Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22

Category:Erdős number 1 etc. – Speedy closed, nominator gave no reason why CfD was invalid. – Chick Bowen 05:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

(CfD)

"The Erdős number is a way of describing the "collaborative distance", in regard to mathematical papers, between an author and Erdős."

As per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary inclusion criterion this needs to be deleted. This info is encyclopedic, but that does not need categorization. A list is a better alternative. They are not an effective way to navigate just like a persons favorite number.

--Cat out 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, this is not CfD round 2. Do you have information that was not in the debate? Or evidence that the people who participated acted in bad faith? If you don't, there's nothing to do. -Amarkov moo! 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike making accusations... --Cat out 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure/Delete. Trivial categories. They say absolutely nothing about the mathematicians. The categories are supposed to be used only to help finding information. These categories are going to incorporate pretty much every mathematician in the last centuries and that would make them useless. bogdan 23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and speedy close, looks like a valid no consensus close to me. This isn't CFD Part II, and there's no statement disputing the CFD closure. --Core desat 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure & speedy close.What Amarkov and Coredesat said. If Cool Cat isn't willing to give a rationale for reviewing the close, there's nothing for us to do here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure This is a sort of an in-joke. It has no mathematical content whatsoever and was never intended to. It is some indication of the relationship structure among groups of mathematicians, but not intrinsically more so than the distance from any other major figure in the field. But I ask the more experienced--Wouldnt it be simpler to just proposed them for deletion again in a while, hoping for a wider turnout at CfD?DGG 00:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. DRV is not XFD round 2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9. Your deletion nomination failed. Get over it. --- RockMFR 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, nothing invalid about the CfD closure, and DRV is not a new CfD. BryanG^(talk) 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of cities with the most billionaires – Speedy closed, a restored prod – Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prodded by anonymous IP and deleted on the 17th. Almost every other article in Category:Lists of people by wealth was similarly prodded, and now the category itself is up for deletion on grounds of being a "copyvio". I was able to deprod others once I saw the CfD, but was too late to review this. See also User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#List of cities with the most billionaires (where I went before the user directed me here). DeLarge 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a contested prod, this should be speedy restored. But copyright problems are a case all their own, and are never undeleted. I can't find the copyright violation, so am dubious that it was. Unless someone shows this to have actually been a copyright violation, I'll overturn it in about 24 hours. GRBerry 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeffree Star – Deletion endorsed again – trialsanderrors 00:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

Undelete: WP:MUSIC. He has released his EP, Plastic Surgery Slumber Party, and the song Straight Boys is on MTV's Next. He is well known outside of MySpace. milk the cows (Talk) 19:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Star's MySpace page says that one of his songs was played on MTV's Next. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.209.107.26 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- And America's Next Top Model on The CW according to these sources: [1][2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.209.107.26 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Any reliable sources that show that? Because otherwise this is heading for a speedy close due to the numerous previous endorsements. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MySpace page is a primary source, and one of the America's Next Top Model sources is a forum post - neither are reliable. --Core desat 00:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional endorse once again unless a source can be found for the MTV thing. If it can be, I believe badlydrawnjeff found sources in the previous DRV, so I would end up favoring unsalting the article. --Core desat 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete if milk the cows can provide reliable sources for his claim. (jarbarf) 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and previous reviews unless multiple non-trivial sources are provided. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - DRV is not AFD take two. No dispute in how the close was handled. – Chacor 07:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Jeffree star is very well known, ask most teenagers who he is and they will be able to tell you (at least i know who he is) If reliable references (not myspace) can be used to create a good article then i dont see why not.--Joebengo 04:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The major problem here is that for someone to be notable under the notability guidelines, you can't simply say they're notable for X reason, which many of Jeffree Star's fans are doing here. You actually have to provide the reliable sources that back up your claim, and failure to do so has resulted in all the deletions being endorsed. --Core desat 06:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I asked "any teenager" (actually about five of them) and they all said "who?". Guy (Help!) 12:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey Star is not well known at all among teenagers. I'm 20. I've never heard of him, and neither have any of my friends. And here, Joebongo, you can see the problem: without reliable references, my word is just as good as yours. Stebbins 08:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way "endorsing" him, I was just stating that hes well known, personally i do not like him or his music and that is part of the reason I don't even care about him having an article about him or not, (i might look for sources later) but for now I have better things to do.--Joebengo 21:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, still no reliable sources, please stop trying to use us to generate marketing buzz. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There have been many, many deletion reviews. In the past the problem has always been lack of sources. Since the current nominator isn't offering any new reliable sources, I think the deletion should be upheld. EdJohnston 01:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Ed and Sam. Lots of claims, nothing in the way of reliable sources to back them up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The "well known" argument does not hold. It has to be within Wikipedia's criteria of notability, not an arbitrary criteria made by individuals. [Google]] gives the following list here:

A Google search for "Jeffree Star" but I can't find anything that asserts notability, and none of the sources I've found are reliable sources. There just isn't any non-trivial published third-party sources that can attest to the notability of this person. No offence to those who worked on the article, but he is just (currently) not notable for now. Also, I can see no procedural errors in the way the previous AFD's were handled either. But if you find new reliable sources, then I suggest you make a version in your userspace, e.g. User:SunStar Net/Jeffree Star which you can work on. But for now, I have to endorse the deletion. --sunstar net^talk 18:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This interview, dated February 15, says, in his own words, "I don't have a record out and I don't have any music for sale until next month". Endorse deletion. Corvus cornix 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bestiary of creatures in the Final Fantasy series – Closure endorsed – —Doug Bell ^talk 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Creatures of Final Fantasy was deleted under speedy deletion for a typo that doesn't exist. --Dookama 19:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It was deleted for being an incredibly unlikely search term, which it is. -Amarkov moo! 23:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion It's really unlikely anyone would search for that name, and nothing links to it either. There's tens of thousands of ways this could be phrased, "Monsters seen in the Final Fantasy video games", "List of enemies from the Final Fantasy game series" etc etc etc. Just because redirects are cheap doesn't mean we need every even remotely plausable combination to exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion No reason to overturn provided. ~ trialsanderrors 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doctor_Steel – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 14:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Review Requested & Fair use complience sugestions requested Fenixasin

Overturn and Merger. This article was written over the span on eight days, in those eight days, it was flagged for noumerous items, most of which were addressed. In the end this article was deleted because of "Fair use material" I am requesting that this be reviewed, and what should be changed to have it comply with fair use, if it is the images, why was taking the images off not suggested to comply with fair use. If there are other things, what are they?. I wish to know what information fron the page can be merged to the Phineas waldorf steel page and still comply with our standards, and to have the doctor steel page redirect to the as said page.Fenixasin 05:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: The article showed no difference from the material at Phineas Waldolf Steel and was more of a fansite than an encyclopedia article. Most of the contributors to that AFD were single purpose accounts that had no other edits other than to the AFD. As such, they were WP:ILIKEIT votes and had no use in determining consensus. Although I initiated the AFD, I still feel that the article at the end of the AFD period was still not encyclopedic, and this article had been speedy deleted five times before hand. This article would have been WP:SALTed a while ago, and I only recently put it at WP:PTL for that reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me Ryulong, but how may the article be salvaged, Merger was proposed by the 3 non SPA's, the keeps were by SPA's I'll give you that, but I have to ask... where is your input on how to fix it... I don't care about the images, but the discography is what I wanted to salvage, I just want information available to those who might want it, that's why I love wikipedia, it has information on everything, not just a few things, and it's free to everyone in the world... maybe it's the socialist in me, but information should be free and available to everyone. Fenixasin 04:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you Ryulong for the discography, I appreciate you spending the time to locate it for me.Fenixasin 05:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Seven deletions at Doctor Steel, four at Dr. Steel, two at Phineas Waldolf Steel, numerous different admins involved, plus an AfD closed yesterday (what has changed since then?). Constant re-creation by brand new users without ever actually fixing the problem, plus this comment in the last deleted version of Dr. Steel: OPERATION WIKIPEDIA IS SUCCESSFUL Type "Doctor Steel" into search box. I don't think we need to be part of this viral marketing campaign. I don't know what User:Fenixasin's brief is here, but I note that their contributions to Wikipedia appear to consist mainly of adding this individual, images of this individual, and adding links to the articles to others such as Jay Leno and The Tonight Show. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider Deletion Can someone please honestly tell me why they will just up and delete this article?I mean many people tried so hard to put this up.I really would hate to form such a bad opinion of many of you admins.I would just appreciate one straight answer.Or one of you could just delete and protect this section of the discussion,which was done several times before. Tyr 07:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell not many people actually. Roughly one. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been posted under multiple different titles. If you want to know what's wrong with the article, you can find the reason in the deletion log. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly though,I personally think you people are pompous,big headed egomaniacs.I sincerly hope something happens to wipe this entire website.Good day. Tyr 19:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. abuse of wikipedia. `'mikka 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Was deleted from the 14th's review lof on the 16th by Tyr; not spotted and fixed until the 21st. Lost too many days to close without relisting. GRBerry 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion pretty much per what Guy said above. Apparently "Dr. Steel" has a Myspace blog post asking users to sign up and vote to keep the article. A clear case of someone confusing Wikipedia with a promotional tool. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion discussion/vote is a mess, so is the article. Keep deleted, at least for now; no opinion about the person's merits, but the above comment suggests that the page should be left protected for a while. - Mike Rosoft 10:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps – original deletion endorsed, new article created, new article not evaluated here – GRBerry 14:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted for being a copyvio, but this is a list of people who have achieved a certain threshold of caps. Per Feist vs. Rural facts themselves cannot be copyrighted. howcheng {chat} 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All parts were copied, not merely the facts. The selection was copied, the format was copied, and the footnotes were copied. If you want, take it up with the legal counsel or gain permission from the copyright holders, but you cannot undelete a copyright infringement. —Centrx→talk • 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean that those elements can't be removed. That is a lot of work to have to do from scratch. howcheng {chat} 19:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a cleaned-up version that just sticks to the facts at User:Howcheng/Caps. If there are no objections, I will move this to the article's location. howcheng {chat} 19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original deletion but allow User:Howcheng/Caps. it copies facts and arranges them in the most obvious way but telephone directories aren't copyrightable just because thet're in alphabetical order. It may be problematic in other ways (e.g. as trivial or unmaintainable) but it is no longer a copyvio. Note that IANAL. Eluchil404 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is now done. I suppose this DRV may be closed. howcheng {chat} 05:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion It's a common misinterpretation that Feist vs. Rural allows us to copy whole lists with impunity. Read the article: "'information' is not copyrightable, O'Connor notes, but 'collections' of information can be". ~ trialsanderrors 05:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The "Super Stunt" – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admin deleted article the same day it was created despite no votes for Speedy Delete and no Speedy Delete Template. Reason given for deletion was that it was "unsourced" when in fact there was a source in the external links: a column on the site of the Minn. Star-Trib. Little time was given to address any of the other reasons for deletion. Dialogue was attempted with the admin who deleted the article but the admin stopped responding. Notmydesk 17:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. The point of a 5 day AfD, instead of just until consensus is reached, is to allow people time to address the concerns. Unless there's a consensus that there is no way to clean it up, it should not be deleted after only half a day. -Amarkov moo! 18:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I didn't see any convincing arguments for snowballing on the AfD, either. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Before I started the AfD on this article I very nearly speedied it myself. I only took it to AfD because someone prodded it first and the prod was contested. The early deletion seems like a reasonable application of WP:SNOW to me. —JeremyA 01:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An unreferenced article about a failed prank. Possible speedy deletion candidate due to no claim of notability. Keep deleted; relisting wouldn't have changed the result, so there's no point in giving it any more undeserved fame. - Mike Rosoft 20:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Can't say I agree with the early close, but I see no point in relisting when the AfD was going 10-to-delete-1-to-"smerge" and there's not a chance in heck it would've been kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is sort of my point. You don't agree with the early close but don't see the point of relisting? The early close meant I had no opportunity to address the issues brought up by the original delete votes. Might the article have had a "chance in heck" if the issues had been addressed? Might the issues have been addressed if the article hadn't been deleted the same day it was created? How am I supposed to address problems in an article if it gets deleted immediately? I apologize, sincerely, that the article didn't leap from my forehead fully-formed, like the offspring of Zeus, onto the pages of Wikipedia. It's the first article I've written for Wikipedia, and I welcome any and all input -- it would just be nice to have had a chance in heck to bring the article up to snuff. --Notmydesk 17:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things about Wikipedia is that we generally don't let a vote continue if the outcome is already clear. I personally don't think it should have been closed quite as early as it was, but I don't see any reasonable chance of any other outcome either. I see your point about how frustrating it can be to have an article deleted when it was still fairly new, but based on what the article itself was about, keeping it around another week (or year, or decade) would not have magically morphed it into something encyclopedic. Some things just don't make good encyclopedia articles, and website pranks that get ignored by the media are one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Starslip Crisis – Not an issue for DRV. Merge, as an AFD close, is equivalent to a Keep close plus an editorial decision to merge. Keep closes don't prevent editorial merges and merge closes don't prevent the merge being editorially undone to become a keep. Each change is an editorial decision for the two article's talk pages (with an eye on the prior AFD input), not something that requires a deletion review to bless. Merge closes only need to come here if 1) the history was deleted and lost for GFDL purposes, 2) the redirect was protected and the admin won't unprotect, or 3) the AFD should have closed as delete. The first two aren't the case here, the third isn't proposed by the nominator. – GRBerry 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was closed as redirect to Blank Label Comics in spite of a clear lack of any rough consensus to delete per Wikipedia:Deletion policy on the part of Wikipedia editors, with only a handful even suggesting a merge. (Previously deleted, previously overturned in DRV as a textbook case of WP:POINT, as the author of the comic engaged in rampant sockpuppetry to get the article deleted.)

The AFD would make a good textbook case for a discussion on Wikipedia resulting in no consensus based on the content of discussion, a not nearly as good example of a rough consensus to keep based on the total agreement (i.e. consensus) of experienced editors invoking policy and guideline, and cannot be interpreted as a rough consensus to delete per any standard of rough consensus. Balancer 16:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I have sympathy for the closer, but given that exactly ONE person was advocating a redirect without merge, it seems kind of strange that he'd choose that particular outcome. If there was a consensus (and I don't think there was), that sure wasn't it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, and troutslap anyone who says to keep it without providing a good source in the next AfD. Far too many of the keeps seemed to be reflexive "a sockpuppet made it deleted before, therefore it must be kept!" -Amarkov moo! 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn or possibly relist, but the closure did not reflect community consensus. (jarbarf) 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the short run I chose to be bold and merged the latest version's content into Kristofer Straub and changed the redirect to there. The page isn't salted or even deleted, merely redirected. Nifboy 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Antisemite (epithet) – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political epithets (2)

Deleted without any prior discussion and does not fall under speedy deletion, i.e. the page was deleted "out of process" and not in accordance with the deletion policy. Liftarn 10:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added what appears to be the related AFD, this appears to be a CSD G4 based on the material being substantially similar to that deleted through the AFD. --pgk 12:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not "Recreation of deleted material", but a new article. It was a bit stubby, but I hoped to expand it. In Talk:List of political epithets it was the reccomended to expand terms into articles so that you could give more viewpoints. The deletion of every article about political epithets would also require deletion of articles such as Limousine liberal, Chickenhawk (politics), Neo-confederate and many more. // Liftarn
The talk page indeed has a lot of talk about the very subject of this article (indeed the proposed text looks almost exactly the same as the article), with most of those who weighed in pointing out it failing the same issues for which the main AFD raised. --pgk 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can't have been looking very hard. Some words may be the same (but not in the same order). The only thing in common is the list of references. // Liftarn
Strongest Possible Overturn Obvious process failure; the AFD does not even mention this article. AFDs delete outcomes are not blank checks for the deletion of other related articles, for the very same reason that Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability says that the presence or absence of another article is not evidence for keeping or deleting one being discussed. GRBerry 14:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Looking further, I can see some relationship and withdraw my opinion. Someone else will have to close this when the time comes. GRBerry 14:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list on Afd. I can't imagine how this could fall under any speedy criterion. It is not a repost of deleted material. Precedent for deletion is not a speedy criterion. --- RockMFR 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For about a year now, Liftarn has been attempting to cast the term "antisemite" as a political epithet. Creation of this article is a continuation of that battle; it's continued WP:POINT. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is a comment for the AfD. // Liftarn
  - Thank you; I didn't know WP:POINT was limited in scope in that fashion. Oh, wait, it isn't. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion -- Seems to be more a way to "game" the wiki-system than a truly new article. -- Avi 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For a very long time this notable epithet was kept out (partially by my own laziness, but mostly due to) some editors gaming the system to keep it out. Now that it had it's own article it would be easier to have comments from all sides. // Liftarn
  - Comment The subject does not require its own article (with or without a POV title) to maintain balance — that is perfectly achievable elsewhere. Indeed, even if the article were made perfectly balanced, devoting an entire article to the subject of whether or not 'antisemite' is an epithet might arguably devote undue weight to that viewpoint when the encyclopaedia is viewed as a whole. Jakew 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I disagree. To have it is it's own article serves two purposes. 1) It does not needlessley clutter the antisemitism article and 2) that's how it is done with other simmilar terms like for instance Fascist (epithet). But on the other hand it may be a good idea to start it in the antisemitism article and see if it grows large enough to have it's own article. // Liftarn
Endorse deletion. Both Jpgordon's and Avi's comments are spot on. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since it was you who deleted it it's not wonder. // Liftarn
  - Please restrict your comments to content and process. Argumentum ad hominem does not help any side of any discussion. -- Avi 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, don't strike out my comments and delete other peoples comments again; this is another example of disruptive behavior. You've been very bold recently with striking out comments of people you don't agree with (e.g. [3] , but you need to allow others to actually have opinions that differ from your own. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please avoid such comments and comment on the content rather than the person. // Liftarn
Endorse deletion as per Avi. Recreation of deleted content. On a side note (unrelated to DRV) has the risk of becoming a POV magnet, and cannot be separated from Antisemitism. JFW | T@lk 16:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per Jpgordon, Avi and Jfdwolff. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please make visible both the article and the earlier AfD. How can I give an opinion about things I cannot see? DGG 17:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Debatable G4, but also endorsable administrative discretion. While there are a couple more sentences on this term here than there were in the article deleted by AFD, the bulk of the actual content related to the term was the eight! footnotes with quotations that were in that article to support a single sentence. All of these are replicated in the new article, and they are in fact the bulk of the content. Antisemitism is the right place for this material, where it can be whittled down to the due weight for it under WP:NPOV. GRBerry 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, could somebody pick up the list of references so we can add it to the article? // Liftarn
Endorse deletion per Jpgordon and Avi; the material now exists in an NPOV incarnation - lets not bring it back to the way it was. Tewfik^Talk 17:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per Jpgordon. --tickle me 17:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion it looks like a spiteful pov fork. Guy Montag 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Subsection of antisemitism. Gzuckier 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Jpgordon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Jpgordon, Avi and Tewfik, or at the very least, the reasoning of GRBerry regarding administrative discretion. 6SJ7 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per JFW. Jakew 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, excepting an WP:AFD could result in WP:SNOW. But oh well, since Wikipedia is a democracy, it really doesn't matter. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is an ochlocracy. // Liftarn
  - Ah, from the Greek meaning "rule of the people who can come up with the most obscure words". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list on AfD. From the sounds of it, there is no relevant CSD criterion. I might reconsider if someone could give us a history-only undeletion. Kla'quot 08:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and then take the debate on if it should be deleted, merged, expanded and so on. // Liftarn

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

Long Island Exchange – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Long Island Exchange. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards – Speedy overturn per nom, deletion of closely related articles was overturned at a prior deletion review and the same rationale applies here – Newyorkbrad 04:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

====

Undelete: This one wasn't included in the nominations on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards and should have been undeleted with the rest of the lists. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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

National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster – Narrowly endorse speedy deletion; no prejudice to creating a better article on the subject in its place. – —Doug Bell ^talk 02:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

speedy deletion where a {{sources}} tag would have sufficed. 32,000 hits. This organisation has many chapters worldwidem, and has been mentioned in many U.S. govt documents. John Vandenberg 13:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy is only appropriate for uncontestable cases. This sounds like it should never have been speedied in the first place, but I'm going by John's account of the organization. DGG 17:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore assuming John's account to be correct. Actuallly, as a WP:DM member, I may try and research this later. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, rewrite: It was uncontestable. Remember that we're not talking about the subject of an article, but the article itself. This particular one didn't even say what nation it was "the National" organization of, much less how we know these things. I.e. it wasn't a case of a "cite tag," but an article so fundamentally poorly executed that a reader was left with no context. If I say, "The club is the major organization of players," it's meaningless. I should not then come back and say, "You should have known that I was talking about the Major League Player's Association of the Major League Baseball organization of the United States, and you should never have deleted it." This is like that. Geogre 20:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, deletion review is whether the deletion was appropriate. The deletion log shows that neither Geogre or Jimfbleak bothered to state which criteria for speedy deletion was used. The article had seven incoming links, which should have been enough reason to not use speedy deletion twice. I noticed this article was missing because it became a red link on Leo A. Soriano. In regards to the article not stating which nation it represented, you could have been bold and clicked the external link to their homepage to find out.
The most recent deletion was probably semi-justified because the article would have only just been created after a previous speedy deletion. If the article is restored, please undelete the better of the two articles. John Vandenberg 21:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, and the central fact that the article (the better of them) did not give context to indicate which nation this was the "national of," that qualifies under speedy deletion, "no context." It's no different in that regard from "Thundra is the leader of the good faction" in an article. You have to establish the context. Geogre 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of notability. "National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster" site:gov returns 536 hits. National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster" returns 41 scholar hits. John Vandenberg 21:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's evidence of Google hits for a name, not evidence that the article had context. The deletion was of an article not of a subject. If anyone had bothered to read the article critically and supply the missing information, this would never have occurred. Geogre 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is google hits specifically on American government sites. I did briefly look at the article whilst working on Leo A. Soriano; it was a reasonable stub, and I had other things to do at the time. Unless you believe that it had little or no context, there are no grounds for the speedy deleted ... and "this would never have occurred". John Vandenberg 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you already knew what it was, where it was, and what it did, when you looked at it. I didn't. I wanted to. The authors didn't take the time and trouble to help out by writing an article that explained the topic. I'm all for an article on the subject, but how about one with context? Again, an article on "Malfoy" that never tells you that he's a fictional character in a series of novels will be fine for people who read the novels and utterly useless for anyone else. Geogre 16:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that is completely incorrect. I had no idea about NVOAD until I ran across them while looking for sources about Leo A. Soriano. I wanted to gauge the reliability of this organisation as a source; having the article on NVOAD was extremely useful for that, as it did provide plenty of context (maybe not which nation but it wasnt hard to guess), esp. with the existing incoming wikilinks. It should have been tagged with {{context}}. John Vandenberg 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, lack of context. Write a proper article, rather than waste time arguing about this. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didnt write this article, so dont shoot the messenger; I'm just doing my bit by reporting the loss of an article about a notable subject, and that its speedy deletion was done inappropriately as far as I can tell. This process can wield the magic button to restore other peoples work; OTOH I would need to spend a number of hours or days to write a stub that I am happy with, precisely because I do write proper articles and this article is not in an area I am familiar with. The loss of this article is no more my responsibility than it is yours or anyone other wikipedian. John Vandenberg 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the fact that a good article could be written about a subject doesn't stop this from being a valid "no context" speedy. If an article provides no useful information about a subject, no matter how notable, undeleting it doesn't do anyone any good. It will confuse rather than enlighten any reader who finds it and perspective authors would be served just as well by starting from scratch. Eluchil404 07:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have contested the speedy's grounds based on my recollections of the article; evidence that a good article could be written is merely auxiliary information, that I already knew of, in order that people had reason to give this deletion review the time of day. If someone with admin permission, in addition to JzG's opinion, looks at both versions and believes that Wikipedia is better off without the best of them, then I'll bow out, and put it on my todo list. John Vandenberg 09:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think it offered a useful basis for writing a proper article. You can have it in userspace if you think it will help you write one. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Why my user space? Why not yours? or Blood red sandmans? Or pick someone at random and ask them to rewrite it? Or just restore it and tag it. John Vandenberg 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Because 1) you evidence caring and 2) you are the most prominent advocate that the old text is useful. Thus you are the individual most likely to actually do something. GRBerry 00:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My only relation to this article is that its loss breaks the web and I remembered the article well enough to feel confident that it should not have been vanished under G1. Anyway, as you have given your opinion further down that the article wasnt a suitable stub, I'll let the matter rest. This review request can be closed (as NHJ :-). John Vandenberg 21:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 00:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion I could easily restore and say which country, but then I'd be redeleting under A7/G11, and that would be pointless. Better to rewrite from scratch. GRBerry 00:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've just come back from a holiday, and reviewed my deletion. It still reads like promotional material for an organisation in an unspecified nation. Whether the organisation is notable is not an issue - This article about it is poorly written unsourced and NPOV. I'd still delete. jimfbleak 13:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (I used the wrong word) delete I forget to say this explicitly before, & the subsequent discussion confirms my view--it is an article in need of improvement.DGG 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)DGG[reply]

Restatement: I haven't changed my view. Since the topic is fine, I wish all the energy devoted to outraged protest at the DRV went into writing a well-sourced and well written (Lord, please!) article. There is not a previous AfD, so the name could be used for a good article without a G4 problem. Geogre 23:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anthony John Bailey – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_No way could you attribute the "Keep" votes to the same person!! Certainly not any of the following: Kyaa the Catlord (see his/her other contributions - way beyond just this issue), nor TheQuandry who is too obviously an American wikipedian; nor RebSkii who clearly has an Asian focus, nor myself, a mother of five to whom I guarantee you Bailey is unknown let alone unrelated! Give me a break! I'm from Northumberland, now in London, but have never met Bailey, and have no connection with him. However, I do think that someone like him has already demonstrated his notability to several heads of states, Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, media, and heads of companies and royal houses, as well as major religious leaders has demonstrated his notability far more than the wiki-skeptics can understand. It's is a sign of the weakness of the wiki-world that his PR background is now held against him to refute his notability. I bet you none of the wiki-skeptics on this issue have ever come near to that kind of access, notability, honours, nor impact on good causes!! Shame on you all!!!Tricky 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're all street scum. The closing admin was likely referring to the large amount of text (and repeated bold 'keep' comments - not votes) inserted by User:Seisal to the AFD, not the overall number of editors opining keep. (I believe Seisal contributed five total "votes", four of which were stricken, and the above nominator three, one of which was stricken.) Looking through the AFD, I see a lot of claims that appear to be backed up by sources too closely related to the subject to be truly reliable. Endorse deletion and suggest that interested editors create a new well-sourced article in userspace, then get opinions on it prior to reposting in mainspace. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, probably not the most tactful DRV I've ever seen, but the real issue here is that reviewing the AfD, there were a few keep opinions from various established editors, but when you distilled out the multiple opinions that some editors made as well as the IP opinions that appeared to be from someone who was also adding opinions with a username, the consensus was pretty clearly slanted towards deletion. I agree with Tony as well, the article as it stood was fundamentally flawed by a lack of reliable 3rd party sourcing; I don't think that version was even worth pulling out of deletion. As he suggested, starting an article in your sandbox and making sure it is adequately sourced before having it moved to the mainspace would be a good next step.--Isotope23 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion I supported deletion in the AfD for lack of sources, in a situation where good sourcing seemed to be possible. That article was so badly flawed and so PR-like that it would be better to start over. DGG 03:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and Keep new version. Most of the comments above are no longer valid as the first article has been deleted and completely rewritten with all independent sources quoted. As I said before, I accepted fully all the views expressed previously and rewrote the article. Sadly this has also been deleted even though some of the previous critics considered it considerably neutral and meeting the requirements of wikipedia. Bailey also meets the requirements for notability on at least three points and I verified all the information I have sourced about him from non eligo sources. Could you therefore be a little more explicit as to your current issues as this would be more helpful instead of a blanket removal on the new article based above on the valid comments relating to the deletion of the first article. --Seisal

"I verified all the information I have sourced about him from non eligo sources." - apart from the ones that were from the private club that he runs or the ones from the various "charitable organisations" that he set up. Based on what I read while that article was still up (which was nothing more than a promotional piece with no objectivity at all), and messages like this (the IP address was intermittently contributing to the new article at the same times as Seisal), I think it pretty likely you either are AJB, or are an employee of his PR firm - on that assumption you should make sure you are well aware of the wikipedia guidelines on Conflicts of Interest. I am 100% certain that this should be kept binned. Endorse deletion. SFC9394 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Medicine Show – Speedy restore, I was the admin that deleted it in the first place – Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was deleted for the subject not being notable. However Wikipedia's policy for an Musician is this:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

Medicine Show have been featured in i-D Magazine, Wig Magazine and Ny2Lon online fanzine. These are all independant, national and international publications and therefore qualify as non-trivial works under Wikipedia's guidelines. The article itself is independant and objective simply stating facts and information surrounding the band. Again I see no reason for this page to have been deleted and hope to see in reinstated Xchilde haroldx 15:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- My original deletion reason was non-notable band/musician. I gave the reason csd g4 because it was recreated after speedy deletion.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list. G4 explicitly does not apply to previous speedy deletions. It asserts notability, so it needs to go to AFD. --Core desat 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and list. The correct step would have been to take it to AfD, which is where it should now go. DGG 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and undelete since speedy deletion was misapplied due to the assertion of notability. (jarbarf) 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 February 2007[edit]