a living person myust be rigourously sourced or else removed without discussion? Specifics, please. DES (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the content of the last deleted reviosn was as follows. What exactly in that content do you think needed to be "hard pruned"?

Joy Basu is a Bangla writer and prominent cultural personality. Joy was born in 14 January, 1964 at Rourkella. His father worked at the Rourkella Steel Plant. His mother is Subarna Basu]. Subarna was a school teacher and was also one of the founding members of the legendary theater group Nandikar. Joy is the youngest of three brothers, the others being Avi and Shuva.

Later, Joy with his family moved to Kolkata. There his father died of asthma. He acquired his primary education at Shailendra Sircar School and then studied polytechnic at Joypuria Collage.

Joy currently works at the Education Directorate at Bikash Bhaban, Saltlake, Kolkata under the West Bengal Government. He lives with his wife Arpita Palit, a poet and their son Shish Basu Palit.

Joy has written several plays. His play Sunetra was staged by theater group Natyaanan. His other plays include Jachchhetai Kando and numerous short plays. He has written the script for [2 citations ommitted] and worked as an assistant director in the film Sunday Afternoon directed by Amit Dutta and produced by Bayleaf Productions. He is a co-founder of Bayleaf Productions. He is also actively associated with the leading Bengali little magazine of poetry and poetry related essays Kanha. He was the screen-writer for the leading Bangla mega-serial (soap opera) Nana Ronger Dinguli.

I don't see any content there that is even maginally subject to BLP deletion, pruning, or blanking. But even if there were, even if all that could be left after BLP pruning was "<name> is an <nationality> <occupation>" I would leave that sub-stub with a note on the talk page that content asserting significance had been removed under BLP and could be restored with sources. It is just too easy to not notice an articel that isn't there. DES (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first three chunks above are all unsourced personal info, much of which is about the family of the person rather than about the person himself. That is what needs pruned. There is also no source for the authorship of the plays, which would be OK if they were bluelinks, but they aren't. All that is left is part of the final chunk. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about his family could be removed or reduced not as BLP (BLP does not say that each and every detail of "personal information" must be sourced, nor should it), but as of little relevance to the article. The plays are mentioned in the cited sources, although the citations were attached to the sentence about the film. The external link to the Bayleaf Productions site also mentions the plays. Since writing a play is neither negative nor controversial, that ought to be sufficient sourcing. The key point is that you are acting as if the BLP says that every detail about a person must be explicitly sourced, even such non-controversial details as birthplace and parents' names. That is not so, and it shouldn't be so. DES (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It's unsourced in the cached version and almost everything is redlinked, but it does assert notability. Determining the notability of the material should be handled at AFD in a case like this. Being unreferenced is not the same as being unnotable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's unsourced? There were multiple references! Loom91 07:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Overturn, As for the merits, the final version had 2 references to a reliable Indian newspaper, and in the absence of controversy, a web site is acceptable for career details.
But as for the procedure, it was wrong in many ways. First, certainly enough notability to avoid A7--even without sources saying that one is the screen-writer for a notable series --one that has an article in WP-- is an assertion of notability. A7 is much overused, and this is an example. Justified as "common sense", which is not one of the guidelines, presumably 'cause people vary widely about what is common sense. Second, deleted single-handed, not tagged for another admin to check--had it been, it probably would not have been deleted in the first place. This is some evidence why we might want change this--if admins sometimes go single-handed in cases that they admit are borderline, but just use it for what is obviously garbage. Third, if an article needs debating about in good faith by an established editor--Loom91 has been doing good work here since 2006, it is almost certainly not an appropriate speedy The place to debate is AfD. Fourth , the BLP reason is based on "any admin., acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy." Which aspect of the policy it relates to has not been specified. The policy is justification for acting according to BLP, not according to "common sense". BLP should be applied strictly--I delete articles under CSD A10 single-handedly every day, there is so much that unquestionably falls into that category. But it should be applied within the specified limits. Asserting BLP as a defense against arbitrary action is simply wrong. This article shows requiring Deletion review of an article deleted under BLP is wrong-- except for that provision someone could simply have reversed it.

Fifth, the article had withstood a previous AfD. Seeing this in the edit history should have given anyone pause about using a speedy. And it violates clear policy: from WP:DP, "In practice this means that a page that had a deletion discussion resulting in 'keep' or 'no consensus' should not be speedily deleted." In view of all this, I urge the admin to simply correct his own mistake. DGG (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of slang names for poker hands – No consensus closure of first AfD endorsed; speedy closure of second AfD also endorsed. Although there is no firm standard for how long one should wait to renominate after a "no consensus" closure, at least a month is a fair rule of thumb. This allows for the cooling of passions and the gaining of new perspectives. – Xoloz 03:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of slang names for poker hands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was placed in a second nomination for AfD one day after the first AFD was closed as no consensus. First AFD is here, second is here. I have no opinion, so I am abstaining from any discussion. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without offering whether the (my) close was proper, I feel I should at least explain why I closed the way I did. There's some perception that I editorialised in my close - in fact I explained the state of the discussion as I saw it, so it would be clear why I closed the way I did. Straight vote counting was 6-2 delete/keep, but discussion was something like 2 delete/4 transwiki/2 keep .... there may be a consensus for transwiki - which is essentially "keep and edit, follow with a delete as transwiki'd at the appropriate time" but I felt it wasn't clear. I've already discussed with User:kzollman that if he can show a consensus to do so at talk:List of slang names for poker hands, a transwiki and speedy per CSD:A5 is not out of the question. That might have a consensus (or one might develop) - a straight delete clearly does not. Cheers, WilyD 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - closing admin correctly interpreted the AFD and closed appropriately. Otto4711 21:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - I agree with the closing admin's summation of the AfD M2Ys4U 21:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse DRV isn't AfD2. Complaints about this article notwithstanding there was no problem with the closure. If the problems persist it might be suitable for nomination for deletion again down the line, but give it a little time, at least. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This should have never been opened here. While the original closing admin obviously acted inappropriately by editorializing his opinion, and subsequently making blatantly untrue statements to cover his tracks, the fact remains that the strong consensus of the original afd is to get rid of this article that plainly violates policy. Besides an unsigned comment and one other on the original afd, the only other "opposition" to following policy has been wikilawyer trolls. Creating this entry is more of the same. "Bold" wikilawyer rudeness on the part of Dennis just makes things worse. the afd process should be allowed to work, not hijacked or sent off into wikilawyer land. If someone, anyone, wants to change what the wikipedia is not then take up that point. The consensus for deleting the article is plain. WilyD's frankly bizarre statements about transwiking are just too weird at this point. Whether the article is moved to the Wiktionary or not is irrelevant to the point that the article violates policy and should be deleted. 2005 23:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't object to people attacking me for the most part, but please restrict your comments about Dennis to civil, productive ones. Dennis certainly does not deserve to be the target of ad hominem attacks for following policy. Cheers, WilyD 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good lord, spare us more of this lawyering. This mess is your fault. Denis' unfortunate circumventing normal procedure is sadly more of the same. Please don't make things worse. The afd consensus and policy should be followed. Normal procedure for deleting a blatantly inappropriate article should be allowed to continue without this tedious lawyering. If you want to apologize for your actions, fine, but please don't make things worse by extending this lawyering nonsense. 2005 23:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a request, it is a reminder that there are civility standards everyone must adhere to, and consequences if one does not. Don't take it for more or less. Dennis did the right thing (apart from which, the second AFD showed a clear policy based consensus for it) and there's no reason to slam him just because you're upset that I closed the first AfD as a discussion, rather than a vote. WilyD 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop. It is not uncivil to state someone acted inappropriately. Being "bold" is not a blank check for acting inappropriately, and then following that up with creating this entry, and the abstaining. These actions are poor choices, in my opinion. If you disagree, fine, but please do not make threatening posts again. Instead maybe you'd do well to read the civility standards you cited. 2005 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having said that I will not comment, I am now commenting. I already told you in your talk page. As you have seemingly ignored it, I will tell you here: DRV is the place to go if you feel that the closure of AFD was done with the wrong interpretation of consensus. If you don't believe me, go to WP:DRV and click on the link for "Purpose". Line 2, read it. This is not lawyering, as you are so inclined to call it, this is following the procedure that you seem to be wishing to adhere to. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just so you can ignore it again, the original closing is not an issue. There is NO REASON a discussion should be here. YOU started it, for reasons known only to you. I opened an afd an an article that plainly violates policy. You closed it prematurely. That was your decision, as was bringing up this other trivial issue here. You of course could open a discussion here if YOU want to and have issues about it. I could not care less myself, and certainly don't care about the lawyering. I opened an afd. I was not the person who opened the other afd. I acted appropriately, in an attempt to see policy followed regarding that article and not waste editors times on silliness. 2005 23:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please Assume Good Faith people. WilyD did what they thought was best for the article/project by closing the AfD as no consensus. 2005 again did they thought was best by submitting another AfD and Dennis thought that following procedure was the best thing to do. Whether or not any and/or all of these were the best thing to do is of no importance now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse closure. WilyD acted appropriately and within policy. The community failed to speak with one voice. It's no emergency that an article managed to scrape through as a no-consensus keep, so give it a few months and come back with a better rationale or at least proof that it is not being substantively improved. --Dhartung | Talk 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh, I've been hassled out of casinos for less logical reasons than that. Some time away from the tables may be in order. In all seriousness, there was fairly decent consensus on a transwiki move, so the debate should not have been closed as "no consensus." Waiting a few months will not make a difference. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 04:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question It looks to me like there was consensus support for moving all relevant content to wiktionary and then deleting. On the first AfD here were 8 voters and 2 commenters in total. 4 delete votes mentioned moving to wiktionary explicitly, 1 comment suggested that it either be kept or moved to wiktionary, and 2 votes were consistent with that solution (straight delete votes). One of the keep votes (by Iowa13) only suggested that the information be kept and suggested moving to wiktionary as a solution (suggesting this user was not opposed to move and delete; reading the users rational also supports this). All told, only one voter (out of 8 to 10 contributors) was explicitly opposed to that solution. Adding to that two new delete votes during the brief life of the second afd (and no non-process-based keep votes), I think we can agree that the "move to wiktionary and delete" solution has consensus support. If there are no objections, I will speedy the article (A5) once the move is complete. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm torn. I personally like the article... but objectively I don't think it meets standards. There is no criteria for the inclusion of terms and it simply begs people to be creative and come up with their own slang. Thus, I think it should be deleted. Do I think willy acted inappropriately? No, but I disagree with his conclusion or at least his rationale on the AFD. Thus, I agree with 2005's questioning the closure. I also agree with the move here for DVR---this is the appropriate place. So I am really torn... I think the page should be deleted---but I have to support the closure. If/when the page goes up for deletion again (in a few months) , I would like to be know. Thus, Endorse Closure.Balloonman 02:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Reasonable, because policy-based arguments were presented from both sides. And some that were not, such as IUSEIT vs ITSTOOHARDTOMAINTAIN. There was no consensus. DGG (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why does this require so much discussion? Can we just move the darn article to Wiktionary already? That would satisfy everyone - we keep the article but it gets moved to a more appropriate place. All of the editors who routinely work on/*cough* I mean constantly revert the vanity edits to *cough* that article seem to agree that a transwiki is in order. Only one person vehemently objected to the move. I requested that the page be protected for an extended time but the request was denied. Come on, let's stop wasting time and cyberspace arguing over petty procedural differences and just move the thing. It seems fairly apparent that there is no major objection to a transwiki move. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 03:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, for what it's worth, I'm fine with such an action. My experience is that slang tables such as this should be transwiki'd, so such a thing I'm not opposed to. Now if somebody would get off of their thumbs and do it.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:47, 13 July 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:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
      • PLEASE NOTE that the nominator has engaged in one-sided canvassing in order to influence and "vote stack" this debate. >Radiant< 08:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I made exactly four notifications of this review. One was to Radiant! themselves, as was required, one was to an editor that had also queried Radiant!'s closure and with whom I had discussed calling a DRV, one was to an admin with whom that editor had discussed the closure and one was to the Category's parent article talkpage: Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (oddly enough the original CFD was not notified to that talkpage or to anywhere else by its nominator). To call this "canvassing" appears to me to be unwarranted and in violation of WP:AGF. YMMV Hrafn42 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd say Radiant's accusation of canvassing is a totally unwarranted attack on Hrafn42. Mentioning the DRV on the talk page of the parent article is the correct way to go - and something that should have been done when the article was nominated for deletion. Hrafn42 discussed doing this with other editors - if you have a conversation with someone about whether to file a DRV it would be extremely odd to fail to inform them that you actually did. And telling Radiant himself - I'd call that polite, but if Radiant sees it differently, then I suppose people should respect his opinion and not inform him when his deletions are contested. Guettarda 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for deletion. Opinion was evenly divided between Evolution/Creationism regulars (who were all for keeping) and CFD regulars (who were all for deletion). On a request for reconsideration, the closing Admin refused, claiming that the "delete" side had the stronger arguments, but the "keep" side dispute this claim, the basis for which is insufficiently clear-cut to count as anything more than the closing Admin's personal opinion. Hrafn42 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Controlling policies appear to be:

Hrafn42 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 5#Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" Hrafn42 18:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: as far as I can ascertain, none of the 'keep' arguments employed arguments contained in WP:AADD (even were that essay to be considered a policy or guideline), and so cannot be discounted for that reason. Hrafn42 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A complete list exists on the DI website. Only those leaders of the movement or those who are otherwise noteworthy are included with separate articles on WP.--Filll 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there is the defining characteristic argument again. If they are leaders of the movement or otherwise noteworthy, then they are defined by being leaders of the movement or being otherwise noteworthy. They aren't notable because they signed a document. Lots of people signed my high school yearbook, but there isn't a category about them. --Kbdank71 19:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kdbank, just a reminder that Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Instructions says "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)." BTW, what the Discovery Institute does with the list (like running it in a full page ad in the New York Times) very much impacts the visibility and notability of those who sign it. That objection holds no water. Odd nature 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Was the point of the category to have an incomplete list of signatories?" As with any category on wikipedia, this category will only contain the members who both (1) fit the category criteria and (2) are sufficiently notable to warrant articles. A category of 'Chicago Politicians' would not contain some crank who ran for Chicago City Council in 1966, got one vote and died the next year in complete obscurity. If you want the full list, it already exists on the DI site (and may be subject to copyright), if you want to find out who on the list is notable (e.g. so you can read the articles on them, or so that you can interview them for a newspaper article on the SDFD), a category divides the chaff from the wheat nicely. Hrafn42 02:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate: When this list is complete, I would expect 100 or more of the present 700 or so signatories to have WP web pages. The fact that signing the list is the defining characteristic of their careers, summarizing their outlook and prospects. They have decided, at substantial personal risk, to help the Discovery Institute with its public relations campaign. For a casual reader of Wikipedia, this identifier will enable them to understand the career trajectory and beliefs of the signatory. It will also easily direct the reader back to other signatories, and the Discovery Institute and their public relations campaigns. A list is good, but it is only valuable when the reader already knows about the campaign and the DI. A category is better or a useful adjunct to a list because it succinctly and clearly lets the reader understand the beliefs, orientation and agenda of a subject whose WP article they come across. This signing is not a trivial act, like joining the American Physical society, but an indication of the interests and commitment of the signatory to a special cause. Signing the list can end a career, effectively. Signing the list can mean one has to change jobs. Signing the list can mean persecution and ostracism. Signing the list can indicate the reliability of the scientific judgement of the signatory. I would therefore ask that this category be reinstated.--Filll 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn many arguments were given as to why this should be a category rather than a list which were simply ignored by the closing admin. As Fill has more than adequately explained above, this is a major issue and the signing of the list is very a very notable thing. Admins should not close anything based simply on their own lack of knowledge about a controversy in question. JoshuaZ 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly weighed the arguments on both sides. Keepers argued: if this is deleted then ID advocates and Discovery Institute fellows might be next; when everyone who signed has an article there will be lots of articles; it's useful; and signing the document is a defining characteristic of the signers. Contrary to what was said in the DRV nom, the majority of these arguments are indeed arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and while it's true that ATA is not policy it does correctly identify arguments that are not particularly persuasive, as these were not particularly persuasive. The only substantive argument, that it's a defining characteristic, was strongly disputed by a number of people and in the face of the valid arguments from the deletionators and the weak and disputed arguments from the keepers the closing admin correctly closed with a delete. Otto4711 22:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for admitting that ATA is not policy. The point remains that it correctly identifies arguments that are not persuasive is matter of opinion, not policy. In fact, the applicable guideline, Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, makes no such exceptions for the quality of the arguments as WP:ATA calls for. Again, policies and guidelines trump essays everytime. And whether the arguments made were not particularly persuasive is also a matter of personal opinion. Personal opinion is simply no justification for such sweeping discounts of so many comments from credible editors and admins. Odd nature 22:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You really might want to give WP:3P a read. Especially since you seem to rely extremely heavily on policy, which is not the be all and end all of wikipedia. And you don't have to remind me, 3P is only an essay. But then again, WP:ONLYESSAY is only an essay also. Bit of a catch-22 if you ask me, but there you are. Bottom line, the closing admin's job is to determine the strength of the arguments, as not all arguments are of equal weight. If they were, this would be nothing more than a vote count, and that's not what we do. --Kbdank71 02:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Otto4711 stretches WP:AADD in an attempt to shoehorn 'keep' arguments into it:
      • "What about article x?" -- this was not employed as a basis for a 'keep' opinion, but rather as a counter-argument to 'delete' arguments.
      • "This number is big" -- this was not employed as an argument that the category is notable, but rather that a list would be unwieldy. The converse "this number is small" argument was employed by the 'delete' side.
      • "It's useful" -- I will concede that I missed this one in checking the 'keep' arguments. I will note however that only one editor employed this argument bare, as the basis for their 'keep' opinion (with one other editor basing their opinion on usability + notability), and that WP:AADD itself states "In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful." Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader." Hrafn42 02:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguing that if one category is deleted others might be is classic WAX. Arguing for the category because it will eventually have lots of stuff in it is a big number argument and even if it's not it's completely unworkable. All sorts of categories that could have lots of things in them are deleted. Certainly arguing "it's useful" isn't an automatic death sentence but I dispute the notion that a category of some but not all of the people who signed a position paper, even one that's contentious, is so useful that a list of all of the people wouldn't suffice. Otto4711 15:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if this is deleted then ID advocates and Discovery Institute fellows might be next" & "Arguing that if one category is deleted others might be is classic WAX." I just checked and this argument had in fact (contrary to my earlier claim) been used as part of an editor's 'keep' position, however as that editor later changed their position to 'listify', this editor's original position had already been discounted anyway.
  • "Arguing for the category because it will eventually have lots of stuff in it is a big number argument..." No it is not. WP:BIGNUMBER only explicitly discounts arguments that argue "big number therefore notable". An argument for splitting a page because it has a "big number" of words in it, is likewise not a "big number argument".
Hrafn42 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - not only was there no consensus to delete, there is also no evidence that Radiant actually made any effort to understand the arguments made in favour of keeping the category. His closing comment echoes the deletion nom. The only explanation (only one I can find) that he gave when questioned WP:AADD; he does not bother to explain how the arguments in favour of a keep are "fallacious". A deletion made when there is no consensus to delete, and without a valid explanation, should be overturned. Guettarda 03:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Guettarda and odd nature. Clearly there was no consensus, and I for one am alarmed to hear that my comment was discounted on specious grounds in the original CFD. I'm certain that if the majority of the community knew how essays like WP:ATA are being misapplied to subvert policy and discount their opinions, they'd have a similar feeling. This is indicative of a bigger problem that needs to be aired. FeloniousMonk 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and a challenge To the gainsayers of this category: Please explain to the community here how this category, Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", is any different from Category:Signers_of_the_U.S._Declaration_of_Independence. And before you try to make the argument, I'm going to quote Kdbank71 above: "Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it." So unless you're going to cede that point, don't bother making that argument or claiming that there's qualitative or quantitive differences between the two. Answer this convincingly, and I'll change my comment to 'endorse.' FeloniousMonk 05:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. >Radiant< 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No Radiant!, a legitimate counterexample is ALWAYS a legitimate refutation of an argument (in this case the argument that "Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it"). WP:AADD quite simply cannot trump the basic rules of logic. Hrafn42 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll give it a shot. Category:Signers_of_the_U.S._Declaration_of_Independence contains every signer. All of them have articles, and are notable for something other than signing the Declaration, the least of which is simply being elected to the Continental Congress, but others were Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Governors, flew kites in lightning storms, etc. By contrast, Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" would never have contained every person who signed it. Regarding signing, User:Filll said For most of these people, that is the only reason they are notable. [15] and User:Hrafn42 said that the notable people that were in the category were notable generally for being notorious fringe scientists, pseudo-scientists and/or cranks [16]. Now I'm not saying that signing the Dissent wasn't important for every single one of these people. But it's obviously not that important or every one of them would have articles stating "This person signed 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism." And so that category only tells a portion of the story. It doesn't capture the magnitude of the sheer amount of people who signed. As noted, a list could capture every name, whether they are notable or not. The Declaration signers category does tell the whole story of who signed. --Kbdank71 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your argument just ceded ""Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it." Hrafn42 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does stating "are notable for something other than signing the Declaration" cede that? --Kbdank71 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You changed your ground from "signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it" to "signing a document is not a defining characteristic, unless all signatories are notable", thus ceding your original point. Having all the signers being notable is one way to "twist it", and having conceded the existence of one legitimate "twist" you have retreated into a position where you need to argue the legitimacy of each "twist" on a case-by-case basis. Hrafn42 17:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You might want to re-read what I wrote. I don't believe you'll find that I typed "signing a document is not a defining characteristic unless all signatories are notable" or anything even close to it. Their defining characteristic is that they are Presidents, Congressmen, Justices, etc, not that they signed the Declaration. If I were to say those men were notable simply because they signed the Declaration, then I'd have ceded the point. --Kbdank71 18:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I read what you wrote. My paraphrase may have been imperfect, but the point remains. "Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it" became "signing a document is not a defining characteristic unless all signatories are notable". This is a form of "spurious argumentation" known as a Special pleading. This in turn demonstrates why your original assertion is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. Oh and if you insist on appending taunting edit summaries like "Got anything else..." to such flimsy logic you are likely to get your head handed to you by even the wimpiest lightweight of a regular from the Evolution/Creationism area of articles. Hrafn42 03:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn. The admins decision was based on his personal, strongly subjective opinion about the merits of the arguments rather than an objective reading of the community consensus. The last thing we need is admins deciding their opinions are more important than the opinion of the community (unfortunately, we seem to have a noticable number of this undesirable thing). Loom91 07:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse self, because CFD is not a headcount. The "keep" side many arguments that are fallacious, not compelling, or "arguments to avoid". For instance,
    • "the article would get cluttered" (so make two articles) ... "There are also categories about... (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - Northfox
    • "When the list is complete, it will have many more than 30 entries." (so? category size is not an issue here)... "For most of these people, that is the only reason they are notable." (if that's the case they will likely be deleted on AFD) - Fill
    • "Being a signatory to this petition is a strong and verifiable indicator of affiliation to the Intelligent design movement." (so put those people in the cats for "intelligent design movement!) - Hrafn42
    • "This is critical reference material for several articles" (no, we reference articles with citations, not categories) - Orangemarlin
    • "It's useful" (WP:USEFUL) - Feloniousmonk, Oddnature
  • And on the other hand, we have the WP:OCAT guideline, plus the more important fact that a LIST is a more comprehensive way of covering this information since it can include the degrees of the people on it, the places they work, and other relevant information, which of course the cat doesn't. Also, since not all of the signatory are notable enough to have articles, the list can be complete and the category by definition cannot. The full list is here, by the way. >Radiant< 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Radiant! represents "It's useful" as a direct (and ellipsis-free) quotation of Feloniousmonk & Oddnature. I would suggest neither of them said those exact words and that Radiant! is cherry-picking and caricaturing the 'keep' arguments in an attempt to make them look weaker than they really were. On the subject of "fallacious" arguments, Radiant!'s "the list can be complete and the category by definition cannot" takes the cake. The complete list already exists Radiant!, why bother to recreate it? This list contains only information on "the degrees of the people on it" OR "the places they work", almost never both, and I don't see editors bothering to track down that non-publicly-available information (even if the tracking down itself wasn't OR) on 600-odd non-notables. On the other hand the 'category automatically links to the articles of all the notable signatories, giving accessibility to a full range of "other relevant information" on them. The full list already exists to give spartan information on the non-notables, a category would give easy access to fuller information on the notables, along with placing a valid question-mark over their scientific credibility on their articles. Hrafn42 11:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you want this category so you can use it to push a POV about the signatories' scientific credibility. I kinda wish you'd said that in the original CFD. Can I change my vote here to double-super endorse? Otto4711 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a baseless accusation Otto4711. Whether a person has signed an anti-evolutionary petition is a matter of fact not POV. A person having rejected well-established science can lead scientifically-informed people to doubt the person's grasp of science, completely independently of my viewpoint. No POV-pushing is needed on my part, merely the facts and a scientifically-informed reader. Conversely, a Creationist reader would most probably trust the signatory more. Hrafn42 16:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wanting a category because it puts a "question-mark" on those categorized is POV pushing. There are other ways to make readers aware of these peoples' opinions or beliefs about Creationism or Intelligent Design that are NPOV, we don't need categories that try to score intellectual points. Otto4711 16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories place legitimate question-marks (with sections of the community, large and small) all the time. Most people would not support a member of Category:Neo-Nazis for political office (but fellow Neo-Nazis most probably would). Informing readers of a biographed person's verifiable affiliations is not a NPOV violation. Your accusation of POV-pushing is baseless. Hrafn42 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories may indeed put question marks on people all the time. That doesn't mean that categories for the purpose of creating those question marks are anything other than rank POV-pushing. Otto4711 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Per Joshua, FM, Guettarda, and Odd Nature. Also, what's with the canvassing accusation Radiant? Either prove it -- and make sure your evidence is rock-solid and air-tight -- or withdraw your comment. I know that I was not "canvassed" by anyone, and letting people know that a CfD in which they had participated is undergoing DRV is not canvassing. Trying to shrug off your mistake in deleting the cat by alleging that someone else is "not playing fair" (which is the gist of your accusation, is it not?) is ludicrous at best. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I do not see consensus, or anything that could reasonably be taken as consensus. For example, one recurring argument was the category should not have been placed in the super-category it was in, which is easily dealt with., and not by deletion. DGG (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To date on this review I have endured a wild accusation (WP:AGF) and taunting (WP:CIVIL) from regular CFD admins and a fairly flimsy accusation of POV-pushing (WP:AGF) from a CFD regular. I would request that this behaviour be taken in conjunction with the way CFD regulars conducted the original CFD (failure to notify, failure to cite specific policies even when pressed, the way the debate was closed) and ask yourselves if this creates a forum where substantive consultation can occur. You don't tend to stick around as a regular editor of the Evolution/Creationism area of articles without a strong tendency to stick up for your opinions, so such tactics haven't worked on this occasion. I do however feel that they may tend to intimidate into acquiescence editors from more mild-mannered areas of wikipedia. Hrafn42 03:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, well-reasoned close by closing admin and Wikipedia is not MySpace. CFD is not a vote or headcount. The arguments to keep were not very persuasive, and I wonder if there was canvassing there (there sure is here). --Coredesat 06:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Coredesat: if you are going to go around repeating wild and unfounded accusations I would suggest that you stick to ones that at least lack a publicly available refutation ("Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries" comes to mind). Anybody can view my contributions log and see exactly who I told about this review. This is precisely the type of crude CFD-regular initimidation I was talking about above. Hrafn42 09:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a CFD regular, and you should remain civil about the matter. Simply attacking any users who come along and endorse is exactly what you should not be doing here. --Coredesat 10:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies, you are an AfD regular, not a CFD one. That does not however in any way mitigate your wild and unfounded accusation. It is absurd for you to complain about "attacking" users when you attacked me first. Hrafn42 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The discussion was close to evenly split between "merge/delete" and "keep". The closing administrator therefore decided to consider the arguments given by both sides rather than use a straight head count, and he found the advocates for deletion more persuasive. (Note: If Hrafn42 has complaints about the behavior of specific users, he should post a notice at WP:ANI.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am not complaining about "specific users" but about a pervasive culture of intimidation and exclusion from CFD-regulars. You quite clearly don't want editors from other parts of wikipedia coming along to express an opinion and mess up your nice little closed shop by venturing an opinion on whether their categories are legitimate. This is, I am assuming, the basis for the completely spurious accusations of canvassing -- if any editors come along and mount an effective defence against your supremacy, then it must be because they're being canvassed. I may report this at WP:ANI, but that does not prevent me from commenting on this ongoing pattern of behaviour, here -- where it is of direct relevance to the review. Hrafn42 09:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Procedure was followed and the closing admin made a reasonable judgment based on the arguments available. Shell babelfish 22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion closure Radiant's choice was reasonable: content is better as a list, or as a merge to the category of Creationists. The encyclopedic significance of the Creation manifesto, while not in dispute, is also not so overwhelming as to demand comparable treatment with the Declaration of Independence. I believe the worry that the category is being employed mainly as a POV device is not ill-founded. I don't think the Creationists' manifesto would be given this extra navigational aid, but the sizable community interested in debunking it. Personally, I find this a highly laudable goal, but the WP's system of categories must remain a tool for NPOV only. In any case, the ultimate argument that governs at deletion review is, "Was the close reasonable?" I believe it was. Xoloz 04:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Per Guettarda, FeloniousMonk and OddNature. This appears to be a vendetta in deleting the article in the first place by Radiant, temporarily banning another editor Hrafn42, and comments herein. If this were a canvassing, somehow several of us were missed who were editors to the article. In fact, I didn't see it until today when I went to drop a note at Hrafn's talk page asking him for help on another topic, and I saw he was banned. This article is necessary especially since this list is referred to by both Creationists and scientists in regards to several articles. This is frustrating on a personal note. Orangemarlin 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. There quite clearly was a slight majority in favor of keeping when it was closed. A lack of consensus to delete can only be properly interpreted as a lack of consensus to delete, not as "The result was delete" as the closing admin put it. If there were administrative reasons for closing the CFD out as a "delete", such reasons need to be publicly stated to be administrative reasons and justified accordingly. This was not the case here. What was the case was that the closing admin's opinion became the rationale for deleting. This is unfortunate and ultimately unsustainable practice as the wiki goes into the future. We need clearer criteria for administrative overrides of lack of consensus for a proactive step such as deletion. By any other real-world standard other than that of, e.g., Kangaroo courts and other show trials, such a lack of consensus or lack of some other clearly justified warrant to interfere would ordinarily mean "leave the darned status quo alone". ... Kenosis 15:54, 16 July 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.
Gaia series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is in response to a article that was originally put up for deletion by Kariteh and the subsequent refusal to delete it. I would like to reopen the discussion to either put it up for deletion or at least reflect errors I beleive are prevalent in the article discussed here and related articles connected with it.

I'll start with a quote from the deletion discussion on June 27, 2007.

reliable sources for this being considered a series by fans include the following three professional reviews: [17]

And here is my response. This site is by no means staffed by professionals (with the excpetion of Kurt) almost all the "reviews/overviews" are written by dedicated fans, I should know as I wrote for him and the site. As I've pointed out in the discussion pages on both Gaia series and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games there is no official proof regarding these loose connections as a "trilogy or series" of games that are loosely related only by thematic element alone.

If deletion isn't warranted, by the very least commenting that the HG101 article was "Fan Written" and expresses the limited research and opinions of the article writer has to be considered and subsequently shown in the related articles, otherwise it would be akin to saying this is cold, hard, indisputable proof that this associated link is undeniable proof, and as I was slated to originally write that article I would never make that assumption based on the relative lack of facts pointing to any connections with those games, there is no such thing as the "Soul Blazer Trilogy", or even the "Soul Blazer Saga" / "Gaia Series" at the very least changes need to be made to reflect this point in the related articles, instead as Kariteh pointed out, all the information presented as Fact, is indeed assumption based on erroneous information gathered off the internet at other incorrect fansites.

I can say these "facts" are not checked throughouly on the articles on HG101, but only to the best of their ability by the volunteer staff who offer their time to write these articles out of the love for the games alone and nothing more.

A quick check of the message boards of the site will proove my point to its fullest. Anyway due what you will, but I truly ask that if nothing more the articles are edited and cleaned up to show what is fact and not mere speculation and fan assumption.

Last note, even though some games have "code names" given to them within development, doesn't mean they are specifically part of a certain series (this is in reference to the above statement about Illusion of Gaia and Terranigma being known internally as Soul Blazer 2/3 respectively) and as such some older video game magazines such as Electronic Gaming Monthly were not known for their veracious fact checking in the early days and were known to call a game by a incorrect name, which someone has mistakenly called it for many years since and created such errors like these two mentioned here.

And in that spirit I would hope that something is done to correct these errors, so the Wikipedia pages are correct or at least point out that these are not undisputed facts only what is (erronoeously) believed to be the long held "truth" regarding these games, but which is in fact the same recycled misinformation over and over again, which people are led to beleive is the 100% truth, due to years of fallacy and error.

Thanks. BLang30 14:46, 11 July 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.
Fran Mérida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The original article, Fran Merida, was created and deleted several times, using the rationale CSD G4. That section states: "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via a deletion discussion or deletion review, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted". Now when you compare the article that I created with the previous ones, there is a big difference - for example, the revision that was ultimately deleted in AFD consisted of an infobox and the following sentence: "Francisco Merida Perez (born March 4 1990) is a footballer, currently playing for Arsenal." The version I created, on the other hand, had reliable sources (including Sky Sports, an independent, reliable source) and also I feel that I asserted notability - but in any case it was significantly different from the version that was shot down in AFD, in my opinion. I think that if the article is relisted on AFD, I can provide sufficient arguments that the player is notable, but in any case it should not have been speedied. ugen64 08:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn deletion very sloppy G4 deletion... Ugen64's version was vastly different than the version deleted at AFD. --W.marsh 14:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and relist Clearly fails the substantially identical test of G4. May or may not be notable, but deserves reconsideration. GRBerry 14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - the key phrase is: any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. As things currently stands, Merida still fails the criterion laid out for sportspersons in WP:BIO - i.e. Competitors who have played in a fully professional league which was the reason laid out in the original AfD. He has not yet played a first-team match in a fully professional league and is not a member of his club's first team squad. [18] If and when he does become so I will endorse creation of the article, but not until then. Qwghlm 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main one to consider though is "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." which seems to be the case. The other criteria are pretty much antiques at this point, with respect to WP:N and WP:V. At any rate it doesn't have to solve the problems, that wording is just added to prevent versions with irrelevant changes, like more nonsense added, and so on. Consenus can change, this extreme misinterpretation of G4 is harmful in that it can be used to make some topics permanently off limits because of some arcane AFD of an obsolete version of an article. --W.marsh 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore He is one of the leading youth prospects in world football, and has had very wide media coverage. He hasn't played a first team game because he's at one of the top clubs in the world, but he's more prominent than half the footballers who do meet the criteria of having played a first team game in a fully professional league. The guideline should be used with common sense, so that youngsters at giant clubs like Arsenal get articles, just like less notable players at clubs like Leyton Orient. Nathanian 23:22, 14 July 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 whose title constitutes the entire lyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't like putting up deletion reviews, but sometimes "no consensus" closes need more of a justification. There is a majority consensus for delete even if you were just to count !votes. But, alone, the discussions for delete rely on more tangible reasons (or interpretation of said) and, hence, show a stronger consensus for removal of the list even if they weren't a numeric majority. There were two legitimate "weak keeps", but the other "keep" !votes consisted of WP:INTERESTING, WP:ILIKEIT and "why delete it?" This list should have been deleted, and put with all its predecessors in the list of songs graveyard. Bulldog123 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn; I hate second-guessing the closing admin, but in this particular case I feel I must agree. While arguments for delete were admittedly somewhat weak (which the closing admin rightly pointed out), the keeps were even weaker, amounting to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. There might not have been consensus in numbers, but I feel there were no arguments for keep put forward that were supported by policy or guidelines. — Coren (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I have participated in the AfD and !voted delete there. — Coren (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closing admin (Am I allowed to? I'm new at this, remember? If not, just strike this through). As I told Coren on his talk page, it was late and I really should have provided an explanation. So let expand on what I told Bulldog on his talk page.

    Yes, a lot of the keep votes couldn't really put their finger on what it was that made it borderline notable. But if the delete voters are going to deride the keep votes as ILIKEIT, they should make sure their own arugments and counterarguments aren't correspondingly IDONTLIKEIT (or, in this case UNENCYC). And I see some of this emotionalism at work here: "There's an end to all this. There just has to be".

    This waters down the assessment of consensus. But I also took note of the context of the current open season on song lists (some of which do have to go). I had closed List of Halloween songs as a delete since it developed a clear consensus for it; similarly List of songs about masturbation was recently kept after a similarly robust discussion. In six days this AfD attracted rather few votes by comparison with the latter, nor a clear majority for one result as with the former, suggesting the community cares less about it.

    It also says something to me when one of the delete votes is changed to keep mid-AfD, one editor makes a very pro-keep comment after his "neutral" vote, and after a couple of "delete" votes pile up, we get a "strong keep" from a very prolific editor ... who then sees the legitimacy of his vote questioned by the nominator.

    I also see, in this DR and in the last delete vote, the implication that we should delete this because we're deleting lots of song lists. I would remind the delete voters that WP:WAX cuts both ways, further diluting a consensus for action. I do not feel that appealing to an article's status as a member of a marked category or class of articles is really a good argument for deletion; we decide these things on a case-by-case (ahem) basis.

    Basically, this discussion was all over the place: strong keeps, weak keeps, neutrals, weak deletes and strong deletes and one changed vote, and a community that generally didn't show much interest. That adds up to no consensus by my math. Daniel Case 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, this is all very true. Plenty of WP:WAX, WP:ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT, but honestly, what else could be said about this list? It seems like there's MUCH MUCH more effort needed to delete it than keep it. It doesn't seem very neutral. Two reasonable weak keeps, and three ILIKEIT keeps already default keeps this. I think there's just an unreasonable threshold put forth. There's simply not that much to say about the content of the list, which is why all the arguments were weak to begin with. Bulldog123 04:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, such lists are trivial and borderline original research, and keep-arguments like "it's interesting" and "don't be so deletionists" are not very compelling. >Radiant< 08:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reread the guidelines above that point out that DRV is not the place to fight it out again over the content of the article in question. Arguments are supposed to be limited to whether the closing admin made a proper decision as to consensus. I'd support relisting it to gain further consensus, though. Daniel Case 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above. Half the arguments for keeping this were not based on any policy or guideline and were, as Radiant! points out, not compelling. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse it will be easier to nominate this again in a few months--close within discretion. DGG (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is one of those cases where "no consensus" and "delete" were both correct decisions. A tie goes to the discretion of the closing admin. Shalom Hello 18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - "Stop being so deletionist" and "interesting" are uncompelling reasons for deletion. With those taken out, it's 8 to 2.5, easy concensus to delete. Will (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse I would have closed this as delete but the close of no consensus was well within admin discretion. Admins are not robots. If someone has an objection they should wait a while and list it on AfD again, not try to change the forum here. JoshuaZ 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Personally I regard a "no consensus" close as permission to relist at any time anyway, so it doesn't make much difference. It could be relisted right now, for example. Chick Bowen 05:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC) addendum: I would have deleted it, though. Chick Bowen 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per the above: stronger arguments to delete versus ilikeit, etc.... Suggest it be brought back to afd if not enough consensus forms here to overturn the decision. Eusebeus 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There is a lot of focus above on the validity of the "keep"s, but I really don't think the arguments for "delete" were fully thought through either (many of them were short "listcruft", "trivia", and mere assertions of "unencyclopedic".) In this situation a "no consensus" result seems in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - Mostly per Sceptre above, but all the keep entries were pretty sad. "Don't be so deletionist"? I mean honestly, isn't that what we have AfDs for? Cool Bluetalk to me 13:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of "Well, we can always nominate it again later" comments. But honestly, are the "keep" and "delete" rationales going to change since then? There is very little to say about a list like this, so both the keep and deletes are always going to be weak. Meaning, even if it is renominated, it will probably end in a "no consensus" too. Bulldog123 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per March and Case.--Epeefleche 03:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Tx.--Epeefleche 19:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Bull -- you suggested when you started that you hesitate to even put up a deletion review. Why in the world would you now suggest the extraordinary step of putting your deletion review request up for relisting? You yourself imply in your above comment that there is not consensus for deletion. Cleary there is now consensus to overturn the decision. Let's all get on to productive activities.--Epeefleche 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

10 July 2007

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

Real organization, here are sources Redflagflying 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page for the Free People's Movement was deleted apparently (after little discussion) for a lack of independent sources and because the website seemed to be down. The organization is very real, and in the interest of getting the page back up I'll list the following proofs:

1. A New York indymedia article documenting a recent action by the Free People's Movement, including pictures, is available here: http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/07/88126.html A video of that same event is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ3GjcKi2wQ#GU5U2spHI_4 And the FPM itself has an article on its website explaining the action and including lots of pictures here: http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?318 (There are clearly multiple people there, so the previous absurd claim about "one guy living in his mom's basement" is proven false).

2. A Pittsburgh indymedia article documenting another recent action by the Free People's Movement, again including pictures, is available here: http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/27365.php Another event: http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/calendar/event_display_detail.php?event_id=1505

3. A .pdf of a publication from the U.S.-based Communist League which includes a long article (for the most part attacking the organization) is available here: http://www.comleague.org/cli/pdf/wr/wr2007q1.pdf

4. The website of one of the Branches of the FPM, with an active blog, videos and pictures proving its existance: http://www.fpm-mgl.org/ct/

5. There was mention of a Revolutionary Youth website being a hoax; but the person who said it had the website wrong. It is not http://www.ry-jr.org but rather http://www.ry-jr.info

6. Myspace group for a Branch of the organization in Boston with 69 members: http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=103456259&MyToken=7a4a5471-6f6e-4623-89f0-94b737522a19

7. Account of 2006 political attacks on the FPM and its members, included the arrest of one of its members (Francisco Acevedo) which was covered by every mainstream and alternative newspaper in Hartford Connecticut several times (google search "Franscisco Acevedo") is available here: http://rebeldeporlapaz.gnn.tv/blogs/17391/Defend_the_Free_People_s_Movement_and_its_members

8. Documented proof of someone who went through the process of joining the FPM on one of the biggest political forums on the internet: http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t54442.html

9. Entry on the FPM in the Government and politics research guide: http://www.123exp-government.com/t/03774503101/

10. Yet another page documented a protest carried out by the FPM: http://www.freethefive.org/posadaprotest.htm

11. Blog entry by someone who says "I am not a supporter of the Free People's Movement" on the FPM: http://callmeanxious.wordpress.com/2006/08/08/defend-the-free-peoples-movement/

12. FPM manifesto in an online book store: www.cafepress.com/rebelion.101278812

13. Odd entry on political flag website including the FPM's flag way back in 2005: http://fotw.fivestarflags.com/cu%7D.html#fpm

14. Article written on the Free People's Movement and communism in general: http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?p=602002&sid=79c6daf767ac7cf4369843a8a959b3cf

15. Thread on LibCom discussing the Communist League and Free People's Movement: http://libcom.org/node/8825

16. Page on political parties listing the FPM as an "international organization": http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/parties.htm#F

17. Discussion on the Free People's Movement and their response to Hurricane Katrina: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t49980.html

18. List of political parties containing the FPM: http://www.dhs.wash.k12.ut.us/~gwhicker/index_files/American%20Government/Ch%205%20Sec%201.pdf

19. This contact page http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?7 shows the Solomon Islands mailing address of being "care of Charles Ravinago", this article says Ravinago is a leader in the Solomon Islands' branch: http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?290 , and there's an article about FPM members in the SOlomon Islands running for election here: http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?219 , on this page: http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/s/solomons/solomons2006.txt you can see results of the election, with Charles Ravinago getting 1.1% of the votes.

20. Again, the http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?7 contact page shows several concrete mailing addresses in different countries around the world, and a concrete office in Pittsburgh with a phone number.

21. Finally, there are tons of pictures of the FPM website showing its multiple members in several different activities.. instead of finding links for all of them, I urge you to browse the website http://www.fpm-mgl.org or check out their myspace page http://www.myspace.com/freepeoplesmovement which has a number of pictures of different events, with captions explaining them, and giving times and dates.

In conclusion, this is obviously a real organization, and it's notable for a number of reasons, from arrests of its members, to actions its carried out, to standing in elections in the Solomon Islands, etc. etc.

And finally, in the way of anecdotal evidence, I know this organization is real because I've worked with it before, and plan to again.

Please bring the page back. Action was taken too quickly, and it shouldn't have been deleted.

Redflagflying 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indymedia is not independent and reliable?? Pictures are not either? Discussions between dozens of people? Video evidence is not reliable? Lists of political parties from various sources?? The politcs and government guide?? How about election results from a country????

Don't let your ideology get in the way of common sense. Redflagflying 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:There is no common sense. —Kurykh 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiight, I'm merely serving my capitalist masters in the ruling class. Pray tell, what "ideology" do you think I possess? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:There is no common sense (in response to the link about no common sense) --Android Mouse 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no common sense on Wikipedia" - That's becoming more and more evident.
  • Endorse deletion for the time being. None of the sources I've reviewed appear reliable enough. The sources are all either blog postings, forum postings, myspace accounts, cafe express accounts, or indy media releases. If you had an article from a well-read and published newspaper, magazine, or website then that'd be a different story. --Android Mouse 00:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the one indymedia report of a small demonstration drawing only a handful of people is the only really valid source. Corvus cornix 01:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So an organization doesn't exist unless a mainstream media outlet writes an article about it? Talk about turning reality on it's head. To paraphrase Marx: articles reflect the existence of something, not the other way around. The organization is only a few years old, and obviously capitalist news outlets aren't out looking to cover revolutionary communist organizations. Are the photos and video not proof of existence? What do you think, that various people set up a website, and released publications regularly for years, set up an office with a phone, set up mailing addresses in several countries around the world, and traveled around to different cities to take pictures of themselves, and RAN IN THE ELECTION OF THE SOLOMON ISLANDS as a part of some elaborate hoax??? Seriously? How is the Communist league's magazine not an "independent source"? How are election results from the SI not an "independent source"? How is a list of political parties created by a public school in the U.S. not an "independent source"? How is a list of political parties created by an independent group in Australia not an "independent source"? How is "the Government and politics research guide" not an "independent source"? How is coverage of an event held by the FPM on the site of the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five not an "independent source"? How is the political flags website not an "independent source"? How is an article published on Soviet Empire not an "independent source"? How can you say an organization with hundreds of members, that is well known is several parts of the world, that has had its members arrested (and those arrested have been covered by every bit of mainstream in Hartford, Connecticut - see: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22francisco+acevedo%22&btnG=Google+Search ) does not exist, but still carry an entry on the "Maoist Internationalist Movement" (with NO sources!), which is well known to be an internet-only group of border-line-lunatic trolls is beyond me. It seems to me that Wikipedia should be as inclusive as possible, and should only exclude useless information that can be of no benefit to its users (and indeed, this has been my experience for the most part). We shouldn't be going out of our way to delete pages. I went through the same thing with the entry on Jack Strain a while ago; luckily, rational though prevailed there. Redflagflying 01:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the one indymedia report of a small demonstration drawing only a handful of people is the only really valid source." There were two indymedia articles covering two separate demonstrations. Why is why valid and the other not? How many "really valid sources" do you need, anyway? And who determines if they are "really valid," you? Redflagflying 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mere existence is not sufficient for inclusion on WP. Indymedia's not a reliable source because anybody can submit an article. We demand that something be covered in "capitalist news outlets" before writing an article on it because we are tools of The Man. Furthermore, we are uninterested in your squabbles with the Judean People's Front Maoist Internationalist Movement (whose existence predates the World Wide Web, by the way). WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and all that. You may want to be careful about calling other people "border-line-lunatic trolls." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone answer my questions about how the last sources I listed in my most recent post aren't "independent sources"? Thanks. As for the Maoist Internationalist Movement, there is no one, on the left or right, that considers them a serious organization. I have no "squabbles" with them, I am stating a fact. Redflagflying 03:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion Sources provided. Redflagflying 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem isn't just that they're not independent, it's that they're also not reliable. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources, sources must be reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sites like MySpace, YouTube, Indynews and such aren't reliable sources because they don't do any sort of content or fact-checking to make sure the content submitted to them is true and factual. The organization's own site isn't an independent sources since their contents will never really cover the group in a neutral way. Is that clear enough? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A search will show that we use as sources, and have articles on, The Nation, Mother Jones, Common Dreams, and so forth, so this is not an issue of selective rejection of sources. Heck, we'd probably accept a book as a source if it came from the Noam Chomsky Anarcho-Syndicalist Press. The only in-depth sources fail reliability; the trivial sources, even collectively, do not add up to notability. Running in an election is not notability (we ignore fractional parties and failed candidates routinely). Saying "an organization with hundreds of members" and expecting people to assume that all such organizations are automatically notable really isn't a viable argument. One person being arrested does not confer notability on the group collectively. This is an encyclopedia; we exercise selectivity. That's unfortunate for those people, places, and things which have failed to interest "the capitalist media", but it's the only way we can work and not be geocities. --Dhartung | Talk 08:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion Although the FPM may not be huge or incredibly influential in the world, they are a very real organization. Considering how many unimportant or defunct groups there are on Wikipedia, the FPM certainly deserves it's own article. And on another note, the Maoist Internatioal Movement is no more than a dozen crazy college students who print out some rag of a paper. They do not deserve an article, especially one as lengthy as the one they have right now. --Callmeanxious 16:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation The sourced listed here were not in the article at the time of deletion, and they somewhat change the balance. There should be a wide tolerance for political parties, even small splinter ones, and I think this would just make it. Should at least have been relisted, but I think re-creation would -- as often -- be the simpler solution.DGG (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's true, this is effectively "new information". I could back a provisional re-creation to see what a properly sourced article would look like, but I'm not sure this particular editor quite understands WP:RS yet. Working with an editor or two, though, might provide a practical education. What would that look like (as I'm not a DRV regular)? Userspace creation, mandatory AFD, or? --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse undeletion, for the same reasons previously specified; overwhelming evidence that the website (and the movement) is a legitimate left-wing organization, which is internationally recognized.--Redstar1916 18:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is that clear enough?" No, it's not! No one has yet to explain how (1) the Communist league's magazine - which is highly critical of the FPM!! (2) a list of political parties created by a public school in the U.S. (3) a list of political parties created by an independent group in Australia (4) "the Government and politics research guide" (5) the site of the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five (6) the political flags website & (7) an article published on Soviet Empire are not "independent sources." I also find it laughable that someone would have the nerve to post that articles on "The Nation, Mother Jones, Common Dreams," show some lack of bias. Those magazines are all liberal mouth pieces, and as much as its trashed, liberalism is an accepted part of mainstream politics in the U.S.; revolutionary communism obviously is not. They are not comparable. Dennis Kucinich gets regular coverage in the mainstream press, Sam Webb does not. Redflagflying 18:10, 11 July 2007
    If it's not clear enough, then you need to read NeoChaosX's explanation of why sources need not only be independent, but also reliable and (let me add) nontrivial to satisfy the notability guidelines. A nontrivial source is one that actually discusses the subject at some length (as opposed, say, to a mere directory entry or picture). Of the seven sources you list: (1) is not reliable (as it is a position statement from a political organization, not a journalist trying to impart facts neutrally); (2), (3) and (4) are trivial, directory listings that do not actually discuss the subject; (5) is not reliable for reasons similar to (1); (6) is a picture of your flag (trivial and personal websites are not generally considered reliable either) and (7) is a personal essay, not a third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I hope this explanation satisfies you.
    In addition, as you note, revolutionary communist organizations do not get as much press coverage as other political groups. This is precisely why WP cannot provide them as much coverage as you would like. You need to accept this, even if you don't like it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by RL-Sentinel (talk • contribs)

(UTC)

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.
Myg0t (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The last DRV of this article was speedily closed without allowing any discussion beforehand. I feel this article hasn't had a decent DRV yet. All the previous ones have either been plagued with trolls (some even changed other user's comments), or sock puppets and were in general basic non-discussion votes.

As per the subject, myg0t, I feel it has obtained more than adequate notability (particularly related to the HL2 source leak) and is now definately verifiable. See the previous DRV for a list of magazines this group has been featured in (note, the small discussion in the previous DRV was made after it was closed and was later moved into the archive). Since the article has been deleted for some time, there is no cache of what it used to be. I've taken the liberty of creating my own proposed version of it User:Android Mouse/myg0t which has every sentence and detail cited.

I'd like to ask everyone to disregard the previous DRVs because of their faults I've outlined above. Don't let personal opinions get in the way. Your and my own opinions of this group are irrelevant to this discussion. Android Mouse 18:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • OverturnRe-create Surprisingly enough at that. The article as Android Mouse has it, is well sources with reliable sources, give a good claim to the group's notability, and is written from a NPOV. Wildthing61476 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow re-creation The new version of the article seems to be appropriate encyclopedic content. I'd rather simply say allow re-creation rather than overturn,.DGG (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-create Two of the article's reliable sources describe myg0t as "infamous" or "notorious". Having previously browsed the article's AfDs, I saw a few objections to myg0t's activities, as opposed to the merits of the article. It might get killed at AfD again; but this version is sized just right for the extent of myg0t's mainstream coverage and takes on a NPOV. Ichormosquito 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow for recreation with reservations. I'm somewhat skeptical about the sources being used here. None of them seem to mention myg0t in more than a trivial/incidental fashion, and scanned images as sources always rub me the wrong way - although I am willing to assume they are genuine and take them for face value. I guess my recommendation would be to allow this to be re-created for the time being, and if there are serious reservations about the state of the article it can always go back to AfD to get a better feel for consensus. However it must be understood that allowing this version to be created is not an endorsement of the current state and cannot be viewed as such should somone wish to have it brought back for consideration. ɑʀкʏɑɴ • (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation, though I have issues with the scanned images of the sources as well; you may want to re-scan to get the date line from the magazine pages onto them, to help with identifying the magazine more directly within the source. The Rolling Stone piece seems to give just enough to the topic to bring it over to notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still fancruft, still vainglorious, still not properly supported by reliable sources, still just crap off teh internets. Another contribution to "shitapedia" and one more reason I am thoroughly disaffected at present. Oh, and those source links are offsite copyright violations which seem to exist primarily because the group is scraping up mentions in the hope of getting an article. They exist for their own vanity, and an article is just what they want. In the words of the great philosopher Molesworth, "they are uterly wet, I diskard them". All this without any personal animosity to android mouse, I'm just baffled as to why any actual editor would want to document this bunch of pathetic trolls. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how it could be considered 'fancruft' when Rolling Stone magazine picks up on it. It may be just "crap off teh internets" but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. They may very well exist soley for their own vanity, but that makes them no less notable. Many politicians exist for their own vanity but it by no means decreases their own notability. I think you are letting your opinion of trolls get in the way of the discussion, and I mean this without insult to you or your opinions. --Android Mouse 22:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no fan of trolls, either; but when I came across the myg0t AfDs, I couldn't help but think both sides of the argument were mishandling the discussion. So long as it doesn't spiral into a recruitment tool for malcontents, Android Mouse's article is a perfectly reasonable addition to Wikipedia. Ichormosquito 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: none of those sources can be used in an article about myg0t, as they are copyright violations, web forums, the site's own webpage, or in the case of the CNN page, doesn't even mention myg0t. Corvus cornix 01:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is deemed a copyright violation to link to the images, the links can be removed. That although doesn't mean the sources can't be used, the links are only for convenience. The CNN article doesn't mention myg0t, but it is citing the source leak, not myg0t's involvement (that is what the other citation is for). While I agree web forums generally shouldn't be used as citations, the one in the article is an exception since it is posted directly by the Valve CEO (plus used on the HL2 article already). The myg0t site itself is used as a reference for non-controversial and non-questionable, general information about the group, which is generally considered acceptable. --Android Mouse 02:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not overturning the salting by any means, but claiming that you can't use a source because it's a copyright violation is idiocy. - hahnchen 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to this is simple. Find the original sources to confirm that the images are correct, cite them. Dead tree sources are legitimate; they are just harder to have a discussion about online. We shouldn't link to the copyright violations, but citing dead tree sources we've seen is legitimate. GRBerry 13:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation; there seems to be sufficient sources to establish notability and write an article. De gustibus e coloribus non disputandum; I think it's vanispamcruft, but it's notable vanispamcruft, apparently. — Coren (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, are the external links to images hosted at Imageshack seriously going to be now that the article is live? Those are unlicensed reproductions of the magazines and, as such, are copyright violations and are inappropriate to link to per WP:EL. The magazines can be cited as normal using citation templates. --Iamunknown 08:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't this be merged somewhere, like into a HL or CS related article? While it may or may not be notable, there really isn't so much reliable information out there that it needs its own article. Wickethewok 13:36, 11 July 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 diabetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There are lists of people from Michigan, so there should be a list of Diabetics, with listed sources, of course. Antonio Diaper Boy Martin 07:43, 10 July 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.
Chuck Taylor (Wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)


Chuck Taylor is the current holder of the IWA Mid-South World Heavyweight Championship which makes him notable unto itself. He is also the winner and current holder of the Chikara Young Lions Cup, Chikara. He has made appearances at Combat Zone Wrestling and The United States Wrestling Association, all of these being large wrestling federations across the United States, not in just one territory. He is on numerous DVD's and is featured in several articles.

This is his bio at OWW, the go to site for wrestlers bios. If read you will see that he has faced other wrestlers who have Wiki entrys. How, logically can the wrestlers he faces have entries yet he is denied? If he was jsut a run of the mill indy wrestler I would say sure delete but it was brought to my attention that he is indeed a Heavyweight Champion and has faced other wrestlers such as Colt Cabana, that the average person would not know, and is notable for such.

In conclusion, he is a wrestler of note but one USER who pushed for his deletion (repeatedly breaking rules to do so) was found to be biased against American Indy Wrestlers having left this statement "I've messaged two admins, the closing admin last time and and admin who works with the WP:PW and so can bitch slap any indy fans. Darrenhusted 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wildthing61476"" His influence should not be allowed in any discussion if it is found that the article should be undeleted or put back up for deletion since he is biased. And for him to drag the Admin who works with him on the Wrestling Wiki is a slap in the face to all Users because it is abuse of his position in my opinion. --EdWood 02:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't see why this article should be deleted. Chuck Taylor has enough fame and has held enough world titles in the Indy wrestling scene to warrant an entry. He's worked enough big name companies like IWA-Mid South, CHIKARA, and Combat Zone Wrestling (all of which have their own entries) to have sufficient notoriety. Lesser known people have entries, people. --OuchytheClown 03:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no reason for Chuck Taylor to not have a wiki.if you go to his profile on Chikara's website, you will see that he is a very established wrestler in the brand. [19] he's been a Young Lions Cup V Tournament Winner, Young Lions Cup Champion, and an IWA: Mid-South Heavyweight Champion. let's be honest. If there can be a wiki for Monopoly express casino, then why can't an established indy wrestler have one? [20] --flyinjew 12:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I always thought wikipedia was supposed to be fare and balanced with anybody, if they were notable enough, able to have a page. But this fellow who clearly has good reason to be on here is being shunned for what reason really, the only thing being thrown around is that there arnt many reliable sources but there are plenty of entrys on wikipedia like that, but just cause this guy doesnt have an action figure or been in a rob snieder movie we have to shun, its just not fair. --MilksGoneBad
  • Endorse deletion, possibly speedily endorse/close. Deletion review is not AfD redux. No evidence provided in the deletion review rationale nor in the discussion above explaining how the AfD was out of process. A quick review of the AfD discussion shows that "sources" provided were found to be lacking. No possible references, etc., have been provided to indicate that the AfD discussion/closure was based on a lack of information or misinformation about the topic, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT are not rationales to overturn this decision. Something more substantive needs to be provided to have a worthwhile discussion here. Comparing this to Monopoly Express Casino and assuming bad faith on the part of another editor does nothing. --Kinu t/c 04:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, congratulations to the new editors who have decided to make DRV their very first edits. What a stroke of luck that you found it so quickly. --Kinu t/c 04:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you know so much why don't you correct the Admin that sent me here? I quote "Then go to WP:DRV. —Kurykh 01:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)" The article was well written and linked refereces cited major wrestling articles but one editor kept deleting them in violation of the 3 times in 24 hours policy. He has made it clear that he will delete any attempt to clean up any article on Chuck Taylor or Indy Wrestlers for that matter. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdWood" Also, I have been around for along time. --EdWood 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point out where I said "He has made it clear that he will delete any attempt to clean up any article on Chuck Taylor or Indy Wrestlers for that matter." —Kurykh 05:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, your comment "The article was well written and linked refereces cited major wrestling articles but one editor kept deleting them in violation of the 3 times in 24 hours policy" is erroneous on grounds of policy. For one thing, WP:3RR is pertinent only on edits, not deletions. And the application of CSD G4 is proper, if not mandated. —Kurykh 05:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry for the confusion but it was not you I was referring to it was Darrenhausted who, as quoted above (in one incident) is against the article and indy wrestlers and said during discussion he would remove all new refrences. I mentioned the WP:3RR because he did indeed delete everything that was added several times including but not limited to references and articles noting his notablity. I was not referring to you in either statement. --EdWood 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment [21] according to online world of wrestling, chuck taylor has quite the list of accomplishments. quite frankly, I find it insulting that you are insinuating that I only registered to take part in this argument. I have had an account here forever, but lost the login info. considering I have a new email and everything, it was simply easier to register new name, as opposed to going on wiht recovery. --flyinjew 1:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Hello, EdWood and your two new accounts. The original Chuck Taylor page was nominated for deletion by me and one user called Theperfectone filibustered (61 edits) the debate until it was over 35k, and at no point did he provide anything which even hinted at notability. Curiously enough Theperfectone stopped editing completely after the AfD was finished (wrapped up by Kurykh, for which I thanked him.)
Then 24 hours later a new user called Matthewhack asked EdWood how to create a page called Chuck Taylor, and within 24 hours of the delete it was recreated. This article CSD G4, but the tag was deleted and so a different user Wildthing61476 tagged it for AfD number 2, and then Nikki311 a member of WP:PW sent me a message to let me know it had been re-created and there was a new AfD. Now I had never spoken to Wildthing before yesterday and although I have spoken to Nikki311 before (as we have both been reviewing the wrestling articles and PROD-ing and AfD-ing those that did not belong on WIkipedia) there was not some kind of conspiracy nor prejudice as EdWood has alluded to on my talk page and others.
I have a long record of AfD-ing and feel that if the article does not assert notability then the burden lies with other editors to prove it or lose it, and recently the wrestling project has deleted hundreds of articles like Chuck Taylor, and most of the time simply by applying a PROD.
When the page was recreated I wanted to show EdWood what a page maintained by the WP:PW looks like, and so removed all detail which was not verifiable, such as "he is one of the fastest rising stars of the independent circuit", and links which were not allowed, like youtube and myspace, and most importantly pictures which are not fair use and violate copyright.
I then let EdWood know both through edit summaries and messages to him, why I was removing this information. And then finally, I made it clear that recreating an article which has just been deleted without asking the admin which deleted it was against the rules unless the article was completely different. I contacted Kurykh, the closing admin, and SirFozzie, and admin who is a member of the project to let them know what had happened and that I would be re-applying the CSD G4. SirFozzie then deleted the article (after I had gone to sleep) and TenPound Hammer closed the second AfD.
I have no personal feeling towards Theperfectone, Matthewhack or EdWood, and I could care less about Chuck Taylor, but while I'm editing wikipedia I will at the very least follow the rules. I made no peronal attacks during either of the AfDs, although some may feel I was short with them that is how I will be during a second AfD for an article which should not have been recreated. And when commenting on EdWood's talkpage I was doing so to make clear my actions (and he kept re-adding Myspace and Youtube long after I told him then were not allowed).
In fact after banging my head against a brick wall EdWood followed my advice and messaged the closing admin about recreating the article, who told him he would not [22] and told him to come here [23]. Where it is clear that EdWood is willing to play by the rules when he thinks it will suit him, but not when he needs RS.
So in closing, because I pray to Zeus that Chuck Taylor (wrestler) has been salted, I Endorse the first AfD, second AfD and the Speedy Delete. And I wonder why the three users who felt the overwhelming urge to comment here didn't at least register to Overturn [24] [25] [26], rather than just comment. As for the "bitch slap indy fans" comment, I made it, but it was in humour to another user and does not refer to any fan in particular, and I didn't nominate this page for AfD the second time, and how I feel didn't make a difference, the rules were broken, plain and simple. And that is all that I have to say on the subject of Chuck Taylor ("wrestler") in this life or the next. Darrenhusted 11:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Well since I've been mentioned twice, I feel I have to comment now. My point of contention this entire time, two actually, were these: One, this article was a recreation of the previous article deleted per AfD on July 8th, and as such, was worthy of CSD per policy G4. I really don't care who the subject is about, I'm usually doing recent/new page patrol, and saw this one come up. I also commented in the previous AfD that I felt Chuck Taylor was not notable enough for an article. Secondly, the sources in the article were not reliable sources, which was a point of contention in the previous AfD. It's obvious at this point, Mr. Taylor is popular however popular =/= notable. I support the article continued deletion and request the article be salted from further creation until such time as his notability can be verified through reliable sources. Wildthing61476 12:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note all three users who want to bring back Chuck Taylor, missing the point of the DRV, sign in the same manner as EdWood, that is with two dashes and not using the tildes, [27], [28], [29], [30], a clear case of sock puppets or a massive coincidence? Darrenhusted 13:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Darrenhusted should be sanctioned for his false allegations against me, I am not the two new accounts. He has harrassed me and abused me via messaging repeatedly. I click the signature above and that is what happens, if you go back in my history, even to my article on Johnny Maestro you will see that it has always been like that. An admin told me to come here for reconsideration and I did, he is aware of this and the users should not be implying that an admin was wrong to direct me here. His notablity was posted over and over just to be deleted by Hausted who is against any wrestler not on television. This guy really needs to be sanctioned on some level, he is abusive, rude and sarcastic. Hausted states that no articles claiming his notablity were there, well they weren't because he kept deleting any link, reference or article citing Taylors notablity. I have more than proven that he was notable only to be foiled at every turn by Darren who is plainly anti indy wrestler, and for the record I am not a wrestling fan , I am the one who could care less but he is notable so what is right is right. --EdWood 14:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has AGAIN been created at Chuck Taylor (wrestler). I've warned the creator of the article to come here instead to discuss whether the original article should be re-created. Wildthing61476 19:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wrestlers like Beef Wellington and Richochet do not have a page therefore in my conclusion proves they aren't notable even though they have been a professional wrestler longer than said debate. Now I say we give Chuck Taylor one more year before creating a page for said wrestler to clear up all this trouble and confusion. Good day.
    That doesn't mean they are not notable. There are a good number of wrestlers who don't have articles on Wikipedia, are you going to consider them not notable? Mr. C.C. 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, a new accomplishment has almost been added to his accomplishments. If BJ Whitmer doesn't defeat him on July 21st, Chuck Taylor will now be the longest reigning IWA World Heavyweight Champion of all-time. Surely, that would be enough, considering IWA Mid-South is one of the major indy promotions and distributes DVDs all around the world through www.smartmarkvideo.com. theperfectone 19:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Valid close of sock-infested AfD. Reliable sources are scarce on the ground. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:02, 11 July 2007

(UTC)

  • There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that have a lack of sources, but you don't see them being deleted over it. A lack of sources is a poor excuse. Mr. C.C. 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point I do not care anymore, Darren has beat me into submission with his abuse and listing me as having sockpuppets but I will do this:
  • All his accomplishments listed here at his bio at Online World of Wrestling which is the place to go for wrestling info Online World of Wrestling
  • He is the Heavyweight Champion of the World of a recognized federation.
  • He won the largest tourny in Chikara, a major east coast federation.

Now I shall return to doing my edits on Doo Wop groups. --EdWood 01:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse; the deletion was proper. The article did not claim proper notability and the consensus was clear in the AfD despite the horde of meat/sock puppets. — Coren (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nothing was clear in the AfD. I constantly made points that no one really corrected me on, or countered, to be fair. Fact: The guy has won two tournaments in a major indy promotion that distributes DVDs though SMV for the world to buy, not like the local indy promotions that don't even tape their show. Another fact: The guy will most likely be the longest reigning IWA Mid-South World Heavyweight Champion, which is another major indy promotion that distributes DVDs through SMV for the world to purchase. BJ Whitmer will most likely not defeat Chuck Taylor, due to him not being a regular. So, you can pretty much put it in the record books, "Chuck Taylor will be longest reigning IWA World Heavyweight Champion of all-time." Yet another fact: Other wrestlers who have had similar number of accomplishments or not even as big as his accomplishments, indeed have articles on here. Not to mention, he won the title at IWA Mid-South's biggest show of the year, Ted Petty Invitational. While the longest reigning champion statement isn't true yet, it will be. Just watch. theperfectone 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are lesser known independent wrestlers with an article here on Wikipedia such as Pete Wilson (wrestler) which I created. So why should should this article be deleted above others? Strong keep. You might as well go around deleting other wrestler articles of notablity like Chuck Taylor than. I second the proposal of un-deleting this article. Mr. C.C. 09:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has already been quoted, and Pete Wilson is a member of the Hart family. I have AfD-ed other articles like Chuck Taylor's, in fact half the CHIKARA roster has been deleted, that is why I removed all the redlinks (for example Rorschach and Ricochet). If you look back over the last month over 100 sub-standard wrestling articles have been deleted (and most of which did not required an AfD), including some walled gardens. C**** T***** just happens to have three fan editors who really want to keep his article. Darrenhusted 10:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Chuck Taylor has more fans on here than three. Half the Chikara roster has been deleted. Not all of it. The half that was deleted, did not hold the IWA World Heavyweight Title either, if you think about it. Chuck Taylor has done more than the half that was deleted. The half that was deleted didn't win two tournaments in the company either. So, when you think about it, using that excuse isn't good enough. theperfectone 09:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record I have been proven to NOT be any of the above people (sockpuppetry) and Darren should be punished for his harassment. By the way who is Chuck Taylor is notable. --EdWood 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Darren, Pete Wilson is a not member of the Hart Family. He was trained by a Hart, but he is not a member of that family. But the issue at hand is the Chuck Taylor article. I still say it should be un-deleted. There is some mudslinging going on with this issue and it's quite childish. Plus these excuses are pretty sad. Excuses such as lack of "proper notability," lack of sources, etc.. I have not seen a concerte reason this article was deleted or keep deleted. Until a more valid reason is come up with, I am still urging a strong un-delete. Mr. C.C. 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With all due respect, proper sources and notability isn't an excuse, it's a valid reason to not keep an article. I'm not mudslinging here, and the only reason I'm involved quite honestly is that the article was originally recreated after it failed an AfD, and I nominated for deletion per CSD G4. At this point, I honestly don't care if the article is re-created or not, I don't believe there are valid sources to verify notability, however the arguments for keeping the article seem to be valid as well. The reason the article was originally deleted in the first AfD was because of the lack of these sources. Wildthing61476 17:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was no change between any of the re-creations, it was the same article three times in a row, only the second time with a bunch of linkspam, including youtube and myspace. This is not AfD mk III, during this DRV the article has already been recreated. Clearly those who want C**** T***** recreated are 1. not willing to abide by the AfD result (ignoring the second AfD), 2. not willing to admit to CSD G4 and 3. not even willing to take this DRV seriously. Under these circumstances I find it hard to believe they will abide by the result of this DRV if it finds in favour of endorsing, and would not be surprised if this goes the was of other articles (click me).
    • Comment for the record the above statement is not true, there were seveal links verifying Taylors accomplishments which continued to be deleted by one editor. They were NOT just myspace and youtube. I am totally against this person who keeps recreating the article and that person shoul dbe IP Banned but Chuck Taylor is notable. --EdWood 00:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to verify with the admins, I was not the person who recreated the article. You can look at the IP addresses. I created it the first time and have proven the notability of Chuck Taylor. The article should no doubt be undeleted. It seems the majority here thinks the same thing. --ThePerfectOne 18:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not even going to comment how ridiculous this claim of "majority here thinks the same thing" is. —Kurykh 03:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment When I look through here, I constantly see people supporting and noticing that he is notable enough. Just look through the deletion review, not to mention, all of the reasons why he is notable, while comparing him to the rest of the Chikara/IWA MS rosters who haven't accomplished what he has. --ThePerfectOne 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Deletion review is not a vote, nor is it AfD redux. At this point I would like an admin to step in and decide one way or another. I'm not sure if the sites listed outside of YouTube and MySpace are notable enough in my opinion, but I am willing to respect whatever decision is made. Wildthing61476 02:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I second the call for an admin to step in, if only to halt the filibustering by Theperfectone and EdWood. Darrenhusted 10:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See here goes Darren making his wild accusations and just getting away with it. The rules say 5 days. --EdWood 16:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to wrap this up. Chuck Taylor is only 21. Look how much he has done. He went pro at 16. He works for three companies that produce DVDs for the world to buy, unlike small indy promotions that don't do that. IWA Mid-South and Chikara are major indy promotions. Chuck Taylor has won not one, but TWO Chikara tournaments (Again, a major indy promotion). Honestly, I can't remember any indy tournament in which someone won two tournaments in a promotion except for Ian Rotten winning the King of the Death Match tournament twice in IWA Mid-South. Chuck Taylor won the IWA Mid-South World Heavyweight Title on September 30, 2006 and is STILL champion. Who has those long consistent of reigns anymore in any promotion now days besides Bryan Danielson, Jimmy Jacobs and John Cena? Well, Chuck Taylor is on the list of having a reign like those guys in the past two years. He is approaching a full year as champion. Now, I can't tell you he will be champion on September 30, 2007 for a fact. But, with the way things are going, I can see him holding it until February 2008. If he holds it in late July, he will officially be the longest reigning IWA Mid-South World Heavyweight Champion of all-time, and that's a company that has been going for over ten years. 97% indy fans are familiar with him, too, unlike non-notable indy wrestlers. Chuck Taylor has wrestled names such as Chris Hero, Larry Sweeney, Claudio Castagnoli, Tracy Smothers, Colt Cabana, Ian Rotten, Eddie Kingston, Gran Akuma, El Pantera, The Patriot, Davey Richards, Delirious, Arik Cannon, El Generico, Mad Man Pondo, Low Ki, Tyler Black, Jay Lethal, Steve Corino, Danny Basham and Joey Ryan. Hero (Appeared on VH1.), Sweeney (Appeared on VH1.), Ian (ECW alumni, teamed with his brother, Axl Rotten through the mid 90s.), Smothers (ECW alumni as a member of the FBI and Freddie Joe Floyd in WWF in 1995 and 1996), Cabana (Matt Classic in WSX and will appear on World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) television as Colt Cabana sometime in the future), Cannon (WSX alumni), Delirious (Appeared on WWE television), Pantera (WWF stint in 1997 and 1998 and wrestled on the No Way Out 1998 PPV against TAKA Michinoku.) Castagnoli (Who appeared on WWE television in August 2006), Ki (Senshi in TNA), Patriot (Main eventer of WWF in 1997, feuded with Bret Hart and the rest of the Hart Foundation.), Black (WSX alumni), Lethal ("Black Machismo" Jay Lethal in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA)), Corino (ECW alumni and former ECW World Heavyweight Champion), Basham (1/2 of the former WWE Tag Team Champions, The Basham Brothers) and Ryan (WSX alumni) have all appeared on national television at some point. All of those names should ring a bell in any wrestling fan's head and even some of the other names should ring a bell. And no offense to this guy. I'm quite the fan of him, too. But, what has Gran Akuma accomplished more than Chuck Taylor? Chuck Taylor has accomplished things that not even over half of the Chikara and IWA Mid-South rosters have accomplished, all of this at 21 years old. It's really amazing and he has a bright future. --ThePerfectOne 18:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, so that you understand this is not AfD number 2. I suggest you read the DRV page which explains what this is about. Procedure not content. The AfD and CSD G4 were correct, the recreation of the article was wrong. Plus what exactly is your source for "97% indy fans are familiar with him too"? This is what I meant by filibustering, you are not using DRV correctly. Darrenhusted 12:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, man. No offense, but, you're not an indy fan. You've probably never heard of him. But, your casual indy fan is a smark, unlike the "casual fan". They know these things and if you're into the indy scene, you're going to know who Chuck Taylor is. Believe me. That's like a mainstream fan knowing a Curt Hennig or a Ted DiBiase. While the youngsters might not be familiar with them, that's comparing them to the indy fans who don't follow the promotions Chuck Taylor works for and only follows ROH. But, it you follow IWA Mid-South and Chikara, 100% of the fans will know who Chuck Taylor is. The two go hand in hand. He's that big in the indy scene. I wish some of you guys would understand. He's not a no-name in the indy scene. --ThePerfectOne 14:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorse Deletion and SaltI'm sorry, the AfD found no evidence of notability and the article was properly deleted. Then the article was promptly recreated with no evidence of notability added. Wrestling notable folks does not automatically make you notable.It was speedied correctly (and I'm not just saying that because I'm the one who did it.). You do not get rebites of the apple till you get your way. SirFozzie 23:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot more in there than just wrestling notable wrestlers. Read it. If you don't think he's notable, you should look again. --ThePerfectOne 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Notice: This is DRV, not AfD round 2. DRV is used to comment on the legitimacy of the AfD outcome, not to rehash arguments made during the AfD. I have no wish to repeat this ad nauseam, but if fools decide that they don't want to follow the rules and continue ranting already-refuted arguments, the clue trout will be brought with full force. —Kurykh 00:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm simply saying there is no reason that it should have been deleted and giving reasoning behind it. --ThePerfectOne 01:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • ...which is not the point of DRV. The point of DRV is to assess whether the proper process and interpretation of policies in regards to the closing of the AfD in question have been followed, not whether the article should be deleted based on content issues. You are doing the latter. I'm sorry if I sound legalistic here. —Kurykh 05:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm confused. Sorry. So, we are basically voting on whether or not the article should be undeleted? Wouldn't you need reasons for it to come back in the DRV? --ThePerfectOne 02:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • We are either endorsing the AfD, which means the process was correct and the deletion followed the consensus (which was to delete). Or we are asking to overturn the AfD, but only because it ignored the actual AfD discussion, we are not re-running the AfD. I suggest you look at the DRV project page for further guidance. Darrenhusted 11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

9 July 2007

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

Another "notability" issue. I wrote the article, cited sources, and the film even has an IMDB entry. If anything, I'd like the article's history restored to see that I wasn't just trying to advertise the film. VoltronForce 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first attempt a few days ago. Keep checking, I tried to write the whole plotline via "copy editing". VoltronForce 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is a "reliable source". Must it make front page news? With these sources, it's hard to deny notability and claim as if someone made it up overnight. The sources I'm citing alone are in Google's news section. VoltronForce 02:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page Wikipedia:Reliable sources discusses what makes a source reliable for wikipedia purposes. The Google news listings look okay but seem to be repeated coverage of one source. While it is clear that this is a real film, it may still not be notable enough to have a separate article on wikipedia. See Wikipedia: Notability and Wikipedia: Notability (films). Also, closing admin please note that my comments above apply only to the version in the google cache. I have no objection to the restoration of any versions asserting notability from sources. Eluchil404 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Toki Pona – Deletion overturned in light of new information. Since the major recommendation in the debate was to "rewrite" the article, I will restore and userfy the text to my userspace at User:Xoloz/Toki Pona. Once interested contributors rewrite the article, it can be moved to the mainspace easily. – Xoloz 14:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Toki Pona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article got deleted for non-notability. However, the following independent reliable sources establish its notability:

  1. Article about Toki Pona in The Globe and Mail
  2. Russian TV-show about conlangs (Toki Pona is presented from 9:22 to 13:41).
  3. Toki Pona article in the popular Serbian magazine Politikin Zabavnik
  4. Article about fast thinking in the popular Russian magazine Computerra, with six paragraphs about Toki Pona
  5. Esperanto - The New Latin for the Church and for Ecumenism - this book by Ulrich Matthias (translated into many language) mentions Toki Pona

Number 3 and 4 were considered in the deletion discussion, but apperently weren't enough to convince people of Toki Pona's reliability (maybe because they're not in English). Number 2 already existed at the time of the deletion discussion, but apperently wasn't known to anyone involved in the discussion, and hence wasn't considered. Number 1 only got published today.

The fact that Toki Pona has been mentioned in at least five independent reliable sources, of which two (number 1 and 2) cover it in much detail, should suffice for establishing its notability. Marcoscramer 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This seems like a classic case of more sources coming to light and clarifying the notability of a topic. However, I'd still be wary of simply undeleting the article, tacking on the source, and calling it a day, because most of the information in the article is unlikely to be supported by the sources. The article wasn't written using these sources, so it's a bit rough to cite it post hoc. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate/rewrite - Agree with what Night Gyr says above. If undeleted, I wouldn't be surprised if the links just ended up in a "References" section at the bottom and no real work was done to cite any information in the article. Rewriting the article using the sources seems like the best idea. I only know English, so I can't really say anything about the sources themselves.... Wickethewok 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate from scratch. I nominated it for deletion the first time due to non-notability and lack of verifiability; I'd say notability is comfortably satisfied now, and these sources look adequate to write a verifiable article, but the article should be rewritten to take advantage of these sources, rather than just having the sources tacked on, like Night Gyr mentioned. The now-deleted version is more-or-less completely OR. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't agree with a whole rewrite of the article - we should just restore it as it should never have been deleted in the first place, and those who have recently been on a deletion binge on subjects they know little about should be a bit more careful in the future. For us involved in IALs Toki Pona is an obviously notable language, but those who insisted on referring only to WP:NOTE due to a lack of knowledge of the IAL community should take note. The fact that an article on a language some deemed delete-worthy has appeared in Canada's largest newspaper is egg on their face, and really should serve to show that WP:NOTE is not sacred scripture. For those wishing to delete articles on IALs/conlangs in the future it would be best to join the group called Auxlang on Yahoo! Groups and ask there first. I'm writing this somewhat in irritation and I apologize for that, but I'm tired of people with no interest in IALs coming in and removing content / trying to delete pages on content that they know nothing about that people like myself have been so careful to write up in spite of the fact that content on IALs is very hard to come across in traditional sources. When content on IALs does not appear in these sources it is for two reasons: 1) the language is non-notable and an article on it can be deleted, or 2) the language is notable, but has been ignored by traditional media due to the subject of IALs as a whole not being newsworthy. I don't mind non-notable pages being deleted, but only if it's done by someone who understands the difference between 1) and 2), and there has been precious little of that of late. At the very least ask over at Portal:Constructed languages first. Mithridates 22:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more comment For those that understand German, there was an AFD for Toki Pona today and it looks like it's going to be kept. Interesting to see how they treat AFDs for these subjects compared to here and other languages. Mithridates 22:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. It could just mean that the German article has better references to prove notability. And to think that anyone should join some Yahoogroup before they're allowed to touch conlang articles is just a slight smacking of WP:OWN.Corvus cornix 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't smack of WP:OWN at all - I would suspect anyone who wanted to rewrite and delete articles they know nothing about without first consulting with people who know about the subject matter. That 'some Yahoogroup' is the main place to go for discussion on IALs, with people such as Don Harlow, the author of the Esperanto Book and the former president of the ELNA, someone whose opinion is definitely noteworthy on whether an IAL is notable or not. I'm saying this in order to help out for future reference - it's been obvious to people in the IAL community from the start that Toki Pona is notable, not so obvious to people that know nothing about IALs. I'm not a rabid inclusionist BTW and would support deletion/merging of all the Ido and Interlingua compared and other silly pages that were created last year. Mithridates 23:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's interesting how things can change though. I just had an image of Roman Wikipedians in the 1st century deleting the article on Ebionites (today's FA) as a non-notable subgroup of a non-notable religion. That tells me I need to get some more sleep. Okay, I'll try to stop commenting on this subject now. :) Mithridates 23:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even a cursory check of http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona will reveal no references, just links, so I doubt "the German article has better references to prove notability." It is odd, in any case, that the notability of any topic should be decided by those unfamiliar with the subject. There are a lot of things I would consider "not notable" that an expert in the field might consider vital to a proper understanding of the field. Ansric 00:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that the article was previously deleted as unverifiable, and has now recieved sufficient coverage in reliable sources, is not "egg on our face." We (at en.wiki, at least) require already-extant reliable sources to work from, and if those sources don't exist, we can't write an article. Now that a reliable article verifying much of the details of Toki Pona has been published by a reputable newspaper (the two sources mentioned at the AfD were only quick passing mentions with little detail), along with the additional sources found by the DRV nominator above, now we can get started on a quality article. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 17:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I beg to differ. The nomination for deletion has the following: "An apparently non-notable, web-based constructed language." The word 'apparently' there shows that the nominee knows very little about constructed languages. The 'egg on the face' comes precisely from the nominee not bothering to ask a single person involved in the field about whether a language is notable or not before nominating it for deletion. There was also no attempt to look any further into the Russian references or spend any more than a few hours ascertaining whether the language is notable or not. This lack of curiosity was the problem. The nominee also made the laughable assertion that "Additionally, the lack of reliable third-party sources makes it impossible to confirm crucial details such as the assertion that the language's creator Sonja Elen Kisa is actually a linguist, for instance, or to verify that the number of language speakers and "enthusiasts" is accurate", as if this alone were grounds for deletion. These are reasons for deleting _sections_ of a page, not the whole thing. Like I said, for anyone who knows anything about constructed languages it's been obvious from the start that Toki Pona is notable, and the failure of _anybody_ to ask _a single person_ actually involved in the field is, and remains, egg on their face. You don't see me going around trying to delete articles on 'apparently non-notable harpsichord models' or anything else I know nothing about. As I said before, I support the deletion of articles on non-notable languages. Next time it would be a good idea to do a bit of research beforehand on which is which, and we wouldn't have to go through all this. Mithridates 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate. I voted delete in the 2nd AfD. I agree there is now enough non-trivial coverage in reliable sources on which to base an article. There is deletion review if Mithridates feels any of the other articles in the "deletion binge" were improperly deleted. I suspect we agree that this was the most notable of the ones that were deleted (though we might disagree on which others cross the notability threshold). Most of the articles were tagged for notability for quite some time and a good-faith effort was made to find non-trivial coverage in reliable sources in all the AfDs I witnessed. As far as the German wikipedia, for better or for worse, different WPs have different standards. For example, as noted a year ago on Portal_talk:Constructed_languages by a user that's been in the inclusionist camp, the German WP "traditionally has been pretty biased towards auxlangs". Possibly, many of the articles that were recently deleted for lack of notability still exist on German WP. - Aagtbdfoua 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Forgot to add, I think the previous revisions should be restored. In general, I think such revisions should be left deleted only if there's something horribly wrong with them (such as excessively spammy, promotional, BLP/COI problems, etc...). I don't think that's the case here. However, in my opinion, the self-published sources (such as the official site), should be used sparingly, perhaps to outline the syntax/grammar of the language, which is salient enough to the article, non-controversial, and hasn't been covered in the reliable sources. But these are just suggestions - I have little interest in a content dispute, and in any case, this isn't the venue to discuss article content. - Aagtbdfoua 02:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate. Notability satisfied. Susan Davis 03:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate. After seeing the links posted above, I believe we can write an article on the conlang with the sources provided there and see if anything from the deleted article could be useful. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate. I argued for deletion in the most recent AfD, but now believe notability has been established with the recent article in The Globe and Mail. -- Schaefer (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I did not know about the previous AfD in time to vote there, or I would have voted against it. Much work was put into Toki Pona, and the demand that it be recreated from scratch by those who know nothing about the language or indeed about constructed languages in general, and are not going to be involved in writing the article, is absurd, when all that is being requested is that it be edited somewhat to cite references. Additionally, the idea that 'notability' is established by journalists in the popular press, who are simply getting their information entirely from those of us in the online conlanging community in the first place - note the sneering tone in the AfD calling Toki Pona a "web-based" conlang - is even more absurd. Their editors are not the ones who are checking whether the content is accurate; we (the conlangers who discuss and maintain such "merely web-based" sources) are. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally as a "notable source", a talk about Toki Pona was given by John Clifford at the recent 2nd Language Creation Conference, and will be available online soon. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur entirely with Sai Emrys' two comments. Additionally on the credibility issue, one should note that in a well-designed conlang, an incredible amount of linguistic research and knowledge goes into it. It would have to, to keep you going for decades as some conlangers have done. Finally, what makes you think that if Tolkien were alive today, he wouldn't be using the web to maintain it? (Try accusing Quenya of not being "notable"....) Given the amount of paper notebooks he was forced to use for his conlangs and his concern about the destruction of nature, it would be the perfect choice. Twenex 08:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: we should probably add a cite of the talk John Clifford gave last year, too, about "Semantic Primes", covering Toki Pona along with other noted lexically minimalist conlangs. --Jim Henry 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point; I almost forgot! Here's the link to the video of it: [31]. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Notable, but I agree with comments on the AfD that the scholarliness of the article could probably stand to be improved. Then again, there are natural languages on WP that are significantly non-scholarly in presentation, but that's a fistfight for another day. Paul.w.bennett 13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and edit to incorporate new information from and cites of new sources, and remove unverifiable statements if necessary (I didn't see the article's last version before its deletion so I don't know if there are any such). --Jim Henry 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised when this was originally deleted, but looking at the Internet Archiver archive of it, it is true that the page has the appearance of relating to a non-notable constructed language. It is now apparent, however, that the language is in fact notable. I originally thought that it should just be recreated; upon examining the archive, however, I think that it should be undeleted and improved upon. There is plenty of good-quality linguistic information in the article; now just undelete it and add sources that verify its notability. --Iamunknown 17:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for extension - Admins, please extend this DR and temporarily restore the article in question, since we are now talking about whether it can be edited to cite sources or must be started over from scratch, and most of us don't have access to it currently to be able to make good comments about whether that can be done or not. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have concerns about using conference talks as reliable sources. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting WP:RS, but the purpose is that a reliable source has an independent entity checking the facts of the author. For an academic article, this would be the peer review process. For a book, newspaper, or magazine, this is the editor. It's not clear to me who the independent entity would be for this conference (or for any conference). The point is moot for Toki Pona, but I would hesitate to create an article for Kelen, Glossotechnia, or Tenata based on the Google video. Sai or Jim, you were there - out of curiosity, how many attendees did you get, and who selected the speakers? - Aagtbdfoua 00:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disregard my question, I found the handout here. [[32]] Unless I'm miscounting, looks like 36 registered attendees, 12 of whom were speakers at the conference - and some of the others might have been on the panel. I also now see that Kēlen does have a WP article, based solely on the conference talk. I guess we'll continue the discussion there. (Please don't be offended, as I assure you, if I were in the Bay Area, there would have been 37 attendees. But this really doesn't look like an appropriate source for an encyclopedia article.) - Aagtbdfoua 01:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More people showed up than were pre-registered, and some who pre-registered didn't come; Sai can give you a more nearly exact count, I reckon -- but it was a small conference. Do you mean that a talk at a conference like this is not reliable enough to base an entire article on (not necessary since we have several other sources) or so unreliable it shouldn't be cited at all? --Jim Henry 14:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly Glossotechnia is too new and obscure to merit a WP article, and the same may be true of Tenata as far as I know; but Kēlen has had an article for a couple of years based on its fame within the conlang community. In any case the talks about Toki Pona and those about K%C4%93len or Tenata are different in kind -- the latter were given by the language's creators, explaining the unusual structure of those languages, and the former was given by someone other than the creator, describing the social history of the Toki Pona speaker community. --Jim Henry 15:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore original article, including history, to a visible location in order to allow us to use some of the original article's better points; and then recreate. Queerwiki 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate with history restored. From reports here the last good version of the article was more like a guide to the language, but some of it may be salvageable (I hate guessing like this, why can't the history be restored for the DRV if there are no pressing issues such as BLP?). Also, a small point, I'm assuming the most recent version deleted was better than the one deleted in 2005. --Dhartung | Talk 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hey, it'd be really nice if someone informed the closing admin when a DRV is started! Especially if commenters in the DRV are going to imply that the closing admin (that would be me) didn't do any research when closing the AfD, or imply that I don't know anything about the subject. Ooh, and I see the article was also restored on June 20 without contacted me, and the summary stated "deletion was admin's abuse of power"; nice communication there. Anyway, we have two English language sources here--the Globe and Mail article gives the language non-trivial coverage, but Ulrich Matthias only gives trivial coverage to Toki Pona. I can't evaluate the Russian or Serbian sources, and I don't see that anyone else in this discussion has demonstrated that they give non-trivial coverage. Still, with the Globe and Mail article I'll agree that we have enough to establish notability. There's not really a problem with restoring the history, in my opinion. And if someone had contacted me to inform me about the Globe and Mail article and asked for the history to be restored, I probably would have done it. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Comment My apologies - I did not understand how to interpret the deletion log to come to the conclusion you were the closing admin. I merely posted the info on the talk page and another admin started the DRV. Queerwiki 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the article. It will quickly be edited to include these sources and to make it more encyclopedic. There's no benefit starting over from scratch unless the article was irremediably bad. Foobaz·o< 01:14, 13 July 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.
Clyde Carson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Frontman of Bay Area rap group The Team. Signed to a major label (Black Wall Street Records/Capitol Records), the only member of the group to have a major deal. He is more notable than the other three members Mayne Mannish, Kaz Kyzah, and Jungle, yet their pages simply redirect to the group's, while his article is deleted and protected. Unprotect, because I believe I can make a page with more affirmation of notability. Also, the page for his upcoming debut album, Theater Music, is still standing. Tom Danson 14:22, 9 July 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.
Steve Pavlina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unprotect. Original Deletion appears to have focussed on his Personal Development blog and not factored in his background as creator of a multi-award winning game and role as President of the Association of Shareware Professionals. I have entered proposed text into the Talk page. Irrevenant [ talk ] 11:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • allow re-creation I consider the material would suffice for notability, but it needs to be sourcedDGG (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added sources for his Presidency and Vice-Presidency of ASP now. The awards he won for Dweep awards are referenced on the page for Dweep. Is there anything else you'd like sourced? Thanks. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 01:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a zillion (well, seven) links to mainstream media publications referring to Steve Pavlina in his various capacities at the Steve_Pavlina Talk page (and updated the article to include them where necessary). They should be sufficient to confirm his notability. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 09:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Don't get me wrong, most of the information is adequately sourced, but the coverage of him as a person is extremely incidental. I would say, use these sources to improve Dweep and Dexterity Software. Perhaps he could be mentioned if there's an article on polyphasic sleep, but I'm dubious. Mangojuicetalk 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of the references are specifically dedicated to him - the article about him being a keynote speaker and #1 Personal Development Blogger, the entry in The Yearbook of experts, or the entry in the ASP Hall of Fame. I included some incidental references to demonstrate that he's considered someone worth interviewing and quoting by the professional media. He's also notable for achieving media exposure in such a wide variety of different fields. BTW, there is an article on polyphasic sleep - I linked to it in the Steve Pavlina article. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I accidentally said that all the sources were sourced through Google. I of course meant that they were all sourced through Google News. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 21:13, 11 July 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.
Timway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • Undelete ### Notability and Uniqueness of Timway ###

New information/reasons available to undelete Timway (reasons that have not been mentioned)

      • Hong Kong University of Science and Technology: Timway is one of the selected subject directory/searchable directory as mentioned by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Library webpage. http://library.ust.hk/guides/effective-web.html
    • 2. Timway's (domain name was hksrch.com) early start of its history in 1997 July marked a very important/significant milestone for the establishment of Hong Kong searchable directory or search engine that is much earlier than Yahoo! Hong Kong. (started in 1999) http://hk.yahoo.com/beginner/yhk.html
      • Timway.com was founded in 1997 and the previous domain name of it is hksrch.com for Hong Kong people searching information in HK. As you can see in the domain name registration, it is first created on 1997 Sep for the domain name. With regard to the very difficult spelling of hksrch.com, the domain name has been changed to timway.com in 1999. With its 10 years of presence in HK and many people using it, (The Alexa ranking of it is 3341, http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=timway&url=http://www.timway.com/). The presence of it is very valuable to a lot of Internet users.

Algorithms8 09:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer's notes I originally closed the AfD as delete with obvious consensus to do so. After the closure, Algorithms8 requested that the article be reinstated with references (see above), in which I suggested deletion review. Sr13 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. As a strictly procedural matter, I uphold the AfD decision: consensus was reached, and the article was deficient as described at the time of deletion. However, nothing in AfD prevents a superior article on the subject from being created. More importantly, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The obvious solution is to write a notable, verifiable replacement article; that's what should be done. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with C.Fred (as the original nominator for AfD). If the article is rewritten to even claim, let alone prove, notability, then go for it. Corvus cornix 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow re-creation the material supplied now seems to be enough -- the material in the article at the AfD clearly was not.DGG (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

8 July 2007

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

Numerous Itemized Notability and Verifiability links provided. More can be added UserChitra (I'm raising this DR on behalf of UserChitra who has not been able to follow the DR instructions. I am not a party to this matter and nothing should be infered by my conduct) Mike33 01:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Background I raised this on behalf on UserChitra because she seemed to be tied up in trying to get the Deletion Review to work for her. It was first brought to my attention on 7th July, when UserChitra posted a lenghthy note to Ea/R. On looking at Her User talk page it seems she had tried to post the Deletion Review there. The Afd has been blanked following a m:OTRS ticket, but the AFd is still in the edit history. While not actively encouraged, the nominee (I act as proxy alone) is also the subject of the article. This certainly raises questions of WP:COI. If you check User talk page, Ms Chitra has provided further sources to add to the article and her full explaination for wishing to raise the DR. Mike33 01:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and keep salted. Valid, unanimous AfD, which has now been blanked per OTRS action but is still in history if anyone feels like reading it. If I understand correctly, (and admittedly it's a challenge because the article and its history are so jumbled), she's a visual artist whose primary point of notability was apparently selling a picture to a hotel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion (In my personal capacity as an editor) The whole OTRS episode strikes me as duplicity, and certainly not good faith. Aside from WP:COI concerns, the fact that a similar post to the talk page one was added to a blanked Afd is inexcusable. (albeit perhaps in good faith, but as every artist should know - whiting an old canvass can't really hide what was underneath.) Mike33 03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse & Salt AfD properly closed; salt due to multiple recreations of the article. Eusebeus 10:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, AfD process appears to have worked properly. WP:COI issues noted as well and current protection from recreation is similarly endorsed. --Kinu t/c 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse everything. UserChitra had the chance to participate in the debate but did not. The brag sheet at User:UserChitra might or might not be usable to create an article that could stay, but I would want some evidence that someone without a major conflict of interest wanted to write that article first, and preferably, a draft of what the article would look like. Mangojuicetalk 18:55, 9 July 2007

I did not wish to create any article. All I requested in the first place was to have the summary page restored so that future users could create pages. UserChitra 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

7 July 2007

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

Nominator is incorrect to delete it for the reason of non-notable as the article is within WP:BIO under the criteria of Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis as D1 Grand Prix is one of the two highest professional level drifting series in the world with a huge worldwide fan following and Fukuda was in 2004 as a top 10 finisher and has appeared at exhibition and pointscoring events in both the US and UK. Willirennen 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation. The article that One (talk · contribs) deleted had the following biographical info: "Hiroshi, nick named Fluke, is one of the few D1 competer that drives a 180sx, and is and have been the top scoring entry 180sx for a few years. He has a calm drifting style and his cars are of a hard tuned street look. Heres the spec of the car." And then it followed to give some mechanical specifications. That in itself is not an assertion of notability, because no information was provided connecting him to a professional league - "D1" could've meant anything, and the article was, in general, not very coherent at all. It could be argued that it was One's responsibility to search around for what "D1" means on the off chance it was a professional sports league, but that isn't really a reasonable thing to demand. However, I have no prejudice against recreation of the article if this recreation makes it clear that Hiroshi is, in fact, a notable driver in a professional league. That would count as an assertion of notability. Picaroon (Talk) 23:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as above. Nothing indicates that WP:BIO is satisfied. Eusebeus 10:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, allow recreation, per Picaroon. Trust me, the deleted article won't be a help here. Just start over. Mangojuicetalk 18:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No matter how famous or important he is or how the topic might fit within WP:BIO, unless the article information is taken from reliable sources, the article will never satisfy Wikipedia's verification policy. Note: Hiroshi Fukuda at issue here is a race car driver, he is not Japanese foreign ministry Justice Hiroshi Fukuda. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:44, 10 July 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.
Club Penguin Timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article, if it recieves more attention from the WikiCommunity, can become reliable. Defender 911 22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion The article as deleted appeared to be hopelessly trivial and unencyclopedic (basically a list of in-game free items players got on certain dates) and was referenced only by blogs and forums. I really don't see how it could possibly be cleaned up, even with a complete rewrite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There was clearly nothing wrong with the debate, and consensus was definitely to delete. I would not want to allow re-creation at this time, either, as there has not been adequate sources exhibited that would suggest that a compliant article could be constructed. Mangojuicetalk 18:04, 9 July 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.
Image:Trevglaad.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Trevglaad.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache)

Undelete - the image had a fair use rationale that was accepted for months until Picaroon9288 took it upon him/herself to remove it and then delete the image. Ridiculously out of process. If there's a problem with the fair use rationale then the admin should address it through channels instead of a series of unilateral and borderline underhanded actions. Otto4711 17:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my own deletion, Otto fails to address the real reason I deleted the image - it had no source. The image was tagged by Orphanbot as having no source on May 11, 2007. You removed Orphanbot's tag without adding a source. I deleted the image under CSD I4 a few minutes ago as not having a source because it had gone unsourced for over seven days - in fact, it had gone unsourced for months. This had nothing to do with the image rationale, nothing at all. I fail to see what I did that was out of process - the process to remove unsourced images is to delete them seven days after they have been tagged (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#I4). My deletion was in line with both process and policy. Picaroon (Talk) 17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information on the image was in place until you reverted the edit to remove it. If there was a problem with that information, then you should have expressed the problem instead of reverting with no comment. How is someone supposed to know what the issue is when it looks like some random revert? Otto4711 20:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem was not with the image's information. The problem was with the image's lack of information. All you had to do was look at Orphanbot's tag, which was {{no copyright holder}}. Note the three questions the template asks: "Who created this image?," "Who owns the copyright to this image?," and "Where did this image come from?." Instead, you decided to remove the tag - without answering the questions! What possessed you to do that? Now can you please state the problem you have with my deletion of an unsourced image. Picaroon (Talk) 21:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already explained the problem I have with your conduct. It would have taken you what, 15 seconds to type up an explanation of your conduct instead of making a silent revert to an edit that had stood undisturbed for months. Your action could have been vandalism for all anyone knew. Otto4711 22:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're being asked what problem you have with my deletion, and you refuse to answer. I would have guessed that by filing a deletion review you had a problem with my deletion. Please either withdraw this vexatious nomination or answer my question: what was the problem with my deletion? Picaroon (Talk) 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, Otto4711 has yet to explain why he feels the article should have been kept. No source provided, image goes. Corvus cornix 00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Answers.com mirror has neither a source (or even a statement of what film/T.V/etc. the screenshot was from) nor a fair use rationale, and I would expect it to have both (even though it is a mirror) if they had been provided for months ... so, what's up? --Iamunknown 20:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It needs a source, and that means it needs to have a description of what it's a screenshot of. The rationale was therefore insufficient. It seems like it'd be perfectly acceptable with a full source and rationale, so reupload with one and we're golden. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and don't re-upload, unless it is demonstrated the article actually discusses that particular TV show the screenshot was taken from (it might be the one mentioned in the article, but it's never been stated.) If it isn't that, I don't see what a reasonable fair-use rationale should possibly look like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion: images must have a source specified, and none was given, or has been given at this point. Feel free to reupload if all the relevant policies can be followed: not only giving a source and copyright holder, but also a good fair use rationale. Mangojuicetalk 18:12, 9 July 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.
Template:User socialist (edit | [[Talk:Template:User socialist|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedy deleted under CSD T1, which specifiesd that the template be "divisive" and "Inflamatory". I fail to see what is divisive about "This user is a socialist believing in peaceful measures of providing basic needs to everyone" Overturn DES (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the deleting administrator, and, frankly, I'm quite sick of people running to DRV to report any deletion they disagree with without saying a word to me. It's uncooperative, specifically against the process on this page, and an admin should know better. In any case, this political POV advocacy was deleted multiple times in many months, but recreated, and this was simply the latest recreation. Note that it was already moved and deleted according to the userbox migration procedure. Dmcdevit·t 21:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't. I recreated it in my userspace, and you deleted/protected the redirect. SalaSkan 23:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You had been asked, in this edit, this edit, and at least one earlier edit. You declined to undelete in this response. Why exactly should I ask you a question you have already answered? In hte past I have been accuesd (falsely) of harrasment for asking such questions. I note also that it was speedy deleted multiple times, ther was no TfD that I can find, so "recreation" cuts no ice at all. DES (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn - You wouldn't reply to the discussion on your talk page. Please do not claim this DRV was filed "without saying a word to me". There is nothing inflammatory in "This user is a socialist believing in peaceful measures of providing basic needs to everyone". CSD T1 doesn't apply here. If it is your POV that we need to delete these kind of templates, please don't speedy them, nominate them for deletion. There is no compelling reason to delete this template, because there is a whole load of these kinds of templates at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. If the template I'm a capitalist is allowed to exist, then so is I'm a socialist. SalaSkan 13:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User socialist. SalaSkan 13:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There never was a discussion about this template, and the stated reason for deletion does not seem to match the item. DGG (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony Sidaway just removed this discussion from the page... if someone is going to close this early they should at least close it properly. --W.marsh 22:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close discussion as moot it probobly shouldnt be i the temmplate space, however the deletion was not valid because it is neither divisive or inflamatory. That said there is a userfied version just use: User:Salaskan/UBX/socialist. ViridaeTalk 02:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no good reason why this shouldn't be in the template space, for any user to find and use. It is much harder to find in userspace, and besides allowing the deletion to stand furnishes a false precedent. There is clearly disagreement here, so an early close of this discussion is improper. DES (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed with DES, and even if I keep it in userspace, there is no need to delete and protect the redirect (the template is used on tons of user pages). SalaSkan 16:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, does in no way meet the T1 criteria. Arkyan • (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/close per Viridae. We should stick with the whole userbox migration thing. I understand when people say they see no big deal in having templates like this in template space, but if we allow some but not others, it will start to get ugly again. I'd rather see us steer well clear of resuming the userbox wars. Until someone deletes the template out of userspace, I think this is fine. And, yes, it is reasonably interpretable as divisive, as all belief or politics userboxes can be. Mangojuicetalk 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Mangojuice. My understanding of the truce embodies in WP:GUS is that the broad interpretation of T1 (which was endorse by a number of admins at th time of the "userbox wars) is to apply in templatespace while the narrow interpretation (which likewise had many supporters) is to apply in userspace. Thus this is an acceptable userbox but not an acceptable template. Eluchil404 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if you endorse, why not restore the redirect? It is used on many user pages. SalaSkan 13:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The GUS involves replacing the currently made userboxes with a soft redirect until all existing uses are updated, and then deleting the soft redirect. If you're worried about users being able to find the userboxes they want in userspace, there are ways to help that. WP:UB is a good place to start, and they could probably be organized better. Mangojuicetalk 14:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then Dmcdevit's actions were not in accordance with the GUS project, because he speedily deleted "This user is a socialist believing in peaceful measures of providing basic needs to everyone" as divisive, didn't reply on his talk page, and salted the template. That's not a "soft redirect". SalaSkan 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the thing is, this was already migrated back in march, to User:Octane/userboxes/User Socialist, and this is simply a repost. I'm sure Dmcdevit didn't realize the extent to which this was being used. But having the regular redirect in place is harmful. Why don't you just update the userpages that still link to the template, if it bothers you? There aren't that many of them. Mangojuicetalk 17:58, 11 July 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.
Shane Hagadorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Consensus to keep the article on this wrestler was ignored. 5 keep votes to 4 deletes. While the closing admin used long and convoluted arguments to ignore the keeps, the same admin didn't apply the same standards to the delete votes that were WP:JUSTAPOLICY. --Oakshade 16:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral forget the number counting, I looked through the deleted article and the AFD and found no evidence he meets WP:N, e.g. no sources. Article was unreferenced, the sole link anyone produced in the AFD was a trivial mention, but he does get some mainstream and industry press results at [33]. It was a hard AFD to close due to the lackluster keep arguments... maybe he actually deserves an article but in 2007 for a marginally notable wrestler that means citing some sources, or at least showing that they exist in the AFD. I'd suggest userfying and trying to reference the claims of notability. --W.marsh 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; closing admin seems to have acted appropriately, serious notability concerns were raised at AfD and never addressed per WP:RS. Counts of !votes do not trump policy. Heather 16:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research)" It's just lawyering to say "Well in this AFD we had a 5 to 4 vote to ignore a policy/guideline, so we get to go for it because consensus is a policy and WP:BIO is just a guideline" --W.marsh 02:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus doesn't top common sense. Just because a majority of the people in the United States (allegedly) voted for George Bush doesn't make them right. Corvus cornix 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, AFD is not a headcount. Perhaps we can solve the issue by redirecting this to to the article on the wrestling competition he's in? >Radiant< 13:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The delete comments were definitely valid deletion reasons, and were not close to countered by the keep comments. So, I think this is well within the reasonable discretion of the closer. Also, let me echo W.marsh: if you want the article back, ideally, work on a draft.. but barring that, at least present some sources that could be used to recreate the article. Mangojuicetalk 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as the nominator I felt the lack of notability was clear, the AfD was well discussed, there was ample opportunity for the keeper to provide evidence of notablitity. Darrenhusted 23:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closing admin seems to have acted appropriately. I found the following that mention Shane Hagadorn, but it's not substantial new information: (1) Miami Herald (November 10, 2006) Ring report.; (2) Miami Herald (January 11, 2007) Wrestling events, notes. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; The closing admin was well within his discretion; the arguments put forth by the deletes were based on policy and guidelines, and not addressed by the keeps. AfD are not ballots. — Coren (talk) 03:15, 11 July 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.
Jocker City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page shouldn't have been deleted. It's obscure, not a hoax article or nonsense, and it's not unencyclopedic. No reason to delete this article, especially considering its notability too. Skycrest502 12:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Skycrest502 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - What a surprise. Corvus cornix 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion we can't just take your word for it that it's not a hoax... we'd need some reliable documentation. I'm not seeing any [34] --W.marsh 13:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it's a hoax. See this for details. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and relist neither "suspected hoax" nor "recreation of previously speedy deelted materiel" is a good reason for speedy deletion. The Afd should have ben allowed to proceed. i agree that sources are needed in this is to stay in, but giving the length of an AfD to find such sources seems perfectly worth while. DES (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? People can find sources during the DRV just as easily. Recreating the article risks giving the hoax more coverage via Google and mirrors... --W.marsh 16:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, the article was an attack page, basically stating in a sentence or two that Jocker City has lots of prostitutes, with no other context or information. Some versions also said it was in Canada, while others said the UK, and at least two versions claimed it was somehow in both. For this to be speedied 11 times in 2005 really says something. With our current tighter standards, this wouldn't last 15 seconds before being deleted again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion though as a hoax it would be necessary to send it to prod, at least the last version was such as to make it an attack page. I can think of about 3 or 4 other perfectly adequate reasons for deletion, including lack of context. This is below the level of serious concern. DGG (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only should this article be deleted, but anyone wanting it back should be blocked on sight. This was a common target of a well-known long-term vandal, and I can see absolutely no redeeming quality to it. Good faith cannot be assumed; I suspect Skycrest502 is another sockpuppet of that vandal. Note that the user's first and only edit was creating this DRV. --Golbez 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse, provide sources or forget it. Corvus cornix 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless actual sources are provided. While hoaxes are not an explicit CSD, I think they qualify as vandalism as a general rule and see no exception here. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, fake "city". And while we're at it, I'm going to salt the article: 11 deletions is ENOUGH. Mangojuicetalk 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse and salt per all above. Newyorkbrad 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse and salt per all above. Joker city, we get it. But enough already. It's not even a notable hoax. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:08, 10 July 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:David Cate (edit | [[Talk:User:David Cate|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Why was this deleted? David Cate is an employee of Kingsport Times-News Idav 09:34, 7 July 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.
Republic_Airlines_flight_4912_&_SkyWest_Airlines_flight_5741 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AFD closed less than 24 hours on a weak consensus because the article itself was only 2 days old. Overcoming the irony here, allowing the AfD to continue while others work on the article is not at cross purposes. Suggest relist and allow to run its course. InkSplotch 02:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move: Re-titled article as 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion which is the common naming convention (not "official") for other runway incursion articles (see 1999 T. F. Green Airport Runway Incursion or 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion). Hope this isn't a problem, thanks. Lipsticked Pig 06:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy relist, non-admins should not close AFDs that are less than 5 days old, and they definitely should not close AFDs that are less than 24 hours old regardless of the arguments and age of the article. --Coredesat 02:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While IMO the original AfD nomination was ill-advised, and the AfD did look like it was heading for keep, this quite speedy close was also, IMO, rather ill advised. However, in this case, it may be that the best bet would be to close this DRV discussion and allow anyone who chooses to do so to re-list the article on AfD. Reviving the earlier AfD with its arguments on the propriety of the nomination seems counter-productive to me, as opposed to simply starting a new, clean AfD, if anyone now things that the article should in fact be deleted. I would advise the closer in this case that speedy closing of an AfD should be done quite carefully, and quite often causes more trouble than it saves. DES (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, closed less than 6 hours after creation, and it seems that almost all of the commenters who got in that window were drawn by canvassing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. Definitely needs wider discussion. --Stormie 14:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Non admins closing a discussion is fine, but please don't do it unless you understand the guidelines. AfD was closed far too early and close reason is invalid; an article may be brought to AfD at any time, because AfD decides on the potential of the article, not its current state (with some exceptions, such as BLP). --Rory096 16:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I've gotten a lot of abuse from the Project members who feel they WP:OWN all aircraft articles, even those about non-crashes in which nobody was injured. Corvus cornix 00:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you got alot of comments from people who think you were ill-advised to nominate an article one minute after it's creation. And "abuse" is definitley a strange word for someone who couldn't wait more than one minute to file an AfD. - BillCJ 00:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where in the AfD rules does it say that there's a minimum age before an article can be nominated? Besides, in general, unless they're improperly speedy closed, you get five days to improve the article. Corvus cornix 01:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've never said it's in AFD rules. But maybe it should be, as you seem to think you're exempt from WP:AGF. Is that such a hard thing to do? I am sick and tired of people who think that, just because they watch recent changes list and the AFD pages, they don't have to actually communicate with other editors, even though the AFD rules I've read do reccomend that. Is it really too much to ask you to show some common courtesy? Projects exist to make the articles within their subject matter better, and we spend large amounts of time discussing improving not-quite notble articels, and often merging their content elsewhere and deleting the page, without ever even considering an AFD. is it too much to ask you to actually try to work with other editors? Just because you can file an AFD anytime or place you want doesn't always mean it's the prudent thing to do, or the best way to handle the situation. As it is, someone within the Aviation Accident Task FOrce has suggest putting most of the info on this accident in the Airport Movement Area Safety System, which is probaly a good idea. It's really too bad you weren't thoughtful enough to suggest it before your AFD. Oh, I fogot, the AFD rules don't require thoughtfulness. Well, it's about time they did. - BillCJ 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's probably a good thing that the nominator brought this to the attention of other Wikipedians if you're merging and deleting; that's very much a violation of the GFDL. In addition, please WP:AAGF, and be a bit more civil. --Rory096 00:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: this article doesn't seem notable to me. Nobody died, and there was no more than any momentary drama. The comparison with a British Airways airplane that had all its engines stalled by volcanic ash and only barely got them started again is not well-founded. Also, the aircraft authorities keep reports available, so there seems little reason to keep the article here in an encyclopedia. In 20 years would anyone care about this article? I don't think so. More worryingly, there also seems to have been violation of the spirit of the AfD rules.WolfKeeper 02:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: quite clearly an incorrect closure with a sizeable helping of WP:CANVASS thrown in for good measure, which makes the whole AfD completely meaningless. Nick 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • THe only "canvassing" that occurred was a notification place on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force page. The task force is a group of editors dedicating to standardizing and managing coverage of avitaion-related incidents, including the current formulation of notability guidelines. These activities necessite an awareness of articles being nominated for AfD. In the past month, 3 other article nominated for AfD have been posted on the talk page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 897, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight 952, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 1455. Two of these were deleted, as they were not notable, and on of those was a hoax. If canvassing has occured in this case, then the same canvassing occured with these three AfDs, and they should be listed here for review. However, I strongly contest the canvassing accusation, as, per WP:CANVASS, It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. While some may classify the group as "partisan", it does strive to be objective, as the other examples given illustrate. I see no reason why projects should not be informed of AfDs of articles within their subject, and infact would like to see notification of the concered projects formally allowed, if not made mandatory. - BillCJ 17:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant relist This will likely be kept anyway - in fact, I'll eat my keyboard if it isn't - but it shouldn't have been speedy closed. So, annoyingly, we have to start all over again. How fun. BTW, can we stop bickering, please? Maybe it shouldn't have been listed so quickly, but things have been blown out of all proportion by both sides of the argument; can we all just be forgiving and move on? Please? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep closed - Article was nominated only one minute atfter creation. Within the next 40 minutes, the creator addressed all of the nominators concerns that were addresable, and numerous sources and improvements have been added to the article by other editors since then. Article asserts notability with sources. Re-running the process at this point only serves to prolong the inevitable, and the new AfD may not be fair, and this relisting is now serving to canvass for new participants with an obvious bias against the article because of one editor's mistaken, good-faith speedy. Relisting also justifies the original ill-timed nomination, and encourages such rash behavior in the future by this nominator. - BillCJ 19:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD nomination was for the subject, not the content, and it's notability or lack of it is the same a minute after the article was created as at any other time. --Stormie 21:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Typical. Never question the "purity" of an AfD nomination, it'll get you nowhere. The article had NO sources when nominated, so how could the nominator know if the "subject" was notable or not? He's admitted he knew nothing of the incident beforehand, and based his nomination soley of the initial description of the incident. He based his nomination solely on what was in the article, and that changed immediately after his nomination. Notability in aircraft incidences is proven by its continuing coverage and effects long after the incident itself. Just because no one was injured does not make it non-notable in and of that fact itself. I honestly hope the reviewer will take time to consider what I've said in this case, and weigh the probable outcome of a new AfD. - BillCJ 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change from keep to speedy close - I think the speedy close was appropriate given the fact that it was super speedy AfD'ed. But in the case of a speedy close, no consensus should be drawn. There is no need to relist it for process reasons, if someone wants to nominate it again, they can at any time. However such a nomination would now be ill advised, as the article has been improved. There is no requirement for fatalities or even significant property damage in Notability, only that people take notice. Dhaluza 10:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated this article with intent to relist. Currently, I disagree with the claims of notability, particularly considering there are only two sources and one is the NTSB (who is going to file reports on this sort of thing - no matter how 'notable' we might think it is), but I didn't bring to to DRV to argue the AfD all over again. This is about the procedural close of the initial AfD. I think it was wrong, not because it was kept, but because it was closed in under 24 hours on a false consensus of "it's too new". That's an absurd reason in a process that's supposed to take a week for review. Plenty can done to improve the article in that time, just like plenty of reasonable, calm discussion can take place here. Being listed on AfD isn't an automatic death sentence, though, and no one's trying to persecute the editors of this article. --InkSplotch 13:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per all of the above. Controversial non-admin closure with some possibility that there was a conflict of interest. Not saying anything ungood happened here but given the potential for just this sort of reaction means it was a bad idea. Arkyan • (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. We should all realize that AfDs are open for 5 days for a reason: so that uninvolved people have a reasonable change to notice the debate and comment. When a debate is closed this quickly, but still has so many comments, it's likely because a select portion of the community has become aware of it. I see the debate was canvassed here, which is how it managed to get so many comments in such a short amount of time. I understand DES' point of view above, but I want to see this closure explicitly overturned because it was wrong, and because a previous "keep" result can affect further debates. Mangojuicetalk 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I think that the article is not even close to notable. I don't think that Wikipedia should be an end-all repository of every aviation near miss that has ever happened, anywhere. However, the issue is that this article was closed after less than a day. And I don't know how everyone else interprets it, but the AfD looked to be headed in the direction of a 'Keep' to me. I don't see any reason that the AfD couldn't have remained open for the full duration. Trusilver 22:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty obvious to relist here. Bulldog123 03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

6 July 2007

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


Pownce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was non-bias and described the service very well and was in my opinion a non-criteria for a speedy deletion. Ke5crz 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this DRV discussion was ongoing, the article was recreated. I have listed it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pownce. Corvus cornix 20:03, 8 July 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.
Ben Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted several times because the content was spam (see here). However, a user recently created the article Benjamin 'Ben' Stewart about a television character, and I wasn't able to move it to this title, which I think would be a better page name for it. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 18:58, July 6, 2007 (UTC)

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.
Talk:Diablo Swing Orchestra (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Diablo Swing Orchestra|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Orphaned talk page not actually orphaned... or maybe it was before, but it no longer is. Please undelete the talk page; it will be mighty useful in improving article content. Thanks! 65.112.197.16 18:52, 6 July 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.
Walk Away (Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedied in the middle of a deletion discussion for CSD:A7, but movies are not currently included under A7. Request restoration pending a full AFD. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absent of sourced media coverage, the main claim of notability for an upcoming film would be the involvement of notable people or studios, but the article was nothing but redlinks until the soundtrack section, which was unsourced. If reliable evidence can be presented that "Poe, Imogen Heap and Alanis Morissette" are recording tracks for the soundtrack, then I could see sending it back to AFD as there'd be a reasonable chance of the article being kept. But otherwise it would just be a pointless reversal so I'd endorse the deletion without sources.--W.marsh 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon closer inspection the wording of the soundtrack suggestion is vague with respect to the notable singers, and might just be saying the movie will play already-recorded songs by them. Unless some third party sources are I found, I think NawlinWiki made the right call. --W.marsh 18:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the admin who speedy-deleted. The article, created by User:Joshuastallings, was about a film directed by, written by, and starring Joshua Stallings, that won't be "released" until November 2007, which had no sources other than the film's "official site" on a free webhosting page, and which had absolutely no indication of notability. At the time I speedied, there were nine votes for deletion (counting mine) and zero to keep. Maybe I should have specifically cited WP:SNOW when I deleted -- I am certainly citing it now. On a broader note, we get dozens of articles a day about people's nonnotable homemade Youtube films. Stifle, are you saying that all of those must go to prod or AFD and cannot be speedied? NawlinWiki 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. As Stifle says, A7 does not apply to films (nor software applications, nor schools, all of which i have seen tagged for deletion or actually deleted under A7) Unlike Stifle, I don't regard this as unfortunate -- at the moment I would oppose any further expansion of A7. In some cases db-spam will apply, but for most, prod is probably the proper tool. If this was being closed as a SNOW of the AfD that is a bit different, but I don't generally think that closing an AfD after less than 24 hours is helpful -- it only tends to produce resentment and DRV discussions. Its not as if there aren't lots of AfDs more than 5 days old waiting to be closed -- why rush this one. DES (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist: I'm not a policy wonk, but I've also seen what I would have thought were unsalvageable articles saved at AfD. If it's not spam or an attack piece or something similar, I see no reason to hurry the process. A7 is as limited as it is for a reason, and, while I can think of one or two things I might add to A7, works (in general) are not one. This had a perfectly good AfD running, and speedying it out-of-process really didn't benefit anyone, and may possibly have harmed Wikipedia slightly (unlikely, but not impossible). Xtifr tälk 09:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist: As the original nominating editor for the AfD, I certainly did appreciate NawlinWiki's help with the AfD. But at the same time, this entire process has given me a greater appreciation for the WP:PII policy. In this case, I think that WP:SNOW certainly applies. However, while there is nothing in this article that a logical argument to keep can be constructed from, it is still never a bad thing to let the process tend to itself. Trusilver 18:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Though the speedy was arguably out of the realm of A7, it's still unsourced and obviously self-promotional. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It's not an A7, but it is advertising (G11). >Radiant< 10:57, 9 July 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.
Juce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was deleted (by User:Renata3) as non-notable and copyright violation. Creating user claims to be the original author, so copyright issue is negligible but replaced by conflict-of-interest question. ;-) Have requested confirmation of identity from the editor in question (update: confirmed, see below), and am personally prepared to work with him to take care over COI.

User recreated page after its (speedy) deletion, appears to have taken due care to present only factual information. "Juce C++" gets about 52,200 results on google, and there is a favourable review by The Register (that's a well-known UK technology site, for you lot on the wrong side of the Atlantic ;-P). In my opinion, this makes for significant independent coverage.

Pending confirmation of User:Julianstorer's identity, I therefore argue in favour of Keep current version, undelete history.

NB: As discussed on WP:COI, a COI is not grounds for deletion in itself. tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 09:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by Grey Knight, I've posted a confirmation of my identity, at http://www.rawmaterialsoftware.com/juce/yes-its-me.txt Hope that helps in some way... --JulianStorer
  • The current version looks fine to me, and that pretty much confirms that they are the copyright owner (so the text is under the GFDL and can be undeleted). --- RockMFR 03:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

5 July 2007

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

The debate doesnt appear to be a consensus at the time of close. The closing rationale is that the article has no encyclopedic content however the article already had one sourced element of notability added during the Afd (google's cache doesnt include this addition) and I had provided evidence that there were more sources which could be used. John Vandenberg 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and Undelete. There were only six comments arguing for deletion (assuming the nom as a !vote to delete) vs. 7 editors wanting to keep the article. Clearly there was no consensus to delete the article. The closing is a clear error. -- DS1953 talk 00:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I was expecting this one to be brought here. I closed this AfD by disregarding the "all schools are inherently notable" argument and attending to the requests of users whom I saw as standing on the side of the first pillar of Wikipedia. I neither endorse my deletion nor call for its overturn.--Húsönd 01:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afd participants whose arguments were along the lines of "all [high] schools are inherently notable" are voicing their opinion of what should be in this encyclopedia (the first pillar) that we are building, and it is an opinion that is held by many people. Disregarding those opinions is enforcing your own definition of what is encyclopedic. John Vandenberg 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your justification that you were "attending to the requests of users whom I saw as standing on the side of the first pillar of Wikipedia" is something any closing administrator could say who was abusing his or her authority by simply taking sides in an argument. Since the editors you disagreed with also thought they were standing on the side of the first pillar of Wikipedia, you needed to point to something much more specific in Wikipedia than the first pillar (or describe the violation very specificly), and you needed very strong evidence that the actions of the editors you disenfranchised were violating it. Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence, and vague appeals to the betterment of Wikipedia can easily hide a preference for one side in a controversy. You say just above that you realized your action would likely land your decision here. That means you should have been still more careful in taking such an extremely unusual step. The fact that you haven't presented a better justification here further suggests the original action was poorly made. I see that you've posted some negative comments here about one of the participants in that discussion, User:Alansohn at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn, in which you said:
Apparently omnipresent in every single school WP:AFD, it is utterly clear that Alansohn has an obsessively inclusionist agenda aiming at preventing articles about schools (no matter how blatantly unencyclopedic) from being deleted [...]
I don't know what was going on in the closing administrator's mind, but it certainly would have been more prudent for him to avoid closing discussions involving Alansohn after delivering such a personal criticism of Alansohn, and certainly to close it in such an extraordinary way. And in both cases, Husond acted explicitly in a way criticising inclusionists. There's a kind of conflict of interest here and it raises suspicions, it calls into question Hosund's good faith, and it's frankly demoralizing to me. Whatever was going through Husond's mind, he should refamiliarize himself with Wikipedia's fourth pillar: "Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations." Noroton 01:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete By no means was this a featured article candidate, but it did make claims of notability. In ignoring !votes that made a claim of keep based on inherent notability, an equal and opposite number of !votes that made the opposite and false that no school is notable were counted, in addition to other !votes that ignored the content of the article or the changes that had been made to it after the AfD was created. There was no consensus to delete the article. . As modified, the article made credible claims of notability, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. In ignoring some !votes and counting others, this closure was improperly turned into a mere vote-counting exercise that failed to consider the content of the article in any fashion. Alansohn 01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. I see nothing out of process here. In fact, I don't see anything in the keep votes based on policy. I specifically don't see any that say "Keep because notability is demonstrated by citation to multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject significantly", which is required for any article. The position held by some that "all high schools are notable" does not have consensus at Wikipedia, as evidenced by the fact that high school articles are often deleted at AfD. Without a further basis in policy, the inherent notability position should be given no more weight than WP:ILIKEIT. -- But|seriously|folks  01:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the quality of the article matters more than what people said at AFD... we wouldn't knowingly delete an okay article just because people didn't make good arguments at AFD. At any rate Mr. Vandenberg did make the notability/sourcing argument and the article did cite sources for its claims of notability... arguments to delete seem to be glossing over that in the spirit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as much as anyone is invoking WP:ILIKEIT here. --W.marsh 01:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, keep arguments are simple WP:ILIKEIT that are not based on any policies or guidelines (there is no policy or guideline that states that all high schools are notable because there is no consensus for that position, as Butseriouslyfolks stated). --Coredesat 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between arguing that "all high schools are notable" (which some "keep" !votes did) and saying "I like it". You are simply arguing that the "keep" opinions should be ignored because YOU don't consider them valid opinions. If you disregard opinions that don't reach the same conclusion you do, of course you will always find that "consensus" agrees with your opinion. -- DS1953 talk 05:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I !voted to delete, but I thought it was clear that the consensus was the other way.DGG 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - keep !votes were based almost entirely in the notion that all high schools are inherently notable. In the absence os a policy saying so, the burden is on the keepers to demonstrate that the specific high school is notable. That didn't happen here. Otto4711 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using that !logic, someone has to establish that every individual U.S. Congressman in history is notable, or that every single UK train station, U.S. state highway, MLB player, episode of Lost, etc... is notable. There are hundreds of groups of articles where the express or implied decision is that being a member of the group makes the subject notable. You appear to be saying that can't be the case with high schools and that the opinions of people that think that it should must be ignored. -- DS1953 talk 05:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - 'all X are notable' equates to 'I like X' and can be discounted. Notability should be established by sources. Addhoc 08:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Husond made a good argument for his closing and it was in process. Nothing in this article demonstrated notability. Eusebeus 10:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related question: was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shepherd Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line) closed incorrectly? --NE2 13:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion Minor news sources added at the last minute that mention the school in passing are not enough. All X are notable is not something that the closer needs to pay attention to. If more sourcing can be given, I will be more inclined to change my view. JoshuaZ 16:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete this please the news sources were not minor no consensus was to erase it either yuckfoo 01:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: if there are new sources sufficient to meet WP:N, bring them here and we can consider them, but closer's reading of the debate was flawless. Xtifr tälk 09:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were sources added. The closer only addressed the silly "all schools are notable" argument, which is like shooting fish in a barrel, while conveniently ignoring the actual sourcing/notability argument. It was hardly a "flawless" reading, unless you agreed with it I guess. --W.marsh 16:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm saying that the statement "I've got sources" is not, by itself, a free pass at AfD or DRV, and there was no evidence that anyone at AfD was impressed by the quality, reliability or depth of coverage provided by those sources (not even the other "keep"ers). As JoshuaZ said above, "Minor news sources ... that mention the school in passing are not enough." In the absence of topic-specific guidelines, we have WP:N, and there's no evidence that anyone thought the sources were sufficient to pass that. I see nothing to justify overturning the deletion on procedural grounds. But, as I said above, and repeat again, in the hopes it may get through, I would be willing to listen to an argument to undelete based on (new) evidence of notability. Which, I see you made a start at above, but one passing mention and one local article about the school's football team is not, IMO, "significant coverage". But it's a start. Find more sources, enough to meet a reasonable reading of WP:N, and I will happily reconsider. Xtifr tälk 21:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete - there was no consensus for deletion and the closer's statement "Without encyclopedic content ..." is simply incorrect. It is for the Community to judge whether the article meets notability standards and on this views were divided so the article should have survived as a 'no consensus'. For non-admins I have temporarily placed a copy at User:TerriersFan/Goetz, which differs markedly form the cached version. TerriersFan 22:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where the concern is notability, the AfD should be a discussion on whether there are enough in-depth reliable sources out there from which to write a neutral verifiable article here. Unfortunately, almost no one in this AfD indicated that they made a minimal effort even to look for appropriate sources. (John Vandenburg came closest by providing links to search engine results, but failed to evaluate those sources in the AfD.) So none of the keep opiners demonstrated that there are multiple non-trivial sources (the two sources W.marsh links to are trivial w.r.t. Goetz), and none of the delete opiners indicated that they looked and found no appropriate sources. I.e. the AfD discussion was almost totally useless.

    Moi, I can find no non-trivial sources on this school, so if I had participated in the AfD I'd probably have recommended delete. But I'm fallible and untrustworthy; the point of the 5-day AfD is to have many editors, not just one, look for and evaluate sources. Now we're at DRV and we're supposed to review the AfD that just happened. The result of the AfD should have been "I, Husond (the closing admin), have no clue what to do with the article after reading this rather [cough] unhelpful discussion," or, if you prefer, "no consensus." Overturn and restore. Pan Dan 23:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and undelete this extraordinary abuse of Wikipedia deletion policy Reasoning:
  1. A number of participants in this discussion have said the closing admin acted correctly because they agreed with him that certain "Keep" arguments cannot be considered in assessing consensus. That's a clear procedural violation of Wikipedia rules on closing discussions. I meant to delete this but was distracted. Sorry.
  2. Which Wikipedia official policy states that participants in deletion discussions must cite a Wikipedia rule in order for their deletion opinions to be considered? If there were such a policy, then I would just cite one of Wikipedia's prime rules, WP:IAR all the time and thereby remain within the rules.
  3. There are rules aplenty for administrators closing deletion discussions, however. At Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, very clear rules on reasons for ignoring an editor's contribution to a deletion discussion are given, and not one of them says that when figuring out consensus you can ignore an editor's comments because the editor didn't cite a Wikipedia rule. If my position that all high schools are notable is not a Wikipedia rule, it is still my opinion and should be counted as part of figuring out the consensus. Minority opinions are to be considered in deciding whether there is a consensus -- by the definition of consensus. They may or may not be part of the resulting consensus, but they are to be considered, not ignored. THIS IS A CLEAR PROCEDURAL VIOLATION. It is even clearer that the closing admin has violated the spirit of Wikipedia policy on consensus, which is about as important.
  4. The idea that WP:ILIKEIT is in any way equivalent to "all high schools are inherently notable" takes about two seconds to demolish: How can I or anyone else possibly like ALL high school articles? Reread the actual WP:ILIKEIT article before blithely throwing around references to it. It's about what editors actually like. I don't give a damn about the school and I don't like the article (although I don't think it's awful enough to delete). I give a damn about Wikipedia, and I believe the encyclopedia is enhanced by having articles on nearly all high schools. Incidentally, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in which WP:ILIKEIT is an item, is not an official Wikipedia policy or guideline. It is an essay. As it says at the top, "merely reflects some opinions of its author(s)". Even if I did just like it, my opinion should have some weight in determining consensus.
  5. At Wikipedia:Deletion policy it states: "Deletion and undeletion are performed by administrators based on policy and guidelines, not personal likes and dislikes" (nutshell section up top); it also states: "pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept" ("Processes" section, "Deletion discussion" subsection)
  6. At Wikipedia:Guide to deletion it states: "By long tradition, the consensus opinion of the community about an article's disposition is held virtually sacrosanct, and may not be overturned or disregarded lightly. ("If you disagree with the consensus" section). Does this apply to administrators or just the rest of us? Noroton 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC) (made minor edit Noroton 19:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: If the closing admin of THIS discussion agrees that Husond appropriately rejected any comments because they did not refer back to Wikipedia rules, then, logically, the closing admin of THIS discussion MUST ALSO reject any !votes in THIS discussion that do not follow the rules for these deletion review discussions:
"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." -- (italics in origional, from Wikipedia:Deletion review, "Instructions" section)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we must discount editors who seem to violate the rules of a forum, then be consistent.Noroton 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If appeals not to follow Wikipedia policy were disallowed in establishing consensus for deletion discussions, there would at least be a rule clearly stating that. However, we have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to remind editors (and administrators) that rules are not sacrosanct and may, in some instances, be violated to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Consensus is generally the way we decide if a rule violation should be allowed or not. I think everyone should keep in mind this statement from Wikipedia:Follow consensus, not policy (which is not a policy or guideline and what is said here applies equally to the essay it appears in):
Note that at any point in time, we first establish a consensus, and then if some volunteer takes the time, only then do they write down the established consensus on some page in the project namespace. Some people also write down how they think people should act. Sometimes a small number of people hold discussions or votes to try to tell the rest of wikipedia what to do. Because of this, you should be wary of what you read in the project namespace. It will lag behind, give bad advice, or even be downright wrong. As is true for wikipedia itself, different pages are of differing quality. (from "Project namespace is as reliable as wikipedia itself." section) Noroton 21:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Quite frankly, the "delete" arguments were no better than the "keep" arguments. The keep arguments that all schools are notable is not a worse argument than a delete argument that schools are not notable. John Vanderberg's argument in the debate was the one which was most coherent of the ones presented, so this looks like a classic "no consensus" case, the closer's opinion notwithstanding. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse until and unless better sources can be found. >Radiant< 10:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." - quoted from the instructions at the top of this Deletion Review. Many of the opinions endorsing the closure are making statements about the content of the article. If they wanted to participate in the AfD discussion, they were certainly welcome to do so. How one would have !voted should not be used to justify an out-of-process closing. -- DS1953 talk 21:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. My position is that high schools of this size are inherently notable. Newyorkbrad 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and new information: At Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough Consensus it states:
Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. [...] such policies must again be respected above other opinions.

So WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV all trump consensus and consensus trumps other Wikipedia guidelines and policies, such as WP:Notability.

Butseriouslyfolks makes the point that the article had unverified information in it, and that the closing decision should be upheld because the violation of WP:V justifies it. He's convinced me that his position is correct unless the WP:V violation can be fixed.

Under Deletion Review rules, if new information comes forward justifying the article, that can be grounds for overturning the original deletion.

That is now the case.

I've researched and found citations to meet the WP:V objection. See User:Noroton/GoetzVerified This version at my user space has footnotes for everything. I've deleted information that I could not verify. Therefore there is no longer a WP:V violation. The article may not meet notability standards, but the consensus of the AfD was to ignore that in this case.

The closing administrator should completely discount all arguments in this discussion based on Notability violations because notability rules can't trump a consensus to keep. The closing administrator should completely discount arguments in this discussion based on lack of verifiability because I've now shown verifiability.

As soon as the article is restored, I will add the footnotes establishing verifiability. If the closing administreator upholds the original closure, I will re-establish a new article on the same subject that meets WP:V. Noroton 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I do not agree that the presence of unsourced assertions is grounds for deletion of an article. My point was that the absence of any sourced assertions violates WP:V, so WP:N could not be satisfied in such cases. -- But|seriously|folks  18:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - a way forward - If this is to be a straight overturn and keep/endorse deletion decision then I stick by overturn per my recommendation above. However, I see a middle way. Had this been closed as a 'no consensus' then an immediate second AfD would have been in order. It is clear from the above discussions that opinions are still divided. A middle way would be to overturn but then to relist at AfD in order to seek consensus. TerriersFan 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - another way forward The article has been improved, and I am not sure that a vote at AfD for the article in the present form would be to delete--at the very least, it can certainly be said that there it is not among the worst high school articles. ; so just endorse, but allow re-creation. DGG (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - a third way forward How about closing this as moot, as the article has been revised with WP:N and WP:V in mind. User:Noroton would be free to post his revised version, as he has made a good faith effort to address the policy concerns. Others would be free to relist it at AfD, if they are so moved. -- But|seriously|folks  18:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The article itself is quite unpromising and uninteresting. However, if the AfD participants seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy, I don't see how the closer is justified in closing the AfD in a way that differs extremely from the raw vote count. People who think all high schools are notable should not have that fact held against them; that is a far different view than WP:ILIKEIT. This ought to be a 'No Consensus' result. I would also be happy with any of the three 'Way Forward' positions offered just above: by Terriersfan, DGG, or Butseriouslyfolks. EdJohnston 19:21, 10 July 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.
MGTOW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page has been deleted for 2 years now, its an active movement, its been deleted for false reasons every time. I just created the page, put a hangon notice, and it was deleted AGAIN.

Check out the last argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MGTOW

All the discussion was removed also, to cover up why it was removed. This is censorship to stop mens rights, there is no other reason to contest it other than you disagree with it. - IronWolve 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy endorse deletion, this is not AfD redux, and accusations of bad faith do not help your cause. Nor do the threats on the AfD of shutting down Wikipedia with a vandalbot if we don't give in to your demands. Corvus cornix 21:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never mentioned a vandalbot or threaten wikipedia. (So why did you state that?)
That archived discussion is over 1 year ago by the last group of guys trying to add MGTOW. Now to 2007, I notice MGTOW doesn't exist and try to add it, answer all the copyrights and notable questions, and put a holdon, and it was deleted within 24 hours! This isnt a sub article, even though its mentioned in the mens rights section, its a philosophy for an active movement, thats been defined for over 2 years, used on all major mens rights forums and blogs. Now that a book was written on it, that should make it notable enough. - IronWolve 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "you" as in advocates for your cause, who said, I have a serious question: What would you do if someone used a lengthy list of elite proxies to automatically evade your edit bans, and constantly made edits that you guys didn't like faster than you could delete them?, and then went on to make further threats. Do you have reliable sources which prove the notability of the movement which you claim exists? Corvus cornix 22:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, very hostile attacks. It was equested to make the article notable if I could provide 1 book, book ISBN 0976261316, The Rantings of a Single Male. Which describe the "MGTOW Men Going There Own Way" movement and philosophy. (I had to ask on the mens forums about this book, since only Amazon classifies it as MGTOW) and that took me a day, thats why the speedy deletion was contested, I had to ask EXPERTS. - IronWolve 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if you think that my comments were hostile, but I feel hostility towards those who think that they have some sort of Received Judgement For God that Wikipedia must be shut down if it doesn't accede to their view as to the Rightness of their cause. Now, Google shows 122 hits for "men going their own way". Hardly an avalanche. Nothing at Google Books, nothing at Google News. What does the book you mention have to say about MGTOW? Is it a casual mention, a chapter, an entire book? One is also not sufficient, as the criterion is for "multiple" independent sources. Corvus cornix 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love wikpedia, thats why I use it all the time, and I'm new to mens rights movements. During my own research, the mens rights movement is lacking in books and real articles. I have searched for national mens rights groups, and only found 1. I have found the most popular bloggers and forums, and through the investigation I learned about the MGTOW philosophy and noticed the mens groups using it and its logos. I didn't know what exactly what the MGTOW was, and found the mens activist wiki, which describes it. Now, if we take in account the scope of the size of mens rights (not fathers rights), MGTOW is the major philosophy for the mens movement. I wish I could point to some third party outside mens rights, but there doesnt seem to be any. So, if MGTOW is the major philosphy used by mens groups, and all the mens groups are online, I can only point to that. AS for the book, I do not have a copy and did take another persons words on it. But I do think that grant the smallness of the mens movement, the only philsophy would be the major philosphy, and it is describe in the wikipedia's own article on mens rights. ARGH, I wish there was an major mens rights group I could qoute, but there isn't a (recognized) national mens rights group.... -22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That book The Rantings of a Single Male appears to be self-published, see the "publisher"'s website, hardly a wonderful source. --Stormie 14:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a long, well-sourced article at Men's rights. Corvus cornix
Men's rights mentions MGTOW, yet MGTOW doesn't exist. /sigh - IronWolve 23:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability was proven. When a philosophy is notable to its intended audience, that makes it notable for wikipedia. It does not have to be notable outside its audience which editors are claiming. Since the term MGTOW is a notable term in the mens rights movement, the mens movement is almost entirely online, thus I can use online resources to confirm it via wikipedia's rules for Notability. (Seems I'm playing Catch 22 here, thats why wikipedia's rules says If its born online, it can be proven online.)
* Book ISBN 0976261316 mentions MGTOW by name. Other authors of misandry now support the term MGTOW as term for (A) philosophy for the mens movement.
* Largest non-profit mens rights group, www.ncfm.org supports and uses MGTOW, and links to the MGTOW website. NCFM should be considered a primary resource.
* The term has been proven to be used, and was even discussed in depth in 2006 and was contested at the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MGTOW - IronWolve 04:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't dictate to the Wikipedia community what it means for a subject to be notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. You say, "when a philosophy is notable to its indended audience, that makes it notable for Wikipedia". That is not true. You have been asked to read Wikipedia:Notability numerous times. You'll find that there is a strong consensus that a subject has had to have had significant coverage in reliable sources independent from the subject (see Wikipedia:Notability). Also see WP:V for a description of reliable sources: those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Sancho 06:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Notability has been provided. -IronWolve 04:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse - For an active movement this was entirely lacking in good quality reliable sources. Spartaz Humbug! 06:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse per DGG, Wikipedia is not the place to promote new movements, it's a place to document established and notable ones. --W.marsh 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Regarding the unjustified deletion of MGTOW - There are plenty of obscure and esoteric topics on Wiki that are not even worth mentioning, but because said topics are politically benign they are allowed to remain. Please at least do us all the favor of coming up with a better lie than "copyright infringement" since the self designated Wiki censors are in the business of trying to smoke screen and diverting public attention. I will assume said suppressors of this entry feel a sense of threat of the implications MGTOW, otherwise this topic would not be constantly removed. One thing is for certain, with or without a Wiki entry, MGTOW is going to make the dam burst despite opposition. The clock ticks...
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.
Ken_Kaniff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Tragic loss, article should have been merged, not deleted Reynolds45 06:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You could have come to my talk page first to raise concerns about my closing rather then coming directly here. I closed it as delete rather than merge because there were no sources and the information was therefore effectively unverifiable original research. I have no problem with anything being merged into the Eminen article but the information must be sourced and verifiable. If you can provide proper sources, I'll reverse the close. Otherwise 'Endorse own close. Spartaz Humbug! 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

4 July 2007

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

This is a legitimate publishing company that is notable because it is known for taking in smaller publishers and bringing their books to a wide audience. They are also notable as the publisher of the 1,000 places to see before you die series. [1]

This company has been mentioned in thousands of book reviews, and other articles covering the books they and their imprints publish. It is notable within the publishing industry for entry into use of video to promote it's books. [2]

I had barely created the page and was gathering additional information to add when it was speedily deleted apparently by a bot. I would like it restored so that work can continue on it.

Rtphokie 19:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permit restoration after preparation of a sourced article offline. Frankly, i would have been inclined to speedy; but a quick check of Google finds apparent publication of an actual best-selling travel guide [37]. This may or may not be a vanity publisher, but it does seem notable The only publications Amazon lists, unfortunately, are a line of amusing calendars I obviously didn't look widely enough .DGG 20:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you refer to the original article before it was deleted, this publisher has several imprints which publish a range of fiction and non-fiction works. One of which publishes Where Are They Buried? How Did They Die? a useful book that has been referenced here on Wikipedia (and probably should be more). You are correct that the Workman imprint is best known for cutesy calenders but Workman also counts Authors like Steve Kaplan and Lance Armstrong. It's probably best that these individual imprints be redirected to the Workman page and be listed there to make the article more useful. Rtphokie 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit restoration, this has been a notable company for 25 years [38]; I found four NYT articles (on the publisher per se, not on its products) in 1981-1982 alone.[39][40][41] Who cares about what they publish? Is that relevant to notability? --Dhartung | Talk 22:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support restoration. By sheer coincidence, I cited a work from this publisher just today. It is sufficiently notable. Wryspy 06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Long-time and well-known American publishing house, which a cursory Google check would turn up copius evidence of. Yeah, they publish a lot of calendars -- those Page-a-Day® calendars? Theirs -- as well a fair number of trade books. One New York Times story on a different subject mentions in passing
Industry consultants estimated that, with sales of more than $100 million a year, Perseus will be smaller than the privately owned Workman Publishing but larger than Disney's Hyperion books division ("Independent Publisher Is Diversifying" by David D. Kirkpatrick, 14 March 2002)
meaning that their sales are somewhere north of $100 million. No question here. --Calton | Talk 10:27, 5 July 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.
Cinesite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Conspicuous by its absence; this is a legitimate visual effects company (see [42]); articles for other visual effects companies exist in Wikipedia. Content was submitted in good faith but might have been seen as POV or advertising (I can't tell as the history is not available). The marketing manager for the company (for which I work) would like the page restored so that it can be edited from its current press release style into a sound, NPOV Wikipedia article. — Paul G 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Start over The article was deleted in April 2007 as advertising, and has been deleted seven times previously for various reasons. A Google search shows that it's notable, so I'll take five minutes to write a non-COI stub, and we'll take it from there. Shalom Hello 17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, the page is salted, so I'll write the draft here with nowiki tags:
'''Cinesite''' is a [[subsidiary of [[Eastman Kodak]], specializing in [[visual effects]]. Founded in 1992, it has offices in [[New York City]] and [[London]]. It has helped to produce many films, such as [[Underdog]], [[Omen 666]], [[X-Men: The Last Stand]], [[V For Vendetta]], [[Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire]] and [[Charlie & The Chocolate Factory]].
==External links== [http://www.cinesite.com/ Cinesite homepage] [[Category:Kodak]] [[Category:1992 establishments]]
IMDB.com has a list of films they've worked on here. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 09:56, 6 July 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.
Pan_African_School_of_Theology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

copyright Jwroland 10:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the correct page for copyright issues. Osomec 13:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marked with WP:CSD#G11 and G12. -N 14:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, hmm, school's principal is listed as "James W. Roland", and on the talk page he asserts he wrote the text himself. I think he's here trying to ask us to stop deleting his page. Someone needs to have a talk with this user about WP:COI and such. -N 14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He left a note on my talk page asking me to undelete the article, also stating he'd authored the text. I haven't looked into the issue, but he does appear to be trying to get the article back. I've declined his request for the deleted material so long as this deletion review is on going. - auburnpilot talk 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and take from there. It is perfectly possible that this is a notable institution. Piccadilly 16:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No restore. As the first deleting administrator, the page was created as a blatant copyright violation from http://www.pacekenya.org/past/index.htm. It was then created a second time, again with material directly from http://www.pacekenya.org/past/index.htm, thus resulting in a second deletion. If it will be created again, it must be from scratch, without copyright material as a starting point. Sancho 17:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If Jwroland is the principle, it is possible that he/she actually wrote the material on the webpage. If this is the case though, there needs to be some assertion of release of that material under the GFDL or into public domain. I'll explain this to the editor and also talk to him/her about conflict of interest. Sancho 17:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been recreated with a copyright notice. I am asking for speedy delete on the basis of A7. The organisation is not notable, as is obvious from a Google search for "Pan African School of Theology", which gives only 2 hits, one of which is the wikipedia article. DrKiernan 12:33, 5 July 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.
Template:Dated episode notability (edit | [[Talk:Template:Dated episode notability|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|TfD)

Completely inappropriate closure. By "votes" alone, consensus was not established in any way. The vast majority of the deletion support was based on misleading comments by the nom that the template was used to delete articles. Deletion admin also cites WP:CREEP, despite that it is common to have individual cleanup tags such as this (see Category:Notability and importance templates). The template was also being used to date and track articles for a new review process being developed. We date maintenance tags all the time, and we give individual messages regarding specific cleanup tags all the time.

Regardless of how you feel about the situation, there was anything but a consensus to delete. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:EPISODE
  • Endorse closure — There was a very clear consensus established at the TfD, that was to delete and redirect. I'm saddened that you feel that consensus was not established, and that you had to resort to canvassing to advance your POV (now, why does that feel odd?). Frankly the reason given to keep are extremely weak. Matthew 07:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done no canvassing, and POV is not a factor here at all. Matthew here is the user who nominated the template in an attempt to snipe the developing process, and is also the one who presented the misleading claims that the template was for a deletion process. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, and Endorse Deletion There was not a consensus, even numbers alone hardly had a majority. Ned Scott's original speedy keep was correct, people just didn't like it since he wrote it. That is irrelevent. Please don't make accusations of canvassing, as you canvassed in the deletion as well. I feel, however, that deleting the template (technically redirect) should be left. It was a lenglthy discussion, and although consensus was not established, people wanted it deleted, and its deletion makes the review less complicated, and an alternative is being discussed. I  (said) (did) 07:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it's ok to screw the users who wanted to keep the template, wanting to improve such articles, because some other users wanted it deleted? You said yourself, there was no consensus. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deleting this template also removed a notice stating that episode articles were under review, as well as the link to said review, and links to our guidelines regarding TV episodes. It is inappropriate to single out the template being used by guidelines and review processes for these very reasons, and says so on WP:TFD directly. -- Ned Scott 07:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place."
The deletion of the template made it quite clear that the guideline and process carries no weight and has no consensus to support it. Those two issues will be addressed shortly. Matthew 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of anything that would need to be merged. I'm actually thinking of (when I say enhanced)

"The subject of this article may not satisfy the notability guideline or one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines."

being changed to something like

"The subject of this article may not satisfy the episode notability guideline."

It could be called with something like {{Notability|episode}}. Matthew 08:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the template was made directly from {{notability}}, obviously. However, deleting and redirecting the template like this does not preserve the message, links, or categorization, and makes a mess of the pages that were previously using the template. This deletion is not how you merge templates. -- Ned Scott 08:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but it makes the deletion a technical issue. If all you wanted was to remove the message that said "14 days" that would be one thing, allowing time to plan to merge this (and all the other) templates to one. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how including a category is beneficial, there's no rush to fix the issue (if there is one). Remember that the introduction of these templates is purely based on opinion, that may not be shared, anybody may remove these templates if they disagree -- even if you've created some arbitrary discussion forum. If you still feel that an article should be deleted after the template is removed then AfD it. Matthew 08:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understood me. I would not oppose removing the deadline and review features of the template, returning it to it's original state (an episode-specific copy of {{notability}}). Merging the two templates would be for technical reasons, and if we are doing that we should so the same for the other notability templates. There would be no reason to delete the template in that case, and we then lose the links to WP:EPISODE for however long it takes to update the protected-{{notability}}. If the opposition is not to the message or link, then why delete it before merging? -- Ned Scott 08:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't anything is arguing that tagging unreferenced episode articles as such is a bad idea. The main objections in the old TFD seemed to be over the implication of a deadline and the appearance resembling that of a deletion tag. Thus, I propose, instead of going through all the DRV bureaucracy, we instead make a new template, along the lines of {{unreferenced}}, to fill the same task but in a different way. This template would clearly be a cleanup template (unlike the very prod-like {{notability}} or this template), but would allow for the management and cleanup of episode articles.

I've started work on this template at User:A Man In Black/epref, and I encourage any help from the participants in this DRV.

I haven't bulleted this comment because it's an alternate proposal from undeleting or endorsing. If this sounds good to everyone, we can just say "Let's do AMIB's thing" and forget all about the old template, deleting or merging or restoring or whatever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that, like all other cleanup tags, they almost never get worked on. And, technically, they dont need to be cleaned up usually, they violate policy, and need to be removed. That happened, people got mad, so a timeline was set up. Removing the timeline just lets it exist indefinently. I  (said) (did) 08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on retaining the 14-day functionality. It just won't be so in-your-face. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I like that solution. It just looks like the original template, but redesigned. The original was misleading and I think that design would make it more misleading. Matthew 08:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this template misleading? It's {{unreferenced}} with some more-specific guideline and project links and better date handling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fine message for episode articles that are unreferenced, but the issue at hand is notability. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working on wording. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who would like to see the template in use can see it in User:A Man In Black/Yeah, which currently shows what the template looks like with a month-old date. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with the infrastructure, and the template is essentially done. All that's left to do is for people to adjust the wording to taste. I invite anyone interested in doing so to edit User:A Man In Black/epref to that effect. If everyone can live with this template, I'll move it out to template space, make an enabler template like {{Episode-notability}}, and fix up the category infrastructure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you are joining this discussion after reading about it in a message Matthew placed on numerous series talk pages, please note that some of the text in that message is incorrect. Episode articles are not "at risk with this template" - they are handled under the WP:EPISODE guideline. This template is for notification purposes only, alerting editors to a review process which can proceed regardless of its presence. --Ckatzchatspy 08:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was significant discussion and debate at the TfD. It seems like the concerns have been addressed and a work around has been established. I think it is time to let this template go and move on with the work of improving the encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion (of course, this DRV is just going to become a rehash of the original TFD). WP:PROD is the policy/process that can be used. Sorry if it takes a lot of time, but if you care so much, you'll be willing to follow it through. The TFD appears to have been closed correctly, given the breach of policy and one of the pillars of the project (it's a free encyclopedia). The JPStalk to me 11:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly what went wrong with the old TFD. We ended up with a bunch of scare tactics and misunderstanding that this was some sort of deletion process. It wasn't, it wasn't ever intended to be, and it wasn't anything even close.
    The old template was based on {{notability}}, which happens to look almost exactly like {{prod}}. Despite this similarity, its intent was almost identical to that of {{notability}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Especially when fueled by TTN's over-usage of the template, and Matthew's disruptively misleading deletion comments, this template was being prosecuted for something it was not. -- Ned Scott 23:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - though I saw more of a consensus to keep, it was a correct decision to keep both sides from warring. Will (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If editors were warring about this then deal with those editors. With this same logic we could say that we shouldn't be tagging non-free images via bots and scripts, because then less people will be mad. None the less, the template was originally a notability template, with the review features added on. Deleting was completely unnecessary. -- Ned Scott 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure' the closure followed general policy--one does not change WP policy by means of a template introduced by a single workgroup even for their own material. Proposals to establish a 14 day period for deleting unreferenced articles have been repeatedly defeated. I remember that I supported one of them before arguments convinced me they were impractical. DGG 20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original template should not have been deleted.
  1. TfD, according to its own regulations, is not the place to discuss templates that are "part of the functioning of a Wikipedia policy or guideline". The TfD should have been suspended and discussion about the wording and use of the guideline should have occurred at WP:TV-REVIEW.
  2. There was no clear consensus for deletion; opinions and rationales varied.
  3. Some of the votes for deletion were on the basis that the template advocated deletion of articles (ie. replicating prod or AfD templates). It cannot be stated clearly enough that the template was advocating review not deletion, but since concerns were expressed, the template was reworded to make the purpose more clear.
  4. Some of the deletion votes called for a modified notability template. THIS was the modified notability template. Modification was required so it provided links to appropriate guidelines and categorised it to make review easier.
  5. Much of the concern centered around the 'fourteen days'. This was NEVER intended as a deadline, but as a courtesy to editors. Normal tags can be actioned immediately; this gave two weeks grace before it was looked at. HOWEVER, if consensus suggests the 14 days is unnecessary, or leads to confusion, then the template could have been MODIFIED, to a standard date format.

Thus the template should not have been deleted, but suggestions presented for modification. That said suggestions have been made above to modify another template for the purpose, which might provide a compromise. NOTE. The 'purpose' is simply to a) identify articles relating to television which do not meet Wikipedia's own guidelines for inclusion, b) provide links and encouragement to editors to help them improve or merge the articles c) provide a format for review (not deletion) of said articles. We have never proposed deletion, since we believe Wikipedia is enriched by GOOD articles about television, but most shows create GOOD articles by merging episodes together (ie. one good season article rather than two dozen near-empty episode articles or, more commonly, two dozen episode articles which breach copyright by overlong plots and which fail WP:TRIVIA). Gwinva 08:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion AND closure I just feel shaken up from the whole "episodes" ordeal. I don't want it to happen again. Angie Y. 12:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess there really isn't a point to this DRV. We're still going to use something, template wise, that more people won't object to, or get the wrong impression of. Which kind of makes deleting the template in the first place pointless, since such a discussion should have lead to modification, as Gwinva pointed out. What we have now is a technical deletion. We don't need the deleted data to continue, and we don't even need the name of a template like "Dated episode notability" (I do find it funny that {{episode-notability}}, the date stamper part of the template, didn't get deleted or mentioned). I strongly believe that we would have evolved to something easier and better regardless of the TfD, and that the TfD (regardless of how it was closed) really didn't do much other than make the situation more frustrating and difficult. -- Ned Scott 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For an update, {{notability}} now has an episode trigger. {{notability|episode}} will now generate a similar message, but holds no review functions (the 14 days, etc). I also plan on suggesting categorization to be done for {{notability}}, so that episode-specific notability concerns can be tracked individually, as well as for any of the other notability sub messages. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 6 July 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.
VíaVienté (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

After an AfD dicussion in which I closed delete, the author of the page asked if the page could be made better. I improved on it a bit here, and I think this marginally meets guidelines now. Sr13 07:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permit creation and list at AfD "marginal" is the word, and I cannot predict what the consensus will be at AfD. Their sole current product is a purported tonic made from mineralized water and fruit extracts. The refs given are marginal to--the Townsend Letter is the sort of "medical" journal that will endorse anything, & some other refs are peripheral. But the Dallas Morning News article is an acceptable source. DGG 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These are probably all of the refs I can find, a Google search is bombarded with promotion. Sr13 21:40, 4 July 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:Wikipedians who listen to video game music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

This was closed as keep. However, none of the arguments to keep were really much of an argument at all, just that the existence of users in it means that it should exist, which cannot be the case. Furthermore, two of the keep arguments were refuted, such as by stating that Category:WikiProject Video games members is superior in terms of encyclopedia-building. This left a stronger argument for deletion, so overturn and delete. Coredesat 05:48, 4 July 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.
Image:Brunokirby2.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Brunokirby2.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia standards, policies Jenolen speak it! 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_26#Image:Brunokirby2.jpg, closing admin argues:

The result was delete. I don't think there is any doubt that the image was provided by CBS to the media outlets referenced, however, we do not know the circumstances surrounding the conditions on which the image was provided. It could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to. Also, there is no claim the uploader got the image from a press kit, which means the image was possibly copied from another website with possible violation of that website's terms and conditions of use.

I certainly disagree that the consensus opinion was to delete. I certainly take issue with the idea that CBS provides press kit photos to only a few media outlets, not to all legitimate media outlets. I cannot image a situation which requires me to physically be in possesion of a photograph from a "press kit," which these days, is usually electronic and/or on-line, in order for an image to be useable on Wikipedia. It makes no difference if the uploader "claims" the image comes from a press kit; the image DOES come from press material, and therefore, its deletion on grounds that "it doesn't come from a press kit" is not valid. And if an image comes from another website, so what? We know who the copyright holder OF THE IMAGE is! It doesn't make a difference whether or not it was downloaded from CBS.com, NPR.org, SeattleTimes.com, photos.ap.com, whatever -- that's a delivery method. The image itself, it should be noted, is clearly and unambiguosly the copyrighted property of CBS. Its resolution was reduced, and it was being used in full compliance with all ten points of WP:NFCC. The argument we do not know the circumstances surrounding the conditions on which the image was provided could (and perhaps someday will) be applied to EVERY press-kit style photo. But in fact, we do know that this image was provided to multiple media outlets (links were provided), with no indication anywhere that there is any standard or practice that CBS promtional images are limited to only a few select websites. To buy the argument that this is a promotional image, as the closing admin seems to do, but then to delete it anyway doesn't make any sense. Finally, the argument that this could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to might make some sense, if there was ever any example or indication given that this has ever happened. This is so contrary to the standard practice in the promotional photo world that's it's difficult to understand how anyone could allege this with a straight face. As pointed out in the original deletion discussion, the image was used on NPR.org, which, as far as I know, is a part of the non-profit NPR radio network. The "fear" that this image is somehow exclusive, paid content being used by all of the example sites given in the deletion should be put to rest by its inclusion there. Jenolen speak it! 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that there was a consensus to delete. However, if you review the discussion Jenolen speak it! was the only voice in support of keeping the image, so there appears to be no broad consensus to keep the image. Jenolen speak it! is making assumptions about the pedigree of the image just as I am, but per current Wikipedia non-free content criteria we err on the side of caution. We have many cases of where promotional images were properly taken from the electronic press kit and this standard will be applied to all such images over time. -Nv8200p talk 04:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you review the discussion Jenolen speak it! was the only voice in support of keeping the image...

Then how come no other editor bothered to put a "DELETE" in front of their comments? There's only a "SPEEDY KEEP" from me...Yes, yes, I know this is not a vote, but NO ONE, other than the original nominator, made a cogent argument for deleting the image, they only replied to my initial evidence as to why it should be kept.

Also: A consensus isn't required to delete an image? Just to keep it? If an editor nominates something for deletion, and one other editor thinks it should be kept, isn't this usually considered a "no consensus" situation? Since when does "no consensus" default to "delete"?

What happened to actually taking a look at the evidence, and making a rational decision? I think it takes more than just the allegation of misuse -- the image nominator offered NO support to his claim that the image was, somehow, maybe exclusive content. And I offered several pieces of evidence that the image was NOT some kind of heretofore unheard of "paid promotional material". Again, there was zero evidence offered by the nominator -- just a nomination that talks about how this "might" be something we can't use. Well, I'd like to think our standards are a little higher than that.

And, I hate to bring this up, but what if the editor is nominating images uploaded by a particular user out of spite? That certainly could be what's happening here. I should point out that I'm no flagrant abuser of our image policy -- every single image I've every uploaded has been completely legal and within policy at the time I uploaded it. Sure, I know policies change, requiring subsequent deletion of previously acceptable material, but c'mon... This is way, way out of whack. Jenolen speak it! 06:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have brought that last point up as it is a personal attack and irrelevant, but since you did let me assure everyone that Abu badali (talk) is an equal opportunity harasser (and I use that term as in the kindest sense). This nomination is very consistant with his other nominations for the same reason with other editors (me included). -Nv8200p talk 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Image was verifiably promotional in nature and thus its use does not pose any problems. There was, equally verifiably, no consensus to delete. This continued behavior on the part of closing admins seriously undermines the faith and trust we should be able to have in individuals holding such positions. Badagnani 07:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and speedy close. Obviously valid deletion. No evidence of "promotional" nature; obviously invalid fair use rationale (basically, any fair use rationale that just copies that infamous bogus template "...how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public." is invalid and shows the uploader didn't do their homework.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No evidence of promotional nature? That, combined with your mistaken assertation that Mr. Kirby is alive (he's not) makes me think you either didn't read the previous deletion argument, didn't read it very carefully, or don't care about the "facts." Well, this image is promotional -"In this undated photo provided by CBS, Bruno Kirby appears in character as attorney Barry Scheck...., Mr. Kirby, sadly, is dead, and your arguments for endorsing deletion seem, well, based on a misunderstanding of the situation. Jenolen speak it! 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • These links were already provided in the IFD discussion and nobody but you considered them enough evidence that CBS welcomes everyone to distribute this image without prior notice. Deletion review is not a place to repeat the IFD discussion. --Abu badali (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, promotional material or not, it's a perfectly valid fair use claim, since you can't take a free image of a fictional character. This pointless squibbling over official circumstances of release has no relevance to our policy or copyright law. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The image wasn't being used to illustrate a fictional character. It was being used to illustrate a biography. Anyway, this is irrelevant, since replaceability wasn't really questioned in the IFD discussion (remember we have 10 criteria for using non-free content. Being irreplaceable is just the first of them.)--Abu badali (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? "Perfectly valid fair use claim"? This is a non-free image used for the biography of a living person, ('only showing what they look like'), and the fair use claim said that: "(1) it is a historically significant photo of a famous individual; (2) it is of much lower resolution than the original; (3) the photo is only being used for informational purposes. (4) Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public." Of these four statements, number one is plainly false, and number 4 is linguistically meaningless. ("event?" - "depicted?" - "show ... how"? - "historically significant"? - "general public"? - "was"? - not a single word of this phrase makes any sense at all.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject of the biography isn't living anymore, but that doesn't weakens the rest of your argument. "historically significant photo of a famous individual" is surely the most misused copy&paste phrase in rationales. I have seen it's being used for anything from headshots (historically significant?) to images with no individuals at all. --Abu badali (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several people here are debating whether the image is "fair use" or not. But the only relevant question here is "Did the closing admin follow policy correctly?", not "Do I agree with his decision?". This case wasn't clear-cut, and I can see how people could (and did) argue both sides in good faith. But the closing admin clearly followed policy, whether I agree with his decision or not. Endorse deletion. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the deleting admin thinks that policy calls for us to delete images if they could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to. I've provided at least four links as "evidence" that this image was distributed as a standard hand-out photo; so far, I've seen no evidence that CBS has a second tier of "paid promotional material," that CBS demands payments for the reuse of its promotional photos (in reality, they're distributed as far and wide as possible, with the encouragement given to media members to use them), no evidence that NPR pays people for content, no evidence that the Seattle Times pays entertainment companies for this type of promotional content... In short, if this image was deleted because "Maybe it could be a problem," that's not good enough. Delete an image because there is a problem - like, "we don't know who the copyright holder is" (of course in this case, we do know who the copyright holder is, but that has somehow, bizarrely, become of secondary importance of late) -- not because we can think of one type of unlikely eventuality that could be a problem. I mean really - do we want to delete every promotional photo from Wikipedia, on the basis that they could be exclusively sold to someone, somewhere? Jenolen speak it! 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The burden of proof was in you (the uploader), to show that CBS welcomes anyone to distribute this image without the necessity of a case-by-case approval. Showing that the images is used by some parties isn't enough for determining that. I see you criteria for calling an image "promotional" is weaker than the one used in Wikipedia. You can you this image (for instance) in your blog at your own discernment, but please accept that we may choose to be a little bit more strict on our content than the average blogger. --Abu badali (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the fair use claim is valid, that is not a requirement. There's no requirement for an explicit release from CBS to meet our fair use criteria or the law. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The whole fair use claim was based on the assumption that this image was released by CBS for anyone to use (this whole thing has been discussed in the IFD already!) --Abu badali (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The tag was. The tag may or may not be correct but the claim can be applied independently. Even images incorrectly tagged GFDL may be retainable under fair use. The fair use rationale on the deleted page didn't even mention promotional status. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until such time as a satisfactory justification is provided. This process must never be abused in order to subvert our non-free images policy. --Tony Sidaway 01:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the source of the image (I ask this after examining the Answers.com Answers.com mirror)? Also, have you tried getting this image released as free content? I bet you could. --Iamunknown 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source of the image - the copyright holder - is CBS. (This, of course, makes it extremely unlikely to be released as free content.) More specifically, the image itself was distributed to thousands of worldwide media outlets via a variety of methods, not limited to but possibly including the AP photo service, CBS.com and CBSPressExpress.com, physical electronic distribution via promotional CD-ROM and DVD, and printed photos mailed as part of the standard promotional service to CBS television stations, promotion departments, non-affiliated newspapers, general interest entertainment magazines, etc. Jenolen speak it! 08:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All we're asking for is some proof of this detailed description of CBS's distribution methods and and this image was really distributed according to this description. Simply showing some webpages that use this image is no such proof. You know that we can't just trust some user's words and expertise on some matter here. We ignore all credentials. --Abu badali (talk) 12:02, 9 July 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.
Pro-Joint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was changed to eliminate bias and simply served to be informative in regards to a new invention but was still deleted. I have nothing to do with the product but feel that it is useful knowledge for anyone, especially amputees. I only wrote it for the public benefit -- including several acquaintences of mine who are interested in the invention. Bronco allan 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion but allow for recreation if reliable sources are provided about the product's notability. But note that Wikipedia is not here to provide free publicity for any product. Corvus cornix 06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but permit re-creation if sourced per Corvus cornix. The article deleted was a mere catalog description and a valid speedy. DGG 20:35, 4 July 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.
Murakumo: Renegade Mech Pursuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't understand this. This was speedy closed, having been open for less than a day, by a user who has no indication on his user page that he is an admin with the reason given WP:IAR??. The review states "one of the worst games to come out for the Xbox this year." How is that sufficiently notable to warrant a speedy keep? I think this AfD should run its course. Bridgeplayer 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse keep Extremely unlikely that this Ubi Soft game would be closed as delete. Apparently it sucked, but that isn't a deletion criterion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notable" doesn't necessarily mean "good". This is a game developed by a noteworthy developer, published by a noteworthy publisher, and covered in major game publications. I can understand the AFD, since the article wasn't anything but an incomplete infobox when it was put on AFD, but I don't understand why there's this DRV. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's notes My closing rationale was "speedy keep because the article has been fundamentally improved." I have made this decision on several past AFDs without incident. If anyone feels there are still concerns about notability (i.e. the game was unpopular), by all means I'm okay with a relist. Shalom Hello 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

3 July 2007

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

see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Daverotherham

This request for checkuser was rejected on the grounds that "Checkuser is not for fishing". Piccadilly 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion started for leader of one of Jersey's political parties by secretary of Jersey's other political party RichardColgate 00:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore Looking at the cached version on google, this person is notable in Jersey, which though small is an independent state. Aviara 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Jersey is smaller than the typical nation, so I'm not sure if we should count it as the state. But the AFD shows no acknowledgment of the nominator's conflict of interest, nor any awareness by other participants of his role in the local political scene. As such, I don't think it constitutes an informed consensus about what to do with the article. I'm not completely confident that we do want the article, so sending it back to AFD is reasonable. GRBerry 01:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Is both notable in Jersey and deletion was suggested by political opponent as per user page for User:Daverotherham, so clear conflict of interest. No independent Jersey persons involved in initial vote so not an informed concensus CathyTurpin 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It doesn't really matter to me what happens to this article. If I find this overturned, I won't mind at all. Sr13 06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentRichard and Cathy are not declaring their interest on Darius's side, either, so they should not cast the first stones at me! To assess Richard's reliability and integrity from his own words, contrast his claim that Darius is leader of CP(J) here with his own edit of the Centre Party (Jersey) entry, where he cites Roger Benest as the leader.Daverotherham 15:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See Progress Jersey an organization in which the subject was active, and the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progress Jersey. DES (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Fairly notable person, thoroughly lousy procedure. Piccadilly 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The main reasons for deletion given were "Running for a minor office and losing ... means this isn't notable", and "I don't think road inspectors are notable." This appeared to ignore the documented history of broader political activity, including being a significant part of multiple campaigns that successfully influenced legislative outcomes in jersey. DES (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn non-representative discussion at AfD that altogether failed to take account of the article. It does seem possible that the deletion is based on a partisan political feud DGG 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Prior to deletion the article was independently edited by two very active Jersey resident editors, Man Vyi and Tonytheprof, neither of whom felt the need to suggest a deletion, this was at the direct request of Daverotherham in line with wikipedia procedures. Whilst Daverotherham may feel that the subject is non-notable, Wikipedia is about concensus and the concensus would appear to be otherwise. If the subject is so non-notable then why spend so much time trying to get this page and any page remotely related to the subject removed? RichardColgate 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn weren't we supposed to counter systemic bias or something?  Grue  21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am trying to strip Centre Party (Jersey) related entries of self-promotion and self-advertising. I admit that being Jersey based too, I care about what is said about Jersey politics in a way that I don't about local politics in Des Moines, Iowa for instance, and I bet people there don't care about Jersey politics either. However, I also strongly believe in the principles of Wikipedia, and where I have judiciously invoked the "ignore all rules" principle, I have each time left the article better than I found it, even if others came after with further changes. The thing about stripping the self-promotion out of CP(J) related entries, is that some of them don't have any substance left, so they should go altogether. I have started a thread at the Village Pump on Local, Regional, National, to seek a wider consensus on the underlying issue in this and the rest of the suite of articles I asked to be deleted, which is whether ward officials are ward officials anywhere, or whether they count as regional politicians if the nation is too small to have real regions.Daverotherham 14:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not like an entry was created for every single elected official who must take an oath of office before the Royal Court; the rules state that significant press coverage and renown in the community as well as a regional position are required for inclusion on wikipedia. Therefore Geraint Jennings for his work in promoting Jersiase, Peter Pearce the only Jersey person ever to defeat the Bailiff of Jersey in a legal case in Jersey, Daren O'Toole who gets more press coverage than most States Members and Darius Pearce who also gets more press coverage than most politicians would merit a page whilst most would not. That they are all from St Helier is not surprising as St Helier incorporates more than half the total population of Jersey, we are unlikely to see any members of the other eleven Municipalities appear; even the Deputies and Constables as they simply do not get enough press coverage to merit it. That you left Geraint Jennings up means that you must agree with this or why not seek to delete that page? See: Wikipedia:Notability_(people) politiciansRichardColgate 17:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There, You admit it. Significant press coverage, not occasional mentions, and regional positions, not ward and parish ones. Peter Pearce's entry was not about interesting litigation, it was about failing to reach high office, holding low office and, until another editor with respect for Wikipedia cleaned it up, being related to Darius J Pearce. (By the way, Peter and myself were colleagues in a now-defunct single issue political group a few years ago, and I have no personal axe to grind against him). Quote some references regarding Daren O'Toole's significant secondary coverage. I buy the Jersey Evening Post daily and have never noticed his name there. Darius gets occasional press, but no more than many others without entries, least of all entries that read like draft election leaflets. St. Helier does not have more than half of the population of Jersey, it has roughly a third - yet one more example of the systematic self-inflation in DariusJersey/RichardColgate/CathyTurpin contributions.I agree with Geraint Jennings notability, but I disagree with categorising him as a politician.Daverotherham 06:53, 8 July 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:Gates family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn and restore There was no consensus to delete this category. The legitimacy of categories for family categories has long been established, so there was no justification for the closer to override the debate. Sumahoy 22:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be considered original research to link a DRV where a sockpuppet who's "voted" three times in support of his own nomination commenting on the impropriety of voting more than once to Irony? Otto4711 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There are thousands of family categories, many of them about less prominent families than this one. Aviara 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No case has been made why this should be deleted while 156 other American families have a category. There was no consensus to delete. Membership of the Gates family is the most notable thing about the members with articles other than Bill Gates. OrchWyn 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Just because some American families have a category, it does not follow that all of them have a category. The debate was closed properly; the "keep" arguments boil down to the classic fallacy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as well as the argument that we should employ two redundant navigational systems. Since there are other families named "gates", use an annotated list for comprehensiveness. >Radiant< 09:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No fallacy is involved. The supposition that there is a consensus that family categories should be deleted is entirely unproven, as only minor family categories have been deleted. This is similar to the situation with settlements. On a few occasions categories for tiny towns and villages have been deleted, but this does not mean that anyone thinks that Category:Paris is not appropriate. Sumahoy 13:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - precedent is clear. --After Midnight 0001 12:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not. There have been many, many cases where family categories have been kept. Around three dozen for Polish noble families alone. The recent deletions have all been of families at the bottom end of the notability scale, so they carry no weight whatsoever as precedents for more notable families. Sumahoy 13:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn CFD precedent is not convincing... family categories are useful even if CFD regulars don't like them. I've seen these "listified" and that is usually quite silly for small families. --W.marsh 13:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Arbitrary closure that overwrote the discussion on the basis of personal preference and precedents that don't stand up. Osomec 13:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - dozens if not hundreds of family categories have been deleted. The precedent for such deletions is clearly established. The "precedents" cited by the keepers are the existence of family categories in general. It's likely that every category put up for deletion has a category similar to it that hasn't been deleted yet, so adopting other categories exist as "precedent" would effectively shut down CFD. Other keep arguments were based on the prominence of the Gates family. This argument does not stand up, as other prominent families (such as the hotelier Hilton family and the real estate Trump family) have had their categories deleted and prominence is not a justification for a category. None of the keepers rebutted the argument of the nomination, which is that categories named for people are overcategorization in the absence of an exceptional reason for the category (such reason was not offered here) and that the existing Gates family article is superior in every way as a navigational hub because it not only links all the articles, it also explains the relationahips between the family members, something a category can never do. Closing admin correctly recognized the superior precedent in this instance and correctly ignored the poor arguments of the keepers. Otto4711 14:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of these examples relate to truly major families. The inference that any family category would be deleted is not proven, and not even remotely credible. After all, there wasn't even a consensus in this case. Piccadilly 16:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and the keepers continually raise this issue of "major" families. I would say that the founder of a multi-billion dollar international hotel chain and his family are pretty "major" but the category for the Hilton family was deleted because it was recognized that it was overcategorization. "The family is important" or "prominent" or "notable" or "truly major" are not valid arguments for keeping categories. Every person with a Wikipedia article is "notable" but we don't need eponymous categories for every person. Any argument based on how "prominent" or "notable" the family is, is a ridiculous argument. Presidents of the United States and other world leaders are important too, but we have deleted categories for Presidents and other world leaders, not because they weren't "truly major" enough, but because the material being captured by the category didn't warrant the categorization. There is no basis in any policy or guideline that I can find that says that how "truly major" a subject is has anything to do with whether a category is needed. Such judgments about how "truly major" a family is are irrevocably POV as there is no objective standard for what constitutes a "truly major" family. Since no arguments were advanced for keeping the category that weren't mired in POV, the closing admin properly relied on the precedent of the dozens upon dozens of similar deletions. The keepers had the chance to rebut the nomination and all they came up with was how "truly major" the family is. That's not a rebuttal and it quite rightly did not save the category. Otto4711 19:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the category system is a navigational tool, a major family in this context is one with many articles. There are some family categories with hundreds of articles (including articles in subcategories), primarily categories for European royal houses, and I don't believe any such category has ever been deleted. Of course families with many members with articles will tend to have made a "major" collective impact on history. But this is all to look at categories the wrong way around. Categorization is based on the identification of the defining qualities of the subject matter. Whenever a person belongs to a well known family, that is a defining quality for them. Therefore even two item family categories should be kept. Sumahoy 01:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the notion that a family category is required because two family members are notable is ridiculous. And even if it weren't, the Gates family contained something like five articles. If the definition of "major family" is "one with many articles" then the Gates family doesn't qualify. Or if the Gates family qualifies, then so do the Baldwin brothers and the Arquette family, which had a comparable number of articles. So your contention that no "major families" have had categories deleted, by your own standard, is not true. Of course none of this demonstrates why "major family" should be adpopted as any sort of standard, none of it demonstrates that by your definition the Gates family is a "major family" and none of it demonstrates why this category should be treated as an exception to the generally accepted standard for categories named after people, which is that the coverage is split into multiple articles which cannot otherwise easily be categorized. Otto4711 01:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of the debate and valid deletion - the number of notable members of the Gates family is too small to make a category worthwhile. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The only reason that can be put forward to backing this deletion is "I agree with it because... ". But that isn't a valid argument on this page. The advocates of deletion had an opportunity to make their case in the discussion and they did not prevail. The closer than came to the discussion and saw a debate that he did not approve of. He could have closer the debate in accordance with the actual outcome and made a mental note to renominate the category after a decent interval. What he actually did was in accordance with neither the letter nor the spirit of the rules set out on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Piccadilly 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that one participant who started off as a "strong keep" struck out his !vote. I note that no one from the delete side changed or otherwise altered their !vote. It appears that the delete arguments "prevailed" over at least one keeper, whereas the keep arguments of "the family is prominent" and "other family categories exist" persuaded no one. Otto4711 19:51, 4 July 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:American murderers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn renaming to Category:Americans convicted of murder and restore to the standard name Category:American murderers. There was no consensus for this renaming to a form which is not consistent with the category's 44 siblings of murderer-categories or numerous American siblings. There have been several discussions on the issue of adding the word "convicted" to crime related categories, and the reasons why it is not appropriate have been set out in this debate and others. There was no justification for this arbitary admin override of convention, precedent and debate. Sumahoy 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn No consensus. Not within the bounds of reasonable admin discretion. It qualifies for speedy renaming to what it was before! Olborne 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as usual. The only thing that the keep crowd could point to was "but is say convicted in the intro". And as I said in the closing, Readers shouldn't have to navigate to a category to find out what it means, it should be evident from the name itself. By looking at the name, it was unclear as to the meaning. --Kbdank71 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't endorsing your own decision amount to voting twice? Aviara 00:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Closing admins are requested/expected to explain their rationale. This is not voting twice. If your premise of this question were correct, then no one who commented on the CFD would be allowed to comment here. What would be improper would be if the closing admin also were to close the DRV, and that would obviously not happen. --After Midnight 0001 12:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see several compelling arguments that have nothing to do with the intro. This category cannot accurately meet its full purpose if it it restricted in this way. Related categories are not so restricted. OrchWyn 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, despite some disagreement. I can say that I might have closed this as "no consensus," but I don't think this was far out of line. I do think the closing creates some problems. As I noted on Kbdank's page, this does weird things to Lee Harvey Oswald, Baby Face Nelson, and Bugsy Siegel, who were all killers and not convicted of murder. But the closing wasn't improper. If the other murderers categories are brought up, this might get reconsidered, but that's a reasonable process to follow.--Mike Selinker 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore old name As Mike Selinker admits, this produces a factually incorrect outcome, and it does not reflect the will of the community. Aviara 00:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There's no justification for treating this item differently from the related items. If it is felt a change is required they should be renominated en masse. OrchWyn 02:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on the original discussion There were two identical discussions on the same day. The one reached by clicking on "No consensus" in the nomination is not the main one. OrchWyn 02:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been fixed. --Kbdank71 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, new name is less POV. The argument that "there are other categories using the old name" is a reason why this should have been a group nom, but only a poor bureaucratic argument for overturning this. >Radiant< 09:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a very strong argument, unless you think that professional standards of presentation count for nothing. But in any case it is not the main reason why this rename was wrong. The new name simply cannot cover the topic adequately. Sumahoy 01:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per closing admin and Radiant --After Midnight 0001 12:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is an awkward area, but the issues were properly aired, and there was certainly no consensus for a change of name. Where there are existing conventions, the consensus for changing one item out of a group must by beyond question, or category naming will degenerate into arbitrary inconsistency. Osomec 13:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The only reason that can be put forward to backing this deletion is "I agree with it because... ". But that isn't a valid argument on this page. The advocates of deletion had an opportunity to make their case in the discussion and they did not prevail. The closer than came to the discussion and saw a debate that he did not approve of. He could have closer the debate in accordance with the actual outcome and made a mental note to renominate the category after a decent interval. What he actually did was in accordance with neither the letter nor the spirit of the rules set out on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Piccadilly 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse Yawn. When will people understand neutral point of view and stop disrupting wikipedia to make a point?--Cerejota 17:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is beyond outrageous to accuse someone who is using official procedures in good faith of being disruptive. Sumahoy 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is beyond outrageous that you launch a personal attack against me, with out any evidence whatsoever. My comments where not directed at the use of the WP:DRV, but at the insistence of many editors in using POV titles for their pet articles, categories, etc, usually engaging on sometimes endless cycles of bureaucratic procedure in order to disrupt wikipedia to make their point. I would have clarified this had you taken time to ask. You accuse me of something very serious, and I ask you apologize before I raise a "no personal attacks" procedure. Thanks.--Cerejota 00:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just look at your comments, which are a reply to my nomination. Can you not see that it was natural to take them as an attack on me? If this was not the case, then I apologise for the misunderstanding, but I think that your tone was to say the least careless, and that you should stop and think before adopting a disparaging tone and spraying references to conduct policies in a direction that is not entirely clear. Sumahoy 01:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see you admit you failed to assume good faith by reading into my "tone", and assuming I was attacking you. Since no one owns content in wikipedia I fail to see how my criticism could be construed as a direct personal attack.
          • This isn't about you and me, it is about editing an encyclopedia. I can use, within civility, any tone I want, and I stand by my comments because they are relevant and apply perfectly to the discussion that emerged: there is a whole range of misnamed categories for "murderers" some of which have been attempted to be repaired for neutrality, only to be faced by disruption on the part of editors who ignore the need for neutrality, one of the five pillars.
  • Overturn What is "neutral" about inaccuracy? This category now declares that some people were convicted of murder when they were not. That has to be one of the least neutral statements possible. Annandale 22:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the intro, they were convicted. So how is changing the category name inaccurate? I'd have to say the change made it more accurate. --Kbdank71 23:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attempts have been made to make the intro consistent with usage across Wikipedia. They should be encouraged. It hasn't always mentioned conviction, and it should not do so. Sumahoy 01:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But it does now. Americans who have been convicted of murder is what the intro says. Convicted. It said it when the change was made, it still says it now. So again I ask: Changing the category name to better reflect the contents of the category, to reflect what the intro itself says, that is inaccurate how? --Kbdank71 01:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore obviously. If wikipedia is to function adequately, it must operate by consensus and be consistent and predictable. Arbitrary decisions like this one are corrosive of community spirit. Oh, and the previous name was more appropriate, as it is a simple matter of fact that many certain murderers were never convicted, including some of the most famous in history. Greg Grahame 01:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then they shouldn't be in that category, as the intro clearly states Americans who have been convicted of murder. Changing the category name to better reflect the contents of the category, to reflect what the intro itself says, that is arbitrary how? How much more appropriate can it be for the category name to match what it says in the intro?? --Kbdank71 01:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse rename. Policy concerns outweigh mere numbers. Eluchil404 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse rename It's interesting when on the way to deletion, a better idea surfaces - gotta love the ingenuity of wikipedians - the rename which was ultimately effected. The chief argument in favor of the prior name is basically that some murderers were never convicted. Well, so they say. WP cannot be in the business of determining independently of the judicial system the guilt or innocence of various purported "murderers." The elegance of the new name is threefold: (1) the category is what it says, those convicted of murder (not those who got away with it in someone's even everyone's view, not those convicted of manslaughter that someone wants to label "murder" because of personal taste or bias); (2) it's Verifiable, quite black and white: one may quibble whether the person's conviction is just, unjust, fair, unfair, right, wrong, or will be, ought be overturned, quashed, vacated, but the fact remains that the person in question has been convicted of murder; and (3) it satisfies the WP:BLP concerns: we don't have to call someone a murderer (we merely state that they were convicted of murder) and if it is overturned on appeal, or some new evidence comes to light that shows the conviction to have been in error, no one has libeled the person in question by calling him/her a murderer. Carlossuarez46 00:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Change back to American murderers. There have been a number of murderers who have died or got off on a technicality who were/are still murderers, without conviction. What about OJ, for one? I can't name a couple of others who killed themselves or were killed before trial. But hope the names will come to me soon. One is the VTech shooter. He died, and it was obvious he was the killer of all those people. - Jeeny Talk 02:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - OJ was accused of murder and found not guilty. There is suspicion and controversy around him - even a civil court found him responsible of wrongful death. However, if we label him a murderer, we will not only opening ourselves to libel and violating WP:NPOV, but would be doing something very cruel and inhuman: labeling someone that possibly didn't commit murder a murderer. If someone was not convicted of murder, then we cannot call them "murderers" regardless of guilt - at most suspected murderers - and "suspected" carries a weasel word original research tone that might be unacceptable. If someone is convicted of murder, he or she might not be guilty as convicted, so Americans convicted of murder is the only neutral possibility.--Cerejota 15:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember, even before the name was changed, the intro CLEARLY stated that these are people who were CONVICTED of murder. Not people who died before a trial, not people who got off on a technicality. So OJ, or the VTech shooter couldn't have been in the category anyway. Every oppose but one (that isn't a sockpuppet) has mentioned that they might not all be convicted murderers. I'm asking you this sincerely: How can you argue to overturn on the basis that they might not be convicted murderers when the category intro states exactly that? --Kbdank71 02:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: Maybe I don't understand then. Are you saying that the new category states that they might not have been convicted? I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand. I'm not stupid, even though it may seem that way. I'm open to instruction. I'm new at this sort of thing. I guess I'm not sure of the Endorse or Overturn. Does Overturn mean to go back to the category named American:Murderers? Can you explain it to me? - Jeeny Talk 03:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying the category has stated in the intro, that it is for people who have been convicted of murder. It's said that since December of 2005. The old category said it as does the new. The rename puts the category name on par with what the intro states anyway. So when someone says overturn the decision to rename it, that it's better as "American murderers", and the new name isn't good because not all people in the category have been convicted, I'm at a loss to understand why. It's almost as if everyone is ok with the intro stating the category is for convicted murderers, but not ok with the category name of convicted murderers. Why the big inconsistency? --Kbdank71 04:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point me in the direction on where this "intro" is? This is what has me confused, I do not know where to look for the category's instructions. Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 04:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Americans convicted of murder Right at the top. --Kbdank71 10:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - So where are you going to put murderers which weren't convicted then? Category:Americans not convicted of murder, but who are murderers? Or just plain Category:American murderers. This current category could be a subcategory though, but the renaming shouldn't have worked like this. - hahnchen 11:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So because you can't think of a proper category, you'll take one that is clearly incorrect and inconsistent? --Kbdank71 13:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because we already had one. How is it clearly incorrect and inconsistent if we just place all American murderers in one category? Here's a novel idea, place all Americans convicted of murder, and those murderers which weren't, say murder-suicides and place them all in Category:American murderers. Wow! - hahnchen 22:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we didn't. I don't know how many more times I need to say this, but Category:American murderers already stated, since December of 2005, that the category was only for CONVICTED murderers. Wanting to keep American murderers and populate it with non-convicted people is the exact same as putting people who haven't been convicted of murder into Category:Americans convicted of murder. --Kbdank71 03:12, 8 July 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.
Fiesta Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Evilclown93 thought that my Fiesta Online article was a very short article and speedily deleted it. His reason: "Very short article providing little or no context (A1)." My argument is that I was testing my article out. After I saw that my article came out good, I started to add more content. While I was editing the content, Evilclown93 deleted it. C.Fred thought my article had unverified sources and he deleted my article. Then he said it was empty. His reason: "CSD G1: Patent Nonsense" and "CSD A3: No content". I gave him my sources on his talk page and he still hasn't talked to me yet about whether or not they have been approved yet. My article was empty because he deleted it. I went to his talk page after he deleted my content....though I should've tagged my article. Mike Rosoft thought my article lacked significance. His reason: "No claim of notability - online RPG (WP:CSD#A7)." How does my article lack significance? If it does, tell me how to fix it. There are two other articles that are on wikipedia that show information on online games. They haven't been deleted yet. I don't know how to tag them. Why say that my article is insignificant? Wikipedia is a place where people can read about things. Why not games? Many people love to read about games. FisherQueen said that my article was too short and it lacked reliable sources. Reason: "WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability" and "WP:CSD#A1, a very short article lacking context". Ok, read my arguements on the last 3 admins. All three admins accuse my article of being short and lacking both reliable sources and significance. I've talked to each of them. Two of them still haven't replied back to my recent message. Fisher Queen wants to block me. Why can't I have my article approved? There are two articles that talk about online games, 9Dragons and GunZ the Duel. The source I am using is Outspark located at http://outspark.com. Why is this source unreliable? It's a professional gaming company! Windrider07 21:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification. My objection to the article is that there is no clear assertion of notability. The second time I deleted it, I used "a very short article lacking context" because the creator recreated only the speedy-deletion tag, without any text. As one of the admins who have deleted the six recreations of this article, I'll refrain from voicing an opinion about undeletion, though.-FisherQueen (Talk) 21:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the reason that the deleting administrators believe the source is not reliable is because it's what we call a "primary source", meaning it is actually from the company that makes the game. Primary sources are a great source of factual information but are not good sources to establish notability - those require secondary sources, like game review articles from an established gaming magazine, for example. Something independent of the subject to show us that it is notable. Arkyan • (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow and send to afd. It has been speedied several times, and for some reason the author never thought to add a sentence claiming it was important. (sometimes the version speedied was the one after the content had apparently been accidently removed) But that's quibbling--the latest version has :"Fiesta is known as the English translation of the Japanese, Korean, and Chinese versions of the game." Saying that a game has been translated into multiple languages is a claim of importance. If importance is asserted it is not a speedy, and the lack of sources is not a reason for speedy. DGG 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am one of the deleting admins. The two versions I deleted contained the text from a speedy deletion tag, as noted above by FisherQueen. Those versions were clear non-articles and obvious deletion candidates. As far as actual article text, everything I have seen has had exclusively primary-source information. The sources Windrider gave on my talk page were also primary. My own Google search turned up no reliable sources; the closest I found was onrpg.com, but it appears to solicit user reviews rather than have an in-house review staff. Accordingly, I see nothing to verify any claim of notability, nor any assertion of notability per WP:WEB, so I would have deleted the actual article test version under speedy deletion criterion A7. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I understand where DGG (talk · contribs) is coming from, but I don't believe that an English translation of a game automatically asserts notability. Regardless, I'd say endorse as a mercy rule to spare the creator 5 days of anguish watching the delete !votes roll in at AfD. Looking at the last content version there is really no way that a crystal-ballish article about a beta MMORPG with no external reliable sources demonstrating notability is ever going to be kept at AfD. Sending it there is just delaying the inevitable.--Isotope23 01:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably agree about a single translation--this appeared in four different languages. DGG 20:53, 4 July 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.
Moneual Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)


Kevin1243 thought it was advertising. His reason: "Little content besides a website link." I made it a little bit more to make it not look like advertising. So Evilclown93 deleted it. (Yeah I know: Should've put {{hangon}} on the talk page). So I am still creating articles related to the Moneual company. AppleMacReporter 01:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article really didn't assert importance... I can userfy this for you until you can bring it to a state where it doesn't fall under any CSDs. --W.marsh 14:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. The last version prior to deletion is exactly what it was deleted as, "Little content besides a website link." From a quick Google search, they *appear* to be notable enough for inclusion, but it would require a major rewrite. ^demon[omg plz] 15:38, 7 July 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:JudgeCasey.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image was speedy deleted by an admin, Angr, who apparently was a troublemaker and was kicked out of Wikipedia. I didn't notice until now, because I haven't been logging on lately. I can't find any record of anyone discussing this deletion; for all I know it was Angr's unilateral decision. It was not copyright violation, for reasons explained in the fair use justification. There is no other image of Richard C. Casey available. Hyphen5 01:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on his name and his user page has been deleted, apparently, for vandalism. That's what it says. --Hyphen5 06:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood -- people were continually vandalizing his user page and he decided he didn't want one anymore. The last few deletions have been other users creating vandalism. howcheng {chat} 07:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, but most pictures, even of public figures, are not released under free licenses. As soon as anyone finds such a picture, then it should be used to repalce this one. But what is the point in deleting this picture just becaue there might be a free picture out there somewhere? WP:FUC says: "Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." It does not say "should be deleted if there is a possibility that an unknown free altrnative might be available." Overturn DES (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In short, known to anyone in this debate or anyone who might have uploded such an image to wikipedia. DES (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaceable doesn't matter when it's a news media photo. To use it without permission or paying royalties would be a flagrant copyright violation. --BigΔT 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what fair use is about -- circumstance under shich copyrighted works may be used without permission or paying royalties. News media are not exempt from fair use -- indeed their work is among that most frequently so used. What you are sayiong would mean that ther can never be fair use (on wikipeida, at least) of any news media photo that is not "iconic". Where exctly is this policy spelled out, so that i can propose a change.DES (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How exactly do you think news agencies make money? By selling their content (news and photos) to people/organizations that want to use them. One of the four factors of fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". By just taking their photos and using them in the same manner as they were intended, we are basically just stealing. However, if we are using the photos in a transformative manner, as in Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (an Associated Press photo), that's fair use. See the difference? Oh, and endorse deletion, if it wasn't obvious what my position was. howcheng {chat} 05:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note that trans formative use is only one of the four factors involved in a fair use claim. Case law is clear th qt no one of the factors is required, there is a balance to be struck after considering all four. Indeed "the effect of the use upon the potential market" is another of the four factors, but to evaluate it one must determine what the actual potential market is in a particular case. If there is little or no market for a particular work, this factor will be of little or no import. Whether the copyright owner is engaged in commercial sale of copyrighted content as a business is not dispositive -- virtually all cases of fair use are of content published by commercial entities in the business of doing so, and your argument would essentially eliminate fair use except for "iconic" works or highly trans formative uses. That is not the law, nor is it wikipedia policy. You say that using a photo from a news agency is utterly forbidden except in the case of "iconic" or highly trans formative uses. Is a photo from another source given the same level of protection? for example, if this photo had been published in a biography of the subject, having been taken by the biographer or by a professional photographer hired by the biographer, would you say that the same rule applies? If not, what is the difference? If yes, your rule would effectively limit fair use on Wikipedia to "iconic" images, a drastic restriction not endorsed by WP:FUC, nor by any other policy page. As for "stealing" people are entitled to copyright at all only because of a statute -- it is not a natural right, and is a much later creation than other property rights. Thus they must accept copyright with the limitations provided in the statute, one of which is the fair use exception. It is not stealing, no in any way improper, to use the rights expressly granted by law. Now if you want to argue that this particular photo would not be fair use, argue that point. But to argue that no image from a news agency can ever be fair use (unless iconic) is to argue that fair use does not fully apply to news agencies, which is simply absurd. DES (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • HOLD YOUR HORSES. Subject is no longer alive. Statements of "not realistically replaceable" likely don't take that into account (see WP:JUSTAPOLICY). Note - original photo here. As such, restore.The Evil Spartan 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list Given that the judge is dead, and was before the image was tagged (by Angr) as replacable and before deleted (by Angr again), the default reason for considering the image replacable does not exist. However, he was a Federal judge. If there is known to be an available series of pictures of federal judges taken by U.S. government employees, then we would have reason to believe a better image is available. That is a question for IfD to sort out. There might be. At the very least, he served recently enough that there was probable a photo ID for security purposes. However, if Since this photo also illustrated his working as a blind judge, as described in the relevant article, (I'm not undeleting just to look), a photo ID picture would not be an equivalent replacement. At this point, I conclude that there are multiple issues needing an IfD discussion, so the issue should be sent there. GRBerry 19:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious endorse - News media photos that merely happen to depict an object of interest (as opposed to ones that are themselves iconic) are not acceptable for fair use. Period. --BigΔT 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where exactly is the policy page that says that? I don't see anything in WP:FUC that indicatres that there are special rules for news media photos. If the argumetn is that this hinders the commercial market for this photo, make that argument -- i rather doubt that ther is a large commercial mrket for a photo of a notable, but not super famous, judge who is now dead. DES (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides my knee-jerk reaction that this should be speedy-closed due to the ridiculous claims about User:Angr in the nomination, my opinion is endorse deletion, copyright violations don't belong here. Corvus cornix 02:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim was absurd, but now appears to have been a simple mistake. But it is really irrelevant. And if this is properly used under fair use, it is not an infringement of copyright, because fair use is expressly provided for in the copyright law. DES (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn non-replaceable photo of a dead person. (Oh yeah, I'm sure fair use deletionist trolls will come up with a way to get a free photo of him...)  Grue  21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally looked on Google; there is only three photos I have personally found of the Honorable Judge; the one we had, one from the National Federation of the Blind and one from a meeting with Pope John Paul II. I understand many of you want to have a photo of the judge, since I notice the countless templates on pages saying "pics please." However, if the only choice for a photo comes down to the AP, then we need to be careful. There are countless times where press photos are discouraged, since they still make cash on said photos. But, if you decide to use this deleted for fair use, you better come up with a very good rationale for us to use it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, obvious, strong, emphatic, etc Regardless of the admin who did it, this image was a clear new photo from a press/media source. Total copyvio. There seems to be confusion here on what constitutes acceptable "non-free" and what doesn't. A press-kit photo meant to be distributed publicly without charge is almost always "non-free" in that it is subject to a license/copyright other than GFDL, but can be used here until a free replacement can, because the fair use is clear. However, a media photo is verboten always, as there is no fair use possible. The key here is if the non-free source can be used under fair use or not. By now, this criteria is pretty solidly established in wikipedia for most cases, and should be obvious to editors.
  • My suggestion to the interested editors is that since this was a judge, it is very possible he had official photographs taken, for display in his chambers and the court offices etc. It is very possible these photographs are available in the archives of the courts, and writing to the relevant court to procure a digital copy might result in a totally free image, and of high quality to boot. This is because US Federal and State government official photographs are public domain.--Cerejota 16:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

2 July 2007

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

Restore There was patently nothing close to a semblance of a consensus that this category should be deleted, as there had not been in the previous discussion, or in the one before that. The discussion was moving strongly towards retention, with many answered reasons put forward for retention. The same admin had deleted it before, and his heated closure notice is not objective or a reflection of the clearly expressed will of the community. The category should be restored, though with the name in the correct form, which would be Category:Fictional wealthy characters. The repetition of incorrect closures in this case is quite alarming. Choalbaton 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - reasonable closing by admin. Addhoc 21:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you using "Reasonable" as a synonym of "I agree with it?" That is not what this page is about. The question is whether the admin applied consensus. He did not. Haddiscoe 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a fair closing & the haphazard nature of the items categorized didn't help. DGG 22:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you using "Fair" as a synonym of "I agree with it?" That is not what this page is about. The question is whether the admin applied consensus. He did not. Haddiscoe 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore For the same admin to delete the same category twice without consensus on either occasion is really out of order. Haddiscoe 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable interpretation of the discussion; consensus is more than numbers. Eluchil404 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus. What "interpretation of the discussion?" The deleters just kept repeating a mantra about so-called subjectivity, and had no answer for the detailed counter arguments that were put forward. The closer said nothing that hadn't been said many times before and all of his comments are highly controversial. He did not act as an impartial judge, but as a longstanding advocate of one position. Craig.Scott 00:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted on the recent nomination on the July 1 CfD:
    • The original cat was placed on CfD on October 2007 and closed as delete on Oct 23.
    • No deletion review was submitted regarding that delectation and the cat was recreated sometime between Oct 23 and May 15 2007.
    • The recreation as placed for CfD on May 15 2007 and closed as "no consensus" on May 26 2007. No mention of the prior CfD was made during that discussion.
    • It was placed for CfD again on June 12 2007, with the previous CfDs both mentioned. This one was closed as delete on June 20 by the admin that closed the October CfD.
    • Again, no DRV was filed and the cat was recreated with a varied name sometime between June 20 and July 1.
    • It was placed for CfD on July 1.
    • As of July 2 it appears to have been deleted without the last CfD closing and just before this DRV was posted.
- J Greb 01:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no deletion review before we can't be sure of the outcome, but the natutal assumption to make is that it would have been overturned as there was no consensus to delete. Wimstead 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closing admin, I obviously endorse. This page is not about whether the admin applied consensus. This page is about whether the discussion was closed properly, and I continue to assert that it was. But if you want to talk about consensus, I'll give you a quote from Doczilla which sums up the closing quite nicely: As the CfD guidelines clearly state, a CfD discussion is not a vote. Consensus can be wrong. The consensus among the handful of people who vote in a given discussion can fail to be in line with the greater consensus and precedent behind Wikipedia's project goals and guidelines. A subjective name for a category is wrong, no matter how many people say they like it. --Kbdank71 11:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subjectivity issue has been satisfactorily overcome by the suggestion that the category should be used for characters whose wealth is utilised as an aspect of the work, meaning that there is no need to make judgements about whether the character is wealthy by any other standard. Therefore this is not a subjective category. Wimstead 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore This is an open and shut case of incorrect closure. Wimstead 13:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until an independently verifiable defintiion of wealthy can be found and objective independent sources for the valuation system can be established. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore As this is clearly controversial, closer should at least have left the decision to someone who came to the discussion from an impartial position. AshbyJnr 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Kbdank71. Reasonable consensus reached for this to be deleted. Seraphim Whipp 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore - It could be a category descriptive of some useful information. I'm of the opinion that we should include more and try to make it better. --Rocksanddirt 17:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Kbdank71; there are no objective criteria for what is "wealthy" in the real or fictional world, making this category entirely OR, POV, and therefore entirely unencyclopedic, regardless of how one counts noses. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The "keep" and "delete" votes were actually close to evenly split in this discussion, although slightly more people voted to "keep". The closing administrator could have closed this as "no consensus" but instead chose to use his/her perogative to make a definitive decision based on the arguments in favor of and against the category. The administrator found the arguments for deletion more persuasive and so chose to delete the category. As indicated by a couple of the above comments, this is a perfectly acceptable way to close a discussion on Wikipedia. These discussions are not necessarily straight votes but are instead discussions were the substance of the comments are also important. The deletion should be allowed to stand, and the category should not be recreated. Dr. Submillimeter 22:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore There was no consensus. The advocates of deletion lost the debate. This same closer has ignored consensus in two closures which I have just listed. Sumahoy 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore as Category:Fictional wealthy characters. No consensus, and the debate has moved towards retention. Not within the bounds of reasonable admin discretion. Olborne 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closer did not come to the matter in an impartial frame of mind as he had closed a previous debate, and did not act in accordance with the will of the community. Aviara 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore There's nothing wrong with this category, but plenty wrong with how it has been treated. OrchWyn 02:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Reasonable interpretation of the debate; policy is more important than the raw vote count. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just don't get how you can think that. Say, "the keep votes are ignorant and deserve to be ignored", but don't say it was a reasonable interpretation, when it was nothing of the kind. The most that can be said is, "The closer is evidently a person of superior judgment, and therefore his decision to ignore the debate is acceptable.". OrchWyn 02:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deleting it is most certainly not a reflection of the discussion but rather a result of the closer's personal taken on the matter. Let's not invoke "but CfD is not a vote!". Indeed it is not: a discussion took place and that discussion resulted in a lot of noise and, at best, no definitive conclusion. The argument was made that this was an inherently subjective category. That's a pretty good point. The response to that was an eloquent appeal to common sense by Annandale: It should also be quite straightforward to use: fictional characters are defined by wealth if their wealth is a feature of the story. There's usually little doubt as to whether or not this applies, so this is not a subjective category. I can't say that I have a strong opinion on the existence of the category but the fact is that the closure is at odds with the discussion and such closures are just bad practice. We can live with imperfections of Wikipedia and if you think it's a stupid category, well, tough. But involving people in a discussion and then ignoring the outcome and doing so with a pretty arrogant concluding sentence is a surefire way to drive people away from the project. Pascal.Tesson 04:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. CFD is not a vote count, and the fact that this is an arbitrary and subjective categorization makes it impractical. >Radiant< 10:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per admin rationale. --After Midnight 0001 12:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn CFD is not a vote count, but admins are not supposed to act in an arbitrary fashion to impose their own will. The closer acted as a participant in a dispute, not an a neutral arbiter. Osomec 13:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore If the closer felt he had a strong case, why didn't he play fair by making his points as part of the regular discussion for consideration by someone else at a later time? Annandale 22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This is really OTT (and subjective) overcategorization as far as cats go; no one made a case for the value of retaining the cat. Procedure is one thing, but if an admin can IAR and use his/her own judgment (which is not what I think happened here - the strength of delete arguments outweighed the strength of keep arguments), then procedure was followed, and the category should not have been recreated. Basically, somebody's idea got rejected, and they're having a hard time dealing with it. MSJapan 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    the strength of delete arguments outweighed the strength of keep arguments Just thought I'd repeat that. As for Annandale's question "why didn't he play fair", please. This is not a game, and you are not children. I don't have to make sure your cookies are all the same size, and you all get the same amount of toys to play with. I'm here to close a discussion for the best of wikipedia. Sometimes that means I have to determine who has the stronger argument. Otherwise, all we'd have is a vote count, and that's not what this is about. --Kbdank71 01:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of horribly subjective category. I strongly commend the admin for weighing the quality of the arguments instead of the quantity of "I like it" remarks or other insufficient arguments to keep. I really wish more admins would show this much sense. Wryspy 06:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn no consensus, clear as daylight.  Grue  21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore there was no consensus and the points about it being subjective have been answered particularly be Pascal.Tesson. Davewild 17:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. There was consensus to delete and recreations can therefor be deleted. The fact that the same admin closed multiple discussions is not a problem unless there is some allegation of bias or violation of some rule over closing. As far as I can see, the closings were done according to policy. The discussion on 2006 Oct 12 was closed as delete and that is what deleting the recreations are based on. The discussions are just that, discussions, and the decision is based on the content of those discussions and not simply a counting of the 'votes'. Also the closing admin needs to be consistent when you take into account decisions on similar categories. Since the 2006 closing went unchallenged one must consider that it was a valid closing. Vegaswikian 19:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, what I see at the CfD, to be quite blunt, are a lot of garbage keep arguments, such as "It's harmless! It's fun!" (I'm not kidding, that's in there...). The closing admin properly disregarded these, as categories are not kept around because they are fun or interesting. If they are not verifiable and objective, they must be deleted, regardless of how many like them. Anyone closing any debate having anything to do with fiction does well to give a very, very low priority to head count, and a very high priority to strength of argument, as there tends to be a lot of rabid fannishness in these areas. "Inherently unverifiable and subjective" is a strong delete argument. WP:ILIKEIT is not a strong keep argument. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:09, 7 July 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 SMS abbreviations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article is still linked to in the SMS language entry. While its value may be somewhat dubious, it is the only list I have found with a GFDL license and that in itself is useful. PaigePhault 17:34, 2 July 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.
Image:Mimi_mariah_carey.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Mimi_mariah_carey.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There should be discussion before deleting an image on the grounds the rationale needs improvement. Addhoc 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - on July 6 a replacement was uploaded including another rationale. Addhoc 13:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Ther was a rationale. Assuming that the iamge was in fact being used on the paage about the album, all that was missing was the obvious words "This rationale supports use in...." which anyone trying to improve the project should have added, rather than deleting or flagging for deletion. DES (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the deleting admin. Note that WP:FURG applies here. No explanation was given as to which article the image was for, nor why that article required multiple different fair-use album covers in violation of WP:FUC 3a. Additionally, there is no reason the image could not be reuploaded provided such a detailed fair-use rationale be added. --Yamla 17:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image listed is the principal version of the album's front cover, I'm not sure if the back cover and special edition covers are required, but they could be discussed separately. Saying there is no reason why the image can't be re-uploaded is ok, but if there's no real objection, I would suggest the deletion should be overturned and the rationale improved. Addhoc 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Addhoc and DESiegel. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If an image is in fact only being used in one article, and the fair use rationale given applies to that article, I think it is safe to assume that the rational is intended for that article, and the admin couldf very well add such a statement to the rationale rather than ddeleting. If the image is an album cover, and the article in question is the article about the album it is obviuous what purpose the image is serving (identification) and if this needs to be mafe more explicit, it shoul;d be made so. If ther are multiple fair-use images involved, any of which could reasonably be sued, but at elast arguably all of which should not be, tha tis a case for IfD, not for speedy deletion, where the reaosn for using one image raher than another could be discussed. The deletion was therefore improper. DES (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your claim that despite WP:FUC, we don't really need the rationale to adhere to this policy? Specifically, that 10c does not really apply? Please also note that I gave nine days rather than the 48 hours for this to be fixed. While I am more than happy for this image to be reuploaded with an acceptable rationale, I really do not think my deletion was inappropriate given that the image clearly violated WP:FUC, particularly given that it was uploaded by a user who has received numerous warnings about WP:FU. --Yamla 01:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:FURG "If disputed or incomplete rationale exists that cannot be fixed, the image should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and Media for Deletion." In this case the rationale could easily of been fixed. Also, the image should have been nominated for IfD instead of being speedied. Addhoc 06:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not saying that we dont need the rationale to spell out what articles it applies to, I am saying that any editor who can improve the project, should do so. That if a rationale is incompelte, but it is reasoanbley clear how it should be completed, and when so compelted it is valid, it is better to complete it than to delete the image. This is not about makign uplaoders jump through hoops, this is about properly documenting how and why we are making fair use claims. I have added many rationales to images I never uplaoded, but found on deletion patrol. If it is clear to an admion or other ediotor how the rational can be corrected so that it is in full compliance with WP:FUC, then i am saying that it is better to correct it than to delete. And I am also saying that if it is obvious at DRV how the rational could be corected to make it valid, then the image should be undelted and the rational corrected. I am NOT saying tha tthe image should be left with an incompelte or incorrct rationale. DES (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn - make the article better, explain what the image is for, more encyclopedic action, less deletion.--Rocksanddirt 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if (as is usual) the image was only being used to show what the album cover looks like. Fair use images have to be used for critical commentary - if there was discussion in the article about the significance of the cover art, then undelete the image and write a rationale. If it was just being used in the album's infobox, then keep deleted. —Angr 19:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Non-free album cover}} template advises:
what makes you believe this isn't correct? Addhoc 15:49, 5 July 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.
Starchild Abraham Cherrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I think there's enough material in this article to at least merit a formal deletion discussion; was speedy deleted by Doc glasgow. Apparently he's been on vacation. Andrew73 12:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sure we did this before. This was deleted as a BLP violation. Marginal notability is less important than basic human dignity. Endorse Spartaz Humbug! 14:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I could agree to the basic human dignity issue, but we shouldn't determine for other people what violates their dignity. In this case, the family in question actively maintains a public web site of all legal decisions and news stories, at http://abrahamsjourney.com/ so they don't seem to feel their dignity is being violated. They've founded a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization for people in similar situations. We shouldn't assume every possible article we could write about this person would be a personal attack. He's sick, and choosing an alternative form of treatment. The family seems to feel this isn't something to hide, but something they're proud of. Why should we hide it despite them? Oh, by the way, sources include CNN and USA Today. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The article was sourced and any BLP issues could have been handled by trimming content as opposed to outright deletion. What is "basic human dignity"? Is a person with a serious illness somehow less dignified than others? A healthy person is more dignified? Is that what this deletion implies? Does dignity have anything to do with factors other than a person's character, which is something that we cannot hope to determine from news reports, journals, and books? Concepts that have been debated by philosophers for thousands of years and which will be debated for thousands more should not be thrown around so lightly. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Article is well sourced, there is no negative or controversial information included. That alone should be enough to avoid any BLP concerns, but in this case there is no evidence that the subject or his family wish to avoid publicity, and significant evidence that they seek it. Thuis protecting their privicy (or "dignity" whatever is being meant by this very loose use of a vague term) canno be a ratiopnal consideration. DES (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn though the specific facts should be specifically sourced.& some more refs to show notability would help. I dont think speedy was the best choice if Doc thought this long-standing article should be deleted. DGG 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There are no significant BLP issues with this article. It is not negative in tone; it attacks nobody. The material is also all sourced. Notability is for an AFD decision, not to be made by whichever admin is most hair trigger with the delete button. AFD participants and/or editors should look for an opportunity to merge it to a broader topic, possibly Abraham's law, since the proposed law ever passes has passed and been signed into law in Virginia. GRBerry 18:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but allow temporary undelete, move to a subpage and redirect, to an appropriate article. This person is not in any way notable. The case is somewhat notable, but not the person. It's a news story masquerading as a biography, like so many others deleted around that time. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There are substantial public policy and legal issues in this well publicized case and a single administrator should not just be able to say "BLP" and end all discussion of the appropriateness of the article. -- DS1953 talk 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn covered in more than enough sources to make encyclopedic inclusion worthwhile. -N 23:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD while protected blank. Whether there are BLP concerns can only be determined after thorough vetting of the sources, so it should be blank while notability is discussed. Chick Bowen 04:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "BLP" is not a magic wand that trups all other considerations. That one person asserts there is a BLP concern does not mean that one actually exists, and doing an AfD while the article is protected blank would rob the AfD of more than half of its point. In some cases this might be needed, but there would have to be some pretty celar reason for the concern -- here no credible reason for such an action has been asserted. I see no reason to list on AfD at all, much less protected blank. This should simply be restored for normal editiong. If anyone choses to then list on AfD, so be it. DES (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • uphold - Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, doc G acted in accordance with policy. --Rocksanddirt 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That arbitration said that when a deletion based on BLP disputed, we should discuss and form a consensus as to whether deletion was correct. At least 4 admins above, who can look at the deleted article, have concluded that the deletion was not correct. What aspect of the deleted article leads you to believe it was? GRBerry 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) The way I read the discussions of the arbitration and the final decision is that something that is brought to an admin's attention as a BLP violation for negative content, should be deleted first, then discussed and consensus achieved. So, I agree with the deletion, and now the article can have the conversation about what should be in it or not. --Rocksanddirt 19:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, an excellent fine point that a thousand angels can dance upon! Technically DRV should be about whether the deletion was proper; the Arbcom says a disputed article should be deleted; therefore the deletion should be endorsed! :-) Except, then, where do we have the conversation? Rocksanddirt, I propose that you misunderstood slightly. This is the conversation. Please state your argument and opinion about the existence of the article (since you can't see the deleted form, the best possible article that could be written about this topic). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(furiously dancing on a fine point)...well...I agree that this is the place for that discussion. I'm generally of the "include more stuff" camp, but an article about a child who is only notable for dying unpleasantly is likely over the line. So, in that sense for the article I would say delete. But I think there needs to be a way for interested parties to actually review the articles that fall into this camp. I don't know enought about the software backbone of this extravaganza to comment on what that might look like or how feasible it is. Maybe something like, a place that only registered/logged in users can go to read, but not edit an article in this situation in order to make intelligent comments on either an AfD or DR? --Rocksanddirt 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for not summarily undeleting this article. It seems to be about a teenager who has a rather nasty cancer, and has discontinued chemotherapy, a decision his family supported even though it led to their being prosecuted for child neglect. In its deleted form, it's a rather distasteful bit of tabloid muck, but there seems to be an article about the court case and the proposed "Abraham's Law" (apparently a Bill before the Virginia Senate by Virginia Senator Nick Rerras) in there. But obviously not about the boy. I endorse deletion but it may be undeleted if someone wants to turn it into an article about Abraham's Law. --Tony Sidaway 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This appears to be a serious topic of note in a large U.S. state. Aviara 00:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn improper speedy deletion (wasn't tagged at the time of deletion) and the person is clearly notable enough for an article.  Grue  21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: This person meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. It is undoubtedly possible to write an article about him that contains real information but respects his basic human dignity. I don't see how presumption in favor of privacy applies to information which the subject himself (and his family) have publicized. I don't see how documenting the widely reported facts of his situation, which are relevant to proposed legislation, is "doing harm". MastCell Talk 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: Having viewed the most recent deleted revision, while it's not great writing and would need substantial improvement, I don't see it impinging on Mr Cherrix's basic human dignity or presenting him in a negative light. "Tabloid muck" is an odd characterization. MastCell Talk 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn This is a notable individual who has a law named after him no less. The individual is clearly notable with many different reliable sources. Since the law was passed this isn't just a transient news topic but is something that has had long-term effects and is therefore encyclopedic. While we do need to balance privacy and dignity issues against compiling encyclopedic information, the weight in this case favors having an article. JoshuaZ 16:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, but change to an article and title about the event rather than the person. This isn't a biography, but it does appear that the event (especially if it led to a law in the person's name) does merit mention. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:00, 7 July 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.
Cliff_Hanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Cliff_Hanley,novelist has been replaced by Cliff_Hanley which is confusing as the novelist is dead and the artist lives. Cliffhanley 10:09, 2 July 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 common phrases in various languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

At 13 out of 34 participants opining that the article should be deleted,I do not believe that there was any consensus on deleting this article. The deleting admin is open to do a transwiki of this article, however I do not believe that there is any consensus for that either. As far as the content of the article is concerned, I argue that it is encyclopedic on the basis that Encarta has a similar, more expanded module in their software that compliments their languages article. Thanks. --Chris S. 07:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (my) deletion. Firstly, if we're going by head count (which I don't anyway), there were several additional arguments to transwiki in addition to those for outright deletion. An argument to transwiki effectively states "This content is appropriate somewhere, but it's not here," and is in essence an argument to delete from Wikipedia. Regardless of this, however, and while many arguments on both the keep and delete side were less than impressive ("useful", "effort", "cruft", and so on), good points regarding the issues of verifiability and suitability here were brought up. Encarta may well include similar miscellany, but they don't have other projects in which it would be more appropriate, and which are better geared to handle material of this type. We do. It's educational, useful, and reasonably well-done, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This comment addresses two points. The first is the AfD procedure. Combining both the deletion and transwiki opinions is a creative effort. You're right, that 60% (is that consensus?) of those felt that Wikipedia wasn't the right place for this article. However, let's dig further. Despite seven people opining that the article should be Transwiki, there was no consensus on where it should have been done. Only four editors felt that it should be sent to Wikibooks with only two out of that four stating it as their only choice (the other two where undecided as to where). Dealing with the other pro-Transwiki editors, two did not know where to put it. And one other person decided that Wiktionary would be an appropriate place.
Now, don't get me wrong here but I think two out of 34 barely qualifies for consensus. But still, it is pretty clear, Seraphimblade, that there is no consensus on what action to take as far as Transwiki is concerned. Neither was there consensus to delete it. If Transwiki is the desired option, then perhaps the article should be restored and from there, another AfD should be started in order to make a strong case for Transwiki to a specific Wikiproject. But short of that, I do not feel it is justified to be Transwikied now, under this particular AfD ruling.
My second point is about the article itself. You're right, it is not an encyclopedia article. It is a list. I regard this list the same way I do List of numbers in various languages, which supplements the numbers article. This list of common phrases (and I do agree that the name should be changed) is a supplement to the language article because it gives the encyclopedia reader information, all in one place, on how various languages say particular words or phrases. In this respect it is not a usage or style guide or even a touristy phrasebook. And if the article is overturned, then steps should be taken in order to assure that doesn't happen. The purpose it serves is to give a survey of language. I have cited Encarta ad nauseam but the "New Book of Knowledge" (I believe, I may be wrong. It could be World Encyclopedia) has done it on a smaller scale for Romance languages. --Chris S. 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lack of agreement on where to transwiki isn't really an issue, that's between the editors who wish to transwiki and the policies of the other wiki(s). Let's say, for example, that Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikiversity all are willing to accept the material. We don't have to choose, "all of the above" is a perfectly valid option in such a case! We're not dealing with a situation of mutual exclusivity on that note. As to your statement that reading "Transwiki" as I did is creative, I'm not really sure why. "Delete" expands to "This material is not appropriate for Wikipedia." "Transwiki" means that too, just with "(but we can transfer it to another project)" added. Even a unanimous consensus to delete wouldn't prohibit someone from doing a transwiki if they wished to, no consensus here is necessary to do so—only a consensus at the receiving project that they will accept it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at it this way: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." This improves the encyclopedia just because it fails WP:WHATEVER doesn't mean it doesn't improve the encyclopedia. This is encyclopedic material. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IAR has no relevance here because no rule-lawyering has been done. Wikipedia not being a dictionary or usage guide is both a basic policy and a corollary of the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Pan Dan 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision to delete was right. Consensus should not be determined by counting the bolded votes but by looking at what the discussion reveals about how policy applies to the article. No serious argument was advanced at the AfD that this page is now, or could ever be, consistent with the idea that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chris S.'s point in the AfD that the article is not a dictionary because it's not comprehensive is of course true, but not really relevant to WP:WINAD. Pan Dan 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki/Endorse deletion from Wikipedia - Only a minority of people (approximately 1/3) wanted to keep the article, and most of the "keep" arguments described the page as useful either as a general reference or for lingual research. The other 2/3 of the people indicated that the material does not belong in Wikipedia, thus providing adequate consensus for deletion. The best solution is to copy this to a more appropriate Wiki, as suggested by 1/3 of the comments. The administrator even offered to provide the text of the old page to any editor who wanted to do this. Dr. Submillimeter 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close this was really non-encyclopedic. Encarta positions itself as an encyclopedia and a dictionary & many other encyclopedias, print & online, have had a dictionary as a separate supplementary work--and so does Wikipedia. DGG 22:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear and obvious endorse deletion. Define "various". Define "common". Completely arbitrary, can't be anything else. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Seraphim completley justified. Bulldog123 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion It isn't relevant whether people commenting here think the article merited retention. The question is whether procedures were followed. There was no consensus to delete this so it should not have been deleted. Haddiscoe 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article. The decision to delete was obviously wrong, as there was no consensus. Moreover, I can't see in the AfD any solid argument for deletion, quite on the contrary. Deleting this article is just as bad as removing the language sample sections in all the language articles, because they belong here and are verifiable just as much as this list. Sure thing, the article has its problems, starting with the title and the introduction, but that is certainly fixable. — AdiJapan ☎ 11:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examples of languages can in most cases by provided by using excerpts of good literature. Considering that sentences like "where's the toilet" is among the most advanced examples provided in this unwieldy monster of a list, it's anything but representative of genuine languages. Peter Isotalo 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Excerpts from literature are good if you want to get an impression of one language, but they do not allow comparison. "Where's the toilet" was indeed a bad choice, but we don't have to delete the whole article for that. — AdiJapan ☎ 02:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It has already been pointed out[43] by an actual linguist (who, like Angr, has a Ph.D.) that so-called common phrases are pretty worthless for linguistic comparison. Swadesh lists have more merit, but the problem is still that the place for it isn't Wikipedia, but other projects. It's at best whimsical and overly colloquial, even without the silly bathroom request. No matter how much you try to reform the article/list/whatever, it's still going to be either a guide for how to get along with the locals as a mere tourist or completely arbitrary "common" phrases, which amount to nothing but a phrase book, dictionary or crash course in a thousand languages all at once. Bishonen summarizes the awkardness of the article very eloquently and (or the umpteenth time) I have to stress that neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary nor Wikibooks or any other of our projects benefit from us trying to keep stuff simply because we like to see it included here. Go help the other projects instead of forcing us to be a mere information dumping ground; we already have a place for that and it's called the internet. Peter Isotalo 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're comparing apples and oranges. Two types of comparisons are being dealt here. The first is within the realm of historical linguistics or more specifically, comparative linguistics. This is for a very specific purpose, and only linguists would make use of it. Mark Dingemanse is correct in saying that it would be uninteresting or practically useless to linguists (they'd have to be related, first of all!). However, the article is not about historical linguistics and neither is it solely intended for linguists. There is a wider audience, who have had no training in linguistics. This is an article about languages, by the way, and not linguistics. So the second kind of comparisons is a survey, just to give a reader an idea on how certain language express certain concepts - these are concepts that just happen to be useful for tourists, and so what is wrong with that? It does not necessarily indicate that it's meant to be a tourist guide, although with certain languages it has certainly evolved to that stage. And as I said before, it's fixable. --19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedia isn't a place for original research even of the "useful, interesting, I-like it" kind. Peter Isotalo 20:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just how exactly is it original research? --Chris S. 20:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. It's hard to say what an encyclopedia is, considering that we're now the largest one in human history; but it does seem that Encarta is an encyclopedia, and has such an article. That would seem to be strong evidence that this article is encyclopedic. It's still debatable (for example, we're not Encarta), but the debate was held, and it seems clear that side won the debate. We with the mop aren't supposed to set consensus, merely carry it out. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore We can't have Encarta be more comprehensive than Wikipedia, can we? --Xiaphias 19:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as encyclopedic content and the "consensus to delete" was marginal at best. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore There was no consensus to delete. Sumahoy 22:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore This title does not belong in a dictionary, as it is not a dictionary definition, but it would be no surprise to find it in any encyclopedia as a part of its encyclopedic coverage of lingustics. Olborne 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I had always found this page very useful. ErikB 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I'm glad you wish to see the article restored, it's been established that usefulness is not a valid criterion. If you or anyone else have other justifiable reasons, please share. --Chris S. 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. >Radiant< 10:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Neither is this article. It's a list of phrases giving a survey, by use of common phrases, of various languages. --Chris S. 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The content of this article is dictionary content. Wikipedia not being a dictionary means this kind of content goes on Wiktionary but not Wikipedia. I encourage everybody who is interested in adding information to a Wikimedia project about phrases in various languages, to do so at wikt:Category:Phrases. Pan Dan 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because AFD is a discussion, not a vote. The arguments to keep boiled down to "It's useful" and WP:ILIKEIT, neither of which (regardless of the number of people repeating them) can overcome the fact that it was a blatant violation of WP:NOT, not to mention being almost completely unverified. The last makes tranwikiing not an option, since Wiktionary won't accept unreferenced, unverifiable lists of tourist phrases any more than Wikipedia will. —Angr 19:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've been avoiding the term "vote" since clearly this is not what it should be about. I am familiar with the AfD process, and I know that it is based on consensus. How can consensus be determined by a minority of editors? The thing about the unverified content of this discussion is that it's easily verifiable, since there is a wealth of information about various languages. My point is, it may be a flaw, but it's a fixable one. And what, may I ask, is this article violating about WP:NOT? --Chris S. 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's still an issue of not being a dictionary, and this is quite clearly something that attempts to list translations of the same phrases in as many langauges as possible (making it utterly undoable and arbitrary). We have Wikibooks and Wiktionary to help people learn languages and we're only making their job harder by trying to make Wikipedia something it was never intended to be. Peter Isotalo 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It's not a vote. It was appropriately deleted. Wryspy 06:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Of course it isn't a vote. But where is the consensus and the valid arguments for deletion? Let's review the deletion arguments:
      1. The nominating editor (and five other editors agreed) said "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a usage guide, an idiom guide, or a travel guide. The article is completely unsourced, unverified, and OR-prone; the title too is awkward." It has been established either here or in the AfD that the article was not a dictionary, usage guide, idiom guide, or a travel guide, but instead as a supplementary article to the the articles on language. I'll also repeat by paraphrasing that the lack of sources and verifiablity can also be changed. Even the awkward title.
      2. Three editors, with one concurring, have said that the article is cruft. I'm not even sure that's even a valid argument (it's as valid as saying it's "useful").
      3. Two editors said that it was "unmaintainable." The article has been maintained for almost six years. There was no direction then until recently. Now we have a guide, Encarta, to work from. The article should more or less conform by the standards that Encarta has set forth in its own similar article. Yes, it's pretty clear that it needs a clean-up (which I stated in the AfD) and now there's direction to do so.
    • So there you have it, folks. I could not find a strong argument from the deletion side. Many of the deletionist arguments are based upon the negative attributes of the article (duh). However, these negative attributes are fixable - especially verifiability, which is why closing admin, Seraphimblade, moved to delete it (according to his closing statement). But the verifiability criterion is clearly a weak argument since vast sources are available, just head to your nearest bookstore or library. There is hope for the article to be improved. It is not a hopeless case! --Chris S. 09:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn clearly no consensus for deletion there.  Grue  21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is simply a misplacing of information. It's the equivalent of having a full-blown treatise on gladiator combat in an article about Spratacus. That's something usually defined as a lack of focus and is actually not very useful to readers. Peter Isotalo 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The AfD was properly closed per cogent arguments on the Delete side. A list of phrases for tourists? When did Wikipedia become a how-to guide? The introduction reads "Tourists to a foreign country often get along with a surprisingly short list of phrases, combined with pointing, miming, and writing down numbers on paper. This list is intended to serve as a comprehensive basic introduction to those languages." Please explain what's encyclopedic about such a purpose. And if the introduction is blanked or rewritten, per being "fixable", the purpose and supposed usefulness of the page will remain enshrined in the lists of phrases themselves, as they are tourist phrases. "Where's the bathroom", indeed. Hello, goodbye, do you speak English. This page is an embarrassment. It's the equivalent of pointing and miming. Bishonen | talk 09:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment The late Charles Berlitz wrote a book titled Native Tongues which was designed to deliver facts about the world's various languages. I recall there being a section outlining how certain languages express certain things. This was given in a format giving the basics - greetings, the words for yes/no, thank you, etc. Just like the article in question, this section of the book was in no way intended for tourists as it was too rudimentary to be so. The intent of this article is not to be a tourist guide. If a tourist were to use it, then good luck to them, but they won't get very far as the article isn't that comprehensive to be one. What use would a tourist bound for Madrid have for this article when there are other languages on it? He'd be better off with a, uh, Berlitz phrasebook. --Chris S. 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary! Goodness gracious, people, we have an entire dictionary for this sort of thing. Send it there; it's useful information and they are quite capable of deciding whether they can do anything with it or not. This editing community shouldn't be making that editing community's decisions for them. And that's what Wiktionary *does* -- the ability to compare phrases in different languages that they have is very helpful. If not that, don't we have some "learning languages" wikibooks? This shouldn't be an argument over whether this page would ever be helpful to someone -- of course it would be, and anyway that's not how we judge articles. It's verifiable content -- just not perhaps in exactly the right form for Wikipedia. -- phoebe/(talk) 02:47, 7 July 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.
Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IfD)

I'm having a hard time understanding why this was deleted. The deleting admin even voted keep in the discussion and agreed it was fair use. I removed this image from 3 articles it was not fair use in, but it was definitely fair use in Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. It showed an unrepeatable historic moment, Linda Lingle's controversial taking of an oath upon a Tanakh in the time period when taking oaths upon non-Bibles erupted into social controversy in the United States -N 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the admin who deleted it. Yeah, I thought that the images was (barely) acceptable in the article it was in. However, it looked to me like the consensus was against me and N, and the most knowledgeable policy-wonks thought the image violated NFCC#2 and possibly #8 as well. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -N 02:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - news media photos are not acceptable for fair use. The moment may not be repeatable, but that doesn't give us the right to use somebody's photo of it unless the PHOTO ITSELF is iconic. This one isn't - any photo of the event would do. To use this image would be a flagrant copyright violation. --BigΔT 06:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, this is basically to show what the event looked like, not a place where inclusion of the photo is necessary as the photo itself is being discussed or is a critical part of the story. (For appropriate use of a photo under "historical" claims, see Kim Phuc, where the photo itself is an integral and iconic part of the story.) I imagine we could get a free-use photo of someone swearing on a book other than the Bible as this practice becomes more common; there might even be a federal-government photo of the event available somewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This was delted basically on the same arguement that Seraphimblade makes above. But that arguiement is not supported by WP:FUC. FUC says that the image can only be used if no obtanable image would "serve the encyclopedic purpose". But most encyclopedias use images of acrtual historic events, not reproductions, when available, and wile possibly not essential, such images to help users (humans are visually oriented beings) to grasp the event. The event itself was a mattr of significant interst, adn anothr simialr event, ort a astaged reproduction, whould not have the same encyclopedic effect. DES (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaceable doesn't matter when it's a news media photo. To use it without permission or paying royalties would be a flagrant copyright violation. --BigΔT 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said above, where exactly is this special rule for news media photos spelled out in a policy page? I can't find it in WP:FUC or any other relevant page. As for being a "flagrant copyright violation" fair use is precisely about the right, granted by law (the same law that protects copyright in the first place) to use copyrighted content without permission or payment under limited circumstances. Content from the news media are used under fair use all the time. They have no legal exemption. if you are arguing that one of the particular limits on fair use, or in Wikipedia policy, is violated here, than please say specifically what legal or policy provision is involved. Simply saying "news media photo" is not a magic wand -- they news media get, and should get, no more (and no less) protection than any other content creator or publisher. DES (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:FAIR#Examples of unacceptable use #5. Further, regardless of Wikipedia policy, use of a some random person's photo where there's nothing special about it and it just happens to depict the thing you want to show is a copyright violation. If DRV, IFD, and Wikipedia policies fail to recognize that, then they are hopelessly broken. One interesting read would be this IFD, which dealt with the same kind of image. It was from a book, not a newspaper, (see [44] for the original source) but it's the same class of photo. The arguments were basically the same that they are here. Someone went and asked a Wikipedia user who just happens to be an intellectual property lawyer about it. He said, among other things, "The use of this image is a clear copyright violation, and not a fair use. The fact that it is particularly useful to the illustration of an important article is irrelevant." Contrary to what we seem to think on Wikipedia, "just because I want to" isn't a fair use defense and consensus can't override copyright law. --BigΔT 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I remember that image, and the DRV on it. While I am not an IP lawyer, I am fairly well read in copyright law, and i think the lawyer's arguemnt there is wrong, or more exactly too broadly stated to apply to the particular case. In any case, your argument on that IfD (which exactly parallels your argument here) would convert "transformative use" from one of four factors to be considerd to an essential requirement of fair use. That is clearly not merely wrong but absurd. Well, I have made my point, we will see how others react. DES (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; violation of WP:NFCC #2 at least, maybe others as well. —Angr 20:01, 4 July 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.
WPARanormal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was originally deleted for NN the article as it was originally reposted still failed this check however I do believe I fixed this issue after Pablothegreat85 flagged the article for that same short-coming Wantmy442 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse this was deleted after an AFD in 06 and then recreated. The last version is short on multiple independent sources. Most of the sources are self referential and therefore invalid. Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The AFD was unambiguous, and it's hard to believe the subject will ever be notable enough for an article. Shalom Hello 09:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, while one independent source is cited, it's a human interest piece in a local paper, and certainly isn't sufficient source material for an article. The rewrite doesn't seem to substantially address the concerns raised at AfD, and from the lack of sources available, I don't think those concerns can be addressed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re looked at the article and realize now I only pointed out the notability on the talk page which has now been deleted but forgot to reference them in the article given a chance I would fix that.

The notability fixes would include reference to the fact that the hosts of the show have been mentioned in many books including but not limited to

  • Asfar, Dan (2002). Ghost Stories of Michigan. Lone Pine Publishing. ISBN 1894877055.
  • Asfar, Dan (2003). Ghost Stories of the Civil War. Ghost House. pp. 149–152. ISBN 1894877160.
  • Asfar, Dan (2005). Ghost Hunters Of America. Ghost House. ISBN 9781894877695.
  • Belanger, Jeff (2005). Encyclopedia Of Haunted Places. New Page Books. pp. 120–122. ISBN 9781564147998.
  • Hunter, Gerald (2005). More Haunted Michigan. Lake Claremont Press. ISBN 1894877691.
  • Godfrey, Linda (2006). Weird Michigan. Sterling. ISBN 1402739079.

I hope this is of some help. Wantmy442 19:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Few eyes but valid result. Sorry, Wantmy442, I know this is your first and thus far only contribution, but this really is just a directory entry for a local ghosthunting club. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 2 July 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.
Elvis Presley's favourite books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page is relevant to those who want to know more about a major entertainer who sold 1 billion records.

Imagine if you and I were in a Starbucks and I asked you what your all-time favourite CDs were. Do you think your list would tell me something about you? Of course it would.

At an interview, prospective employees often ask what your hobbies and interests are. Why do you think they do that? If you answered I’m a huge Bruce Lee fan and I love boxing, kung fu, and Zen meditation. Do you think that would say something about who you are?

Same with a list of books Elvis Presley liked. Elvis has an enormous fan base (probably not many Wikipedia moderators) and people want to know more about him, what made him tick, what made him so charismatic. This list of books tells so much about Elvis that I’m staggered that it is not considered to be good enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I’m flummoxed, stumped puzzled and mystified.

If the religious right is behind Wikipedia’s refusal to post “Elvis Presley’s favourite books” then please forgive me for my impertinence. Bruce7777777 01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close - the AFD doesn't appear to have been a problem, was uniformly delete when closed, and the arguments seemed to follow policy with regards to indiscriminate lists and verifiability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 01:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Clear consensus on the AFD. Two points about the nomination statement. First, Presley's favorite books might have been relevant if he were notable in the field of literature. However, his notability comes from the music, making discussion of his literature preferences rather irrelevant and indiscrimate. Second, the "religious right" has nothing to do with the deletion of this article, the arguments were based solely on the encyclopedic merit of the page, which was found severely wanting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should that be put up for deletion (MfD?) as well, perhaps? Keeping content of deleted articles in userspace is frowned upon I believe. Tarc 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce has apparently given up. -- Kesh 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

1 July 2007

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

The June 22 proposed deletion of this user box was rejected (see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN). I am not challenging the keep decision. I am challenging the closure summary of User:Tony Sidaway. There was no consensus to replace the userbox "with an invocation of template:userbox, for instance {{userbox|logo=[[Image:NoUNsmall.png|40px]]|info=This user wants the [[United Nations]] to be '''dissolved'''}}". Pursuant to the closure summary of User:Tony Sidaway, s/he edited the userbox and User:Dmcdevit then ran a robot that replaced the transclusion of the userbox on all of the user pages which displayed it with userbox code. Among other things, this action partially and selectively depopulated Category:Wikipedians interested in the United Nations. I have asked both Tony Sidaway and Dmcdevit to reverse their actions as being inconsistent with the consensus of the June 22 original deletion discussion and they have refused. --DieWeisseRose 22:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by closer: the repopulation of the category isn't a problem--I'll ask someone to run it as a bot job or (preferably) the editors in question can decide for themselves whether they want their user pages to belong to that category. The rationale for this close is pretty obvious. Firstly, it permits the editors in question to express their opinions as they wish (even better, they can tweak the parameters and alter the text at will, which wasn't possible while they were transcluding another editor's version. Secondly, it effectively sabotages any attempt to abuse the whatlinkshere function. There is no legitimate reason to use the DieWeisseRose version while it's possible to use the "template:userbox" version to produce the same effect in a manner that is not susceptible to abuse. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The rationale put forth by the editor who nominated the userbox for deletion was simply: "User template is divisive and inflammatory. It implies that the UN is bad". Nothing was then said about "abuse [of] the whatlinkshere function." Furthermore, during the course of the discussion, there simply was no consensus that the transclusion of the userbox was a problem. Even less so was there consensus for the solution proposed by User:Tony Sidaway and then implemented by User:Dmcdevit. Nor has anyone produced any evidence that this userbox ever resulted in any "abuse [of] the whatlinkshere function." --DieWeisseRose 02:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think the question of transclusion vs. substitution is irrelevant. I didn't ask Tony to subst the userboxes, but once it's done I don't give a darn. User categories are a separate issue. Uncategorizing certain users from a category, even if for a trivial reason, should not be reversed at DRV without a clear demonstration that harm was done. Shalom Hello 00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse userbox hasn't been deleted, admin has offered to re-add people to the category in question. If people want to move back to the "real" userbox they can. (My endorse is based on a belief that Tony Sidaway is acting in good faith and will act as promised.) -N 02:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. While the outcome dictated was interesting, it is arbitrary, and I do not feel it was the result of a consensus gathered during the discussion. — xaosflux Talk 02:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The outcome was basically keep with the administrator choosing to do some edits on top of that. There is nothing stopping the user from changing all the userboxes back if he wanted to. How is this a matter for DRV? -N 03:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:DRV: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." --DieWeisseRose 04:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The closure was not keep it was a specially crafted form of subst. If the edits being made can be declared to be NOT PART of the mfd, this is pretty much moot, as the contestor can just go revert them all, right? — xaosflux Talk 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - You are correct and I should have been more clear on that point. The closure summary stated: "The result of the debate was substitute by a suitable invocation of template:userbox" My contention is that there was no consensus for the substitution but there was consensus to keep the userbox. --DieWeisseRose 05:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject as there is nothing special about this userbox than any other userbox. No other controversial userboxes I know require the {{subst: prefix, why should this one? Tony wrote the closing statement despite the fact that the posts never mentioned "you should use the {{subst: prefix". The closing statement should be changed to reflect this, and you should be able to use the true userbox without subst: and not get edited by a bot. However, Tony's view should be expressed in the closing statement, one way or another, but it shouldn't be shown as a "required action".FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 03:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For the sake of clarity, will editors please state "Endorse" if they agree that "The result of the debate was substitute by a suitable invocation of template:userbox" or if they otherwise support the closing summary? Please state "Reject" if you you do not agree with the stated debate result and/or wish to see it changed to "The result of the debate was keep." --DieWeisseRose 05:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject - per my nom. --DieWeisseRose 05:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ludicrous - there really isn't much more to say. --BigΔT 05:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand how Tony Sidaway's closure is intended to be enforced. If I transclude it onto my user page, will Tony (or someone else) replace it? What if I revert that edit (it being my user page and all)? —Ashley Y 07:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject User:Tony Sidaway's signing statement, keep the userbox as it was, and revert Tony Sidaway's substitutions. As the word "substitute" does not even appear in the discussion, I find the assertion that the discussion reached a consensus to substitute to be plainly false. If Tony Sidaway had suggested substitution before closing and archiving the discussion, it is conceivable (though IMO unlikely) that such a consensus could have been reached, but this is not how Tony Sidaway chose to act. — The Storm Surfer 10:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject Per nom, but namely per the discussion we had on the user box. Bertilvidet 11:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. There was absolutely no discsussion of, let alone consensus for, Tony's closing outcome. There was consensus for keep. --YbborTalk 13:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject entirely the notion that our deletion process can enforce a requirement to substitute a userbox (and thusly reject this particular closing). It appears that Tony Sidaway used his position as closer to improperly override consensus. I would note also that I don't even understand how networking via Whatlinkshere (assuming this is even widespread) is "abuse" — merely using the word in a sentence does not make it so.
    The closer's job is to determine consensus and propose the solution to concerns expressed. My close was a keep, with some extra actions to reflect that serious potential for abuse that was expressed. Self expression is permitted but not abuse. --Tony Sidaway 13:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject closing for 3 reasons. First, closing does not reflect the consensus of the MFD, second Tony is a fierce anti-userbox activist and couldn't have possible closed that without interjecting his own bias into the mix, and thirdly he's not even an admin, and shouldn't be closing contentious decisions anyways (he resigned last year). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject closure Royaguard11 nails the top 3 reasons, and we all know that there is no consensus to extend T1 to userboxes in userspace. That a few erroneously deleted under the T1 claim remain deleted here because of the particular content of a particular box does not change the fact that there is no consensus to apply T1 outside the Template namespace. GRBerry 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject closure as completely improper. Whether it is within the proper ambit of a deletion discussion to mandate substitution might be debated (although it is not infrequently done at TfD). But not one person in the deletion debate suggested this outcome, neither among those favoring keep, nor among those favoring deletion. An outcome cannot have consensus if no one argued for that outcome. It is not the closer's role to invent a solution to an issue, but to determine what consensus the discussion has reached, whether the closer agrees or not. This looks like a closer who wanted to delete, but saw that the discussion could not be closed as delete, and so attempted to frame an outcome that amounted to a deletion in effect, or as close to that as possible. Now that may not have been in Tony's mind, but that is what it looks like, IMO. Multiple discussion have made it clear that there is currently no consensus to extend T1 to userspace, much as some would like this done, and illogical as the distinction might seem. Jimbo's remarks have made it pretty clear that such an extension is unlikely to be mandated by the Foundation in the near future. This leaves an odd situation, one that excites strong feelings on all sides. But closing not so much against consensus as completely sideways to consensus, picking a solution that no one had favored, is not the way to deal with this. Had this been closed as a simple keep, and Tony or another editor proceeded to sust this is an editing action distinct from the deletion process, I'm not sure what would have happened. Surely some would have objected, but perhaps others wouldn't have cared. But if this close stands, it will imply that it is proper for the closer to "invent" a solution not considered during the discussion, and that, i think will be more harmful than any single userbox could ever be. DES (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject closure per Royalguard11. --Hut 8.5 08:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Valid. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:26, 5 July 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.

Image:Banner_logo_campbells.gif

Deleted for not having a fair use rationale. I'll write it. Kotepho 20:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Please also add a source. --BigΔT 06:05, 2 July 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.
Tinfoil Hat Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted on a second nomination with virtually no participation and essentially dismissing the arguments of the first debate. The second nominator, User:Chealer, seemed to think that the primary point in the original debate was whether the distribution had users, whereas in fact the debate centered on its notability as an example of secure computing. The consensus (see in particular the comments of User:Jamyskis and User:Phr) was that in fact this was indeed notable. Chealer, however, ignored this argument entirely, minimized the significance of the article's "historical value", made an ambiguous statement about Google hits, and asserted precisely the argument which I, the original nominator, had advanced in the first deletion debate (namely, that this Linux distribution is dead and therefore not notable) and which was refuted. The second debate itself attracted only two other participants, who disagreed, and the one (User:Goldenglove) who voted for deletion gave the two invalid reasons that the article was poorly linked-to, and was "not so great". I think this was an improper conclusion of consensus given the relatively active debate in the first nomination, and that the article should be undeleted. Ryan Reich 18:06, 1 July 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.
ILoser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reliable source 1 Reliable source 2 This should redirect to Greg Parker. He is not notable because of his talent, smarts, business success, inventions, or even smashing good looks, and has enemies and rivals out to get him. He is notable because of his ability to make himself notable. He is all media. And reporting on him means reporting what the media reports about him. In the iPhone coverage, the epithet "iLoser" became of rather common use to refer to him, and since reliable sources - both of which I provide do not push bias or POV - identify and report as the epithet being used to refer to him, its all kosher like Nathan's frankfurter. Cerejota 17:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted page appears to have been an attack redirect, if such things are possible, and was deleted as a BLP concern. In the circumstances endorse - BLP trumps pretty much everything. Please consider taking this up with the deleting admin to see whether they would accept an idefinatly protected redirect instead. Spartaz Humbug! 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While in general I tend to agree with the principle of WP:BLP, I do argue that [{WP:BLP]] explicitly allows for this redirect and mention in the article of the the term "iLoser", in the context of Greg Parker. The term "iLoser" is much less an attack per se than a somewhat derogatory backslash epithet. Since his notability is intrinsic with media reaction to him (his source of fame is fame itself), the term "iLoser" is germane and central to documenting his notability in wikipedia.
In a nutshell: Greg Parker's biography is a special case in which derogatory terms themselves are part and parcel to notability.
Please consider this. Thanks! --Cerejota 22:36, 1 July 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.
Boston Dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It was flagged as a copyright violation probably because the single line description of the company comes from their website, and the bot compares the first line of the article with the first line of the webpage listed as the source. The line was referenced as coming from the webpage, and the entire article was just three sentences. The entire article reads as follows: "[Boston Dynamics is an engineering company that specializes in robotics and human simulation]. [1] [The company began as a spinoff from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where Marc Raibert developed robots that ambulate like animals]. [Boston Dynamics was incorporated in 1992.]" Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Actually, the second of the three sentences was also copied from the source, too. Citing where it was copied from still doesn't make it okay... just write the article in your own words. Instead of spending so much time challenging deletions, it's best to just write acceptable articles from the start. At any rate the deletion summary "tagged as copyright violation, of which a single sentence is, but deleted primarily for a7, no assertion to notability". --W.marsh 16:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the text from the website: " [Boston Dynamics is an engineering company that specializes in robotics and human simulation]. Our customers have applications that range from military robotics to simulation-based training to physics-based virtual prototyping. [The company began as a spinoff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where Marc Raibert and his colleagues first developed robots that run and maneuver like animals]. Their groundbreaking work inspired the [launch of Boston Dynamics in 1992]." I challenged the speedy, so why wasn't it sent to AFD? The article already has links to it from other articles, thats why I created it. A simple Google search would have turned up 36K hits, and 122 in Google News Archive. Doesn't some sort of due diligence need to be done before speedy deletion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't talk your way out of it being against our copyright policy... so an AFD would be pointless with the current version of the article. Write an acceptable version then yes there could be an AFD. --W.marsh 17:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only line directly copied from the website is "Boston Dynamics is an engineering company that specializes in robotics and human simulation" and it is cited. Shouldn't the companies own description be used and cited to be the most accurate? Anyway the deletion was for non-notability. So lets keep the discussion to the business at hand, and keep the personal attacks to a minimum. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comment in the deletion log states (tagged as copyright violation, of which a single sentence is, but deleted primarily for a7, no assertion to notability). I don't think that this is a valid A7 but a copy vio is a copyvio and the article is therefore tainted. Why don't you just go ahead and recreate it without the copyvio. There is no need for a DRV for that - the page isn't salted. Spartaz Humbug! 17:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Richard, I looked through the company's website's news section for news stories about the company before I deleted it and found only press releases. Seeing the stories listed in the google news archives now (I didn't know the archives existed until just now), I agree that the company is notable. Just recreate it without the offending sentence. I won't speedy it again.--Chaser - T 18:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Richard had recreated the article, with no citations except a link to the company website. It has been deleted again as a recreation of previously deleted material by User:W.marsh. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 15:33, July 4, 2007
  • Note it was not a recreation. The nature of the companies work was moved from a reference to a direct quote in quotation marks to satisfy the people who said that using a single sentence is a copyright violation. It went from:
  • Recreated I have done my own research and created an article that hopefully meets all the speedy objections raised so far. It may still be wise to merge it into some other article, such as that of the its founder.--Chaser - T 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for properly citing the article, Chaser. Hopefully now Richard will see what kinds of citations are actually required for an article. -- Kesh 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of Pentax K mount lenses – Endorse Deletion, but, as reading the discussion indicates consensus is pretty unclear and it's mostly because no one having a real strong idea what to do with the content, if anything. If someone does develop a plan, and needs this content, I or another admin will undelete it for you. – W.marsh 02:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Pentax K mount lenses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm not very satisfied with the discussion. 3 people say "listcruft", 2 people say "useful", all of which are apparently invalid reasons. Some people wanted it to be merged back into Pentax K mount, but the closing admin says that article is too long already. End result: deletion with misgivings. Could we possibly relist and have a slightly more in depth discussion about what to do with it? The notion of dismissing any argument of "usefulness" is just dumb. Let's find a real reason to either delete or keep it. Stevage 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you asked the deleting admin to consider reversing themselves and relisting the discussion? Useful isn't a valid reason to keep by the way but I agree the consensus to delete wasn't outstandingly obvious. Spartaz Humbug! 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, crap discussion. But a valid result. The Pentax K mount is notable, but a list of lenses with Pentax K mount is canonical fancruft: of interst only to a very small number of people who probably knew it already. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The implication of the closure is that the closer considers the material to be valid, in which case it belongs in wikipedia. In any case, there was no consensus to delete. Aviara 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • History undeletion and redirect with an eye to a partial merge. Notable lens types should be listed in the parent article. As long as the list is restricted to notable ones, it shouldn't over-crowd the text there. Xoloz 17:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The copy of this list in the Google cache is quite unpromising. Only Xoloz's comment (just above) gives a hint of a reform plan that would try to make the list encyclopedic. None of the lenses in the list have their own articles. We don't even know why the ones included in the list deserve a place there. A more analytical survey of the field of lenses might be acceptable, but that would be a lot of work, and a whole other article. Since there was not a clear consensus in the AfD, the closer of this DRV should be open to reform plans that have some hope of success. If there are none, then I believe it should stay deleted. EdJohnston 23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion JzG has it right. Eusebeus 10:37, 8 July 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.
27 Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted for being a neologism, even though this accusation wasn't properly explained. I quote: "The keep arguments have not been able to rebuttal the WP:NEO arguments appropriately." Actually there were no arguments for WP:NEO - it was stated, but not argued (check the log).

This administrator was wrong to rule in favour of delete when there was certainly not consensus, and the delete side didn't come up with any arguments as to why it was in breach of WP:NEO.

Even if you agree with that administrator's actions in the former case, I have some new sources that weren't made available in that deletion debate. Consider the below... how could something that's been talked about for over 30 years and has books, plays, tshirts and numerous articles about it be considered a neologism?

Scholarly article about 27 club - http://www.unt.edu/writinglab/resources/share_information/index.htm
Book about 27 club - http://www.memoware.com/?screen=doc_detail&doc_id=19600&back=search_results
BBC news item about 27 club - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/r2music/documentaries/nirvana_27.shtml
Magazine article about 27 club - http://split-magazine.com/2007/05/20/the-27-club/
Article about 27 club by Cobain/Hendrix biographer which mentions how widely known it is - http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/writers/304767_writer23.html
27 Club t-shirt for sale - http://www.a-non.co.uk/item.php?id=272
Article about a play based on the 27 club - http://www.stereogum.com/archives/the-27-club-set-to-meet-offbroadway.html
Website of said play - http://www.27heaven.com/
Fan website (admittedly a bad quality one) - http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/27club/ I'm right and you're wrong 12:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overturn Term is notable and sourced as per Caleby.--Cerejota 17:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Overturn - multiple sources, I can't see a consensus to delete in the AfD discussion. Catchpole 13:25, 2 July 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.
Brand (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Highly notable magazine. It's the oldest continously published anarchist magazine (since 1898) and the second oldest in the world. Have ha several notable people writing for it like Gustav Hedenvind-Eriksson, Hinke Bergegren, Ivan Oljelund, Moa Martinson (as Helga Johansson), Harry Martinson, C.J. Björklund, Carl-Emil Englund, Erik Asklund, Eyvind Johnson, Jan Fridegård, Ivar Lo Johansson, Artur Lundkvist, Vilhelm Moberg, Albert Jensen, Elise Ottesen-Jensen, Nils Ferlin, Helmer Grundström and Eva X Moberg Liftarn 06:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is, the article didn't say of of that -- at least not in the version that was deleted. This was apparently a 2-in-one article: a single article about two different subjects with the same name. In this case, there appear to have been two quite different magazines titled "Brand": one was the anarchist magazine described above, and one a communications magazine of apparently dubious notability (or at least with very few indications of notability in the article). This page had two separate articles about these two magazines. This style used to be recommended, to avoid the need for disambiguation. I created one myself once (about 5 different early middle ages queens who all had the same name). They are no longer encouraged, i believe. To return to this article, some editor cut out most of the content on the anarchist magazine a few revisions before it was tagged foe speedy deletion, and what was left was a rather spammy stub about the other "Brand". Overturn and revert to a version that includes the full info on the anarchist magazine. Then consider splitting. This should be a lesson to admins: remember to check earlier versions, particularly when A7 is involved. Same applies to copyvios -- revert to a clean version, if there is one -- and then possibly use selective deletion. DES (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and fix Haddiscoe 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore Mistaken deletion of an article about a clearly notable subject. Wimstead 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ ROUGHOL, ISABELLE (2007-06-22). "Santa Cruz named one of the 1000 places to see before you die". Santa Cruz Sentinel. Retrieved 2007-07-04. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ DEUTSCH, CLAUDIA (2006-08-03). "Publishers Try to Sell Words With Moving Pictures". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-07-04. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_1-15&oldid=1108885082"