Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 June 7
2010 June 9 >

8 June 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
1541_Ultimate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page is about a multifunction utility cartridge for the Commodore 64 that (among other things) simulates a 1541 Diskdrive via files stored on an SD-card, released in 2008. There was no reason to speedily delete the page other than User:JzG believing false accusations of me being a sock puppet, blocking me (has been revoked by User:jpgordon meanwhile after my unblock request) and deleting an article I created while he was at it. A7 does not apply, as a quick search for "1541 Ultimate" on Google (25800 hits) and "1541u" (25600 hits) will confirm. G11 does not apply, in the section about the success of the cartridge I was merely stating the facts. I am in no way affiliated with the guy making these cartridges, i just happen to have bought two of them, being - like many others - a very satisified user. It might sound like advertising, but this cartridge's stellar success within the c64 user community is simply the truth - If you need a hundred people from the c64 scene to confirm this, i can happily provide them, some are even active on Wikipedia! ;-) I would also like to point out that I also wrote the article on the MMC64, a competing product by a different manufacturer -- clearly i would not advertise my competitor's product if I was doing advertising, would I? ;-) Also, i'd like to stress that a rule for speedy deletion was violated: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations. ". When I first wrote the article, the unit was very new, and there was not much on it on the web apart from forums -- and yet even back then the guys involved in the A7-deletion discussion (blanchardb and cobaltony) said that it already was a borderline case (check my talk page, it's all in there). This has changed a lot since, and when I re-added the article a few months later, i added links to reviews or youtube videos of the cartridge being made. This time the article passed without a deletion request, and has remained online largely unchanged for almost two years now. Oh, and i did try mailing User:JzG about both my unwarranted block and the deletion of my page, no reply (though some edits show he was online since and hence notified of my mails) DeeKay64 (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • DRV can't help you resolve any issues with blocks or address any complaints against administrators, unfortunately. DRV deals with contested deletion decisions about content pages, and that's all we do here. It would help us to review the deletion if you could list the reliable sources that discuss this C64 cartridge and confirm its notability. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid the tripod page doesn't meet the criteria for that.—S Marshall T/C 00:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not meant as a complaint against an admin (though I would like to know how to do that if that's possible! ;-) and my block has been removed already. I only mentioned this to give the full picture, that A7 and G11 may not necessarily have been the real reason for deleting the page. This is merely about the restoration of the 1541u article. Here's a few reliable sources from both the article and Google: http://www.retrozentrale.net/?p=1087 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxX-aabjl94 http://video.aol.ca/video-detail/retro-review-mmc-replay-vs-1541-ultimate-auf-commodore-64-teil-24-mmc-replay-test/3639114738/?icid=VIDURVHOV03 I'm not quite sure what kinda sources you expect for a c64 cartridge made in 2008 - Can't give you any review on Tom's Hardware if that's what you're asking! ;-) As for notability: Isn't 26000 unique hits on Google big enough? -- DeeKay64 (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Complaints about other users should go through WP:DR. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Not clearly spam/advertising, and game cartridges are not currently a valid CSD:A7 category. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. A7 clearly doesn't apply: A7 is limited to discrete categories of article subjects that do not include any kind of product. In my view, G11 is also inapplicable. Parts of the article are certainly spammy, but the article is not exclusively so.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7 only applies to real people, animals, organisations and web content, not computer hardware. Though the "public reception" section was a little spammy G11 only applies if the spam is so pervasive that the article would have to be rewritten almost from scratch to fix the problem, which isn't the case here (removing that one section would probably be enough). Didn't meet any other CSD criterion. Hut 8.5 10:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, on reflection I concur. Restore to mainspace, although I'm not confident the article would survive AfD.—S Marshall T/C 11:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per Stifle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Enlightenment for Beginners_by_Matthew_Blythe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Enlightenment for Beginners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is a page describing my book, how it came to be, the publishers details, ISBN, number of pages etc. a link to the book preview on google books, a quotation from the books cover and an image of the front to cover of the book I uploaded to wiki commons. This is not advertising. This is my first night on wikipedia EVER and the very first article I have written, I probably could have written it better or given a chance to fix it but it was deleted immediately without so much as a "speedy delete" tag. I did duplicate the page which was given a "speedy delete" tag which was fair enough but deleting BOTH pages was just plain unecessary. I have tried to contact the admin four times but no response! Too busy I guess? Thanks for reveiwing, nobody is perfect least of all me but I do my best. Mattblythe (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my deletion. The barefaced cheek of talking about "my book" and expecting us to re-instate is truly amazing. "Contact the admin four times" - what on earth are you talking about: you tried once and I am responding within minutes. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I sent you FOUR emails you please check the wiki communications channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattblythe (talk • contribs) 21:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your expectation of response from RHaworth is unrealistic. Everyone here are volunteers, the article was deleted at 20:28, you were here complaining of lack of response 1 hour later. What's the absolute urgency? Looking at the cached version I would have to agree it has a promotional tone, doesn't appear to give any indication as to why it is important or significant so would fit at least one of the other speedy deletion criteria. In general I think you may have difficulty meeting wikipedia's inclusion standard on this, the basic one being the general notability guideline which says the book itself must have been the subject of non-trivial coverage multiple independant coverage reliable sources, i.e. the world at large must demonstrate interest in this. Since this has only just been published (and self published at that, suggesting that a publisher wouldn't be interested in it) it'd seem unlikely that will be the case. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK then notoriabilty is the issue here, not advertising. You are basically saying come back when you are famous enough LOL ok just remember one day you were discussing things with me in real time not in the future. Who is the judge regarding infamy? Do you speak for the world at large? Google me!
That isn't what I said, I said it was promotional in tone. I also highlighted that there were other issues and the likely highest hurdle of being consiered notable in wikipedia's terms. Being famous isn't important there are plenty of people/things who wouldn't be considered famous but meet wikipedia's inclusion standards. Googling you is not important for this because (a) Hits on google don't make for something notable in wikipedia terms (indeed a google for my name says 253,000 who many are to do with me and how many are significant coverage by third parties is a different matter) and (b) the article was about the book, not about you. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, never heard of you.
The point was he never would have deleted it had I not duplicated the article (in error) but since it is open to discussion:
Importance of civility
During debates on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions.
Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms—this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage.
And now he wants to delete the picture of the book cover which I submmitted to the wiki commons open source so that anyone can view it *sighs* I took this picture with my own camera up the downs where I live :::::* Unsurprisingly, I have nominated File:Enlightenmentforbeginnerscoverfront.JPG for deletion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
citing the reason as SPAM! This photo was/is DIRECTLY relavent to the article in question. PERSONAL more like ;-) 3252 book covers on wiki commons can't all be wrong !! http://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=book+cover
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Enlightenmentforbeginnerscoverfront.JPG#File:Enlightenmentforbeginnerscoverfront.JPG


You deleted an article I spent the last three hours working on. How was it advertising? I merely described my book, added the date it was published and the books publication details, ISBN, number of pages etc. and quoted a section from the cover. The was a small part about "how the book came to be" and a link to the book on google books where readers can see a preview. And a CC image of the frontcover.
I will thanks

Endorse It was more than open to RHaworth to conclude that G11 was met here as the tone of the article was exclusively promotional. If you want to recreate the article in a non-promotional tone, you're free to do so, but bear in mind WP:COI. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • RESTORE OK how can I get a copy of the article so I have the opportunity to fix UPS I meant re-write, since I wasn't given the opportunity?
  • Userfy, but require Mattblythe to read WP:COI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou SmokeyJoe at least then I get a chance to fix it! I read the COI's thanks
  • Yeah, userfy it. It's a new user's first article and to refuse userfication would be far too bitey. But I think it's important to set Mattblythe's expectations correctly here: an article on this book would probably not survive a deletion discussion if it was moved to the mainspace now. It'll be ready for the mainspace when it's been discussed in reasonable detail in reliable sources (plural, as in, more than one reliable source) that's independent of the subject. I'm sorry, Mattblythe. I can fully understand why you'd want to come to Wikipedia and tell us about your book. But we have to have sensible rules about what's allowed to be included and what isn't. If we didn't have those rules, you'd never be able to find anything on Wikipedia except marketing spam. The guideline we use is summarised on this page and I'm afraid it's applied rather strictly.—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks S Marshall this was the bit I liked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI#How_not_to_handle_COI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattblythe (talk • contribs) 23:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, do not userfy, but email the content to the user if desired. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your book, and it is very unlikely that the article would be acceptable to Wikipedia in any format, as the book was [self-]published last Sunday. As S Marshall says, we need to set Mattblythe's expectations correctly. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Stifle. While not wishing to WP:BITE a new contributor, I think that to userfy this would not be kind or helpful; it would raise expectations that somehow the problems of notability and COI could be overcome by rewriting, and would only lead to frustration and wasted effort. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having my book advertised on wiki is really not important to me, to use_fry the page seems like a compromise from the purpose of wikipedia (being an encyclodpedia) I might rewrite the article but I would remind you that I am responsible for my expectations, what you are talking about are the expectations wikipedia has of its contributers which I am not repsonsible for. Likewise "frustration and wasted effort" are your projections since I am experiencing neither of these emotions. Kindness and being helpful are stated quite clearly in the wiki guidleines. Email me the contents? I wrote the contents! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattblythe (talk • contribs) 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I do not think there is any purpose to be served by userifying, for there is no realistic chance of it every becoming notable enough for a Wikipedia article (if by any chance it becomes widely reviewed or a best-seller, I will apologize for my bad judgment by writing a proper article on it myself). We see "advertisement" and "promotional" here in the sense of an article whose function is to publicize something for the primary purpose of encouraging people to buy it--or read it or see it, in contrast to give information about it. The article as written seems clearly to do that--it's basically a request to read the book. If the book became notable, there is almost nothing in the present text that could be really used, so the article would need to be deleted anyway because it cannot be revised through normal editing. I am personally prepared to do a total rewrite a few times a week on such an unencyclopedic article if the subject is very clearly notable and important, but this subject clearly isn't , at least not now. I don't want to discourage the author, and I understand S Marshsll's gentle intentions, but it wouldn't really be realistic or ultimately kind to userify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 06:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apology Accepted Gracefully wrong is fine by me ; ) I especially like the Fruedian slip "every" re-read "for there is every chance of it becoming notable" thank you DGG I look forward to reading (and editing) your fininshed article in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattblythe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stan James (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Was speedily deleted by User:TexasAndroid for being 'unnotable' when clearly is. User hasn't replied to my discussions. Note: is a UK bookmaker (company). Christopher Connor (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Thimio Gogozoto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There wasn't a consensus to delete the article(but a consensus to keep it) and I had added a citation for the medal which the closing admin didn't notice. ~~--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 07:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's usual to wait longer than 28 minutes between asking the closing admin to reconsider and opening a listing here, bearing in mind that people can be offline or busy. Also, despite your message to him, AFD is not a vote; arguments based in policy can be given higher weight. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with everything Stifle says, but I would just like to add that it's possible the source provided may have explicitly refuted the case for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 10:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible that Shimeru didn't even notice that there was a source.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, its not for the closing admin to substitute their own opinion of a source above the consensus of the discussion and I'm tempted to ask how would you know if Shimeru noticed it bearing in mind you didn't wait for them to reply to your request to reconsider. Spartaz Humbug! 11:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In his closing statement he said Lacking a citation for that medal, there's nothing here., while there was citation which I had added 2 days ago I cannot assume anything else except the fact that he didn't notice it.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a newly found source that challenges many of the delete !votes, and it wasn't known to most of the participants, then recreation may be in order. Recommend userfication. What is this new source? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity the source was He was also posthumously decorated with the civil medal For Patriotic Activities (Albanian: Për Veprimtari Patriotike).[1] Without clarity on the nature of the entry (for example was it a single entry on a list or an in depth discussion of the subject or the nature of the award) we really cannot form any kind of judgement on whether this reference or the award demonstrates notability. So more detail from the nom would be really cool. Spartaz Humbug! 15:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not just a list, the paragraph is about education in that period and because Gogozoto's education was partially funded by the Albanian state which gave funds to members of the Albanian minorities in neighbouring countries in order to study abroad there are two short biographies of him and his brother.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that User:CrazyMartini was just indefinitely blocked by delanoy as sock of User:Greek And Proud. Even with his vote, it would have been a 6:5 keep [1], without his (as banned user), it should be 7:5 keep. Still, I don't understand how a 6:5 keep was closed with a delete: it's the first time I see this. --Sulmues Let's talk 19:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. It's not the votes that count, but the arguments used. The guy is not notable, get over it. Athenean (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The blocked editor has since asked to be unblocked and his unblock request is pending. He is a new user who was aggresively BIT by the article creator. His unblock request is in good faith, but even if it is declined, there is no reason to undo the result of the AfD. The arguments won't change, and that's what matters, not +1 or -1 vote. Athenean (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you saying? Can you please provide evidence that Zjarri bit Crazy? All I saw is this. Zjarri never answered the sock. --Sulmues Let's talk 21:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What am I saying? Look at the talkpage of CrazyMartini's first account: Zjarri posted TWO warnings within 3 minutes of each other, then RAN to WP:AIV to denounce the guy. If that's not BITing I don't know what is. And if you recall, it was you who said that new users should be welcomed, not bit (unless that only applies to new "Albanian" users, only). Athenean (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)A new user? You think? While I admire your ability to assume good faith, that user's first edit was to add himself to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Members. And J.delanoy indefblocked him; J.delanoy wouldn't have done that unless he was satisfied that abusive sockpuppetry was involved. I certainly agree that user was a duck for a Greek sockpuppetteer.

As for the weight of the arguments, the nominator of this DRV makes a case that there was a source that AfD participants failed to take into account. It's a reasonable point for him to make and there does seem to be some evidence in support of it. A do-over wouldn't kill us in this case.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He may yet be unblocked and given a second chance. In which case a do-over would be a waste of everyone's time. As for the source, it is not even verifiable and extremely obscure, all we have to go on is the word of the article creator. Which I can be forgiven for not taking. Athenean (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I'm really confused. You'll assume good faith on the part of a user who's been indefblocked for sockpuppetry, but you won't assume that ZjarriRrethues—an autoreviewer who's never been blocked—is telling the truth? And the source is verifiable, in the sense that it meets WP:V. It's not ZjarriRrethues's fault that you don't have access to it (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), and it's not his fault it's not in English (see WP:NONENG).—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ZjarriRrethues is a nationalist SPA of an extremely aggressive nature. The other user was indefed after only two edits, and only because Zjarri BIT him the minute he joined wikipedia (he posted no less than TWO warning templates on his page within THREE minutes of each other, then ran to AIV to try and get him blocked; the very paradigm of WP:BITE). Zjarri also has a track record of falsifying and manipulating sources, this [2] being the perfect example. Do take the time to read and look at the edit history of Battle of Bizani, it is very illustrative. I am perfectly willing to assume good faith on behalf new users; with Zjarri I know exactly who I am dealing with, and am done assuming good faith. I also have good reason to believe he is a sock of a banned user, and plan to file an SPI in the short future. Stay tuned. Athenean (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I just note that Zjarri just "sanitized" his talkpage, removing what I was talking about [3]. Athenean (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have started more than 50 article 19 of which are DYKs so the verdict of whether I'm a nationalist SPA is on them. Btw Athenean has reported me [4] again and well the result it obvious since I'm still here as is Sulmues here whom you also considered as a sock of the same user. As for Alexikoua's comments I have nothing to comment, if another user considers using almost exact quotes from a book as pov that's a content dispute.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You deliberately cherry-picked what suited your POV out of the source, and completely ignored the rest. The paradigm of tendentious editing and deliberate misuse of sources for the purpose of POV-pushing. And that's not just me saying that. Athenean (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean the verdict is on the book and this is a discussion about Thimio Gogozoto which should be relisted to AfD.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD's conclusion is even more unsafe than I thought. The personal animosity between the participants is concerning.—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reason to re-list. The point is, Zjarri has misused and manipulated sources in the past, so asking the community to take his word on an extremely obscure non-English source is a bit rich. I see no reason to re-list, nothing will change, the person is simply not notable no matter how it is spun. Athenean (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's really sad that Zjarri. behaves in such a way accusing without evidence. He was twice disruptive the last 24h hours (disruption in Battle of Bizani&meatpuppetry accusations) and although I adviced him to avoid such activity, his answer was to remove my comments from his userpage... Alexikoua (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user was banned by an admin because he regarded him as I did as a meatpuppet and that's the whole outcome.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 05:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you were misusing the warning tags (you sent 2 warning tags in 3 minutes, the second was completely useless).And NO admin ever said a word about meatpuppetry. An admin said that he was unfairly blocked [[5]]. You should be carefull when launching accusations without evidence & denying any kind of discussion in your talkpage is the worthest kind of response, even the more extreme wp:spa accounts are reluctant to perform immediately.Alexikoua (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder: Deletion review is explicitly a drama-free zone. Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist; I think in the view of the disputed charges above concerning the AfD the article should be relisted, but with a delay until after the puppettry charges are resolved one way or another at the proper place. We work by rough consensus, not exact voting, and arguing over a close vote count is not to any purpose. When the new AfD starts, I would advise that the participants keep to the actual issues of the notability of the subject, not the behavior of each other. Neither Deletion review nor AfD is the place for this sort of discussion, and I heartily endorse Stifle's suggestion that they not continue the current exchange. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Per DGG. user:CrazyMartini has been readmitted to Wikipedia as he promised that he would behave. --Sulmues Let's talk 02:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Relist: As stated by mulitple parties. Only if we have additional sources we can reconsider but I don't see why this has a sense making it right now (assuming more good faith?).Alexikoua (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Relist One participant was blocked, and then unblocked. So the two cancel each other out, everything is back to where it was, and there is no reason to re-list. Athenean (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a vote and if it was it would be a 6 Keep 5 Delete even with CM and the DR isn't a vote too.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This DRV, and this AN/I thread, are a disgrace to Wikipedia's discussion pages, which are supposed to be collegial and consensus-seeking. Please would you all stop replying to each other.—S Marshall T/C 21:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, didn't notice this before. About the medal... since you never answered on my talk page, I'll ask here. Is this medal the highest reward for valor in Albania, comparable to the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor? That's the standard promoted by WP:MILPEOPLE, which seems the closest set of criteria for this article. If it is, and we have a reliable source confirming that it is and that this man received it, then he is notable. If it's not (and you seem to be describing it as a "third-class medal," which suggests that it is not in fact the highest award for valor), then he would need to have received it multiple times under the MILPEOPLE criteria. Shimeru 21:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I had written in the article he received a medal along with the other Albanian veterans and it's of the same rank although not the same exact medal. Does it have to be the same exact medal? --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that there is not enough to make him notable. He is not treated as an individual in one source and I see no medal claim somewhere.CrazyMartini (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the only medal he received, then according to MILPEOPLE, it would need to be Albania's highest reward for valor, yes. Unless you've got a reason why MILPEOPLE shouldn't apply to this article? Shimeru 23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is one reason why MILPEOPLE can't apply here: The International_Brigades that participated in the Spanish_civil_war did NOT represent their countries. They were military units of anti-fascist volunteers from different countries, who traveled to Spain to defend the Second Spanish Republic, and they mostly represented their Communist Parties and/or communist ideas. In this circumstance you can see that you can't make a Military case which would be for a regular army. In fact, it was not even a regular army, it was an army collected by Communist Parties accross the world. If someone wasn't a member of a communist party or recommended by one, it would be interviewed by the NKVD (see also International_Brigades#Formation_and_recruitment). Indeed, the international brigades of the Spanish War are a very sui generis case. The medal received by Gogozoto is third level (out of roughly 30 levels), the first level being People's Hero of Albania. Gogozoto couldn't be Hero of Albania because he didn't die for Albania, and only a handful of people had that medal (10-20 people). He couldn't have had a second level medal either, because all these second medals relate to country specific activities (see [6]). The highest medal that could have been awarded to him, was awarded to him, and it reads "For Patriotic Merits", which means that he was given recognition from his country for his actions, which made him a hero of his country abroad. This is it, Wikipedia probably doesn't have all the policies for every subject, so I'll leave it to you. But this is the highest award for an Albanian who has given his life for a cause other than the Albanian cause. Can't be Hero of the People of Albania (or second level) if he died for Spain. --Sulmues Let's talk 03:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist Because the lack of a reference was explicitly mentioned by the closing admin as the reason for deletion, a relist to evaluate the new source provided by ZjarriRrethus will be helpful. I note also that a participant in the debate wrote "Keep if [the medal] can be verified". Sulmues mentions above that "this is the highest award for an Albanian who has given his life for a cause other than the Albanian cause", which may or may not allow Thimio Gogozoto to pass MILPEOPLE. Therefore, I support a new discussion to garner consensus about whether the medal allows him to be notable. Cunard (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ Puto, Arben (2009). Shqipëria politike 1912-1939. Toena. pp. 510–2. ISBN 9789994314676.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_8&oldid=1251717524"